Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Walker v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
Citations: 734 F. Supp. 1231; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16108; 1989 WL 165228Docket: Civ. A. No. 3-85-1210-R
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas; August 4, 1989; Federal District Court
The memorandum opinion outlines violations by the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) of a Consent Decree related to racial discrimination in low-income public housing in Dallas. Key violations include: 1. Delays in implementing a new, non-discriminatory Tenant Assignment Selection Plan. 2. Failure to provide required tenant mobility services. 3. Mismanagement of the 120% Fair Market Rent Exception for Section 8 certificates in non-impacted areas. 4. Inability to meet the Decree’s first-year goals for Section 8 assistance usage in non-impacted areas. 5. Lack of action to request code enforcement on housing that did not meet Housing Quality Standards. 6. Failure to meet deadlines for site selection, construction, and occupancy of 100 new low-income housing units. Due to the repeated and pervasive nature of these violations, the opinion concludes with the appointment of a special master to monitor compliance with the Decree. The procedural history highlights that the lawsuit was initiated on June 25, 1985, amidst resistance from suburbs to participate in the Section 8 program, and culminated in a Consent Decree approved on January 20, 1987, after extensive negotiations and a fairness hearing. Subsequent motions filed by plaintiffs indicate ongoing compliance issues and resource allocation failures by DHA. On September 18, 1987, the Court mandated the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) to select the 'Country Creek' site for 100 low-income housing units, ruling that DHA had breached the Consent Decree by missing the site selection deadline. While DHA and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to address several plaintiffs' concerns from a prior motion, objections from HUD led to DHA's refusal to adopt the agreed changes. A subsequent hearing on December 21, 1987, saw HUD's objections overruled and DHA's refusal to assign tenants to West Dallas deemed a violation of the Consent Decree, although some issues from the July 1 motion remained unresolved. On February 8, 1988, the plaintiffs filed a third motion to compel DHA's compliance with the Consent Decree. Following hearings in March 1988, the Court ordered HUD to approve DHA’s proposal for the new units at Country Creek. On August 2, 1988, the plaintiffs and DHA both filed motions against HUD for violating the Consent Decree by halting payments for vacant units at the West Dallas project. The Court ruled on November 1, 1988, that HUD must resume full funding for these units. The last hearing, held on December 12 and 14, 1988, focused on modifying the Consent Decree by including the City of Dallas and addressing unresolved issues from previous motions, including allegations of DHA violations and calls for a Special Master. The document outlines multiple violations by DHA of the Consent Decree, necessitating three motions by the plaintiffs and four hearings within the first two years. A key violation involved the Tenant Selection and Assignment (TSA) plan, which DHA failed to implement within the required timeframe. The initial TSA plan, submitted late and deemed defective, did not include necessary compliance monitoring, failed to prioritize applicants who refuse offers correctly, and incorrectly assessed the impact status of DHA projects. Although the dispute eventually led to a satisfactory TSA plan being established, it was implemented significantly past the February 20, 1987 deadline. Housing Mobility Requirements mandated the establishment of a Housing Mobility Division by the DHA to facilitate desegregated Section 8 housing opportunities for class members in Dallas and its suburbs. This division is to be led by an Assistant Director and include at least five additional staff members, ensuring that all Section 8 participants are informed about counseling and referral services for housing options outside predominant racial areas. DHA's violations of these requirements include significant delays in setting up the Mobility Division, inadequate resources for fulfilling the Decree’s objectives, incorrect information dissemination about the program, and slow service provision to residents outside the West Dallas project. The delay in establishing the division was primarily due to DHA's attempts to secure funding from the City of Dallas, which began with requests made prior to the Decree's approval. Ultimately, the City Council declined DHA's funding request, leading to the division's operational start in April 1987—nearly two months post-approval. DHA had alternative funding sources available, such as HUD approval for using settlement funds from a lead contamination lawsuit, which were not pursued in a timely manner. Upon its eventual establishment, the Housing Mobility Division operated with the minimal staffing required but faced a significant reduction in resources after a reorganization in February 1988, which merged it with the Section 8 program under a new department. This restructuring limited the time the Assistant Director could dedicate to mobility services to only 40%, citing financial concerns as the reason for the changes. This reorganization constituted a violation of the Consent Decree. DHA failed to provide adequate resources for the Mobility Requirements of the Decree, as testified by Craig Gardner, who highlighted the lack of staff despite the availability of finances. Mary Dews, a class member and counselor for the Dallas Tenants Association, corroborated Gardner's claims regarding inadequate mobility services. In contrast, Acting Executive Director Charles Crane asserted that DHA had an adequate mobility program, but his lack of knowledge about staff and their responsibilities undermined his credibility. Crane's dismissal of Gardner and three other mobility team members on October 18, 1988, was purportedly justified by poor performance; however, it disregarded the achievements of Gardner and his team in assisting black families to relocate to suburban areas under challenging conditions. Gardner, despite being fired, was seen as capable and committed to the goals of the Decree, indicating that with proper resources, he could effectively lead the Housing Mobility Division. Evidence showed that DHA's actual assistance was insufficient, with the Mobility Division primarily offering only a bus tour of available Section 8 housing and lacking essential support such as transportation for follow-ups, adequate briefing sessions, a correct list of available vacancies, and staff to address needs. For over 14 months post-Consent Decree, DHA failed to provide a current list of vacancies, and prior to March 1988, 196 Section 8 tenants had their contracts abated without receiving mobility services due to staff shortages. Incorrect information was provided by the Mobility Division regarding the Section 8 program. The Section 8 briefing packet misstates that tenants will lose assistance upon moving but can reapply after several months, contradicting the requirement that they may move after one year and retain assistance. Additionally, a DHA brochure incorrectly suggests that eligibility for mobility services must be checked, while all participants are automatically eligible according to the Decree. The Decree mandates that DHA inform Section 8 participants of housing availability throughout Dallas County and Plano; however, checklists for briefing packets lacked this notice, and not all packets included the required Exhibit A notice promoting increased mobility. DHA only acknowledged this oversight shortly before a hearing, revising the document to reflect accurate information about housing availability just before presenting it in testimony. This late correction violated the Decree's requirement for timely updates to policy documents. Furthermore, there was a delay in providing mobility services following the establishment of the Housing Mobility Division in April 1987. The focus was primarily on tenants in West Dallas, neglecting those in other DHA projects and basic