D.Minn. rejects 1983 action in HUD Act case

The district court for Minnesota held that low income persons and corporations owned by low income persons had no private right to enforce Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. § 1701u, which seeks “to ensure that the employment and other economic opportunities generated by Federal financial assistance for housing and community development programs shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed toward low- and very low-income persons.” The complaint alleged that the City failed to comply with Section 3 in numerous ways, including failing to award a sufficient percentage of contracts to Section 3 businesses, failing to exercise oversight over contractors hired with Section 3 funds to assure that the contractors provide training, employment, and contracting opportunities to Section 3 persons and businesses, and failing to meet Section 3’s reporting requirements. Nails Construction Co. v. City of St. Paul, 2007 WL 423187 (D.Minn. Feb. 6, 2007).

The district court for Minnesota held that low income persons and corporations owned by low income persons had no private right to enforce Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. § 1701u, which seeks “to ensure that the employment and other economic opportunities generated by Federal financial assistance for housing and community development programs shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed toward low- and very low-income persons.”  The complaint alleged that the City failed to comply with Section 3 in numerous ways, including failing to award a sufficient percentage of contracts to Section 3 businesses, failing to exercise oversight over contractors hired with Section 3 funds to assure that the contractors provide training, employment, and contracting opportunities to Section 3 persons and businesses, and failing to meet Section 3’s reporting requirements.   Nails Construction Co. v. City of St. Paul, 2007 WL 423187 (D.Minn. Feb. 6, 2007).