Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BROADEN v. HARRIS

May 3, 1978

ALBERTA BROADEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; FRANKIE MAE JETER, individually and as Executive Director of Welfare Rights Organization of Allegheny County, a non profit corporation; N.A.A.C.P. Pittsburgh Chapter, a non profit corporation; PEOPLE'S OAKLAND, a non profit corporation, Plaintiffs
v.
PATRICIA HARRIS, individually and in her official capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Housing and Urban Development; PAUL T. CAIN, individually and in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Pittsburgh Area Office of Housing and Urban Development; ROBERT C. EMBRY, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Community Development; CITY OF PITTSBURGH, RICHARD CALIGUIRI, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh; STEPHEN REICHSTEIN, Administrator of the Community Development Program for the City of Pittsburgh; SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: A. B. KENNY, in his capacity as Chairman of S.P.R.P.C., Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: SNYDER

 A low income, minority resident of the City of Pittburgh and three community organizations seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Southwestern Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC), and the City of Pittsburgh, its Mayor, and the Administrator of its Community Development Program, challenging the City's 1975, 1976 and 1977 Community Development Block Grant Programs (CDBG) and the approval thereof by SPRPC and HUD. Plaintiffs claim the City Programs violate the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA), 42 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq. (Supp. V 1975), in failing to allocate sufficient resources to the needs of low income families and renters, in allocating funds to activities which Plaintiffs view as ineligible for CDBG funding, in failing to comply with community participation requirements in the formulation of the Programs, and in failing to comply with the reporting requirements and performance standards.

 Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants have violated HCDA and an injunction to require approval of a program comporting with their interpretation of HCDA. Plaintiffs also seek improved monitoring of performance by the City and of HUD's review functions, and pray that HUD be required to amend its regulations to comply with legislative intent concerning review of recipient performance. The Defendants have moved for Summary Judgment; the Motions will be granted.

 I. THE STATUTORY BACKGROUND

 Section 5304(c) provides that the Secretary

 
shall approve an application . . . unless -
 
(1) on the basis of significant facts and data, generally available and pertaining to community and housing needs and objectives, the Secretary determines that the applicant's description of such needs and objectives is plainly inconsistent with such facts or data; or
 
(2) on the basis of the application, the Secretary determines that the activities to be undertaken are plainly inappropriate to meeting the needs and objectives identified by the applicant pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; or
 
(3) the Secretary determines that the application does not comply with the requirements of this title or other applicable law or proposes activities which are ineligible under this title.

 Unless the Secretary notifies the applicant of specific reasons for disapproval within 75 days of receipt of the application, the application is deemed approved. Section 5304(f).

 Prior to each fiscal year, a grantee must submit a performance report to the Secretary. Section 5304(d). At least on an annual basis, the Secretary must make such reviews as necessary to determine whether the grantee has carried out a program substantially as described in the application, whether the program conformed to the requirements of the Act and other laws, and whether the grantee has the capacity to continue to carry out the program in a timely manner. According to her findings upon such review, the Secretary may make adjustments in the amount of annual grants. Section 5311(a) requires her, if after notice and hearing she finds that a grantee has failed to comply with the Act, to terminate, reduce or limit payments ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.