Section 8 participants. DHA staff were instructed not to provide mobility services, as this was deemed the responsibility of the Housing Mobility Division. DHA Deputy Executive Director David Morton further restricted the number of Section 8 tenants in non-impacted areas to a maximum of ten per project and indicated a general acceptance of 5% occupancy in complexes, actions that violated the Consent Decree. The Section 8 staff's delay in providing mobility services significantly hindered the achievement of the Consent Decree's goal to allow residents to relocate to non-impacted areas. In 1987, only 61 individuals were referred to the Housing Mobility Division. Mobility services for tenants outside West Dallas began on February 10, 1988, but this delay had a considerable negative impact. In the first year of the Decree, 68 out of 196 West Dallas residents using mobility services successfully relocated to non-impacted areas, while only 26 out of 111 Section 8 participants without such services managed to do so. DHA's Deputy Executive Director acknowledged that mobility services would greatly increase relocations to non-impacted areas, indicating that DHA violated the Mobility Requirements of the Decree due to its delayed service provision and inadequate resource commitment. Regarding the 120% Fair Market Rent (FMR) exceptions, the Consent Decree mandated that DHA promptly request HUD approval for this exception to ensure an adequate supply of Section 8 housing in non-impacted areas. DHA failed to submit any request until April 23, 1987, over three months post-Decree approval, and HUD rejected this initial request. A second request on June 5, 1987, was submitted, stressing the necessity of the 120% rents for Decree compliance, which HUD eventually approved on July 23, 1987, but only for 450 certificates. Due to changes in HUD guidelines, no similar exception was granted for the remaining 885 vouchers allocated to DHA, rendering these vouchers nearly useless for relocating tenants from minority and low-income areas. Consequently, Section 8 tenants with vouchers faced higher costs in non-impacted areas, effectively forcing them to remain in minority areas, while only those with certificates and the 120% rent exception could move to non-impacted regions. On February 8, 1988, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting (i) a payment standard for Section 8 vouchers set at 120% of fair market rent and (ii) retroactive relief for some class members receiving voucher assistance. HUD opposed this motion, and evidence was presented during a March 25, 1988 hearing, leading to continued negotiations. On August 31, 1988, HUD allowed DHA to implement the 120% exception, yet DHA did not adopt this exception, despite claims that it would force voucher holders into impacted areas. At the December 12, 1988 hearing, DHA's Acting Executive Director stated that no steps had been taken to implement the increase, which would only occur if required to meet Consent Decree goals, and there were no plans to allow those affected by the lack of the 120% exception to switch to Section 8 certificates unless ordered by the court. This violation was eventually resolved with an agreed order on January 4, 1989, mandating the implementation of the 120% rent exception. The Consent Decree also stipulated that DHA must utilize Section 8 programs to relocate low-income individuals outside minority or impacted areas, aiming for 15% of Section 8 units to be in non-impacted areas by the end of the first year (January 20, 1988). DHA failed to meet this goal, achieving only 12.2% (636 out of 5,200 units) in non-impacted areas. DHA's justification for this failure—arguing that the 15% threshold should apply to the number of units in use at the time (3,612) rather than the total allocated (5,200)—was deemed incorrect, as it contradicted the Decree's intent to maximize housing choice for affected individuals. Notably, DHA had reduced its number of utilized Section 8 units from 3,743 at the end of January 1987 to 3,667 by January 31, 1988, despite previously having no issues utilizing all allocated units. HUD regulations stipulate that if the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) does not swiftly achieve 100% utilization of its Section 8 allocations, HUD can reduce its allocated units. During the first year of the Consent Decree, DHA significantly restricted the Section 8 program, utilizing less than 70% of its 5,200 certificates and vouchers. Notably, DHA closed the program to new applications in September 1986, citing over-leasing, which was rectified by mid-1987, yet the program remained closed until December 1987. This closure led to a decrease in active Section 8 units, with over 1,500 certificates and vouchers unused by January 20, 1988. DHA attributed this under-utilization to Consent Decree restrictions intended for relocating tenants in West Dallas, a claim deemed unfounded. Evidence indicated that despite these restrictions, DHA increased utilization in non-impacted areas from 636 units in January 1988 to 885 by March 21, 1988. Additionally, DHA's assertion of only 26 unused units at the end of the first Decree year was unconvincing and contradicted by testimony from DHA’s Executive Director, who expressed a desire for increased utilization of Section 8 units. The Decree required DHA to make good faith efforts to assist tenants in moving to non-impacted areas, yet DHA failed to meet the 15% goal for the first year, resulting in only 153 additional certificates and vouchers placed in use over the initial 11 months. Furthermore, DHA violated Housing Quality Standards (HQS) mandated by the Consent Decree, continuing to lease non-compliant units as late as July 1987, and lacking an organized list of approved landlords in non-impacted areas by March 1988, leaving tenants to navigate conflicting landlord lists without adequate guidance. DHA is mandated by a Decree to request code enforcement from the relevant city when units violate Housing Quality Standards (HQS). Despite 58% of assisted units failing annual re-inspections, DHA did not document any code enforcement requests until July 1987, when only nine requests were made. A significant number of units applying for Section 8 assistance also failed initial inspections: 41% for certificates and 53% for vouchers. Additionally, 15% of the 3,600 units were placed on abatement due to landlords' failure to address violations promptly. In August 1987, DHA Deputy Executive Director David Morton instructed that 'minor HQS violations' should not be reported to the City of Dallas, which led DHA’s Section 8 staff to incorrectly interpret this as a directive to cease all code enforcement requests. Consequently, from August 1987 to April 1988, no requests were sent, and DHA supervisors failed to acknowledge this breach of the Decree. Even after recognizing this violation during a hearing in March 1988, DHA's actions remained inadequate: a computer program intended to automate code enforcement requests was not used, and despite resuming requests in April 1988, none were made for units that had failed inspections during the prior months. Moreover, tenants faced difficulties in contacting DHA caseworkers regarding HQS issues, and DHA neglected to inform the City of Dallas which units required inspection, failing to follow up on any code enforcement actions taken. Regarding the construction of 100 units of low-rent public housing as outlined in the Consent Decree—the first in Dallas since the 1950s—DHA did not adhere to the established timelines. While required to select sites within six months and begin construction within fifteen months, the site was not chosen until September 1987, and this decision was made by the Court rather than DHA. DHA was aware of potential neighborhood opposition but did not utilize eminent domain for site selection. Thus, all deadlines for developing the 100 units were violated. On March 4, 1987, the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) sought bids for constructing 100 Low-Rent Public Housing (LRPH) units on scattered sites, but received three unacceptable proposals. Subsequently, on April 17 and April 26, DHA re-advertised for bids for both scattered and single-site construction. By June 10, 1987, DHA had 16 proposals from five developers. On