|
July 10th, 1956.
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 10th, 1956, there were present:
<br />
<br />Fred A. Duke, B. W. Baker, Frank N. Bilisoly,Jr., .George L. Grimes, R.E. Hawks,
<br />J. N.Howard, E. W. Lawrence, R. Irvine Smith, E. R. Sturtevant, Pearle J. Wilsqn,
<br />I. G. Vass, CityManager, and R.C. Barclay, City Attorney.
<br />
<br />Minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.
<br />
<br />The following reports from the CityManager were read:
<br />
<br />ending June SOth, 1956,
<br />purposes outlined below:
<br />
<br />56-201 "I recommend that the following amounts be carried over from the fiscal year
<br />into the fiscal year beginning July l, 1956, the amount having been appropriated for the
<br />
<br />From Capital Fund - Furniture for Circuit
<br />Traffic Survey
<br />Aerial Ladder Truck - Fire Department
<br />
<br />Motion
<br />
<br /> $614.75
<br /> Court room 1,500.00
<br /> 12,000.00
<br /> 34,975.00'
<br /> 32,100.00."
<br />
<br />of Mr. Hawks to concur ~n the recommendation of the City Manager was adopted.
<br />
<br />56-202 - "I recommend the following appropriations from the Utility Tax Fund:
<br />
<br />Alterations to School Buildings -
<br />Equipment for School Buildings
<br />Debt Service - School Buildings
<br />New Junior High School Building
<br />Carry-over appropriation previously
<br /> made for new Junior High School
<br />
<br /> 50,000.00
<br /> 8,500.00
<br /> 5,750.00
<br />200,000.00
<br />
<br />18,820.00."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Howard to concur in the recommendation of the City Manager and place an
<br />appropriation of $264,250.00 for said purpose on first reading, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> 54-203 - "I submit the attached amendment to the City Code and recommend that it be
<br />placed on its f~rst reading."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Howard to place the following ordinance on first reading, was adopted:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO ~MEND AND RE-ORDAIN SECTION 5.3 OF THE CODE OF TH]~ CITY refer
<br /> OF _PORTSMOUTH, 1951, RELATING TO FIRE LIMITS OR DISTRICTS"
<br />
<br /> 56-204 - "I submit the attached letter from the Portsmouth Theatre Association in ~
<br />ence to the elimination of the amusement tax, for Mour information.."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr, Hawks to refer to the City Manager, was adopted,
<br />
<br />56-205 - "I submit the following letter for your.consideration:
<br />
<br /> wi am asking the City Manager, Mr. Vass, go read this letter tonight, July 10, 1956, at
<br /> the regular session of City Council, and request that it be incorporated within the minutes ar this time.
<br /> It was most gratifying to see the position taken by the Virgznia Supreme Court of
<br /> Appeals in de~ymng the .green light to the 'slum clearance' program as projected by the Redevelopment and Housing
<br /> A~thority of Bristol, Va. and approved by that city's council.
<br /> The high court in upholding the Bristol Corporation Court said in effect, that an area,
<br /> any area, can not be condenmed and cleared merely because an authority and City Council desire 'to eliminate a
<br /> blighted and deteriorated area, a part of which is a slum'. The area must be shown to be a slum as defined by
<br /> the State Code, not just a blighted and deterioratedneighborhood, nor even' substandard' as might be claimed
<br /> by an authority. 'The coalition of an area' Justice John W. Ellgleston said, speaking for the Court ' is the vet
<br /> basis of the ~urisdiction and power of a redevelopment authorizy to acquire property ... by eminent domain..'
<br /> The Furpose of the redevelopment must not be primarily for commercial uses and ' .... unless, the area meets
<br />this definition, the authority has no power to acquire it and the Council has no basis for the approval of such
<br />taking.'
<br /> This was substantially the position of the Portsmouth Citizens' Protective League. ~e-
<br />sides there was the economic infeasibility and the totally unnecessary loss of revenue to the City, had the Coun-
<br />cil approved .the so-called tciv~c center'. The purpose of the redevelopment as projectedand finally submitted bvl
<br />thePortsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority was clearly 'commercial, although the authority denied. Section-
<br />VIII in the contract, however,-which.the authority presented to the Portsmouth City Council, reads: ~This re-
<br />development plan may be modified, changed or amended at any time by the Authority with the consent and approval
<br />of the governing body of the municipality.'
<br /> The position of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is essentially the same an that
<br />taken by the Norfol~ Virginian Pilot in its reference to the 'civic center' plan as proposed by the Portsmouth ~
<br />Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Indeed, the Pilot saw the issue clearly, back in 1953, two months after the [
<br />Portsmouth Authority presentedits originalplans. It said, 'The Virginia Eousing Authority Law from which the
<br />Authority receives its power, was passed primarily to clear slums ...' and nor as proposed by the Portsmou~ Re-
<br />development and Housing Authority ' to provide land for a city hall and courts building, to provide down off-
<br />street-parking lots, and to clear property on which to erect new business structures.' ·
<br /> Such was the fallacy of the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority. It propose~
<br />to take private lands on which a shopping center might be built, an area in which slum clearance was only inci-
<br />dental, and an area in which admittedly the Cotmcil's proposal was only for building a new municipal building and
<br />
<br /> Such ~as the fallacy of the Sullins Street projected redevelopment in Bristol; and such
<br />is the temptation o£ housing authorities to extend and perpetuaie municipal improvements.
<br /> SuCh is the misunderstanding of'many persons and Some chambers of commerce, who are
<br />willing to go along with an a~th6rity~ They seem to lose sight of the original purpose and intent for which it
<br />
<br />
<br />
|