|
CJP |
|
Community Justice Project |
|
Improving the Lives of Low Income Pennsylvanians |
|
Harrisburg Office 118 Locust St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 236-9486 (phone) (717) 233-4088 (fax) 1-800-322-7572 (toll free)
Pittsburgh Office Suite 1705 429 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 434-6002 (phone) (412) 434-5706 (fax) 1-866-482-3076 (toll free)
Hispanic Outreach Offices (Ayuda en Español)
Pittsburgh Suite 1705 429 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 434-6176 (office) (412) 715-1750 (cell) (412) 434-5706 (fax)
Reading c/o Centro Hispano 501 Washington St. Reading, PA 19601 (610) 741-7995 (phone) (610) 372-2619 (fax)
Hazleton 2 East Broad Street Room 204 Hazleton, PA 18201 (570) 582-5816 (phone) (570) 459-5815 (fax)
|
|
Housing |
|
Everyone, regardless of race or income, deserves access to safe and affordable housing. CJP helps to ensure access to housing by:
|
|
· Challenging illegal tax liens and predatory lending · Maintaining viability of publicly financed low income and disabled housing opportunities · Challenging discriminatory policies in public housing, section 8 housing, and low income tax credit housing · Enforcing relocation rights of people forced out of their homes for public projects · Supporting integrated housing opportunities for low income families |
|
Litigation |
|
Sanders et al. v. HUD et al.
The implementation of the relief obtained in this longstanding federal court, Western District of PA litigation has been going forward for over 11 years. The plaintiffs charged various governmental entities, including HUD, the Allegheny County Housing Authority, and the County, with discrimination in tenanting and maintaining public housing and failing to adequately support the neighborhoods surrounding public housing developments predominantly occupied by African American residents. Among other results of the suit: local governments may not prevent public housing from being located in their jurisdictions; 130 new scattered site and mixed-income-development public housing units have been made available to African American class members in non-racially concentrated locations; 450 Section 8 certificates were made available and, with the assistance of a mobility support provider, used by African American families in non-racially impacted locations; 672 Section 8 certificates were made available without restriction but with mobility services; and approximately $30 million was made available to revitalize six neighborhoods surrounding public housing developments predominantly occupied by African American residents. These funds leveraged considerable additional funding for these neighborhoods. As of February 2006, projects totaling approximately $10 million remain to be completed.
Jones et al. v. Harrisburg Housing Authority
A class settlement agreement has been approved by the federal court, Middle District of PA providing class relief to tenants of the Harrisburg Housing Authority who had their rents improperly increased due to increases in earned income. Under the agreement, which was also submitted to HUD for its approval, class members have their cases reviewed for refunds, and the housing authority agrees to implement specific procedures to ensure that the rents of public housing tenants will not be increased based on the receipt of earned income excludable under federal regulations. The April, 2005 a consent order requires the Housing Authority to follow detailed procedures designed to ensure that all public housing tenants receive proper consideration of federally mandated earned income exlcusions. We are currently monitoring the consent order.
Kent v. Hartley, et al. This federal court, Middle District of PA action was brought against the police chief and several police officers, and the City of Harrisburg alleging that the defendants unlawfully entered a civil dispute between the plaintiff and her landlord and caused her eviction by threats of arrest. The action was brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution. In January, 2005, a consent order was entered requiring the Harrisburg Police Department to adopt specified policies and undergo training to ensure that officers will not take sides in landlord and tenant disputes. We are currently monitoring the consent order.
Corby et al. v. Scranton Housing Authority et al.
This is a class action in the federal court, Middle District of PA challenging displacement and relocation policies under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Scranton Housing Authority had secured federal public housing modernization funding to perform comprehensive renovations at one of its pubic housing developments. The suit was brought to enjoin the Defendants from displacing the residents of the development, approximately 60 families, in order to carry out the project, in violation of the residents’ rights under the Act. After obtaining a temporary restraining order to enjoin displacing activities, the Plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining class certification and a preliminary injunction which, among other things: prohibited the permanent displacement of the residents; required the Defendants to take all steps feasible to minimize the temporary displacement of class members, and; ensured the meaningful participation of class members in all phases of modernization planning and implementation. The Plaintiffs then obtained a second temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending the final resolution of the litigation. CJP is currently assisting with the reincorporation of a resident council to procure a development consultant for the process of planning the modernization.
Sims et al. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh et al.
This class action, on behalf of residents and former residents of three Federally-assisted housing developments slated for demolition and redevelopment in the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh, seeks relief under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Plaintiffs claim they were being forcefully displaced from their homes in a manner which caused them unnecessary hardship and which effectively segregated them into racially-concentrated, high-poverty, marginalized areas. A settlement agreement was approved by the federal court, Western District of Pennsylvania in December 2003, which provided that each member of the class (approximately 300 families) became entitled to a Section 8 voucher, the choice of an available, equivalent replacement home in the immediate vicinity or in a racially-integrated neighborhood, additional relocation assistance and services and guaranteed priority to the new housing units being built as part of the redevelopment. CJP is in the process of monitoring compliance with the consent order as new units are coming online.
Jones v. Lamb et al.
This federal court, Western District of PA class action challenged the constitutionality of Rule 1008B of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for District Justices and sought to restrain the implementation and enforcement of that rule by the Prothonotary and constables of Allegheny County. Pennsylvania law generally entitles a person seeking judicial review of a district justice court judgment to file for de novo review in the courts of common pleas, which operates as an automatic supersedeas (or stay) of the DJ judgment. Rule 1008B, however, requires tenants appealing DJ eviction judgments to post a bond in order to stay the eviction during the course of the de novo appeal, the lesser of the DJ judgment or three times the monthly rent as determined by the district justice. The Plaintiffs alleged that Rule 1008B contravenes the rights of indigent tenants under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it cuts off the appeal rights of indigents, subjecting them to irreparable harm during the pursuit of de novo appeals, while leaving open that protected avenue of appeal for more affluent tenants. Class certification was ordered and a preliminary injunction entered in favor of the class restraining the prothonotary from enforcing Rule 1008B against indigent persons who are or would be eligible (if they applied) for federally subsidized housing.
APT v. McKees Rocks Borough
CJP has represented a public housing tenant council which objected to the abrupt placement of a cell tower on its community?s grounds near a playground. It did so in state court raising zoning issues and federal court claiming that the housing authority leased a portion of this site without consulting the residents or obtaining HUD approval. The matter was settled through an agreement whereby the Tower was buffered, improvements were made to the community’s recreational facilities and all lease payments are turned over to the resident council to fund its programs. Two enforcement issues involving a one time payment of funds from the Allegheny County Housing Authority and this Housing Authority's failure to pass through lease payments to the resident council now require judicial resolution.
|