# Petition — Nucleus of Chicago Homeowners Ass'n v. Hills

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1534%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1976
- **Citation:** 424 U.S. 967

## Text

. sre L

IN THE 1 BACHAEL ROW:
Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OcTOBER TERM, 1975.

we 675-951 8

NUCLEUS OF CHICAGO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
ET AL.,
Petitioners,

vs.

CARLA A. HILLS, ET AL.,
Respondents.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

JOSEPH V. KARAGANIS,
SANFORD R. GAIL,
KARAGANIS & GAIL LTD.,
180 North LaSalle Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60601,
Counsel for Petitioners.

January 1976.

Gunthorp-Warren Printing Company, Chicago e Financial 6-6565

INDEX.

PAGE
ED in o-edbe ie oeeeenbbbs been enkees 1
SED Satu a cad neneeeeewe bende shbnevescen’s 2
ee as ceca Ue we bebe va bs 2
EE oo ank.nd bo ben's cand aoe awe denned 2
Statement of the Case ........... Re ae rE pee 2
Reasons for Granting the Writ .................2.05. 22

I. The Decision Below Conflicts with Decisions of the
Supreme Court and Decisions of Other Circuit
Courts of Appeal in That the Seventh Circuit
Allowed HUD to Proceed with the Project Without
Considering the Relevant Socio-Economic Data .. 22

II. The Decision Below Conflicts with Decisions of
This Court and Other Circuits Regarding the Defer-
ence to Be Accorded the Guidelines Promulgated
by the Council on Environmental Quality ...... 24

III. The Decision Below Fails to Recognize an Impor-
tant Distinction Between the Proper Role of the
Courts in Remedying Unconstitutional Segregation
and the Affirmative Statutory Responsibility of
HUD to Promote Stable Integrated Communities.. 25

Nn cas ue beah Vea ewe eke ee eae 27

CITATIONS.
Cases.

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402
EUOED. sk00dncd 6cbcinesecsceuneseeneaneerees 22

Clark v. Universal Builders, 501 F. 2d 324 (7th Cir.
1974), cert. denied 419 U. S. 1070 (1974) ......... 26

Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 296 F. Supp.
Fae Gee A E Vb onc eeccbennnbeiedeskeses

Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 304 F. Supp. 736
oS | Ff eee 6, 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26

Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 503 F. 2d 930
(7th Cir. 1974), cert. granted sub nom. Hills v. Gau-
treaux, 421 U. S. 962 (1975) ......... 3, 4, 17,18, 26, 27

Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F. 2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971)... 5

Hanly v. Mitchell, 460 F. 2d 640, 648 (2nd Cir. 1972),
cert. denied sub nom. Hanly v. Kleindienst, 409 U. S.

ee EE 6 04.20.0064 0 hn bee £8 bobs bas eh eee 22
Hills v. Gautreaux, No. 74-1047, cert. granted 421 U. S.

ee UE nb. 08444644064 0080.0500e4ennses 3, 4, 18, 27
Jones v. Lynn, 477 F. 2d 885 (ist Cir. 1973) ......... 19

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974) ....3, 4, 18, 26, 27
National Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F. 2d

ee. Geek re ED Wn ob oo ccckke beavascécane 24
Nucleus of Chicago Homeowners Association v. Lynn, 372

Pe SU BSe GES, A Ee GVO) cccccsccessccseccen 1,19
Nucleus of Chicago Homeowners Association v. Lynn, 524

Je F- Te te eS errr rrr ere 1, 21, 22, 25
Otero v. New York Housing Authority, 484 F. 2d 1122

Sey Gs ED 660.06 cee senneeeoeennecesed 13, 19, 23

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. F. P. C., 354
i { fF Cf - & Ra ee hee Pet eons 22

iii
Scientists Institute for Public Information v. A. E. C., 481
oe ee ee ED ow GS0 sce ceewesenecer 24

Shannon v. HUD, 436 F. 2d 809 (3rd Cir. 1970) ......
PPP eT PTT TTT TOT TTT OT TT TT TET 3, 13, 19, 22, 23, 27

Sierra Club v. Morton, 514 F. 2d 850 (D. C. Cir. 1975)
5 bO SE SK HESS CTEM UWOR UO 00660080 00006680 88-95 24, 25

Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971) ...4, 18, 26

Trinity Episcopal Church v. Romney, 523 F. 2d 88 (2nd
ee ER ee er errer ete TT tre 23

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1 (1965) ...........-.4.. 25

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing De-
velopment Corporation, 517 F. 2d 409 (7th Cir. 1975),

No. 75-616, cert. granted ....... U. S. ........ , 44 L. W.
Ee eerie eer ee 3, 4, 26
Warm Springs Task Force v. Gribble, 417 U. S. 1301
SE cu den ced ne ss atte ou Kobe hs 6G nbs cheC ON 25
Statutes.
CS © STO ove cecsectecesenseconsees 22
Oe TE, BE Ge Be EOD ooo 6 ase oseceesevenees seveus 2
GOO Be SS Bs GOO, ccc ccccccdscccevcesess 5
f 4 RUS! ee FG COP T IT eT rT eT eT 5
Ce Oe ED nb. 550440 Ne bescocdeeecess 2, 3, 13, 26
Se Oe, ED cebececcvediccnnvcsenteeteee 2, 3,13
OS, RG GOO. 6 covccccecceccssnnsseoons 2,13
4 oS . rrr rrrrerTirerir 13, 14, 20
Regulations.
40 C. F. R. §.1500, ef seq. ....- cc ccccccccccces 21, 24, 25

iv

Other.

Freedom of Choice in Housing: Opportunities and Con-
straints, National Academy of Sciences (1972). .7, 11, 12, 15

Friedman, Public Housing and the Poor: An Overview, 54

- SS OS 8 eee eee 12, 16
Gannon and Janowitz, The Social Impact of Scattered Site
Public Housing (May 19, 1973) A. 26 ............ 8

Human Needs in Public Housing, Welfare Council of
Metropolitan Chicago (1970) ....7, 8,9, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21

More Than Shelter: Social Needs in Low and Moderate
Income Housing, Report to the National Commission on

Ueeem Femmes CIGGG) 660 0cceteeceseuaseeeeua 6, 12
Public Housing and Urban Policy, 79 Yale L. J. 712
CEDFOD cocccedecieeesecéeteveesewee 6

Statement of Anthony Downs Before Senate Select Com-
mittee on Equal Education Opportunity, 91st Cong., 2nd
SF Perr 11

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

OcTOBER TERM, 1975.

NUCLEUS OF CHICAGO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

ET AL.,
Petitioners,
vs.
CARLA A. HILLS, Ef AL.,
Respondents.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

The Petitioners, Nucleus of Chicago Homeowners Association
and the other numerous plaintiffs below, respectfully pray that
a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgment and opinion
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
entered in this proceeding on October 6, 1975.

OPINIONS BELOW.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
entered October 6, 1975 (A. 14) is reported at 524 F. 2d 225
(7th Cir. 1975). The opinion of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (A. 8)
entering judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing the case
on the merits is reported at 372 F. Supp. 147 (N. D. Ill. 1973).

SURISDICTION.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
was entered on October 6, 1975. (A. 25) This petition for
certiorari was filed within 90 days of that date. This Court's
jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S. C. § 1254(1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.

1. Can the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment—charged by statute with developing integrated housing
—ignore socio-economic information which will affect the in-
tegration of housing in Chicago.

2. Can the Department of Housing and Urban _—
ignore its statutory responsibilities to promote integration and
to analyze the social environmental impact of its actions by piece-
meal analysis of isolated projects without developing a plan for
metropolitan integration where socio-economic evidence shows
that Chicago will become an all-black city without such plan-
ning.

STATUTES INVOLVED.

This case involves the responsibility of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development to consider and
analyze relevant socio-economic and racial data and to develop
plans for balanced integrated housing pursuant to the mandates
of the National Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S. C. § 1441, et seq.;
the Civil Rights Act of 1968, particularly 42 U. S. C. § 3608;
and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U. S. C. § 4321,
et seq.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This controversy involves the roles of the courts and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in shaping a
racially integrated residential housing program for the Chicago

mee

3

metropolitan area. Frustrated with the complete and utter failure
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to set
forth a rational program to develop “truly balanced and inte-
grated living patterns” under its multiple housing authorities, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has approved district court
plans or developed its own remedial orders which it feels will
accomplish integrated housing in the Chicago area.

Rather than order HUD to articulate the relationship of its
housing programs to the goal of integrated housing, the Seve. th
Circuit has taken unto itself the role of city planner, sociologist
and urbanologist without bothering to seek advice from knowl-
edgeable experts on the necessary elements for successful in-
tegration and without bothering to observe fundamental legal
requirements in framing its decisions. Two of the Seventh Cir-
cuit’s residential segregation decisions spawned by this frustra-
tion are presently before this Court—Hills v. Gautreaux, No.
74-1047 cert. granted 421 U. S. 962 (1975) and Village of
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Deveiopment Corpo-
ration, et al., No. 75-616 cert. granted _..... U. S. ., 44
L. W. 3358 (1975).

Unless this Court delineates the proper role of the courts,
HUD and other relevant agencies, the national goal of integrated
housing will be destroyed.

Gautreaux, Arlington Heights and the instant petition all re-
sult from the failure of the Seventh Circuit and HUD to dis-
tinguish between restraints on a court’s equitable power to
remedy unconstitutional segregation in housing by ordering a
metropolitan housing program’ and HUD’s statutory respon-
sibility to affirmatively develop racially balanced integrated
communities. Shannon v. HUD, 436 F. 2d 809, 816 (3rd Cir.
1970), 42 U. S. C. § 1441, 42 U. S. C. § 3608.

The Seventh Circuit’s remedial power in the Gautreaux litiga-
tion is limited to remedying the constitutional violation com-
plained of by the Gautreaux plaintiffs—segregation of public

1. The basis of HUD’s appeal in Hills v. Gautreaux, No. 74-1047
relying on Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974).

4

housing in Chicago. Under this Court’s decision in Milliken v.
Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974), the limits of the court’s remedial
authority for this constitutional violation is desegregation of pub-
lic housing within Chicago’s city limits.

Yet HUD, the Chicago Housing Authority, the Gautreaux
riaintiffs and the Chicago neighborhood homeowner’s groups
who bring this petition all agree that scattering public housing
sites within Chicago alone will simply result in the resegrega-
tion of the entire city. For effective integration (as opposed to
desegregation) to work, public housing must be planned and im-
plemented on a metropolitan basis.

In Gautreaux, Arlington Heights and the decision below the
Seventh Circuit has tried to integrate the Chicago metropolitan
area rather than eliminate segregation. In doing so, the Seventh
Circuit has completely ignored HUD’s statutory responsibility
to develop affirmative programs for integration of housing pat-
terns.

HUD, of course, fervently hopes that this Court will reverse
Gautreaux without directing its attention to HUD’s failure to
set forth a program for stable residential integration of the Chi-
cago metropolitan area. In contrast, petitioner homeowner groups
respectfully ask this Court to give proper instructions to the
Seventh Circuit and HUD as to their respective roles.

The Seventh Circuit should be instructed to order HUD to
affirmatively develop a metropolitan housing plan for stable
integrated housing as required by statute. In doing so, HUD
should be required to receive and evaluate all relevant socio-
economic and racial data. The Seventh Circuit should stay its
hand in providing a metropolitan remedy for HUD’s statutory
failure to integrate* until HUD is given an opportunity to develop
and present such a plan.* Throughout the entire Gautreaux

2. As opposed to remedying Chicago’s unconstitutional segrega-
tion.

3. “Judicial authority enters only when local authority defaults.”
Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 16 (1971).

5

epoch, HUD has never been ordered to perform its statutory
duty to integrate.

The History of the Present Controversy.

