The requirement of sec. 5 of Georgia Laws 1955, pp. 354, 357, that the governing body of a municipality adopt a resolution finding that: "(1) one or more slum areas exist in such municipality, and (2) the rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of such area or areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare of the residents of such municipality," was fully met when such a resolution was adopted. The exercise of powers conferred by the act is not subject to challenge upon the ground that the resolution is contrary to the provable facts.

This is an action brought by citizens and taxpayers, either living in or owning property in an area of the City of Augusta known as The "Urban Renewal Project Area," in behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against the City Council and other officials of the City of Augusta, to enjoin them from exercising any urban redevelopment project powers as set forth in an act known as the "Urban Redevelopment Law" (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 354-380), and from issuing bonds, levying or collecting taxes, or expending any tax money or other funds of the City Council of Augusta in pursuance of the urban renewal program. Their petition as amended alleges in substance: that, in pursuance of such program, the city council adopted a resolution, attached thereto as Exhibit "B"; that one or more slum areas exist in said city, including a definitely described area in which these petitioners reside and own property, which is an alleged blighted and slum area; that, in order to qualify under the provisions of the housing laws of the United States for funds to be spent under the urban-renewal program by a municipality, there must exist slums and blighted areas in the municipality, and, in order to exercise the powers conferred upon municipal corporations under the urban-renewal laws of the State of Georgia, said slum areas, as defined by the act created above, must constitute a serious and dangerous menace to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the State, which contribute substantially and increasingly to the spread of disease and crime, constitute an economic and social liability, substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of municipalities, retard the provisions of housing accommodations, aggravate traffic problems, and substantially impair or arrest the elimination of traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; that the statement of facts contained in the resolution adopted by the city council and attached as Exhibit "B," declaring the area in which these petitioners reside or own property to be a slum or blighted area, is false and untrue, for the reason that it is not a slum or blighted area and those facts were or should have been known to the council at the time of the adoption of the resolution, and the council in adopting the resolution has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, capriciously, and fraudulently, and not for the purpose of renewing or redeveloping a slum area within the meaning of the housing laws of the United States or the urban-redevelopment laws of Georgia, but for the purpose of obtaining and withdrawing funds from the treasury of the United States; that the area, rather than slum or blighted area, comprises the best colored business and residential area in the City of Augusta, which will be wrecked if the so-called "Urban Renewal Program" which has been adopted on the supposed state of facts, which do not exist, is permitted to proceed. The petition proceeds to outline the various steps that have been taken by the council, alleged to be illegal and void because of the falsity of the findings of the council, and alleges further the adoption of another resolution, attached to the petition as Exhibit "C," to the effect that the area in which the petitioners reside and own property, contains a predominance of buildings or improvements

780 ALLEN v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA. (215 which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age, or obsolescence, inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes, and is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, and the members of the governing body have been fully apprised of these facts and conditions, and it is found and determined that the project is a slum area and qualifies as an eligible project under the urban-redevelopment law. This resolution is alleged by the petitioners to be untrue and false, for the reason that the area is not a slum or blighted area, and the city council has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, capriciously, and fraudulently, and without regard for the true facts, the same being merely a copy of the language used in the Georgia law to authorize the adoption of urban-renewal powers and only for the purpose of illegally undertaking to qualify as a municipality authorized to exercise the powers set forth in the law; and to obtain illegally funds from an agency of the United States Government; and to levy illegally taxes on the petitioners and to collect taxes for the purpose of carrying into effect the illegal designs of the city council to take away the property of the petitioners and oust them from their homes in utter and reckless disregard of the truth. There are other allegations in the petition which is voluminous, with regard to certain contracts entered into by the city which are alleged to be illegal and void because of the illegal and unauthorized urban renewal program--none of which will be set forth here, since the opinion will deal largely with the above allegations, as they all depend upon whether or not the city has received the urban-renewal powers set out in the law.

General demurrers were sustained after a hearing, and the exceptions are to the judgment sustaining the general demurrers and dismissing the petition as amended.

Able counsel on both sides have cited numerous decisions of this court dealing with the power of courts to review findings of fact made by legislative bodies; and also many decisions holding that courts will review municipal ordinances and hold them to be void if found unreasonable. But in the view we take of this case it is unnecessary for us to consider any of such cases because they are inapplicable.

By an amendment to the Constitution (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 538), which was ratified by a vote of the people, the historic constitutional protection of private property, except for public purposes, was voluntarily surrendered by the people themselves. Thus this court is without power to protect such property as was done in Housing Authority of City of Atlanta v. Johnson, 209 Ga. 560 (74 S. E. 2d 891). This condition was referred to in Bailey v. Housing Authority of City of Bainbridge, 214 Ga. 790 (107 S. E. 2d 812). The Constitution as thus amended allows the General Assembly to provide by law that any city or town or housing authority "may undertake and carry out slum clearance and redevelopment work . . ." Neither "slum" nor "redevelopment" is defined in the Constitution. Together they may encompass areas as wide as the individual notions and tastes of city councilmen. The amendment expressly authorizes taking property from private owners by the power of eminent domain and then selling it to other private parties for private use. In keeping with sweeping powers conferred by the constitutional amendment, the legislature enacted a law (Ga. L. 1955, p. 354) which is likewise almost limitless in scope. Section 19 (h) of that act defines "slum area" so broadly that it can apply to almost any area. It provides that either "open spaces" or "high density of population" may constitute a "slum area." It requires not that all buildings in the area come within some one of the conditions prescribed, but that a "predominance" of the buildings do so. Thus some buildings less than the predominance can not escape no matter how perfect they may be or how important they are. This entire case hinges upon section 5 of the act, which provides: that "No municipality shall exercise any of the powers hereafter conferred upon municipalities by this act until after its local governing body shall have adopted a resolution finding that: (1) "one or more slum areas exist in such municipality and (2) the rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of such area or areas, is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare of the residents of such municipality." It must be noted that it is not required that any evidence or proof be taken or considered, but simply that a resolution be adopted so finding. This could only mean that the officials concerned exercise their own judgment based upon what they know or believe and make their findings. The very nature of matters required to be found by the resolution shows them not capable of being brought under judicial determination. Upon what standards would a court adjudicate "morals or welfare" as therein referred to. As was said in Bailey v. Housing Authority of the City of Bainbridge, 214 Ga. 790, 792, supra, "to enter into such a field of investigation would be like embarking upon the sea without rudder or compass." The act requires merely the adoption of a resolution finding the existence of these facts. That has been done in this case, and the courts can require no more in that respect than did the legislature. However much as individuals we may deplore the surrender by the people of their rights, as Justices of this court we unhesitatingly follow and apply the law as the people have written it. The ordinance is not subject to any of the attacks made upon it, and the court did not err in dismissing the petition based upon such attack.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.