Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Association v. Gary E. King
By: Robert (Bob) H. Voelker A local revitalization interest group and residents of a low income housing area sued the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) alleging dumping of low income housing in lower income areas and asserting that CHFA had an obligation to take affirmative steps to prevent racial segregation in its administration of the low income housing tax credit program. In August, 2001, the finance authority approved a reservation of tax credits for two buildings in the Asylum Hill neighborhood to provide low-income housing. This grant was in addition to a recent tax credit award for another rental development located in the same neighborhood. Together, the projects will result in concentration of low income families in the Asylum Hill area, where 47.3 percent of the current residents are at or below the federal poverty level and where fewer than 5 percent of the students enrolled in the elementary school are white and 72 percent are in the free and reduced lunch program. The plaintiffs sued to require that CHFA revise its practices and procedures for funding applications under the federal tax credit program so as to minimize racial and economic segregation. The plaintiffs alleged that the finance authority had failed to: (1) collect and analyze data regarding relevant racial composition; and (2) adopt rules restricting the placement of low income housing developments in racially concentrated, high poverty areas. The plaintiffs further alleged that the finance authority had adopted policies and practices that have adverse effects, including increased overcrowding and segregation in neighborhood schools, decreased access to employment among community residents, decreased home ownership rates and neighborhood stability, and diminished access to government services and assistance as a result of strains on state and municipal services. The plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered direct harm from the finance authority's practices, including interference with the revitalization association's efforts to plan for the neighborhood and the loss of benefits associated with living in a more racially and economically integrated community. Although the court did not dispute that federal law required CHFA to consider the segregative effects of its decisions, and that additional tax credit awards in Asylum Hill would further concentrate low income minorities, the court found that the federal statute did not create a private cause of action, but instead only granted Congress oversight ability on the states' administration of the federal tax credit program, stating that the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the federal statute unambiguously confers an individually enforceable right on the class of beneficiaries to which the plaintiffs belong. The congressional purpose in enacting the Fair Housing Act generally was “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States" and requires that “[a]ll executive departments and agencies shall administer their programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further the [fair housing] purposes of this subchapter,” indicating an intention that enforcement occur at the federal level, whereas in other cases granting standing to enforce federal rights, the language of the federal statute was broader in scope: "no person in the United States shall" or "all citizens of the United States shall have the same right" or " employees shall have the right to." Given that no particular constituency is given standing to enforce the fair housing laws, a local neighborhood organization cannot challenge the placement of additional affordable housing in the area. |