Evening star., 1956-03-21
BY GEORGE BEvERIDGE

yesterday in written reply TO
q suit filed by the property
owners, there is mo genuine
issue" involved.
Accordingly, they asked the
U. S. District Court for the Dis
trict of Columbia to dismiss the
suit or rule against it.
Arguments on the citizens eff
fort to halt any further urban
renewal" moves in Foggy Bot
tom and yesterdays unusual
legal rebuttal will be held before
Judge Joseph c. McGarraghy
on Monday.
Description Altered
The suit was filed after the
Commissioners, on January 20
formally approved what they
then called the boundaries of
the proposed George Washing
ton University Urban Renewal
Area"
On March 6, however, after
the suit was filed, the city heads
rescinded the January action and
issued a clarifying resolution. u
The new resolution said they
were not approving a renewal
project" any specific renewal
area" or committing themselves
to any future action.
All they were doing, the reso-
luton said. was authorizing the
District Redevelopment Land
Agency, in compliance with law,
to seek Federal funds to make a
survey of a generalized sort of
area in Foggy Bottom.
Until such a survey is made,
the resolution said. the Com
missioners are unable to make
a determination" as to whether
any urban renewal project ac-
tually is needed. If the survey
shows such a need. they said,
they would approve one formally
later.
Called Arbitrary
The property owners suit,
based on the original action,
contended the action was ar
bitrary and capricious," con-
trary to proper procedures and
detrimental to the value of land
they intend to develop for COM
mercial purposes.
Until March 6. it had been
assumed, these would be the sole
issues in the legal fight. Gen.
orally, the position taken by
RIA and other officials was that
the city heads action authorized
a study and renewal plan" to
be drawn within the designated
area and that the property own
ers would be able to contest any
provision of the plan at a public
hearing before the plans
adoption.
Sees misunderstanding
The city's reply to the suit
yesterday. however, in a sense
introduced a new step in the
procedure.
Referring to the March 6
clarifying resolution" it said
the property owners have mis-
understood the action" taken by
the Commissioners.
Instead of having designated
an area" for urban renewal. they
said, the city heads merely au-
thorized the study to learn
whether there is an area of
that or some other size that
requires an urban renewal project
and planning"
Because of this, the District
legal brief said, the property
owners complaint was prema-
ture."
Reaction to this Interpretation
by the Housing and Home
Finance Agency, which grants
urban renewal" planning and
operation money, was not clear.
However, one high HHFA official,
who asked that his name not be
used, said he felt it complied
with law and HHFA policies.
The Area in Question
The area at issue, more than
80 blocks in size, is bounded by
Pennsylvania avenue on the
north and Nineteenth street on
the east. In the northern part
of the area, its western boundary
is Twenty-fourth street. In the
southern section, the irregular
western boundary goes nearly to
the Potomac River.
The land owned by the plain
tiffs in the case lies within this
area, just south of G street and
east of Twenty-fifth. The pro-
performers said they purchased
it for 100000 as the site for a
multi-million- dollar development
and contended the Commission
ers' action already has depressed
its value.
Arguing against points raised
in the suit, the 29-page District
brief cited language in the
House-Senate Conference Report
on the 1854 Housing Act in sup
port of it's claim that the Com
missioners need make no firm
determinations at this time.
The report noted that the
House had proposed an amend
ment requiring that local gov
ernments determine that an
area is blighted or deteriorated'
and set forth it's firm boundaries
before any Federal planning
money be available.