On February 10, 1969 the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois ruled that statistics submitted by
plaintiffs in Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority’ demon-
strated that the Chicago Housing Authority had engaged in
racial discrimination in selecting sites for low income housing
in the City of Chicago. The trial judge ordered the parties to
submit a comprehensive plan to correct the constitutional viola-
tions. In an often-quoted statement, the district court established
the following laudable goal:

“[E)}xisting patterns of racial separation must be reversed
if there is to be a chance of averting the desperately inten-
sifying division of Whites and Negroes in Chicago. On the
basis of present trends of Negro residential concentration
and of Negro migration into and White migration out of
the central city, the President's Commission on Civil Dis-
orders estimates that Chicago will become 50% Negro
by 1984. By 1984 it may be too late to heal racial divi-
sions.”

296 F. Supp. at 915.

The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) failed to develop a
remedial plan.* Consequently, the district court decided to enter

4. 296 F. Supp. 907 (N. D. Ill. 1969).

5. Part of this failure can be explained by the role played by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development at that time. While
— was the financial source of 100% of CHA’s financing for low

wtale ece housing through the Housing Act of 1937 (42 U. S. C.

1 et seq., as amended by the Housing and Community Develop-
A Act of 1974, P. L. 95-383, 42 U. S. C. § 1437, et seq.), HUD
was not a party to the original judgment of liability or to the
remedial order entered by the district court. The district court had
stayed a companion suit against HUD during the suit against CHA
and then dismissed the suit against HUD. HUD’s critical role in
housing policy was subsequently recognized by the Seventh Circuit
which reversed the district cout and held HUD liable for CHA’s
actions. Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F. 2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971).

6

a remedial plan of its own. Significantly, in shaping its remedial
order, the district court did not consult HUD (the federal agency
presumably expert in housing policy) or any experts in the field
of housing or urban sciences. Nor did the district court ever
conduct any public or evidentiary hearings on a proposed order.

Rather, the district court entered a lengthy complex order
drafted almost entirely by plaintiffs’ lawyers who, by their own
admission, had no experience in housing or urban planning.®

The order, drafted without benefit of evidentiary hearings or
expertise, contained a complex formula delineating the size and
location of physical housing structures and the number of public
housing tenants in any one location.’ While the purpose and
efficacy of these requirements have never been articulated, the
Gautreaux lawyers and the district court apparently hoped that
these conditions would be sufficient to create stable integration in
the white areas of the city.®

Again, it must be emphasized that the district court failed
to seek any expert advice or conduct any hearings about the
conditions necessary to insure effective integration in housing
patterns. No attention was paid to the special social service needs
and problems of public housing families® and the relationship
of those problems to effective integration.

The case — HUD was then consolidated with the case against
CHA but this consolidation took place long after the district court
had entered its remedial order.

6. “[T]Jhe Gautreaux judgment order was drafted with two excep-
tions by plaintiff's attorneys who admitted having no previous hous-
ing experience and yet failed to consult anyone who did.” (emphasis
added) Comment, Public Housing and Urban Policy, 79 Yale L. J.
712, 726- (1970).

7. 304 F. Supp. 736 (N. D. Ill. 1969).

8. ‘These provisions, limiting the size and concentration of future
projects are Fs ag omg designed to assure stable integration of the
new housing into the larger white community.” Public Housing and
Urban Policy, supra n. 6 at 720.

9. Indeed, the special needs and problems of low income families
have been totally ignored by both public officials and the courts in
this controversy. Yet these needs and problems have been exhaus-
tively documented. See e.g. More Than Shelter: Social Needs in Low

7

Following the district court’s order of July 1, 1969, CHA
proceeded to select sites for 1500 units of low income family
housing which had been given a funding reservation by HUD.
Availaule sites were selected by the CHA engineering depart-
ment by simply locating vacant lots on city maps. (Tr. 485,
486)

The CHA engineering department made no attempt to de-
termine the adequacy of educational facilities, health services,
employment opportunities or any other social service programs
in the site areas. Nor did the engineering department seek any
advice or assistance from those persons in CHA who had skills
and training in social service needs and tenant social problems."

Ironically, the CHA engineering staff totally ignored the find-
ings of a massive study on tenant social problems and needs
sponsored by the CHA and performed by the Welfare Council of
Metropolitan Chicago—Human Needs in Public Housing.
Though he was aware of the study, the engineer who selected
the sites never bothered to read it.

This complete lack of inquiry or investigation into potential
social problems and available social service resources stands in
stark contrast to the recommendation of Clyde Murray, a CHA
expert witness at trial and principal author of Human Needs in
Public Housing. He testified that had he been responsible for
planning scattered site housing, he would want to comprehen-
sively investigate the availability and adequacy of health, educa-
tional, family counseling, employment and recreational facilities
in the prospective site communities. (Tr. 2599)

and Moderate Income Housing, Report to the National Commission
on Urban Problems (1968); Human Needs in Public Housing, Wel-
fare Council of Metropolitan Chicago (1970); and Freedom of
Choice in Housing: Opportunities and Constraints, National Academy
of Sciences (1972); see discussion infra.

10. Throughout the entire course of site selection by CHA and
subsequent approval of the sites by HUD, no one in the CHA man-
agement department, which purportedly has the most knowledge of
tenant problems and social service needs, was ever consulted by
CHA engineers or HUD personnel. (Tr. 748, 749, 1487)

8

Despite its complete failure to evaluate the vacant lots it had
selected with regard to available social services or potential
social problems, CHA submitted these vacant lots to HUD for
HUD’s site approval. (P. E. 8, 9, 10) HUD gave approval to
the CHA sites for 1500 units in 1970 without ever addressing
the social needs and problems of low income families who would
live in these units. (P. E. 11, 13)

In 1972, shortly after CHA publicly announced the site loca-
tions, community organizations in the site neighborhoods sought
expert advice about the likely success of the low-income housing
to be constructed under the district court’s order. Consulting with
Dr. Morris Janowitz of the University of Chicago and Dr.
Thomas Gannon, S.J., Chairman of the Department of Sociology
at Loyola University of Chicago, they were advised that the
district court’s order was more likely to foster segregation
than promote integration. Moreover, because of refusal by CHA
and HUD to recognize and treat the social problems and needs
of low income public housing families, the placement of these
families in middle class communities would exacerbate the anti-
social hostilities which characterize much of low income family
public housing today.”*

The advice of Dr. Gannon and Dr. Janowitz was not new.
Numerous studies have pointed out the social problems and
needs of low income families and the relationship of those
problems to effective racial integration. The following quotes
are illustrative of the problem:

A. Human Needs in Public Housing, a study of CHA

public housing commissioned by CHA and performed by
the Welfare Council.

1. “The effects of urban development and urban re-
newal in the late 1950’s and early 1960's created a
change in the type of family characteristic of public

11. Because of its significance to HUD’s duty to affirmatively
develop effective racial integration in housing and to analyze all
relevant racial and socioeconomic data, the text of Dr. Janowitz
and Dr. Gannon’s report is attached to this petition. (A. 26)

9

housing residents in this as well as in other cities. By
1968 nearly 40 percent of Chicago’s public housing
units were inhabited by families who for the most
part were not self-supporting but rather were receiv-
ing some form of public assistance. Being eligible for
public assistance meant that the majority constituted
the lowest part of the income scale in Chicago, and
it was hardly surprising to find a large proportion of
broken families without wage earners, or families
where primary earner was unemployed or incapaci-
tated. These families were those whose needs [sic]
were unskilled, many were ex-slum dwellers relocated
through preferential urban renewal admission policies,
and they brought to public housing their hatreds and
hostilities of deprivation.” Human Needs in Public
Housing, Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago
(1970), Appendix p. 46, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 39.

2. “One particular aspect of the public housing pro-
gram which has demanded the Welfare Council’s at-
tention from time to time since World War II is the
‘multiproblem’ family. These are people who are so
battered by the cumulative effects of poverty and dis-
crimination that they are in need of special help in
the form of medical, psychological, vocational, home-
making and educational services.” Human Needs in
Public Housing, Appendix p. 46.

3. “As is well known, the proportion of ‘broken
homes’ headed by a woman is extremely high in public
housing. . . . The percent unemployed in the last
column is closely associated with the percent of fe-
male-headed households in the first column as might
be expected—the higher the proportion of female-
headed households, the greater the incidence of un-
employment and vice versa. Actually the pattern of
unemployment among heads of households here is
believed to correlate quite closely with dependency
upon public assistance for support, and can generally
be taken as a measure of the latter, since the family
would need some source of income to qualify for pub-
lic housing, and without an employed head this would
nearly always have to be Public Aid.” Human Needs
in Public Housing, pp. 178, 179.

10

4. “The outstanding feeling that emerged as related
to features which residents say they like least about
living in public housing developments, is a feeling of
fear. Fear for personal and family safety seems to be
almost universal among CHA residents. . . .” Human
Needs In Public Housing, p. 17.

5. “The survey leads to an overriding conclusion that
the existing level of services to low-income people is
substantially inadequate.” Human Needs In Public
Housing Foreword, p. i.

6. “A better coordination of existing agency services
at each site is essential. CHA should take the lead
with the agencies in developing multi-service delivery
systems for all residents. In addition, particular atten-
tion should be given to certain groups of residents.
The National League of Cities rightly points out that
more emphasis should be placed on the needs of the
large family, the fatherless family and the very low-
income family, and on the need for adequate programs
of guidance, counseling and other supportive services
for the multi-problem family in public housing.” Hu-
man Needs In Public Housing, p. 31.

7. “The Chicago Housing Authority, like many
others in larger urban centers is faced with the reality
that the increasing social service burdens of large con-
centrations of multi-problem families in public housing
can no longer be totally borne by the established
health and welfare agencies of the general community.

“The social service role of the Chicago Housing
Authority is of major concern today. There had been
little emphasis in this area until the social problems
of public housing families had multiplied to the criti-
cal level which is evident today. Now, as public hous-
ing locally and to some degree nationally contains an
overwhelming percentage of so-called ‘multi-problem’
families, the element of resident services in policy as
well as in practice is being emphasized:

“One of the most important lessons learned through
public housing experience over the past 25 years is
that good housing, by itself, will not enable families

er te ee epee rey - 2 ee ~~

11

to solve all of their economic and social difficulties.
Among the low-income families served by the public
housing program, there is a range of social service
needs.” Human Needs In Public Housing, Appen-
dix, p. 47.

B. Statement by Anthony Downs before the Senate Select
Committee on Equal Education Opportunity, 91st Cong.,
2nd Sess., p. 2966. (Federal defendants’ Exhibit No. 10 in
Support of Motion to Dismiss)

1. “There is overwhelming statistical evidence that
crime rates, delinquency rates, and relatively violent
and noisy patterns of public comportment are much
more prevalent among low-income households in the
U.S. than among middle-income families.” p. 2971

Downs properly notes that problems of crime, violence
and other anti-social behavior are related to socio-economic
background and not race or ethnic background.

2. “In thinking of many whites, ethnic characteristics
are often confused with socio-economic status be-
cause such a high proportion of blacks, Puerto Ricans
and Mexican Americans live in low-income house-
holds. Hence many whites wrongly perceive members
of these minority groups as inherently possessed of
certain characteristics typical of many low-income
households but regarded as highly undesirable by most
middle-income households of whatever background. I
am referring to high crime rates, high juvenile delin-
quency rates, high rates of illegitimate birth and pre-
marital sexual activity, use of certain speech patterns
and behavior patterns repugnant to many middle-
class parents, and a tendency to be most violent and
threatening in interpersonal relations. These essentially
‘lower-class’ traits are not in any way necessarily as-
sociated with race or ethnic background.” p. 2968

C. Freedom of Choice in Housing: Opportunities and
Constraints, a study commissioned by HUD and performed
by the National Academy of Sciences. (Plaintiffs Exhibit
5)
“{Ojur review of behavioral and social science re-
search supports the view that:

12

“Interracial living is feasible. Evidence to con-
firm this proposition is both varied and compel-
ling. On the other hand, the feasibility of resi-
dential mixing of different economic levels is
uncertain. Our present knowledge in this area is
limited. _

“Consequently, simultaneous efforts to achieve
racial and economic mixing may work at cross
purposes.”
Freedom of Choice in Housing,
p. 6 (emphasis added)

2. “[S]imultaneous efforts to reduce racial segrega-
tion and class stratification may in fact be counter-
productive.”
Freedom of Choice in Housing,
p. 33

3. “Policies designed to achieve racially mixed neigh-
borhoods and housing should aim at providing the
physical and social environment for constructive con-
tact conditions for all groups.”

