plaintiffs have the right under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to end the
use of federal funds to perpetuate the racially discriminatory
aspects of the public housing system and an injunction against
such use. Since March 2, 1967 the parties have amassed thousands
of pages of depositions, affidavits and exhibits. Both parties
now move for summary judgment on Counts I and II.
I. Discriminatory Tenant Assignment Practices.
Plaintiffs charge that defendants have imposed quotas at four
White family housing projects to keep the number of Negro
families to a minimal level.
The Trumbull, Lathrop, Lawndale and Bridgeport projects were
built before 1944 in areas which were then and are now
substantially all White. Baron Affidavit, Exhibit A. Until 1954
CHA refused to permit Negro families to reside in these projects.
Statement of Elizabeth Wood, Head of CHA until August 23, 1954.
The Negro population in the four projects on December 31, 1967
represented respectively about 7%, 4%, 6% and 1% of the total.
Stipulation, July 29, 1968. At present Negroes comprise about 90%
of the tenants in CHA family housing projects and about 90% of
the waiting list of 13,000 persons. CHA Sept. 20 Brief, p. 7, p.
The disparity between the low number of Negro families in these
projects and the high number of Negro applicants for all projects
indicates that CHA has imposed a Negro quota. Alvin Rose,
Executive Director (chief executive officer) of CHA from
September 1957 to November 1967, testified on deposition that CHA
devised "elastic quotas" (p. 173) at the four projects which can
more accurately be characterized as "fixed" (p. 180). Harry
Schneider, Deputy Executive Director of CHA, formerly Director of
Management from May 1950 to January 1968, testified that until
May 22, 1968 these four projects were listed on CHA tenant
selection forms as appropriate for "A families only," that is,
Whites only. Schneider Dep., p. 77. He states that in these
projects there are "controls" on the number of Negro applicants
accepted. (p. 75), that Negro population in these projects is now
"fairly close" to the "appropriate maximum number" (p. 78), and
that if, for example, Trumbull attained the level of 35 Negro
families a "hold" would maintain the occupancy at that level (p.
84.) Mrs. Louise Webb, in charge of processing tenant
applications for CHA, confirms Mr. Schneider's testimony that
quotas are now in force. Webb Dep., p. 61.
CHA does not contradict these statements of its own officials.
The "history of tension, threats of violence and violence" urged
in justification by CHA cannot excuse a governmentally
established policy of racial segregation. Cooper v. Aaron,
358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958). In fact, the only
violent incident mentioned by Mr. Schneider occurred in 1953, and
Mr. Rose recalled that one incident indicating White hostility to
Negroes occurred at Bridgeport in 1959. Schneider Dep., p. 63;
Rose Dep., p. 163. Precautions taken in the wake of these
incidents such as notifying the police and Human Relations
Commission are no longer taken when Negroes are moved into the
White projects. Schneider Dep., p. 82. These remote incidents do
not show a clear threat of violence which might justify quotas as
a very temporary expedient. In any case, CHA's quotas clearly
have maintained Negro occupancy at a permanently low level.
Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate relief against
the defendants' policy of denying applications to the four
projects on the basis of racial quotas. Detroit Housing
Commission v. Lewis, 226 F.2d 180 (6th Cir. 1955).
II. Discriminatory Site Selection Procedures
In choosing sites for public housing, the CHA is directed by
statute to follow these criteria:
[E]limination of unsafe and unsanitary dwellings, the
redevelopment of blighted and slum areas, the
assembly of improved and unimproved land for
development or redevelopment purposes, the
conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing,
and the provision of decent, safe, and sanitary
Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 67 1/2, Sec. 8.2.