a valid public purpose for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. Once it becomes clear that the purpose falls within the scope of congressional authority, the Court stated, it follows that Congress has wide discretion in the choice of specific means to achieve that goal. Thus, the aid of private enterprise may be sought in order to redevelop a given area. In addition, urban renewal may be brought about on an area, rather than on a structure-by-structure basis, thus permitting the acquisition of all property within a given project area even if certain particular parcels may not be liable to be classified as substandard. The wisdom or accuracy of the decisions made by the agencies set up by Congress to accomplish urban renewal are, for the most part, beyond the scope of judicial review. As the Court said in the Berman case:
'It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch. * * *
'The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive that just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.' Supra, 348 U.S. at pages 35-36, 75 S. Ct. at page 104.
These principles laid down by the Supreme Court with respect to the very agencies and statutes challenged by defendant here, pertain to the main issues raised in her answer. The redevelopment of areas in the southwest section of the District of Columbia obviously has a public purpose and the various plans and procedures used by plaintiff fall clearly within the reach of congressional and agency discretion.
Furthermore, there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact. There seems to be no question as to what procedure the plaintiff followed or what terms were embodied in the various proposals, understandings or agreements questioned by defendant. The controversy here centers on the legal characterization to be applied to plaintiff's actions and thus solely involves matters of law. It is also essential that the issues be material and substantial rather than merely formal. 'There may be no genuine issue even though there is a formal issue. Neither a purely formal denial nor, in every case, general allegations, defeat summary judgment.' Dewey v. Clark, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 143, 180 F.2d 766, 772.
In view of the principles stated above, and in the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the court concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and its motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Counsel will present an appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.