*1 (Sрec. Sess.), sup- 38, §190, p. (Emphasis ch. 240. plied.) We do any interpretation not see how reasonable powers provisions court’s inherent or the above
of the statute could enable us to conclude other except rendering wise that a trial court a decree injunction jurisdiction authority has- contempt proceedings brought entertain at a later term of court to secure enforcement of the decree. opinion express not this
We do in ourselves as to injunction quiet whether the in the title action was bind- ing upon parties parties tо such action or the action, contempt as such matters outside parties issues and were raised their briefs. judgment with is reversed directions overrule objections jurisdiction appellee’s to the of the court below.
Achor, Bobbitt, JJ., Arterburn concur.
Emmert, J., dissents.
Note.—Reported in 154 N. E. Indianapolis Corporation,
Alanel etc. et al. Commission 29,704. Filed December [No. 1958.] *3 counsel, Baker, both Henry W. & Blue and Grabill appellant. Indianapolis, for McCord, Jr., Harry Ice, Risch, D. T. Robert Robert D. Ross, counsel, McCord, Miller, In- Ice & all of Indianapolis Redevelopment dianapolis, appellees for Oberreich, Greene, Commission, H. Fred J. Richard T. Smith, Wagner, and Paul L. McCord. Albert Charles Reddington, Indianapolis, appellees, Michael B. Bayt Phillip H. Indianapolis, T. and Charles Boswell. Appellant, Alanel brought Corporation,
Bobbitt, J. action, of all for itself and on behalf others simi larly seeking situated, enjoin appellees pro from ceeding under ch. 276 of the Acts of and ch. 170 1957, being §§48-8501, seq., et Bums’ Acts appellant’s Replacement, property, to condemn costs, levy bonds, acquisition pay taxes issue *4 principal on such pay the and interest bonds. alleges Redevelopment Act of complaint that the Supplementary the Act unconsti- 1945 and 13, §1, §21, §1, tutional Art. Art. Art. under Art. 11, §13, and Art. of Indiana the Constitution and the the Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution allegations only present the of the United States. These questions for our determination. ap- questions
The different and in raised discussed pellant’s will be in the same order brief considered presented. there public policy
Section 2 of the 1945 the Act declares pertinent part housing that the to be accommoda- blighted large extent, are, unsanitary tions in areas to a unsafe, and and that use of the same causes spread crime, constituting increase in and of disease and health, safety, menace morals and welfare of larger State; residents cities that existing the conditions in such areas necessitate exces- disproportionate expenditures sive public and funds prevention for crime punishment, public and health safety; clearance, replanning and that and rede- velopment blighted gov- public of such is a areas and ernmental accomplished function which cannot be through ordinary operations private enterprise, necessity power due to the for the exercise of the domain; clearance, replanning eminent and redevelopment health, of such areas will benefit safety, morals and welfare in which cities such blighted Indiana; exist areas State and clearance, replanning blighted public purposes such areas are uses and money may spent private property acquired. 3 of the 1945 Act area as
Section defines a “any corporate city area within limits of applicable, unincorporated ter- which this act is or in ritory [1,000] one thousand feet of cor- within such
40
porated limits, development, which because of lаck of growth, improvements cessation of deterioration of or occupancy, age, obsolescence, character of substandard buildings impaired or other factors values which have prevent development or property, a normal of or use thereof, has become under current conditions undesir- impossible able for development or of normal and occupancy.”
