Amicus Curiae Brief — Blankner v. City of Chicago

08 No. 714549 “ILE CO

Supreme Court, U

Inthe FILED

Supreme Court of the Gnitenl States is

Octeser Term 1971 E ROBERT SEAVER,

FREDERIKA BLANKN ER,

“ Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO; a Municipal Corporation,

Respondent-A ppellee.

Appeal From The Supreme Court of Iinvis

| Docket 41867

ja ee.

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AND BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT

OF A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Stewarr H. Diamoxp

Applicant for Admission to Supreme

Court Bar

111 West Washington Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 782-7606

Attorney for Greater Chicago

Property Owners Council

Davin S. Kretsatax

Ten South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Tlinois 60603

(312) 236-5249

Attorney for Chicago Property

Owners Association and

American Landowners Association ©

Rosert E. Srevens

' 135 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Tlinois 60602

(312) 786-6272

Attorney for Student Government

of The University of Chicago

The Scheffer Press, Inc—(312) 263-6850

*

poo RTE IER IN a Bnet “rerhegt er ream gterliey moe

: eek

a

—

-

INDEX

-_

Constitutional Provisions Involved 0......cccececssssseecoosss.....,

I

Consolidated Petition for Leave to File Brief of Amici

Curiae in Support of a Petition for Writ of Certio-

Consolidated Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of

Frederika Blankner’s “Petition for Writ of Certio-

DT ~ liciileddt ia eae usuusssoonstidenensqunannentatennanntsnisianesessestenmens

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Preamble :

“We, the people of the United States in Order

to form a more perfect Union, establish justice,

- . and secure the blessings of liberty for our-

selves and our posterity, do ordain and establish

this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Fourteenth Amendment:

“... nor shall any State deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property without due process of

src, ee a RNID. patininashensiiets

AUTHORITIES CITED

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 34 cocccccccccccccssssoeoece...

Ross v. Chicago Land Clearance Commission, 413 TIl.

377; 108 N.E.2nd 776 (1952) oeccccccccccccccseseeesrcooseecece...

MISCELLANEOUS

Black Self-Determination, by Arthur M. Brazier,

William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand

Rapids, Michigan, 1969 .......ccscssccsssssssssssesesre cose...

21

19

‘ il .

PAGE )

“Expanding the University of Chicago” by Julian H. )

Levi in Casebook on Campus Planning and Institu-

tional Development—Ten Institutions, How They |

Did It, edited by John B. Rork and Leslie F. Rob-

bins, United States Department of Health, Edu-

cation and Weifare, 1962, pp. 107-127 oo... eee 10

“Legal and Governmental Issues in Urban Renewal”,

by Wilton S. Sogg and Warren Wertheimer, in Ur-

ban Renewal; the-Record and the Controversy, edited

by James Q. Wilson, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,

1966, pp. 126-88; reprinted from Harvard Law Re- |

othe 8 SS een 14-15}

|

Municipal and Institutional Relations Within Boston—

Benefits of Section 112 of the Federal Housing Act

of 1961, by Julian H. Levi, University of Chicago

PE, Ge: siete eae 9-10 ?

Proposal for Program to Meet the Long-Term Needs

of Woodlawn—A Long Range Proposal to Meet the

Needs of the Community and a Suaqgested Plan for

the First Stage of an Immediate Improvement Pro-

gram, prepared by and under the direction of the

Department of City Planning, with Funds provided |

through Community Renewal. Program, by the

City of Chicago and the Housing and Home Finance

Agency of the United States Government—For Dis-

cussion Purposes Only, March 1962.00.20. 8-9, 13

“Report on University of Chicago Real Estate Hous-

ing in the Campus Area” in University of Chicago

Record, an Official Publication issued by the Office of

the Secretary of the Faculties, June 10, 1968, Vol.

