Purchases in which the initial offer was less than the agency approved appraisal and actual purchases at less than the agency approved appraisal

Data on purchases for urban renewal and low-rent housing were for acquisitions during the period Jan. 1, 1963, to Dec. 31, 1963. Data on purchases for Federal-aid highways were from acquisitions for the period Jan. 1, 1962, to Dec. 31, 1963.

This figure underestimates the amount since it covers only those 60 local public authorities that do not have a policy to make initial offers at the HHFA-approved appraisals. Others, of the total of 247 local public authorities purchasing property in 1963, make initial offers for some but not all properties at the HHFA-approved appraisal.

Data provided by the Bureau of Public Roads indicates that only 8 States followed the practice of offering owners of some property less than the Agency-approved appraisal, and only 1 State did it for most of its purchases.

Data on purchases by this group were for acquisitions during the period Jan. 1, 1961, to Dec. 31, 1963, with the exception of the U.S. Army Engineers for which the time period was Feb. 1, 1961, to Dec. 31, 1963. The Bonneville Power Administration purchased 2,828 of these, and in no instance did it offer less than the Agency-approved appraisal. Complete data were not available for other minor acquisitions.

Although many agencies purchased some property below their approved appraisals, most properties were purchased at the approved appraisals, and some were purchased above the approved appraisals. The table below lists the acquiring agencies showing, for the past, the purchases in which the payment to the owner was below the agency approved appraisal, at the approved appraisal, and above the approved appraisal.

Purchases in which the payment to the owner was below the agency-approved appraisal, at the approved appraisal, and above the approved appraisal

Data on purchases for urban renewal and low-rent housing were for acquisitions during the period Jan. 1, 1963, to Dec. 31, 1963. Data on purchases for Federal-aid highways were for acquisitions for the

period Jan 1, 1962, to Dec. 31, 1963.

The Urban Renewal Administration reports that this number includes some administrative takings in which there was agreement on price without judicial proceedings being initiated.

This figure underestimates the amount since it covers only those 60 local public authorities that do not have a policy to make initial offers at the HHFA approved appraisals. Others, of the total of 247 local public agencies purchasing property in 1963, make initial offers for some but not all properties at the HHFA approved appraisal.

The remaining 12,545 purchases, or 91 percent of the purchases, would be divided among purchases below, at, and above the approved appraisal.

The remaining 887 purchases, or 66 percent, were purchased at the approved appraisal or above the approved appraisal.

Data on purchases by this group were from acquisitions during the period Jan. 1, 1961, to Dec. 31, 1963, with the exception of the U.S. Army Engineers for which the time period was Feb. 1, 1961, to Dec. 31, 1963. 'The Post Office Department reports that no formal appraisal is made of property to be purchased.

N. RELATIVE SIZE OF VARIOUS PROJECT COSTS-RELOCATION COSTS, REAL. PROPERTY PAYMENTS, TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, AND OTHERS

In order to obtain information on the relationships among various. project costs for major Federal and federally-assisted programs in the recent past, the Federal agencies administering the major acquisition programs were asked to provide various cost data for representative

projects of their selection. Data provided were actual costs or reasoned estimates of the following:

(1) Payments for moving expenses.

(2) Payments for other relocation expenses.

(3) Total of payments for moving expenses and other relocation

expenses.

(4) Administrative costs of all relocation payments.

(5) Total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity.

(6) Payments of compensation for real property occasioning the relocations payments.

(7) Compensation payments made for all real property acquired in the project or projects.

(8) Administrative costs of all real property acquisition in the project or projects.

(9) Total of compensation payments and administrative costs of all real property acquired in the project or projects.

(10) Total costs of the project or projects (other than relocation costs) including engineering, real property acquisition, etc.

In all instances, the projects selected were those in which substantially all displacees were afforded the opportunity to claim moving expenses. Where relocation advisory services were provided, the cost of these services was included in the total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity.

Projects for which data were obtained include the following: U.S. Army Engineer projects for civil works and for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Interior projects for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service; Navy Department projects; and Federal-aid highway projects for interstate and primary systems. Data for urban renewal are based upon budgeted relocation assistance costs and all other program costs for urban renewal projects (other than three-fourths limited grant) approved for execution, January 1, 1962 through December 31, 1963.

Payments only for moving costs for all but urban renewal ranged from two one-hundredths of 1 percent to two-tenths of 1 percent of total project costs. Completed data were not available for urban renewal projects; however, it appeared that moving cost payments would exceed 1 percent of total project costs for urban renewal projects, and likely approach 2 percent of total project costs.

Payments for relocation expenses other than moving costs ranged from less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of total project costs to six one-hundredths of 1 percent of total project costs for all but urban renewal. Complete data were not available for urban renewal, but it appeared that payments for relocation expenses other than moving costs probably would be less than 1 percent of total project costs.