Freedom of Choice in Housing, p. 59

Given this massive data’* on the social problems and needs
of low-income families and the documented failure of HUD
and CHA to address those needs, it is not surprising that com-
munity organizations in the site areas have expressed concern
about the district court’s order in Gautreaux. These organizations
and numerous individuals filed suit in 1972 against HUD and
CHA asking that HUD be required to develop a coordinated
plan for effective residential integration. Such a plan would in-
clude:

1. A full inventory of the socio-economic, educa-
tional characteristics of the potential residents and the

12. For a historical analysis of the social problems of low in-
come public housing families see Friedman, Public Housing and the
Poor: An Overview, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 642, 652-655 (1966). See
also More than Shelter: Social Needs in Low and Moderate Income
Housing, A Renort to the National Commission on Urban Problems
(1968), pp. 30-31 and 64-66.

13

medical, welfare and recreational needs of potential resi-
dents.

2. An inventory of community resources, specifying such
facilities as schools, day-care centers, community centers,
religious institutions, parks and playgrounds and full and
part-time employment opportunities.

3. An analysis of the adequacy of personnel resources
available in the site communities.

4. An examination of the organization and administra-
tive procedures used by the Chicago Housing Authority.

5. An examination of alternative strategies such as better
job opportunities, income supplements, and rebuilding of
central city.

6. Mechanisms such as metropolitan planning.
(Tr. 417-423, 1130, 1131, 2599)

The legal obligation plaintiffs sought to enforce against HUD
has two bases. First, as part of HUD’s affirmative duty to pro-
mote “the development of well planned integrated, residen-
tial communities”* the plaintiffs asked that the agency develop
an affirmative reviewable record of its plans to integrate hous-
ing and to include within that record all “relevant racial and
socioeconomic information” Shannon v. HUD, 436 F. 2d
809, 821 (3rd Cir. 1970).

Related to this duty to consider all relevant socioeconomic
data were duties imposed by the National Environmental Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Included in the duties imposed by
§ 102 of NEPA were:

1. The duty to “utilize a systematic interdisciplinary ap-
proach which will insure the integrated use of the natural
and social sciences.” (§ 102(2)(A));

2. The duty to prepare an environmental impact state-
ment on proposed actions “significantly affecting the human
environment” (§ 102(2)(C)); and

13. 42 U.S.C. § 1441, 42 U. S. C. § 3608, Shannon v. HUD,
436 F. 2d 809, 816 (3rd Cir. 1970), Otero v. New York Housing
Authority, 484 F. 2d 1122, 1134 (2nd Cir. 1973).

14

3. The duty to study, develop and describe alternative
courses of action to accomplish the goals sought to be
achieved (§ 102(2)(D)).

The testimony at the trial simply reflected and reaffirmed
the sorry historical trend in public housing populations, both
nationally and in Chicago. Tenant families in the Chicago
Housing Authority are increasingly characterized by broken,
female-headed families on welfare and without employment.
Dr. Gannon testified that CHA statistical data disclosed that
71% of CHA families are broken and 53% are receiving wel-
fare assistance. (Tr. 358, 359) Gustave Master, a CHA witness
testified that 95% of broken families are headed by females.
(Tr. 739) Both Dr. Gannon and Mr. Clyde Murray" testified
that a close relationship exists between broken homes, welfare
assistance, unemployment and female headed families. (Tr.
2660, 2661)

This increase in families with broken homes, unemployed
female heads and on welfare is closely related to the growth of
“multi-problem” families in CHA. Families with these character-
istics were much more likely to become “multi-problem” fami-
lies. (Tr. 2574, 2580)

If these families do not receive well planned comprehensive
social services such as health, education, employment, youth
and family counseling and recreational opportunities, they are
likely to engage in anti-social acts such as personal violence and
property destruction. (Tr. 2568, 2569, 2571, 2575, 2580)

In contrast, an analysis of plaintiffs’ communities by character-
istics as shown in official census data showed a much lower
percentage of broken homes and a much lower percentage of
families on welfare. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 43, 55 and 56) When
asked to compare the social service needs of families in plain-
tiffs’ communities with the social service needs of the CHA
families, Clyde Murray stated that public housing families

14. Mr. Clyde Murray, the principal researcher and author of
Human Needs in Public Housing was called by CHA as a witness.

15

would have greater and different social service needs than resi-
dents of the site communities. (Tr. 2750) He also stated that
the social service needs of a group could be predicted by looking
at group characteristics. (Tr. 2681)

Dr. Gannon, Dr. Andrew Greeley’® and Clyde Murray all
agreed that in order to prevent potential problems of violence and
property destruction as a result of public housing families not
receiving comprehensive social services, a study should be done
prior to the construction of the scattered site housing to identify
mechanisms for eliminating or minimizing adverse impacts and to
identify alternative strategies to accomplish the goals of scat-
tered site housing. These alternatives included metropolitan—
as opposed to city only—planning, rebuilding the central city and
special employment, educational and other social services.

Evidence at trial also showed that HUD had approved sites
for 1,500 units in 1970. (P. E. 11, 13) No analysis of the
socioeconomic problems of low-income families and the impact
of such problems on effective integration was ever made.

In defense, HUD tendered a “negative statement” on only
84 of the 1,500 units’® and contended that no environmental
impact statement was required. The responsible HUD officials
made no attempt to read Human Needs in Public Housing,
Freedom of Choice in Housing or any other of the materials
which emphasized the need for comprehensive careful social
planning prior to attempts to integrate low-income housing
into middle-income communities. Instead, they wrote a 4 page
narrative on social impacts in which:

1. HUD said that there would be no strain on neighbor-
hood facilities even though HUD officials admitted that neither

they nor CHA had investigated the adec acy of social services
in the site community.

15. Dr. Andrew Greeley is a prominent sociologist called by
plaintiffs.

16. The “negative statement” was prepared on the eve of trial
more than two years after the 1500 units had been approved by
HUD.

N
16

HUD's other reason for dismissing any impact regarding
community services is the small number of the units evalu-
ated—eighty four. Yet HUD ignored the remaining one thou-
sand four hundred and sixteen (1416) units approved by HUD
and ordered by the district court in Gautreaux.

2. HUD said that the “diffuseness” of the sites and tenant
selection policies would prevent adverse social impacts. Yet
the defendants’ own evidence at trial showed that simply reduc-
ing densities will not solve the problems of low-income fam-
ilies; low densities must be accompanied by comprehensive
social services. (Tr. 2599) Moreover the CHA screening pro-
gram has not prevented serious acts of anti-social conduct by
tenants. (Tr. 928, 930)

Further, screening may constitute further discrimination
against families who need public housing but who are rejected
as undesirable. The answer to these problems lies in meeting
the needs of these families; it does not lie in rejecting them from
public housing.’

3. HUD then blithely stated in the negative statement that
Community and Tenant Relations Aides of the CHA will pro-
vide necessary services when scattered site tenants have social
problems. Unfortunately, HUD officials had never read the
Welfare Council study (P. E. 39) which would have informed
them that 84% of CHA tenants never used the Community
and Tenant Relations Service in seeking help for problems.
(P. E. 39, p. 25)

4. HUD continued its narrative in the negative statement by
stating that CHA does not expect families in scattered sites to
be “plagued with the problems that some tenants in existing
large scale projects have.” (Gov. E. 52) Yet HUD never states
what these problems are or what aspects of the scattered site
program will eliminate these problems. Indeed, HUD officials
admitted that the only person they talked to at CHA about

17. See Friedman, op. cit. n. 12, Public Housing and The Poor:
An Overview, 54 Cal. L. Rev. at 666, 667.

17

social service needs was the CHA legal counsel; they never
talked with any management personnel. (Tr. 1487)

5. Finally, HUD concludes that there are no viable alter-
natives to the program. HUD failed to discuss metropolitan
planning or any of the remedial services found by the Welfare
Council to be so important.

Not once in the negative statement did HUD discuss how
scattered site housing would foster racial understanding and
reduce crime—both stated goals. (Tr. 1478, 1480, 1481, 1483,
1484)

In summary, HUD’s 4 page negative statement that the
scattered site program would have no significant impact on the
environment of the site neighborhoods is vague, conclusory and
unsupported by any investigation or evidence. It is a patent
attempt to avoid serious social problems by pretending the prob-
lems don’t exist.

Ironically, while HUD was piously stating there would be no
problems and that there were no alternatives, all of the parties
in the Gautreaux litigation—including the Black plaintiffs, CHA
and HUD—were acknowledging that a city-wide remedy would
not work and that metropolitan planning for public housing
was necessary.

“The parties are in agreement that the metropolitan area
is a single relevant locality and that a city-only remedy
will not work.

Gautreaux v. CHA, 503 F. 2d 930, 937
(emphasis added)

The Seventh Circuit in the most recent substantive Gautreaux

- Opinion is now saying what plaintiffs’ experts have been saying

all along:

“Any remedial plan, to be effective, must be on a subur-
ban or metropolitan erea basis.”
503 F. 2d at 937'* (emphasis added)

18. As discussed above, it is important to emphasize a funda-
mental distinction between the constitutional remedy for racial

18

HUD now says that though it advocates metropolitan area-
wide planning for public housing, it doesn’t want metropolitan
planning to be ordered by the court.'? HUD claims that the
Gautreaux metropolitan order has a “chilling effect” on its other
housing programs in the suburbs. Yet HUD itself refuses to
engage in voluntary planning. HUD has yet to submit one page
of analysis as to how HUD’s housing programs in the Chicago
metropolitan area can be utilized to develep balanced inte-
grated communities.

The Chicago community organizations are thus faced with
the following quandary. Plaintiffs’ experts, HUD, CHA and the
Gautreaux plaintiffs are in agreement that scattered site public
housing will not work in the city. For effective integration to
occur, it must be developed on a metropolitan basis. Without
metropolitan development the white areas of the city will likely
undergo a period of racial transition and then become resegre-
gated. Yet the Seventh Circuit’s metropolitan order in Gau-
treaux will likely be invalidated because the relief—desegre-
gation—exceeds the scope of the constitutional violation. Milli-
ken Vv. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974); Swann v. Board of
Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). The likely consequence is
that a city-only scattered site program will be implemented
without any consideration of HUD’s affirmative statutory duty
to insure a balanced integrated community. Chicago will
become further segregated.

The testimony at trial below reflected the sad knowledge
found nationally and locally in studies by the National Academy
of Science for HUD, by a report to the National Commission on
Urban Problems and by the Welfare Council of Metropolitan

segregation which is desegregation and HUD’s statutory duty to
develop stable, balanced integrated communities. While the Seventh
Circuit may have gone too far in ordering a metropolitan plan as a
remedy for segregation (Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)),
consideration of a metropolitan plan is absolutely essential for
a balanced integrated community.

19. Brief for the Petitioner in Hills v. Gautreaux, No. 74-1047
in this Court at p. 39 n. 32.

19

Chicago in a CHA sponsored study. The problems and needs of
public housing families go beyond bricks and mortar. For public
housing families to be integrated into the mainstream of Ameri-
can life, the architects of public housing programs must abandon
their historic disregard of social service planning and coordinate
public housing (be it conventional or scattered) into compre-
hensive social programs designed to meet the human needs of
the poor. Sadly, the lack of such coordination and planning in
this case demonstrated that HUD and CHA have not yet learned
the tragic lessons of the past.

