Amicus Curiae Brief — Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie

Supreme Court brief1971

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

; . ee

berths *

. .

’

. .

- . ‘

. z .

. . .

« . . e

; ae

e .

7 .

. ;

. ‘

. e

| ' :

. .

\w s

. a /

. e

. all . é ; :

; .

, .

EET INS Be eee eee ee

. Pe QT aRy

4 |

; be, a - -

, . : sdeieeen a : not chatted pea lating Pitaisail

. . ‘ RI

. : atic Sina

. P

= a “ :

F ; |

4 ® a “i .

. . =

: * sl is

° ‘ :

- . ? , ,

| : » As

\ : |

=’ 7 cs F

. ® s

: es.

bed .

. : :

+. , ;

. . F E :

» a

. :

‘

. . :

7 .

. = * uu ;

. . ‘

. $ - ;

. : A is

. i +

, .

. .

s . i F

- .

. . d

. . i ; ;

‘ ‘ : ‘ : x ’ 7 .

. ® i

. . .

. . ° ; A : ;

‘ oe. 5 i Pa

e . .

ww : : .

’ : . .

. .

z .

. ’ e : .

. 7

’ ‘ Z :

* .

‘

. c y

; 3 al » . . ° ™

. .

. : P ;

. bf : A

: . .

. : : . ‘

. Ss

- 3 :

a .

. : .

. < . - ‘ 2

“te: * Xy~ . O <

. — : J

. J Af e : q

. :

2 .

a .

. z ;

‘

. “ :

. \ r “ o* ’ .

. . e .

. 5 . ee * :

\ . |

, . 3 Re com - f

\ ey mye < “ “

we «@ Ci lnc Sa ae ai wosenaet " vie , ) ,

. - RET? Te

AMAL CB Ga Re ee

(LED

a a > Liaw es FEB 4 ig7

SUPREME COURT, U. S-

In the Supreme Court of the

United: States

Octoser TeRM, 1970 ©

N 0. 712

TRIANGLE IMPROVEMENT Councn, et al,

Petitioners,

vs.

Wiis §. | CoMMISSIONER,

Strate Roap Commission

OF THE State oF West Viner, et’ al.,

Rssiskeite.

On Writ of Certiorari to the-United States Court of ceil

‘ for the Fourth Circuit

Brief Amicus Curiae

of the National Housing and

Economic Development Law Project

J. AnTHONY Kine

Kewnetu F.. Puiturs.

Earl Warren Legal Institute

University of California

Berkeley, California 94720 ~

SORG PRINTING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, 346 FIRST STREET, SAN FRANCISCO 94108

B Bois Samm, BERK

TORT MR HE IRR HAIG: TN, vw

Ps .

Oey .

es 4

- ‘

. w/ .

5 e

7 «

. 4 .

4 :

bd .

» $

. . ."

’ * : °

. ’ °

. -

’ \ ‘ . .

e ; rn

@ \ 4

kr kaa .

ae Pad p

° .

* .

. \ *

. ‘ .

> . ®

o.* .-

Sa 5

o ~

’ Py

‘ . . . *

. *

P o¢

’

oh es

a |

”

° \

a Z -

”

. ‘

. .

; q

‘

& .

’

. ” .

7 .

‘ . :

. a

* Py 5

* A

e .

~ .

Pi.

. ‘ E

° .

. Pg .

° o

. aoe

a wd 3

, °

. .

. m <

Lal -

> r * .

o ©

@ gar @

. .

= -

4 .

, -

¥. die

" .

P .

* ry -

Bo! ao 62s OQ «

' or

. pd. Vote 2 4

5 °

7 . ’

‘ P . La)

e “he -

. ° . so

od .

. .

° ° *

. e 4

‘ an ‘

’ , p

2 > .

Py *

2. Po e «. a Ms

. . ,

o% 6

’ f ° °

' ’

; ya P:

. me e° Pic.

. J .

. o

5 °

- x °

° ; :

. -

a ad 5

“=

eo. .

* 4 7

e - . ye

. . °

8 ’

. . ; mir

sd .

“

ae “3

. *

- S .

“-* - °

~"@

> . . .

. . S

P ‘ p

oy *

, . .

p e

. ’ "”

* F a >

, : °

oe ‘

. e~«

6 a -

; .

* . -

9 .

F e ;

o @

F a m ;

e . .

4 ’ ‘ 4 .

- —_

Se ; id .

‘4 " guBJECT INDEX ~ .

: . - nf : , : ; -Page os

The Interest of Amicus Curiae ............ des ecebeupii Be

Summary of Argument REESE Site aR ss _ ae

3 Introduetion ed ted Sie a ; age

Argument... er EINE 3 an | ; 19 |

+ The Federal Relocation Requirements ‘ion to Benefit © 4,

and Protect All Residents of a Federal-Aid Highway { a

_ Project Not Yet Disphiced o on the ae i Their Enact- oa

‘ment, ;

? IL In the ‘Absetice’ of a Satisfactory Relocation Plan, -

; _Evidence of a State Highway ‘Department’s Ability to

Provide Adeqifate Replacement Housing for. Particular

ae Is ow and. —, Irrelevant ........: > 27

Conelusion , ie Po HBr | ae |

. ¢ ; x /

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cakes “0° 4 >. Pages

: Picik ¥. Hirsh; 256 USA, ea Picea OS

‘*Gonpoined Citizens for the Preservation of » Clarksville v. AY _

Volpe, No. 30286. (5th Cir.) .. ror CS sages ae lager,

- D. 0, Federation of Civic Associations v. ‘Volpe, 316 B. Supp.

SO CRRA) BOTT spccihcslatineonipetthinpeceoesaicibenanionbpesnoimered Ma Shiealindiel 2 0, 26

D.C. Federation of -Civie Associations: v.. Volpe, Civil No. |

23,870 D. C. Cir, April 6, 1970) AUT ee SAM Basten at Aes verve 24,25,

Garrett v. City of Hamtramek, No. 32004 cB, D. Mich, sD, ad

March 7, 1969) Seat nea ee WON Uae TOA ssaihainaiei frbdeenbene 28

Lathan v, Volpe, No, 8986 EW. D.Wash, 1970). eid LENT Rew Wer 2.

Northeast Welfare Rights Organization v. “Volpe, No, 3437, . |

| (E.D. Wash. 1970) voces Le et aiat aiaikcaaadeamuail Rees LEAS 3

Norwalk CORE vy. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F. 2d ‘

920, (2d = PT cacenictilivcaion aaihediakietatetitaniapennsmnsinatiebpede 4, 14, 19, 28

ae “Powelton Civic Home Owners Association v. Dept: of ‘Hous-

ing and Urban Dev., 284 F. Supp. 809 (E.D. Pa. 1968)

; eter ee seereinee 4, 19, 28, 29

Shapiro v. Minion, 394 us. 618 .. srenneenmtnmene poe pi <7 25

Talbot v. Romney, No. 2402 SDNY, August 20, 1970)... 28 . f

Tenants and Owners in Opposition - to Redevelopment. v. a

“Romney, No. ©-69-324 (N.D, Cal. April 29, 1970) *........... 19,'28, 29.

Thorpe v: Honpsing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U. 8.

268 coves seeee gyemeics. oc ccceccccvcepeccsecsseccceces " 24

"Western Addition Community Organization ‘v. ‘Weaver; 294

F, Supp. 433 (N.D. Cal. 1968) oe eeconeene sicieoiomins thy, $0; 97, 28

, . “ry ;

| TABLE oF Avruoririns Cirep am si iii 3

Ty ie TATUTES | ots ee ey Pages :

. California Streets aiid Higliwa s Code, 8§ 135.3- 135. "TEA shee ole

Cal. Stats. 1965 res. ch. 130, p. 5289... aocemgeenceranlenieine? <1 Ms

'.. Publie Law 89- “574g 89th Cink. Sent. 13, 1966 meals ee ecake &

Public law 89- 560, 78 Stat. 769, (re

23 US.C.: Tbe S: -

§ 133(e) ee LA OE Mecioseas Pee

§ 501 Ot BOQ, ..ncnenedpdeces PO VRCEIEER I) Wei? PIN ARABS RE cclalphiins

teats eae nie SS lh Be eee ESTE ZS IRER NC

re § 502(2):.. ooecccvcees leoncepvonnsccesencees fowee seenapeneeenndarnbye oeeececeseeeeeeeseeseeeecens

Det VSR CRA ae ea riaiien

eT Se Po iol

§ 510() (Db) ....esccectecraflleceenen : .

§ 1455(¢) ... SU tS AS Ma oy nee al

42 U.S.C): eect er ee ne

B- LAG () (1) sciecsenconndaeconteccs ene a ntl aS ee ee ee

_ §°1455(f) and (h)- 02. silbaiederenalaamemnedbaet FORD he) Oe)

+ BG. 2711. et eq. iss reecssacenieneecee aia R a Sas ce ponds ee

oe Ce gs. ee AEST Ta ARES ae 28

ips Lash Caria LRT ERR OGL

‘ ah

;

’ :

iv TasLe ov AuTuoniries Crrep ,

* Texrs ap OTuex AUTHOKITIES Pages

Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Asialysis of

Urban Renewal, 1949-1962 (MIT Press 1964) 2 14

CCH Urban Affairs Reports, 18,675. een 17 |

Fried; Grieving for’ a Lost’ Home> Psychological Costs of

Relocation, in Urban Renewal: ‘The Record and the Con-

troversy (J. os acca eit : . 5

Greer, Urten Renewal and American Cities ‘(Bobbs- Merrill, :

1965) é M 30)

m . , @ ‘

Hartman, The Housing of Relocated Faimilies,,30 J. Am.

