Skip to main content

Daniel & Beshara, P.C.

Home
Racially Segregated Dalla
Walker v. HUD
ICP v. TDHCA
ICP v. Treasury and OCC
Young v. Pierce
Representative work
Other Cases
HUD FMR
LIHTC Revitalization
Deepwood Dump
HUD Non-Compliance: City
Documents
The Partners
Site Map
ICP v HUD Small Area FMRs
SAFMR education
Young v. Pierce
 
     The Young public housing desegregation case involving 70 plus housing authorities in 36 counties in East Texas, HUD, and the State of Texas. Betsy Julian was one of the original attorneys on the case. She withdrew from the case in 1992. The reported decisions in Young are Young v. Pierce, 544 F.Supp. 1010 (E.D. Tex. 1982), 628 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D. Tex. 1985), 640 F.Supp. 1476 (E.D. Tex. 1986); 822 F.2d 1368, 1376 (5th Cir. 1987). The litigation did not end until 2004. The remedy involved the equalization of conditions including the provision of air conditioning in the segregated black projects, desegregation of the tenant population in previously segregated black and white projects, use of the public housing and Section 8 programs and funding for a private fair housing organization to provide over 5,000 desegregated housing opportunities in predominantly white areas, equalization of neighborhood conditions around the predominantly black projects, injunctions against local cities blocking the development of public housing in white neighborhoods, the sale of the Vidor public housing and the use of the proceeds for housing opportunities in white areas that were accessible by black public housing tenants, and $13 million in State funding for neighborhood equalization. Most of the relief was obtained only after the record of HUD’s violations of previous remedial orders was compiled and presented to the Court.
 
     None of the monetary amounts mentioned in this section were damage awards or other forms of compensation to either individual plaintiffs or to class members. This case sought injunctive relief for a class against several defendants and did not seek damages on behalf of that class. When specific monetary amounts are mentioned, then those amounts are the funds provided by the defendants for the specific relief being provided. For example, the $13 million is State funding was used to pave streets, replace water and sewer lines, and make similar improvements in and around the black public housing projects. The money was not awarded to individual plaintiffs or class members for damages or other compensation. The facts of this case involved decades of deliberate segregation by several governments. The nature of the case and the injuries imposed by the segregation are very different from most fair housing or other housing discrimination cases brought by individual plaintiffs.

Some of the orders, agreements, and reports from this case that are attached are:

A. The final judgment that was entered by the Court in 1995,
 
/Documents/final judgement 1995.pdf

B. The order modifying final judgment entered in 2004. This order includes a HUD manual on creating desegregated housing opportunities as exhibit 3 to the order,

C. The agreement between the plaintiffs and the State of Texas for the last $4.4 million of the total $13 million that the State contributed to the neighborhood equalization activities required by the Final Judgment.
 
/Documents/state agreement.pdf

The entire docket sheet for the case and many of the documents are available from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Pacer site. http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/Records/DocketSheets/cmecf.htm.