*1 in good made only improvements izes setoff The defend- to another. belonging land faith to the consideration are entitled accordingly, ants, faith made in good of any improvements the value im- not for any but land of the plaintiffs on the on the portion have made they provements from title good acquired which they the land to Van Tassell. is set each case the judgment
There is error, direction remanded with and the cases are aside case each render judgment plaintiffs title dis- their settling quieting in each case, adjudg- as the defendants against pute estate, has any that none the defendants ing on the in dis- interest or encumbrance property and for a trial limited any thereof, new pute part to the issue of and such further relief as damages the court finds appropriate.
In this the other concurred. opinion judges L. Brandon Katz Kenneth et
William al. J.,
King, House, Cotter, Ryan, Thim C. Js. *2 5, 1968 June Argued April 3 decided *3 I. Jr., Igor Sikorsky, for the appellant (plain- tiff). Korsenik,
Armand A. the appellees (defend- for ants). J. The action brought this
Ryan, plaintiff a the defendants declaratory judgment against named individually their members capacity as the Hartford hereinafter Redevelopment Agency, referred to the and members agency, against as the of the Hartford the Hartford city council, city of and the Olivetti-Underwood to Corporation, seeking determine the validity of a eminent taking by do- main of land owned the action plaintiff.1 The plaintiff’s prayer declaratory judg 1 The (1) a relief seeks: ment; (2) permanent injunction restraining agency from the acquiring plaintiff; (3) temporary injunction land of the restrain ing proceeding the from the portions defendants with those the rede- agency
arises from the approval
within the
included
velopment project
taken
the
parcels
belonging
two
land
action
that
plaintiff.
court determined
the
the
the
has ap-
proper,
plaintiff
the
error
pealed,
as
that
assigning
approval
invalid because
redevelopment
project was
for a
than
instituted
rather
pur-
private
pose ;
plaintiff’s
right
due .process
at a public
violated
held on
hearing
project;
defendant
V. Cronin, who
Joseph
par-
in crucial
con-
ticipated
deliberations
decisions
have dis-
cerning
should
project,
himself
qualified
because of a conflict of interest.
Several of
assignments
of error
plaintiff’s
relate
court’s
of facts.
finding
assign-
These
ments are
not pursued
plaintiff’s
brief and
are therefore
treated
as abandoned.
Wood
Wilton,
Conn. 304, 305,
The court found the material following facts: On or about July 1, and for some years prior thereto, plaintiff his wife owners *4 of a of land known as 57 parcel Laurel Street, and the plaintiff was the owner sole of property known as 67 Laurel both Street, parcels being in the located a city Hartford in I business zone. A single-family residence on the latter was parcel by the his occupied plaintiff and wife. Olivetti-Underwood Corporation, hereinafter re- ferred to as is a Olivetti, awith manu- corporation proposed project plaintiff's land; which affect (4) such other may and further relief as to equity appertain. parties The stipulated have that, although injunc- before this court an action for tive proper is not setting, plaintiff may relief this proceed appeal with the on the basis of prayer declaratory judg- his for a ment. persons The claims of all other interested have been settled. area Laurel Street in the located factnring plant Olivetti in 1958 or Hartford. Sometime highway department state notified by which Street, on Park Olivetti by land owned would lot, an employee parking as utilized being highway department be condemned state by an east-west route of interstate as part use involved condemned area be to expressway. approximately acres and accommodated 3.7 various officers informed Olivetti’s cars. employees’ construction possibility officials of city area by garage Olivetti of a multiple-story a rede- if condemned were approve February On about project. velopment feet in 171,160 of land parcel square approximately condemned to Olivetti was belonging course an state due highway commission, there- award of as $708,800 paid compensation foot. for, price approximately per square $4.14 Following the recommendations the planning commission, the agency desig- approved project nated as the which area, Underwood redevelopment included some 33.3 acres of land within to the known as 57 parcels belonging plaintiff and 67 Street, Laurel as well as land owned by Olivetti. Underwood named was so the planning commission because Olivetti was key industry and landmark in the area. Olivetti’s first knowledge came redevelopment project from a letter from the dated planning commission, May 17, 1961, which was sent Olivetti’s vice- president with an along informational copy letter sent by the director of the commis- planning sion the director of the Greater Hartford Flood *5 Commission.
