Printable Format17-4742. Title of act. This act shall be known and be cited as the "urban renewal law."
History: L. 1955, ch. 86, ยง 1; June 30.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Various constitutional objections held without merit; act valid. State, ex rel., v. Urban Renewal Agency of Kansas City, 179 Kan. 435, 296 P.2d 656.
2. Injunction petition to enjoin execution of urban renewal plan held sufficient. Offen v. City of Topeka, 186 Kan. 389, 390, 350 P.2d 33.
3. Finding that conduct of municipal and urban renewal officials did not constitute fraud, bad faith or abuse of discretion upheld. Bowers v. City of Kansas City, 202 Kan. 268, 270, 448 P.2d 6.
4. Cited in mandamus action; initiative ordinance to bar urban renewal activity would violate federal constitution's prohibition against impairment of contract. State, ex rel., v. Paulsen, 204 Kan. 857, 858, 465 P.2d 982.
5. Cited; urban renewal law followed. Anderson v. City of Parsons, 209 Kan. 337, 338, 496 P.2d 1333.
6. Mentioned in action by railroad to recover expenses in relocating tracks in connection with urban renewal project; exculpatory agreement inapplicable. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. City of Topeka, 213 Kan. 658, 659, 518 P.2d 372.
7. City has power to rezone property in urban renewal plan area since rezoning classifications included in plan residential requirements. Robert L. Rieke Bldg. Co. v. City of Olathe, 10 Kan. App. 2d 239, 246, 697 P.2d 72 (1985).
8. Zoning activities furthering and implementing urban redevelopment exempt from antitrust scrutiny under "state action" doctrine. Russell v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 690 F. Supp. 947, 953 (D. Kan. 1988).
9. Cited; constitutionality upheld in challenge to city's ordinance relating to uninhabitable properties. Bolden v. City of Topeka, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1210 to 1212 (2008).