Be eh Ty I BE ccessipnisncatentasormnenninniniiebindanatiannning 10-11

“Urban Renewal in Newark,” by Harold Kaplan in

Urban Renewal; the Record and the Controversy,

edited by James Q. Wilson, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Bey Tey I Te ernrnctnininesiinindneneenaans 15-16

_———

iii

; PAGE

“Vast Federal Rehabilitation Planned For Woodlawn”

by Thomas M. Gray in Chicago Sun-Times, May 26,

Sere BR Se Be Graerntnetomntnnen inaitnivewicieasaioinnicnsehnin 12 -

Map: “Acquisition Parcel] Map—Slum and Blighted

Area Redevelopment Project—60th-Cottage Grove

—Department of Urban Renewal, City of Chicago,

May 13, 1965” in the “Redevelopment Plan” for the

same area, May 13, 1965, approved by the Board of

the Department of Urban Renewal June 16, 1966 and

by the City Council July 11, 1966 oo.ccccccccsseseeseeescc...... 10

Map: “Existing Structure Use & Condition—Slum and

Blighted Area Redevelopment Project—60th-Cot-

tage Grove, Department of Urban Renewal, City of

Chicago, December 1, 1964,” in the Application by

the Department of Urban Renewal to the United

States Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment with Request for Coneurrence in Planning,

February, 1965

|

|

|

| In THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Octoser Term 1971

No. 71-1549

FREDERIKA BLANKNER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation,

Respondent-A ppellee.

Appeal From The Supreme Court of Illinois

Docket 41867

CONSOLIDATED PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AND BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT

OF A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Now come the CHICAGO PROPERTY OWNERS AS.

SOCIATION, the AMERICAN LANDOWNERS AS.

SOCIATION, the GREATER CHICAGO, PROPERTY

OWNERS COUNCIL, and the STUDENT GOVERN.

MENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO and move

this Honorable Court for leave to file their consolidated

brief as amici curiae in Support of the petition for the

issuance of a Writ of Certiorari previously filed by the

petitioner, FREDERIKA BLANKN ER, in Case No. 71-

1549, and state as follows:

1. The CHICAGO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA-

TION and the GREATER CHICAGO PROPERTY

OWNERS, COUNCIL are “not-for-profit” organizations

composed of members who own real property in the Chi-.

cago-metropolitan area. The members of these organiza-

tions are principally the owners of single-family homes

eset aan aera i ei a

—2—

and small apartment buildings who are interested in the

effects and abuses of governmental power over themselves

and others similarly situated.

<

2. The AMERICAN LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

with headquarters in Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia, is

a “not-for-profit” organization with members throughout

the United States whose purpose is educational and in-

formational. The ASSOCIATION seeks to protect the

rights of small landowners and to intervene as a “friend

of the Court” in litigation where a small property owner

is involved in testing an issue important to the ASSOCIA-

TION’s membership. .

3. The STUDENT GOVERNMENT OF THE UNI- |

VERSITY OF CHICAGO is the elected, representative

assembly of the student body of 7300. members, both

graduate and undergraduate, sanctioned by the university,

to promote the interests of the student body and to foster

a university community. Towards this end the STUDENT

GOVERNMENT conducts ‘inquiries and expresses the

opinion of the organization regarding issues affecting the

student body and the university community in order to

eall attention to such problems and cooperate with the

university authorities in handling them.

4. The CHICAGO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA-

TION, the GREATER CHICAGO PROPERTY OWNERS

COUNCIL, the AMERICAN LANDOWNERS ASSOCIA-

TION, and. the STUDENT GOVERNMENT OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO were each amicus curiae

in the case at bar in the L[llinois Supreme Court.

