Opinion ID: 2430151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: May the property be resold for its fair value?

Text: Appellants contend that the property purchased by the City in the slum area may not be resold at its fair value which might be less than the cost of acquisition and clearance of such land [29] because that would constitute the gratuitous and unconstitutional granting of public money to individuals. [30] This point has been raised in most of the urban renewal cases. It has been uniformly held that the resale of the property at its fair value is not a gratuity or an extension of public credit. [31] The Act requires that all property be sold under competitive sealed bids after advertising. The property is not simply sold for just any use. It is to be sold subject to the covenants, restrictions, and uses of the renewal plan. As stated by the Supreme Court of Missouri, It would be difficult to imagine a workable law that would exact more from a purchaser than a `fair value' price. [32] The point is overruled.