74-003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

relocation assurances in existence at the time of the hardship acquisition are only brief and general. Although the state is required to assure that the displaced hardship owner receives adequate relocation housing, the effects of this practice on a tight market may be severe. If they have occurred in sub- stantial numbers, hardship acquisitions may render meaningless the subsequent detailed "right-of-way" relocation assurances. Although the hardship procedure is a necessary response to the individual costs of highway location planning; it should not be used as a device to circumvent the URA's relocation require- ments. Submission of detailed relocation assurancss at the location stage of a highway's plan must be required to avoid the possibility of such circumvention. In the context of displacements resulting from hardship acquisitions, the need for detailed relocation assurances previously required for federal design approval--was recognized in Lathan v. ¥oZpe. Lathan concerned the westernmost leg of Interstate 90 passing through Seattle's black community. In 1968, when affected residents became aware of the highway's planned location, the community began to decline in quality, and the state announced that it would acquire pro- perty under the hardship procedures. No relocation assurances accompanied the state's request for federal approval of these acquisitions. The Ninth Circuit held that the congressional purposes behind the URA required that detailed relocation assurances be prepared not later than the location stage of the highway planning process. The trial court was ordered to enjoin further acquisitions of property until the state submitted an adequate relocation plan. The opinion implies that relocation assurances must be given irmmediately for projects which have already received FHWA location approval. The new requirements of the Lathan decision have not yet been implemented by state highway departments. Some states may resist any requirement that detailed relocation assurances be submitted at the location stage. In part, this is a fear that those living along the highway corridor will become too excited if a survey of their relocation needs is taken. However, preparation of detailed relocation assurances at this early stage would seem preferable to the current practice of allowing coercive hardship acquisitions without the benefit of full relocation assurances. Thus, the Z~than mandate is a sensible resolution of the inherent tension between the due process requirements of highway location planning and the necessity for genuine hardship acquisitions. C. Application of the URA to "ABCD" Federal Hi,ways In both Lathan and Keith the proposed highways were planned to be part of the federal Interstate System. Although such highways are constructed by the states, they are clearly "federal" projects. Because of FHWA approval procedures for highways in the ABCD system, an issue has been raised as to when such ABCD routes become federal highways, and hence subject to the provisions of the URA. Many states obtain federal location approval for projects in the ABCD system, and then proceed to fund much of the preliminary work--including right of way acquisition--from their own highway funds. Only after obtaining federal design approval do the states decide whether to request federal reimbursement. Some states have attempted to avoid complying with FHWA relocation requirements by arguing that highways in the ABCD system are exempt from these requirements until a federal commitment for matching funds is made. The issue of when highways in the ABCD system must comply with FHWA requirements was dealt with squarely in La Raza Unida v. Volpe, a case involving the Foothill Freeway in Hayward, California. Although California had obtained III-9