Inst. Planners 266 (1964) 5

* Hearings before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Rela-

tions of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S.

Senate, on $.1, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land .

Acquisition Policies Act of 1969, US. Senate, 91st Cong., Ist _

Sess., p. 216 ease eS

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Re-

lations of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S.

Senate, on 8.698, 8.735, 8.458 and 8.2981, 90th Cong.

on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives,

Gong., 2nd Sess., on. H.R. 17134 and Related Bills, Maf,

"1968, pp. 284-235 ...-.-cncncnenernereeessrererernensenarssersrereresesomnsesrsnetposesets iM

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads of the Com

‘on Public Works, House of Represeutatived lst Cong

Ses., on H.R. 16788 and related bills, p. 948 ......... 19%, 17, 20

Hearings before the Committee on Public Works, Hows.of «

*. Representatives, 91st Cong., Ist and 2nd Sess, on ELK, he

14898, H.R. 14899, 8.1 and related bills .. aa - 42, 14

Highway Relocation Assistance Study; 90th ‘Cone., int ‘esi,

», Gommiteco Esint Hp 9 (2097) pp. 9° ae piclemmete 3, 6,7, 8, 22, 32

The Legal Lawbreakers: A Study in al Lawlessnexs Re-

. garding Federal Relocation rements, Citizens Advo-—

_eate Center (Washington, J Jug Dali, IDTD) accccccrccescnssizeccceye, O, 18

TABLe or Avrionrries Crrep

Pages |

Manvel, Housing Conditions in Urban Poverty ‘hie report”

prepared for the National Commission on Urban Problems,- °

. Research Report No. 9 (Wash.,-D.C, 1968), Table 8, pp.

RE et

"Memorandum of Seeretary of Department of Transportation : °

Implementation of Replacement Housing Policy, January

15, 1970 ...... igieeiatsigeeainiae stenitipendesipebanstaicees

National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the py

fean elty (1968), po. 192....c.ccczcceciccccecoecee ine

- 1 Nichols, Eminent Domain § 1.22 [2] ( 1964) sahiddineealdsieadiiies ae

Note, The Interest of Rootedness : Family Relocation and an

Approach to Full Indemnity, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 510, 803-804

b_) BRR "ee Ne IP ABST

Note, Urban Renewal; Problems of Minimizing and Prevent-_

_ ing Urban Deterioration, 71 Harv, L. Rev. 504 (1959) .......

Panuch, Relocation’i im New York City (1959) . iuaieiaiitcddatesaieel bee

Report of the Committee on Publie Works, U.S. Senate, to

accompany Senate Bill No. 3418, the Federal-Aid Highway

Act of 1968. Report No, 1340, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., June

ay NY Be rpentailitigenntesctnamticte cutis enintles 10, 20, 21

Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the

‘United States: Oppartunity. to Improve Allocation of Pro-

gram Funds to Better Meet the National Housing: Goal

ok PER eee CONS Se eas

Report, together with Minority Views, of the. Committee . on

Publie Works, House of Representatives, to accompany

- ILR. 17134, 90th Cong., 2d Sew., House Report No. 1584,

Ds OF cancsagtnstitiprinsh hdladonpstuenitiinistegisndalenstsbealacimetaiatbaatia staie aie

Roberts, Highway Relocation Planning and Early Judicial

Review, 7 Harv. Jour. on Lagis. 179, 180 (1970) od.

Keleet Subcommittee on Real Property Aequisition, Committee

on Publie Works, House of Representatives, 88th Cong., 2d

Sex, Study of Compensation and Assistanee for ri

Affected by Real Property Aequisition in Federal and Fed-

erally Assisted Programs (Comm. Print ae ee

_ 4

vi Taste or AuTuorrries CiTep Pages

_ + ‘Tondo, Urban Renewal Relocation : Problems in the Enforee-

- ment of Conditions on Federal G to Local Agencies,

117 U! Pa. L. Rev. 183 (1968) 14, 17, 19

US. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,

Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses |

Displaced by Governments (1965) -...... . A

US. Dept. of Commeree, Commerce Today, Table ‘1970 Pre-

liminary Population Count’, October 19, 1970, p. 25 ene’ 32

+ Wall Street Journal: February 17, 1970, p. 4, col. 2 -—---r--- 14, 15

April 7, 1970, p. 1, eol. 1 — 15

In the Supreme Court of the

United States

- October TeRM, 1970 -

, 9 ae - No. 712

TriaNncie Improvement Councu, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Wasiais S. Brrome, CoMMISSIONER,

State Roap Commission

or THE State or West Vinci, et al.,

Respondents.

> Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit ~

Brief Amicus Curiae

‘of the National Housing and

Economic Development Law Project

, i @

THE INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ;

The National Tlousing and Economie Development Law

Project was established in 1968 as a component of the Earl

Warren Legal Institute at the University of California at

Berkeley. It is funded and sponsored by the Legal Services

Division of the Office of Economic Opportunity pursuant

to the Economie Opportunity Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2711-et seq.

The chief function of the Project is to serve as a resource

for the approximately 265 Legal Services projects in

the country, which are staffed by more than 1800 attor-

‘

OD FAB PD Le EAS Sim he

ee 2 ; :

neys. These attorneys advise and represent approximately

500,000 low-income clients annually.

. Attorneys with’ the National Housing and Economie

Development Law Project assist these neighborhood law-

yers in helping their clients in the areas of federally

subsidized housing programs, private landlord-tenant rela-

tions, federal urban programs, low-income housing produc-

tion, community economie development and other matters

relating to housing and urban affairs. In addition to assist-

ance in individual cases, the Project attempts to. further the

development of the law in the area of housing and urban

affairs towards an increasing recognition of the rights

and needs of low-income persons in the United States.

Since its inception the Project has assisted neighborhood

lawyers in negotiations*with Federal and.State highway,

officials in connection with the planned construction of

. federal highways which threaten to destroy low-income -

communities’in twelve cities in eight states. In several in-

stances the Project has become co-counsel in Telocation suits

such as that here presented, where such litigation was

deemeil necessary by local counsel and their clients, Two of

such suits, which arose in Austin, Texas’ anql Seattle, Wash-

ington? and ‘are now respectively pending appeal in the

United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth

Cireuits, present .factual issues which are in important

respects virtually identical to those here presented. Indeed,

vin every dispute between an impoverished local community

to which amicus is providing assistance-and State and

Federal highway officials, the material facts are simply a

variation of those which occurred in Charleston. )

1. Concerned, Citizens for the Preservation of Clarksville v.

Volpe, No, 30286 (5th Cir.) (pending decision)

2.. Lathan v. Volpe, No. 8986 (W.D.Wash.-1970) (as yet un-

dockéted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Cireuit ; Notice of Appeal filed-on November 27, 1970.)

Me 8 4 id

Highway projects initially underway in cities: ‘across the’

country, Which collectively will cause the displacement of

‘thousands of i impoverished families and individuals, are in

the same posture as the project involved in this appeal;

that is, although displacement. has still not occurred, cer-

tain preliminary authorizatione were obtained from. the

Department of Transportation ( DOT)* prior to enactment

of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 or regulations

_ Sromulgated thereunder. Whether these prospective dis-—

~ placees, who, were inténded to benefit from the 1968 legis-

lation, will nevertheless be victimized by state highway

bcemong ee may well depend upon the outcome of this

appeal. “

That this. appeal presents a question of substantial im-

portance to the low-income persons served by the Project

is further established by statistical evidence which indicates

that in recent fears the Federal-Aid Highw ay Program has

probably. destroyed more truly low -cost housing than has

been built by the public housing program during a compar-

able period 5 As will be shown in this brief, investigations ©

3. Ez, Northeast Welfare Rights Organization. v. Volpe, No.

3437, (E.D. Wash. 1970) ( federal-aid highway project in Spokane,

‘Washington. ) .

4. Although numerous functions of the DOT relative to federal-

aid highways are performed by its constituent agencies, such as the

Federal Highway Administration and Bureau of Publie Roads,

for purposes of simplification this brief will refer only to the DOT.

5. During the 18 month period from April 1, 1965 to October 1,

1966, the homes of 49,605 families and individuals were destroyed

as a result of federal-aid highway construction. The majority of ~

the housing destroyed, was ‘‘midrange or, lower cost honsing.’’

Highway Relocation Assistance Study, a study transmitted by the

Secretary of the Department of Transportation to the Congress as

required by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966, 90th Cong., 1st

Sess., Committee Print No. 9 (1967) pp. 3-6. During 1965 and 1966

the federal government commenced the construction of only 23,000

units of publie housing annually, or 34,500 on an 18 month’ basis.

National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American

City (1968), p. 112.

sieeetienetetie diineietineiamenten tite die Bete et Ce ee) ee A eA ed é

*. 4 mee

and reports by Congress and independent organizations

- have disclosed that, even where the applicability of reloca-

tion requirements is unquestioned, they have been largely

ignored by the state and federal agenciés charged with

their implementation. Thus, in clear. violation of Congres-

sional mandate, public highway officials are exacerbating

a national housing crisis which has ‘severest eensequences —

for the poor — and the santa ‘oppressed in par-

ticular.® — |

' SUMMARY’ OF ARGUMENT

As the briefs of the parties fully set forth the facts and

proceedings below, amicus will not repeat them here. Briefly .

stated,. and only insofar as the merits are concerned, the

United States District Court for the Southern District of

West Virginia, in a decision? which was affirmed without

opinion by the United. States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth. Circuit, dismissed the complaint on two grounds: .

first, that the statutes and implementing regulations enacted

and promulgated in 1968 were inapplicable since DOT

approval of acquisition of the right-of-way for the I-77

cel was granted prior to 1968; and, second, that in

6. As stated in Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment

Agency, 395 F. 2d 920, (2d Cir. 1968) :

The specifie problem is not that non-white displacees are, on

the average, poorer than white displacees. That may be so, but

it is a more general problem. What we are concerned with is

that discrimination which forecloses much of the housing

market to some raciat groups, thereby driving up- the prige

they must pay for housing. The situation ‘is made worse by

the facet that most people displaced by urban renewal are

non white. 395 F. 2d at 931.

