Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, Civ. A. No. 32004.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 32004. |
| Citation | 335 F. Supp. 16 |
| Parties | Sarah Sims GARRETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HAMTRAMCK, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Edward C. King, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Robert A. Rosenberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for HUD.
Edward C. Torcellini, Hamtramck, Mich., and James F. Nowicki, Mount Clemens, Mich., for defendant, City of Hamtramck.
Plaintiffs along with their Amici Curiae, Michigan Legal Services Assistance Program and Legal Aid Office-Legal Aid and Defender Association of Detroit, properly bring this action as a class under F.R.Civ.P. 23(b) (2) representing those Black citizens of the City of Hamtramck who have been or are scheduled to be displaced or substantially affected by urban renewal projects which have been previously implemented or which are presently planned by the defendant City. Plaintiffs contend that the City of Hamtramck and its mayor, its co-ordinator of urban renewal and its City Planning Commission have intentionally planned and implemented urban renewal and other government projects for the purpose of removing a substantial portion of Black citizens from the City. Plaintiffs also contend that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has knowingly failed to remedy the above enumerated wrongs and has failed and refused to utilize the available administrative relief which would serve to protect plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs assert that these enumerated acts by defendant City of Hamtramck, through its officials, and the failure to act by defendant Department of Housing and Urban Development through its Secretary and officials constitute a violation of their rights under Title 6 of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), under Title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3608(d) (5)), under § 105(c) and § 105 (f) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S. C. § 1455(c) and § 1455(f)) under the Michigan Blighted Area Rehabilitation Act M.C.L.A. § 125.74(a), as amended, and the Michigan Act relative to housing for persons displaced for urban renewal, M.C.L.A. § 125.961 and § 125.962, as amended. Such violations, it is alleged, amount to a deprivation of due process of law and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed plaintiffs by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
There appears to be no dispute between the parties that the city of Hamtramck, Michigan is located entirely within the boundaries of the city of Detroit, Michigan, and has a population of approximately 26,400 according to the 1967 school census. Beginning as early as 1962, federal funds were made available to Hamtramck to finance the planning of an urban renewal project. In September of 1964 the first loan and capital grant contract was executed by defendant City and the then Housing and Home Finance Administration,1 to assist the City in accomplishing a selective clearance and rehabilitation project. Two subsequent amendatory contracts served merely to increase the amount of the original loan. The third amendatory contract, however, not only increased the amount of the loan but also enlarged the project area and changed its nature to permit overall clearance, redevelopment and rehabilitation. To accomplish such renewal, the newest plan called for demolition of many low and moderate income dwelling units so as to permit construction of a city hall complex, commercial areas, senior citizens housing units, and single family residences.
Prior to the execution of this third amendatory contract in October of 1968, public hearings were held in the defendant City and objections were voiced. Despite these objections, the City adopted the proposed amended plans, whereupon complaints were then made directly to the Department of Housing and Urban Development charging defendant City with violation of citizen participation requirements, with improper relocation facilities and procedures, with "Negro removal" practices, and with numerous other deficiencies in the urban renewal program. An investigation was conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine the accuracy of these complaints; however, on October 15, 1968, the third amendatory contract was executed between the City of Hamtramck and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
With this undisputed background information, and having heard this matter in court for approximately three weeks, the court now proceeds to make certain findings from the evidence presented to it. One major problem in the city of Hamtramck is and has been a shortage of low-income housing. During recent years, Hamtramck, and in fact the entire Detroit area, has had a vacancy rate of less than 3%. As there is presently virtually no vacant land available for development in the defendant City of low and moderate income housing to fill existing needs, any construction must of necessity take place in the urban renewal areas. The absence of readily available low-income housing has become more crucial in Hamtramck with the recent displacement of persons by virtue of governmental projects within that City. Certain of these governmental projects occurred on the outskirts or fringe areas of the City's boundary where the greatest concentration of Black citizens resided; the total effect was removal of Black citizens from the community.
The exodus of Black residents from Hamtramck resulted primarily from urban renewal projects but had many supporting factors. Testimony at the trial reveals that strong racial prejudices exist within the defendant City making relocation of displaced Blacks in the community a difficult if not sometimes impossible task. City officials had long been aware that, especially in urban renewal areas, if displaced Blacks were to relocate within the City's boundary, they would find themselves living in slums or substandard housing. As a majority of the persons displaced by governmental projects was Black, and in view of the discriminatory practices of residents within defendant City, it is readily apparent that the high proportion of Blacks displaced by such projects would be forced to relocate outside the City's boundary. Few if any plans were made or implemented by city officials to correct a known unfair practice of discrimination by the white citizens toward the Black citizens of the community.
