Section 4625
- Citation
- Section 4625
- Parent Document
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1977-11-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7891523/cole-v-harris/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (158)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
Full Text
814 charsClearly, the Sky Tower tenants were displaced for a federal project “designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.” In proceedings before the district court, HUD admitted that the demolition of Sky Tower was part of a program to “eliminate blight.” It stated that Sky Tower had become “blighted, vandalized, unattractive and unsafe” and that the area needed to be “revitalized” by the construction of single-family dwellings in accordance with the District of Columbia government’s master *162plan.27 Thus, unless relocation benefits are paid to the former Sky Tower residents, they will be forced to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of a project for the benefit of the general public, and federal officials will be able to ignore relocation costs in considering whether to proceed with the project.