7. 314F.Supp 20 (S.D.W.Va., 1969)

8. 429 F.2d 423 (4th Cir. May 14, 1970). Rehearing en bane

was denied on July 14, 1970. Judge Sobeloff, joined by Judge

Winter, filed a dissenting sunn. |

> 5 7

any event, adequate replacement housing, on an open racial

basis, will be available in Charleston for the orderly reloca-

tion of persons displaced by the highway ptojéct.

Amicus will not ‘reiterate the forceful arguments pre-

sented in petitioners’ brief and in the dissenting opinion of |

Judge Sobeloff; rather it will -primarily’ confine itself to

a demonstration that in view of the history of the federal.

aid highway program and the legislative activities which

- -eulminated in the Federal: “Aid Highway. Act of 1968, Con-

gress did not intend to suspend application of that Act '

to projects like I-77.. As will be shown,- non-application

of this Act in the present case would have negative effécts

‘nationally. which ‘should not be allowed ‘to oceur in the

absence. of expticit Congressional mandate. Amicus will —

also show that the considerations which were relied upon by

the district court were. inappropriate — not the statutory

criteria.

INTRODUCTION

” The Meters of relocation assistance is replete with the

failures of government programs to minimize the terrible

impact of forced displacement upon the families and indi-

viduals involved.® Relocation assistance was unnecessary

when few displacements occurred and when condemnations

involved predominantly unimproved land.” But with the

9. See, The Legal Lawbreaker: A Study in-Official Lawlessness

Regarding Federal Relocation Requirements, Citizens Advocate’

Center (Wash., D.C., July, 1970) and Fried, Grieving for a Lost

Home: Psychological Costs of Relocation, m. URBAN RENEWAL:

THE RECORD AND. THE CONTROVERSY (J. Wilson, ed.

1966) at 359 and Hartman, The Housing of Relocated Families,

30 J. Am. Inst. Planners 266 (1964)

10. A Massachusetts statute enacted in 1639 granted authority

to lay out roads, ‘‘provided always it occasioned not the pulling

down of any man’s house, or laying open any garden or orchard.’”

1 Nichols, EMINENT DOMAIN § 1.22 [2] (1964)

tremendous recent increases in urban populations metro-

. politan facilities have become overloaded, the central cities

increasingly blighted, and large-scale government programs.

have been required to physically rehabilitate the urban

environment. In their rush to make the necessary physical .

improvements, governments at all levels neglected the

_needs of the persons displaced. Typically, government ~

officials treated statutory relocation duties as unimportant

preliminaries to the more dramatic. tasks’ of constructing

the improvements; displacees were regarded “as unfor-

tunates to whoni nothing is owed, but to: whom. something

might be given.’”* As problems of displacement and reloca-

tion were compounded, they finally began to receive serious --

‘study on the federal,’ state and municipal” level.

In the early 1960's, ‘during a period of intensive construe:

tion of Federal. aid highway s, it began to appear that the

11. National Commitssion on Urban Pistia: supra., n. 5, p. 153.

12. Note, The Interest of Rootedness: Family Relocation and

an ‘Approach to Full Lanementy; 21 Stan. L, Rev. 810, 803- 804

(1969). rae

13. See, e:g., Select Subeommittee.on Real eseierty Acquisition,

Committee én’ Public - Works, Hvouse of Representatives, 88th °-

Cong., 2d Sess., Study. of Compensation and Assistance for Persons

Affected by Real Property Acquisition in Federal and Fedcraily

Assist: Programs (Contm.,: Print 1964); U.S. Advisory Com-

mission on Intergovernmental Relations, Relocation: Unequal T reat-

ment of People and Businesses Displaced by Governments (1965) ;

Highway Relocation Assistance Study, supra., n. 5.

14. In, 1965 the California Legislature commissioned the Cali-

fornia Imw Revision Commission to study condemnation -and

relocation assistanée. Cal. Stats.1965,res. ch. 130, p. 5,289. In

part as a result of that study, the Legislature recently enacted’

. Highway Relocation Assistance Study, supra:, n. 5. '

15. See, e.g., Panuch, Relocation in New York City, (1959),:

which was commissioned by the Mager of New York in ssn

highway program was havi ing a disproportionately adverse.

effect on persons forcibly displaced from housing in the

‘path — of: proposed | highways and was otherwise imposing .

intolerable burdens on eertain, urban communities and

neighborhoods. The persons who thus suffered “from the

“highway program were invariably poor and frequently

members of. racial minority groups. Thus, in enacting the

Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1966, Congress directed that

a study be made of the relocation problem with special

emphasis on the adequacy of relocation payments and assist-

ance rendered.’* ‘The resultant JI ighway Relocation Assist-.

ance Study was submitted by the DOT to. Congress in July, |

1967.7 The Study indicated that about 168,000 individuals,

families, businesses, farmers and non-profit organizations

would be displaced during the three-year period commenc-

ing July 1, 1967. About 23- percent would be located in

-rural areas arid 77 percent in urban areas. It showed that

such prospective displacees tended to occupy low-cost hous- »

- ing.’* In this connection, the Study also pointed out that -

“[mlany State highway departments reported that a major

difficulty in. relocating low or moderate income families is

the shortage of low-rent, ee ‘either public or pri-,

vate" | pos =

- 16, Piiblie Law 89-574, 89th ae ‘Mot 13, 1966.

17. Supra.,n. 5. : ee.

18, ‘Estimates reveal that thé greater number of displacements

will involve the midrange or lower cost housing.’’ Ibid., p. 6.

According to figures contained in the Study, 86,154 of the indi-

viduals and families to be. displaced owned their own homes;

60,796 were tenants. Values of the 86,000 residential properties:

to be-taken were: 27% at $6,000 or less ; 46% at $6,000 to $15,000;

and 27% at over $15,000. Rental paid by the 61,000 tenants to

be displaced were: 41% at less than $60 per month; 43% at $60

’ to $110 per month; and 16% at over “— per month. Foid., p. 43:

19. Ibid., p. 6.

es ORAS G Mateo ws Soom se a

- 8

The inlecition: Deitiacs figured prominently in the .con-

_gressional hearings on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 - -

and related legislation. Moreover, during the course of such _

hearings, Francis C. Turner, then Director of the Bureau

of Public Roads and now Federal Highway Administrator, :

. disclosed that the 1967 Highway Relocation Assistance

Study had under-estimated the number of displacements

from housing: that would be caused by the construction of |

highways during 1967-1970. Mr. ‘Turner stated that “in

fiscal .1968, the Federal-aid highway program alone fected

some 33,000. displacements. During the present fiscal 1969

we anticipate about 56,000'displacements in: this program.””°.

The magnitude and gravity of the reloeation problem was.

indicated also by Lowell K. Bridwell, then Federal Highway

‘* Administrator, who in 1968 stated before a Congressional .

committee that: |

ss _ relocation assistance, in my opinion, is one of the

‘most serious problems facing us in the Highway Ad--

ministration and the Bureau of Public Roads, and one:

of the most serious problems facing the progress of the’

Federal-aid highway-program .... Without question,

-. I think any rational examination of the problems that

| we face in the progress of the Federal-aid highway pro- .

gram has to have as one of its big parts the problems of -

displacing persons....

e e - Bees Ur oe FS as * *

“Frequently, homeowners tthe must relocate face

higher costs than they had formerly. In some -cases, -

this tesults because there is no suitable housing com- :

parable in price to what’ these owners left. This seems °

_likely to be.the case.,for many of those to be relocated,

from highway rights-of-way. .

e. e *. * * * *

. A a .

20. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Intergoverfimental

Relations -of the Committee on Government’ Operations, U.S.

Senate, -on S.}, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land

Acquisition Policies Act of 1969, U.S. Senate, 91st —. 1st

Sess., p.. 216.

» ‘

| - 9

“How | serious a problem relocation may be for réesi-

. dents depends on such matters as their age, income‘and

.° race-and on the amount and cost, of vacant land and’

‘ replacement housing in the area. In one study of elderly.

‘homeowners, a majority of the resettled owners stated —

that the displacement had saber 4 affected their fi-

- nancial position.’ 4

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 23 U. s, C. 501

‘et seq., (also known as the Highway Relocation Assistance _

_ Act of 1968, and hereinafter referred to as the “1968 Act”)

was a-direct response to the relocation. problem and.is en-

tirely addressed to. its alleviation. The Committee Report, — a

which accompanied the Senate bill which was to become the .. ">: :

‘1968 Act, stated. the results of Senate Hearings on mae bill. °

as follows: |

| “Hearings beuesy: on. ‘December 14, 1967, and were

coneluded on-May 28, 1968. During the 12 days of hear-

ings, 36 witnesses were “heard. These witnesses in-

eluded officials ‘of various Federal agencies ; officials’

from State and local governments and agencies ; rep- *

’ resentatives of the engineering, highway and urban, .

lannitig, and architectural professions, sociololiats

and others from the académic_world, as well as indi-

viduals from other interested groups...

_ “As the hearings progressed it became obvious that.

the same range of problems was being identified and

discussed by each witness. It also’ became peerent

_ that. these problenis fell into [the same‘areas] ....”_

-“The most pressing of thesé problems and the one -

most deserving of the immediate attention of the Con-.

