generated several other orders dealing with the implementation of the CHA judgment and the HUD consent decree. E.g., Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4123, 1991 WL 49568 (N.D. Ill. April 4, 1991).
Presently before us are four motions: (1) the plaintiffs' motion to modify the judgment order against CHA; (2) HUD's motion to terminate the consent decree; (3) the plaintiffs' motion to enforce a provision of the consent decree prohibiting HUD from approving CHA's use of certain forms of § 8 housing assistance payments, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, unless specific location requirements are met; and (4) the plaintiffs' motion to declare that HUD must set aside § 8 contract authority for fiscal year 1997. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the plaintiffs' motion to modify the judgment order, grant HUD's motion to terminate the consent decree, and deny the plaintiffs' two motions under the consent decree.
I. Modification of CHA Judgment Order
At the outset, we explain generally the 1969 judgment order to provide background for the plaintiffs' motion to modify it. The judgment order divided Cook County's census tracts into two categories: the Limited Public Housing Area and the General Public Housing Area. The Limited Area was essentially defined as those census tracts composed of 30% or more non-white population, while the remaining tracts constituted the General Area. Attempting to remedy the effects of past discriminatory site-selection and tenant assignment procedures, the judgment order in essence prohibited any development of public housing in the Limited Area without simultaneous development in the General Area. Judgment Art. II(C), 304 F. Supp. at 738. Because CHA proved inept at building public housing on scattered-sites, we appointed a Receiver for the program in 1987 and it was not until then that construction began in earnest.
Now, as the scattered-sites program continues under the Receiver, the plaintiffs contend that § 8 rent subsidies
have replaced new construction as the primary means for providing public housing. Pls.' Mot. P 4. According to the plaintiffs, this shift in federal housing policy justifies modifying
the judgment order in order to bring the CHA's use of § 8 certificates under the order's auspices. Furthermore, the plaintiffs point out, fewer than 3000 scattered-sites units have been built so far and approximately only 7000 more families have been assisted by the separate HUD § 8 program under the consent decree; meanwhile, the members of the class comprise 40,000 families.
In order to prevail on a motion to modify the judgment order, the plaintiffs must show that the "principal objects" of the order have not been achieved. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 20 L. Ed. 2d 562, 88 S. Ct. 1496 (1968); see United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 331-32 (3d Cir. 1992); Gautreaux v. Weaver, 535 F. Supp. 423, 426-27 (N.D. Ill. 1982). We examine the "specific facts and circumstances," United Shoe Machinery, 391 U.S. at 248, and weigh the equities at stake in determining the propriety of modification, Weaver, 535 F. Supp. at 426. Importantly, even if the "principal objects" of the original order have not yet been fully achieved, we must consider whether other reasons outside the control of the defendant have prevented success and whether adherence to, rather than modification of, the current injunction may be the most fair alternative. These latter considerations inform our inquiry because, as the school desegregation cases instruct us, federal court supervision of local government operations should be a "temporary measure to remedy past discrimination" and is "not intended to operate in perpetuity." Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City Pub. Schs. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 247, 248, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715, 111 S. Ct. 630 (1991).
We start, then, with the judgment order's principal objects: "to prohibit the future use and to remedy the past effects of the defendant Chicago Housing Authority's unconstitutional site selection and tenant assignment procedures." 304 F. Supp. at 737. By 1968, CHA's site selection had placed 99.5% of 30,848 public housing units in mostly black neighborhoods and tenant assignment had reserved four projects to be populated almost entirely by whites. 296 F. Supp. at 909-10.
While it might be expedient to simply accept the plaintiffs' assertion that "the vast majority of CHA's family public housing still consists of the same segregated units, in the still segregated neighborhoods," Pls.' Reply at 5, as well as the plaintiffs' unstated assumption that the assertedly segregative situation is entirely a result of CHA's original discrimination, we must insist on specific facts supported by evidence. For example, relevant information to test the first assertion would include the number of public housing projects that remain predominantly white and the number of projects located in the Limited Area and the General Area. If the evidence shows that segregation in public housing still exists, then we must explore the link between the current segregation and CHA's original discrimination, past remedial efforts (or lack thereof), current remedial efforts, and future plans. For example, we would examine the quantity and location of affordable land in the General Area remaining for site selection, the effects of private decisionmaking on the current segregative state, and the effects of the shift in demographics over the years.
Without such evidence, we cannot grant the plaintiffs' motion to modify the judgment order. In the absence of a showing that the judgment order's objectives are not being accomplished and that the extent of the lack of progress is largely grounded in the original discrimination, it would be improper to add thousands of § 8 rent subsidy certificates and vouchers to the judgment order. The Receiver has, relatively speaking, only recently begun to implement the judgment order and we should allow time for the scattered-site program to work before turning to another form of relief, especially if CHA is now cooperating in implementing the order to the extent practicable. Indeed, the scattered-side program most directly deals with CHA's original violations--placement of public housing projects solely in black neighborhoods--while § 8 rent subsidies are already usable by the recipients throughout Illinois, see 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(r). Although it is likely that some § 8 recipients would rather live in the General Area but cannot find affordable rental units in the private market, the plaintiffs have not shown that the original site selection and tenant assignment proximately created this situation. Cf. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 496, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108, 112 S. Ct. 1430 (1992).
Accordingly, we conclude that the record fails to support the plaintiffs' proposed modification.
II. Termination of HUD Consent Decree
Next, HUD moves to terminate the consent decree entered into in 1981. The consent decree divided not only Cook but its collar counties as well into Limited, General, and "Revitalizing" Areas. 523 F. Supp. at 668. "Recognizing that total relief to Gautreaux families outside the Limited Area could not be provided in the foreseeable future, the proposed decree introduced the concept of Revitalizing Areas, that is, areas which have substantial minority population and are undergoing sufficient redevelopment to justify the assumption that these areas will become more integrated in a relatively short time." Id. at 669. With this expanded metropolitan-wide relief, the primary goal was to place 7100 public housing residents in the General and Revitalizing Areas:
5.1. Following the effective date, HUD will provide assisted housing to eligible persons as set forth in this Part 5 until the number of occupancies of assisted housing units in the General Area and/or in the Revitalizing Area, pursuant to the contracts referred to in paragraph 5.4, commenced by eligible persons equals 7,100.
Consent Decree P 5.1.
HUD now moves to terminate the consent decree because on October 2, 1996, the 7100 target was met, although HUD acknowledges that we should retain jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees petition. The plaintiffs do not object to termination of the consent decree, but have moved for enforcement of specific provisions of the decree that would continue to place certain obligations upon HUD. We deal with those motions below, and thus grant HUD's motion to terminate the consent decree and retain jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees petition.
III. HUD's Set Aside Obligation in Fiscal Year 1997
As indicated above, the plaintiffs acknowledge that the 7100 target was met October 2, 1996. Even though HUD has attained this target, however, the plaintiffs contend that HUD must still authorize § 8 New Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation units as provided for in PP 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 of the decree.
Those paragraphs provided:
5.5.2. HUD will set aside contract authority for 250 Section 8 New Construction and/or Substantial Rehabilitation units per year commencing at the beginning of Fiscal Year 1982 for use in multifamily projects to be located in the General Area or in the Revitalizing Area and that are insured under the National Housing Act. . . .