5. -The CHICAGO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCTA-

TION, the GREATER CHICAGO PROPERTY OWNERS

COUNCIL, and the AMERICAN LANDOWNERS AS-

SOCIATION have been associated with this case as amici

—_ va

curtae since they were granted leave of the Illinois Su-

preme Court .to file briefs on October 16, 1969. These

amici filed a joint brief in the Illinois Supreme Court and

filed a petition for rehearing after the Court’s decision,

6. The organizations and associations which seek leave

to file their brief by this motion have requested the permis-

sion of the Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago to

file their views. with the Court. The City of Chicago has’

not seen fit to grant them permission to so file. The Cor-

poration Counsel’s office first responded that this ease had

been pending for a substantial period of time and that

any delay in the matter would inure to the detriment of

the City. When the City was informed that the: Rules

of the United States Supreme Court did not allow a delay ©

in the consideration of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari

pending receipt of amici briefs, the answer of the City

remained the same. It might be pointed’ out that the

history of this case is most unusual in that the Illinois

Suprentre Court after granting the privilege of amicus

standing to the makers of this motion and to the CHICA-

GO REAL ESTATE BOARD rejected petitions to appear

as amicus curiae by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,

the DEARBORN REAL ESTATE BOARD, and the -

JANITORS UNION. The interest of all of the amici and

applicants for amici is that the legal battle -being here

waged by a retired school teacher, without resources,

raises critical constitutional questions of national im-

_ portance to all owners of property large and small, and

to those professions, businesses and occupations such as

real estate brokers and janitors which are dependent upon -

the security of: rules relating to the ownership of property.

7. The case at bar relates to the procedures required

Of public bodies before land can be condemned in urban

Ce aPOR EAT

.

Wap te ergnrshaMeeeRd a PTD ES AAT AR ADR OEIC BELT AIRES a RAEN Be 2 9 TREN AE IAN LIE IT RERRS ED FE o i ES

‘ i

—4—

renewal slum projects. The interest of the STUDENT

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO |

in appearing in such a matter relates to its personal

view of the manner in which the University of Chicago

has induced the City of Chicago to act as a publie body

to realize private desires of that institution. Through

participation in this case, that organization has carried

on substantial research in the general area of urban

renewal which it believes would be useful to the Court

in its decision regarding a grant of certiorari. The interest

of the three property and landowner associations js less

scholarly but more practical. Every member of these three

organizations must deal with public bodies possessing the

power of condemnation. As owners of small amounts of

land and sinall housing units, the individual members of

these associations, like Miss BLANKNER, find it most

difficult individually to mount a large-seale attack on what

they believe to be an unconstitutional practice of govern-

ment. Only by a hearing as amicus in those few cases of

this nature which reach Appellate Courts can the great

bulk of smaller property owners express their views in

an effective manner.

8. Clarification and determinations of law by the

United States Supreme Court would be especially impor-- - ,

tant for Illinois property owners since the new Illinois |

Constitution of 1970 grants for the first time in the

State’s history broad “home rule” powers to many Illinois

municipalities. Property owners within the State of Illinois

will; for the first time, be faced with the possibility of

‘local urban renewal legislation which may fail to accord

citizens the rights of notice and hearing in the absence

of Federal guidelines.

WHEREFORE, applicants request leave to file with

the Court their brief, which because of the shortness of

time is printed following this motion.

saa ag TR Bath ee AIC Hi tiead 6 RNR te aaa

SERS Se DORE AO ee bo

PR aseas sory

In THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Ocroper Term 1971

No. 71-1549 |

FREDERIKA BLANKNER,

Petitioner-A ppellant,

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation,

Respoudent-A ppellee.

Appeal From The Supreme Court of Illinois

Docket 41867

a

CONSOLIDATED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN y

SUPPORT OF FREDERIKA BLANKNER’S

“PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI” ,

_ From the beginning of the Great Depression until the

end of the Second World War, very little building took

place in the United States. In the meanwhile, large-scale ;

movements of peoples from rural America to the great

cities of this country created wide areas in major cities

which through conversions and ill-uses had substantially ’

deteriorated. In addition to these problems which were

economic in origin, racial discrimination had resulted in j

the crowding of minority groups into sections of cities

which frequently contained the poorest quality housing.

Faced with these problems, urbanologists and planners

2

cine

came upon the concept of “urban renewal” as an answer

to the new found municipal problems.