- gress*in the committee’s view is the ineqiitable treat-

- ment of persons or businesses displaced by highway .

construction. Accordingly, the committee has Hroposed

a TY:

. 21. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Iatinigovasannantal

Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate,

on S. 698, $.735, 8. _ 9 cas 8.29 31, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., PP. 425-427.

/ °

we >

‘; ‘

‘ f 10 ; ‘

legislation, .. . as reported, which will aid significantly

’ in redicing the Hardship of those who suffer private’

_ relocation. People are thus forced to move, but have -

injury for the public benefit. ;

. . . a ~* . .

“The evidence showed . . . that, because urbak inter-

state highways often go through rundown, dilapidated,

low-income, or so-called disadvantaged areas, those

persons least able to afford dislocation are frequently

the ones who are forced to move by our highway pro-

grams. aie oe

“In this regard it was pointed out that often when

persans are displaced from these areas there is no

housing or replacement property available for their

no place to go; or if other housing or replacement

’ housing does exist, itis usually well beyond their finan-

cial capabilities. The evidence clearly shows that there -

‘ 48 @ definite need for*procedures which provide, for

-* comparable replacement housing and property at the

In enacting the 1968 Act, Congress included the following _

“declaration of policy” in the first section thereto (23 U.S.C.

time such displacement ogeurs.”™ (Emphasis added.)

(EMR Og: |

tod

‘ Congress hereby declares that the prompt and equi- -

table relocation and reestablishment of persons, busi-

nesses, farmers, and non-profit qrganizations displaced

ax a result of the Federal highway programs and the

- gonstrtiction of FederaLaid highways is necessary to

insure that a few individuals do not suffer dispropor-

tionate injuries as a result of programs designed for

the benefit of the public as a whole, Therefore, Con-

gress declares that relocation payments and advisory

accompany Senate Bill No. 3418, the Federal-Aid Highway Act

+7,

of 1968. Kepokt No. 1340, 90th Cong., 2nd Sew, June 25, 1968, pp.

’

Keport of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, to ,

—

‘, , as

assistance should be provided to all persons so dis-

placed in accordance with the provisions of this title.

(Emphasis added.)

In order to effectuate this declaration of policy, Section 502

' of the “1968 Act provides that the Secretary %f the DOT,

”. shall not approve any Federal,aid highway project which

wil] cause the displacement of any person or business unless

‘he received “satisfactory assurances” from the State liigh-

way-department that “fair and reasonable relocation and

other payments shall be afforded displaced persons” that

“relocation assistance programs ... shall be afforded to -

displaced persons” 3 and, most important of all, that:

within a reasonable period of time prior to displace-

ment there will be available, to the extent that ean rea-

sonably be accomplished, in areas not generally less

desirable in regard-to public utilities and publie and °

commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the

financial means of the families and individuals dis-

. ._ , Placed, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings, as defined

by the Seeretary, equal in number to the number of.

and available to such displaced families and individuals

and reasonably accessible to their places of employ-.

ment.” : ;

Section 508 of the 1968° Act requires each state to-provide «

“a relocation advisory assistance program” which shall in-

clude such measures, facilities or services as may be neces-

sary or appropriate in order “to determine’ the needs, if

any, ofdisplaced famili@band individuals . . . for-relocation

23. 23 U.S.C. §502(1).

24. 23 U.S.C. § 502(2).

25. 23 U.S.C. $502(3). As is discussed infra, n. 75, this statute,

like a number of others pertaining to displacement from ‘various .

federal programs, was modelled after and is almost identical to the

s federal statute governing urban renewal- relocation, 42 U.S.C. °

he J § 1455(¢) (1). ‘

’ .

nsxixtance,”™ and to assufe that the requirements of See-

tion 502 can be met.

Pursuant to specific statutory authorization,” the See-

retary of the DOT issued detailed regulations which define

and expand the provisions of the above statutes. Initially

these regulations were contained exclusively, in DOT In- | -

struetional Memorandum (“IM”) 80-1 68, dated September

h, 1968, ixxued two weeks after the effective date of the

1968. Act, Thereafter, IM 80-1-68 was amended on several

ocensions, primarily to make certain adjustments in pro-

visions relating to relocation payments™ and to conform.

other provisions to requirements of the Civib Rights Act

of 1968.

‘These fairly enlightened relocation requirements have

unfortunately had little effect in the actual administration

of the federal-itid highway program. Recent hearings before

the House Committee on Public Works” revealed that in

the informed opinion of the independent experts who testi-

fied. the’ DOT had “engaged in, and knowingly tolerated,

a pattern of pervasive evasion” of the relocation statutes.”

ied

26. 2318.0. $508(a).

27, 22US.C.§510{a) (Db).

os On October 2, 1968, paragraph %e(2) of the IM was revised

to make certain owner-oceupants eligible for a. paymen of up to

1.000 for use ax rent supplement or down-payment on t purehase

of a dwelling. ‘

»”) On November 15, 1968, various: provisions of paragraph 5

of the IM were revised to require that the replacement housing’ to

be provided displacees must be “available to persons withont regard

to race. color, religion or national origin.” Seg, e.g., IM 80-1-68,

paragraph 5a(5).

40. Hearings before the Committee on Publie Works, House of

Representatives, Ost Cong., Ist and 2nd Sess.,.on TLR, 14898, ILR.

14599, 8.1 and related bills.

’ 3L Thid., Statement of. Edgar 8. Cabn, pp. 370-379. Dr. Cahn’s

statement contained the following conelusion :

“ <= Ss -

“tee : . 13 r

Similarly, a comprehensive and heavily documented report

on relocation recently issued by a citizens organization in

Washington, D.C, also coneluded that the DOT and HUD

had “lawlessly” antl consistently ignored federal relocation

requirements.*? The DOT's noncompliance with federal law

and its own regulations in connection with highway reloca-

tion has thus proved remarkably-similar to the dismal and

The history. of statutory relocation requirements—twenty

years of them—is that they are ignored, they are evaded, they -

are not enforeed. Codification of the hodgepodge that now

exists and creation of a uniform procedure drawn from the

best features of various agencies ‘will not and cannot, standing.

by itself, change the fundamental historical fact that the Ex-

— branch, pursues a more fundamental relocation proce-

ure: . ‘ ‘ * :

“See no evil; hear no evil: speak no evil.”

For, let. us be very eandid, the Executive branch—and par-

tiedlarly HUD and DOT—have jong engaged in, and know- .

ingly tolerated, a pattern of pervasive evasion of statute after

statute, congressional mandate after congressional mandate,

and court ease after court case. ..

. The record leaves no room for doubt regarding relocation

requirements. For the past twenty years there has been a pat-

tefn of official lawlessness.on the part of the Federal Govern-

ment which must be arrested. : ,

It ean hardly be said that Congress has been coy or ambig-

uous regarding the duty of the federal government and the

priority importance it assigned to adequate relotation. On six

separate oeeasions Congress has stated and then restated its

wishes, each time in more stringent, explicit and mandatory

terms. — ; :

See also statement of Yale Rabin, urban transportation planning

consultant and member of the Ameriean Institute of Planners,

Thid., pp. 479-485; and statement of Gerald P. Norton, first vice

president, Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Associa-

tion, Ibid., p. 187. a

32. The Legal Lawbreakers: A Study in Official Lawlessness Re-

garding Federal Relocation Requirements, Citizéns Advoegate Cen-

ter (Washington, D.C., July, 1970) See also, Roberts, Highway

Relocation Planning and Early Judicial Review, 7 Harv. Jour. on

Legis. 179, 180°(1970). ;

extraordinarily well documented record of non-enforeement

of almost identical urban renewal relocation requirements.”

The inability of the DOT to compel state highway*depart-

ments to comply with the relocation requirements of the

1968 Act and implementing regulations soon heeome ap-

parent, hot only to independent observers and ware

public, but as well to some senior federaJAlighway icials.™

In a press conference on February 1, 1970, reported in the

Wall Strect Journal, Seeretary Volpe announced that *Fed-—

eral efforts will be stepped up to insure that. the 1968

highway laws’ provisions for decent housing are enforced”

and that “the availability of adequate replacement housing,

either already built or planned, myst be assured for initial

federal approval of any [highway] project, and the new

housing must be built before construction is authorized.”

_ 33. See, e.g., Report to the Congress by the Comptroller ¢ ieneral

of the United States: Opportunily to Improve Allocation of Pro-

aram Funds to Better Meet the National Housing Goal (October 2,

_ 1970); Tondro,-Urban Rencival Relocation: Problems in the En-

foréement of Conditions on Federal Grants to Local Agencies, 17

+ A”. Pa. L. Rev. 183 (1968): Note, Urban Renewal: Problems of Min-

imizing and Preventing Urban Deterioration, 71 Harv. L. Rey. 504

(1959): Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical’ Analysis of

Urban Renewal, 1949-1962 (MIT Press 1964); Greer, Urban Re

newal and American Citiés (Bobbs-Merrill, 19654. See also Norwalk

CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F. 2d 920 (2d Cir.

1968); Powelton Civie Home Owners Association v. Dept. of Hous-

ing and Urban Dev., 284 F. Supp. 809 (E.D. Pa. 1968) ; and West-

ern Addition Community Organization. v. Weaver, 294 F, Supp.

* $33 (NLD. Cal. 1968). . { ;

34. ‘The facet that the DOT was running into “revolt” by state

highway departments,disinelined to comply with new federal hear-

ing procedures was noted by Alan S. Boyd, then Seeretary of

Transportation, at Congressional hearings. See Hearings before the

Sulicommhittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, U.S.

