Federal District Court Denies Horner Residents Contempt Petition Against CHA But Orders CHA to Consult with Residents' Committee

A federal district court denied a contempt petition that residents of Henry Horner Homes filed against the Chicago Housing Authority, or CHA, and its management agent, PM One. The residents claimed that PM One refused to cooperate on issues that residents and management had settled in a 1995 consent decree.

The court also denied the CHA’s motion to act without consulting the Horner Residents’ Committee and did so in language that rebuked PM One and recognized the validity of the committee’s claims.

The residents claimed that PM One did not cooperate in assigning tenants from old housing to new housing, refused to share information on terminating leases, obstructed the Section 8 relocation process, would not involve low-income residents in the selection process for higher-income residents, and made excessive housing unit inspections.

The court ordered the parties to negotiate on the areas of alleged contempt. If they cannot reach an agreement, either party may file “an appropriate motion” (including another contempt motion if necessary). The court promised to rule definitively on any motion filed.

The National Center on Poverty Law, which is counsel to both the plaintiff class and the residents’ committee, is now working with the CHA and PM One to resolve the disputed issues.

The Center attorneys’ contempt petition came after PM One, having taken over Horner’s management last year, became uncooperative over matters that had been negotiated in good faith and settled to the satisfaction of both sides in a consent decree.

In May 1991 the Henry Horner Mothers Guild, a group of concerned Horner residents, sued the CHA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in federal court to protect the rights of the residents of the Horner public housing development on Chicago’s west side, located near the United Center.

A consent decree in April 1995 settled the suit. The decree entitles each Horner resident at the decree’s signing to receive clean, safe, and sanitary replacement public housing on the site of the original Horner development, in the surrounding neighborhood, or in other parts of the city and suburbs. Many of the residents have lived at Horner their entire lives.

The decree created the residents’ committee, a group empowered to represent all Horner families and to enforce the decree’s provisions.

The decree ordered the CHA, and any of its agents (such as the company managing the Horner development), to consult and attempt to reach agreement with the committee on all management policies or, if they cannot reach an agreement, bring the matter before the court.

Until August 2000, when several key personnel who had been part of the cooperative effort left the CHA, and a new management company, PM One, took over against the committee’s wishes, everything went well under the decree. There was mutual cooperation between the committee on one hand and the CHA and management on the other, and each served its interests by having the process go forward in an amicable, professional, and efficient manner.

Almost immediately, however, PM One began a policy of noncooperation with the committee—treating it not as a partner in the work of serving the Horner residents and building the new Horner but as an adversary.

The more the Center tried to address the situation, the more recalcitrant and hostile PM One became. The committee felt that it had no alternative but to file a petition to have the court hold PM One in contempt for violating that part of the consent decree which required it to consult and attempt to reach agreement with the committee.

The CHA responded to the contempt petition by (1) claiming that its agent, PM One, was not within the contempt power of the court (i.e., the court had no power to tell PM One to cooperate with the committee or to punish it if it refused) because PM One was not a party to the original lawsuit or to the consent decree and (2) asking to be relieved of its obligation under the decree to consult with the committee on a number of specific management policies and to be allowed to implement those policies immediately and unilaterally.

After almost two months of furious (and increasingly acrimonious) briefing by both sides, the court, on August 30, issued its decision: it was a draw, which the Center won.

First, the court assured the CHA in no uncertain terms that PM One was within the court’s contempt power and that the court would not hesitate to use that power if PM One did not mend its ways. This was a strong setback to the CHA’s legal position and a major victory for the committee because it simultaneously put the CHA on the defensive and put PM One on notice that it needed to get its act together.

The court went on to note that PM One did indeed seem to be engaging in a pattern of noncompliance, which was troubling to the court, but, because PM One was a relative newcomer to the scene, the court was willing to give it another chance.

While having to file a contempt motion was unfortunate, the results have been fruitful. Since the court’s strongly worded opinion, PM One has had a marked change in behavior toward the committee. A spirit of greater cooperation seems to be taking hold. PM One now produces information in a timely manner and has been working with the committee and the Center to address the residents’ concerns much less fractiously.

The lesson from this case is that when poor people have dedicated legal representation and pursue their rights vigorously and steadfastly through the courts, as costly as this process can be, they can get the proper redress and protect their rights. The system does work, even for the poor, when resources are available and brought to bear.

For more information, contact Gregory W. Knapp, National Center on Poverty Law, 312.263.3830 ext. 229.