Subsequently, city the of Hartford approached in the acquisi- interest Olivetti’s concerning
Olivetti in and, factory, its vicinity in the of tion land of Olivetti city, conferences with and negotiations its plant known the needs of make was invited to Oli- In addition to in redevelopment. the area of area in the concerns manufacturing other vetti, of city. plants Officers were consulted at meetings attended with vicinity all the indus- city’s request, problems discussed. thoroughly in trial units the area were area dat- an industrial site is in The Underwood are and there period, back to the Civil War ing including, in the area manufacturing plants several com- industrial large other along Olivetti, busi- in international manufacturing engaged plexes Billings Spen- such as Merrow nesses, Machine, The Under- and Arrow-Hart cer, Hegeman. in 1938 and 1955. flooding wood suffered was for time aware long commission planning of conditions in the area, Underwood included this in an official neighborhood map more areas Because suitable redevelopment. serious in other sections problems existing action city, however, no renewal was planned the area until 1961. The general plan adopted July commission contains a dated planning map which shows the Underwood area as a area. potential Factors which brought Underwood redevelop- ment to the fore 1961 were its mixed residential and industrial uses resulting housing facilities located close to factories, periodic flooding the area by the efforts of the emphasized Greater Hartford Flood Commission, and the construction route interstate passed through Underwood area. The first formal for rede- steps *6 inter- because 1961, but, taken were veloprnent govern- federal the by required vening procedures federal grant receive to city enable the ment to in a not position city the for the project, funds city 1965. The December, until the land to acquire in connection statutory all provisions complied the and redevelopment project, with the Underwood this compliance recognized federal government city contract with authorizing redevelopment grant $1,600,000 of a federal giving for money more considerably and loans of council city passed Both the project. area that findings making requisite
resolutions was suitable for redevelopment approving federal to meet all state and redevelopment plan It was for a requirements redevelopment project. sub-
found that were structures inade- standard and that the facilities were unsafe, for the conditions unsuitable quate, It residential environment. was further found conditions the area were detrimental the health, morals and welfare of the com- safety, munity. be a
Although city that Olivetti would hoped strong contender for land industrial ex- project or pansion was felt that parking, with or necessary without Olivetti’s participation as a In redeveloper. 1962, Olivetti made January, an offer to the city 350,000 feet purchase square of land in the area at one dollar foot, but square this offer never acted upon by the At accepted city. no time has Olivetti entered into any agreement with the for the city transfer to Olivetti of land, or title to land, the redevelop- ment area. Olivetti does not any have agreement with the city the acquisition of land in the rede- any communicated it ever nor has area,
velopment in this if land Hartford leave to the threat it. not furnished area was *7 the one ap- such as A project redevelopment notification a requires public the agency hy proved understanding memorandum or intent or any the a redeveloper, and the agency would bind and made advertised must be content of which waiting period There is to the public. available consum- can council city the before the To execute transaction. any redevelopment mate must there of land an for agreement disposition the of the approval or nominating preliminary be city by by agency, approval redeveloper final ten-day approval after a period, council be To of the meeting agency. at a subsequent federal of the entitled to federal aid, approval and also as as to price is government required there form before from a standard terms varying No land. can of redevelopment be disposition or signed been contract has prepared redevelopment is other The land any with Olivetti or with party. is not available tempo- not cleared and except being use is made rary presently Such parking. land several indus- by some of redevelopment in No tries the area Olivetti. has including price been or of land disposition set approved Olivetti’s offer to was purchase Underwood project. formally not either or informally, approved of trial did not city any date have agree- either or Olivetti, ment, pending consummated, nor had any Olivetti indicated concrete interest amount and a location in the rede- specific specific area. velopment
