You asked for the legislative history of the word “deteriorating” in the redevelopment statutes.

SUMMARY

The statutes authorize creation of “redevelopment areas” and allow property within such an area to be taken by eminent domain.

The statutes define a “redevelopment area” as one that is “deteriorated, deteriorating, substandard, or detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. ” It can include structures that are not substandard or insanitary that are essential to complete an adequate unit of development “if the redevelopment area is deteriorated, deteriorating, substandard, or detrimental” (CGS § 8-125(b), italics added).

The declaration of public policy in the redevelopment project statutes states:

“It is found and declared that there have existed and will continue to exist in the future in municipalities of the state substandard, insanitary, deteriorated, deteriorating, slum, or blighted areas which constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state…that the acquisition of property for the purpose of eliminating substandard, insanitary, deteriorated, deteriorating, slum, or blighted conditions thereon or preventing recurrence of such conditions in the area, the removal of structures and improvement of sites, the disposition of the property for redevelopment incidental to the foregoing, the exercise of powers by municipalities acting through agencies known as redevelopment agencies as herein provided, and any assistance which may be given by a public body in connection therewith, are public uses and purposes for which public money may be expended and the power of eminent domain exercised; and that the necessity in the public interest for the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination” (CGS § 8-124, italics added).

The legislature added the word “deteriorating” to these statutes and several similar ones, such as the urban renewal provisions, in 1959 (PA 59-197 (SB 860)). The only comments in the Senate debate and the State Development Committee’s hearing on the bill stated that the change conformed to federal law. The House discussed the change more extensively. Legislators supporting the change described it as conforming to federal law or making a technical change. Opponents viewed the word “deteriorating” as either expanding redevelopment powers or a vague term that could be interpreted as an expansion of powers. Some speakers on each side more specifically discussed the meaning of the word “deteriorating” in the bill and reached different conclusions.

The bill passed the Senate on a voice vote. The House debated the bill and recommitted it to the State Development Committee. After the committee favorably reported the bill, the House passed it by a vote of 129-120.

In some instances, we have divided an individual legislator’s comments to separate their arguments into different categories. For example, Rep. Quinlan’s remarks about the expansion of power are included in one section while his description of the dictionary definition of “deteriorating” is in another.

Attached is the legislative history for PA 59-197.

“DETERIORATING” AS A CONFORMING OR TECHNICAL CHANGE

Legislators supporting the bill stated that adding the word “deteriorating” was a change to conform to federal legislation or a technical change.

In the brief Senate debate, Senator Burns stated that the bill “adds certain technical clarifications” principally adding the word “deteriorating. ” He stated, “The purpose there is to bring in compliance with the federal law…to enable the state to take advantage of the federal law, and…to bring conformity with the federal legislation” (Senate Transcript, p. 584, April 1, 1959).

Rep. McCollam, who brought out the bill in the House, made a number of remarks.

1. “They have already the power of taking away deteriorated buildings in fact. They feel they also have the power to take away deteriorating buildings. Now, this is just a further clarification of the word ‘deteriorated’ and ‘deteriorating. ’ It’s purely technical. I don’t think that any development committee would extend its rights and take away a new building that was not in this condition” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1255).

2. He stated that the Connecticut Association of Redevelopment Agencies sponsored the bill. He stated, “They feel, their lawyers feel that they already have this power, but they would like it clarified in the statutes. ” He stated that he didn’t think that redevelopment agencies had or would “take advantage of the word ‘deteriorating’ out of context and use it to further their own redevelopment areas…” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1259).

3. When the House debated the bill for the second time, Rep. McCollam stated that the State Development Committee believed the word should be included “to conform to the provisions of chapter 130 the federal housing act of 1954 under which municipalities received federal aid for the execution of redevelopment and renewal program. The addition of the word ‘deteriorating’ does not substantially effect the provisions of chapter 130” (House Proceedings, May 18, 1959, p. 3563-4).

