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
Ventura Village Inc. v. City of Minneapolis
No. 04-2546 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55745
Description
Eighth Circuit Dismisses Neighbors’ Claim that City’s Approval of Supportive Housing Development in Minority Neighborhood Violates Fair Housing Act
Abstract
The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s summary
judgment for city in a suit by a neighborhood association that
sought to block construction of a supportive housing facility for
homeless and disabled families. Stating that minorities were
disproportionately represented among the homeless disabled
population, plaintiffs—residents of a minority
neighborhood—claimed that city’s waiver in minority
neighborhoods of a zoning rule that prohibited siting such
facilities within a quarter mile of similar facilities perpetuated
segregation. The waiver violated the Fair Housing Act, plaintiffs
claimed, because the waiver limited the ability of homeless and
disabled people to choose housing in other neighborhoods. The
Eighth Circuit found that the claim failed for lack of proof that
the city discriminatorily enforced the spacing requirement: the
city never enforced the spacing requirement, neither in
predominately white nor predominately minority neighborhoods. Since
the city’s action increased rather than limited the supply of
available housing and was not part of a policy or practice of
discrimination, neither the Act nor case law imposed a duty on the
city to enforce the spacing requirement