Total payments for moving costs and other relocation costs ranged from two one-hundredths of 1 percent to 2.7 percent of total project costs. For all projects other than urban renewal, total payments for these two costs amounted to less than one-fourth of 1 percent of total project costs.

In all projects other than urban renewal, the administrative costs of all relocation payments were less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of total project costs. Administrative costs of all relocation

payments for urban renewal were one-half of 1 percent of total project costs.

Total cost of all relocation and resettlement activity for projects other than urban renewal ranged from less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of total project costs to three-tenths of 1 percent of total project costs. For urban renewal, the total cost of all relocation and resettlement activity was 3.2 percent of total project costs.

The total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity was compared to real property costs to give added insights as to the relative magnitude of the various costs. The next two findings are based on these comparisons.

The total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity was compared to real property acquisition costs (both payments and administration) for all properties in the project. The total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity ranged from 0.3 to 1.3 percent of real property acquisition costs for all projects except urban renewal. For urban renewal, it was 5 percent of all real property acquisition costs.

The total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity was compared to the payments of compensation for all the real property acquired for the project. With the exception of urban renewal, the total cost of all relocation or resettlement activity ranged from 0.3 to 1.4 percent of the real property payments for all properties in the projects. For urban renewal, the total cost of resettlement activity was 5.1 percent of the real property payments for all properties in the project.

To provide additional insights, still other comparisons of project cost items were made. The next three comparisons are essentially different than the previous ones.

The total of moving and other relocation payments was compared to the total of payments made for real property occasioning the relocation payments. The comparison showed that the total of moving and other relocation payments was approximately 1 to 3 percent as large as the total of compensation payments for real property occasioning the moving expenses. Urban renewal was higher, being 5.4 percent.

Total costs of all properties acquired (both compensation payments and administrative costs, but not including relocation costs) were compared to total project costs. The percentage relationships differed substantially from project to project, depending upon the nature of the engineering and construction that likely would occur on the land after its acquisition. For projects in which much engineering or construction would be required, the cost of all properties usually amounted to less than 25 percent of the total project costs. For projects in which little engineering or construction would be required, land costs comprised a much higher percent of total project costs, ranging upward to as much as 75 percent of total project costs. More detail on individual agencies is provided in appendix C.

The total administrative cost for acquiring all real property was compared to the total of compensation payments for all real property. For most of the projects, the administrative costs for acquiring real property were from 3 to 18 percent as large as the compensation payments for the real property. Details on percentages for individual projects and the costs on which they are based can be found in appendix C.

VI. THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC USE

1

The magnitude, scope, and nature of contemporary land acquisition for large-scale Federal-State highway construction, and mushrooming urban renewal projects leave few cities and communities in the Nation unaffected. This is happening at a time when land is becoming more precious and owners less willing to part with it. This has had two consequences: Owners have and are challenging land acquisitions on the ground that the projects are not a public use, and the courts, in their consideration of these challenges, have established a broader concept of public use than was previously understood.

Broadly speaking, all property of every kind within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is subject to acquisition by the Federal Government. This is true whether it is realty or personalty. "***Whatever of property the citizen has the Government may take ***” (United States v. General Motors, 323 U.S. 373, 382 (1945)). And this includes such intangible rights as contracts and interests in contracts (DeLaval Steam Turbine Co. v. United States, 284 U.S. 61, 71 (1931)).

The Federal right of eminent domain encompasses every case where acquisition of property by purchase or donation is appropriate to carry out a Federal undertaking (United States ex rel. Î.V.A. v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 554 (1946)); Hanson Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581, 587 (1923)).

If the Federal Government, under the Constitution, has
power to embark upon the project for which the real property
is sought, then the use is a public one (Barnidge v. United
States, 101 F.2d 295, 298 (C.A. 8, 1939)).

The issue of public use does not raise a question as to the constitutionality of the exercise of the eminent domain as such, but the constitutionality of the program or project authorized by Congress for which acquisition of real property is sought. This naturally follows from the fact that condemnation is not an independent power, but is simply a right to use appropriate means to implement other powers. As it was recognized many years ago, the United States has authority to condemn real property whenever it is necessary or appropriate to use the real property in the execution of any of the powers granted by the Constitution (United States v. Gettysburg Elec. Ry., 160 U.Š. 668, 679 (1896)).

These powers include the use of the general welfare clause.

*** the power of Congress to promote the general welfare through large-scale projects for reclamation, irrigation, or other internal improvement, is now as clear and ample as its power to accomplish the same results indirectly through resort to strained interpretation of the power over navigation *** (United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725, 738 (1950)).

***

nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the Nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640 (1937)).