House of Representatives, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., on H.R. 17134 and

Related Bills, May 23/1968, pp. 234-235. ae,

35. Wall Street Journal; February 17, 1970, p. 4, col. 2. This

article also quotes “department sources” as adding that: “In many

instances . .. highway projects have moved along without replace-

ment housing being made available to those whose homes are in a

road's path, or the quality of replacement housing provided has

been low.”’ Ibid. The Wall Street Journal article is reproduced

in Hearings before the Committee on Public Works, House of Rep-

resentatives, supra, n. 30, p. 478.

” 4

; ey ine 15

‘ Heaildedthat,. rod seen ey

: . in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1968,

efforts will be made to see that all replacement housing

is fair housing, meaning open to all persons regardless

of race, color, religion, national origin or sex, under

the new Department policy.”

Two months later, on April 6, 197), Secretary Volpe -

convened another press conference at which he was reported

as “insisting that any highway projects that would demolish

houses be held up until decent replacement housing is

‘ assured.”*? Less than a week later, on April 10, 1970, the °

Secretary put the power of, his office behind his public

statements by issuing DOT Circular Memorandum. dated

April 10, 1970 entitled Relocation Assistance-Availability

of Replacement Housing.** This Cireular Memorandum,

which by its terms applies to all Federal-aid highway

projects authorized prior to Mar 1, 1970 on which dis-

‘placement has not been completed, states in material part

as follows (emphasis added) :.

36. Ibid, The article also aseribes to Department-of Transporta-.

tion “sources” the explanation that “this means, for example, that

if a Negro is foreed to move from a black ghetto beeduse of a new

highway and doesn't want to move isto another all-black area be-

cause he’s concerned that the homes may be low-grade ones, he must -

be provided with integrated housing.”

: 37. Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1970, p. 1, Col. 1 (Emphasis

‘ added.) See also Memorandum of Secretary of Department of

Transportation: Implementation of Replacement Housing Policy,

_ January 15, 1970, and stafgment of Frank C. Turner, Administra-

tor of the Federal Highway Administration, at Hearings before the

Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, House

; ~! we og peg ee 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., on H.R. 16788 and related

bills, p. 995.

. 38. This Cireular Memorandum is the one referred to below in

the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Sobeloff, 429 F. 2d 423 at

425 n. 5, although Judge Sobeloff inadvertently noted the date of

the subject Memoranduny as March 27, 1970. In fact, March 27th

was the date of the “White Cireular Memorafidum” whieh was su-

perseded by the Circular Memorandum of April 10th.

The division engineer shall not atithorize any phase of |

construction (clearance ‘of right-of-way regardless of

of how performed. is considered. to be a construction

‘ phase insofar as this memorandum is concerned )

which would require the displacement: of individuals

or families, or permit the dislocation of individuals or

families on any such project gr-on any project already

aitthorizgd; until such tinie jas the person being re-

.. located has either by hims¢lf obtained and -has the

right of possession of adeqiate replacement housing”

or the State offers him adequate replacement housing

whieh is available for immediate occupancy. Sa

Such replacement housing shall be:

a. Fair housing—open to all persons regardless

of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

b. In.areas not generally less desirable in regard ©

to: -, : .

1. Publie utilitie :

2. Publie and commercial facilities

.° e: Available at rents or prices within the finan-

cial means of the families afd individuals dis-

. _ placed. Jppee .

d. Decent, safe and sanitary. ney

-e. Reasonably accessible to the displacees’ places

of employment. ., ee a

f. Adequate to accommodate the displacee. .

__ Since isstiing the April, 1970 regulations, the Secretary

has publicly testified that “[t]he construction of urban

freeways has been a disruptive force in-some of our urban

areas and perhaps-accelerated the process of central city

decay.”*”* This is understatement—particularly in view of

the fact that the billions upon billions of dollars regularly

39.. Hearings before the Subeommittee on Roads of the Commit-

tee on Publie Works, House of Representatives, supra, n. 37, p. 948.

>»

ta oe . ow .

appropriated for federal-aid highways® far exceed the

funds available for urban redevelopment and subsidized

‘housing programs, These latter programs are thus unable

to repair the human and physical damage wrought by the

overfinanced bulldozers of state highway departments. _

There are a numbér of obvious reasons for the failure of

the DOT and state highway departments to even approach

compliance with the relocation requirements. First, as in .

the case of federal programs administered by other execu- .

_ tive departments,’ the DOT is in the position of relying

almost entirely on ‘state officials not only to develop the

specifie standards implementing ‘the relocation, require-

ments, but also to provide the information necessary to

- determine in advance whether. the statutory criferia can

be met. The success of these state officials will depend, not

upon their: success in relocating displacees, but in com-

pleting highway projects as rapidly as ‘possible. To com-

pound the.problem, the DOT also depends upon staté high- ~

way officials for the information necessary to evalyate

state compliance with the standards in carrying out reloca-

40. The cost of completing the Interstate System, as submitted

to Congress in 1968, was $56.5 billion. Report of the Committee on

Publie Works, U.S. Senate, supra., n. 22, p. 3. A total of $5.044

billion was made available for obligations of the -federal-aid high-

way pfogram for only the nine month period from July 1, 1969

through, April 1, 1970. CCH. Ursan Arrairs ‘Reports, {| 18,675. A.

total of. $1.25 billion is available for obligations during just the ‘first

quarter of fiseal 1971. Ibid., | 18,759. The colossal cost of the high-

way program may also be illustrated by the fact that 20 miles of ~~

planned highway in Chicago will cost approximately- $1 billion.

Hearings before the Subeommittee on Roads of the Committee on

Public Works, House of Representatives, supra, n. 38, p. 955. The

_ distribution of funds among the states is published in DOT J nstruc-

' tional Memorandum 305-70. -

41. See, Tondro, supra.,n. 33; p. 198.

* ee

7 fey ee

tion.” This wholesale. turnover of the highway program to

state officials likely to adopt a biased view of the relocation

problem* reflects the DOT’s. response to pressures on it-

self. The state highway department, not politically impo-

tent or racially oppressed displacees, is the DOT’s recur-

_Ting “client”; without state’ highway departments’ willing-

.ness to undertake further projects, certain constituent

agencies of the DOT would find it difficult or impossible to

continue operating.“ But by identifying §0 closely with one

point of view, the DOT in its supervision of relocation, has

become yet another regulatory agency now controlled by

the very interests it was designed to regulate. :

A further reason for the failure of enforcement of thé

relocation requirements emerges out of the fact that

“(t]hose involved with the problem on the’ state level

are usually state highw ay department engineers With prac-

tically no training or. expemence in understanding and .

dealing with the complex ‘social and economic problems of

the displaced person.” If officials of local redevelopment

agencies, who are far more experienced with the problems

Gf relocation” and more regularly concerned with it, can

42. See IM 80-1-68, picagregh 7a(3) and 7b(1).

43. As stated in Hartman, supra, n. 9, af-280:

1 hag re pe question whether local @ithorities are free to |

judge nd report on the results of their relocation operations

in an/jobjective and impartial manner. In effect, the local

ageney may have no choice but to issue extremely positive re- .

location reports: anything less than this might préduée legal,

political, and techniéal conflicts and could slow up‘or curtail

the entire rebuilding effort, which is the principal goal of the

authority and its program. =~

44. See Roberts, supra., n. 32, at 191.

45. Ibid.; pp. 181-182.

_ 46. The urban renewal relocation requirements were initially :

enacted as part of the Housing Act of 1954, P. L. — 78 Stat.

769, 786.

; Bees

be lax with the rights of displacees,” it is unlikely that

highway officials aré apt to’ be more assiduous in their -

"responsibilities. Because of their inexperience and desire

to avoid matters which may hinder or delay the construc-

tion of a highway, it has been suggested that highway

officials “may attempt to gain initial approval for thgir

proposed projects by submitting false or dbsolete data

concerning relocation to the [DOT]. ,

ae ARGUMENT |

I. The Federal Relocation Requirements Apply to Benefit. and

Protect All Residents of a Federal-Aid Highway Project Not -

Yet, Displaced on the Date of Their Enactment. __

“Amicus will not here reiterate the compelling arguments

» amply: set forth in. petitioners’ brief and in Judge Sobel-_

off’s dissenting opinion below in support of application -

in this case of the 1968 Act and implementing regulations.

Such application I" Warranted, however, not only by the

plain. statutory And. regulatory language, the legislative

history and relevant decisional law; but as well by the’

47. See Tenants and Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment v.

Romney, No. C-69-324 (N.D: Cal. April 29, 1970) where the court

noted that “|t}he evidence .. . is overwhelming in establishing that

[officials of HUD and the.loeal redevelopment agency] have not

met the mandate of Congress laid down in [the urban renewal relo-

cation statutes ... which] make it abundantly clear ‘that Congress

* intended residents of blighted areas to be beneficiaries, not victims,

of urban. renewal.” Slip Opinion, pp. 31-32. See also, Norwalk -

CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopiient Agency, 395 F. 2d 920 (2d Cir.:

. 1968) ; Powelton Civic Home Owners Association v. Dept. of Hous-

ing and Urban Dev., 284 F. Supp. 809 (E.D. Pa. 1968) and West-

ern Addition Community Organization v. Weaver, 294 F. Supp.

433 -(N.D. Cal. 1968). © am es

48. Roberts, supra., n. 32, p. 180. The practice of submitting in-

aceurate.and often deliberately misleading data concerning reldea-

‘ tion is authoritatively reported as widespread’ among local redevel-_

opment agencies. See, e.g., Tondro, supra., n. 33, p. 194, and author-

‘ities therein cited and discussed.

+? ; + ee Sen ee

i 4 eae . . i: 20 :

fact that modapplication of the agi in this case would

have a terrible impact nationally uporthousands of impov-

erished displaceés—an effect Dot intended, by Congress.

