*1 TERM, N. 1960. C.] Bank. Commission
REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMISSION GREENSBORO CITY OF GREENSBORO, GREENSBORO v. SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF MILTON, as Executor and Trustee under Will JACK Deceased.
(Filed June, 1960.) Appeal 1. and Error 49—§ exceptions findings fact, Where there no are to the court’s it will presumed findings supported by competent that the are evidence and findings binding appeal. on 2. Eminent Domain 1—§ property may power Private be taken under the of eminent domain only upon payment just compensa- for a use and then tion. 3. Eminent Domain 3—§ determined, question When the facts are what use is a law for the court.
4. Same— public purpose, If the condemnation of land is for a the General As-
sembly may agency power select the to exercise the domain eminent by public purpose accomplished. and the method is to be 5. Same: Constitutional Law 24—§ blighted municipality The condemnation of and slum areas within a safeguards prevent under to such areas from revert- ing public health, safety, to slum is in areas interest morals welfare, and therefore such condemnation is for a use and taking private property I, is not a in violation of Art. Sec. or Art. 17, of See. the Constitution of North Carolina. 6. Same— municipal redevelopment may exchange, that a fact commission private persons sell or transfer slum condemned it question not does affect whether the is for use, provides safeguards since statute the use and con- private developer prevent again trol of the land the area from area, becoming redeveloper the sale or transfer merely purpose clearing primary incidental collateral to the public health, safety, interest of the slum area morals and welfare. Law 7—§ 7. Constitutional delegate Assembly may power the General law While make Constitution, may delegate except as authorized to a state. agency find facts to determine the existence or non-ex- operation situation or condition of a factual which the istence depend, adequate provided standards is made to are set forth a law doing. agency Carolina, II, guide in so Constitution of North Art. Sec. IN THE SUPREME COURT. . v. *2 5d— 8. § Statutes pari a in Sections of statute and statutes materia must be construed n together. Municipal Corporations 9. Constitutional Law 7: 4— § § therein, 34, authorizing municipality G.S. Art. each defined to redevelopment findings create a commission its that a municipality area exists in such and that of such necessary public health, safety, area is welfare, interest of morals or delegation power municipality, is a constitutional each such “blighted (G.S. particularity since the statute defines a area” with 160- 456(q)) provides adequate guide and therefore standards to each munici- pality determining an whether area exists within its limits which re- quires public health, safety, in the interest of the morals or welfare. Municipal Corporations 10. Constitutional Haw 19: 4— § § power given municipal redevelopment a commission to sell or provisions transfer lands of Art. condemned theretofore does not violate the proscribing Sec. of the Constitution of North Carolina ex- separate privileges except clusive or emoluments or in consideration of public services, provides since the Act that unless the lands sold municipality public body, they should be transferred or other highest responsible should be sold to the bidder after adver- rejected, 160-464(b), (c), tisement and that all and, bids G.S. further, merely ancillary pri- sale the land is incidental or mary purpose of the Act to eradicate slum areas. 11. Constitutional Law 6—§ proscribed by any If a Constitution, statute not section of our 'State legislative judicial the wisdom of its question, enactment is a not Assembly right experiment since the General has the modes dealing prevented by with old evils unless the Constitution. Corporations Municipal 4: Taxation 5— § § expended by municipal redevelopment Where funds commission un- provisions der of the Urban Law are not from derived revenues, Y, tax Carolina are of Art. See. of the Constitution of North applicable. J.,
Bobbitt, concurring. J., dissenting. Higgins, Appeal by respondent from Preyer, J., February 1960 Civil Term, — of GuilfoRD Greensboro Division. proceeding
Special petitioners, Redevelopment instituted Com- Greensboro, mission of Greensboro and the before the clerk Superior County Court of for the Guilford condemnation under provided of eminent domain for in 40-11 seq., et G.S. Con- Proceedings, Chapter 160, demnation known Redevelopment Law, land, as the Urban certain which is TERM, 1960. N. C.] v. corpus testamentary trusts created last will (cid:127)— Milton,
testament of Jack deceased, last' will and testament Milton, deceased, appointed respondent of Jack executor of his will testamentary —, Judge Preyer trustee of his estate heard before appeal by respondent on from orders of the Superior clerk Court County appointing appraisal, commissioners Guilford and af- report assessing damages taking their for the firming the land. respondent, pursuant Petitioners and to G.S. waived 1-184— by jury, agreed Judge Preyer might answer trial the issue damages $15,600.00, as to of the land the sum of facts, law, make might judgment find conclusions and render thereon.
Judge Preyer’s judgment is as follows: *3 FACT
FINDINGS OF city Municipal Corporation “1. That the of Greensboro is a hav- exercising rights, power authority the ing by and and conferred Chapter Amended, by ap- 37 of the Private Laws of as and of North Carolina. plicable General Statutes notice, by proper designated, ‘Chap- ordinance That after due “2. 75, Redevelopment passed by Commission of ter Greensboro/ city day of on 15th of City the Council Greensboro the by petitioners’ A, City Exhibit the 1951, as shown Coun- October found, blighted as a fact that the of Greensboro and cil of city, within the and thereafter certified existed said slum areas Secretary of of North Carolina. That there- to the ordinance of Redevelopment Commission Greensboro was created the after seq., incorporation et and certificate of a
under G.S. of Commission Greensboro to the issued was day of the 23rd October as shown Secretary on of State the that thereafter the B; and Exhibit petitioners’ duly organized by adoption was of Greensboro officers,in of accordance with election Statute. by-laws and of statute, thereafter, pursuant Greensboro Plan- That “3. duly adopted, found that there were resolution Board, by ning city of desig- within the Greensboro and areas slum and blighted Greensboro, described in Exhibit E of the section a nated redevelopment and a area; and slum area blighted Petition, a as area; map D is said that find- Exhibit a petitioners’ Planning duly approved by Board were the Greensboro ings city Greensboro, by petition- as shown City Council E. Exhibit ers’ pursuant requirements to the and thereafter, That “4. IN THE SUPREME COURT. Commission ®.
