Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-05-17
Court Orders
New Trial in
Condemnation
Says 1t Acts to Bur
Unequal Contests
Against Home Owner
BY HOWARD L. DUTKIN

~ AA0 w EAASO 10 - ~ AAAAAN
Condemna tion proceedings
must not become unequal con-
tests between the Government
rich in funds and expert help.
and ordinary homeowners, some
times impoverished, the United
States Court Of Appeals for the
District held today.
In q split 2-to-1 opinion the
court set, aside a jury award OF
81, 900 in Redevelopment Land
Agency condemnation case
against a home owner and Or
dered a new trial.
The majority opinion was
written by Judge E. Barrett
Prettyman and concurred in by
Judge Wilbur K. Miller. Judge
George T. Washington dissented.
The case involves the home Of
Mrs. Mayme j. Riley at 1913 Del
eware avenue S.W.
Bought House for $3.50
Mrs. Riley, who carried on the
litigation under a pauper's oath
with the assistance of the Legal
Aid Bureau, bought the house in
1851 for $3.50 on a 30-yeal
mortgage. She spent 1887 on
improvements making the total
cost $4,000.
When the property was seized
in June 1854 by the RIA as part
Iof the Southwest redevelopment
plan, she still owed $4,000 on the
house.
The appellate court pointed out
that the jury award for the
property in March 1855 was
$4,000 less than its purchase price
plus improvements.
1T left the owner without the
house and owing some $1,000 on
her purchase money notes." the
opinion pointed out.
Deducted for Depreciation
Government appraisers valued
the house. a two-story, six-room-
and-bath brick building at be-
tween $500 and $1,000. The
house was built about 1900 and
contained a new gas-fired hot
air heating plant. 1t had large
front and back yards, the court
stated, commenting also that il
was situated only a few blocks
from the Federal Triangle and a
retail shopping center.
The Government appraisers
said that in arriving at a fair
value they estimated the cost
Iof reproducing the house at
about $500 but deducted about
40 per cent for depreciation.
OF this, the opinion said: ."
$50 the premise upon which the
award stands was that a small,
sound, brick house, with modern
improvements. located within
easy walking distance of the
Federal Government buildings
and the retail shopping district
was in 1854 worth on the market
only about half what it would
have cost to. build"
Called Doubtful Figure"
The cout continued: ". a
fiat reduction Of 40 per cent OF
building cost rejecting merely a
straight line depreciation adj
Ijustment, yields a doubtful fig
ure in a market valuation"
The opinion declared:
This is not an ordinary liti-
cation between a person and the
Government. The citizen is not
seeking something. The Gov
eminent is here taking a per-
sons private property. 1t is
taking the highest form of prop
erty known to the law, the prop
lerty most zealously protected by
the law--the persons own home,
"A mans right to own a home
is as much a civil right as are
his rights to speak his mind, to
read his newspaper. or to assem-
BILE with his neighbors ~
Sees Sale to "Entrepreneurs"
The opinion pointed out that
I"the land agency is well pro-
vided for by public appropria-
ton, and it is engaged in a
business venture on a grand
scale. Whole areas of the city,
many square blocks in extent,
ARE being seized and razed, in
part for traditional public use
as for streets and parks. but for
much greater part for sale to
lprivate entrepreneurs for strictly
private business purposes !"