In 1950, the National Capital Planning Commission published a comprehensive plan for the area after surveys indicated that in that area, "64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, only 17.3% were satisfactory; 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.6% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, 83.8% lacked central heating."

The plan made provisions for the types of dwelling units and provided that "at least one-third of them [were] to be low-rent housing with a maximum rental of $17 per room per month."

It was during the beginning stages of this redevelopment that the plaintiffs brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of the taking of their department store, located at 712 Fourth Street, S.W.

Circuit judge who wrote the opinion, found no problem with the government's use of eminent domain to clear blighted structures because it could be seen as the abatement of a public nuisance.

Judge Prettyman ultimately read the Redevelopment Act very narrowly and found that non-blighted property could be taken if the taking could be tied to prevention of blight.

He firmly stated, however, that eminent domain could not be used by the government to take private property for the purpose of improving economic or aesthetic conditions of neighborhoods.

Therefore, he granted the government's motion to dismiss but also raised the seriousness of using eminent domain to serve broad redevelopment projects.

Douglas wrote, "In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values.

Similarly, in Hawaii, the taking of the land lessor's interest was supposed to reduce or stabilize housing prices on Oahu.