Walker v. US Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev.
Citation | 734 F. Supp. 1272 |
Decision Date | 22 September 1989 |
Docket Number | No. CA 3-85-1210-R.,CA 3-85-1210-R. |
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 |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
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, Civ. 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 opinion concerns a Consent Decree entered in a class action involving racial discrimination in low-income public housing in Dallas.1 Only one part of the Decree is at issue: the demolition of many of the vacant and uninhabitable housing units at DHA's West Dallas project2 — and the "one-for-one" replacement of these units by HUD with § 8 certificates and vouchers. This opinion3 holds:
This means that demolition at West Dallas may proceed — in accordance with this Court's approval of the Consent Decree — with respect to (i) the 550 housing units replaced by § 8 certificates and the 100 LRPH units, and (ii) those additional units that were effectively replaced by § 8 vouchers in use in non-minority areas before Feb. 8, 1988. It also means that no other housing may be demolished at West Dallas unless it is replaced with § 8 assistance or actual "dwelling units" which will be available for at least 15 years.
To show the reasons for these decisions, this opinion will discuss (i) the factual background, (ii) the applicable law, (iii) the Frost Amendment, (iv) the Anti-Demolition Statute, and (v) the Modification of the Consent Decree.
The complete procedural history of this action — both before and after the plaintiffs, DHA and HUD settled the case with a Consent Decree approved by the Court on Jan. 20, 1987 — is detailed in the Walker I opinion. However, these additional facts are necessary to show the factual background for this opinion.
As discussed in Walker III — "Deliberate Segregation in Public Housing by DHA and by the City of Dallas" — the primary purpose of DHA's public housing program was to prevent blacks from moving into the white areas of this city. And, this policy of relentless, unbroken discrimination succeeded; for example, when this suit was filed in 1985:
In addition, the § 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program operated by DHA and the City of Dallas had a 90.6% black occupancy rate, with projects being located only in minority and low-income areas — and DHA's § 8 rent subsidy program was deliberately operated in a manner 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 West Dallas project. Constructed in the 1950s as a solution to "the Negro Housing Problem" — admittedly to prevent blacks from moving into white areas — West Dallas, by 1986, was a "publicly owned slum" and a "gigantic monument to segregation and neglect."10 As described in Walker III:
In January of 1987, there were 1,917 black families being subjected to these horrible conditions at West Dallas. And, it was not surprising that the remaining 1,583 units of the 3500 at West Dallas were vacant — that almost 1300 of these had been boarded up for at least ten years because they were not fit to be occupied by humans (Walker III, p. 1308) — and that no one was willing to make the massive investment (more than $65 million) that would be required just to restore the 3500 units at West Dallas to minimum standards of habitability.
After this suit was filed in 1985, a number of factors influenced each party's attitude toward settlement:
It was under these circumstances that the parties — after prolonged and often-heated negotiations — reached a settlement. The Consent Decree contained significant remedial provisions that were designed: to stop DHA's practices of discrimination (e.g., tenant assignment & selection); to insure that § 8 participants would have needed assistance in locating housing of their choice throughout Dallas County, especially outside of minority areas (e.g., housing mobility services); to use the § 8 assistance to give low-income blacks a real opportunity to move into non-impacted areas (e.g., 120% fair market rent exception); to improve the quality of DHA's present and future housing (e.g., inspections and code enforcement); and to insure that § 8 tenants had the opportunity to move if their units did not comply with housing quality standards.13 And, as to the West Dallas project, the Decree provided:
On December 12, 1986 — after proper notice had been given to members of the putative class14 — a fairness hearing was held on the proposed settlement. Testimony and exhibits were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
...into a pending judicial action, rendering the legislation unconstitutional in light of the doctrine of separation of powers. Walker II, 734 F.Supp. at 1283-85. The court directed that past levels of federal funding of vacant units be maintained, as though such units never had been deprogram......
-
Walker v. US Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev.
...Decree and Appointment of a Special Master," 734 F.Supp. 1231, and "Walker II: The Frost Amendment and the Anti-Demolition Statute," 734 F.Supp. 1272, and they will be cited in this opinion as "Walker I" and "Walker 2 This opinion (originally filed Aug. 4, 1989) has been revised for publica......
- Walker v. US Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev.
-
Baylor v. Department of Housing and Urban Dev., Civ. A. No. 3-88-3065-R.
...in the style, actually an appeal in the case which is the subject of this Court's opinions in Walker I, 734 F.Supp. 1231, Walker II, 734 F.Supp. 1272, and Walker III, 734 F.Supp. After the approval of the Consent Decree in Walker, some of the plaintiffs in this case—most of whom appeared at......