A bond issue for the Underwood redevelopment project November, 1961. passed June held on the hearing A public made There notice. legal proper after hear- public in advance to the available redevelopment summary or agenda an ing there hearing At it. the public key parts plan, including attendance, the public were members recog- asked to who persons and all the plaintiff, and full hearing opportunity a fair nized given hearing, theAt views known. their make counsel, accompanied who was plaintiff, fre- counsel than and his once, spoke more spoke the agency sought question quently. plaintiff director the Under- concerning its executive wood Olivetti’s role area and *8 and the acted project. agency adopted, upon, at a subsequent Underwood redevelopment project a hear- held about after the meeting, public week ing. is the for city agency agency
The redevelopment the technical the direc- implementation policy tives on of the council. It the merits city passes a feasibility taking before particular it, project actions largely authority and has procedural, no the change Underwood project. When came to determination agency, the the it be the and what boundaries were to be had been already by city made the council. On August 28, when the council 1961, city referred the bond issue for the redevelopment project public the defendant hearing, V. Cronin then Joseph a member of the council and voted favor resolution. On September Cronin 11, 1961, resigned from the city council. aAs member of city council, Cronin did not participate any vote deal- ing with the Underwood project other than the vote referring the bond issue to a public hearing, A routine and procedural. purely
matter was 1961, 18, September held on hearing the voters was approved issue bond 25, April met on The agency 1961. November, surveys plans preliminary approved 1962, met agency 26, 1963, June On for the project. of whom one members present, three again for the adoption moved Cronin was Cronin. authorizing resolutions in favor of two voted for loans and the pre- an filing application for the pur- of the renewal plan liminary approval renewal federal urban it to the submitting pose the rede- hearing on At administration. of its three agency, held velopment project one of whom was Cronin. were present, members and Cronin met, pro- agency On June the Underwood plan, resolution approving posed unanimously adopted. which proposal 2, met December with Cronin agency 1964, and, on an agree- at this meeting, approved participating ment use of funds for the project. state three of its five members includ- only With present, met on Cronin, ing February at which moved time Cronin for the adoption various motions to the pertaining Underwood *9 which were project necessary for its implementa- tion.
At the time of the trial, Hartford ac- had title quired to all of the within the properties Underwood redevelopment area, the including plain- tiff’s and had property, demolished all buildings with the exception of few buildings which were the process vacated. being the property of plaintiff Underwood area consisted of two noncontiguous each of parcels, 7500 square feet, out of a total area of project 1,454,400 square feet. The a single-family was Laurel Street at 67 property nonconforming ato devoted a garage residence a single- Street at 57 Laurel The property use. about nothing unique There was residence.
family property The plaintiff’s either property. dimensions of the physical included within
naturally area. the Underwood that court concluded
From facts, these redevelopment in the Underwood acquired property not private and taking was for all steps and hearings that the public interests, were proper, taken in connection with the project that due not denied process, that plaintiff at all times acted the defendant Y. Cronin Joseph the com- faith for the good and best interests interest. had no conflict of and that Cronin munity, and the de- that the agency claims plaintiff condemnation fendants utilized the broad powers rather than conferred statute private therefore and that its actions were public purpose invalid. Both and the agency passed council the area resolutions that making requisite findings was suitable for and redevelopment approved to meet all federal state plan A for a find- requirements redevelopment project.
ing was made
agency
structures
the area were substandard
unsafe,
facilities were
and that
the conditions
inadequate,
were unsuitable for a residential
development
detrimental
health, safety, morals
welfare
the community.
This decision is open
to judicial
review
to discover
only
whether
has acted
unreasonably, or
bad
faith,
has exceeded its powers. Graham v.