During: its deliberations on the 1968 “Act, Congress —

understood ‘that the. planning and construction=ef federal-

aid highway projects. was an exceedingly lengthy” process

and that, for example, 8 to 10 years may elapse between

the initial’ proposal of a particular project and actual

construction, - During» this protracted period the state

highway department must seek and obtain from the DOT

- “eorridor” or, route -approval and, subsequently, ‘design

approval. Each of these approvals ean be given.-only -

after the highway department has held . appropriate

‘public hearings.” Thereafter, the state must submit “plans,

specifications and estimates” limited to the acquisition of , -

right-of-way. Lastly, the. DOT must approve new and

different “plans, specifications and estimates” regarding

the construction stage.” It is this last approval which ° ;

constitiites “final approval,” Such: approval. ‘was never

given with respect to-I-77, and that highway ‘project has

therefore never been finally approved. Therefore, the state-

ment in the District Court’s opinion that the I-77 project |

“was finalized some five years ago”® is legally unfounded.

and misleading.

49. Report? of the Committee on Public Works, U. S, Senate,

supra., n. 22, p. 10. On June 10, 1970, Secretary Volpe testified

vat congressional hearings’that urban interstate projects, such as

1-77, would normally requjre 6 years of planning and construction.

HEARINGS before the beommittee on Roads of the Committee

on Public Works, Housé of Representatives, supra., N. 37, p. 979.

50. DOT Policy and Procedure Memorandum’ 20-8

51. DOT Policy and Procedure Memorandum 21-7.

52. For a detailed description of ‘some of the factual and legal

distinctions between corridor approval, design approval, acquisition.

approval and construction or ‘‘final’’ approval, see D.C. Federation

of Civic Associations v; Volpe, 316 F. Supp. 754, 774 et seq., (D. D.C.

1970)

53. 314F. Supp. at 31.

' 5 and 7 of IM

‘91 « 3 ee

It must be emphasized | in this connection that the majority

Triangle area notwithstanding tlie fact that the DOT

approved acquisition of right-of-way for I-77 approximately

four years ago.) Thus it is highly significant that, pursuant

to paragraph 7b of IM 80-1-68, the state highway departs.

ment’s ‘relocation plan: may be submitted to ‘the federal

division engineer just prior- to proveeting: with con-

| struction.™ : +*

Since the DOT has not granted construction approval |

for the subject portions.of I-77 on.the effective date of the |

1968 Act, and since-no residents.of the: Triangle area nat

had been disp fa at that time, application of @#acraphs

0-1-68 would have’ imposed no serious

burden on the project. In view of the fact that completion

as of the project will, in any event, probably require many.

years, delay of a few’ months still w. ould be a relatively

smali price to pay for the gir thus: afforded dis-

ig tic ; a

+ On June 28, 196 8, tle 'date the 196 g. Lei ‘was apart ;

} out of the Senate:Committee, there were 8,500 federal-aid

highway projects underway which, like the I-77 project,

had received design or right- -of-way acquisition approval

but were, not yet in the construction stage.” Collectively

. 54. Paragraph 7b states in misesial part as follows: j

Right-of-Way Acquisition and/or Constriction Stage.

The State highway department, prior to proceeding with-

right- of-way negotiations and/or construction shall furnish.

~ the’ following information for review and approval by the

~ division engineer... . (Emphasis added) -

55, Report of the Committee on Public Works, US. Senate,

supra., n. 22, p. 3.

of highway displacements invariably occur during the

~» actual construction stage. (And it is for this reason that

numerous -prospective displacees are still. resident in the .

as a Oh he De ose Leatio tiia |

99 ere 4

“these projects will cause (or may in part already jiave.

caused) over ,100;000 residential displatements.’ * The ma- —

jority of such dis acees were low -income persons, pre- .

cisely those of pre-eminent concern to. Congress." Theré-.*j.

forg, had Congress intended to deny the benefits of the 1968 ‘o*

‘Act to displacées of on-going projects, it must be assumed

_ such an intent would haye been expressed: i in the statute—

as it was expressed i in similar statutes on analogous ocea-

sions.” inge sueh an intent was not expressed, it must ”

bé presitmed ‘not té have existed. Me goa |

Not only does the 1968 Act contain no » langtiage- reat fict-

ing application to highway -prdjects initially commencéd +

after-its effective date, but the regulations promulgated | Pg

gursuant to the’ Act justify the conclusion that such rE ee

striction’ was never even contemplated by the DOT. The» /

terms of Paragraph 2b(2) and (3) of’ DOT Instructional |

Memoranduni 80-1- 68 (which state thaf provisions ‘of the IM

56. The Highway Relocation pee ae Study, sag nm 6. »

_ stated, af p. 5,, that 146,950 families and individuals would be,

_, displaced’ during the three-year period eo mencing July 1, 1967.

- In view of the length of the highway pla ing process, it must be

assumed that the projects causing these ‘displacements received

most prelintinary approvals prior ‘to August 23, 1968. 3 Pa

57. Jbid., p. 6.

58. See 23 U.S.C. $501 and Report of the Coninities on Publie ~

. Works, U.S. Senate, supra., n. 22, p. 7, wherein’ the Committee :

noted that ‘‘beeause urban interstate highways often go through

7 yundown, dilapidated, low-income or so-called disadvantaged areas,

those ‘persons least able to’ afford dislocation are frequently the

ones who are forced to, move by our highway programs. ‘gage

59. As Snoted elsewhere by petitioners, Congress specifically

prohibited the application of the 1962 highway relocation amend-

ment to projects approved p¥ior to its enactment. 23 U.S.C.

§ 133(e, “And in adopting: relocation’ requirements for urban

renewal which are very similar to those here at issue, Congres?

expressly stated that ‘the new requirements did not apply to

- projects in’ which HUD had already approved planning grants.

See also, § 106(f)’and (h) of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C.

- 1455(f) and (h), which pertain to replacement housing facilities ~

for persong displaced by urban renewal projects.

- g

1968 on whieh individuals and families have not Cen dis-

oa ae: | .

are applicable t to- prosectis rae, Be ieline raga}

placed) make it eminently clear thrat, these regulations were -

inténded ‘o apply to all- ‘highway projects from which, as.

of the effective* date of ‘the statute residents were yet ‘to |

be displaced, regardless of when they receiv ed initial féd- .

eral “authorization. This conclusion is further supported

: by the terms of Paragr aph 5a of IM 80-1-68 which provides

that no state. highway departinent shall he authorized to

the displacement of any person.....,” until it has furnished.

satisfactory assurfinces pollwerisiieg eeleditbiia. t Hanpifasis

, added.) The first sentence of paragraph 5b of the IM;

which standing alone mifht waryant the opposite con:

clusion, is immediately qualified in the next following

‘sentence, which provides that. the. state ‘ ‘will pick up the

sequence at phatever point: it may be in the acquisition

program” on the issuing date of the regulgfions. On Sep-

tember 5, 1968 (the date of issuance of TM $0- 1-58) West

Virginia highway -authorities- had not received fe deral

‘authorization to pr aceed with construction of the subje et ?

| portions of I-77, the “phase” whieh would cause displace- ,

ment, and the project was still in the aeqpisition stage. No

residents of ‘the Triangle area had heen forcibly displaced .

at that date. The conclusion is therefore inescapable that.”

the relocation requirements were intended. to apply with

full force, to the 1-77 project as part of the “sequence” to

he “picked up’ > at whatever point: it may have heen-in the

acquisition“stage. en :

Moreover, as petitioners have shigwn, even indulging the - °

unwarranted assumption that the ‘first sentence of para-

graph 5b’ of the TM should be read as if in a vacuum to

ae justify non-application, the issuance of DOT Ciréular Mem-

orandum dated ‘April 10, 1970, while the appeal below was

“.proceed with “any phase of any iiett which will cause -

pénding, wo ld still operate ta effectively require applica-

tion. Thorpe v*Housing Authority of the City of Durham.” |

AGS The instant appeal is not the first in w hich an appellate.

“court has been askéd.to rule upon application of the 1968

Act and implementing regulations to ‘a particular project.

commenced prior to their, enactment. In D.C. Federation -

. of Civie Associations v. Volpe,® which nMolved._ the Three

Sisters Bridge project in Washington, D.G,,. 0 e of the

Vissueg confronting the Court of Appeals or the “District

‘ “of Columbia was W hether a so-called “destgn public hear-

ing” “required by: new ‘DOT regulations must be held in

view of the alleged fact that the DOT had given design

apirov al prior’ ‘to the effective date of the regulations.

The district court never reached this issue, since it granted °

summary judginent ‘for appellees after concluding ° that

the alleged violations of the 1968 Act, and regulations would -

not be vensidered because “Congress intended that the

_ District of Colmabia commence construction of the Bridge

project as séon as possible, and that no further planning or’

hearing requirements of Title 23 need Ke complied*with.””

The court of appeals reversed this lower ‘court. decision

‘and remanded for a factual determination whether location

.approval was obtained prior to the effective date ‘of the’

~ regulations. Cireuit Judge Wright, “writing for the ma-

* jority, -pointed-outthat— |

Since these road projects .may ivbeviabalily affect or

a destroy basie rights—for example,. the basie right of °

‘a citizen to live in his home—we must carefully and

meticulously serutinize any proposal which would deny

to. some their federally created right to influence the

course of a highw ay in their neighborhood to determine

60. 393 U.S. 268 | :

61. Civil No. 23,870 (D.C. Cir. April 6, 1970)

62. ‘ Ibid., Ship Opinidn, p. 2

raat eet |

G whethe r x discrimination - is ¢ ‘necessary, ‘to tsa ACs

} complishment” of the ‘congressional objective—a fed-

_ erally financed interstate highway system.”

