Paulk v. Ga. Dep't of Transp.

• Decision Date: 24 May 2016
• Docket Number: CV 516-19
• Parties: JIMMY PAULK; TARA WILCOX; and ESTES PARK, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RUSSELL R. MCMURRAY, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation; and the STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

JIMMY PAULK; TARA WILCOX; and ESTES PARK, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RUSSELL R. MCMURRAY,in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation;and the STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendants.

CV 516-19

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Waycross Division

May 24, 2016

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 8) and Motion to Stay Discovery (dkt. no. 9) filed by Defendants Georgia Department of Transportation (the "GDOT"), Commissioner of the GDOT Russell R. McMurray ("Commissioner McMurray"), and the State of Georgia (the "State") (collectively, "Defendants").¹ Also pending in this action is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 14) filed byPlaintiffs Jimmy Paulk ("Paulk"); Tara Wilcox ("Wilcox"); and Estes Park, L.P. ("Estes Park") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 8) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court has no cause to grant any stay or injunction.

BACKGROUND

Paulk, an African American disabled veteran, and Wilcox, an African American mother of two, live in Estes Park Apartments. Dkt. No. 6 ("Pl.'s Am. Compl."), ¶¶ 7-9. Estes Park Apartments is an affordable housing complex that is owned and operated by Estes Park. Id. at ¶ 9. The complex was built in 2003 and financed with federal funding, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits issued and monitored by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (the "DCA"). Id. Estes Park also receives United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") Loan Guarantees and Interest Credits for the complex, and ten of its tenants use Section 8 vouchers issued by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") to pay their rent. Id. All of the tenants in Estes Park Apartments have incomes falling below sixty percent of the median income in the community, with most having incomes below the national poverty level, and approximately sixty percent of the tenants are minority. Id. at ¶ 10.

The State receives federal financial assistance for certain of its operations. Id. at ¶ 14. The GDOT, a state governmental agency, "plans, constructs, maintains, and improves the State['s] roads and bridges." Id. at ¶ 12. Commissioner McMurray is responsible for managing and overseeing the GDOT. Id. at ¶ 13.

I. Road Improvement Project

Sometime prior to May 30, 2007, the GDOT proposed a Road Improvement Project (the "Project") to ameliorate current and future traffic congestion along State Route 135/Perimeter Road ("SR 135" or the "roadway"). Id. at ¶¶ 15, 32. SR 135 currently is a two- and three-lane, heavily trafficked roadway. Id. at ¶ 16. Estes Park Apartments is located on the east side of a two-lane portion of SR 135, id. at ¶ 17, and on the opposite side are five nonminority-owned business properties and no residential development, id. at ¶ 27.

The GDOT's proposed Project included widening and reconstructing nearly three miles of SR 135. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19. As part of this endeavor, the GDOT planned to reroute the northbound and southbound lanes of the roadway onto the Estes Park Apartments property, which, according to Plaintiffs, would involve "taking approximately 110 feet by 410 feet of the front of the property and result[] in a heavily trafficked roadway running within seven feet of the clubhouse and [thirty] feetfrom a building containing residential units." Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiffs assert that the proposed Project contemplated rerouting only the portion of roadway adjacent to Estes Park Apartments and allowed the remainder of the roadway to be widened on its existing alignment. Id. at ¶ 22.

According to Plaintiffs, construction of the rerouted roadway in accordance with the proposed Project will result in the following:

• there will be increased traffic along the roadway;

• the Estes Park Apartments clubhouse and laundry room "will become unusable due to their proximity to the new roadway;"

• children using the complex's playground will face increased danger from the nearby roadway;

• "[a]t least eight tenants may be displaced, including six minority tenants;"

• "[n]oise levels will rise to 70 db"—a level prohibited by applicable regulations—and thus "will result in a risk of loss of federal subsidies and correspondingly will result in tenants being forced to relocate;"

• green space, noise-reducing structures, metal fencing, landscaping, a mail station, and a parking area will be destroyed without the possibility of relocation or replacement;• access to the complex will become more limited; and

• tenants and their children using the common areas will face a substantial risk to their safety.

Id. at ¶¶ 19, 23. Plaintiffs contend that under the proposed Project, "African American tenants including both Mr. Paulk and Ms. Wilcox will be forced to vacate Estes Park [Apartments]," while the businesses on the opposite side of SR. 135 will suffer no adverse impact. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27.

