ELR Citation: ELR 20479
No(s). s. 73-1507 et al (D.C. Cir. Apr 26, 1974)

The lower court's use of discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against a renewal project, under the auspices of the Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA), involving substantial property acquisition in a low-income area is upheld by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, except for the conclusion that the RLA is not subject to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. As a state agency, the RLA, having given assurances that federal relocation assistance will be given to displaced persons, is obligated under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act to insure that such aid is given; it is up to the lower court to ascertain the extent of compliance with that obligation. On the other issues, the Circuit Court holds that the fact that structures owned by the RLA do not meet housing code specifications does not warrant the issuance of an injunction, considering the temporary ownership that the RLA has and its intent of either demolishing or rehabilitating them shortly. Finally, a NEPA impact statement must be filed for each renewal program before action is begun so that the consequences of the programs can be known and responded to, and a violation of the procedural requirements of NEPA may therefore constitute grounds for an injunction despite the lack of imminent physical danger to the environment. However, given that impact statements have been filed, albeit late, the lower court's ruling against an injunction based on NEPA violations was not an abuse of discretion.

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Florence Lagman Roisman
1601 Conn. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Larry G. Gutterridge
Wallace H. Johnson Asst. Attorney General
Harold H. Titus, Jr. U.S. Attorney
Nathan Dodell Asst. U.S. Attorney
Carl Strass
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530