About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 Clearinghouse Rev. 515 (1970-1971)
Issue 11

handle is hein.journals/clear4 and id is 517 raw text is: NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE for LEGAL SERVICES March 1971 The Legal Lawbreakers-A Study of the Non- Administration of Federal Relocation Require- ments by Edgar S. Calm, Timothy Eichenberg, and Roberta V. Romberg, Citizens Advocate Center, Washington, D.C. [Editor's Note: This article is the major portion of a study undertaken by the Citizens Advocate Center. The entire study also includes appendices containing additional regula- tory authority, further analysis of case law, HUD relocation forms and a HUD press release. The article with appendices, is available from the Citizens Advocate Center, 1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 at a cost of $1.00.] I. The Lawless Implementation of Federal Relocation Requirements Federal funds for renewal and related construction programs are given in reliance on assurances by a locality's local public agency (hereinafter LPA) that persons dis- placed by such projects will be relocated into decent, safe and sanitary housing and that such housing is, or will be, available when relocation occurs. The LPA enters into a contract to construct a federall sponsored program and therefore becomes bound to observe the conditions of the contract regarding relocation, laid out in agency regulations and federal statutes. Relative to the total costs of these programs, relocating displacees into standard housing repre- sents a minor financial burden for the LPA. (2.7% of total costs according to one study.)' Unfortunately, these assurances have not proven sufficient to guarantee decent housing for displaced resi- dents. LPA representations are often false or exaggerated and federal officials are delinquent in checking out relo- cation reports submitted to them. In addition insufficient provisions are made to accommodate the increased housing demands caused by displacees even though federal law requires that assurances of the availability of decent housing prior to displacement be given to the federal government. The following represent some common prac- tices that obstruct the legal requirements for adequate relocation. LPA records and statistics consistently overstate the number of units available for relocation. Federal officials 1. Statement by the Commissioner of Public Works for the City of Chicago, illinois, Hearings on H.R. 14898 and S. I Before the House Public Works Committee, 91st Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. at 251 (1970). [Hereinafter cited as Hearings on H.R. 14898 and S. 1.1 fail to check such submissions and, unless there is vigorous and powerful opposition, certify the project despite such misrepresentations. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has uncovered discrepancies between LPA office records and those sent to HUD's regional offices. One LPA reported that only ten families had been relocated into substandard housing, while their office records showed that 29 families were living in substandard dwellings.2 In St. Louis, 23 of 24 randomly selected families from one project and 25 of 35 from another were found to be living in substandard housing although LPA reports indicated that all were relocated into standard dwellings.3 In Camden, New Jersey, of the 22 displacees checked, 12 were found relocated into sub- standard units while three no longer lived at the addresses noted in the records.4 LPA submissions are noticeably silent regarding those statistics revealing obstacles or indicating that relocation housing in fact does not exist. Submissions contain only statistics which support the feasibility of relocation. In Poughkeepsie, New York, the urban renewal agency devel- oped a relocation plan relying primarily on the existing housing supply although the vacancy rate for low-income housing was below three percent and for large family units was below one percent. The Chairman of the Model Cities Housing Committee, Clarence Johnson, found that 1,500 families and individuals had been inconsistently reported. 2. Comp. Gen. Rep. B-118754 at 7 (1964), Inadequate Relo- cation Assistance to Families Displaced by Certain Urban Renewal Projects in Kansas and Missouri Administered by Fort Worth Regional Office. 3. Id. at 5. 4. HUD, Task Force Preliminary Report on Camden, New Jersey at 11 (July 1968, not released). SPECIAL FEATURE IN THIS ISSUE This issue of the Review contains an analysis of Truth-in-Lending Regulation Z in convenient outline form followed by a compilation of selected materials, most of which are available from the Clearinghouse to supplement the outline. This feature is intended to serve as a permanent reference source for attorneys with Truth-in-Lending problems. The analysis of Regulation Z begins on page 525. Vol. 4, No. I11

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most