Houlihan,
Conn.
A.2d 745,
denied,
cert.
364 U.S.
S. Ct.
532 v. Co. Realty Gohld 463; A.2d 156 17, 13,
147 Conn. see 365; A.2d Conn. Hartford, Rev.) Ed. (3d Corporations Municipal McQuillin, 32.25. § of initial purpose that urges
The plaintiff but the general public was not benefit of lot employees parking private provide it below that substantially at a price Olivetti market, open be pay would required to remain to induce Olivetti this done Act con- Redevelopment Hartford. of “The redevelop- taken for an area is that after templates taken of the land all, or even some, ment purposes re- individuals, to private be sold or leased may if are not the they even ferred to as redevelopers, Hartford, Co. v. Realty owners.” Gohld original 8-137. 1966) (Rev. § Statutes 143; General supra, for a taking It essential is, course, defini- “A use defies absolute public purpose. conditions changes varying tion, changing society, sciences, new appliances govern- and functions of conceptions scope and other circumstances ment, differing brought modes about an increase new population McSorley communication transportation. Pa. 59 A.2d Am. Fitzgerald, 270, 142; v. 264, Jur. Courts 734, 120. [Municipal Corporations,] § aas instead of define rule, judicially to attempting as from distinguished private purpose, have left each case to be determined on its own pecu- liar circumstances. Promotion the public safety and general welfare constitutes a recognized public ‘If the purpose. expenditure public funds will promote the welfare of the community, it is for . Adorno, . . public purpose.’ Lyman Conn. [133 52 A.2d The modern 702]. trend author-
533 meaning construe liberally is to expand ity not is use public test of purpose.’ ‘public right but rather is furnished use how Barnes benefit.” its enjoy to receive the public Roan 523; A.2d 15, 98 8, Haven, 140 Conn. New v. Commission, 150 Building Industrial v. Connecticut A.2d 399. 344, 189 333, Conn. aas study was under location
The Underwood 1961 1950 until from area redevelopment possible Factors area. a renewal declared its being to prior Underwood brought which housing uses and 1961 its mixed fore area, factories, flooding periodic
close conditions, these Because of highway. the east-west “[I]n it was natural renewal to develop. industry day
this of keen competition attract locality, or to a public business to state particular an in- are cooperate officials expected helping must be to locate in their dustry community. They at all as well as times alert for future providing Co., See Norwalk Connecticut needs. v. 89 present Adams Greenwich 94 A. v. 537, 547, 988; Conn. Co.,
Water 177; Coppola 214, 138 A.2d 205, Conn. 83 v. New York, Co., N.H. & H.R. 109, 112, 143 Conn.
119 . A.2d 730. . . may That some derive persons a private cannot defeat advantage pur- public an Parker, Berman pose such v. enterprise. 348 Barnes 33, U.S. 75 Ct. 99 L. v. 26, 98, S. Ed. 27; New Haven, 140 State ex 98 8, 14, 523; Conn. A.2d rel. v. Higgins Civil Service Commission, 139 Conn. 90
102,
A.2d
Lyman Adorno,
106,
862;
v.
133 Conn.
Norwalk,
Conn. 366, 376, 377,
“If the public use which justifies the exercise eminent domain in the first instance is the use of property other than purposes that same slums, trans- is after the property continues use purposes persons.
