Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
SHANNON v. UNITED STATES HUD
December 30, 1974
MAURICE SHANNON, MILDRED BATES, SAMUEL BROG, CHARLES JOHNSON, BASIL LOSTEN, THOMASENE MACK, FRANCES McCARTHY, IRENE SISK, CATHERINE M.P. TAYLOR, JAMES W. WILLIAMS, JUANITA WILLIAMS, GERMAN SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, FRIENDS HOUSING COOPERATIVE, FRIENDS NEIGHBORHOOD GUILD, and LIBERTY PLACE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, for themselves and all others similarly situated
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; JAMES T. LYNN, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; THEODORE R. ROBB, Regional Administrator, Region III, Department of Housing and Urban Development; and VINCENT A. MARINO, Assistant Regional Administrator for Housing Production, Mortgage, and Credit, Region III, Department of Housing and Urban Development
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LORD, III
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, CH. J.
The facts underlying this dispute, now nearly six years old, are reported at 305 F. Supp. 205 (1969). Briefly, however, we reiterate that plaintiffs, black and white residents, businessmen, and representatives of private civic organizations in the East Poplar Urban Renewal Area of Philadelphia, alleged that defendants improperly approved construction of an apartment project, Fairmount Manor, in that area. After several days of testimony, we granted defendants' motion to dismiss. 305 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Pa. 1969). The Court of Appeals, however, reversed our dismissal, 436 F.2d 809 (C.A. 3, 1970), and remanded the cause to us for
"* * * the entry of an injunctive order prohibiting further steps in the finalization of mortgage insurance or other federal financial assistance to the project until such time as HUD makes a determination in substantive and procedural conformance with this opinion * * *. The HUD determination shall be reviewable by the district court which at that time may make an appropriate final order." Id., at 822-823.
Subsequently, HUD determined that had it been in conformity with the Court of Appeals mandate to utilize "some institutionalized method whereby, in considering site selection or type selection, it [would have had] before it the relevant racial and socio-economic information necessary for compliance with its duties under the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts," 436 F.2d at 821, it would not have approved the application to insure the mortgage for Fairmount Manor. Thereafter, we ordered defendants to retain experts:
"to determine how to remedy the effect of the illegal approval of the project. Remedies to be considered shall include but not be limited to demolition and reconstruction; renovation and modification of Fairmount Manor; additional construction in the area; construction in adjacent areas; and the revision of the administration of federal site selection regulations."
On September 23, 1974, we ordered that a hearing be held on December 2, 1974 to determine various legal issues relating to the relief proposal by the experts (Venturi and Rauch) retained by defendants. We ordered that the following issues be argued:
1. Should this Court order equitable relief?
2. If so, what equitable relief is appropriate in view of the harm caused by the illegal acts of the defendants?
3. Are HUD's objections to relief that might be otherwise appropriate, valid? These are
(a) The relief is not related to Fairmount Manor;
(b) Funds to pay for the relief have been impounded;
(c) The Site Selection Criteria prevent the ...
Buy This Entire Record For