July 10, 1987, the DHA Board reviewed staff recommendations and authorized a public hearing for a site in Southeast Dallas. However, on July 21, DHA ceased consideration of that site due to an unrecorded deed restriction preventing construction. DHA then focused on an 11.5-acre site named "Country Creek," despite previous political pressure to exclude it for other projects. A public hearing on September 15, 1987, revealed strong opposition from local residents and officials regarding the Country Creek development. On September 10, 1987, plaintiffs sought to compel site selection for the units. The court ordered DHA to select Country Creek on September 19, 1987, acknowledging widespread opposition to public housing in various neighborhoods but deeming Country Creek acceptable under HUD and local requirements. The court mandated that DHA begin construction by April 20, 1988, and have the units operational by January 20, 1989, warning that failure to meet these deadlines would result in contempt of court and fines. However, DHA did not start construction by the April deadline, partly due to delays from HUD regarding the approval of DHA's plans submitted on October 13, 1987. Tensions arose between DHA and HUD over the requirement for a "firm commitment" to use non-federal funds for demolishing existing units, which was tied to the consent decree. Ultimately, the court ordered HUD to approve DHA’s proposal for the Country Creek site during a March 25, 1988 hearing. DHA was warned that sanctions would be imposed if the Country Creek project did not commence on April 20 and occupancy did not start by January 20 of the following year. HUD has until the end of next week to approve the project; if not, an order will be entered. However, sanctions will not be imposed at this moment as the timing of construction commencement and delays need to be assessed. Initial occupancy was supposed to begin on January 20, 1989, but DHA violated this deadline, as notified by their attorney on January 19, 1989. Construction, which began on September 1, 1988, is now expected to be completed in August 1989, resulting in an approximately eight-month delay. Several additional violations of the Consent Decree by DHA are noted: 1. **Assignments to West Dallas**: DHA initially refused to assign new tenants to West Dallas, violating the Decree's requirement that any housing unit removals be court-approved. Following a court hearing, DHA resumed tenant assignments. 2. **Waiting List Issues**: DHA violated the Decree by requiring tenants who responded to the initial notice about housing opportunities to submit a second response within 14 days, leading to the removal of some families from the waiting list. 3. **One-For-One Replacement**: The Decree mandates a one-for-one replacement of units demolished in West Dallas. Plaintiffs argue that DHA’s allocation of vouchers does not meet this requirement, as it inadequately replaces larger units with smaller ones, leading to objections against the demolition plan. The Court has not issued formal rulings on these issues, as DHA and HUD's positions have fluctuated. Plaintiffs have successfully established that the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) violated multiple provisions of the Consent Decree, particularly regarding tenant assignment, mobility services, and the management of housing vouchers and certificates. Although other alleged violations have been settled, the pervasive and egregious nature of DHA's misconduct, including delays in fulfilling obligations and inadequate responses to housing quality violations, necessitates the appointment of a Special Master under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Special Master will not oversee DHA directly or interfere with its new Executive Director but will monitor compliance by all parties, including the City of Dallas, with the Consent Decree and assist the Court in addressing complex issues arising from it. Parties involved will have the opportunity to present their views to the Court regarding the appointment of a Special Master and the operational terms of the Order for the Master. Due to violations of the Consent Decree by the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA), DHA will bear the costs associated with the Special Master until the Court issues further instructions. The Consent Decree, established on January 20, 1987, aims to address issues stemming from a lawsuit involving plaintiffs Debra Walker and others against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and DHA. Plaintiffs believe there is compelling evidence of ongoing racial segregation and discrimination by DHA, which the Decree seeks to rectify. DHA acknowledges potential contributions to the racially identifiable nature of its housing programs but enters the Decree without admitting liability to any other parties. HUD denies any liability related to the allegations. The parties intend to avoid continued litigation and promote equal housing opportunities in the Dallas metropolitan area through affirmative marketing and actions specified in the Decree. Recognizing inadequate resources for implementation, the parties agree to seek additional support from external institutions. Should necessary resources not materialize within a reasonable timeframe, either party may propose modifications to the Decree, subject to mutual agreement. All proposed changes must be submitted to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and any hearings on modifications will occur at least 30 days post-submission. Modifications cannot impose additional financial obligations on HUD without its written consent. Based on the parties' agreement and evidence presented regarding the fairness of the Decree for the proposed class and residents in federally-subsidized housing in Dallas, the Court orders the following: 1. The Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) must not engage in discriminatory practices regarding housing assignments, including: A. Assigning dwellings based on race or color. B. Prioritizing individuals on waiting lists due to race or color. C. Providing inferior services or maintenance based on race or color. D. Misrepresenting the availability of dwellings based on race or color. E. Denying equal contract rights regarding housing to non-white citizens. F. Denying equal rights to lease or own property to non-white citizens. Provisions in paragraphs 1A and 1B do not affect obligations related to the relief of discrimination victims outlined in an attached plan. 2. A class is certified for claims in this suit, consisting of all black individuals who are currently or become residents of DHA-owned or managed projects or participants in the DHA Section 8 Existing Housing Program (EHP), which includes vouchers issued under the program. 3. For a transitional period of 30 days from the Decree's entry, DHA will continue to honor EHP certificates as per a previous injunction. After this period, DHA will honor certificates and vouchers for any qualified units in the Dallas area. DHA is required to notify all municipalities in the area within 10 days of the Decree's entry, emphasizing the importance of broad housing choices for EHP participants. DHA's obligations to enforce statutory and regulatory requirements of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (EHP) remain intact, except as specified in this Decree. In administering the EHP, DHA will prioritize applicants who are residents or employees of the City of Dallas. Any conflicting policies in DHA’s manuals must be modified within 90 days to align with this Decree. DHA will inform current applicants, participants, landlords, and housing managers about the acceptance of Section 8 vouchers for housing in the metropolitan area and suburbs within 30 days, using a specified notification format. Additionally, DHA will include information about housing options in the Dallas metropolitan area in the orientation materials for applicants and participants, alongside required HUD information. A Plan, attached as Exhibit B, is incorporated into the Decree, aimed at achieving its remedial goals and effective upon entry. Non-compliance with the Plan can lead to court referrals or modifications to the Decree. The Plan addresses the West Dallas project, which suffers from severe housing deterioration and management issues, exacerbated by ongoing lead contamination. Approximately 1,300 units are deemed uninhabitable, and residents face negative social conditions. Significant resource investment is necessary for short-term improvements; however, long-term viability is unlikely due to locational, density, and environmental challenges, except for sections earmarked for HUD modernization funding. Funds have been allocated for the modernization of specific project sections, but HUD is withholding contract authorization until a comprehensive plan is developed for the remaining areas. HUD believes that allowing these areas to remain unchanged or be redeveloped as low-income housing would undermine the long-term viability of the sections receiving modernization funds, a view supported by DHA. DHA is tasked with creating a detailed plan for the project, which must be reviewed and approved by HUD to ensure compliance with the United States Housing Act of 1937 and related regulations. The plan must encompass: 1. Comprehensive modernization of approximately 800-900 units in designated areas. 