The district court below filed a seven page typewritten opinion
on a record covering approximately 5,000 pages of testimony
and voluminous exhibits. In its opinion, the district court stated
that no other cases had dealt with the socioeconomic impact
of movements of low income residents upon a community.”
The district court found that HUD has filed a “negative impact
statement” declaring the housing ordered in Gautreaux would
not have a significant impact on the environment and that the
negative statement was made in good faith. The district court
found that the evidence of potential harm rested primarily on
the testimony of two social science experts** and that this testi-

20. On the contrary, both Shannon v. HUD, 436 F. 2d 809
(3rd Cir. 1970) and Jones v. Lynn, 477 F. 2d 885 (ist Cir. 1973),
dealt with HUD’s responsibility to assess socioeconomic impacts of
low income groups moving into or out of a community. See also
Otero v. New York Housing Authority, 484 F. 2d 1122 (2nd Cir.
1974).

21. The district court ignored the testimony by CHA witness
Clyde Murray and the admission by David Mack of HUD as to
potential problems. Clyde Murray testified that the high percentage
of broken families suffering from unemployment and receiving wel-
fare assistance had a strong need for such social services as health,
education, employment, youth and family counseling and recreational
opportunities. (Tr. 2554) Female-headed families, on welfare, and
unemployed are much more likely to become “multi-problem”
families and need these special services to fit into community life.
(Tr. 2573-2575) If they don’t get these supportive services, they
are likely to cause problems for their neighbors, including acts of
personal violence and property destruction. (Tr. 2567-2569, 2571,
2575, 2580, 3422, 3423, 3427-3429, 3430, 3431) David Mack,

20

mony was controverted by defendants’ experts. The court ques-
tioned the use of statistics to predict social problems and ques-
tioned the ability of sociologists to predict social problems.

The district court concluded that there was no evidence that
the social characteristics of public housing tenants created
potential social problems. It thus concluded that construction
of the housing units would not significantly affect the environment
and that HUD had not violated § 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

The district court's opinion never made any findings as to
whether HUD had complied with its own regulations or with
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Nor did
the district court make any findings with regard to HUD’s com-
pliance with the other subsections of § 102, specifically sections
102(2) (A) and 102(2)(D).

Based on this opinion, the district court entered judgment
for the defendants.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held:

1. That HUD did not have to consider the comprehensive
environmental impact of the 1500 unit program and was correct
in its decision to consider only 84 units. The key to its decision

the HUD employee who wrote the four-page narrative on social en-
vironmental impact acknowledged that families with broken homes,
lacking in employment and on welfare had a great need for social
services and that such families could cause problems for their neigh-
bors if they did not get adequate services. (Tr. 3427-3431) More-
over, on an offer of proof by the defendants, he was asked the
following question and gave the following answer:

“By Mr. Berman:

Q. Mr. Mack, do you have an opinion as to whether
multi-problem families have a greater possibility or a greater
potential or propensity for creating problems among their
neighbors than non-multi-problem families? (Tr. 3496)

By the Witness:
A. I would have to say I believe that there is that pos-
sibility that they would have a greater potential.” (Tr. 3498)

The district court also ignored the Welfare Council study, Human
Needs in Public Housing. ( Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 39)

21

was the court’s erroneous assumption that “CHA had not selected
and HUD had not tentatively approved 1500 proposed housi: 2
sites at the time the 84 unit environmental clearance was per-
formed,” 524 F. 2d at 230. However, the record demonstrates
unequivocally that HUD had given approval to sites for all 1500
units by May 1970 over two years before the 84 unit negative
statement was prepared.** A second consideration was the court's
statement that the Council on Environmental Quality “imide-
lines (40 C. F. R. § 1500, et seg.) requiring comprehensive
statements, were advisory only and didn’t need to be followed.

2. That despite CEQ Guidelines which require an impact
statement to be prepared whenever the project is likely to be
highly controversial (40 C. F. R. § 1500.6(a)), “we are not
persuaded that the controversy here is such as to require an
impact statement.” 524 F. 2d at 232.

3. With regard to HUD’s failure to consider the social
problems and needs set forth by eminent sociologists and by
such documents as Human Needs In Public Housing, the court
held that the law “does not require that a specific class of ex-
perts be consulted or that an agency consider all documents
possibly relevant to a given environmental issue.” 524 F. 2d at
232.

4. That HUD did not have to consider metropolitan planning
and the provision of comprehensive social services to alleviate
the problems of low-income tenants because HUD had no author-
ity to develop other alternatives given the Gautreaux order. 524
F. 2d at 232.

5. That consistency with local zoning suggested that prob-
lems would not be severe.

22. Plaintiff exhibits 11 and 13 being HUD’s letters of March 13,
1970 and May 23, 1970 approving sites submitted by CHA.

22

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.

I. The Decision Below Conflicts with Decisions of the Supreme
Court and Decisions of Other Circuit Courts of Appeal in
That the Seventh Circuit Allowed HUD to Proceed with the
Project Without Considering the Relevant Socio-Economic
Data.

The Seventh Circuit upheld HUD’s decision not to prepare a
comprehensive analysis of the social impact of social problems
and needs in low income family housing on the statutory goal
of integration because the law “does not require that a specific
class of experts be consulted or that an agency consider all doc-
uments possibly relevant to a given issue.” 524 F. 2d at 232.

However, the law is clear that where an administrative deci-
sion is made without consideration of all relevant factors it must
be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. 5 U. S. C. § 706(2) (A);
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. F. P. C., 354 F. 2d
608, 620 (2nd Cir. 1965); Hanly v. Mitchell, 460 F. 2d 640,
648 (2nd Cir. 1972); Shannon v. HUD, 436 F. 2d 809, 819
(3rd Cir. 1970); Cf. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe,
401 U. S. 402, 416 (1971).

Shannon v. HUD, supra, is the closest case in point and is
in direct conflict with the decision of the Seventh Circuit below.
There homeowners and businessmen in Philadelphia sued to
prevent a low income HUD financed housing project from being
constructed in a neighborhood on grounds that the project’s
prospective low income black tenants would destroy chances for
a stable, racially balanced environment. HUD defended its site
selection for a low income housing project on grounds similar
to those raised below. HUD argued that it had complied with
all zoning requirements.

Rejecting HUD’s facile reliance on zoning compliance, the
Third Circuit enjoined further construction of the project, stating:

23

“When an administrative decision is made without con-
sideration of relevant factors it must be set aside.”

436 F. 2d at 819

“We hold however that the "Agency must utilize some in-
Stitutionalized method whereby, in considering site selec-
tion, it has before it the relevant racial socioeconomic in-
formation necessary for compliance with its duties under
the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts.”

436 F. 2d at 821 (emphasis added)

This need to carefully consider socioeconomic and racial data
in making housing decisions has been repeatedly acknowledged
by the Second Circuit. In Otero v. New York City Housing
Authority, 484 F. 2d 1122 (2nd Cir. 1973), the court upheld
the right of housing officials to discriminate against minorities
in order to promote balanced integrated residential patterns.

Finally, the recent decision in Trinity Episcopal Church v.
Romney, 523 F. 2d 88 (2nd Cir. 1975) offers enlightenment
on the use of NEPA to resolve dilemmas between the conflicting
goals of stable integrated residential patterns and providing low
income housing. The Second Circuit required HUD to investi-
gate a variety of housing alternatives with the goal of maintaining
an integrated community. The court required the investigation
of these alternatives to include means to minimize the reprehen-
sible conditions and dangers of crime, drugs and vandalism.

Nor can HUD avoid these obligations by claiming that the
court decisions in Gautreaux have prevented it from analyzing
any alternatives than those ordered by the court. The original
Gautreaux decree has been modified before—most recently in
its extension to the metropolitan area. HUD can and must under
NEPA discuss alternatives that are not within its power. While
HUD may not have the requisite authority to implement such
alternatives, such action could be taken by the courts, the Con-
gress or the President.

As the District of Columbia Circuit said in rejecting a similar
claim that an agency could not analyze alternatives outside its
statutory power:

24

“The impact statement is not only for the exposition of
the thinking of the agency, but also for the guidance of
these ultimate decision-makers, and must provide them with
the environmental effects of both the proposal and the
alternatives, for their consideration along with the various
other elements of the public interest.”

National Resources Defense Council
v. Morton, 458 F. 2d 827, at 835
(D. C. Cir. 1972)

II. The Decision Below Conflicts with Decisions of This
Court and Other Circuits Regarding the Deference to Be
Accorded the Guidelines Promulgated by the Council on
Environmental Quality.

In two key instances below the Seventh Circuit chose to ignore
guidelines published by the Council on Environmental Quality.
First it ignored the CEQ guideline that encourages agencies to
engage in comprehensive planning of related projects.

40 C. F. R. § 1500.6(a) states:

“The statutory clause ‘major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment’ is to be
construed by agencies with a view to the overall, cumula-
tive impact of the action proposed, related Federal actions
and projects in the area, and further actions contemplated

. In considering what constitutes major action sig-
nificantly affecting the environment, agencies should bear
in mind that the effect of many Federal decisions about
a project or complex of projects can be individually limited
but cumulatively considerable . . .”

The Seventh Circuit chose to ignore this directive in allow-
ing HUD to analyze only the first 84 units without analyzing
the sites for the remaining 1416 units for which sites had been
approved.”

23. In contrast the District of Columbia Circuit has repeatedly
required programmatic as well as individual project analysis. See
Sierra Club v. Morton, 514 F. 2d 856 (D. C. Cir. 1975); Scientists
Institute for Public Info. v. AEC, 481 F. 2d 1079 (D. C. Cir.
1973).

25

Second, 40 C. F. R. § 1500.6(a) states:

“Proposed major actions, the environmental impact of
which is to be highly controversial, should be covered in
all cases.” (emphasis added)

Despite testimony by leading sociologists as to the hazards to
effective integration caused by the Gautreaux plan, the Seventh

Circuit said “[W]Je are not persuaded here that the controversy
is such as to require an impact statement.” 524 F. 2d at 232

The Seventh Circuit’s refusal to pay deference to the statutory
construction of the very agency with statutory responsibility for
reviewing NEPA compliance is contrary to numerous decisions
of this Court and other circuit courts. See Warm Springs Task
Force v. Gribble, 417 U. S. 1301 (1974), (opinion by Mr.
Justice Douglas as Circuit Justice); Udall v. Tallman, 380 UV. S.
1, 16 (1965); Sierra Club v. Morton, 514 F. 2d 856, 873 n. 24
(D. C. Cir. 1975). These cases hold that courts should pay great
deference to the statutory construction given a statute by the
agency charged with its administration. The Court below twice
chose to ignore the Council on Environmental Quality’s Guide-
lines without offering any basis for rejecting the agency’s con-
struction of the statute.

III. The Decision Below Fails to Recognize an Important Dis-
tinction Between the Proper Role of the Courts in Remedy-
ing Unconstitutional Segregation and the Affirmative
Statutory Responsibility of HUD to Promote Stable Inte-
grated Communities.

Ever since the first Gautreaux order** which imposed a com-
plex remedial formula without hearings and without benefit of
input by experts in the housing field, the housing segregation
decisions of the Seventh Circuit have been characterized by a
failure to understand the respective roles of agency and court
in remedying constitutional violations. As this Court has re-
peatedly held, the constitutional scope of a federal court's reme-

24. 304 F. Supp. 736 (N. D. Ill. 1969).

26

dial power to correct a constitutional violation is limited by the
extent of the violation. Swann v. Board of Education, 402 VU. S.
1, 16 (1971); Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974).

But, as the Gautreaux plaintiffs and the Seventh Circuit be-
gan to realize that the original Gautreaux order would actually
accelerate the resegregation of the City of Chicago, the court
grasped for a method to impose its concepts of integration on
the Chicago metropolitan area. The Seventh Circuit set about
to establish a basis for metropolitan liability for racial segrega-
tion in order to justify a metropolitan order to integrate.

