Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Citation
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Parent Document
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1986-04-21
Other Sections in This Document (44)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
Full Text
1,292 chars15 Appellees' contention that the DDA was not required to hold a hearing and provide for adequate alternative accommodations because the Apartments are located outside its "area of operation"5 is completely without basis in the DDA Act or in logic. The requirements of Sec. 21 apply to "renewal projects." Appellees argue that the Apartments were not acquired as part of a renewal project because Sec. 22(1) grants the power to carry out renewal projects within the DDA's area of operation. Appellees ask us to read Sec. 22(1) as a limiting provision when its express purpose is to enumerate certain powers "in addition to others herein granted." In so doing, they ask us to find that the Florida legislature intended to require public participation and a finding of feasible relocation of displacees only when the activities of the DDA remain confined to its area of operation. We decline to read the DDA Act as appellees suggest and point out that this interpretation may violate the equal protection clause by conditioning eligibility for a benefit on a seemingly irrational factor--the location of the development. Cf. Gazzola v. Clements, 120 N.H. 25, 411 A.2d 147, 151 (1980) (distinguishing right to condemnation hearing on basis of purpose of taking violates equal protection clause).