2. An application to HUD for relocating residents from clearance areas without regard to race, along with a request for demolition of those units. This application must include a request for one-for-one replacement of demolished units in the West Dallas project through HUD’s public housing and/or EHP program. 3. A commitment from DHA to demolish a unit for each replacement provided by HUD, with actual demolition commencing only after mutual agreement between plaintiffs and DHA on the feasibility of receiving replacements. 4. Provisions for judicial intervention if either party unreasonably withholds agreement on demolition. The term "unit" excludes any former dwelling units repurposed for other functions. HUD commits to providing DHA with 1,000 units for the 1986 fiscal year, which includes new low-rent public housing units, Section 8 certificates, and Section 8 vouchers, specifically for the clearance areas. DHA may also utilize other available units for relocating families, allowing for the transfer of corresponding Section 8 certificates or vouchers. However, these units cannot be used until HUD approves the comprehensive project plan. The comprehensive plan mandates the demolition of 1,000 units in the Project as soon as practicable after HUD's approval, while ensuring that tenant population remains unchanged unless families voluntarily choose to relocate. If the Court does not enter the Decree, DHA must submit an approvable demolition plan to HUD within 60 days. DHA will not use these units until HUD approves the plan. Plaintiffs agree to not oppose the demolition if the Decree is not entered, provided the 1,000 units are available for DHA's use at that time. Any proposal to sell or remove housing units outside the Decree's provisions requires Court approval to avoid interference with the implementation of the Decree and Plan. This requirement is lifted once DHA complies with the Decree. Proposals for modernization or redevelopment that do not reduce unit numbers are exempt. If Texas law restricts the use of DHA's Section 8 certificates outside Dallas, DHA will seek solutions to enable their use in the metropolitan area. During the Court's jurisdiction, HUD will assist DHA in marketing HUD-assisted housing to black Section 8 applicants and landlords across the Dallas area, ensuring compliance with housing quality standards. Technical assistance from HUD will supplement its regular activities, focusing specifically on issues within the DHA Section 8 program. This includes support for the DHA Housing Mobility Unit concerning fair housing and establishing a liaison in the HUD Regional Office for Title VI and Title VIII complaint referrals. Assistance may be requested by DHA or initiated by HUD. During the Court's oversight of HUD, plaintiffs will receive semi-annual status reports detailing the technical assistance provided, including dates, nature of assistance, personnel involved, follow-up results from DHA, and all relevant documentation. HUD will also submit quarterly reports for the first year and semi-annual reports thereafter, covering the same topics. DHA is required to file quarterly status reports to the Court in the first year and semi-annual reports thereafter, while plaintiffs will also provide quarterly updates. Additionally, DHA will maintain monthly reports on various data, including Title VI application records, relocation program statistics, geographical distribution of Section 8 units, landlord participation, inspection results, and demographic information regarding racial occupancy. DHA will provide plaintiffs’ attorneys with access to specific documents upon request, such as applications for resources related to the Decree, Section 8 inspection reports, and fair housing complaints. The implementation of this Decree and Plan is regarded as a complete settlement for the identified class, excluding attorney fees and costs, with no further modifications allowed except as specified. Claims against HUD related to the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, except for claims concerning attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, which HUD may oppose. The Court will maintain jurisdiction over DHA for five years and over HUD for three years to supervise the implementation of the Plan, with the goal of successful completion within five years. Fifty-seven months after the Decree's entry, plaintiffs must submit a status report on DHA's compliance, followed by DHA's response within 30 days and a potential reply from the plaintiffs within 20 days. If disagreements arise, the Court will be notified, and a hearing will occur where plaintiffs must demonstrate DHA's non-compliance. Similarly, thirty-three months post-entry, plaintiffs will file a status report on HUD's compliance, with a similar timeline for HUD's response and plaintiffs' reply. Disagreements will also require Court notification and a subsequent hearing. If plaintiffs suspect HUD non-compliance during the three-year period, they must inform HUD's Regional Counsel and Associate General Counsel in writing. The Court's jurisdiction over DHA will conclude five years after the Decree's entry and over HUD after three years unless non-compliance is established, in which case jurisdiction will continue until compliance is achieved. The Court retains jurisdiction to address claims for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs, and individual damage claims against the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA). It clarifies that no part of the agreement implies any admission of injury by the defendants. Each plaintiff must demonstrate the specific legal right violated and the injury suffered to recover damages. DHA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agree that the Decree and Plan cannot be used by DHA as a defense in compliance reviews or enforcement actions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. DHA will enter contracts for Section 8 housing assistance in the metropolitan area of Dallas, expanding options for participants. Affected areas include all cities in Dallas County and the City of Plano. Participants can seek assistance through case workers, and landlords are encouraged to list available units with the Section 8 office. DHA plans to implement a remedial process to address alleged discrimination through a five-element program, including the development of procedures for administering expanded Section 8 programs and the establishment of a new Housing Mobility Division. Notably, DHA will not seek HUD funding for this Division. The Division aims to enhance housing mobility for black and other minority families involved in the DHA's housing programs through several initiatives. Key actions include: 1. **Outreach Efforts**: Engaging private rental housing owners in areas with low Section 8 certificate or voucher holder presence, focusing on non-racially-impacted areas in Dallas and its suburbs. 2. **Assistance and Counseling**: Providing support to families in the process of finding and securing housing in these targeted areas. 3. **Awareness Campaigns**: Informing non-minority families about housing opportunities available through DHA programs, particularly the low rent public housing program. 