To the contrary, it would appear that ever since the advent of renewal programs, defendant City has relied on a "planned program of population loss"2 and has had every reason to know and observe that the loss experienced was primarily in the number of Black residents. Such a program was to be, and in part has been, accomplished through the demolition without replacement of low and moderate income dwelling units and the eventual conversion of land from residential to non-residential use. Throughout it all, federal urban renewal funds were utilized toward fulfillment of the City's program. Dwelling units serving the low-income citizens were demolished while there existed no scheduled replacement of new low-income dwellings. Considering that the areas of the City intended for renewal contained a majority of low-income Black citizens, it appears that the population which the City planned to reduce was its Black population.
For example, the renewal project completed in the "Smith-Clay Area" involved the conversion of that area from residential to industrial use. Such was accomplished through the demolition of a substantial portion of those homes in the southwest part of Hamtramck which section was occupied mostly by Blacks; residents were displaced from their homes and the available land converted into a huge parking lot for the Chrysler Corporation, Dodge Assembly Plant, and for additional industrial and commercial establishments. Testimony of numerous witnesses as well as City officials indicates that no substantial relocation assistance was afforded to those displaced; consequently, the majority of displaced Black citizens were given no assistance in relocating, and, confronted by rampant and overt discrimination in housing, were and will continue to be forced to live outside the defendant City's boundary. The City offered no evidence whatever that it adhered to the Housing and Home Finance Administration requirement that newly available housing be provided in connection with a project involving demolition of a substantial number of minority group homes.3 Although there is some confusion in the testimony as to the number of Black citizens displaced by the "Smith-Clay Project", that number appears to have been substantial and was without question the greater percentage of those displaced by the project. While the records of the defendant City contain certain discrepancies, they do show that 57% of the Black families dislocated by the project moved out of Hamtramck while only 33% of the white families relocated out of the City. In view of the known racial discrimination in housing within the defendant City, and absent any relocation assistance by the appropriate officials it was inevitable that substantially more Blacks than whites would be removed from Hamtramck by the "Smith-Clay Project".
In the same fashion the City plans presently include scheduled renewal and industrialization of two additional fringe areas (the Grand Haven-Dyar-Dequindre" and the "Denton-Miller Area") both of which are predominantly Black; no plans for replacement housing for citizens presently residing in those areas exist. Thus it is apparent that the City is strategically working to achieve a reduction in its total population and indeed hopes to successfully accomplish such by elimination of those residential areas of the City containing Black residents; in the interim no provisions for relocation of those residents within the community...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Percy v. Brennan, 73 Civ. 4279.
...International Corporation, 415 F. 2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1969); Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1969); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 335 F. Supp. 16 (E.D.Mich.1971); Hicks v. Weaver, 302 F.Supp. 619 (D.La.1969); Ethridge v. Rhodes, 268 F.Supp. 83 (S. D.Ohio Nevertheless, as plaintiff......
-
Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Madison Tp.
...housing projects. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 55:14A--7(b). Several federal courts have already resorted to this remedy. Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 335 F.Supp. 16 (E.D.Mich.1971), supplemented 357 F.Supp. 925, 927--928 (E.D.Mich.1973), rev'd on other grounds 503 F.2d 1236 (6 Cir.1974), on remand......
-
Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, Civ. A. No. 71-1575.
...from enforcing a zoning ordinance which had precluded the building of low and moderate income housing project); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 335 F.Supp. 16 (E.D.Mich.1971), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 503 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. In fashioning appropriate equitable relief in this case, the......
-
Evans v. Lynn
...Shannon v. HUD, 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970); Brookhaven Housing Coalition v. Kunzig, 341 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D.N.Y.1972); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 335 F.Supp. 16 (E.D. See also Otero v. New York City Housing Authority, 484 F.2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1973). The Third Circuit held in Shannon, supra,......
-
Intentional racial discrimination and segregation by the federal government as a principal cause of concentrated poverty: a response to Schill and Wachter.
...and Community Development Block Grants to Boston violated Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 335 F. Supp. 16, 27 (E.D. Mich. 1971) (holding HUD and the City of Hamtramck liable under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 for approving an urban re......