Sections and of the 1945 Act and the of empower 1957 Act Development the to Commission study, investigate, acquire select and such areas within Eedevеlopment the District as such Commission blighted determine to and cannot be corrected regulatory processes ordinary operations or the private enterprise. provides
Section Act further the Eedevelopment operating Commission created and Eedevelopment under the Act of 1945 shall be author- plan undertake, conjunction ized to and alone or with departments city, “projects other for rehabili- tating, eliminating slums, preventing spread the or blighted, deteriorating areas, deteriorated or both resi- nonresidential, projeсts may dential and include buildings repair the or rehabilitation or other im- commission, provements by tenants, owners or acquisition property, of real the demolition and removal buildings buildings improvements acquired by on necessary to eliminate unhealth- the commission where ful, conditions, density, unsanitary or unsafe lessen hazards, eliminate or other reduce traffic obsolete uses welfare, . . .” detrimental Eedevelopment Commission On October resolution, adopted declaratory Indianapolis part, pertinent as follows: “WHEREAS, inves- made Commission has tigations, surveys studies аnd various Indiana, City Indianapolis, within the areas of contributing blighting of such costs areas; and “WHEREAS, investigations, studies such surveys cooperation with made in have been City departments and various bodies determining proper use have been directed land so to best serve the interests of and its inhabitants, standpoint both from values, human and economic and as a result of *6 investigations, surveys the such and Com- studies that the area herein- blighted mission has heretofore found to such after extent that such conditions cannot has become described by be corrected by ordinary оperations of regulatory process or the provisions enterprise to the private resort without supplemented Redevelopment Act as of the that the Chapter and by public the of the Acts be benefited and welfare would health acquisition such area and acts; provisions of and the said under “WHEREAS, that the finds now the Commission (a) the in one which: hereinafter described is area buildings dwelling part accommoda- as are used (b) the purposes; part and in for commercial tions large un- housing extent to a are accommodations causes sanitary unsafe, of the same and the use and (c) crime; and spread in disease and an increase to purposes are buildings commercial used for the unsafe; (d) con- unsanitary the large and extent existing excessive area necessitate ditions in said expenditure [disproportionate] disportionate and punish- public prevention and for crime of ment, funds safety, public health and fire and accident protection, of public and other services and facilities City, impair property and value of surrounding areas; existing (e) conditions in the result rеduction of value of taxable City; property (f) within the conditions remedy beyond by regulatory process and control because of the obsolete and deteriorated character buildings improvements, faulty and other use, shifting planning land population and and technological changes; and (g) acquisi- social tion and redevelopment of said area in accordance general with the plan hereinafter referred to will health, benefit safety, welfare, morals and and protect
will serve to and increase values City in the State; (h) aсquisition and the such and uses and redevelopment of said area are purposes; and “BE IT Indianapolis RESOLVED Rede- velopment Commission that the area which- is bounded and described as follows: “(Here describing taken); real estate to be hereby blighted is area within the found and declared be a meaning supplemented by Act of Chapter of the Acts of that said area constitutes menace to the social economic inhabitants, interests of and its public utility acquire. it will be of and benefit to redevelop such area same under provisions of said acts.” proposes acquire The area which the Commission eight including and, prop- appellant’s consists- of acres erty, presently devoted to commercial use and 60% to residential use. 40%
Appellant is not does contend its land within *7 planned area as defined in the Act. does it Nor question legality proceedings the the or action Commission, they the the if Acts under which have proceeded are constitutional. “definitions, guides Appellant
First: that asserts the “vague forth in the are and standards” set Act and insufficient,” requirements and do not meet the the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the the Constitution of United States. always to reluctant strike down “Courts they
legislative enactments, especially have when long acquiesced in, been he raises the who question constitutionality the assume must bur- making clearly appear. is den of serted that it it as- When en- statute is so indefinite its process forcement would result in a denial of due delegation legis- or amount to an unauthorized functions, the the court must consider lative enactment in light problems the with which Legislature undertaking . . . such was to deal. designate they clearly valid statutes are when Legisla- against dangers hazards which reasonably sought provide protection and ture the means or methods indicate Company v. accomplished.” Illinois Steel to be Fuller 185, 186, (1939), 216 Ind. 2d 259. complete, “While a law as enacted must be where legislature has laid down a standard which is reasonably definitely practicable, as ... determine described as is agency it authorize an administrative or exist whether facts circumstances upon which the intends to make its law makes or any depend, upon own action it cannot confer but
body
person
power to determine
what
shall be.” State ex rel. Standard Oil Co.
law
(1951),
1, 8,
Review
specific guide standards to the the licensor where subject-matter closely of the Act is related public safety, health, general morals or welfare. S., 73 Pro- C. J. Public Administrative Bodies and cedure, §30, p. 329.” Similar prescribed standards to those in the Act question have, here in exception, without been found by sufficient courts other states. Foeller See: v. Housing Authority (1953), Portland 198 Ore. 752; Belovsky 256 P. 2d Authority 953; 357 Pa. 54 A. 2d 172 A. L. R. Ajootian v. Redevelopment Agency (1952), Providence 21; 80 Jeffrey R. I. 91 A. 2d David v.Co. Milwaukee 66 Wis. N. W. 2d Redevelopment Agency City, Hayes (1954), etc. v. App. 777, 806, Cal. 266 P. 2d and cases cited; there American P. & L. Co. v. Securities and E. 90, 105, Com. 329 U. 91 L. Ed. S.