4. When asked whether towns could receive federal fund without the change, Rep. McCollam stated, “It is my understanding, through the hearings of this bill, that there has been great difficulty in obtaining a clear-cut decision on some of these redevelopment plans. The addition of this word would greatly facilitate the redevelopment and urban renewal program in the cities of Connecticut” (House Proceedings, May 18, 1959, p. 3565).

Rep. Geyer, speaking in the second debate, called this “a little tempest in the teapot about this word, and I’m convinced that it will certainly make it much easier for the lawyers who have the job of getting this money out of the federal government if this word is in here” (House Proceedings, May 18, 1959, p. 3565).

In addition, Mr. Cabrino, a member of the Connecticut Association of Redevelopment Officials, stated before the State Development Committee that adding the word “deteriorating” would “conform our declaration of policies to those existing under the federal legislation” (State Development Committee, p. 76, February 19, 1959).

“DETERIORATING” AS AN EXPANSION OF POWERS OR VAGUE AND SUBJECT TO ABUSE

Opponents of the bill argued that the word “deteriorating” expanded the redevelopment powers. Others argued that the term was vague and could be interpreted as an expansion of powers.

1. Rep. Quinlan stated he was disturbed by the word and it is “just about what they need over in our town to do something that some of us are very much opposed to. ” He stated, “I think that here again you have a law that will actually extend the power of the state, in this case acting through the planning agency and its power and control over the private property of the individual. I feel very strongly that this word is a rather broad one. ” He added, “I think it’s an unnecessary extension of the police power under this particular act” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1255-6). In the second House debate, he called it “that very vague and dangerous word ‘deteriorating’” (House Proceedings, May 18, 1959, p. 3564).

2. Rep. Pinney stated that deteriorating is a “rather broad word” and “I suspect any structure starts to deteriorate the day that it’s completed. ” “While I’m aware that the federal law contains language similar to this, it seems to me that there is no necessity for us to write into our statutes on this subject a word as ambiguous as this and a word which could, under certain circumstances, give rise to great abuse in the handling of our redevelopment projects” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1256-7).

3. Rep. Pinney later remarked, “First I would point out…that all of us who have a particular interest in life sometimes get carried away by the importance of our own cause…I suspect that people who are actively engaged in the work of redevelopment, the sponsors of this bill, sometimes get carried away by the importance of their cause, and I sympathise with them completely, but I don’t think that that necessarily proves that this is a good bill. ” “…the statute says, ‘substandard, insanitary, deteriorated, deteriorating, slum or blighted areas. ’ The use of the word ‘or’ permits you to take a choice of any of those words which I have just read in determining whether or not this particular area will qualify as a redevelopment project. I think that it’s rather dangerous to entrust that amount of power to any group. I think that the legislature should not hand over carte blanche a set of words which will permit any area in the state to be classified as an area for redevelopment. I think we should not write such ambiguities into our law…” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1260).

4. Rep. McGee expressed “reservations” and stated that “the powers available to the redevelopment agency are now adequate” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1257-8).

5. Rep. Kilbury stated, “This here puts the workman into the hands of the state against the individual again, and it makes it harder for the individual to protect himself. I don’t believe in making it easier for the state to take away property” (House Proceedings, May 18, 1959, p. 3566).

MEANING OF THE WORD “DETERIORATING”

Some legislators more specifically discussed the meaning of the word “deteriorating” and came to different conclusions as to its meaning.

1. Rep. Quinlan looked “deteriorating” up in the dictionary and stated “it has all sorts of definitions. It means to decline, to decay, to degenerate, to become impaired in quality, to grow worse. I submit to you, gentlemen, that there’s hardly a piece of property in the state of Connecticut, even though it may be only a day or so old, that hasn’t started to deteriorate” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1255-6).

2. Rep. Pinney stated that deteriorating is a “rather broad word” and “I suspect any structure starts to deteriorate the day that it’s completed” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1256-7).

