Evening star., 1954-11-13
Court Upho|ds
Area B Plan in
Suit by Owners
Judge Cites Similar
Eminent Domain
Powers Elsewhere
By George Beveridge

announcer major legal hurole To-
day.
The new support for the pro-
gram came in a strongly worded
and-if it is not over-ruled
precedent-setting U. S. District
Court opinion which rejected
complaints brought by South
west property owners against le-
gality of the so-called Area 3
program.
Attorneys for the. property
owners said they will decide
next week whether to appeal
the ruling. handed down by
Federal Judge Robert N. Wilkin,
The only other legal hurdle
facing the redevelopers is a NSu-
prerne Court decision on whether
the Districts 1945 Redevelop-
ment Act Is Constitutional. That
decision Is expected soon.
Contrasted with the question
of the acts Constitutionality
the District, Court decision dealt
specifically with whether the
Area B program itself is legal
or whether it exceeds the scope
Of powers granted in the 1945
act.
Strike Heart of Plan.
The complaints struck directly
at the heart of the plan to clear
slumS and rebuild the 76-acre
B area to f1t a city-adopted plan
The property owners challenged
the plan on several points, con-
tended their properties are not
slums, and said the Redevelop-
ment Land Agency was guilty
Of arbitrary and capricious ac-
ton exceeding its authority in
seizing title to their properties
last February.
Judge Wilkin, an Ohio jurist
brought here to handle redevel-
opment condemnation cases, re-
ferred in his opinion to a three
judge Federal court ruling last
November, upholding the Consti-
tutionality of the 1945 Act. He
noted that the three e-judge ruling
indicated that specific complaints
about arbitrary or capricious ac-
ton by administrative agencies
should be taken to a lower court.
This court finds, from a con-
sideration of the whole record ~
Judge Wilkin wrote, that such a
charge cannot be sustained.
None of the defendants
pleadings or affidavits support
the claims of arbitrary and ca
PRECIOUS action, or of actions be-
yond the scope of the statute,
by the authorized officials"
Court Power Limited.
The jurist also pointed out
that the courts are limited In
their powers of review over ad-
ministrative actions taken in
under the direction of Congress
sional acts. He added:
Assuming r. truth of the
defendants allegations, they are
insufficient in law now. De-
PENDANTS question the Judgment
of the planning commission and
the District Commissioners, but
this court cannot substitute its
Judgment for that of the legal
~ authorized administrative
agencies"
So far as constitutional ques-
tions raised by the property own
ers are concerned, Judge Wilkip
said he Is bound by the three
Judge ruling pending the appeal
being considered by the Supreme
Court.
property owners involved IN
the suit were Joseph E. and
Mamie Nelson, owners of a resi-
dence at 829 Third street S.W.;
Thomas and Rosie Bullock, own
ers Of a barber shop and resi-
dence at 812, Fourth street S.W.,
and Sam and Celia Feigenbaum,
owners of a general merchandise
ing store and residence at 810
Fourth street S.W.
n Compensation Under Study.
These properties are located
within a full block between Third
and Fourth and H and I streets
S.W., to which the RIA seized
title under eminent domain pow
ers in February. Condemnation
jurieS are now determining COM
pensation to be paid the owners
It was during these proceedings
that the above-named residents
raised the legal issues challeng-
ing the program.
The Government moved for q
summary Judgment against the
.complainantS, and Judge VIII
kln's opinion accompanied an
order granting that motion.
IN the oplnion, Judge Wilkir
said Congress and many States
following extensive legal studies
have given public agencies emf
nent domain powers to effect
public improvements. Generally
he said. the acts provide for
official plans to be submitted to
q court or administrative agency
for approval. usually after pub
lie hearings.
Moves Beyond Attack.
"After the plan is approved
however," he continued, lit is
generally considered beyond at.
tack by individual property
owners. They are relegated &C
proceedings for determination
of the value of their lands OF
property which are condemned.
The opinion said these acts
which avoid delays and "mul.
tiplicity of actions In courts,
generally have been approved
by courts Of law and public
opinion" It concluded:
''The act under which ths
plaintiff (the Government) pro-
ceedS In this case .. seems Il
have been drafted in accorlanc,
with the general principles o.
similar recent enactments
Moved by q desire to sustain aIlt