West Broadway Task Force v. Boston Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 24 February 1993
• Citation: 414 Mass. 394,608 N.E.2d 713
• Parties: WEST BROADWAY TASK FORCE v. BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 713

608 N.E.2d 713

414 Mass. 394

WEST BROADWAY TASK FORCE v. BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued Jan. 5, 1993.

Decided Feb. 24, 1993.

Wilbur E. Commodore, Boston, for defendant.

James M. McCreight, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and GREANEY, JJ.

NOLAN, Justice.

The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the West Broadway Task Force (WBTF) on a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding relocation assistance. ¹ We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. The Superior Court judge ruled that West Broadway tenants were entitled to the benefits provided by G.L. c. 79A (1990 ed.), and that the WBTF's claims concerning the BHA's failure to provide a $200 relocation allowance and a rent abatement or credit were not barred by laches. We affirm.

The facts of this case are undisputed. The BHA owns and operates a public housing development in South Boston known as the West Broadway development. Since 1980, the BHA has worked to renovate the property. The BHA has completed work on "Phase I" and "Phase II" of its redevelopment project and began "Phase IIIA" in January, 1990. In June, 1982, the BHA negotiated an agreement with the WBTF over what relocation assistance would be provided as a result of the redevelopment project. In March, 1987, the parties negotiated a second agreement regarding relocation assistance which did not explicitly rescind the previous agreement.

Under both the 1982 and 1987 relocation agreements, tenants who were required to relocate because of the redevelopment were entitled to specified assistance from the BHA. These tenants were entitled to reimbursement for "all reasonable and documented costs for moves" that were approved by the BHA, or the tenant households could elect to "receive fixed payments according to a BHA schedule, rather than such reasonable and documented costs." Each tenant household was also entitled to receive "a one-time only payment of $200 ... to cover the cost of setting up a new household," and was to be offered "rent abatements or credits" of two months' rent determined as of the date the household moved to temporary housing. The promise of rent abatements or credits was reinforced by a separate agreement executed in 1982.

Problems arose in 1989 when the BHA notified the WBTF of its intention to develop a standard relocation policy for public housing rather than continue to negotiate separate agreements for each development. After reviewing comments submitted by the WBTF and other tenant task forces, the BHA issued its "Residential Relocation and Rehousing Policy" (RRP) in June, 1989. In contrast to the 1982 and 1987 relocation agreements, the RRP provides neither a one-time $200 payment to cover the cost of establishing a new household nor the two-month rent abatement or credit. Instead, the RRP offers residents only a choice between reimbursement of actual, reasonable moving costs or a fixed payment based on a schedule of moving costs per number of bedrooms, developed by the BHA and updated annually.

WBTF argues first that the BHA's relocation policy, at least as it applies to West Broadway, must adhere to the provisions of c. 79A. Under G.L. c. 79A, § 7(I)(B) (1990 ed.), a qualified tenant is entitled either to reimbursement of documented, reasonable moving expenses or "a moving expense allowance not to exceed three hundred dollars" based on the prevailing Department of Public Works (DPW) fixed payment schedule, plus "a dislocation allowance of two hundred dollars." Unlike the BHA's fixed-payment schedule which is based on the number of bedrooms moved, the DPW's schedule is determined by the number of rooms from which the tenants will be displaced including bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens. Moreover, the DPW includes the $200 dislocation allowance in its calculation of the fixed payments. Second, the WBTF argues that the BHA cannot unilaterally abrogate the 1982 and 1987 relocation agreements, and, consequently, West Broadway tenants required to relocate because of the renovation work are entitled to the assistance promised by the BHA in those agreements. The BHA, on the other hand, argues that c. 79A does not apply to the relocation of West Broadway tenants who are only temporarily displaced as a result of a redevelopment program. Furthermore, the BHA claims that the WBTF, having slept on its rights under the 1982 and 1987 relocation agreements, is now barred under the doctrine of laches from asserting those rights against the BHA. ²

We hold that (1) G.L. c. 79A does apply to the relocation of West Broadway tenants displaced as a result of the BHA's redevelopment program, and (2) the WBTF's claims under the 1982 and 1987 relocation agreements are not barred by laches.

1. Relocation assistance. The Commonwealth provides a comprehensive scheme for providing relocation assistance to persons displaced from their homes by the actions of a public agency. G.L. c. 79A. There are, however, two threshold requirements before relocation assistance will be provided. First, the public agency ³ action which displaces residents must be either the acquisition of real property or the issuance of an order to vacate real property for the purposes of rehabilitation, or demolition, or other improvement. G.L. c. 79A, §§ 3, 7. Second, the recipient of the relocation assistance must be a "displaced person" within the meaning of the statute. ⁴ The judge ruled that the BHA's West Broadway tenants were displaced as a result of the BHA's "acquisition" of the property, and, consequently, the BHA is required to provide relocation assistance pursuant to c. 79A. This ruling is clearly erroneous. The BHA did not "acquire" the West Broadway property within the meaning of § 1 of c. 79 A, because the property was already owned by the BHA. ⁵ Indeed, WBTF concedes that the judge erred in concluding as he did. This does not mean, however, that the judge erred in finding that c. 79A applies to "Phase IIIA" of the West Broadway redevelopment project. ⁶ A judgment which is correct on the facts will be upheld even though the stated ground for the judgment is unsound. Greeley v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 350 Mass. 549, 551, 215 N.E.2d 791 (1966), and cases cited. On the facts of this case, we hold that the tenants at West Broadway faced what amounted to a written order from the BHA to vacate the premises for the purpose of rehabilitation, and, therefore, those tenants who were displaced as a result are entitled to relocation assistance pursuant to c. 79A.

Technically, the BHA is correct when it claims that it never issued a "written order to vacate" to its tenants at West Broadway. Instead, all the tenants relocated in response to notice of the forthcoming rehabilitation work and their rights under the BHA's RRP. The BHA is incorrect, however, when it claims that its actions fall short of triggering the application of c. 79A. Only the most sterile, pedantic reading of c. 79A would deny relocation assistance to tenants who chose to relocate after receiving notice that they are required to leave their homes but before receiving an actual order to leave. We decline to give such a vacuous interpretation of a statute.

The notice of relocation rights under the RRP which was sent to the tenants at West Broadway was tantamount to a written order to vacate. A tenant who failed to sign a relocation-rehousing agreement was subject to eviction. Similarly, the 1982 and 1987 relocation agreements state that tenants who fail to move after receiving notice of assignment to temporary housing are subject to legal action. Thus, since these tenants faced eviction for failure to comply with the BHA's temporary housing assignments, the notice of the new relocation policy for the "Phase IIIA" rehabilitation work was in effect a "written order to vacate" for the purpose of rehabilitation. ⁷

This decision comports with the objectives of the statute as a whole. Regulations of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) state that relocation assistance shall be provided to "all persons displaced as a result of public action ... either by property acquisition or by the issuing of a notice to vacate" (emphasis added). 760 Code Mass.Regs. § 27.01(1), (3) (1986). The statutory requirements of c. 79A are not formalistic but functional. The emphasis is on agency action which results in the displacement of tenants rather than the formal nature of that action. If displacement results from acquisition by sale or "other means," G.L. c. 79A, § 1, or because of rehabilitation, demolition, or "other improvement," §§ 2 and 7(I)(A), then clearly the emphasis is on the result of the agency's action, the displacement of tenants, and not on the manner by which they were displaced. ⁸ Indeed, as the WBTF argues, the bureau of relocation of the DCA must first determine if an agency is required to provide relocation assistance before notice to vacate can be sent. G.L. c. 79A, §§ 2, 6. To condition assistance on whether the...