3. Rep. Googel stated that opponents were looking at the word “deteriorating” as a single word and out of context, and that it had to be read “in connection with the entire act. ” After reading the bill’s language, he stated that, “If the deteriorating process which is taking place is dangerous to the public health and safety then I think that this is in order…” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1258-9).

4. Rep. Petela stated that “…I see no confusion and I can see no question as to the word deterioration which is used by people every day in common language, and to me it’s a very simple, easily understood bill which should not be overworked, rather a word that should not be overworked and which I do not think should be given all of the innuendoes and false implications that it has already been given” House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, (pp. 1261-2).

5. Rep. Googel stated, “…I’m sure…that if there’s a new house or a new development that has just been constructed and has been up there for one or two months as has been pointed out…we’ll say up there for three or four or five years…that no one is going to find that that’s deteriorating to the extent where we need an urban redevelopment program and knock down that new construction” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1263).

6. Rep. Noyes stated, “…the word deteriorating, ending in ing which we’re talking about here, is a present gerund as far as the English language is concerned, and what we’re worried about over here is the fact that it refers to the present tense and not to an accomplished fact…” In discussing its addition to another statute, he stated it “is adding the present tense to this finding of fact which is declared to be a matter of legislative purpose. ” “In other words, by adding the word deteriorating we are saying…that a deteriorating building does in and over by and by itself impair the public health and so on. ” Regarding a redevelopment area, “what follows with respect to impairing the health, morals, or welfare cannot under any interpretation of the English language be attached to the word deteriorating. In this section…deteriorating stands alone” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1264).

7. Rep. Testo remarked that the word “deteriorated” in the statute “states, and clearly so, that this area has reached the depths of substandardness which are or is injurious to the health, morals, and welfare of the community. With reference to the word ‘deteriorating,’ I believe it clearly states that the process of deteriorating has not reached the depth yet, that it has deteriorated but is closely thereto. It does not mean a present usage as presented by the other side. They are saying that a building once occupied, or once completed has begun to deteriorate. I don’t believe this bill states that. It means that it has or has become so deteriorated that it is close to the substandardness that they’re speaking of” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1266).

8. Rep. Kilburn stated, “Deteriorating, to me, means something in the present, and I believe that there’s enough erosion or our individual private rights as it is, and I feel that if there’s any question at all of casting the burden of proof upon the individual himself as to whether his particular property is a detiorating one or not is not right. I think that the agency itself that wants to prove that can do so easily on any deteriorated, and to preserve the individual in his rights to have the burden of proof upon the other side (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1266-7).

9. Rep. Spiegel stated that, “Obviously many of us disagree as to the meaning. ” He looked at the section of the bill on urban renewal and stated that it provides for eliminating deteriorating areas without reference to impairing growth and it does not mention public health “but barely states that they may do anything for the elimination of substandard, insanitary, blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating areas. There’s no qualification in there whatsoever” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1267-8).

10. Rep. Smith stated, “I think it is relevant to point out that the federal government regards deterioration as a process that begins at once. You build a new house, you make a tax return, you can begin to charge off depreciation immediately. An automobile is supposed to begin deteriorating as soon as you buy it…Therefore, I think the word deteriorating is a very ambiguous word and one capable of being applied to the immediate process of deterioration of a building…” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, p. 1268).

11. Rep. Shulansky stated, “I’d like to point out that the argument that we have had here is the same argument which judges of the Superior Court are going to face if we pass this statute. It’s conceivable that property would not be substandard but would be deteriorated, and that it would not be unsanitary but would be deteriorated, would not be deteriorated but would be deteriorating. If that’s not true then there’s no point whatsoever in adding the word deteriorating to this statute. ” Responding to a colleague’s remarks that deteriorating property is property on its way down, “Now how far down does it get before it’s deteriorating within the meaning of this statute if that’s his interpretation?” He added “…this word is going to be the subject of a lot of lawsuits if we let this bill out” (House Proceedings, April 15, 1959, pp. 1269-70).

CR: dw