of the statutes, the Redevelopment Commission determined being section known known Area said area as No. a as the redevelopment, Cumberland Project, most in need was and made manner certain facts in studies and found certain prescribed by redevelopment for plan of statute, prepared and a plan produced, Project. study Cumberland andi That said among existing other use things, maps 'showing present re- area, maps use of area showing proposed coverage density, development, population standards of land building densities, plan area, proposed preliminary a site changes showing changes zoning maps, maps ordinances and lay-outs levels, in street the estimated cost statement of financing acquisition and method of area, continuing as deemed neces- statement of such controls authorizing sary to rede- purpose effectuate the statutes velopment of the feasible method clearance, and slum a statement area, displaced in said all proposed for the families relocation M, through F inclusive. That by petitioners’ as shown Exhibits Planning plan thereafter said was submitted Greensboro was fact that said area Board, which reaffirmed the Board approved slum andi area Exhibits Project, by petitioners’ shown for the Cumberland City passed Council P; subsequently thereto and that hearing matter, which was calling on said resolution for a subsequently thereto the duly held; proper resolution redevelopment and slum clearance City approved Council Q and Exhibits R. submitted, by petitioners' shown plan as *4 in land described the the of the respondent “5. That the is owner proceeding; that eminent domain subject of this petition andi the petition, in the is set forth respondent, as the of the Project, integral is an and of the Cumberland the area within acquisition of said redevelopment. That the of of plan the plan redevelopment, and accomplish the of necessary land the city and the of Greensboro that, acquired, if carry plan the good faith, out will, in of Greensboro Commission petitioners have at- That the specified. redevelopment above of were un- by purchase, but to said land tempted acquire title the respondent contended fact that the the so, diueto able do appraisal by given had been than more value land had questions had constitutional certain that petitioners; and right of denies respondent of which the basis arisen on acquire and of Greensboro Redevelopment Commission to real estate. hold title
N. TERM, 1960. C.]
Redevelopment Commission v. “6. That the in petition, area described known as the Cumber- Project, land respondent land of the located, hereby found to be a slum and area as defined (q). 160-456 That said largely area found the Court to be residential, in dilapidated, which the are depreciated, structures necessary deteriorated and substandard in respects, all without provisions for ventilation, light, plumbing; sanitation and inside throughout density that unusually high the area there an exists population of overcrowding, unsanitary the entailed and conditions, unsafe which constitute an abnormal hazard to health, safety community; and welfare of that the existence of such ills is health, disease, conducive to ill transmission of in- mortality, juvenile delinquency, crime, hazards, fant and fire and public health, safety, is detrimental to the morals and welfare of city Greensboro; of the citizens of that more than of 68% the houses and structures said area substandard insofar as their enumerated; condition relates to the factors above and up of all structural units the area have one or 89% dilapidation more elements of deterioration and set forth above. city
“7. That under the Greensboro paid and to the appropriated has Commission city plans money, anticipates Greensboro sums of appropriation payment to the Commission outlays cash, improvements, etc.; further Greensboro paid Redevelop- to the money appropriated heretofore has from sources in- ment Greensboro come city other than from ad valorem tax to the of Greensboro come city ap- will additional That the of Greensboro revenue. make additional to the Rede- pay in the future and sums propriations furtherance of velopment Commission Greensboro future appropri- that the funds for said redevelopment plan, and by the city funds received other than derived from ations will be tax revenue. from ad valorem Greensboro, compliance with the city Order
“8. That Appraisal, Report of the Commissioners Confirmation Superior Court of 10, 1960, by clerk February signed $15,500.00., the sum of this paid into Court County, has Guilford Appraisal by the Commissioners at being figure arrived of its respondent property; damage paid Greens- appropriated and was that this sum *5 city from sources other than by received from income boro tax revenue. ad valorem
eoo THE IN SUPREME COURT. Commission T(l) petitioners’ through T(13), being photo-
“9. That Exhibits graphs Project petition of the in the and Cumberland described evidence, portrayals offered are fair of the actual conditions now exist within the area. meetings, hearings, given
“10. That all and notices and held City Council, Planning Board, and the Re- Greensboro development Greensboro, compliance of with the Commission statutory requirements procedural creation of the Rede- accomplishment of velopment Greensboro, Commission and properly given held; were and redevelopment plan, of the and statutory requirements complied all have been met and holding public meetings, passing giving notices, as to resolutions. ordinances existing Proj in the Cumberland ect area “11. That the conditions practicably police eliminated cannot exercise city Greensboro, anticipated nor alleviated power of private enterprise. efforts or intervention Findings upon foregoing of Fact Court makes the And following-—
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW properly brought un- proceeding is "1. That this condemnation seq. et der G.S. proceeding in this taking respondent’s
“2. That the purpose and taking use, for a by eminent domain is not in violation of Article Section taking that such of North 17, of the Constitution I, Section Article ‘by the law of land.’ Carolina, but is a Law, Chapter 160, Subchap- That the Urban “3. Carolina, Statutes North Article of the General ter legislative -power authority delegation unlawful not an Greensboro, and does not Redevelopment Commission 1, of the Constitution of North Caro- II, Section Article violate detail, sets forth specifically, and stand- Act lina, for that said redevelopment agencies for the creation guidances ards thereunder, leaving only to of their activities pursuit and the redevelopment agency the de- and the local municipality bring operation. into law of facts termination Subchapter General Chapter 160, That “4. not confer nor does authorize Carolina of North Statutes or the of Greensboro Redevelopment redevelop- nor does the grant, Greensboro pursuance petition said statute forth as set ment *6 TERM, N. C.]
