Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)

Citation
Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)
Parent Document
Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)
Effective Date
1983-05-12

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text

777 chars
37
It is undisputed that HUD failed to provide the 60-day notice and comment period called for by 24 C.F.R. Part 10.1. HUD defends its actions, however, by arguing that the exception in its rules for cases in which public comment would be "impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest" is applicable here. Such a defense is wholly unpersuasive. HUD gave two reasons for declining to listen to public reaction before promulgating the rent increase in final form. First, HUD stated that "this rule flow[s] directly from legislative changes without additional exercise of discretion." 47 Fed.Reg. 19122. This is simply false; as noted above, Congress gave HUD considerable latitude in implementing the rent increase called for by Sec. 322. See Sec. 322(i)(1)-(3).