Opinion ID: 2430151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: May a standard building within a slum area be taken for the project?

Text: Appellant Johnson takes the position that, in any event, his property may not be taken because the structure located upon his property is standard and meets the minimum requirements of the City's building code. The answer to the contention, according to the uniform holdings of the highest courts of other states and of the Supreme Court of the United States, is that in condemning property to eliminate a slum, the act requires the city to deal with an area, not with separate individual holdings. One of the major tests of the existence of a slum is the substantial preponderance of unsafe and unsanitary structures in the area. The Legislature has determined that the feasible method of accomplishing slum clearance is by clearing an area, and we cannot say that such a determination is manifestly unreasonable. [37] The extensive annotation in the American Law Reports, reviewing the many cases on this point, states: One point which does appear to be firmly established    is that under the statutory `area concept,' whereby whole areas are selected for redevelopment, the statute will not be invalidated, nor will the particular projects be held illegal, because some properties within the `area' are by no means substandard or blighted. [38] The principle was recognized by this Court in the Dallas Housing Authority case where it was said: When the use is public, the necessity or expediency of appropriating any particular property is not a subject of judicial cognizance. [39] The Act, therefore, as against the specific objections here made, is upheld.