ferred to private accom- being still are was taken the land Realty Hartford, v. Co. Conn. Gohld plished.” A.2d 365. *12 that indicate record in the nothing There is Olivetti made to of land has been any conveyance exists understanding or agreement that any advantage any with which would provide interested be may others who not is available trial court The conclusion of the redevelopers. as taking was for acquired that property be disturbed. interests cannot not for private role of Cronin claims The plaintiff he in a conflict of interest situation created as a in deliberations and decisions participated a member member the council as at the same time an serving agent while as agency in of the labor union Cronin’s Olivetti plant. activities as councilman and as member must examined of the facts light found the trial court concerning his with position the labor union and his with Olivetti. relationship He was business manager the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for district which had jurisdiction, with collec- tive over bargaining unions at rights, existing seventeen one separate companies, of which was Olivetti. He was an neither officer of the Olivetti committee nor a member shop of the executive board of the Olivetti union, and his only connection with the Olivetti union was to sit'with its bargaining in an committee advisory contract capacity during negotiations. Included of a con- provisions tract entered into between the union and Olivetti June, 1965, was a clause pertaining to relocation should that Olivetti event in the pay and severance place another location Hartford from its move international away. miles thirty-five than more city in the Olivetti to keep reason had no union from the it move to have might prefer Hartford juris- the union’s within remained as it long so city lived membership union half of the About diction. membership union with Hartford, outside A number of plants towns. about 101 representing Cronin’s rights bargaining collective having in recent of Hartford city from the union moved and there were the union, with the years approval to the union benefits numerous advantages from an old plant move having employer parking to a modern with adequate plant elected full-time, paid, facilities. Cronin *13 not an of his union employee employee affected and his would not be employment Olivetti, if trial court con- there was no Olivetti union. The directly that would gain nothing, cluded Cronin or from his votes connection with indirectly, that all times in Underwood he acted at project, faith and for the best interest of the com- good and that there was no conflict munity, of interest on his part.
While other- personal advantage, pecuniary or is one of the wise, elements to be it is considered, not the only test, nor is the faith good of the public officer of is controlling importance. “Public office a trust conferred by public for a authority public purpose. State ex rel. Stage Mackie, v. 82 Conn.
398, A. 401, 74 759. His status forbids the public officer from himself in placing where his position private interest conflicts with his public duty. faith of
good the official is of no moment because is the policy the law to him far from keep so
536 unselfish exercise insure the as to
temptation to place not be permitted He must interest. may interest personal which in a position himself 135 Madison, Low v. duty.” conflict with his public 154 Waterbury, v. Stocker 774; 60 A.2d Conn. lies in the The evil A.2d 514. 454, 446, Conn. tending to weaken aof situation creation security the sense and to undermine confidence and property citizen which the rights individual exist always assured will owner must feel Cor RK Development authority. exercise of public 242 A.2d Norwalk, 374, v. Conn. 369, poration Commission, Zoning v. Planning Kovalik & 781; Planning A.2d v. Josephson 838; 497, Conn. 498, 690; Daly 199 A.2d Board, 489, 151 Conn. Commission, 150 Conn. Zoning Town Plan & A.2d 500, 191 250. dis- claim that Cronin should have plaintiff’s on himself is predicated supposition
qualified in motion was set redevelopment project theory for the This benefiting Olivetti. purpose assumes that Olivetti was an active participant, had some important part, therefrom. expected benefit might have no agree- We indicated there was already ment or understanding between Oli- vetti which it with provide any advantage would not *14 is available others be inter- who might ested as and that ac- redevelopers, property was for a quired not for public any purpose The private interest. decision to redevelop made in the public the inter- interest, ests of Cronin and Olivetti greater were neither than nor in any different way from the interest of other any citizen Hartford. On the facts this can case, we find no conflict of interest which would
537 with, performance interfere reflect on, conclu- officer. as a duty his Cronin correct. court the trial sion of his claim the further makes
