![]() ![]() 1 are in a state of dilapidation and obsolescence, with consequent overcrowding of families, lack of proper ventilation and light and sanitary facilities to an extent which endangers the public safety, health, morals and welfare and "WHEREAS, a substantial majority of the buildings within the area embraced in Redevelopment Project No. I as embraced within the resolution adopted by said Commission, certified copies of which are on file with the Board, and the said ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chicago enacted on the 22nd day of April, 1949, and the report of the Chicago Land Clearance Commission in respect to such project, and has further reviewed the testimony and evidence presented in favor of and in opposition to the acquisition of said site at the hearings of the City Council of the City of Chicago, and at the hearings before the Board on May 5th and May 13th, 1949 and "WHEREAS, the State Housing Board has investigated the physical characteristics of the said area and has fully reviewed the application of the Chicago Land Clearance Commission, and its determination in respect to said Redevelopment Project No. ![]() We will set forth the resolution of approval of the board since this action is the principal subject of attack in this case. Complaint and motions to dismiss contain the following uncontradicted pertinent facts: That the Chicago Land Clearance Commission made their finding that the property in question is a slum and blighted area on December 8, 1948, and adopted a resolution confirming the same that this determination by the commission was approved by the city council of the city of Chicago on Apthat the approval of the State Housing Board was entered on May 13, 1949. The commission and the board filed similar motions to dismiss, alleging that the Administrative Review Act had no application to proceedings under the Blighted Areas Redevelopment Act. It is also claimed by appellants that their constitutional *379 rights were violated in that they received no notice of the pendency of a proceeding before the Chicago Land Clearance Commission or the State Housing Board. The appellants admit full compliance with the Blighted Areas Redevelopment Act of 1947 but assert their right to question the State Housing Board's determination under the provisions of the Administrative Review Act. The complaint under consideration was filed on behalf of persons who are owners of property in the allegedly blighted area, and seeks a review of the approval by the State Housing Board of the determination by the Chicago Land Clearance Commission that it should acquire for slum clearance purposes the land in question. This cause relates to a slum clearance project, located on the south side of Chicago, identical with the one this court considered in the case of Chicago Land Clearance Com. This appeal comes here from a judgment entered in the superior court of Cook County wherein appellants' complaint was dismissed as being devoid of legal sufficiency. JUSTICE BRISTOW delivered the opinion of the court: RUSSELL SCOTT, and WILSON & McILVAINE, both of Chicago, (CLAY JUDSON, PETER A. ELLIOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, J. CHICAGO LAND CLEARANCE COMMISSION et al., Appellees. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |