Sex dating in clarkton north carolina
The record indicates that the Clarkton officials were anxious to have the project expeditiously approved and built.4 The Clarkton application was quickly approved by HUD, and the defendants agreed to provide water and sewer service for the project.5 Further approval was obtained from the local area HUD office, the North Carolina Council of Governments, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Finally, the plaintiff, in his complaint, sought only to restore the status quo regarding the consideration of public housing in Clarkton, and did not seek injunctive relief which would require Clarkton to build public housing from its own treasury.9 Applying this four-prong Arlington II analysis, or indeed any common sense analysis, the plaintiff has established a violation of the Fair Housing Act by proving that the defendants' actions had a discriminatory effect on the black citizens of Bladen County. While the abandonment of low-income public housing will have an effect touching upon all citizens of Bladen County, it is the black population that will suffer from the defendants' actions in a disproportionate manner. The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, of course, prohibits invidious discrimination in the administration of any public program, including housing, administered by the states or their subdivisions unless there is a compelling reason justifying such distinctions. Moreover, once a plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional or statutory right in the civil rights area, a district court has broad and flexible equitable powers to fashion a remedy that will fully correct past wrongs. The JMHC, working with the CHA, decided to place fifty units of public housing in Clarkton and applied to HUD for funding and project approval. Secondly, the evidence adduced at trial discloses beyond peradventure that the actions of the defendants terminating the project resulted directly from the community's deeply-felt, intentional, invidious racial animus, and the defendants' alleged interests in pursuing the tainted action were almost wholly pretextual. And in proving discriminatory intent under this test, racially disproportionate impact is a relevant factor for a court to consider. The economically disadvantaged position of Clarkton and Bladen County is not disputed, nor is the statistical evidence of its effect on the plight of many of its citizens, both black and white, nor is the poor physical condition of available housing. Ed.2d 441 (1982), and cannot seek refuge in broad generalizations regarding the absence of a constitutional guarantee of adequate housing. Dwight Fort, and three commissioners-Linda Revels, Dewitt Clark and Steve Prince, in their individual and official capacities. There is no merit to the defendants' contention that the trial court erred in allowing this amendment or that the Fair Housing Act allegations were barred by that Act's 180-day statute of limitations. Eighty percent of all housing is substandard, 60% of this is black-occupied, and the median price of housing in the county is approximately ,000.
Consequently, the commissioners, at a May 12, 1980 meeting, "regretfully" asked for the resignation of the CHA members, and withdrew from the JMHC.
Objections based on rescue squad and police coverage were rebutted by statements from the Clarkton police chief that these vital services would not need to be upgraded. The appellants are correct that in the abstract there is no constitutional or statutory right for individual citizens to have housing meeting a particular standard, nor is there a concomitant duty on the part of political entities to provide housing.
Finally, it was demonstrated that the housing project would not overburden sanitary services, such as sewers and trash collection. It is not so clear that as strict a standard is required in cases involving Fair Housing Act violations.
The Court, in reversing the trial court's refusal to allow the amendment, stated that "the amendment would have done no more than state an alternative theory for recovery." Here, the original complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief under either 42 U. The addition by amendment of the specific allegation of jurisdiction under the Fair Housing Act sections merely states specifically an alternative theory of recovery, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing that amendment. The pattern of racially-inspired decision making was not subtle, as such prejudice in the consideration of public housing often is, and as the trial court noted in its order, the reasons advanced by the town for withdrawing from the HUD project were "flimsy." The demographic makeup of Clarkton and its environs paints a sharp picture of a community in which there exists a distinct pattern of racial separation. In fashioning equitable relief for the violation of the Fair Housing Act, trial courts, of course, are guided by its underlying purposes.
15(a) "shall be freely given when justice so requires" and stated that "if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits" and concluded that in the absence of any apparent improper motivation, such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory tactics, the amendment should be "freely given." In Foman, the plaintiff had filed a complaint sounding in contract and subsequently attempted to amend under rule 15(a), asserting a right of recovery on a quantum meruit theory. § 1983 (the fourteenth amendment claim) or section 3612 of the Fair Housing Act. 15(c) is effective to satisfy the 180-day time limitation contained in 42 U. The factual findings are fully supported by the record and inescapably lead to the conclusion that racially-discriminatory motives played a determinative part in the defendants' actions which blocked the construction of public housing in Clarkton. That agency then set aside the necessary funds for these 150 units of public housing for use by the JMHC, with 50 units to be placed in each of the participating towns. The undisputed statistical picture leaves no doubt that the black population of Bladen County was adversely affected by the termination of the housing project, as it is that population most in need of new construction to replace substandard housing, and it is the one with the highest percentage of presumptively eligible applicants.