S. Ct. 133.
Section provides 1945 Act the Rede- velopment Commission, acquiring any before area for redevelopment, special findings: must make blighted
1. That the area is to such an extent that by regula- such condition cannot corrected tory processes, ordinary operations private enterprise, without resort provisions Act; 2. That health and welfare would be acquisition benefited area; of such 3. That the area a menace to constitutes city the social and economiс interests of inhabitants; and its public utility it 4. That will be and benefit redevelop acquire the same. the area and provide 14 and 15 of the 1945 Act Sections *9 by the courts. remonstrance and review Where, here, findings required, specific are with general right by courts, more standards a of review the usually v. Rock permissible. are United States 576, 533, Co-operative Royal U. S. 993; Highland 1446, 1471, 83 L. Ct. Ed. S. 616, 608, Dairy Agnew (1937), 300 U. S. Farms v. L. Ed. 57 S. Ct. burdening opinion repetition
Without
this
with
guides
forth in
and standards as set
definition
Act,
Act,
it is our
of the 1945
of the 1957
and §1
§3
that,
by
opinion
the
as enunci
measured
rules
when
by
appeal in the authorities
ated
and other courts of
this
Redevelop
cited,
prescribed
above
the standards
in the
to meet
ment Acts of 1945 and 1957 are sufficient
requirements of the Due
of the Consti
Process Clause
Housing
tution of the
Edwards v.
United States.1
Authority
330,
215 Ind.
Muncie
339-340,
Second:
next asserts
the Act violates
21 of Art. 1 of the
of Indiana in
and
Constitution
§§1
police power
it
is an invalid exercise of the
because
taking
property
of commercial
has no relation to
public health, safety
or morals.
(§48-8502,
Repl.)
In
of the 1945 Act
Burns’ 1950
Legislature
the clearance
has declared that
and
blighted
redevelopment
areаs will benefit
health,
welfare,
safety,
and
and that
morals
clearance,
replanning
and
blighted
purposes.
of such
uses and
areas
Corporation
(1939), 216 Ind.
1. Financial Aid
v. Wallace
736;
L.
Beach
155 Ind.
23 N. E. 2d
125 A.
R.
Blue v.
Kryder
64;
(1938), 214
50 L. R.
v.
A.
State
Howard,
ex rel. Reed
Ind.
15 N. E. 2d
State
Warden
(1946), 224
In a Supreme similar Court Randolph Wilmington Housing of Delaware in Au- v. thority (1958), Del., 476, 484, page 139 2d at A. said: argument “This overlooks the fact that in con- demning property a to eliminate slum the act
requires with Authority area, аn to deal with separate buildings. The individual test preponder- the existence of a slum is the substantial unsanitary ance of unsafe and area. That the upon true; structures in the hardly application test bears undoubtedly property an owner of sound may always hardship exist when but legis- power of eminent is exercised. domain method of lature determined that feasible has by clearing accomplishing area; is slum clearance say a determination cannot that such and we manifestly unreasonable.” Wilmington reasoning It seems to us that the Housing Authority equal applies force to Case with question here before also: Berman v. us. See 26, 34-36, 27, 348 99 L. (1954), U. Ed. 75 Parker S.
47
State v.
98;
S.
(1953),
Ct.
13,
Rich
159 Ohio
St.
E. N.
Stockus v. Boston
778, 789-90;
2d
Housing
Au
thority (1939), 304
333;
507,
Mass.
E.N.
2d
Foeller
Housing Authority
Portland,
supra (1953), 198
v.
205,
752;
2d
Ore.
P.
Hunter v.
Au
thority (1953),
326,
893;
Va.