Redevelopment Commission separate privileges per- and and emoluments grant, exclusive of Article persons in violation Section sons or sets of of North Carolina. Constitution to the effect that funds de- light the of the evidence In
“5. valorem, by city ad tax revenue rived from sources other than used, appropriated, spent city have been of Greensboro Commission of Greens- Greensboro appropriated! by in the future will be boro, that sums from Commission sources city of Greensboro revenue, Y, tax of Article other than ad valorem appli- of North are not 3, of the Constitution Carolina Section in the determination of this cause. cable described in of law area
“6. That as a matter Project blighted slum the Cumberland petition as meaning seq.; et and that within the G.S. area condition in the area the rede- said and slum reason of as set area, under velopment necessary interest of the petition, forth in the city welfare of the residents of health, safety, morals and of Greensboro. AND OF FACT THE FINDINGS FOREGOING
UPON ORDERED, IT LAW IS ADJUDGED OF CONCLUSIONS AND DECREED: Redevelopment Commission Greensboro petitioner
“1. That the re- right, title and interest of take, all of the entitled to paragraph to, real described in and spondent conveyed to said commission. hereby petition, Petitioners, damages have and recover Respondent “2. That $15,600.00. sum of property, the of said for having paid been into Court $15,600.00 That, sum of “3. Respondent, benefit of the for the use and city of Greensboro is authorized and of Greensboro Redevelopment Commission property described of the real possession into empowered to enter petition forthwith. 5 of paragraph hereby $2,000.00 are award- the sum of fees in “4. That counsel pur- attorneys respondent, Rendleman, ed to Stern & charged (q), which fee is 160-456, Subsection suant proceeding. in this part of the costs Register in the office of be recorded judgment this That “5. of title Rede- County muniment as a Deeds of Guilford be taxed Let the costs of Greensboro. velopment Commission petitioners.” against appeals. respondent judgment
From the IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Bedevelopment Commission v. Bank. Cannon, Jr., Harry J. Archie Rockwell for Greensboro, plaintiffs, appellees. Harper Elam, III, Greensboro, J. plaintiffs, appellees. Rendleman; By Stem & John L. Rendleman respondent, ap- pellant. *7 city Jones, attorney Claude V. Durham. for of Daniel Edwards and Robinson Redevelop- K. 0. Everett for city ment Commission amici Durham, as curiae. of of Phillips Redevelopment city Dickson Urban Commission for of Laurinburg, as amicus curiae. of Hogue Hogue; By D. Hogue, Redevelopment Jr., C. for city Commission Wilmington, as amici curiae. of of Redevelopment Weston city P. Commission Hatfield for of Winston-Salem, amicus curiae. of MoCleneghan Miller; By Cochran, Jr., & Thomas Creasy, C. for city Commission Charlotte, as amici of of curiae. Hatch, Bunn; By Little Bunn, & James C. the Rede- Little for velopment Raleigh, Commission amici curiae. Judge PARKER, Respondent exceptions Preyer’s J. has no find- ings presumed they Therefore, fact. it will be support- are by ed competent on evidence, binding appeal. and are Tanner v. 250 Ervin, 602, N.C. 109 2d 460. S.E.
Respondent excepted Judge has Preyer’s second, third, fourth part and fifth to this law, decree, wit, conclusions of his “Pe- titioner Commission is take, of Greensboro entitled to right, respondent and all to, of the title and interest of the in and the real paragraph petition, hereby described in 5 of is conveyed to said commission,” judgment.