The sole basis for a finding of metropolitan segregation in any
of the Seventh Circuit’s opinions is found in Clark v. Universal
Builders, 501 F. 2d 324 (7th Cir. 1974). There the court issued
a dictum which it has used repeatedly in its housing segregation
decisions—particularly in the Gautreaux metropolitan remedy
decision and in the Arlington Heights decision. The court said:

“Nor do we think it beyond the strictures of judicial notice

to observe there exists in Chicago and its environs a high
degree of racial residential segregation.”

501 F. 2d at 334, 335 (emphasis added)

This single sentence has become the sole empirical basis for
ordering metropolitan relief in Gautreaux and for finding an
affirmative duty to accept low income housing in Arlington
Heights.

Given the flimsy empirical basis for its metropolitan housing
integration decisions and the constitutional limitations announced
by Swann and Milliken on judicial relief to remedy constitutional
wrongs, it is obvious that the Seventh Circuit has overreached
its authority. However, the Seventh Circuit’s error presents this
Court with a major dilemma. The Seventh Circuit, the Gautreaux
plaintiffs, HUD, CHA and the experts for the petitioner home-
owner's associations all agree that implementation of the Chi-
cago-only plan will accelerate the racial segregation of the city.
Fortunately, the answer to this dilemma lies in HUD’s statu-
tory responsibility to promote integrated housing. 42 U. S. C.
§ 1441; Shannon v. HUD, 436 F. 2d 809 (3rd Cir. 1970).

27

In its Petition for Certiorari in Hills v. Gautreaux, HUD has
argued that the Gautreaux metropolitan order is impeding “prog-
ress toward the goal of integrated housing” and has a “chilling
effect” on new housing programs.** Yet never once has HUD set
forth any statement of how it will promote integrated housing
patterns in Chicago. It would be a tragedy if this Court allowed
HUD to hide its failure to meet its affirmative statutory duty to
integrate behind the Seventh Circuit's constitutional overreaching
in Gautreaux. Milliken should not be an escape-hatch for HUD
to stand idly by, wringing its hands, as Chicago becomes a totally
segregated community. HUD should be required to develop a
comprehensive plan for integrating the Chicago metropolitan
area. In developing this plan, HUD should be required to solicit
and analyze all relevant socioeconomic and racial data.

Without such relief, the plaintiffs in Gautreaux and the Seventh
Circuit can relish the Pyrrhic victory of momentary desegrega-
tion followed by lockstep resegregation. Petitioners here, who
desire to remain in stable residential communities in Chicago,
will become even more cynical about the ability of government
to accommodate their legitimate interests in a pluralistic society.

CONCLUSION.

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
should be granted. |

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH V. KARAGANIS,
SANFORD R. GAIL,
KARAGANIS & GAIL LTD.,
180 North LaSalle Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60601,

Counsel for Petitioners.
January 1976.

25. HUD’s petition in 74-1047, p. 9.

_—

Al

APPENDIX.

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42.
§ 1441. Congressional Declaration of National Housing Policy.

The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of
the Nation and the health and living standards of its people re-
quire housing production and related community development
sufficient to remedy the serious housing shortage, the elimination
of substandard and other inadequate housing through the clear-
ance of slums and blighted areas, and the realization as soon as
feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living en-
vironment for every American family, thus contributing to the
development and redevelopment of communities and to the ad-
vancement of the growth, wealth, and security of the Nation.
The Congress further declares that such production is necessary
to enable the housing industry to make its full contribution
toward an economy of maximum employment, production, and
purchasing power. The policy to be followed in attaining the
national housing objective established shall be: (1) private
enterprise shall be encouraged to serve as large a part of the
total need as it can; (2) governmental assistance shall be uti-
lized where feasible to enable private enterprise to serve more
of the total need; (3) appropriate k al public bodies shall be

_« encouraged and assisted to undertake positive programs of en-
~ couraging and assisting the development of well-planned, in-
tegrated residential neighborhoods, the development and re-
development of communities, and the production, at lower
costs, of housing of sound standards of design, construction,
livability, and size for adequate family life; (4) governmental
assistance to eliminate substandard and other inadequate housing
through the clearance of slums and blighted areas, to facilitate

A2

community development and redevelopment, and to provide
adequate housing for urban and rural non-farm families with
incomes so low that they are not being decently housed in new
or existing housing shall be extended to those localities which
estimate their own needs and demonstrate that these needs are
not being met through reliance solely upon private enterprise,
and without such aid; and (5) governmental assistance for de-
cent, safe, and sanitary farm dwellings and related facilities
shall be extended where the farm owner demonstrates that he
lacks sufficient resources to provide such housing on his own
account and is unable to secure necessary credit for such hous-
ing from other sources on terms and conditions which he
could reasonably be expected to fulfill. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and any other departments
or agencies of the Federal Government having powers, func-
tions, or duties with respect to housing, shall exercise their
powers, functions, and duties under this or any other law, con-
sistently with the national housing policy declared by this Act
and in such manner as will facilitate sustained progress in at-
taining the national housing objective hereby established, and
in such manner as will encourage and assist (1) the production
of housing of sound standards of design, construction, livability,
and size for adequate family life; (2) the reduction of the
costs of housing without sacrifice of such sound standards; (3)
the use of new designs, materials, techniques, and methods in
residential construction, the use of standardized dimensions
and methods of assembly of home-building materials and equip-
ment, and the increase of efficiency in residential construction
and maintenance; (4) the development of well-planned, in-
tegrated, residential neighborhoods and the development and
redevelopment of communities; and (5) the stabilization of the
housing industry at a high annual volume of residential con-
struction.

A3

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42.

§ 3608. Administration—Authority and Responsibility.

(a) The authority and responsibility for administering this
Act shall be in the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment.

Delegation of Authority; Appointment of Hearing Examiners;
Location of Conciliation Meetings; Administrative Review.

(b) The Secretary may delegate any of his functions, duties,
and power to employees of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development or to boards of such employees, including
functions, duties, and powers with respect to investigating, con-
ciliating, hearing, determining, ordering, certifying, reporting,
or otherwise acting as to any work, business, or matter under
this subchapter. The persons to whom such delegations are
made with respect to hearing functions, duties, and powers shall
be appointed and shall serve in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in compliance with sections 3105, 3344,
$362, and 7521 of Title 5. Insofar as possible, conciliation
meetings shall be held in the cities or other localities where the
discriminatory housing practices allegedly occurred. The Secre-
tary shall by rule prescribe such rights of appeal from the
decisions of his hearing examiners to other hearing examiners
or to other officers in the Department, to boards of officers or
to himself, as shall be appropriate and in accordance with law.

Cooperation of Secretary and Executive Departments and Agencies
in Administration of Housing and Urban Development Programs
and Activities to Further Fair Housing Purposes.

(c) All executive departments and agencies shall administer
their programs and activities relating to housing and urban de-
velopment in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of
this subchapter and shall cooperate with the Secretary to further

such purposes.

A4

Functions of Secretary.

(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall—

(1) make studies with respect to the nature and extent
of discriminatory housing practices in representative com-
munities, urban, suburban, and rural, throughout the
United States;

(2) publish and disseminate reports, recommendations,
and information derived from such studies;

(3) cooperate with and render technical assistance to
Federal, State, local, and other public or private agencies,
organizations, and institutions which are formulating or
carrying on programs to prevent or eliminate discrimina-
tory housing practices;

(4) cooperate with and render such technical and
other assistance to the Community Relations Service as
may be appropriate to further its activities in preventing
or eliminating discriminatory housing practices; and

(5) administer the programs and activities relating to
housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively
to further the policies of this subchapter.

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42.

§ 4331. Congressional Declaration of National Environmental
Policy.

(a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s
activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural
environment, particularly the profound influences of population
growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances
and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and
development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy

Some

AS

of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local
governments, and other concerned public and private organiza-
tions, to use all practicable means and measures, including
financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to
foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive
harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other require-
ments of present and future generations of Americans.

(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter,
it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government
to use all acticable means, consistent with other essential con-
siderations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the
Nation may—

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee of the environment for succeeding generatiuns;

(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety,
or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever
possible, an environment which supports diversity and
variety of individual choice;

(5) achieve a balance between population and resource
use which will permit high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life’s amenities; and

(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and ap-
proach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable re-
sources.

(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility
to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the en-
vironment.

A6

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42.

§ 4332. Cooperation of Agencies; Reports; Availability of In-
formation; Recommendations; International and
National Coordination of Efforts.

The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent
possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the
United States shall be interpreted and administered in accord-
ance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agen-
cies of the Federal Government shall—

(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach
which will insure the integrated use of the natural and
social sciences and the environmental design arts in plan-
ning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on
man’s environment;

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in
consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality
established by subchapter II of this chapter, which will
insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities
and values may be given appropriate consideration in
decisionmaking along with economic and technical con-
siderations;

(C) include in every recommendation or report on pro-
posals for legislation and other major Federal actions sig-
nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment,
a detailed statement by the responsible official on—

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed ac-
tion,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which can-
not be avoided should the proposal be implemented,

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses
of man’s environment and the maintenance and en-
hancement of long-term productivity, and

— aw”

A7

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented.

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible
Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments
of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or spe-
cial expertise with respect to any environmental impact in-
volved. Copies of such statement and the comments and
views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental
standards, shall be made available to the President, the
Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as
provided by section 552 of Title 5, and shall accompany the
proposal through the existing agency review processes;

(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alterna-
tives to recommended courses of action in any proposal
which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative
uses of available resources;

(E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character
of environmental problems and, where consistent with the
foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support
to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to max-
imize international cooperation in anticipating and >re-
venting a decline in the quality of mankind’s world envi-
ronment;

(F) make available to States, counties, municipalities,
institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful
in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the
environment;

(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the
planning and development of resource-oriented projects;
and

(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality estab-
lished by subchapter II of this chapter.

A8

UNITED STATES DistrRicT Court,
N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Nov. 21, 1973.
INUCLEUS OF CHICAGO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

JaMEs T. Lynn, Secretary of the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 72 C 1197.

* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

JuLius J. HOFFMAN, Senior District Judge.

This suit arises out of court ordered construction of federally
financed housing in Chicago.” The plaintiffs are a coalition of
local community organizations and individuals within the city
of Chicago which have incorporated into the Nucleus of Chi-
cago Homeowners Association. The defendants are the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, its Secretary, the
Chicago Housing Authority, its Commissioners and Executive
Director. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants, by failing to
file an environmental impact statement in conection with pos-
sible environmental effects of the proposed housing projects,
have violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Title 42, United States Code, Section 4332. The plaintiffs
maintain that the proposed construction of public housing will
significantly affect the environment, and consequently, the
defendants are required to file an environmental impact state-

1. See Gautreaux vy. Chicago Housing Authority, 304 F. Supp.
736 (N. D. Ill. 1969) and Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F. 2d 731
(7th Cir. 1971). In accordance with the court orders, the Chicago
Housing Authority submitted development programs which were to
be funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

A9

ment under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act. The defendants contend that the construction of the
housing will not significantly affect the environment.

The question to be decided by this court is whether the pro-
posed building of the housing units would significantly affect the
environment so as to require the defendants to file an environ-
mental impact statement under the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act.

The factual issues concern the social characteristics of the
tenants of public housing as compared with the social charac-
teristics of the plaintiffs, and the alleged adverse impact of those
characteristics upon the environment. The plaintiffs assert that
the social characteristics of the prospective tenants of the hous-
ing units will have an adverse impact on the quality of the
environment and seek to enjoin the acquisition of housing sites
pending the filing of an environmental impact statement. In
support of this position, the plaintiffs allege that they are mem-
bers of the “middle cl. and/or working class” which empha-
sizes obedience and respect for lawful authority, has a much
lower propensity toward criminal behavior and acts of physical
violence, and possesses a high regard for the physical and
aesthetic improvement of real and personal property. The plain-
tiffs further allege that, as a “statistical whole,” tenants of public
housing possess a higher propensity toward criminal behavior and
acts of physical violence, a disregard for the physical and aes-
thetic maintenance of real and personal property, and a lower
commitment to hard work. Therefore, so the plaintiffs insist, the
construction of public housing will increase the hazards of crim-
inal acts, physical violence, and aesthetic and economic decline
in the immediate vicinity of the sites. The plaintiffs maintzin
that these factors will have a direct adverse impact upon the
physical safety of the plaintiffs residing in close proximity to
the sites, together with a direct adverse impact upon the
aesthetic and economic quality of their lives.