78 S. E. 2d
Gohld
v.
Realty
City
Co.
141 Conn.
of Hartford
This court has held that the clearance of slum areas public power is a use of eminent domain Housing be exercised. Edwards v. Aut
hority supra Muncie, (1939), 215 Ind. 2d 741. See also: State v. 330, 336, 19 E.N. supra Rich, 159 Ohio St. v.
787; Belovsky Redevelopment Authority, supra 277, 282-83, 357 Pa. 54 A. 2d 172 A. L. R. v. Randolph Wilmington Housing Authority, Foeller v. supra (1958), Del., 476, 483; 139 A. 2d Housing Authority supra Portland, (1953), 198 Ore. 256 P. 2d logically
It taking seems if follow property for slum clearanсe2 public constitutes a use taking purpose, or to eliminate blighted area as it is defined Act would also purpose. power constitute use If the eminent domain can be in the exercised case of slum clearance, it follows that it likewise can be exercised elimination in the areas. upon Appellant relies a statement from Edens *11 563, City (1956), 228 Columbia C. 91 2d S. S. E. of 284, quoting 280, page from at Schneider v. District (1953), Columbia, Supp. 705, 720, D. C. F. 117 as of follows: 374, p. 1494, 1947, §1, being §48-8103, ch. See: Acts Burns’ Housing Repl. “slum,” as contained in the for definition
1950 amended. Act Authorities 48 “ man’s ‘One land cannot be seized Gov- merеly ernment and in sold to another man Order purchaser may upon
that build it a better house or ment’s idea house better meets the Govern- appropriate of what well-de- is ” signed.’ precise do not We believe to be the situation any property here. in The resale of the area takes place only purpose—the after use or or elimination of slum clearance accomplished. Hence, the resale area—has been any property by Commis only purpose incidental avowed sion Act.
Third: of the Section 1957 Act authorizes an per indebtedness of one-half of one cent assessed Appellant value district. asserts attempt provisions an to evade the of Art. by creating special of Indiana another Constitution
taxing district. Legislature power special
That the has create taxing designated purposes districts for is well-settled
in this Board Johnson v. Park State. Comm (1930), issioners 202 Ind. 174 N. E. Dept. Pub. Sanitation v. Solan 495; Archer, Jr., etc. et al. Ind. 97 N. Indpls., etc. Ind. N. E. 2d 607. speaking through court, Judge Gilkison,
This in Dept. supra Solan, Pub. Sanitation v. page 240, deciding
Ind. at 97 N. E. 2d what “public improvement,” is a local said: growing rapidly “In a population state rapidly discovery, еven in scientific that which mor§ outstanding luxury . is considered in one- decade
49 necessity in the frequently an absolute becomes possible a court it next. For this reason not is defining ‘public to announce a fast rule a hard and binding leg- upon improvement’ that be local islatures and courts will years. the con- in future On sufficiently trary flexible the definition must left the future.” take of care of the necessities We reaffirm this rule. redevelopment such as opinion
In our a district provided by of 1945 and 1957 Acts meaning of clearly improvement a local within taxing phrase special district deci- used in the Hence, neither of the Acts violates sions of court. 13, any provisions Art. of Constitution of §1 of Indiana. separate
Fourth: The 1945 a Act does establish corporation merely department re but creates “a existing execu
development” in to the addition having population departments a tive cities thousand. Acts more than three hundred 1219, being 1945, 276, p. §48-8504, 1950 §4, Burns’ ch. Replacement. separate munici- Act of 1945 not create does Legislature
pal special corporation Act of of Indiana. Art. of the Constitution violation §13 Indianapolis-Mariоn Bldg. Auth. et al. Book v. 5; Toll E. 2d Indiana State 126 N.
234 Ind. Bridge 236 Ind. Minor Commission v. Commissioners, Park v. Board E. 2d Johnson N. supra (1930), 202 Ind. the titles Appellant asserts further
Fifth: the entire not embrace Acts “do 1945 and 1957 Acts,” respective in violation subjects in the contained of the Constitution provisions of Art. Indiana.
