Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
United States v. City of Pooler
No. CV 401-263 (S. D. Ga. filed Nov. 13, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54347
Description
Attorney General Sues Pooler, Georgia, for Fair Housing Act Violations
Abstract
On behalf of plaintiff United States, attorney general sued
defendant city of Pooler, Georgia, to enforce Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988. A real estate developer planned to construct a
sixty-eight-unit low-income elderly housing complex using
state-allocated tax credits under the federal low-income housing
tax credit program. His plan required a variance from the per-unit
minimum-square-footage requirements in city’s zoning
ordinance. Although city’s planning and zoning commission
unanimously recommended approval of the requested variance, city
council denied developer’s request. The city council also
opposed developer’s modified plan to build sixty-eight units
in thirty-four duplexes; this plan conformed to city’s
preexisting zoning requirements. Plaintiff contends that city
opposed the proposed zoning variance and construction of the
complex because it feared that the complex would attract black
residents to the city from neighboring Savannah. Plaintiff
maintains that, because of city’s opposition, developer was
not awarded tax credits and the complex was not constructed. In
district court, plaintiff alleges that city’s actions have
made dwellings unavailable to persons because of race or color and
that city’s conduct constitutes a denial of Fair Housing Act
rights to a group of persons, a denial that raises an issue of
general public importance. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and a civil
penalty to vindicate the public interest.