Al0

Cases construing the National Environmental! Policy Act,
with respect to the requirement of an impact statement, have
concerned the environmental impact of a project by its very
nature; for example, the building of a highway necessarily results
in destruction of natural resources, increased auto emissions, and
noise. There is no case involving the impact of a certain class
of persons and of their social characteristics upon the environ-
ment. This is a case of first impression on that question.

Before a federal agency may take action on a proposal “sig-
nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” it
must prepare a statement outlining the “environmental impact
of the proposed action,” Title 42, United States Code, Section
4332(2)(C). Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 11514,
35 Fed. Reg. 4247 (1970), the Council on Environmental
Quality promulgated guidelines, setting forth circumstances un-
der which the National Environmental Policy Act applies.? The
guidelines clearly state that the Act applies to projects “supported
in whole or in part through Federal contracts, grants, subsidies,
loans, or other forms of funding assistance.” Guidelines, § 5
(a) (ii). The provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act clearly apply to this case, there being federal funding of
municipal housing.

The defendants contend that they met their responsibilities
under the Act by issuing a “negative impact statement” declar-
ing that the proposed housing would not significantly affect the
environment and therefore did not file a detailed environmental
impact statement. The decision of the defendants having been
made in good faith, their judgment will not be disturbed absent
a clear showing that an impact statement was required by the
facts. See Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic
Energy Commission, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 33, 449 F. 2d 1109,
1115 (1971).

2. Council on Environmental Quality, “Statements on Proposed

Federal Actions Affecting the Environment, Guidelines,” 36 Fed.
Reg. 7724 (1971).

All

At the outset, it must be noted that although human beings
may be polluters (i.e., may create pollution), they are not them-
selves pollution (i.e., constitute pollution). Environmental im-
pact in the meaning of the Act cannot be reasonably construed
to include a class of persons per se. The provisions of the Act
concern actions which harm or affect the environment. There-
fore, the social and economic characteristics of the potential
occupants of public housing as such are not decisive in deter-
mining whether an impact statement is required under the Act.
The relevant consideration is whether acts or actions resulting
from the social and economic characteristics will affect the
environment.

The evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of the
position that actions of the tenants of public housing would
significantly affect the environment was substantially expert
testimony by two social scientists. Their expert opinions were
based on data extracted from census reports and statistics on
existing public housing tenants. The experts testified that tenants
of public housing included a high proportion of unemployment,
a high proportion of welfare recipients, and a high proportion
of “multi-problem” families. The expert testimony asserted that
such tenants are likely to engage in anti-social acts of personal
violence and property destruction. The expert testimony further
asserted that the plaintiffs have a lesser potential for anti-social
conduct than the tenants of public housing. The plaintiffs’ case
rests primarily upon this expert testimony on the probable be-
havior of tenants of public housing as contrasted with the prob-
able behavior of the plaintiffs.

The defendants opposed the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses with
experts of their own selection. The defendants’ witnesses con-
tend that the decision that the proposed housing would not have
a significant impact on the environment, by its nature or by the
actions of its prospective tenants, was not arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable.

Al2

Prognosticating human behavior and analyzing its conse-
quences on the environment is an especially difficult, if not
impossible, task. See Cross v. Harris, 135 U. S. App. D. C.
259, 418 F. 2d 1095, 1107 (1969). Sociology, a discipline
attempting such prediction, has not yet attained the stage of an
exact science. By its very nature, it relies upon general con-
clusions drawn from average propositions based on sample
data. The different expert conclusions that may be drawn from
the same data is evident not only in the evidence before this
court, but in the literature of the social sciences. As such,
these conclusions are not very persuasive in a court of law.

Predictions of behavior of prospective tenants, whose identity
is not yet known, made by the expert witnesses in this case,
and the data upon which these predictions are based, are uncer-
tain and unconvincing. The conclusions of the expert witnesses
are difficult, if not impossible, to verify and substantiate. The
prospective tenants of public housing are individuals, and their
behavior may not be presumed to be identical, or even similar,
to other individuals in the same social or economic class. The
law regards them as free, legally responsible individuals, not as
sociological factors in deterministic formulae. The sociological
predictions of prospective tenant behavior made by the plain-
tiffs’ expert witnesses and based on statistical averages are not
persuasive. “It is doubtful whether psychological and socio-
logical effects upon neighbors constitute the type of factors that
may be considered in making such a determination since they
do not lend themselves to measurement.” Hanly v. Kleindienst,
471 F. 2d 823, 833 (2d Cir. 1972).

It is the court’s conclusion that the evidence does not support
the proposition that prospective tenants of public housing will
significantly affect the environment. The evidence does not
support the allegation in the complaint of differing socio-eco-
nomic characteristics of the plaintiffs as contrasted with pro-
spective tenants of public housing. There is no evidence to sup-

Al3

port the plaintiffs’ allegations that prospective tenants of public
housing are more likely to engage in anti-social conduct than
present community residents. Indeed, there is little, if any,
evidence of the social characteristics of the individual plaintiffs,
none having testified. Thus the proposed construction of the
housing units will not significantly affect the environment and
the defendants’ action in filing a negative impact statement was
not in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Accordingly, this court finds in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiffs. Judgment will be entered on the findings
and the case is dismissed on the merits with costs. The fore-
going memorandum of decision constitutes the court's findings
of fact and conclusions of law.

Al4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,
For the Seventh Circuit.

No. 74-1206

NUCLEUS OF CHICAGO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs-A ppellants,
vs.

JAMES T. LYNN, et al.,
Defendants-A ppellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 72-1197-C
JuLius J. HOFFMAN, Judge.

Argued October 21, 1974—Decided October 6, 1975.

Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, KILKENNY, Senior Circuit
Judge,* and SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.

FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Nucleus of Chicago Home-
owners Association (Nucleus) is an Illinois not-for-profit corpo-
ration organized “to prevent the damage to neighborhood com-
munities which will result if low-rent housing for low-income
families is placed in working-class and middle-class neighbor-
hoods of Chicago.” Along with certain Chicago community
organizations and individual citizens residing proximate to
proposed low income housing sites, Nucleus filed this lawsuit
to enjoin the building of low-income housing units by the Chicago
Housing Authority (CHA) with the assistance of the United

* Senior Circuit Judge John F. Kilkenny of the Ninth Circuit is
sitting by designation.

a

Al5

States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
on the ground that HUD officials failed to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. After a full trial on the merits, the district
court entered judgment for the defendants. We affirm.

I.

This case is yet another episode in the continuing dispute
over the location of public housing in the Chicago metropolitan
area. The history of this litigation has been recounted elsewhere.
See Chicago Housing Authority v. Austin, 511 F. 2d 82 (7th
Cir. 1975) cases cited in note 1. For our purposes only a few
salient facts need be noted. As the responsible federal agency,
HUD administers the use of federal funds to construct low rent
housing. See The Low-Rent Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1401
et seq. The CHA is responsible for the construction of low-
income housing in the City of Chicago. In order for CHA to
receive federal funds, HUD must approve the site selection and
construction of low-income housing. In 1969, CHA’s site-selec-
tion and tenant assignment policies were found to be racially
discriminatory. Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 296
F. Supp. 907 (N. D. Ill. 1969). To remedy this discrimination
and desegregate the Chicago public housing market, CHA was
ordered to construct the next 700 units of public housing at
scattered sites in predominantly white neighborhoods composed
of less than 15% low-income families. 304 F. Supp. 736 (N. D.
Ill. 1969). This judgment order was later amended to require
the construction of 1500 units of low-income scattered-site hous-
ing. 342 F. Supp. 827 (N. D. Ill. 1972). As an initial step
to comply with this decree, HUD and CHA have instituted an
84-unit scattered-site housing project.’ At argument, we were
informed that 63 units are presently under construction.

1. The project was originally designated ILL. 2-85 and calls for

the construction of housing at 15 different sites with no more than
8 units to be constructed at any one site.

Al6

In 1972 plaintiffs filed this suit seeking to enjoin the con-
struction of this public-housing on the ground that HUD officials
failed to file an environmental impact statement pursuant to
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332, assessing the impact of siting
low-income public housing in middle and working-class neigh-
borhoods. Plaintiffs alleged that low-income housing tenants as
a group when compared to the social class represented by the
individual plaintiffs possess “a higher propensity toward criminal
behavior and acts of physical violence,” “a disregard for physical
and aesthetic maintenance of real and personal property,” and
“a lower commitment to hard work.” Plaintiffs, in contrast, are
alleged to belong to a social class that emphasizes “obedience
and respect for lawful authority” and possesses “a much lower
propensity for criminal behavior” and “a high regard for the
physical and aesthetic improvement of real and personal prop-
erty.” Plaintiffs then charge that the proposed construction of
CHA scattered-site housing “will have a direct adverse impact
upon the physical safety of those plaintiffs residing in close
proximity to the sites, as well as a direct adverse effect upon
the aesthetic and economic quality of their lives” so as to
“significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”

Section 102 of NEPA provides that all “major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”
must be accompanied by a detailed statement assessing the en-
vironmental impact of the proposed action, 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(2)(C).*, The Council on Environmental Quality

2. The provisions of NEPA section 102 relevant to this litigation
are:

The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest
extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws
of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in
accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2)
all agencies of the Federal Government shall—

(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences
and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision
making which may have an impact on man’s environment;

(Footnote continued on next page.)

a

Al7

(CEQ), created pursuant to the Act and charged with the
responsibility to oversee the implementation of NEPA, promul-
gated guidelines directing federal agencies to establish their
own procedures to identify those actions requiring environ-
mental impact statements. 36 Fed. Reg. 7724. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 1500.3(a). In 1971 HUD issued draft regulations, which were
effective immediately pending final approval, for the systematic
environmental evaluation of the department’s programs. In ac-
cordance with these regulations, HUD, beginning in July 1972,
conducted a special environmental clearance for the first 84
sites CHA proposed to comply with the public housing con-
struction ordered in the Gautreaux litigation, and in March,

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in con-
sultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established
by subchapter II of this chapter, which will insure that pre-
sently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with
economic and technical considerations;

(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals
for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed
statement by the responsible officials on—

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented,

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man’s environment and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity, and

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed action
should it be implemented.

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Fed-
eral official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any
Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special exper-
tise with respect to arly environmental impact involved. Copies
of such statement and the comments and views of the appropri-
ate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to
develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made
available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality
and the public as provided by section 552 of Title 5, and shall
accompany the proposal through the existing agency review

processes;....

Al8

1973 the agency issued a negative statement, or Finding of
Inapplicability, stating that the project posed no significant en-
vironmental impacts. See 38 Fed. Reg. 19186.

At trial plaintiffs challenged the sufficiency of HUD’s en-
vironmental review. Testimony was introduced on the basis of
statistical studies to show that a substantial percentage of CHA
tenants are female-headed multi-problem families. Such welfare
dependent families as a social group, plaintiffs’ experts testified,
are acutely in need of employment opportunities and particularly
dependent upon public programs providing day care facilities,
health care, educational services, and youth and family counsel-
ing. If these special needs went unsatisfied, it was predicted that
CHA tenants would be likely to cause problems for their neigh-
bors, engaging in acts of violence and property destruction.
Arguing that HUD had failed to examine these considerations,
plaintiffs concluded that HUD had breached its duty under
NEPA to weigh the potential environmental traumas associated
with the construction of low-income public housing. -

The district court rejected plaintiffs’ claim. Doubting the
utility of predicting human behavior on the basis of social
statistics, the court held that plaintiffs had failed to prove that
the social characteristics of the prospective CHA tenants will
have a significant impact on the human environment so as to
require HUD to prepare an environmental impact statement.
This appeal followed.