The GDOT held an Initial Team Concept Meeting for the proposed Project on May 30, 2007. Id. at ¶ 32. Present at that meeting were four city officials, including the City Manager and the Director of Community Development, both of whom were familiar with Estes Park Apartments and its population of minority tenants. Id. The City Manager warned GDOT representatives at the meeting that "the new apartments at the northeast quadrant of the railroad . . . would be upset with the impacts to their property because they tried hard to coordinate with the City and State to accommodate the different alternatives at that time." Id. at ¶ 33. As a result, Plaintiffs contend, the GDOT was aware at least as early as the Initial Team Concept Meeting that Estes Park Apartments had a significant number of minority tenants that would be adversely affected by the proposed Project. Id. at ¶ 32.

To fund the proposed Project, the GDOT sought to obtain federal financial assistance through the United States Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") of the United States Department of Transportation. Id. at ¶ 28. FHWA regulations required that the GDOT complete a National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") report and find that the proposed Project have no significant negative impact. Id. at ¶ 29. As part of the NEPA report, the GDOT was required to conduct and provide the results of an Environmental Justice Overview Analysis (the "EJ") evaluating "disproportionate and adverse impacts of the proposed Project on minority and low-income populations." Id. at ¶ 31. According to Plaintiffs, the FHWA instructs recipients of financial assistance "to use current census data and the input of local organizations . . . in determining the impact of a proposed project on minority communities." Id. If the EJ reflects that the project will have a disproportionately high adverse effect on a minority population, the NEPA report must evaluate the availability of a mitigation measure or practicable alternative that would eliminate or reduce that effect. Id.

According to Plaintiffs, the GDOT "intentionally used misleading data to conclude there was no EJ impact from the proposed Project." Id. at ¶ 35. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the GDOT used data from the 2000 census, which was compiled before the 2003 construction of Estes Park Apartments,instead of using the 2010 census data that would have included the minority tenants in the complex. Id. Plaintiffs also assert that the GDOT "never contacted Estes Park's owner or the tenants or any other organization in the community to discuss the impact on Estes Park [Apartments]." Id. at ¶ 36. Plaintiffs aver that the GDOT did not mention Estes Park Apartments or its tenants in the EJ or the NEPA report and, instead, represented that the communities with minority populations in the area "were not located in close proximity to the proposed [P]roject area and would at the very most[] be anticipated to experience indirect effects associated with the [P]roject." Id. at ¶ 37. According to Plaintiffs, the GDOT not only eliminated any consideration of the minority tenants in Estes Park Apartments from its study but also made false and misleading statements concerning the lack of impact on the tenants "to accomplish its goal of lessening the impact of the Project on non-minority owned business while imposing a significantly adverse burden on minority tenants who will be evicted from their homes if the proposed roadway is constructed." Id. at ¶¶ 35, 38.

II. Eminent Domain Proceeding in State Court

On July 17, 2015, the GDOT initiated an eminent domain proceeding in the Superior Court of Coffee County, seeking, in part, to take the portion of Estes Park Apartments propertyneeded to move forward with the Project. See id. at ¶ 24; Dkt. No. 8, Ex. A (GDOT condemnation petition). On August 21, 2015, Estes Park filed a petition to set aside the taking on several grounds, including that the GDOT did not comply with federal law in conducting the EJ, and that the Project is discriminatory in violation of the Fair Housing Act. See Pl.'s Am. Compl., ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 8, Ex. B (Estes Park's petition to set aside), §§ 6-7. On December 10, 2015, while the eminent domain proceeding remained pending, Estes Park representatives met with GDOT officials and introduced an alternative plan that involved taking only twenty feet of Estes Park Apartments property and purportedly would result in less of an adverse impact on its tenants, no harm to the property of others, and less cost to the GDOT. Pl.'s Am. Compl., ¶ 39. Plaintiffs maintain, however, that the GDOT refused to consider the alternative plan and proceeded with the eminent domain action. Id.

III. Plaintiffs' Filing of This Action

On February 19, 2016, before the Superior Court of Coffee County entered any order in the eminent domain proceeding, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants in this Court. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs have since submitted an Amended Complaint, in which they expressly...