4,’

In a separate concurring opinion J udgé¢ Bazelon récog-

. nized that there was some ambiguity in the 1968 Act as to

“whether particular préPisions were intended to apply to

the Three Sisters Bridge. Project. lle agreed. that the am- . ;

_. sbiguity should be resélved in favor-of application, not ont ~

-- hecause there were no “explicit criteria” in ‘the statute justi-_

fying non.applicatior to that particular project, ‘but as well -

because: such an interpretation —— . _*

... avoids treating District residents less Sdeceahis

_ thane all’ other. citizens with respect to ‘the federal, *

highway system... ¢ Apart from constitutional con- - 7

siderations, we should not lightly presume tlfat Con- .

gress Jas deprived District residents of an oppor-

‘tunity .afforded to all other citizens, at least in ‘the .

. absence of the clearest legislative ‘mandate, w hich is

— here. £4 rat

a oa While the facts in ‘the D. C. PF wisi case aré not’per-

feetly analogous t8 those here presented, the reasoning of

‘Cirenit Judges Wright and Bazekn is nev ertheless highly .

relevant. Respondents would deny to: residents of the Tri-

- angle protections and benefits which may -well effect their —

basic right to decent; sare and sanitary housing. This Court

has frequently recognized that adequate, housing afi, NM Smee

necessary of life.” An® by determining where one liyes,

housing also” ‘determines access to jobs, education and

recreation. Therefore, where, as’ here, a. statutory scheme

63. Did, Slip Opinion, p. 14

- 64,5 Tbid., — Opinion, pp. 2-3 (separate, coneurrinig, spitiion

~—of Bazelon,’ Zz. ¥:

' 65. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 156; Shapiro v. Phompscin,

394 U.S: 618, 627.

bd eis “wf ’ - ad

5 we ~ °

s- ‘

. - ,

* s

— ~

| . 6

involves seh ; a findamental“human need, this Court aust re

“carefully and meticulously pr serutinize a propeased: inter- ~ °

pretation which would deny to many "thousands of poor pe oh

persons the federatly created right to adequate relocation :

-- housing. : “eho : :

It i is interesting to note that upon. ‘iment of D. C. Fed-

eration the district court also rejected the statutory inter- —

pretation again sought by DOT. officials. After considering

at length fhe extensive testimony-of such officials , including

that/ of Secretary Vélpe himself, and after recognizing “the

“ deference which it must give td the interpretation of nd-

| \ministrative regulations, by the administrative officials who —

‘promulgate and enforce them”,” the court neyertheless —

rejected their proposed interpretation as “unreasonable

and inconsistent with the purpose of [the regulations. ]”**.

In effecty then, both the court of appeals and the district’ -

court considered the basi¢ ‘rights of the. affected publie °», :

too important to be ignored on the basis of highly technical, |

and indeed spécjous, arguments concerning the prrported,

66. As also pointed out by Judge Wright: | re

If we were to accept ‘appellees interpretation of Section 93, =

we would be confronted with difficulties, -possibly of con-’

.. stitutional magnitude. The provisions [of the 1968 Act} listed

above are the “essential safeguards which Congress has estab-

' lished, on & nationwide basis, to en$ure that massive freeway

° projects are not constructed unless there has been a good

faith effort on the part.of the state and.local planners. to

take community neéds and resources into consideration . .

The Secretary ‘of Transportation is charged with overseeing .

the planning and may’ not approve road projects, thus ullow-

_. ing them to be built with federal funds, until he finds that

’. all these considerations have been properly takén into account. .

; D.Q. Federation of. Civic Associations v. Volpe, ‘supra, Slip

ae Opinion,’ pp. 5-6 ~— °

67. ‘D.C.-Federation of vie Associations v. Volpe 316 F. “Supp:

', 754, 784 (D. D. C. 1970) _ :

68. Ibid., 316 F. por: at 785. 7

Loa

o——

a ae cis &

“non-retroactivity” of regulations designed to protect the ..

. public interest. This Court must do no dess.. i

“ai ae : dear p es Hip z “@ ‘

“IL. In the Absence, of a Satisfactory Relocation Plan, Evidence

. ef a State Highway Department's Ability to Provide Adequate

“Replacement Housing for Particular Displacees Is ——

and Legally‘relevant. e* ,

In. proceedings below the distr ict onat apparently relied

‘upon the testimony of federal and state highw ay officials

. that “appropriate”: replacement. housing could be found,

-and that “rio one will be displaced unless guitable (i.e.,

es decent, safe; and sanitary’) and lawful -reloeation “housing

is available 2 The district court also: concluded that .

' “adequate relocation housing, on an open racial basis;

v. Weaver, 294 'F. Supp. 433, 441 (N.D. Cal. 1968) :

- ; J ‘ >

will be available in the Charleston area” for-an orderly

Crk is . ers . ee et, >

relocation of &ie displacees from the interstate. highway

corridor.””? These statements are not only, erroneous as ‘a

“matter of fact, as petitigners demonstrate,_but are judg-

> ments which must in -the_first- instance be made by the.

" Seeretary of the DOP; not the courts.” Moreover, and -

69. 314F. ae at 30. as a on

70. Ibid, ati: =" ae ged

71. The ‘proper funetion of the courts in ‘relocation eases such

as this was stated in Western Addition, Community, O

This injunctive relief does not mean that this court is pre-

sumptyously attempting ‘to administer the complexities of

‘urban- redevelopment. That is not thie tunctiop of the « eourt

___-nor is the .court administratively equipped .to do so?gNor

does it mean that this court is. attempting. to substitute its

Organization

judgment for that of the. Secretary concerning the ‘‘satib- ..

factoriness’” of the local ageicy’s relocation plan.

Our decision simply means that the ‘court can and sho

~ see totit that the Séeretary complies: with the requirements of /-

the federal statute, ‘and his own. regulations,, not merely i

*'form but in substanee, and that, the administrative discretion

- vested in him by law is not arbitrarily abused, -as in Ai

ease, but is reasonably exercised’ with some substantia) basis

court upon review of administrative aetion, of the d here

e - involved, 8 . &

in. fact to support. it. Such is the traditional theff of .the :

11S °

OF aie

perhaps most important, the ‘distr bat obit did not base:

. its judgments about the availability of relocation Aongip

cis Ba re

on relevant *statutory criteria. | ee re ya

Fhe 1968 Act was designed, not. simply _toindare that:

» displacees were adequately. rehoused, bit as W all ‘to ifisure -

- that such relocation did notagenetate untoward repefeus-

sions in local housing” markets. It is for this reason ‘that:

_ the régulations~r require “dpvelapment of a “relocation: pro-- 2

gram plan” which, among other things, takes into .con- eee

sideration concurrent: displacement from other | federay - te

state® or local programs and private vaca i as. ‘well as

competing | démand generally¥* eatis ck

Paragraph 7 of IM 80-1-68, which pertains, to. planning as ft

*e.

- * for the relocation program, relates in many respects. to

ws $

. SRgtion 508 of the 1968 Act, This section, like, Section 502,

was ‘modelled after Section 105(¢) of the Housing Act of

1949,"* which concerns urban renewal relocation. %. Because

the urban renewal - planning, administration, and evalua- + *

’ tion guidelines are older, and’ have received far «more le

judicial ‘attention™ than those. regarding federal-aid, high-

ways, . the: “urban renewal , cases are highly releyant for

72. DoT” Histructional. Memorandum 80-1- 68, i | -

93. Ibid.,-para. 7(¢) ; ne

74, 23 U.S.C: §1455(ce) °°:

' 95, This early relocation statute was also the model for similar,

statutes Yelating to other federal housing programs, Sée, ers

‘ 42 USC, § 1415(7) (b) (iii) (publie hdusing) ; 42,,U.8. @§3307(a).,

(demonstration cities program) ; and sh, Scr § BOOS) Series aoe

; mass-transportation program). ‘e me rs |

76. See, ¢.g., Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment Ageney,

395 F. 2a 920 (2d Cir. 1968); Powelton *Civic Home Owners .-

Civic. Association v. Department.of Housing and Urban Develop- :

_ment, 284 F» Supp, 809, (E:D.:-Pa. 1968) ;. Western Additions

“Community Organization v, Weaver, 294 F. Supp.:433 (N.D. Cal.

1968) ; Garrett v. City..of Hamtramck,’ No. 32004 (E.D._Mich.

_ §.D., March 7, 1969) (unreported decision) ; ; Tenants and Owners in °

Opposition to Redevelopment v. Romney,-No. C-69-324 (N.D. Cal.

April 29, ys ; Talbot v. ‘ried! No. 2402 eae Y., August: nae

20, 1970). . vd

RSE IO RAE SI TN

Pe ee

. 4 >

. .

Se he _ TEve *

i lee ee al . &

es a

parposes of interpret in .the highway. reloéation? giide-

2 lines. Many of. the urhy

renewal relocation, cases, émpha-

e size that‘w hether Nobel agency ‘has complied with federak.. ;

relocation requirements is not to be determined solely ori

the basis. of whether it can, find adequate replacement hous--

— ing for particular displaces. (and certainly .not on the. :

basis of undocumented: speculations. stich .as were relied

upon below). For example, in Powelton Civie. Home

“ Owners Association v. ahi of Housing ar Uren Dev.,™

the court observed that:

as detertnining the availability of satisfactory reloca-

tion facilities, the Secretar#’s inquiries w ill -be directed

“towards the ascertaining of general statistical facts:

market? What are the competing demands. from other :

‘housing consumers? What are’ the general. needs of the

’ displaced families? [citations] The peculiar problems. *

-- of one individual or of one family within the project.