The title of ch. the Acts of 1945 is as follows: concerning “AN ACT cities, providing areas certain for the taxing special establishment of districts for such declaring purpose, emergency.” The title of ch. Acts of 1957 is as follows: *13 supplementing provisions “AN ACT the of an concerning act entitled ‘An Act the of cities, providing areas in certain for special taxing the establishment of for districts purpose, declaring emergency,’ such ap- an proved 7, 1945, repealing March certain laws.” part That of Art. of the Constitution of In which, provides subject diana the of an Act shall expressed title, designed only in the State,
titles narrower than the enactment. Iroq. P. R. R. et Dist. Co. al. v. Cons. Ct. et al. 848. Ind. N. 2d State, Iroq. Ct., In R. et al. Dist. P. R. Co. v. Cons. supra, recently we said: expresses general “. . . if a title the purpose of Act, everything contained in Act which is germane purpose properly to the connected making therewith as a means of the Act effective necessary is covered the title. It is not that the abstract of the title contents complete contain a should of provisions the Act or enumerate all its in detail.” Indianapolis
In et et al. al. v. Buckner 37-38, 233 Ind. 116 N. E. 2d held the we title reading of an Act as follows: creating municipal “AN a ACT health and hos- pital corporation of more than United States having population counties 500,000 according preceding to last defining census, powers its and duties declaring emergency.” taxes, levying provisions sufficient to for the include bonds, health issuance and the dissolution local departments. boards and
It logically seems follow that titles question Acts here in sufficient include Commission, acquisition creation aof domain, power the issuance of bonds eminent levying and the retire such bonds and to a tax to pay Mogilner v. Metro interest thereon. also: See politan Comm., Plan etc. et al. 236 Ind. 325, 140 N. E. al.,
State, Iroq. et et Dist. P. R. R. al. Ct. Co. Cons. supra (1956), Ind. E. 2d relied upon by appellant applicable here because character, which title in that case was one narrow general particular specified sub four branches ject drainage, the creation not include but did Redevelopment Acts are new court. The titles of the germane nature—concerning generally the broad in *14 subject-matter Acts—and are sufficient found 4, of Art. the Consti requirements to meet the §19 tution of Indiana. taking of that the Finally, appellant contends
Sixth: Com- property to the fee title of In- of the Constitution Art. mission violates of the Consti- Amendment and Fourteenth diana the United States. tution the 1957 Act 1945 Act and §1
Under §3 rezoning, change replatting, include disposition and utilities and of streets or installation and for conditions and property, “on such terms the interests best will serve purposes as such use applicable their is this act which cities citizens.”
It is clear purposes that of the Act could accomplished not be without the fee title to underlying real estate. Supreme Court of the United States an- has appellant’s swered contention here as follows: “The grave District Court indicated doubts concerning Agency’s right to take full title to distinguished land objectionable from buildings Supp. located on it. F. 715-719. We do not Agency share those doubts. If the con- necеssary it carrying siders redevelop- out the project ment property to take full title the real involved, may it do It so. is not for the courts to necessary determine whether it for successful project unsafe, unsightly, consummation of the buildings insanitary alone be taken or whether included, any title to the land be more it is than among the function of the courts to sort and choose parcels the various selected for condemnation. rights “The of these are satis owners just they compensation fied when receive price which the Fifth Amendment exacts as taking.” Pаrker, supra (1954), Berman v. 348 U. 99 L. Ed. See S. S. Ct. Portland, Authority Housing Foeller also: v. supra (1953), 205, 256 P. 2d Ore. Rich, supra (1953), 13, 110 159 Ohio State St. N. E. 2d 788-789. reached, of the result we have Seventh: Because question necessary appellant’s on it to consider grant jurisdiction the relief equity of the court sought. foregoing judgment
For the reasons the of the trial court must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. J., J.,
Landis, Emmert, C. concur. Achor, J., opinion Arterburn, dissents with in which *15 J,, concurs.