In 1954 the United States Supreme Court was faced

with determining the constitutionality of urban renewal

which appeared to be the precise answer to the new social

problem. Thus, when presented with the new and promis-

ing concept, the Court gave it a constitutional biil of

health. The Court said,

“The experts coricluded that if the community were

to be healthy, if it were not to revert again to a

blighted or slum area, as though possessed of a

congenital disease, the area must be planned as

a whole ... it was important to redesign the whole

area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause

slums ... it was believed that the piecemeal approach,

the removal of individual structures that were of-

fensive, would be only a palliative. The entire area

needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated

plan could be developed for the region .. .”

[Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 34)

It does not need the urging of amici to bring to the

attention of the Court the fact that the brave experiments

of urban renewal have frequently not worked. That is

not to say that the United States Supreme Court should

be the arbiter of social experiments. The amici will,

however, attempt to show that one of the fields in which

urban renewal has failed has been the-protection of the

constitutional rights of the owners of property within

renewal areas. Into such an area the Supreme Court has a

responsibility of inquiry.

The amici will also attempt to show that an analysis of

this problem by the United States Supreme Court is long

overdue and that but for the impoverished nature of those

potential litigants made victims of urban renewal, the is-

sues presented by MISS BLANKNER would have come to

the attention of the Court long ago.

The amici curiae have entered this case because the

basic facts are symptomatie of the plight of tens of

thousands of American property owners who are faced N

with urban renewal. The scenario is as follows:

The property in question is an older building, either

a single-family home or a small apartment building.

The residents of the home and/or the owner of the

building are retired individuals who have paid off

the mortgage on their property and are attempting

to live their later vears in peace in a neighborhood

they have called home for some time. They have at-

tempted to keep their home or income-producing prop-

erty in a reasonable state of repair but due to its

age there are certain building violations present. A

large institution, publie or private, or a real estate

developer becomes interested in. the redevelopment

of the area. The developer uses his f riendship in muni-

cipal government to have studies made of the area

which indicate that the area ought to be renewed.

The municipal body rubberstamps the reports of its

Department of Urban Renewal and without notice

or hearing to the property owners involved unilaterally

declares the area “slum” and “blighted”. During the

next few years, rumors sweep the affected area re-

garding the possible taking by the City. Since no

one has received any communications regarding this

matter, many people wait for some active step by the

condemning authority. In the meanwhile, due to the

rumors of governmental action, repair and mainte-

nance projects are put off and the area deteriorates

further. Finally, sometimes not until after a number of

years, the governmental body which has been pre-

paring its plans begins to purchase certain properties

in the area by negotiation. At this point some people

begin to realize that the condemning authority has

never been required to satisfy anyone but itself that

the area was slum and blighted. Property owners

then approach the City, at that late date, to discover

a

exactly why the area was declared slum and blighted.

Those who inquire about the designation of their

particular buildings as “slam” and “blighted” are

told that their buildings are in “good” or “rehabilitat-

able condition” but that the other buildings in the

area are deteriorated beyond repair. Unfortunately,

everyone who asks is told that it is not theirs but

“the other buildings” which are the cause of the area’s

slum and blighted condition.

When finally almost all of the property is acquired,

those structures which were found to be “slum” and

“blighted” on governmental maps but which have

previously been acquired by the developer of the

land miraculously renew themselves so that they need

not be wrecked.

Frequently, that land which once had upon it some-

one’s retirement home, which cannot be duplicated

with the proceeds of the settlement or condemnation

’ award, serves the rather questionable social! purpose

of a parking lot or a mere buffer apne to separate

racial or economically diverse groups.

All of the statements set out in the rather sad scenario

are present in the BLANKNER ease." If the Court grants

the Writ of Certiorari, the specific facts which show the

rawness and cynicism of the public and institutional

bodies involved will be brought to your attention. The

Appellant’s brief in the Illinois Supreme Court had ap- -

pended to it six appendices. The discussion in that brief

regarding five of the appendices is appropriate here, and

the discussion of appendices “B”, “C”, “D”, “FE”, and

part of “F” are set out here, verbatim.