Il.

As an initial matter, we note that the parties agree that
HUD’s determination that an environmental impact statement
need not be filed must stand unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.
First National Bank of Chicago v. Richardson, 484 F. 2d 1369,
1381 (7th Cir. 1973). We have recognized that the national
environmental policy expressed in NEPA is “as broad as the
mind can conceive” and necessarily includes concern for the

Al9

quality of urban life. But we have also realized that the environ-
mental problems of the city “are not as readily identifiable as
clean air and clean water.” Jd. 484 F. 2d at 1377. Given these
uncertainties, the case for relying on an agency’s good faith
judgment is particularly compelling, and we agree that the ar-
bitrary and capricious standard that ordinarily governs review of
administrative matters of this sort is controlling. Hanly v.
Kleindienst, 471 F. 2d 823, 828-30 (2d Cir. 1972), cert.
denied, 412 U. S. 908. But see Minnesota Public Interest Re-
search Group V. Butz, 498 F. 2d 1314, 1320 (8th Cir. 1974)
(en banc).

We dispose first of plaintiffs’ contention that HUD violated
its duty under NEPA to consider the comprehensive environ-
mental impact of the 1500 unit scattered-site housing program
when it confined its environmental analysis to the 84 units the
agency has thus far approved. Reliance is placed on HUD and
CEQ regulations that charge that proposed actions should be
comprehensively evaluated.* These regulations, however, plainly
vest HUD with discretion to determine the scope of agency

3. The relevant HUD regulation provides:

(5) Evaluation of comprehensive activities. Individual actions
that are related either geographically or as logical parts in a
composite of contemplated actions may be more appropriately
evaluated in a single environmental clearance. For example,
several subdivisions may form a large new development. Like-
wise, a comprehensive project may be composed of, or include,
several interrelated activities, e.g., development of a new com-
munity or redevelopment of a center city area. In these cases,
and where feasible, HUD offices should aggregate individual
activities into a larger package and environmental evaluation
shall concentrate on the broad and cumulative impacts of the
larger activity, as well as the project’s specific impact of com-
ponent activities to the extent known.

The comprehensive environmental evaluation will not satisfy
the requirements of this Handbook, however, if it is superficial
or limited to generalities. When all significant issues cannot
be anticipated or adequately treated in connection with the
comprehensive assessment as a whole, environmental clear-
ances of more limited scope will be necessary on subsequent,
individual actions in order to fulfill the requirements of this
Handbook.

(Footnote continued on next page.)

A20

action to be subjected to NEPA scrutiny. While a given action
“may be more appropriately evaluated in a single environmental
clearance,” HUD is not compelled to aggregate several projects
if, in its judgment, evaluation of the aggregate is not feasible.

Indeed, comprehensive evaluation of specific environmental
impact is not possible here. CHA had not selected and HUD
had not tentatively approved 1500 proposed housing sites at the
time the 84 unit environmental clearance was performed. While
no doubt there are environmental considerations common to all
sites that are best considered in the aggregate, the fact that by
design the sites are scattered throughout the neighborhoods of
the city counsels for separate consideration of discrete sites. Cf.
Indian Lookout Alliance v. Volpe, 484 F. 2d 11, 18-19 (8th
Cir. 1973). Thus, the scattered-site housing here differs de-
cidedly from the construction of a group of buildings in a single
location. See, e.g., Jones v. Lynn, 477 F. 2d 885, 891 (1st Cir.
1973). In the latter case, prudence may well dictate considera-
tion of the proposed construction as a single unit. Suffice it to
say, that though we are cognizant of the benefits of comprehen-
sive planning and do not intend to discourage such analysis, we
cannot say that HUD has abused its discretion by choosing to
evaluate the impact of CHA housing as housing sites are pro-
posed and approved.

38 Fed. Reg. 19185.
CEQ guidelines charge that

(a) The statutory clause “major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment” is to be con-
strued by agencies with a view to the overall, cumulative im-
pact of the action proposed, related Federal actions and proj-
ects in the area, and further actions contemplated. . . . In con-
sidering what constitutes major action significantly affecting the
environment, agencies should bear in mind that the effect of
many Federal decisions about a project or complex of projects
can be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. .. .
40 C. F. R. § 1500.6(a).

It has been held that CEQ guidelines are advisory only and do
not have the force of law. Hiram Clarke Civic Club, Inc. v. Lynn,
476 F. 2d 421, 429 (Sth Cir. 1973); Green County Planning Board
v. Federal Power Commission, 455 F. 2d 412, 421 (2d Cir. 1972).

ew

A21

Plaintiffs next argue that HUD’s decision not to file a full-
blown section 103 impact statement was not supported by a
record sufficiently developed for judicial review of that decision.
NEPA does require that an agency affirmatively develop a re-
viewable administration record supportive of a decision not to
file an impact statement. First National Bank of Chicago v.
Richardson, supra, 484 F. 2d at 1381; Scherr v. Volpe, 466
F. 2d 1027, 1032 (7th Cir. 1972). But the content and volume
of such a record depend upon the particular federal action
proposed. A concise statement may be sufficient to support an
agency finding of no significant environmental impact if it is
grounded on supporting evidence. Hanly v. Mitchell, 460 F. 2d
640, 646 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 990.

The gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that low-income
public housing tenants as a group statistically exhibit a high
incidence of violence, law violation, and destruction of property
and that HUD failed to consider the adverse impact of these
social characteristics on the neighborhoods CHA has chosen
for the construction of scattered-site housing. To the extent that
this claim can be construed to mean that HUD must consider
the fears of the neighbors of prospective public housing tenants,
we seriously question whether such an impact is cognizable
under NEPA. First National Bank of Chicago v. Richardson,
supra, 484 F. 2d at 1380 n. 13. We agree with the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia that: “Concerned persons
might fashion a claim supported by linguistics and etymology,
that there is an impact from people pollution of ‘environment,’
if the term be stretched to its maximum. We think that type of
effect cannot fairly be projected as having been within the con-
templation of Congress.” Maryland-National Cap. PK & PL.
Com’n Vv. U. S. Postal Serv., 487 F. 2d 1029, 1037 (D. C. Cir.
1973).

In any event we need not resolve the question for it is clear
that HUD chose to consider the impact of the scattered-site
housing on the social fabric of the recipient communities. In

A22

this regard HUD’s negative statement relies on several factors
to conclude that the project is not likely to produce adverse en-
vironmental effects. The low-density design of the housing
coupled with the fact that it will be built on vacant lots in com-
pliance with local zoning requirements suggests, for example,
that the increased burden on schools, transportation, fire and
other community services will be at the most incremental.‘
Moreover, under the Gautreaux decree 50 percent of all dwelling
units at a site must be ofiered first to housing applicants who
reside in the surrounding community. Hence, there is little
reason to believe the influx of new CHA tenants will drastically
alter the character of a neighborhood. Finally, CHA’s tenant
selection and eviction policies further diminish the possibility
that prospective CHA tenants will pose a danger to the health,
safety or morals of their neighbors.

Likewise, it is apparent that HUD has considered the project's
impact on the physical environment of the target neighborhoods.
HUD’s negative statement is a 156 page document, consisting
of a 9 page narrative and 146 pages of HUD worksheets, com-
ments from the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, and
various exhibits. The statement considers the problems of solid
waste disposal, sewage, air pollution, noise levels, and traffic
congestion. Relying on the fact that the proposed housing is
essentially “infill” of neighborhoods already built up, the state-
ment concludes that the project will have no significant adverse
environmental impact. Thus, in our judgment a satisfactory
basis exists for judicial review of the agency’s decision.

Plaintiffs, nevertheless, argue that the mere existence of a
controversy regarding the impact of scattered-site housing re-
quires preparation of a NEPA § 102 environmental impact state-
ment under HUD and CEQ regulations. But the cited HUD

4. Compliance with local zoning regulations and growth consis-
tent with existing growth patterns strongly suggests that a federal

action is not environmentally significant. Maryland-National Cap.
PK & PL. Com'n vy. U. S. Postal Serv., supra, 487 F. 2d at 1036-37.

ee ee

ta at wom nes

A23

regulations only require that the degree of controversy over the
environmental consequences of a project should be considered in
determining the appropriate environmental clearance procedures
that should be followed. 38 Fed. Reg. 19185. An impact state-
ment is not invariably required. CEQ guidelines state that an
impact statement must be prepared when the environmental im-
pact of a project is “likely to be highly controversial.” 40
C.F.R. § 1500.6(a). But we are not persuaded that the con-
troversy here is such as to require an impact statement.

Finally, plaintiffs contend that HUD’s environmental analysis
was inadequate because HUD failed to use a systematic inter-
disciplinary approach and did not explore alternatives to scat-
tered-site housing as required by sections 102(2)(A) and 102
(2)(D) of NEPA, 42 U. S. C. §§ 4332(2)(A) and (2)(D).
These NEPA duties are obligatory whether or not an impact
statement is to be filed. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Corps of Engineers, 492 F. 2d 1123, 1132 (Sth Cir. 1974).
With respect to HUD’s duty to engage in interdisciplinary an-
alysis, plaintiffs specifically assert that the responsible HUD
officials never consulted sociologists or read a CHA sponsored
study on social problems in public housing entitled Human Needs
in Public Housing. NEPA, however, does not require that a
specific class of experts be consulted or that an agency consider
all documents possibly relevant to a given environmental issue.
From the negative statement it is clear that HUD, in good faith,
considered the impact of the project on the social environment of
the site neighborhoods. And, in view of the fact that CHA was
under a court order to construct the housing, we cannot say
that HUD breached its rather “opaque” duty to engage in inter-
disciplinary analysis.

With respect to HUD’s failure to consider alternative courses
of action, plaintiffs’ position is equally unfounded. Plaintiffs
complain that HUD did not consider the feasibility of broad-
scale metropolitan planning and the provision of comprehensive

A24

social services to alleviate the problems of low-income public
housing tenants. But since the scattered-site housing was court
ordered, HUD and CHA have no alternative but to construct
the housing. The only sense in which alternatives can be con-
sidered is in site selection and even here CHA and HUD must
operate within the parameters of the Gautreaux decree. See
Trinity Episcopal School v. Romney, 44 U. S. L. W. 2087
(2d Cir. July 24, 1975). Yet, a recommendation in HUD’s
negative statement indicating that two sites should be dropped
from the project for noncompliance with HUD’s Noise Assess-
ment Guidelines pending further environmental analysis suggests
that HUD and CHA are exercising some selectivity in site selec-
tion. In the context of this case, NEPA requires no more.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

A25

OPINION BY JUDGE FAIRCHILD.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,
For the Seventh Circuit,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

October 6, 1975

Before

Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge.
Hon. JOHN F. KILKENNY, Senior Circuit Judge*.
Hon. ROBERT A. SRECHER, Circuit Judge.

) Appeal from the United
States District Court
for the Northern

NUCLEUS OF CHICAGO HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-A ppellants, District of Illinois,
No. 74-1206 a > Eastern Division.
No. 72 C 1197.
ae Cees Julius J. Hoffman.
J Judge.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the
record from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this
court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause
appealed from be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, with costs,
in accordance with the opinion of this Court filed this date.

* Senior Circuit Judge John F. Kilkenny of the Ninth Circuit is
sitting by designation.

A26

THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF SCATTERED SITE PUBLIC
HOUSING.

by
Thomas M. Gannon, S. J.
Chairman and Professor

Department of Sociology
Loyola University

and

Morris Janowitz
Professor of Sociology
University of Chicago

A27

THE SoOcIAL IMPACT OF SCATTERED SITE PuBLIC HOUSING.