The plaintiff he when violated were rights constitutional of the members to cross-examine the right denied held hearing at the and its director a denial this constituted and that June of the clause The due process of law. due process constitution, federal amendment fourteenth article as meaning same substantially has (now constitution of the Connecticut first, 12, § constitu- article of the Connecticut 10, first, § form of any guarantee particular does not tion), had to the must be state Due regard procedure. right individual
nature of the and the proceeding case instant affected it. proceeding under the of 8-127 of the General Stat- § provisions need for the acquisition
utes was determine the private property public purpose It a legislative extent that acquisition. required determination of fact and thereafter determina- tion of the amount of the for the damages taking. A.2d 330,
Graham v. 147 Conn. Houlihan, 321, 70, cert. Ct. denied, U.S. S. 5 L. Ed. 2d Both the and his counsel 57. plaintiff at permitted length speak opposition approval plan. During hearing, plaintiff’s counsel asked whether a had redeveloper been chosen to carry through with the event of its approval was informed that none had been chosen. He then asked whether there had been any discussions with any rede- proposed or whether veloper the agency any had redeveloper in mind. He was told that there had been discus- sions with dozens of and that redevelopers the re-
538 he Later irrelevant. mainder of the question selected had been that no redeveloper was informed rede- be one of the might possible and that Olivetti in the Under- other with companies along velopers, any if there was then asked wood area. Counsel a multilevel from to build commitment Olivetti as a of the redevelopment pro- parking project part no commit- informed that there was and was gram It ment from to the anyone project. respect relating questions would appear plaintiff’s far were answered so as was plan possible do so at that time. the members of fair and was not plaintiff given hearing of due deprived this process procedure. also error in two on plaintiff assigns rulings evidence by the trial court. The wherein findings the erroneous are recited not made in rulings accordance with the of Practice Book provisions 648. The obvious of the rule is to enable purpose § this court the action trial review properly court. A ruling on evidence must be tested If it is claimed to finding. erroneous, finding must contain facts sufficient the error. disclose Dacey, 648; Grievance Committee Practice Book § v. Morgillo v. Ever- 154 129, Conn. 222 339; A.2d green Cemetery Assn., Conn. 205 A.2d 169, 175, 368. The findings failed to disclose facts from which the materiality the correctness rulings may be determined. Casalo Claro, Conn. 625, 165 A.2d 153. This inadequacy the findings our precludes consideration of these Schurgast v. Schumann, assignments of error. Conn. A.2d 695.
There is no error. In this opinion King, C.J., and House and Thim, Js., concurred.
539 the por- with I disagree (dissenting). J. Cotter, no finds which majority of the opinion tion of enunci- rule mandate of clear violation A.2d 774. 135 Conn. Madison, in Low v. ated rationale reviews exhaustively Low case The of the principles history application concerning disqualification therein promulgated (p. 10) held In that case we official. of a public not be “laid must a commission the action of The and suspicion.” to misinterpretation open and the “one of public policy” is primarily question measured primarily] in office [is “standard personal in which policy considerations inci- secondary becomes interest” pecuniary is conduct con- rule of dental. Connecticut the reported trary many to “the foundation 5, 8. Id., 4, from jurisdictions. decisions” other a failure to con- improper Even where is show there which have that a set of circumstances we held duct, and a tends to create a distrust of sus- committee requires violates the rule which picion unfairness and it is better room be that no disqualification, Haddam, v. East Greene given suspicion. Madison, Low in
Conn. supra, (quoted There is 6). no case of imputation present any action which is dishonorable. the contrary, On I agree with the majority the conduct was at all times faith. good Connecticut rule enumerated, is strict however, its requirements, and, as stated, there must be room in the no case to cause the public to point to cir- suspicion cumstances which create might an aura of unfair- ness or The rule partiality. is based on public and not policy on conflict solely of interest. “Any- which thing tends to weaken . . . confi- [public] dence and to undermine the sense of security for is the citizen entitled rights
individual A implica- “possible policy.” feel is against public to be sufficient appears of disqualification” tion 9. Madison, supra, Low v. basis disqualification. official and of disqualification This issue in the Low enumerated criteria and principles been and reaffirmed recently case have approved 446, 453, 454, 154 Conn. Waterbury, Stocker v. *17 A.2d 514.
George Planning Zoning J. Finn, Trustee Seymour
Commission Town J., House, Cotter, C. Thim Js. King, Ryan, Argued April 4 decided June