A study was made of Woodlawn. The first draft of this

study is entitled “Proposal for a Program to Meet Long

Term Needs of Woodlawn.” It is dated March 26, 1962

and states that it was prepared under the direction of

—o

the Department of City Planning with funds provided

through Community Renewal Program by the City of

Chicago and the Housing and Home Finance Agency of

the United States Government. It also states that it is for

discussion purposes only. Figure 2 of the study is a map

of the Woodlawn Community Area Proposal based on

United States Housing Census of 1960. According to that

map, the block on whieh petitioner’s home is located con-

tains the lowest ratio of housing units per block that are

dilapidated and deteriorating. This map was based on

_ United States Census of Housing, 1960.

' APPENDIX C

This proposal did not satisfy the needs of the University

of Chicago which wished to expand its Southern border.

In a map prepared by the Chicago Department of Urban

Renewal, dated December 1, 1964, almost every building

in the Northern portion of Woodlawn is designated as

deteriorated or having other building deficiencies. The

events that occurred in the interim are best described

by Arthur M. Brazier in Black Self-Determination (William

B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co, 1969, p. 54).

“The City had run out of funds for urban renewal

programs and .wanted $14 million from Section 112

of the Housing Act of 1959. For the City to receive

this money the University of Chicago had to sign

certification papers. The university would not sign

those papers until the City produced some kind of

urban renewal program which would guarantee the

university the land needed for the South Campus.”

This is reaffirmed by Julian Levi in Municipal and

Institutional Relations Within Boston — Benefits of See-

tion 112 of the Federal Housing Act of 1961 (University

. Of Chicago, 1964) page 10 where he states:

wai

“Section 112 and its administrative regulations speci-

fieally provides that a Certification of Expenditure

must be obtained from the institution.”

Thus, the University was in the driver’s seat in dictating

the urban plan the City was to adopt.

In order to acquire these Section 112 credits, the City

was thus compelled to find defendant-appellant’s area

slum and blighted.

APPENDIX D

As noted above, Mr. Levi stated that “the University

owned approximately 60% of the total land area between

60th and 61st Streets, Cottage Grove and Stony Island.”

But, of course, it is logical that if the area was slum and.

blighted, all.the University’s buildings would have to be

demolished. We are assuming that the area was slum

and blighted warranting such clearance. The city pre-

pared an acquisition map which shows that the City de-

liberately excluded from acquisition certain parcels of

land, many of them on the same block as defendant-appel-

lant’s property is located on. These parcels, of course,

belonged to the University. -

APPENDIX E

On June 10, 1968, a copy of the University of Chicago

Record, which claims to be an official University publica-

_ tion states:

“The South Campus, bounded by 60th Street, 61st

Street, Cottage Grove Avenue and Stony Island Ave-

nue is currently the subject of an urban renewal plan

under which substantially all of the land not presently

owned by the University will be purchased by the

University from the City. The University has owned

* about 43% of the land in south Campus for 50 years.

a

At the present time the University owns about 60%

of the land in the South Campus; it is devoted almost

exclusively -to such academic buildings as the Law

School, the School of Social Service Administration,

ter, National Opinion Research Center, the Ortho-

genic School and so forth. Of the 170 registered

students who lived in South Campus in the Autumn

Quarter of 1967, a number live in University-owned

buildings including married student housing apart-_

ments and the Plaisance Hotel. None of the Univer-

sity’s holdings in South Campus fs scheduled for demo-

lition under the Urban Renewal Program.”

Thus, although the area was declared slum and blighted

and warranted clearance, apartment buildings owned by

the University will be spared. Some of these same apart-

ments are located on the same block as defendant-appel-

lant’s. However, appellant’s building, will, if the City is

successful, be demolished.

APPENDIX F .

