A hot -- but most often neglected -- topic, getting hotter: relocation benefits.
In Osher v. City of St. Louis, No. 17-2402 (Sep. 6, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals joined the Fourth Circuit in its conclusion that the Uniform Relocation Act provisions are mere guidelines (insert our oft-repeated Pirate's Code reference here), and not privately enforceable in court by the property owner the Act was designed to protect.
The facts are pretty straightforward. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, headquartered in St. Louis, was going to move. To sweeten the pot for the agency to remain, the City said "hey, we'll get you a better site right here," and the City's redevelopment agency started a condemnation action in state court against Osher and others, for that better site.
Here's the key phrase from the opinion: "While the state court action was pending, Osher brought suit in the district court and moved for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against the condemnation proceedings." Slip op. at 2. Now, if you know nothing else about the Uniform Relocation Act and related, you have to know that running to federal court to enjoin ongoing state proceedings is going to be a tough one for federal judges to swallow. Sure enough, the district court dismissed, concluding (in addition to exercising Younger abstention), that the URA does not create a private right to action.
The Eighth Circuit had no problem affirming. The URA does have requirements:
Whenever a program or project to be undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person, the head of the displacing agency shall provide for the payment to the displaced person of—(1) actual reasonable expenses in moving himself, his family, business, farm operation, or other personal property; [and] . . .(3) actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business or farm . . . .
But those requirements aren't there to benefit property owners, they are there to regulate the actions of the head of the displacing agency. Slip op. at 7 ("Because the Act is phrased as a directive to the regulated agency, the Act lacks 'the sort of ‘rights-creating’ language critical to showing the requisite congressional intent to create new rights.'").
Thus, the owner's remedy is not to sue the condemning agency for its (alleged) failure to adhere to the URA's requirements, but rather to go apply for URA benefits through the URA's administrative process.
The result here strikes us as odd, although that may be a result of the Supreme Court's current test for whether a federal statute creates a judicially-enforceable private right of action which requires that Congress have clearly intended to create that right. Yes, this part of the URA is directed at limiting the discretion of the displacing agency, but it also requires it to do certain things. Those requirements exist not to limit the agency's discretion in a void, but to benefit the property owner. Does it seem strange that the party the URA was designed to protect can't ask a court to enforce those protections?
Ultimately, the biggest difficulty with this kind of lawsuit isn't that the URA doesn't create a private cause of action, but that the property owner is asking a federal court to enjoin and ongoing state proceedings. Good luck with that.
Barista's note: relocation is such an important topic, we've scheduled two sessions about it at the upcoming 2019 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 24-26, 2019 in Palm Springs, California. First, "How to Work Through Complicated Relocation Issues From A to Z: How to Make it Happen," and "Mass Relocation and Navigating Cultural Conflicts: Displacement of Immigrant and Refugee Communities." Good stuff.
Osher v. City of St. Louis, No. 17-2401 (8th Cir. Sep. 6, 2018)