53 Dissenting Opinion case with We arenot concerned in J. this Achor, question Indianapolis appellee whether or not Redevelopment commendable Commission exercised regard particular to restraint with this question project. the sеriousness of the con However fronting only isus demonstrated the fact that legality sweeping action and not the wisdom the judicial on Ben such bodies be considered review. Sparks County (1946), ton v. ex rel. 224 Council State 121, 114, Twp., Ind. Lost Creek School 65 N. E. 2d County 648, Vigo York 21 Ind. v. N. E. 2d 58. Redevelop-
In our concern is whether this case requirements the Due ment Act itself meets clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Process States, by providing the United rea- Constitution guides extraordinary or standards for the sonable exer- police power, cise of Act [§48-8501, seq., Repl.] et Burns’ ch. [Acts purports the Acts ch. 170 of of 1957] authorize. will, great
Although it court is true that with legislature only, strike down acts reluctance ground unconstitutionality,1 equally it is true on protection of all citizens their constitution that the right possessions their ally guaranteed secure in law, except due is one course property, obligations of this court.2 the most solemn have been cited which the courts cases Numerous providing laws as clearance reason- upheld slum have Company v. Fuller 216 Ind. Steel Illinois 1. E. 2d 259. N. Dept. Hanley State, et al. Conversation 2. Rehearing denied 126 2d E. 123 N. Ind. *16 guides application. able Edwards оr for their standards Housing Authority (1939), Mundo of of the clearance of Ind. E. 2d 741. However slums, unsanitary con people live in and unsafe where “blighted” development or and the mere ditions areas, provided us, undeveloped the Act as in before quite constitute different a situation. Act with are here we confronted far ventures into un fields, pertaining chartered where the standard housing projects applicable. True, Section recognizes of the 1945 Act that there are [§48-8502] buildings areas wherein “. . . available are used large part dwelling ;” as accommodations . . . lаrge . accommodations . which “. . . . are to a ex unsanitary unsafe, tent . . .” However, provides guide the above statement no or condemning “blighted standard for so-called areas” beyond outside or such slum areas themselves. Neither express “blighted does the definition of areas” as used provide any of the 1945 Act clearly Section ascer- guide tainable standard which either the Com- mission or courts of review can pro- determine the priety condemnation of occupied areas not housing fact, accommodations. In Section 3 1945 Act makes no reference [§48-8503] whatever to housing merely accommodations. Said section defines “blighted area” as follows: “ ‘Blighted any area’ shall mean area within corporate city limits to which this act is applicable, unincorporated territory or in within [1,000] one corporated limits, feet thousand of such development, lack which because of cessation growth, improvements deterioration of or char- age, occupancy, obsolescence, acter of sub-standard buildings or impaired other factors which have prevent devеlopment
values or a normal prop- thereof, erty, has or use become under current con- impossible ditions undesirable for or normal development occupancy.” I submit the statement of conditions stated in vague the above they provide definition are so no standard, could, either in fact any or in law which with degree certainty, provide justi- a clear standard for fying Commission, the action of the either in the first judicial instance or on example, review. For what physical standard of time or circumstance can mere development” “lаck of of an area be considered cause appropriation private condemnation *17 public expense at By? what standard can mere “cessa- growth” tion of appropriation by constitute cause for By condemnation ? what standard can it be determined that,-..mere improvements” “deterioration of is cause condemnation, or that the mere “character of occu- pancy” public cause to appropriation? warrant By .“age” what standard it can be determined that property condemnation, wаrrants building, that a being may of “obsolescence” or because “sub-standard” appropriated expense, condemned at all provided as in Section 3 of the 1945 Act? answer questions to these be found in the Act. Furthermore, Section 3 expressly 1945 Act grants unrestrained,.freedom the Commission almost declaring “blighted in existence of areas” fur- providing property ther within such areas appropriated be condemned and because of “other fac- impaired prevent have tors which values or normal development thereof,” property, аny or use without might attempt to state what “other such factors” be. If, Act, under the the Commission that'a concludes which, in an area is located citizen’s its way .progress, by opinion, stands in what stand- appropriation? its he able to-resist It occurs'to ardes only extraordinary upon me that limitations Act, police power, exercise of the authorized imagination phi- the limits social losophy planners I reason themselves. For this unconstitutional. believe Act is J., Arterburn, concurs.
Nom—Reported N. E. 2d 515. Inc., etc., et al. al. v. LaRue’s of Indiana et State 29,742. Filed 1958.] December [No.