Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie/Dissent Douglas

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice BRENNAN, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

This case involves two federal-aid interstate highway projects in Charleston, West Virginia. Charleston lies in a narrow valley, along the Kanawha River and is bisected on the east by the Elk River which joins the Kanawha near the center of the city. The Triangle district is located along the south side of the Elk and near its mouth. Many of the residents of the Tringle district are elderly and almost all have comparatively low incomes. As often happens with interstate highways, the route selected was through the poor area of town, not through the area where the politically powerful people live.

The common urban housing shortage is severe in Charleston, in part, because many homes have been demolished for public prjects. The impact of public projects in the Triangle has been exceptionally severe. Land clearance for a proposed expansion of a local water company displaced some 243 persons a few years ago. The planned interstate highway will displace about 300 more. And a proposed urban renewal project (which has been postponed indefinitely because of lack of replacement housing) will displace almost all of the area's 2,000 residents.

Although alternative routes for the interstate highway were considered, the route through Triangle was selected and approved in 1964. Federal authorization for the right-of-way was given in 1966 and 1967. There were about 300 persons to be dislocated within Triangle.

On August 23, 1968, the 1968 amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act relating to relocation benefits for persons displaced by federal-aid highways became effective. By that date some 60% of the proposed right-of-way in the present case had been acquired by the State. But the vast majority of persons within the Triangle area, who were to be dislocated by the highway, had not yet been displaced from the area as of the effective date of the 1968 amendments.

Just over three months after the 1968 amendments became effective petitioners commenced this action, arguing that the amendments had not been complied with and that there was no state plan disclosing the existence of adequate replacement housing. Prior to trial only 17 households had been moved and over 280 persons remained to be displaced. Once the construction began however, displacement did occur and the Solicitor General's brief, filed just before oral argument, informs us that only nine persons are left in the Triangle and virtually all the vacant housing has been demolished pursuant to an order of Under Secretary of Transportation Beggs given November 6, 1970.

Much is made of the fact that although originally about 300 people were to be displaced in the Triangle, there remain only nine who have not been taken care of or who have not on their own found new shelter. If only one person were involved, the case would, in my view, be no different. For under our regime even one person can call a halt where government acts lawlessly. And this is patently a case where the federal bureaucracy has defied a congressional mandate.

It is notorious that interstate highways have left displaced citizens without homes because no efforts or inadequate efforts have been made for relocation. In 1962 Congress amended the Federal-Aid Highway Act to require assurances of 'relocation advisory assistance' and authorized minimal payments for relocation assistance. 23 U.S.C. § 133 (repealed by Pub.L. 90-495, § 37, 82 Stat. 836). But, as Judge Sobeloff noted below, the 'cold administrative indifference to the plight of those left without roofs over their heads mounted to the level of a national scandal.' 429 F.2d 423, 424 (dissenting opinion). In 1968 Congress passed certain amendments to the Act to rectify this 'national scandal.'

The 1968 amendments provide that any person displaced by a federal-aid highway project 'may elect to receive actual reasonable expenses in moving.' 23 U.S.C. § 505 (1964 ed., Supp. V). If a property owner, he is entitled to a payment from the State, in addition to the acquisition price of the property taken, of up to $5,000, representing the difference between the acquisition price and the cost of obtaining a comparable dwelling. A tenant may receive up to $1,500 to enable him to rent for a period of two years, or make the down payment on the purchase of a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling 'not * *  * less desirable' than his existing one. 23 U.S.C. § 506 (1964 ed., Supp. V).

The duty of the Secretary of Transportation under the amendments was made explicit. He is to see that the amendments are effective. Under 23 U.S.C. § 502 (1964 ed., Supp. V), he is not to approve any project 'which will cause the displacement of any person, business, or farm operation unless he receives satisfactory assurances from the State Highway department that' (1) fair and reasonable relocation and other payments will be afforded in accordance with the Act, (2) relocation assistance programs will be afforded in accordance with the Act, and (3) 'within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement there will be available, to the extent that can reasonably be accomplished, in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings * *  * equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and individuals and reasonably accessible to their places of employment.'

Satisfactory assurances have been strictly defined by regulation. Instructional Memorandum 80-1-68, § 5a(5) of the Department of Transportation requires that the program be 'realistic.' 'The State highway department, prior to proceeding with * *  * construction shall furnish *  *  * information for review and approval by the division engineer [concerning methods] by which the needs of every individual to be displaced will be evaluated and correlated with available decent, safe, and sanitary housing [and the methods] by which the State will *  *  * inventory *  *  * currently available comparable housing.' (Italics added.) Id., at § 7b. Instructional Memorandum 80-1-68 was issued on September 5, 1968, § 5b of which stated that 'assurances are not required where authorization to acquire right-of-way or to commence construction has been given prior to the issuance of this memorandum.' Even with this restriction, the memorandum would apply to this case since construction was not authorized until the fall of 1969.

The route for the highway was approved in 1964 and approval for acquisition of right-of-way was given in both 1966 and 1967. In early 1968 the Director of Public Roads issued a memorandum to his regional and state administrators directing that relocation problems be considered more extensively. A state plan for Charleston was reviewed and a federal division engineer stated:

'In the Charleston area the State did secure valuable     information relative to persons to be dislocated by a survey      which was a valuable assist in defining the overall problem      involved. It would not be considered, in our opinion, a     complete relocation plan since it did not provide information      either factual, estimated or projected as to the availability      of replacement housing.'

Since there was no need for a relocation plan at all, the division engineer felt that the 'half of a plan' of the State was to their credit. Then on August 23, 1968, the 1968 amendments became effective. Section 511(3) (1964 ed., Supp.) provided that a displaced person was 'any person who moves from real property on or after the effective date of this chapter' as a result of acquisition for a federal-aid highway.

The Secretary did not require the State to comply with the requirements of § 502. Yet as of the effective date of the 1968 amendments there had been no authorization of construction and at least 280 persons remained in the project area to be dislocated. The State finally did prepare a relocation plan, but only in response to this lawsuit and while the federal officials have obtained a copy of it, we are told they have made no attempt to review it. The plan that was prepared does not consider competing and simultaneous needs of other displaced persons because competition was not considered relevant. No formal plan for relocation was submitted to the division engineer because of the administrative interpretation that if authorization to acquire right-of-way had been given prior to August 23, 1968, then the 1968 amendments were of no effect. Subsequent to the District Court order dismissing petitioners' complaint construction was authorized.

This petition should not be dismissed as improvidently granted. Our 'rule of four' allows any four Justices to vote to grant certiorari and set the case for consideration on the merits. The four who now dissent were the only ones to vote to grant the petition. The rule should not be changed to a 'rule of five' by actions of the five Justices who originally opposed certiorari. It is improper for them to dismiss the case after oral argument unless one of the four who voted to grant moves so to do, which has not occurred here. As Mr. Justice Harlan has noted it would save time and money if the five would dismiss as improvidently granted immediately after certiorari is granted rather than waiting for briefs and oral argument. Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U.S. 521, 560, 77 S.Ct. 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 515 (separate opinion). As Justice Harlan's opinion in Ferguson makes clear, it is the duty of the five opposing certiorari to persuade others at Conference, but, failing that, to vote on the merits of the case. Id., at 562, 77 S.Ct., at 479. His advice should be heeded here, lest the integrity of the 'rule of four' be impaired.

I therefore dissent from a dismissal of this petition.