It might be argued that appellant’s building warrants

demolishing because of its condition. Appendix F is a

report prepared by W.W. Vincent and Co. dated Septem-

ber 17, 1963 showing the insurable value of the property

‘to be $111,000.00, the condition of the building to be good

and noting that since December, 1960, she has spent

$45,000 reconditioning the building. Exhibit F also in-

cludes a certificate of inspection of the City of Chicago

dated June 2, 1966 showing “no violations.”

es * # # #

It is significant that none of the preceding facts quoted

from the Appellant's brief was in any way contested or

denied by the City in its reply or in the oral argument.

=; i

It is most ironic to note that while this amici brief was

in preparation, newspaper articles appeared in Chicago

papers regarding the plans of the Federal Government

for the rehabilitation of Woodlawn. The first few para-

graphs of such an article written by Thomas M. Gray

which appeared on page 3 of the Chicago Sun-Times on

May 26, 1972 under the headline “Vast Federal Rehabili-

tation Planned For Woodlawn” are as follows:

“Woodlawn, the deteriorated community just south

of the University of Chicago that is filled with

vacant, abandoned buildings, is scheduled for a mas-

sive federal rehabilitation effort, it was revealed

- Thursday.

-“Federal funds are available for the rehabilitation

of buildings containing 1,159 apartments, said John

lL. Waner, Chicago area director of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Housing and Urban Development.

“Federal officials already have approved buildings

with 824 units for rehabilitation, Waner said, and

applications for another 335 units are under review..

“Funds are being reserved under HUD’s Project

Rehab, an effort to put large sums of rehabilitation

money into select areas where it might arrest blight

before it spreads.

“56 million for Chicago

“Altogether, Waner said, Chicago already has been,

approved for $56 million in Project Rehab funds.

“In Woodlawn, he added, ‘we are now working with

the Department of Urban Renewal’ of the city of |

Chicago and The Woodlawn Organization in attempt-

ing to designate specific blocks throughout Woodlawn

to concentrate the rehabilitation efforts.

“‘Our eventual goal will be to... reverse the neigh-

borhood’s continued trend toward deterioration.’

“Waner said another 126 units are presently under

rehabilitation in Lawndale, on the West Side, using

’ Project Rehab funds and another 226 units are in

“process.”

—— .

—

The aforesaid March, 1962, Study conducted by the

City of Chicago was based upon the 1960 United States

Census charts relating to housing. As stated earlier in

this brief, the survey showed that the “South Campus”

area was the least “dilapidated and deteriorating” of all

of Woodlawn, and that it was instead the area further

south than “South Campus” which was “slum” and

“blighted”. (Figure 2)

More specifically, most of the “South Campus” area

was shown to be “dilapidated and deteriorating” the mini-

mum of 0.0% to 19.9%, and only one-fourth “dilapidated

and deteriorating” 20% to 49.9%. These figures from the

United States Census of Housing established the entire

“South Campus” area to be below the “slum and blighted”

level of 51%, and therefore not eligible for clearance.

The University of Chicago, however, was interested

only in the area contiguous to its main University facili-

ties. Therefore, while for the University’s benefits, the

“South Campus” area was relegated to the bulldozer, the

other areas of Woodlawn, after 12 years of further de-

terioration, are now to be granted Federal] funds for re-

habilitation. Although the buildings in the “South Campus”

rest of Woodlawn and although the University already

owned 60% of the land in this area, the property owners

Within what was euphemistically referred to as the “South

Campus” were not offered such rehabilitation loans.

Wise, such actions do not ordinarily require Judgments

by courts but rather actions of voters. Where, however,

the actions of governments, be they praginatically wise or

ce, | ee

unwise, interfere with the constitutional rights of the

citizens, the courts provide a citizen’s prime protection

against abuses. The lack of a notice of the anticipated

declaration of a slum and blighted area and of an oppor-

tunity to be heard in that proceeding violates the due

process clause of the 14th Amendment of the United

States Constitution. Though urban renewal may be a

good thing, the process loses its validity if a citizen whose

land is to be taken in the renewal process is allowed to

voice his objection only at a time which makes that ob.

jection ineffectual.

