348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Congress enacted the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945, which made legislative findings regarding substandard housing and blighted areas in the District and declared the acquisition of property for redevelopment to be a public use.1 The Act created the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency with power to acquire property by eminent domain.2 It also directed the National Capital Planning Commission to develop a comprehensive plan and specific project plans subject to approval by the District Commissioners.3
The initial project under the Act concerned Project Area B in Southwest Washington, D.C.4 Surveys conducted in connection with the 1950 comprehensive plan revealed that 64.3% of dwellings in the area were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, and only 17.3% were satisfactory.5 Many dwellings lacked basic amenities, including outside toilets in 57.8% of units, no baths in 60.3%, no electricity in 29.3%, no wash basins or laundry tubs in 82.2%, and no central heating in 83.8%.6 The area had a population of 5,012 persons, 97.5% of whom were Negroes.7
The redevelopment plan for Area B specified land uses and required that at least one-third of new dwelling units be low-rent housing at a maximum of $17 per room per month.8 Following a public hearing, the District Commissioners approved the plan, and the Planning Commission certified it to the Agency for execution.9 The Agency began preliminary steps to redevelop the area.10
Appellants owned a department store at 712 Fourth Street, S.W., in Area B.11 Their property was commercial and not used for habitation.12 They brought suit in the District Court to enjoin the condemnation of their property under the Act.13 A three-judge District Court dismissed the complaint in Schneider v. District of Columbia, 117 F. Supp. 705.14 The case reached the Supreme Court on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.15
Whether the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional as applied to the condemnation of property that is not itself substandard housing?16
The role of the judiciary in determining whether eminent domain power is exercised for a public purpose is extremely narrow, as the legislature is the main guardian of public needs served by social legislation, and the concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive, embracing aesthetic as well as monetary values.1718
Yes. Congress made legislative findings that acquisition of property is necessary to eliminate substandard housing and blighted areas injurious to public health, safety, morals, and welfare, and declared such acquisition a public use.19 The initial project under the Act addressed Project Area B, where surveys showed 64.3 percent of dwellings beyond repair, 18.4 percent needing major repairs, and widespread absence of basic amenities such as baths and central heating.20 Appellants' commercial property at 712 Fourth Street lies within that area.21
The Planning Commission determined that the area must be redesigned as a whole to eliminate overcrowding, inadequate streets, and lack of recreational space so that the cycle of decay could be controlled.22 Because the need of the area as a whole controls, the presence of one non-blighted parcel does not remove it from the redevelopment plan.23
The Act is constitutional as applied to the condemnation of appellants' property.24
Whether the taking of commercial property for redevelopment by private entities satisfies the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment?25
Once the object of eminent domain is within congressional authority, the means chosen to attain it, including the use of private enterprise for redevelopment, are for Congress alone to determine, and the public end may be served as well or better through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government.26
Yes. The Act authorizes the Agency to lease or sell assembled land to private redevelopment companies or individuals who must carry out the approved plan.27 Appellants argued that transferring their commercial property to private management for private use converts the taking into one from one businessman for the benefit of another.28 The statute, however, requires that all leases and sales conform to the comprehensive plan, and preference is given to private enterprise only after the public purpose of eliminating blight has been established.29
Congress could conclude that private redevelopment serves the public interest in a balanced community containing new homes, schools, parks, and shopping centers.30
The taking of commercial property for redevelopment by private entities satisfies the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.31
Whether the standards prescribed by the Act are adequate to guide the delegation of authority to the Redevelopment Land Agency?32
The standards in the Act are adequate when they direct the Agency to eliminate not only slums narrowly defined but also blighted areas that tend to produce slums, because community redevelopment programs need not proceed on a piecemeal, lot-by-lot basis.33
Yes. Section 2 of the Act contains legislative findings on substandard housing and blighted areas, and Section 5 grants the Agency power to acquire property for the redevelopment of blighted territory and the elimination of causes of blight.34 Section 6 requires the Planning Commission to adopt a comprehensive land-use plan and specific project plans that set standards for population density, building intensity, and low-rent housing.35 These provisions guided the preparation of the Area B plan, which allocated land uses and required at least one-third of new units to be low-rent housing at a maximum of seventeen dollars per room per month.36
The standards therefore supplied sufficient guidance for the Agency to execute an integrated redevelopment plan.37
The standards prescribed by the Act are adequate to guide the delegation of authority to the Redevelopment Land Agency.38
Whether the Agency may take full title to the land rather than only the objectionable buildings?39
If the Agency considers it necessary in carrying out the redevelopment project to take full title to the real property involved, it may do so, because it is not the function of the courts to sort and choose among the various parcels selected for condemnation or to decide whether title to the land must be included.40
Yes. The District Court expressed doubts about the Agency's authority to take full title rather than merely the objectionable buildings.41 The Act, however, empowers the Agency to acquire and assemble real property by eminent domain for the redevelopment of blighted territory.42 Once the public purpose of the Area B project was established, the need for any particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch and its authorized agencies.43
The Agency therefore may acquire fee title to appellants' department store property as part of the overall assembly of land in the project area.44
The Agency may take full title to the land rather than only the objectionable buildings.45