Respondent’s Preyer’s first is exception Judge second conclu- respondent’s sion of law that taking land in this proceeding power under the public purpose eminent domain is a for a use, is not in I, 1, violation of Article or of Article Section I, 17, of the Section North Constitution. Carolina part
The I, 1, relevant Article Section North Carolina per- is “That Constitution we hold it to be self-evident that all sons . . endowed their are Creator with certain inalienable . among rights; enjoyment these . . the of the fruits of . pertinent part I, their own 17, labor.” of Article Section The ought is, person North Carolina Constitution “No to be ... deprived of his property, manner . . but law of the land.” . TERM, 603 N. 1960. C.] v. Bank. power In domain, the exercise of the eminent private-property public purpose, taken for a or more properly speaking can be public use, just compensation. payment Charlotte 600; 40 Heath, 750, 226 N.C. S.E. 2d v. 70 Rankin, Johnston N.C. is principle grounded equity 550. This so in natural that it has never an of "the been denied essential law the land” within meaning of Article Section Constitu- North Carolina Education, tion. Eller v. Board 89 N.C. S.E. 2d 144. determined, what purpose, When facts are more public use, question of properly speaking a law for the court. Yarborough Heath, v. Park supra; Commission, Charlotte 284, 145 563; N.C. S.E. S.E. Greensboro, N.C. Stratford question of law is distinct and clear. This Court said Yarborough Commission, v. Park . . it is settled our decisions particular necessity . expediency . . that if a use exclusively establishing Legislature.” redevelop- it is If the project use,” grant ment “a here Redevelop- Chapter eminent domain in G.S. *8 Law, power, for the legislative ment is a and valid exercise of clear end. merely of eminent the means to the Berman v. domain L. Parker, 348 U.S. Ed. 27. exception its first is that respondent
The main of on contention taking power of eminent domain under G.S. property the of permitted use public is not for a under Chapter 160, Article I, 17, of the North Carolina 1, or Article Section Section use, private for a Constitution, taking private property of but is (a) Redevelopment Commission because under G.S. 160-464 real exchange or otherwise transfer empowered “sell, to any rede- project area to redevelopment in a any interest therein or commercial, or other recreational, industrial residential, veloper for redevelopment plan, use in for accordance uses or may be restrictions as covenants, and subject to such conditions purposes of carry or out interest to to be in the deemed sale, exchange transfer, this other such or provided, that article; or may after, be made thereto, relating any agreement govern- subject to, approval public notice and award as and after municipality body ing of (b).” in subsection specified hereinafter between commission 160-464(d) “The contract provides: G.S. to being .limited the follow- contain, without shall redeveloper redeveloper otherwise (1) prepared Plans ing provisions: IN THE SUPREME COURT. and other may such documents as be required to type, show the ma- terial, general structure and character of the redevelopment project; (2) A statement of use intended for project; each of (3) guaranty A completion the redevelopment project within specified limits; time The amount, known, if (4) considera- (5) tion paid; Adequate safeguards to be for proper maintenance (6) of all parts project; continuing Such other controls as may necessary be deemed to purposes effectuate the of this article.” 160-464(e) “Any
G.S. redeveloper states: deed in furtherance contract shall executed in the name commission, by officers, its proper and shall contain in addition to all provisions, conditions, other restrictions and the commission deem with the desirable run land order purposes effectuate the of this article.” This of respondent taking contention of its property is private use misconceives the nature public pur- and extent pose subject which is the use The primary purpose statute. is the eradication of “blighted areas,” reconstruction rehabilitation such areas, adaption and the will prevent them uses which a recurrence blighted lucidly This is stated in conditions. follows: AND “FINDINGS DECLARATION OF POLICY. —It is hereby legislative determined and declared as a matter finding: (a) That exist urban in this there communities areas herein, (b) as defined That such areas are economic or social liabili- injurious ties, health, safety, inimical and morals and State, the residents of the harmful to the social and eco- welfare well-being of the they nomic entire communities which exist, de- preciating reducing revenues, thereby tax therein, values depre- values, (c) general community-wide ciating further the That the ex- substantially istence Such areas increasingly contributes *9 necessitating the spread crime, of disease and dispro- excessive and portionate public expenditures preservation funds for the of the public safety, prevention, health and crime correction, prosecu- juvenile and treatment of tion, punishment delinquency and for adequate police, fire and accident protection maintenance public facilities, services and an other constitutes and economic and substantially or impairs arrests liability, growth the sound social communities, (d) foregoing beyond That conditions are remedy by regulatory processes entirely in the or control exercise of effectively be dealt private cannot and police power enter- the additional existing granted. law without aids herein prise under 605 TERM, N. C.] Commission v. Bank. (e) preparation, the acquisition, sale, replanning, That sound and redevelopment of such areas accordance with sound approved and plans promote for their will the public health, safety, hereby it is Therefore, convenience and welfare. to declared be the policy promote of -the State of North Carolina to the health, safety, thereof and welfare inhabitants the creation of bodies corporate as politic and to be known commissions, operate public purposes shall exist and acquiring holding and of or replanning disposing and areas of them in they economically such maimer that shall available for and become socially hereby redevelopment. purposes sound Such to are declared money public public may spent, uses for which be private be and may acquired by property be the exercise of eminent domain.” Housing 693,