A fair amount has been written about urban renewal

practices. Some writers have addressed themselves to the

specific question raised by the BLANKNER case. Wilton

A. Sogg and Warren Wertheimer are fhe authors of a

chapter of a book devoted to urban renewal matters; they

write as follows:

“A public hearing is potentially more effective than

a judicial proceeding in accommodating the needs of

the program to private interests. Such a hearing pro-

vides an opportunity for the presentation of objections

and suggestions bearing upon the desirability as well

as the legality of public action. Furthermore, while

- a court is not empowered to prescribe alternatives to

official action declared unlawful, a public hearing be-

fore a body other than a court may result in the modi-

fication of proposed action or the adoption of a new

plan. Hearings held at early stages in the plan are —

sometimes ineffective because of lack of public interest

and insufficient development of issues. The likelihood

of change, however, is greater during the earlier -

stages while the plan is more flexible. It is commonly

believed that hearings, whenever they occur, in fact

exert little or no influence on the decisions of the

body before which they are held, but provide only

a form for the venting of hostility toward the plan.

®t a as

a 7 = foe Sse Pe

———o

The failure of hearings to be more effective may be

attributable to inadequate legal representation of smal]

owners, to unwillingness of administrators to modify

a course of action once adopted, especially since hear-

ings are usually held at a late Stage in the progress of

the plan, and to the common absence of statutory

provisions requiring findings and other procedural

formalities.”

MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1966; reprinted

In the same volume edited by James Q. Wilson, a chap-

ter appears entitled “Urban Renewal in Newark” by

Harold Kaplan. That chapter outlines the “behind the

scenes” preparation of an urban renewal area which makes

the absence of due process notice and hearing to the

property owners all the more disturbing. The quotation

of a few paragraphs from that article will give the Court

a flavor of practices which sadly are not confined to New

Jersey:

income housing in that area ... there seemed, in fact,

to be an inverse correlation between the degree of

blight in an area and its acceptability to FHA and

fat page 237]

“None of the. institutions was any more willing to

redevelop sites with hard core slums than private

home dwellers would have been. Once again, the

Newark Housing Authority found itself unable to

Select sites solely on the basis of the degree of blight,

>.

titan

the presence of natural boundaries, or the observance

of mixed land use and other persistent blighting

factors.”

[at page 244]

The Kaplan article also indicates the. inability of elected

officials, short of the public. pressure which hearings would

inevitably bring about, to raise questions regarding the

usefulness and advisability of a particular urban renewal

project. He describes the process as follows:

“After the authority announces a project and _ the

Mayor approves an application to URA for survey

and planning funds, the pressure on the City Couneil

to add its assent is overwhelming. By this time, to;

quote one informant, the project is ‘frozen’. The

Councilmen must consider the proposal on a ‘take it or

leave it’ basis; rarely have they seriously considered

‘leaving’ a proposal approved by NHA and the Mayor.”

fat page 254]

and

“The City Council must eventually prove an urban

renewal plan and a relocation plan, and the Central

Planning Board (CPB) must declare the entire area

blighted. But such action has usually been routine.

As members of the Council and CPB have said, effec-

tive local review of clearance proposals can occur

only at the very outset of the proposal.”

fat page 254] |

Commenting on the ultimate decision after all of the

groundwork has heen done, Kaplan remarks:

“At this point the time, energy and money already

expended preclude serious local review.”

fat page 255]

In short, a single homeowner has no chance of stopping

an urban renewal project once the City government and

PO RL CORY are «ad ot

— oo

the private redeveloper have firmly committed themselves

to the project. As is pointed out in the appellant’s Peti-

tion for the Writ of Certiorari, a traverse in the ¢ondem-

nation suits is a losing proposition. If the courts are to

afford a property owner procedural due preess in the

area of urban renewal, the notice and hearing must take

and redeveloper’s economic gain have become immovable

in their positions.