4. **Tenant Relocation Programs**: Administering programs for tenant relocation as mandated by the Decree. 5. **Collaboration on Fair Housing**: Partnering with organizations addressing Fair Housing issues to ensure investigation and reporting of discrimination cases encountered by DHA staff or beneficiaries. 6. **Compliance with HUD Regulations**: Adhering to the Housing Mobility requirements outlined in HUD Handbook 7420.7. 7. **Housing Opportunities for Current Residents**: Offering special housing opportunities for families in good standing residing in DHA’s family projects, excluding those in clearance areas of West Dallas, which will have separate provisions. Additionally, the plan includes actions to improve living conditions in the West Dallas project by modernizing 800-900 units with HUD funding, demolishing vacant units, relocating current occupants, and repurposing the land for non-assisted housing uses. Furthermore, special housing options will be made available to elderly residents in good standing, including Section 8 vouchers or relocation to vacant DHA units designed for the elderly. Elderly black residents in predominantly black projects who were not offered placements in predominantly white projects will be identified, with disputes regarding this identification subject to court resolution. Individuals identified for relocation will be notified about the opportunity to accept offers for units in predominantly white elderly projects. Those who decline will be removed from the offer list, while those who express interest will be prioritized based on their duration of residence in public housing. Offers will be made according to application dates, allowing individuals to choose from available vacancies. Non-elderly residents will receive a Section 8 certificate or voucher. Residents in modernization areas of the West Dallas project who reject offers will be temporarily relocated with moving expenses covered as outlined in a HUD-approved relocation plan. Families in good standing living in clearance areas of West Dallas will have several special housing opportunities. They will be given priority for vacant units that meet their size requirements in any DHA project or offered a Section 8 voucher for relocation. Financial assistance includes moving expenses and a $200 dislocation adjustment payment for permanent relocations. Additional transition payments based on unit size range from $500 for a one-bedroom to $1,000 for a five-bedroom or larger unit. Temporary relocations will only cover moving expenses. DHA will communicate with residents in family projects outside the clearance areas by holding meetings and sending letters detailing available housing opportunities, allowing 60 days for families to respond. DHA will provide ongoing advice and assistance during this process. Residents accepting Section 8 EHP opportunities will be prioritized on the waiting list, particularly those relocating from non-clearance areas of West Dallas, with priority given to long-term public housing residents. In the West Dallas project, DHA will ensure residents are informed about the implications of the Decree and Plan and the assistance available through meetings, notices, and counseling. New housing assignments in the West Dallas modernization areas will prioritize families from clearance areas wishing to relocate permanently, while allowing families currently in modernized areas to return if desired. The Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) aims to minimize disruptions from temporary relocations necessary for building clearance and demolition, which will follow a HUD-approved plan. Demolition will be conducted section by section, focusing on clearing entire areas before moving to adjacent sections. Families in clearance zones will receive relocation assistance until modernization is completed, after which they will permanently relocate to modernized units in non-clearance areas. However, residents facing eviction due to legal action for non-payment or lease violations will not qualify for relocation assistance. To enhance administration of housing projects, DHA will ensure compliance with Housing Quality Standards (HQS) through city inspections or its own staff, conduct quality reviews of Section 8 units, perform biannual perimeter inspections, and respond to tenant complaints effectively. Families in the Section 8 program will be notified of their rights regarding housing conditions within thirty days of the decree's entry. Participants in the Section 8 program have the right to request their landlord to correct any housing quality standards (HQS) or code violations in their dwelling units. If the landlord does not address these deficiencies within a reasonable time frame, participants can request an inspection from the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA), which will occur within ten days. If the inspection reveals failures to meet standards, the situation will be addressed per HUD guidelines. Inspection requests and reports will be accessible to plaintiffs' attorneys. Additionally, DHA will inform current Section 8 participants about their ability to move to a different dwelling after one year of tenancy, with new participants receiving this information during orientation. All participants will also be made aware of the DHA's Housing Mobility Unit, which provides counseling and referral services for those seeking housing in diverse neighborhoods. The counseling will include information on available units and local amenities. To enhance participation, DHA will implement an outreach program targeting landlords in the Dallas area, especially in underrepresented locations. A new Housing Mobility Division will be established, staffed by an Assistant Director and at least five additional personnel, to facilitate these efforts. This division will be located in a more accessible area, ensuring that residents receive the same level of service as regular Section 8 certificate holders. DHA will adhere to Housing Mobility requirements set forth in HUD Handbook 7420.7 and will implement a public outreach program to inform low-income, non-minority individuals about available housing opportunities. A "one offer, one refusal" tenant selection plan will be adopted, wherein applicants at the top of the waiting list will be offered a randomly selected, appropriately sized unit. If this unit is in a predominately racially homogenous area, applicants will be offered other available units where their race does not predominate. Should no such units be available, applicants can choose to wait for a suitable unit; refusing the offer will result in their position dropping to the bottom of the list. If a family cannot be offered a Section 8 certificate or voucher but accepts a public housing unit, they must be informed in writing of their option to place their name on the waiting list for such assistance at the time of acceptance. Failure to exercise this option at that moment will relieve DHA of future obligations regarding the waiting list. Once a certificate or voucher is available, families will have 14 days to respond. DHA will actively seek housing allocations from HUD to support this initiative and will request HUD approval for 120% Fair Market Rent (FMR) exception rents in areas with reasonable rents above published FMRs. Additionally, DHA is committed to developing 100 Low-Rent Public Housing (LRPH) units in non-racially impacted areas within specified timelines, notifying the court of any potential delays. To comply with this Decree, DHA will strive to place a significant percentage of Section 8 units outside census tracts with 10 or more certificates in use, with annual targets of 15%, 30%, and 50%, respectively, over three years, including a minimum of 15% in suburban areas. Plaintiffs and the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) may consent to include specific census tracts with over ten certificate units if those units satisfy site and neighborhood criteria outlined in 24 C.F.R. 881.206 and are free from significant environmental issues. If DHA anticipates failing to meet these standards thirty days before the Decree's anniversary, it must inform the plaintiffs and the Court in writing, detailing the reasons and proposing