porno porno izle sikis

Jones v. U. S. Dept. of Hous. Urb. Dev., No. 07 C 50142 (D. Il. _____)

Tenants challenged HUD’s approval of a partial demolition of the development on several grounds, asserting that the PHA did not demonstrate that the units were obsolete and that there was no reasonable cost effect plan to return the development to useful life and that the PHA failed to consult with residents or the PHA’s board. Tenants also challenged the adequacy of the relocation plan, which did not ensure comparable replacement dwellings for displaced tenants. In addition, tenants asserted civil rights claims that the relocation plan did not affirmatively further fair housing and that the demolition plan would have a disparate impact upon African Americans, women and families with children. The case was settled by providing displacement protections to residents and allowing PHA to partially demolish the development.

1. Complaint
2. Memo in support of plaintiffs’ motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
3. Settlement Agreement
4. Expert’s Report

The PHA and HUD submitted to a consent decree that provided substantial protections to the displaced tenants in exchange for the tenants’ agreement to the partial demolition. The consent decree committed the parties to a plan for one-for-one replacement housing with hard units and an extensive relocation plan that included pre-move, post-move, and second-move counseling, and the payment of initial move and second move expenses. In addition to agreeing to the settlement, HUD posted a notice on its website stating that, in the case of a partial demolition, a PHA must demonstrate both that the units identified for demolition are obsolete with no feasible plan for returning them to useful life and the that the demolition will help ensure the viability of the remaining portion of the development.

ankara escort istanbul escort bayan
ankara escort istanbul escort bayan