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/ ↗

Full Text

1,160 chars

If the notice clause had the meaning given it by the majority, it would have been completely unnecessary for Congress to have enacted section 217. The persons displaced by these urban renewal programs would undoubtedly have been given notices to vacate “for” these projects and would have been qualified under the notice clause, as the majority reads it. The fact, however, that Congress had to provide special coverage for these persons suggests that it did not intend that all persons displaced from property already owned by an agency would be eligible for benefits. The fact that Congress provided special coverage as to certain named programs also suggests that it is for Congress to decide when to extend coverage to other persons displaced from property already owned. There may be reasons of equity or policy for the Uniform Relocation Act to reach all persons displaced as a result of federal programs, regardless of whether their property is acquired or already owned by the relevant agency. But as the Act is now structured we are obliged to follow the definition as phrased and as intended and to leave questions of additional coverage to Congress.

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text