corrective actions. If an agreement on resolving the failure cannot be reached, the matter will be submitted to the Court. DHA will implement a Tenant Selection and Assignment (TSA) plan based on the actual vacancy date of units and maintain a single waiting list for all its Low-Rent Public Housing (LRPH) projects. The TSA plan will include monitoring procedures for staff compliance and must be adopted within thirty days of the Decree. Documentation of unit offers will be maintained on a designated "offer form," capturing details such as the recipient's identity, race, the nature of the offer, the staff member involved, and the date and specific project of the offer. These records will be accessible to the plaintiffs' counsel upon request. Housing mobility unit locations must be near DHA's application sites to prevent applicants from being directed to specific programs based on application site placement. The document also references the approval of a consent decree by the Court on January 9, 1987, addressing allegations of discrimination by the defendants, including the Housing Authority of the City of Dallas, to ensure the provision of adequate low-income housing in the Dallas area. The document highlights allegations against the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding racial segregation in DHA's low-income housing programs. The plaintiffs, seven black individuals, include current participants in the DHA Section 8 Existing Housing Program and a resident of the Roseland Homes project, along with a tenant counselor advocating for low-income tenants. Plaintiffs’ counsel represents additional residents from the West Dallas project, intending to amend the complaint to include them as class representatives if the case proceeded. The proposed class for the consent decree encompasses approximately 7,200 black households currently or subsequently residing in DHA-owned projects or participating in the Section 8 program. A consent decree has been submitted for court approval, with all named plaintiffs and their counsel endorsing it. Notice of the settlement was distributed to all class members and individuals on the DHA waiting list. However, objections arose from the Committee to Save Public Housing, which opposes the planned demolition of units in West Dallas, arguing that rehabilitation is a more appropriate remedy. Their objection includes petitions against demolishing occupied public housing, supported by signatures from about 500 households in the proposed class. No testimony was provided by the objectors regarding the residency status of petition signers. Credible evidence indicates substantial support for the settlement among class members residing in the West Dallas project. Spokesperson Dallas Jackson testified that many residents he spoke with desired the relocation opportunities the settlement offers. Mary Dews estimated that 85% of West Dallas households favored taking advantage of these opportunities. For approval of a class action settlement, it must be fair, adequate, reasonable, and free from collusion, as established by case law. Specific factors for evaluation include the benefits of the settlement versus potential trial benefits, the procedural stage of the case, treatment of named plaintiffs versus class members, the complexity and costs of further litigation, negotiation circumstances, class member reactions, and opinions from competent counsel. If objections arise post-notice, the court must allow those objecting to be heard and must address these objections with recorded findings and legal conclusions, considering both the number and quality of objections. The court is also obligated to protect third parties by ensuring the settlement does not violate constitutional or statutory rights. A hearing was held to consider objections, and all submitted testimonies and materials were reviewed. When objections pertain to the relief provided by the settlement, the court will compare the settlement terms to potential outcomes of a successful trial, focusing on the probability of success and the range of possible recovery. The inquiry aims to avoid trying the case and instead assesses whether settling is preferable to the risks and delays of litigation. Plaintiffs' counsel in the case involving DHA and HUD has clarified that their decision to settle is not due to any perceived weaknesses in their liability claims. Instead, it is based on an analysis of potential remedies, emphasizing the benefits of a demolition and replacement plan for West Dallas over a repair approach for all 3,500 units, particularly in addressing past segregation. They note the absence of legal obstacles to demolishing public housing and the delays associated with full litigation. HUD disputes the plaintiffs' ability to establish liability and contends that any available remedies would be limited. Objectors agree with the plaintiffs’ liability assessment but propose a desegregation remedy that does not involve demolition, advocating instead for the repair and rehabilitation of the West Dallas project. They have requested a delay in settlement approval to present alternative solutions and have suggested that if the settlement proceeds, all provisions should be approved except those concerning demolition. Objectors acknowledge that the units slated for demolition meet HUD's legal criteria for such action and recognize that current laws do not mandate the replacement of demolished units on a one-for-one basis. The Court, while considering the proposed decree and objections, accepted the plaintiffs' assertion regarding their ability to prove allegations of purposeful racial segregation. This acceptance is solely for evaluating the objections and does not constitute a ruling on the defendants' liability. Plaintiffs' claims center on the argument that DHA and HUD's policies perpetuate racial segregation within housing programs, evidenced by their practices of assigning tenants based on race, which contributes to ongoing residential segregation and unequal living conditions in the West Dallas projects. Substantial rehabilitation efforts are noted for other predominantly black projects. The objection to the settlement primarily concerns the impact on the West Dallas projects, highlighted by testimony and exhibits presented by Plaintiffs. The Dallas Housing Authority's (DHA) West Dallas project has been criticized by City Council members for exemplifying segregation and neglect. The area has long faced persistent issues, with conditions unchanged since the project's inception. West Dallas, bordered by significant landmarks, is predominantly inhabited by minority households, with a 1980 median income significantly lower than the city average. High poverty rates are evident, with 2,751 households living below the poverty level and a substantial portion receiving public assistance. Housing conditions are subpar, with a high proportion of boarded-up units and overcrowded households. The West Dallas projects are particularly distressed, with 67% of residents on federal assistance and a majority earning less than $5,000 annually. The projects consist of 3,500 units across three sites, with over 1,300 units vacant since 1980, many uninhabitable. Utility issues and lead contamination from a nearby smelter further exacerbate living conditions. Restoration of the units to acceptable standards would require an estimated $65 million. Additionally, crime rates in the West Dallas projects are alarmingly high, with murder and rape rates significantly exceeding those of the rest of Dallas, as noted by police testimonies and crime statistics. The executive director of the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) testified on October 15, 1985, about the dire conditions in the West Dallas housing projects—George Loving Place, Edgar Ward Place, and Elmer Scott Place—highlighting the urgent need to address decades of degradation, vandalism, poor maintenance, and inadequate funding. The projects contain 1,200 vacant, uninhabitable units, negatively affecting nearby neighborhoods and contributing to a publicly owned slum environment, despite over 35 years of federal and local intervention. The original site for the projects, designated in the DHA's 1950 funding application, was in a five-square-mile area characterized as the largest