It must be remembered how very different the condem-

nation proceeding is in an urban renewal project from one

involving a condemnation for a road, a school, or another

public use. In the latter instances, a successfy] traverse

can be made against the taking on the srounds that the

public body ‘does not need the land for a public purpose

law, landowners have no Standing to sue at an earlier

stage in the process (Ross y. Chicago Land Clearance

Commission, 413 II. 377; 108 N.E.2d 776 (1952).). By

the time a single property owner with sufficient courage

to resist reaches the condemnation stage, much of the

property in the area has previously been acquired and

wrecked. The landowner is thus left with the impossible

burden of proving that the area was not slum and blighted

to begin with and that it has not become slum and blighted

as a result of the urhan renewal process which has pro-

8ressed for sometime without the landowner having any

right to effectively protest such action.

=

— 18—

In the case at bar, the burden of an individua! home-

owner is made even more difficult since the private insti-

tution which will eventually receive the land already

owned substantial numbers of buildings which it could

maintain or not maintain at will. The temporary. non-

maintenance of structures in order to make them appear

slum and blighted is certainly to the interest of a private

institution which if such a determination is made will

receive the aid of eminent domain in order to acquire the

entire area. After the area is designated as slum and

blighted, the same private institution can begin to recon-

dition and remodel its buildings—a luxury which is not

accorded those property owners whose buildings will be

reduced to rubble.

During the early vears of thie century, the United

States Sapreme Court spent much of its time dealing with

the redress of unconstitutional economic wrongs arising

out of the Governmental attitude of laixers-farre. The

interpretation of the courts in according workers their

economic rights was an expecially significant example of

the expanded jurisprudence in those areas. In the more

recent decades of this century, the court has principally

addressed itself to personal rather than cconomic wrongs

During this time, Federal, state and local governments

have become more activist and have taken a more prom-

nent role in regulating and affecting the economic life o

individuals. As noted earlier, the United States Sapreme

Court and other courts have for the most part upheld

the general concept of the expansion of governmental

powers into these areas. The time has now come, however,

when after some vears of experimentation the projects

and concepts are beginning to show both their good ani |

bad sides. The United States Supreme Court while finding |

ees : — Gece eT

the general concept of urban renewal constitutional has

called upon to examine some of the particular

not been

practices which have taken place in the name of urban

The reply of the City of Chicago in opposition to the

granting of a Writ of Certiorari indicates to the Cour: that

in the traverse Miss BLANKNER'’S objections, however

comprehensive and firm, were not sufficient for the (ourt

to stop the City's condemnation of her property.

Her later liriefs will probably expand ‘further ar add

to the sound legal and practical reasons for her position

a set forth in her petition, such as the fact that to date

no one knows how much counter-evidence would be neoded

to persuade the Court to «top the City, because to dato no

property owner has succeeded in this hitherto impo: -ible

feat.

Indeed, here is one of the many reasons why this typical

case cries out for attention and decision by the Cour asx

the only means “to establish justice” and so at long ln«t to

enforce the Constitution in the field of slum-and-bligh! -on.

demnation where the Constitution has been forgotter

After years of condemnation, it ix only in the BLANK.

NER case that the issue of the definition of “dye process”

requirements in urban renewal matters has finally res hed

this Court. How many owners of property have de red

answers to the questions at har, bat have instead suf! red

im silence with condemnation or settlement rather ‘san

= =

face the practically unchallengeable condemning body!

How many would risk the value of their property in legal

fees to argue due process? Not many. The case at bar

presents such an individual and such an issue. We look

forward to presenting to the Court our amici brief if, as

we pray, the Court grants Miss BLANKNER the full hear-

ing on these important issues which she has so far been

denied.

eat wut oh

— 9} ...

CONCLUSION

_

For the reasons set forth herein it is respectfully urged

by amici curiae that this Court grant the Petition for

Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Stewart H. Diamonp

Applicant for Admission to Supreme

Court Bar

111 West Washington Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 782-7606

Attorney for Greater Chicago

Property Owners Council

Davi S. Kreisman

Ten South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 236-5242

Attorney for Chicago Property

Owners Association and

American Landowners Association

Rosert E. Stevens

135 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 786-6272 ~

Attorney for Student Government

of The University of Chicago