§ 706

Citation: § 706
Parent Document: Aponte-Rosario v. Acevedo-Vilá, 617 F.3d 1 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-07-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/151741/aponte-rosario-v-acevedo-vila/ ↗

Full Text

1,595 chars

15
    Appellants ground their constructive demolition claim on a
series of cases that recognized a private right of action for
constructive demolition under a repealed version of section
1437p(d), which required HUD approval before a public housing
authority could "take any action to demolish or dispose of a public
housing project." United States Housing Act of 1937, amended by
Pub. Law No. 100-242, § 121(d), 101 Stat. 1815 (1988).       Courts
applying the former § 1437p(d) framework held that neglect of a
development could establish a de facto demolition claim.       See,
e.g., Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F. Supp. 1001 (W.D. Mo. 1990); Concerned
Tenants Ass'n of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316,
321 (D.Conn. 1988).      In 1998, the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act eliminated the requirement of prior HUD
Secretary approval.    Pub. Law No. 105-276, § 531(a), 112 Stat.
2461, 2570 (1998). However, the regulation that was in effect when
the PRPHA filed its application for demolition, 24 C.F.R. § 970.12,
53 Fed. Reg. 30984 (1988) (repealed, October 24, 2006), stated that
a Public Housing Authority (PHA) may not take any action to
demolish a building without prior HUD approval. Similarly, the
current regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 970.25 (effective November 24,
2006), requires a PHA to obtain HUD approval prior to taking any
action to demolish a public housing unit.       We need not decide
whether a right of action for constructive demolition exists under
the applicable regulations. As the district court did, we assume
that such an enforceable right exists.

Other Sections in This Document (366)

Full Text