concentration of sub-standard housing in Dallas, developed under an explicit policy of racial segregation. Factors limiting occupancy by white and Latin American residents included the area's stigma, inadequate amenities, environmental issues from nearby industries, and the need for increased policing. In contrast, a project designated for Black occupancy demonstrated stable demand and a waiting list, indicating a demand for low-rent housing despite similar adverse conditions. From 1967 to 1975, DHA sought rehabilitation funds, which were denied due to violations of Title VI. In 1976, the DHA received a $13 million rehabilitation grant, which proved insufficient, allocating only $3,700 per unit compared to the $22,000 to $25,000 typically required for effective rehabilitation in Dallas. Mismanagement of the grant led to minimal improvements, leaving around 1,200 units still vacant and uninhabitable. In 1983, DHA requested $54 million for further rehabilitation, but HUD offered only $18 million, contingent upon DHA not seeking additional HUD funds for West Dallas. HUD mandated that DHA develop a workable plan to make the West Dallas project a viable initiative, with the stipulation that the plan could only utilize the allocated $18,000,000 in HUD funds. DHA's first attempt, the "West Dallas Master Plan," involved community input and proposed reducing the number of low-income units from 3,500 to a range of 1,400 to 2,000, replacing them with market rent or home ownership options, without any replacement for the removed low-income units. This plan failed to secure necessary funding. The second attempt, through the City of Dallas's “Mayor’s Task Force on Public Housing,” suggested using federal Community Development Block Grant funds to rehabilitate 200 West Dallas units annually at a cost of $7,000 per unit; however, the City Council declined to approve even this limited funding. Consequently, HUD withheld access to the $18,000,000, citing DHA's failure to meet the viability requirement. The West Dallas project's ongoing issues affect all families in the DHA system, with an average of 1,300 assisted housing units unavailable due to these problems. High vacancy rates in West Dallas have led to a rejection rate of over 50% for housing offers during early 1986, causing many applicants to avoid DHA housing entirely. Additionally, the prevalence of crime in West Dallas has been used to deny transfer requests from residents seeking to move to other DHA properties. The presence of uninhabitable units in West Dallas also hampers the development of low-income housing in other neighborhoods. The financial instability linked to West Dallas has jeopardized DHA’s overall operating subsidy from HUD, threatening the level of services provided to all residents. Despite efforts since 1967 to secure modernization funding for West Dallas, DHA lacks taxing authority and remains reliant on HUD, which has shown no willingness to provide necessary funds to improve the project. Significant legal barriers exist against using federal law to mandate the rehabilitation of the entire West Dallas project, as highlighted in Edwards v. District of Columbia. HUD and DHA prefer alternative methods for addressing segregation or discrimination identified by the Court. Demand for the Section 8 program surpasses that of the Low Rent Public Housing Program, with 2,700 people on the Section 8 waiting list compared to approximately 650 for LRPH. The number of applicants for Section 8 could be higher if DHA did not enforce a 90-day residency rule for applicants currently in public housing. Both waiting lists predominantly consist of black individuals. The relief principles for addressing racial segregation in public housing are grounded in Hills v. Gautreaux, which emphasizes the need for reasonable and effective remedies, including the use of Section 8 funds in desegregation plans. Once a violation of equal protection is established, defendants must propose a plan to remedy the constitutional violations, demonstrating good faith and a likelihood of dismantling segregation. Plaintiffs argue that their proposed decree aligns with these standards, while HUD contends it cannot be forced to allocate new resources as part of the settlement. Objectors oppose the demolition of 2,600 out of 3,500 units, advocating instead for repair and rehabilitation. Plaintiffs assert the Court has the authority to order the removal of conditions resulting from unlawful segregation, emphasizing the need for the equalization of facilities in the West Dallas project. The proposed decree outlines a plan for the rehabilitation of 800-900 units within the West Dallas project. While plaintiffs acknowledge the Court's authority to mandate rehabilitation of facilities linked to historical segregation, they clarify that this does not imply such rehabilitation is necessary in this instance. The closure of facilities is a recognized remedy for desegregation, as established in case law. The plaintiffs agree to the demolition and replacement of West Dallas units, contingent on the defendants addressing any legal violations, allowing for a potential remedy of segregation vestiges by closing part of the project and replacing units with higher-quality alternatives elsewhere in the city. They emphasize that their acceptance is specific to the complexities of the West Dallas project and should not be generalized to other projects. Concerns are raised that merely rehabilitating the 3,500 units would only address the physical conditions without remedying other segregation vestiges, such as the disproportionate concentration of low-income units in areas predominantly occupied by Black residents, which perpetuates a lack of racially integrated housing options. The settlement aims to reduce the amount of segregated housing offered by the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) and acknowledges the adverse social conditions stemming from the concentration of low-income units in a single area. The proposed plan is seen as more effective than full rehabilitation in addressing these issues. Additionally, the decree ensures that current residents seeking desegregated housing will have access to alternatives through the Section 8 Enhanced Housing Program (EHP), with an anticipated increase of around 1,300 assisted housing units available to low-income residents. The consensus among all parties is that there is a significant demand for low-income housing in Dallas, which the proposed decree aims to address effectively. The proposed settlement will expedite the rehabilitation of 3,500 housing units compared to a trial outcome, allowing current residents of West Dallas projects to remain if they choose not to relocate. While some residents may be temporarily relocated pending the availability of upgraded units, this would happen regardless of modernization efforts. Housing opportunities under the decree will be accessible to all families in clearance areas who opt not to permanently relocate, until they can be offered appropriately sized modernized units. The demolition plan submitted to HUD must comply with both the settlement terms and the Housing Act regulations. Concerns raised regarding the Section 8 certificate and voucher program are deemed premature, as using this program is consistent with existing law and reflects Congressional intent to enhance housing mobility. Residents wishing to relocate will have priority for units in other DHA Low Rent Public Housing (LRPH) projects, including modernized units. Plaintiffs share concerns about the Section 8 program's availability, quality, and discrimination, which are addressed in other parts of the decree. Analysis by the plaintiffs' expert indicates sufficient rental housing eligible for Section 8 throughout the city and metropolitan area. The relief provided aligns with remedies available if the plaintiffs were to prevail. The settlement was reached following extensive investigation and legal proceedings, initiated in August 1985, which included class certification motions, motions for judgment, and a preliminary injunction regarding DHA's Section 8 program in suburban areas. Negotiations were characterized as "at arms length," albeit with less than cordial interactions between parties. Negotiations regarding class relief, individual