In 213 we Authority, Wells N.C. 197 S.E. held of slum areas in cities and towns of the that eradication having inhabitants, than fifteen population of more thousand housing adaptation property project a low-cost and Kinston, to be to tenants was a also Cox leased use. See Assembly 1941, Chapter 2d 252. The General N.C. S.E. original so Housing amended the Authorities Law make In throughout and rural the State.” Mallard apply to “urban areas Authority, N.C. 2d held that the Housing S.E. we controlling the amendment Cox cases were Wells was a use. original applicable law to rural communities Respondent Wells, cases that Cox Mallard contends Housing Authorities authority for the reason that under here, no Housing Authority, taken remains title Law taken, any or Redevelopment Law land and under Urban sold, exchanged or otherwise transferred may therein, interest be redeveloper. forth, provides that Law, as above set
The Urban exchanged may sold, or therein, or interest taken, the land “subject covenants, to such redeveloper, to a transferred otherwise be in the may be deemed to and restrictions conditions article,” provides purposes of this carry out the toor interest be made sale, exchange other transfer that such further by redevelopment plan approval subject to, the after, notice. The after municipality and body governing provides contract be- Law further (G.S. redeveloper Redevelopment tween" redeveloper re- shall contain (d)) shall 160-464 *10 IN THE SUPREME COURT. Redevelopment Commission develop property not in with desires, accordance his own but- redevelopment plan accordance with the to prevent so as blighted foreseeable future a recurrence of the area. opinion,
In our so hold, upon by Judge we facts established Preyer’s findings respondent’s fact land for was public overwhelming opin- use. This is in accord with the weight of ion. Anno. 44 2d 1420, seq. A.L.R. et purpose Redevelopment
Once of the Urban Law has established, executing project been the means of are for the Assembly, Assembly General General alone to determine. public purpose by private be well or better as served en- terprise continuing with placed by such restrictions and conditions redeveloper to the purposes contract effectuate of the Urban — Law, department of the State and so the Assembly apparently by placing General safeguards concluded such say the redeveloper. around We cannot the conclusion of the Assembly Parker, supra. is erroneous. General Berman The sale merely redeveloper or transfer to the incidental collateral primary purpose of the Urban Law. Housing In Hunter & Authority, Norfolk 326, 893, Supreme Appeals Va. 78 S.E. Court 2d held that 36-1 Housing Law, Code, Authorities Sections in- cluding provisions redevelopment blighted therein for areas and acquisition through purpose of land condemnation for not does provision, though authority violate constitutional even em- powered acquired make statute to land thus available private enterprise redevelopment. for Nashua, In Velishka v. 99 N.H. 106 A. 2d A.L.R. 2d (1954), providing redevelop it was held that a statute -blighted improper ment of not rendered an exercise areas power provision making of eminent domain land available private, public, or lease agencies, subject as well sale consistent plan. conditions The Court said: specifically “The challenged Authority act is because it allows project the land to make in a available for sale or It private agencies. lease to is contended that this is an improper exercise of of eminent domain, even if origi taking may nal be for a purpose dispo because the ultimate sition of the not for use. The same contention was Realty City made andf answered in Gohld Co. v. Hartford, purpose A2d 369: ‘The act is to remove prevent slums and but redeveloped areas also to areas *11 TERM, 1960. 607 Ni- C.] Redevelopment Commission v. Bank. reverting . . . accomplished
from
their former status
.This is
portions
of sales and leases of
requiring as
condition
area
(“be
private
property
developed
redeveloped
persons that
1947,
If the
purposes specified
plan.”
210,§5).
in such
Laws
c.
justifies
use
the exercise of eminent
in
first
domain
slums,
purposes other than
property
instance is
use of the
property is transferred to
that same
use
after the
continues
the land
private persons.
public purposes
The
for which
was taken
being
The resale or lease
conditions
accomplished.’
are still
redevelopment plan are
essential and continu-
with the
an
consistent
recognized by many
has been
ing part
purpose.
This
jurisdictions.
Redevelopment Housing
&
Authori-
Hunter v. Norfolk
Chicago,
114,
389 Ill.
59 N.
893;
2d
Zurn v.
ty,
326,
195
78 S.E.
Va.
110 N.E.
13,
v.
Ohio St.
18;
Rich,
E. 2d
ex
Bruestle
159
State
rel.
331 Mich.
City Detroit,
of
of
778;
2d
Matter
Slum Clearance
714,
In Annotation 44 et be found seq., A.L.R. 2d twenty states, a list of cases from and three cases from the United — including in which the Parker, supra, Courts Berman v. State upheld in Re Supreme Court United States 1954 Urban of Columbia, question of the District and settled the of newal Act of “public use,” process as far as the due clause the federal constitu — upholding validity redevelop of generally tion concerned serving use,” “public expressly implicitly ment re laws jecting use or purpose the contention that is not served in because of question provisions acts acquired private interests. in transfer of lands See also accord scholarly opinion Supreme of Court of Texas in Davis v. City Agency City Lubbock and Urban Lub Renewal (15 July 699, 326 2d wherein numerous bock, Texas, 1959), S.W. jurisdictions, In some law review articles are cited. con text and greater specificity helped or lesser have provisions of stitutional Murray especially to reach the conclusion. See v. La Guardia Court (1943) 320, 884, 771, 2d cert. 321 88 291 N.Y. 52 N.E. denied U.S. L. Ed. Florida, Housing Authority, 1952, v. 60 Adams So. Courts Authority 1953, 209 663; Georgia, Housing Johnson, v. Ga.
2d Carolina, City 891; of South Edens v. Colum- 560, 74 2d S.E. contrary. have held to the On 280, 228 91 S.E. 2d bia, 1956, S.C. Supreme Court of Florida v. 1959 the Grubstein 18 November 745, by 2d City Tampa, 115 So. Agency Urban Renewal Renewal Law re- held decision, to 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT. lating' to slum clearance and are not unconstitutional, though even provides the law for the lease or sale private majority opinion interests. The said: thus “It can be seen the real distinction between the statute in project volved the Adams case andi those involved the instant lies case in the 'purpose sought thereby.” Subsequent to be achieved of Housing case Authority Georgia Johnson, amended its constitution, Bailey Housing Authority City Bainbridge, 2d the Court Ga. S.E. held that *12 Redevelopment the Urban Law of is expressly 1955 authorized the amendment, constitutional disposition the sale or the of such private enterprise areas to private for uses or to for bodies public uses, not providing unconstitutional as taking private property private use and not for a purpose.