. site will not be: ‘Televant to the. Secretary's determina-

ig tion. 78

As in the context of urban renewal, West Virginia highway

-- <fficials’ purported abili y to obtain adequate replacement —

mS housing in Charleston for. displacees of I-77 is not the sole

or even.the most important test under the 1968 Act. For even:

assuming this goal could be achieved; the costs of achieving

‘it might well be to deprive others of housing who are equally -

in need, drive up rents, .decrease mobility, and further

_ impact the Charleston housing market. Unless a state high: :

way department has gathered and ev@uated information

| —— concurrent Seeman and. other factors relat-

77. 284 F. Supp. 809 (E.D: Pa. 1968) :

78. Ibid. at p. 829. See also, Tenants and bRiines im ‘Onn tbeivs

; to Redevelopment v. Romsey, No. C-69- e246 (N. D. Lal April 29,

As ee Shp — Dp. 31.

t oe +

ee aes

ing to. the, local demand for and supply of howsing, there can

be no assurance that even | the suecessful- relocation of

displaces will ‘nok create: a new housing problerit or W orsen.

-- an existing. one. Ree aie

"So fargas is shown by the record, respondents, have ne

reliable information on relevant vacancy rates in Charles-

ee -ton; no eurrent information on rent Tanges br ‘prices of.

ee available: housing; no information concerning the amourit

a) re . | \ of available housing which conforms. to housing codes and

#46 ge\: is “dgcent, ‘safe-and sanitary” : ‘no ihformation on the num-

z —— ber of. otherwisé available‘ housing Units. to be demoflshed’

as. a-result of. urban renewal, ‘code enforcement. or private

~* development; no information on the proximity of available 2

. housing to publie transportation; and “no ‘information on

ao oes _ whether and, if so, howunch housing is is available w ithout

ne ‘regard’ to.,tace, eolor?religion or national origin. Simiarly, _

ie es . respondents submitted no aceurate-and * up to date infoima- * .

keer tion as to the rent ranges or sale prices whi h are within the .

aK financial. means. of ‘persons, to. be disptaeedtrom the Tris 5

vey * <Szangle’ no. ‘information on the ‘jofation off their places’ of

: -employnient; and no information as to ‘speciafghousing.

‘needs of particular displacees: Finally, ‘respondents have no

mon

Wass -data coneerning competing demind for available’ housing

; generated by éoncurrent displacement from urban renewak.

eh eat - code enforcement, other govefnment and pr ivate. activities :

or: simply. by the natural inérease of deyand over supply

such: as is oceurring in most urban areas, Without. these '

findings, Whiclr pursuant to. the regulations must be sub-.

mitted to. the DOT”. along with )a statement of the basis -

ypon which they" ware prey a the Seeretary nor

. come go

' 99. DOT ices Yeniorandwm my fa(1) 2), Tita):

yin” ae

80. Ibid., para. 7a(3) cs |

SSD

. ' . ‘

: ! y ‘ Wee ‘ - SCRE S| : ‘ ie ye

; ~ ae os : : ; * ¢ . a. BA ¢ 4 > °

oem Gniihaaee PIEPER A RAL RIT SRE OB ad Saguutictak LSE. Re Ye De a ere PRENSA RAGA ao Ps SRAM Se aa Fe hs sae) ee

: if ‘ . . . ‘ a aa.9 . . . wy

4 ‘ , ‘ , ; ee

“3A

po:

> . . “ee 354 .

° ra = . . ~ ' _«*

° es i

“wi, 3 ve le : de: *, °

ers

f i :

R ‘ . a athe —* —

i RENAN AOR GREER LORE AER

Le ee , 8 .

¢ ty ea er a Pte “es

* tae, éotirts can . rationally. "determine qhathar lisplacees ,

ean. be. absorhed i nto’ existing and adequate, ‘replacement |

housing without: i

this: inforntation: Was: never submitted to the DOT, nor

-prestimably even. obtained, ‘the district” court’s. judgment a

~“that-respondents were in “substantial compliance” with the

196 8: Act® was without. any foundation in the ‘record and :

an abuse of judicial discretion: — * os : Pi

On tlie basis of what they saw as “urban suicide: in the

_ Nation’ °stapital™ some members of the legislative com- °

mittee which ‘reported out the House version of the 1968

-+Aet included i in the Committee Report their. Views i in opposi-

tion to certain provisions in the bill. These included the ,

fqllowing. dire predictions of the effect highway ‘displaeé-

ments would have on the city. : . ees

Many ‘thotigands of District families will he unneces-_—

sarily displaced, and. tlie burden of this forced dislocak.-

‘tion will hear heaviest, and catise untold hardship, : om ¢

: » low, -income and = Income {gmilies. The majoritt*

81. ‘Since. 1940, the seaiteal city (“Pederal City’) area has lost,

“one-third ofits population. Rew houses have been replated avith

new highways and payhing-lots.. The city’s housing shortage ig des-

_ perate. “More than 60 fereent of the central business district is now .

" } devoted. to highways sand off-street storage of motor vehicles. -

Thréugliout the Disti&ct, 30 pereent of thedand area is preempted

by highway s, while only 35 pefcent is privately owned, tax gelding:

' property.. The sprawl ven rated by- past "highway picrcioeae led -

to the loss, between 1948 an 1963, of ane- fourth: of the city’s retail-

establishments. By 1960, over-44 peteent of the city’s W age earn

resided and paid taxes outside of the city. ‘

In return for its invéstment, the eity has received inereased smog,

-more - traffic\ fatalities, a drastic loss of patronage in its public

transit systeni, an ev er-worsening housing crisis, and permanent

‘sears on residential- neighborhoods ’ and monumental@reas where.

older highways haye been widened or riew highways forced through ¢

to make room for more atito commuters.

Report, together with Minority Views, ofthe Committée on Pub-

lie. Works, House of Representatives, to accompany H.R. 17134,

90th, Cong. 2d Sess., House Report No. 1584, he 57. : 4

’

hpactipig’ the local housing inarket. ince ie

»* : ‘ eS

@- ,

‘@

i f*

. \ Be

« \

— ™~

| “3

: .

& of

¥ >

LAS on

tiers Hk

Ne =e

. a.

i = a 32s -

‘of these families will-be nonwhif#, and the difficulties

- they would: have in obtaining mes housing ‘are

well known.

The District does not provide any facilities for relo-

_ eation of.these people. Public housing in the Distriot

has no room for them, ff they are eligible, ‘since there

- already is a-waiting list of many thousands of families.

‘ The relocation assistance provided in H.R. 17134 will

not solve the housing shortage or make the refugees

from Washington’s freeways more weleoiné’ in the

suburbs. These meager bountigs cannot begin to pay,

~ ‘the highways’ cost to the people of the District in dis-

location of their lives and.destruction of their urban.

values. $2

’

”

Whether such pessimism about the bill which became the °’

(1968 Act will prove*justified remains to be seen, The poirtt,

howeyer, is that the evidence before Congress ome

« serious doubts among: many legislators as to. wheth@» the

relocation provisions of the Act, assuming they would be

enforced, were sufficient to sent not just: riparia’ ¥

but the-cities of the Nation. — “y

Of all: cities in. the United States; the negative ‘ies of

highway displacement inay be potentially most disastrous

in Charleston. Although 1970 census figures show,,that

thirfy-fhree states have greater populations han We

Virginia,” it was reliably estimated that only eight states

had more residential displacements ¢ caused by the construe-

tion of federal-aid highways during a three-year period just

ended.™ Moreover, Charleston, which is one of the areas in

82. Ibid., p. 58.", o

*83. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Commerce Today, Table “1970

Preliminary Population Count”, October 19, 1970, p’ 25. .

84. Highway Relocation Assistant Study, supra, n. 5, Table

-6, p. 42. The only states which had more residential displacements

are California, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New joey, ;

New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Ibid.

~~ z °

displavees and the, city pe still benefit.

: = ae ’ - —_

" ye

° ; * sed .

oe ;

. ,

’

- 83 “

‘the state where the number of displacements is,likely to be-

greatest, has been in fhe tifroes of a housing crisis for some’

time. For example, gccording to,4960 figures, 48 percent, of -

all housing uyits in Charleston were in “poverty areas”; 83 °

| J | ¥

percent of s housing consisted of “substqndardeihits”

and 69 percent was “overcrowded”. |

The national urban.erisis, exemplified in Charléston, is in

‘nd sma part compounded of the fact that -urban programs

haveQnindlessly ignored the broad preblems they create by

focusing only on the frequently ‘narrow qnes they were

‘designed to cure. In this manner fhe federal-aid Ifghway.

program has in-the past, magnified a¥ national housing

problem to an extent unjustified by the préduction of addi-

fgonal and rélatively unnecessary highways. Congress:.in-

tended to rectify this situation by enactment of the 1968 Act;

perceived, it clearly intendéd that the relocation provdsions -

of the Act were to apply to prqects where, as in Charleston,

(LY

or o SS

~\ CONCLUSION, -

‘a . For the foregoing réasons, and for*additional reasons

set forth in the briefs of petitioners and in the dissenting *

opinion .below, it is respeetfully submitted that the judg-

ment below should be reversed and the ense remanded to

the district court. with instruction’ that further displace-

ment be enjoined until respondents have prepared a reloca-

on plan in accordance with law. ~~ * ®

J. Antnony Kiixe

Kenneth F, Puss

National Housing and Economic

fe Development Law Projeet

85. Manvel, Housing Conditions in Urban Poverty Ares, report

" prepared for the National Commission on Urban Problems, Re-.

‘. search Report No. 9 (Wash., D.C. 1968), Table 8, Pp. 14-19 of 101

ations in 1960 _

metropolitan areas in the United States with popu

of over 250,000, only 25 had worse figures than Charleston in this

respect. * - , ;

and in view of the magnitude‘of the problem which Congress - 4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.