Section 205
- Citation
- Section 205
- 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
1,199 charsLooking elsewhere in the Act, it appears that Congress made an express provision that certain persons displaced in fact by federal aid or a federal agency would be considered “displaced persons” even though the displacement may not have resulted from acquisition. As set out in full below, section 217 of the Act50 provides that persons who have to move as a result of certain federal aid programs involving urban renewal shall, “for the purposes of this [title], be deemed to have been displaced as the result, of the acquisition of real property.” In other words, under these named programs there may be extensive displacement, from public housing projects, for example, without any federal or federally-financed state acquisition of real property. Section 217, therefore, is designed to cover displacements caused by these named activities even though there was no acquisition. This section does what Congress did not do in the section at issue here, and rather completely refutes the majority claim “that if congress had explicitly considered . . , *178it would have approved an interpretation of the Act making benefits available for such persons.”51 Congress did so — when it desired to do so.