Walker v. US Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev.
Decision Date | 22 September 1989 |
Docket Number | No. CA 3-85-1210-R.,CA 3-85-1210-R. |
Citation | 734 F. Supp. 1289 |
Parties | Debra WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Michael M. Daniel, Elizabeth K. Julian and Kenneth L. Schorr, North Central Texas Legal Services, Inc., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Arthur Goldberg, Leslie K. Shedlin, Thomas H. Peebles and Jonathan Strong, Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, D.C., Joseph G. Werner, Haynes & Boone, Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., and Donald W. Hicks, Hill, Hicks & Collins, Dallas, Tex., for defendants.
This is a class action that involves racial discrimination in low-income public housing in the City of Dallas and its suburbs. The original parties were the plaintiff class ("plaintiffs"), the Dallas Housing Authority ("DHA"), and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
This opinion,1 however, concerns the City of Dallas.2 And, it holds:
These rulings should come as no surprise. In April of 1988, the "Housing Mediation Team" appointed by the Mayor recommended that "the City of Dallas should voluntarily agree to enter into the Walker v. HUD Consent Decree," stating:
"...
To show why the City of Dallas should be joined as a defendant in this case subject to the Consent Decree — and why summary judgment as to liability should be entered against the City — this opinion will discuss (i) the procedural history, (ii) the relationship between DHA and the City, (iii) the long, unbroken history of deliberate segregation and discrimination in public housing by DHA and by the City of Dallas (iv) the conduct of the City and its officials concerning the Consent Decree, and (v) the applicable law.
The complete procedural history of this action — both before and after the original parties settled the case with a Consent Decree approved by the Court on Jan. 20, 1987 — is detailed in the Walker I companion opinion. However, these additional facts are necessary to show the procedural setting for this opinion.
On Sept. 8, 1988, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Modify the Consent Decree and to Enjoin the City of Dallas.3 Then, on Dec. 21, 1988, the plaintiffs filed an "alternative" Motion to Add the City of Dallas as a Party Defendant (and to file a Supplemental Complaint against the City). Both motions sought injunctive relief against the City of Dallas for the following reasons:
The City of Dallas filed its reply to the plaintiffs' first motion (the motion to modify the Consent Decree) on Oct. 7, 1988. However, the City did not respond to the second motion (the motion to add the City as a party defendant); instead, it simply filed an answer to the plaintiffs' Supplemental Complaint on Jan. 11, 1989.4
On Dec. 12 and 14, 1988, a hearing was held on the plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Decree and to Enjoin the City of Dallas.5 The evidence presented at that time primarily concerned the plaintiffs's liability claims against the City, and it did not focus on what specific relief should be granted. However, the plaintiffs sought a broad injunction which would:
The plaintiff's Dec. 21, 1988 motion (to add the City as a party defendant) was expressly based upon the testimony and exhibits presented at the Dec. 12, 1988 hearing. This was also true of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (also filed Dec. 21, 1988). And, the response by the City of Dallas to this summary judgment motion was based upon "the exhibits and testimony admitted into evidence at the Dec. 12, 1988 hearing."8
In 1938, DHA was created by the City of Dallas under Texas law. The five-member Board of Commissioners, which has responsibility for the operation of DHA, is appointed by the Mayor of Dallas.9 The relationship between the City and DHA was correctly described by City Council Member Lori Palmer:
Similarly, DHA Executive Director Jack Herrington testified that, in his experience, "members of the DHA Board have been responsive to the Mayor who appoints them."
In addition, under the "Cooperation Agreement" between the City of Dallas and DHA,10 the City agrees to "cooperate with DHA by such action as the City and DHA may find necessary in connection with the development and administration of the public housing" in Dallas. Accordingly, the City has described its relationship with DHA in this manner:
11
Recognizing that DHA has no power to levy taxes, the City of Dallas has provided assistance to DHA in numerous ways, including: performing many of the Housing Quality Standard inspections for DHA's § 8 program; acting as a co-administrator of DHA's § 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program; and providing relocation services for residents displaced by DHA's acquisition of land for its projects.
More significantly, the City of Dallas — through its employees, as well as the Mayor and members of the City Council — has directly intervened in the operations of DHA and has, on numerous occasions directed DHA to take certain actions.12 Examples of this control which the City of Dallas has historically exercised over DHA include:
These and many other situations in which the City exercised control over DHA are discussed in part III ().
Since August of 1974, the City of Dallas has participated in the federal Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program, which is administered by HUD. By 1988, the City had received $195 million in CDBG...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. City of Dallas
...success when the change in government was made in 1931." Pls.Exh. 37A, pp. 36-38. 15 See the Walker III opinion (Walker v. HUD), 734 F.Supp. 1289 (N.D.Tex.1989) (Memorandum Opinion, pp. 1293-1294). This 1938 "General Survey of Housing Conditions" was admitted into evidence in Walker III wit......
-
Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
...will be submitted to the court for approval to insure that such action will not interfere with implementation of the Decree and Plan. 734 F.Supp. at 1251 (emphasis added). Relying upon this language at the plaintiffs' urging, the court concluded that the reduction in federal subsidization o......
-
Walker v. US Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev.
...to prohibit most low-income black tenants from moving into non-minority areas with § 8 assistance. See the Walker III opinion, 734 F.Supp. 1289 at 1293-1309. But the most inexcusable legacy of the deliberate discrimination in public housing by DHA and the City of Dallas was the 3500 unit We......
-
Walker v. City of Mesquite
...in 1985 and initially resulted in a consent decree, which was approved by the district court in 1987. See Walker v. HUD, 734 F.Supp. 1231, 1247-72 (N.D.Tex.1989) [hereinafter Walker I ] (reprinting the district court's 1987 consent decree and its "Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Appro......
-
The spatial bias of federal housing law and policy: concentrated poverty in urban America.
...PUBLIC HOUSING IN CHICAGO (1955) (describing the controversies over public housing location in Chicago). (49)See, e.g., Walker v. HUD, 734 F. Supp. 1289, 1293 (N.D. Tex. 1989) ("From its beginning, the primary purpose of [the Dallas Housing Authority's] public housing program was to prevent......