74-003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

No court has yet been squarely faced with the issue of replacement housing. If this issue is raised, highway administrators may argue that use of this provision is purely discretionary. But the replacement housing provision seems clearly intended by Congress to be satisfactory without the addition of new units to the housing supply. Because of the market effects described in Part II (in the context of the low-income housing submarket), highway displacement in a tight market without construction of new housing would render meaningless the protections intended by the URA. Section 206(a), especially in light of other provisions of the UP.A, seems intended to allow highway departments to construct new replacement housing as an alternative to abandoning projects which cause heavy displacement. Construction of one-for-one replacement housing is not a novel remedy. It is an established requirement for urban renewal programs. The highway construction program causes approximately the same number of displacements as urban renewal, and should also be subject to a one-for-one replacement housing requirement when necessary. State highway departments may not wish to construct or to manage replace- ment housing themselves. However, there are a number of techniques by which these agencies could participate in furnishing housing. For example, the FHWA could establish a procedure similar to the interest subsidy programs of the Federal Housing Administration. Under this procedure, the state highway depart- ment would subsidize the interest on a loan taken out by the developer, and provide supplemental payments to bring the housing within the financial means of low-income displacees. The state could also assist, through use of its power of eminent domain, in providing suitable land for development. Such replacement units should be sold or rented at the same economic level as the demolished units, and should be of an equivalent size. FHWA regulations should provide that the replacement units be complete before relocation occurs. These proposals could be implemented by the FHWA on an administrative basis. But if the FHWA fails to require state highway departments to provide adequate replacament housing, there inevitably will be further litigation by low-income plaintiffs seeking the substantively adequate assurances required by the relocation acts. B. "Satisfactoriness": The Timing of Assurances Although the readiness to build replacement housing is important, the timeliness of such assurances is equally so. Should replacement housing be required, it must be ready for occupancy by the time relocation actually occurs. Thus, a determination of the need for replacement housing must be made at an early stage--the "location" stage, as it is formally known--in the highway planning process. Another reason compelling the early preparation of satisfactory assurances is the existence of special hardships created by the increasingly lengthy time span of highway planning. A brief review of the formalities of the highway planning process demonstrates the importance of the timing component of "satisfactoriness." Although the highway planning process comprises a complex series of stages, only three of these are relevant to a relocation program: location, design, and right-of-way. Federal approval of state relocation plans is required at each of these stages. III-7