On January 17, 1989, residents of T.B. Watkins Homes, a public housing development operated by the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, filed a class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State of Missouri in the U.S ...
read more >
On January 17, 1989, residents of T.B. Watkins Homes, a public housing development operated by the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, filed a class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by racial discrimination in the provision of public housing. Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the court for an injunction to prevent the defendants from demolishing the T.B. Watkins Homes.
On January 3, 1990, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Judge Dean Whipple) certified the plaintiffs as a class, holding that they had a private cause of action under the U.S. Housing Act section regulating demolitions, and that they had established a prima facie Title VIII claim. Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F.Supp. 1001 (W.D.Mo. 1990).
On November 21, 1991, the parties entered into a Consent Decree, under which the defendants agreed to a comprehensive modernization and rehabilitation of the T.B. Watkins Homes. They agreed to transform the development into safe, decent, and sanitary housing, without any loss of units, to remain viable for at least twenty additional years. The development was to also see improvements in the areas of the playground, park areas, landscaping, outside lighting, and security.
On July 6, 1993, the District Court (Judge Whipple) appointed Robert E. Larson to be the Special Master for the case. On January 22, 1993, the District Court held the defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the Consent Decree, ordering them to pay $86,000 as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.
For the next ten years, the parties continued to quibble over the specific terms of the Consent Decree. On October 4, 2004, the District Court ordered them to begin working on a decree.
According to the PACER docket, which is accurate as of 01/12/2007, the District Court continues to oversee the case and is currently awaiting the parties' new Consent Decree proposal.
Kristen Sagar - 01/11/2007
compress summary
