property owner rights
The way I have always understood the Contitution, it gives the citizens of the United States the right to own property (in this case houses). It doesn't say what you have to do with that property. It doesn't say that it has to be occupied. It does not say that it can't be used to store the owners personal property. It has always been that the house had to be secured. The doors locked and all of the windows intact. and the grass kept mowed. Now in Parsons, Kansas the city has gone on a condemnation spree, while at the same time going into the housing business. Their plan is to clear out all of the houses that they consider undesirable and build new ones to sell to middle income people. Thinking that the poor people will then move into the houses that the middle income people use to rent. The flaw in their plan is that the poor people in this town can not afford to pay the higher rent prices of these houses.But I guess my question is, Is'nt it some how illegal for the city to prevent people from fixing up their houses, then condem them(some of which aren't in that bad of shape) while at the same time going into the housing business. Previously they make people rent them for 15 years for about $400 or so. and only then sell them.
Re: property owner rights
The city has no authority to "prevent people from fixing up their houses", but I don't think that is what happened. The owners most likely let the property fall into disrepair.
Cities can condemn property within their borders and take it for public use, though they have to pay a fair price for it. They can also declare an area blighted and condemn properties within that area, though here too they must pay for the property they take. The government's right to do these things is known as "eminent domain".
The last clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This clause specifically allows governmental entities to exercise eminent domain.
I'm not sure why you think your city is only now "going into the housing business", since you say that it used to rent out houses at a very low rate. That sounds like being in the housing business to me. Many cities offer subsidized low-income housing, and it is perfectly legal to do so.
I have no idea whether the plan you describe will actually work, but its legality does not depend upon how successful it turns out to be. Based on the limited information you have supplied I don't see a Constitutional violation, but it's quite possible that I would if I had more facts.