Judge Preyer’s respondent’s conclusion of law the that in proceeding this “public use,” eminent domain is for a is not I, in violation of Article 1 Section or of Article Section 17 North is Constitution, correct, respondent’s Carolina assignment of error 1 is number overruled.
Respondent assigns Preyer’s Judge as error third conclusion of to the that law effect the is not Urban Law an un- delegation legislative lawful in power, II, violation of Article 1, Section of the State Constitution. is, course, II,
It
fundamental
that
under
Section
legislative power
the North
Constitution all
in
Carolina
this State
in
Assembly, except
rests
General
as authorized
Constitu-
in
tion,
municipal corporations. Taylor
as
Racing
cases
Asso.,
Assembly,
241 N.C.
Redevelopment Commission v. agency power in a subordinate to apply applica- or withhold the unguided tion of the in its absolute or High- law discretion.” Coastal way v. Turnpike Authority, supra. See the same effect 11 Am. Jur., Law, Constitutional 234; C.J.S., Section Law, Constitutional Section 138.
Respondent’s contention in this connection is: 'the. language'of (1) Urban Law guide, does not create standard (2) provided “if the merely redevelopment act that a commis- sion finding was be created blighted areas existed then -there delegation legislative would be no authority,” but goes legislative act further and vests in municipality in determine its unbridled discretion whether it best in- terests of the redevelopment create the commission.
G.S. 160-457(a) municipality, authorities each defined redevelopment Law create a commission. (b) provides governing body municipality Subsection aof “(1) shall create a commission unless it findis: (as That defined) areas herein municipality, exist (2) necessary That of such areas interest of health, safety, morals or welfare of resi- dents of such A municipality.” “blighted area” is defined in G.S. “ 160-456(q) ‘Blighted follows: area’ shall mean an area which *13 (or predominance there a buildings improvements of or which predominantly character), which, by reason of residential and dilapidation, age obsolescence, inadequate provi- or deterioration, ventilation, light, air, density sion for or sanitation, open spaces, high population unsanitary of or overcrowding, conditions, or unsafe endanger the existence of fire life or conditions causes, substantially and other factors, or combination of such impairs health, ill growth community, sound of the is conducive juvenile disease, mortality, delinquency transmission of infant crime, or public health, safety, and is morals detrimental welfare; blighted no nor provided, shall considered area area a subject power domain, meaning to the of of this eminent within the article, unless it is that at planning determined commission least the area are of buildings two-thirds number of within substantially the character this con- described in subsection and area; provid- making tribute conditions such area if under the ed that shall be exercised domain eminent en- shall be article, respondents or respondent this their represented by titled to be their selection and counsel of own court, reasonable counsel fees fixed taxed as paid by costs netitioners.” IN THE SUPREME COURT.
610 Redevelopment Commission v. statutory
It a fundamental rule of construction that sections in -pari materia, parts thereof, acts and all should be construed Keith, together compared with each other. Lockhart, v. 171 N.C. 451, 640, 916; 88 S.E. Cas. 1918D Blowing Ann. Rock v. Gregorie, 364, Jur., 243 N.C. 2d 898; Statutes, 90 S.E. 50 Am. 348. If Section governing body. municipality of a should “blighted find that corporate limits, areas” exist within its it logically follows that finding “that the redevelopment effect of such areas is necessary health, safety, interest or wel- morals municipality.” residents of such fare Assembly prescribed adequate has a definite and General guide, governing body creating and the municipality creating “in commission cannot act its abso unguided lute opinion, hold, discretion.” In our and we so any illegal delegation Law not confer does legislative power upon petitioners II, violation Sec 1, by respon tion Constitution, the North Carolina as contended support dent. find for the conclusion have reached in the We we Gohld, jurisdictions. overwhelming weight of the authorities in other Realty 365; City Hartford, 135, Co. v. 141 Conn. 104 N.E. 2d 757; Opinion Justices, 343, Housing 254 Ala. 48 So. 2d Rowe v. Authority, 698, 551; Redevelopment Agency 220 Ark. 249 2d S.W. 777, 105, Hayes, App. San Francisco v. 122 2d 266 P. 2d cert. Cal. of den. Van Redevelopment Agency Francisco, v. 348 U.S. San Hoff 435, 897, 705; L. 179 Kan. Agency, 99 Ed. v. Urban Renewal State 18; People 656; 296 2d Zurn Ill. N.E. 2d Chicago, P. v. 59 626; People Chicago, ex v. 2d rel. Gutknecht Ill. N.E. 791; 121 N.E. 2d Zisook Chicago, ex rel. v. 3 Ill. 2d Gutknecht Corp., 3 Ill. 2d Maryland Neighborhood Redevelopment v. Drexel Portland, 150 Me. 804; City 2d N.E. Crommett v. Baltimore, 203 841; Herzinger Mayor City Council 107 A. 2d & Authori 87; 49, 98 2d ex Dalton Land Clearance Md. A. rel. 44; supra; Nashua, Sorbino 974, 270 2d Velishka ty, 364 Mo. S.W. 473; Murray 2d v. La Super. 554, 129 A. Brunswick, v. New 43 N.J. Authority Portland, 198 Housing Ore. Guardia, supra; Foeller v. *14 Authority, 357 Pa. Belovsky Redevelopment 752; 256 P. 2d v. Governor, R.I. 953; to 76 Opinion 329, A. 2d 172 A.L.R. 54 80 Redevelopment Agency, 531; Ajootian v. Providence 249, A. 2d 69 Nashville, Housing Authority v. 21; 91 A. 2d Nashville R.I. Milwaukee, Term. v. 946; Jeffrey David Co. 103, 2d S.W. Redevelopment & 362; 2d Hunter 66 N.W. Wis. Norfolk Anno. 44 A.L.R. Parker, supra; supra; Berman v. Housing Authority, TERM, N.C.]