The proposed plan by the Chicago Housing Authority to con-
struct scattered site public housing in various local communities
throughout the city of Chicago is designed to achieve racial in-
tegration. The objective of this statement is, first, to review
existing sociological research in order to assess the social im-
pact of public housing, including scattered site housing, on the
residents of both such housing projects and of the local com-
munities in which they are planned, and second, to indicate
the types of studies and social planning required in order to
take steps to effectively incorporate the residents of these pro-
posed housing units into their local communities.

To this end, the following points will be covered: (a) con-
clusions of available research on the social consequences of
public housing which highlight the failure of public housing;
(b) a review of available research on population movements
in metropolitan areas which highlight the persistence of racial
discrimination and segregation; (c) an examination of the
socioeconomic characteristics of the potential residents of scat-
tered site public housing units and of the residents of the ad-
joining neighborhoods and local communities; and (d) an
indication of the types of studies and social planning required
to produce the desired objectives.

(a) Social consequences of public housing.

In the United States, the development of public housing since
the mid-1930’s has not produced the desired goals, in contrast
to many locations in Western Europe where it has been much
more successful. A variety of research’ points to specific factors

1. Cf. Nicholas J. Demerath, “St. Louis Public Housing Study,”
Journal of Housing, 8 (October, 1962), 472-78; Kenneth B. Clark,
Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper & Row, 1965); William Ledbetter,
“Public Housing: A Social Experiment Seeks Acceptance,” Law and
Contemporary Problems, 32 (Summer, 1967), 490-527; Edward C.
Banfield, The Unheavenly City (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1968);

A28

related to inadequate social planning which help to explain the
failure of public housing in the United States. These include
excessive reliance on high rise construction, poor utilization of
land, inappropriate physical construction, inadequate educa-
tional, recreational, health and community services, and remote
access to employment opportunities. The result of the policies
of public housing authorities has been to create low income and
racially segregated enclaves on a massive scale. In part, public
housing ghettos are a reflection of public attitudes toward poor
people and members of minority groups. As a consequence,
the approach to public housing in the United States has served
to increase the social and residential segregation of the disad-
vantaged. This result stands in marked contrast to Council
housing in Great Britain, which, because of more careful social
planning, has not resulted in such massive segregated human
enclaves.

More recent investigations of the failure of public housing, like
Rainwater’s and Suttles’ studies on the social fabric of public
housing and low income communities,” tend to place important
emphasis on problems of organization and management. Ceiling
on incomes, the absence of effective mechanisms for tenant
involvement, weak relations with external public and private
groups, rigidities in both local and federal agencies that ad-
minister public housing have all resulted in serious questioning
on the American scene of the very idea of conventional public

Leonard Freedman, Public Housing: The Politics of Poverty (New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969); Alfred Page and Warren
Seyfried, Urban Analysis (Chicago: Aldine, 1970); Human Needs
in Public Housing, Clyde E. Murray, Project Director (Chicago:
Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago, 1970); E. D. Huttman,
“The Pathology of Public Housing,” City, 5 (Fall, 1971), 32-34;
Huttman, “Public Housing: The Negative Psychological Effect,”
Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Orthopsychiatric
Association, 1971; Irving Welfeld, “That Housing Problem,” The
Public Interest, No. 27 (Spring, 1972), 78-95.

2. Lee Rainwater, Behind Ghetto Walls, 402-424; Gerald D.
Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum (Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1968), 121-124.

A29

housing. A variety of new schemes for low income housing have
been offered. In St. Louis, it was thought necessary to dynamite
one major project. In Chicago, smaller projects were sold to
residents, while various schemes of rent supplements are being
pursued on an experimental basis. Federal authorities have in-
dicated that, at least for a two year period, no new public
housing should be constructed.

(b) Population movements in metropolitan areas.

As a form of social planning, the proposal to construct
scattered site public housing is designed to produce racial in-
tegration in housing. This form of planning is essentially based
on the assumption that there will be no more integration among
the residents of scattered site public housing, but that scattered
site housing will introduce racial integration into all white local
communities.

In this connection, the extensive research by sociologists like
Duncan and Duncan, Taeuber and others on the ecology of
population movements and racial change in urban areas makes
a sharp distinction between racial transition in a local com-
munity and racial integration.* Racial transition refers to the
process by which Blacks move in and the community changes
from an all-white community to an all-Black community. Dur-
ing the period of transition, the community statistically appears
to be integrated, but it is only in transition. A racially integrated
community, however, is not defined by numbers, but by the
two-way movement of racial populations, either by sale or
rental of property. Blacks enter a white community and whites
continue to enter the community in some of the residences
formerly occupied by other whites.

3. Cf. Otis Dudley Duncan and Beverly Duncan, The Negro
Population of Chicago: A Study of Residential Succession (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957); Conrad Taeuber and Irene B.

Taeuber, The Changing Population of the United States (New York:
John Wiley, 1958).

A30

Research has also demonstrated that—consistently since 1890
—in the city of Chicago and other major metropolitan areas of
the North, the bulk of the Black population lives in segregated
communities or in local communities of racial transition. The
basic factors rest in the dynamics of population growth in a
context of profound racial prejudice toward Blacks, reenforced
by a system of discrimination in the sale and management of
real estate.‘ In Chicago, there are at least two areas in which
the criteria of racial integration are generally applicable: the
near south side and the near north side. In these communities,
special factors have produced racial integration: the presence
of stable educational and medical institutions, the middle-class
character of the population, and advantages of location and
cultural resources. Racial integration in these communities
brings with it an important measure of socio-economic cohesion.°®

Numerous communities in the city of Chicago, when faced
with the ecological process of Black population growth and
expansion, have sought to maintain a stable integrated com-
munity and have failed. Moloch® has fully documented the

4. Brian Berry’s series of evaluations for the Chicago Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, funded by the Leadership
Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, documents the increas-
ing racial polarity of Chicago housing in the 1960’s under conditions
of accelerated ghetto expansion. Cf., “Down from the Summit: An
Evaluation of the Activities of the Leadership Council for Metro-
politan Open Communities in Chicago, July, 1968” (September,
1969); “Bunkers at Bay: The Chasm of Duality in Chicago’s Real
Estate Markets” (May, 1971); “The Limits to Leadership in Open-
Housing: Forces Promoting the Maintenance of Dual Housing
Markets in Chicago During 1971” (1972).

5. On statistical grounds, it has been strikingly demonstrated that
if each community in the Chicago metropolitan area had the same
proportion of lower class Blacks as found in particular integrated
communities—e.g., high income areas such as Hyde Park or the
near north side—there would, in effect, be no central city low-
income and Black ghetto. Such an estimate, however, in no way
addresses the complex human and social problems involved in elimi-
nating central city ghettos.

6. Harvey L. Moloch, Managed Integration: Dilemmas of Doing
Good in the City (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).

ae et a ee ee ee ne ee

A31

strenuous efforts of a particular south side community (South
Shore) to develop community-based programs in middle-class
areas where integration was more likely. Despite such efforts,
however, communities on the border of the central Black
population have generally undergone racial transition.’

On the basis of available research evidence and past ex-
perience, therefore, there is no basis for asserting that scattered
site housing will produce racial integration in residential areas.
The continued expansion of the Black community along historic
lines implies that scattered site housing will serve only as a
part of the process of racial transition; if anything, it will
probably accelerate the process. This is especially likely when
the bulk of the proposed housing sites exist in working class
communities which are least equipped to participate in racial
integration.

The sheer issue of population numbers involved impressively
demonstrates the limited increase in the number of Blacks
who have recently moved into suburban Chicago. At the end
of 1972 there were still less than 3,000 families living in
integrated suburban communities in the six counties of metro-
politan Chicago. Even though between 1960 and 1970 the
Black suburban population in Cook County increased by 66.6
per cent, Black residents comprise only 3.8 per cent of the total
population in these suburbs. During the same ten-year period,
despite a decrease of 5.1 per cent in the total population of the
city of Chicago, the Black population in the city increased 35.6
per cent. As a consequence, nearly 33 per cent of the total
1970 population in Chicago was Black.® It can be estimated,
however, that if only one-half of this growth in the Biack com-
munity took place in the suburbs, there could be effective racial
integration in the city of Chicago.

7. Cf. Brian Berry, “Fear in the Neighborhoods,” Report for the

Leadership Council of Metropolitan Open Communities, Chicago
(Summer, 1973, forthcoming). .
8. United States Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:

1960 and 1970, General Population Characteristics, Final Report
PC (1)—BIS, Illinois.

A32

(c) Socioeconomic characteristics of potential residents of
scattered site housing.

As an effort in social planning, the case for scattered site
housing can be argued as a device for increasing the supply
of housing for low-income Blacks and for locating Blacks
closer to s urces of employment. Scattered site housing is
assumed to be free of some of the worst and most oppressive
features of massive public housing.

However, there is an absence of adequate research on the
social impact and consequences of scattered site housing. It is
known, of course, that this housing would be administered by
the same set of agencies which have created and must confront
the already existing problems of massive public housing. There-
fore, in assessing the present proposal for scattered site housing,
it is essential to identify the socioeconomic characteristics of
the potential residents of these units and to compare and con-
trast them with the residents of the local areas. Such a proce-
cure would supply information and guidelines that should
enable social planners to assist the new residents to participate
effectively in the life of the local community in which they find
themselves. It is assumed that a representative sample of the
current residents of the Chicago Housing Authority would reside
in proposed scattered site housing; to employ any selective cri-
teria would be very difficult to justify and implement.

Some indication of the magnitude and complexity of imple-
menting the present housing proposal can be inferred from a
comparison of income levels, public assistance rates, and fam-
ily patterns between present CHA residents and the residents
of those areas in which the proposed sites are located. The fol-
lowing observations are based on a preliminary study of 26
of the designated census tracts and the 1971 Annual Statistical
Report published by the Chicago Housing Authority.* The data
from these two sources are presented in Table 1.

9. The sample from which the following inferences are drawn
comes from the Development Program for Project Illinois 2-85 and
2-86. This document lists 120 proposed CHA housing sites scattered

~ mee Me a oe he

en eee ee ee eee

at Pa i OO Ne

+ eo

A33

An examination of these statistics reveals that the median
income for current CHA families and unrelated individuals is,
on the average, $6,645.00 less than the median income of
families and unrelated individuals who reside in the target
areas. Except for the proposed sites in the Near North section
of Chicago, the comparative difference in income is remarkably
similar in all the other separate areas in which housing sites
have been proposed. Thus, for the Southeast census tracts, the
average difference is $7,336.00. In the Near North there is
still an average difference of $2,483.00, while the average dif-
ference in the Far North tracts is $7,746.00 and, in the North-
west, $8,228.00.

A comparison of the number of families and individuals
receiving some kind of financial assistance reveals similar imbal-
ances. Exactly 53 per cent of the families now living in CHA
housing receive public assistance grants, whereas no tract in the
areas sampled in our preliminary study shows more than 1.3
per cent of its residents receiving public assistance. In the pro-
posed sites located in the Southeast, Southwest and Northwest
areas of Chicago, less than .1 per cent of the population receive
public aid. While the Near North rate of .9 per cent and the
Far North rate of .3 per cent indicate that in these two areas
more local residents receive public assistance than do those in
the other proposed areas, the proportion remains dramatically
lower than the rate for CHA residents.

A comparison can also be made of the different family pat-
terns of the two populations. Nearly 71 per cent of the families
with children who are living in CHA housing are incomplete

in 23 different community areas and 74 different census tracts
throughout the city of Chicago; the 120 sites involve the construc-
tion of 741 housing units. It would be both impractical and unneces-
sary to examine each of these tracts in a preliminary study. Con-
sequently, we decided to document only those census tracts which
contain two or more proposed housing sites. Our conclusions, there-
fore, are based on a sample of 26 census tracts (cf. Table 1). It will
be clear from an examination of the attached map of Chicago (cf.
Figure 1) that these tracts are widely scattered throughout the city.

A34

families, that is, only one spouse is present in the household.
Although census and CHA statistics are not directly comparable
on this point, data is available on the number

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1534%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.