damages, and attorney’s fees were not conducted simultaneously. Named plaintiffs do not receive special treatment under the proposed decree; they obtain relief solely as class members, with Ms. Dews' involvement limited to her work affecting class members. Individual damage claims remain unresolved for future consideration. All parties anticipate further discovery on the merits, necessitating a class certification hearing and a trial expected to last over 20 days. The complexity of the litigation indicates that extensive remedy and appellate proceedings may follow any liability decision. HUD has a pending motion to stay discovery, which could prolong the proceedings and delay liability rulings. Class members were individually notified of the settlement terms and their right to object. About 500 out of 7200 notified households opposed the demolition of occupied units in West Dallas. The Court found that requests for delays to explore alternatives would not be beneficial, citing a lack of funding for viable solutions. Delaying the settlement could disadvantage class members wishing to remain in West Dallas or pursue other options. The Court can only approve or reject the entire settlement proposal, as defendants have stated they will not negotiate further if the West Dallas terms are disapproved. Plaintiffs’ counsel, experienced in poverty law and civil rights, support the settlement as the most realistic option to address the segregation issues central to the case. In conclusion, the proposed settlement is deemed fair, adequate, and reasonable for the class and should be approved. The class is defined as all black persons who are or will become residents of a DHA-owned project or participants in the DHA Section 8 Existing Housing Program. The Court's opinion outlines findings of fact and legal conclusions in accordance with Rule 52, Fed. R. Civ. P., and has been revised for publication by removing 46 footnotes that referenced exhibits and testimony. It includes the full Consent Decree as Appendix A. The opinion is based on the actions of the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) prior to the hiring of Executive Director Alphonso Jackson on January 23, 1989, and does not assess DHA’s performance under his leadership. The opinion notes participation in the Section 8 program, where landlords receive a portion of rent from tenants, with DHA covering the remaining fair market rent through HUD funding. The cities dismissed from the case include Carrollton, Plano, Richardson, Mesquite, Irving, Addison, Garland, and Farmers Branch. The opinion references companion opinions, Walker II and Walker III, which address specific legal issues related to the Consent Decree and its implementation. There was no objection to provisions aimed at improving housing quality and preventing racial discrimination, with only a challenge to the demolition of certain units in West Dallas. The Class Certification Order and accompanying findings were issued on January 20, 1987, and are published as Appendix B. A motion filed on July 1, 1987, cited 13 violations of the Decree by DHA, including tenant assignment failures. Resolved matters were documented in orders from February 19, 1988, and March 25, 1988. The Court evaluated the credibility of witnesses, crediting testimonies from Mary Dews, Craig Gardner, John Schoellkopf, Lori Palmer, and Harry Jones, while discounting certain others due to lack of credibility. Proper tenant assignment plans are highlighted as essential for addressing segregation in public housing and ensuring monitoring against racial bias in tenant assignments. DHA sought funding from the City of Dallas for its Housing Mobility Division and West Dallas relocation benefits. Initially, DHA applied the citywide average to all projects instead of using data on the eligible population, resulting in predominantly white projects being classified as minority units. The Tenant Selection and Assignment Procedures were established on June 29, 1987, and revised shortly before a hearing on December 21, 1987. These procedures included recruiting private rental housing owners in non-impacted areas and assisting families with housing and tenant relocation under the Decree. DHA's request for a "loan" from the City was deemed ineffective. On March 5, 1987, DHA requested HUD's approval to use lead settlement funds for mobility and relocation costs, which HUD granted within five days. During the March 25, 1988 hearing, DHA's attorney mentioned alternative funding sources, including proceeds from property sales and various settlement funds, totaling significant amounts. However, contradictory testimony from DHA officials was deemed not credible by the Court, while testimony from Craig Gardner was considered credible. Issues arose with communication, as individuals struggled to reach case workers, a problem acknowledged by Deputy Executive Director David Morton. DHA eventually established a "Tenant Hotline" on April 27, 1988, to address these concerns. The DHA reports indicated that there were no restrictions on the number of tenants in minority or impacted areas, but the rent structures for tenants using vouchers in non-impacted areas created financial burdens, hindering the intended goal of expanding housing opportunities. The refusal to provide a 120% rent exception for vouchers was identified as a discouraging factor for relocation to non-impacted areas, posing challenges for the long-term implementation of the Consent Decree. DHA is found liable for failing to comply with the Decree's stipulations regarding the 120% Fair Market Rent Exceptions, which resulted in excessive payments by class members under their Section 8 vouchers. Initially, HUD's denial of the 120% rent exception contributed to the issue; however, after HUD reversed its stance on August 31, 1988, DHA did not implement the necessary changes until compelled by testimony at a December 12, 1988 hearing. Consequently, DHA is responsible for retroactive relief to affected individuals. The Decree mandated that 30% of Section 8 units be placed in non-impacted areas by the end of the second year and 50% by the end of the third year. DHA's reports indicated discrepancies in the number of certificates and vouchers in use, with a decline in families receiving assistance from 9,161 to 8,471 within the first year of the Decree. By the end of the second year, DHA reported 5,233 Section 8 units, with approximately 40% located in non-impacted areas. DHA faced internal challenges, including protests from its Director of Housing Applications regarding the closure of the Section 8 program and a lack of adequate resource allocation to meet the Decree's requirements. Testimonies from various officials highlighted ongoing failures in communication and action, particularly concerning the inspection of units, which led to low engagement from the City of Dallas in enforcing code compliance. Historical context indicates DHA's previous use of eminent domain for acquiring properties, particularly for projects in minority areas. DHA selected the Country Creek site in 1986 for 106 replacement units for Washington Place but reversed this decision due to community opposition and political pressure. Opposition to public housing was inconsistent; some argued that the 100 units at Country Creek were too large while simultaneously opposing the demolition of 1,200 vacant units in the 3,500-unit West Dallas project. An error in the Sept. 18, 1987 hearing transcript incorrectly listed a date as July 20, 1989, contradicting the Decree that required the 100 units to be ready for occupancy within 24 months from January 20, 1987. The Frost amendment, enacted on December 22, 1987, aimed to prevent the use of HUD funds for demolishing units at West Dallas, though this was contested in Walker II. Due to poor conditions in West Dallas, only 21 out of 1,000 applicants opted to move there. Additionally, DHA acknowledged mistakes with its waiting list, admitting that an individual improperly occupied the top position as she was not a tenant in another DHA project. The Court approved demolition plans for West Dallas, and class certification was granted in Baker v. Wade. Historically, West Dallas experienced a 15% to 20% annual turnover rate, as testified by DHA's Executive Director, Jack Herrington.