Redevelopment v. Bank. seg. 2d et See Cox Kinston, supra. assign- also Respondent’s ment of error two number in this is untenable, connection overruled.
Respondent assigns Judge Preyer’s as error fourth conclusion law to the effect that Urban Law does not confer upon petitioners the power grant to to person persons a or set of ex- clusive or separate privileges emoluments or from community in not consideration public services, in violation of Article Sec- tion 7 of the North Carolina Constitution.' 160-464(a),
G.S. set forth above, empowers sell, exchange Commission to property any or transfer real or in- terest private therein to person, sale, a but etc., “subject such to covenants, may conditions and restrictions as be deemed to be carry interest or to purposes" out the Re- development Law, “may only after, subject be made to, approval of governing body municipality and specified after notice and in” award G.S. (b). 160-464 (b) G.S. 160-464 prescribes, property “no sale of by the commission or any developer ... be contract a shall effected except after advertisement bid and awarded as hereinafter out,” set except private in case sale to the municipality other (c) (8) body specified (1), (2) subsection (b) provides may 160-464. rejected, Subsection all bids be and fur- provides receipt ther after of all bids the sale shall be made to the highest responsible bidder. Respondent’s provision property contention is that that highest sold “to the that there responsible bidder” means
is no discrimination and.not that purchasers, selection of the ultimately person special a certain of persons or set receive benefits, provide does not the Urban Law shall be at its actual sold use value or value.
Although legislative policy have findings and declaration of magical quality invalid, no to make valid that which is subject judicial review, construing they weight are entitled in determining promotes statute and whether the statute purpose or use under The Nashua, supra. the Constitution. Velishka challenged result seeks achieve is to ultimate which the statute injurious in a consequences eliminate the caused area will municipality, and to them substitute for a use the area impossible blight injurious consequences. render future its challenged preventive statute is a A sale in measure. subject redeveloper, placed
area to a restrictions around *15 IN THE COURT. 612 SUPREME Bank. v. normally property should not sale, etc., by statute, proper, the tax rolls ownership should be restored to kept public be but it. The sale is has further need for when the no use ancillary primary project, but is incidental purpose the transaction as a whole. it, and does not affect nature separate emol- etc., confer exclusive sale, exchange, Such a cannot for the sale is to persons, or set of privileges person uments or to a responsible bidder, and highest be notice to the made after persons all exchange, etc., which may rejected: sale, all bids be sale, that at such logical and it is a inference bid, are entitled to not, If bring its fair market value. will exchange, etc., property largely Europe have been rejected. great cities of be the bid can their moneys by the edicts of through expenditure rebuilt Constitution, to unable, our held under If to be rulers. our cities are must con- projects, our cities such reconstruction plan and construct crime, of disease and by areas, which are centers marred tinue to be contributing young, and while influences constitute vicious proportion cities, an excessive our consume tax little to the income fire, police, required for services because of the extra revenues its may It be that measure protection. other forms of health and advised, ill but the and is eventually disappointment, prove judicial question. not a legislative is a of the wisdom enactment with new modes experiment Assembly right has the The General by the Constitution. evils, except prevented dealing with old in the follow we have reached the conclusion support find We supra; Housing v. (Ala.), Rowe the Justices Opinion ing cases: v. Redevelopment Agency San Francisco (Ark.), supra; Authority, Redevelopment Agency v. den Van (Cal.), supra, cert. Hayes, Hoff 705; Urban Renewal L. Ed. State v. Francisco, U.S. San Chicago Com Land Clearance City, (Kan.), supra; Agency Kansas 236; ex rel. Dalton 310, 104 N.E. 2d 411 Ill. White, mission v. (N.H.), supra; Nashua, (Mo.), Velishka Authority, Land Clearance Ajoo (Ore.), Authority Portland, supra; Housing Foeller v. supra; (R.I.), supra; Hunter v. Redevelopment Agency, v. Providence tian supra; Housing Authority, (Va.), David Redevelopment & Norfolk 2d, p. supra. Anno. A.L.R. (Wis.), See Jeffrey Milwaukee, v.Co. compared price.” transferred property “Value Pennsylvania said Supreme Court In this connection objections supra: Redevelopment Authority, “One Belovsky v. constitutionality Act against urged n isthe contemplates 'redevelopment project’ feature redevelopment, involved Authority by sale TERM, N. C.J Commission *16 being thereby claimed operation that the final result is
it property take from give one or more it to individuals and another or Nothing, course, others. property is better settled than that can- be by government not taken without owner’s consent for the mere purpose devoting private another, though it to the use of even there be involved in the transaction public. an incidental benefit to the But plaintiff the nature purpose misconceives and extent object which is legislation. of this purpose, point- That as before out, ed one requiring continuing ownership is not property it is in Housing carry as Authorities Law order to case purpose the full is act, solely out of that but directed to the clear- ance, blighted area.,- reconstruction and rehabilitation of the and after is that accomplished purpose completely When, realized. therefore, the need for ownership terminated, has it is proper private ownership, that land re-transferred to subject only to necessary such restrictions andi as pur- controls are effectuate poses object It is not the act. of the statute to transfer another; transfers, from one they individual to so far may actually occur, purely accomplishment are incidental to the or purpose.” real fundamental
Respondent’s assignment of error number three to Judge Preyer’s conclusion law four number is overruled.
Respondent assigns Preyer’s error Judge fifth conclusion of law effect that as funds derived from sources other than ad tax revenue valorem of Greensboro have used, ap- been spent propriated by petitioners, and that sums in the future will be appropriated other from sources than ad revenue, valorem tax provisions V, of Article Section of the North Constitution, Carolina applicable proceeding. not determination this The find- ings of fact not spent appropriated by peti- do show the funds levied, therefore, from V, tioners came taxes Article Section 3, here applicable of our Constitution to a decision This assign- here. A question
ment of error overruled. determination of the whether provision or not the further that “to obtain funds municipality may levy purpose, taxes and prescribed by law issue and sell bonds” is manner its constitutional decision, day us for and must another is not before and another await suit, question squarely presented. when the infirmity find constitutional
We no challenged by assignments that it has been of error Law to extent proceeding. Respondent’s assignments numbers in this of error five IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Bedevelopment v. Bank. and six are- Judge Preyer’s overruled. unchallenged findings of fact, his support -conclusions of law, and his judgment based thereon. Affirmed.
Bobbitt, J., concurring. agree fully I the condemnation of defendant’s property may not be defeated any ground on asserted defendant. pleaded While defendant the several constitutional re-
ferred to in the opinion, Court’s plead did not VII, Section 7, Constitution of Carolina, North provides: county, “No city, town, or other municipal corporation shall any contract debt, pledge its faith or credit, loan its nor shall tax be levied or collected by any officers of the same except necessary expenses thereof, *17 approved by unless majority a of those who shall any thereon in vote election held for purpose.” plead Defendant’s failure to VII, Section- support lends to the view expressed dissenting opinion Higgins. of Justice City authority
Whether any Greensboro has to debt, contract .pledge or to its credit, faith or loan its levy or collect aiiy'tax, provide funds to effectuate the project,'unless ap- proved by majority voters, presented a of the is not for decision on appeal. this Assuming approval by majority a of the voters in such required, expensive election would be futile well as to conduct if, approval by majority such election after voters, a it were plaintiffs then decided right no to condemn for reasons have now Hence, persuaded present asserted defendant. I de- am justified though pertinent questions cision even were not raised all Defendant, my opinion, fully and'fairly presentr has defendant. questions ed on appeal arguments bearing this all available presently considered decided. explanation, this I
With concur. Higgins, J., predeces- in this case and in its dissenting. The records sor, 413, show a com- Wall, Greensboro v. 247 N.C. 101 S.E. 2d prehensive plan City far-reaching redevelopment city agen- its carry plan require will Greensboro. To out the levy cies to taxes and to issue bonds. purchase city $15,600
The has the sum available highly lot 20 x In technical sense trans- 90 feet here involved. a butting head-on into action, therefore, may step short of stop half a expenditures of tax and bond prohibition against the constitutional transaction money approving little involves without an vote. This plan. This except lot as a city which the does not need TERM, 1960. N. C.]
Ivey Department. v. Prison if per- to see be trial balloon me to therefore, appears proceeding, approval by step to the along step led this chance Court the voters. the issue to city to submit requiring without re- issue. I real vote up to the required to face The should be that it does ground on this action judgment and dismiss verse controversy. present real KING, JR., IVEY, G. CECIL M. CHARLES Estate Administrator DEPARTMENT. PRISON v. NORTH CAROLINA Deceased, June, 1960.) (Filed 10
1. State 3a—§ Act, immunity its from waives the State Under the State Claims Tort officers, negligence liability injuries resulting em- of its from the person private ployees conditions if under the servants same jurisdiction given liable, Industrial Commission would be and the pass on such claims. to hear tort 49— Master and Servant § Same: expressly repealed prior all laws con- The State Tort Claims Act repealed therewith, re- this Act and therefore flict pugnant provisions G.S. prior 97-13(e) the 1957 amendment. 3. Same— fatally injured prisoner personal representative of a who negligent assigned performing act an result while task prosecute employee a claim under the of the State is entitled to of an Tort Claims Act right is the 1957 amendment unless such withdrawn *18 (c). 97-13 4. Same— Laws, 1957) 97-13(c) (Chap. Public The 1957 amendment G.S. limiting liability for the death the effect of does not have employee resulting negligence prisoner from the of a state of a (c), personal expenses payment 97-13 but of funeral under G.S. prosecute prisoner may representative deceased claim under payment expenses, Act, of funeral even since the State Tort Claims the though compensation, payment compensation is not the express 97-2(11) applies its and -the 1957 amendment in G.S. defined discharged prisoners compensation. prisoners entitled terms 13— 5. Statutes § implication Repeals by by the law and will not be not favored indulged other reasonable construction. if there is J., dissenting. Rodman, dissenting
Denny, J., joins opinion.