24 C.F.R. § 570.303
Certifications
The jurisdiction must make the certifications that are set forth in 24 CFR part 91 as part of the consolidated plan.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1975–1986 · leading case: City of Hartford v. Towns of Glastonbury, 561 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1977).
City of Hartford v. Towns of Glastonbury, 561 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1977). “” 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (c)(2). During 1975, the first year in which the Act was in effect, it became clear that accurate predictions of the future would not be easy to make.”
City of Hartford v. Hills, 408 F. Supp. 889 (D. Conn. 1976). “Although these regulations concern the “expected to reside” section of the Housing Assistance Plan for future grant applications, they were not, obviously, used in evaluating the grants challenged in this case.”
Lower Moreland Homeowner's Ass'n v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 479 F. Supp. 886 (E.D. Pa. 1979). “§ 5304 (a)(6); 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (a). The regulations mandate that “There shall be involvement of .”
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored Persons v. Hills, 412 F. Supp. 102 (N.D. Cal. 1976). “Defendants argue that Section 5304(a)(2)(B) and 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 do not require that the applicant make mention of alternate funding for each project in the Community Development plan.”
Broaden v. Harris, 451 F. Supp. 1215 (W.D. Pa. 1978). “Likewise, Plaintiffs must fail as a matter of law in their challenge based on the allegation that the City has not given maximum feasible priority to activities benefiting low or -moderate income persons in violation of Section 5304(b)(2) and 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (e)(6), in that…”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Chester, 413 F. Supp. 1299 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “It is clear to me that the Secretary is invested with a large measure of discretion in determining whether “satisfactory assur *1308 anees” have been given by the applicant (§ 5304(a)(5)); whether to accept certification from the applicant regarding compliance (§ 5304(b)(4); 24…”
Ulster Cnty. Cmty. Action Comm., Inc. v. Koenig, 402 F. Supp. 986 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “The Rules and Regulations of HUD, 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (e)(2) (1975), provide in part: “The Act provides that no part of this paragraph shall be construed to restrict the responsibility and authority of the applicant for the development of the application and the execution of its…”
City of Miami v. Rodriguez-Quesada, 388 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). “§ 5304 (a)(6); 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (1979). The City of Miami applied for a block grant under this program.”
Centrum Prime Meats, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 455 A.2d 742 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “Testimony describing PAC leads this Court to believe that it is the organization which fulfills the Citizen Participation Requirements of 24 C.F.R. §570.303 , pertinent to the use of federal funds for neighborhood rehabilitation.”
Derosa v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 787 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1986). “Appellants claim that the citizens were not provided with “adequate and timely information” within the meaning of 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (c)(4) (1982), “so as to enable them to be meaningfully involved in important decisions at various stages of the program.”
City of Loveland v. Pierce, 564 F. Supp. 76 (S.D. Ohio 1983). “24 C.F.R. § 570.303 . The HAP contains a survey of the housing stock of the community, an assessment of the community’s housing needs, a realistic goal for the provision of assisted housing, and a designation of the general location for proposed low-income housing.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 570.303(a) — 1 case
Broaden v. Harris, 451 F. Supp. 1215 (W.D. Pa. 1978). “Likewise, Plaintiffs must fail as a matter of law in their challenge based on the allegation that the City has not given maximum feasible priority to activities benefiting low or -moderate income persons in violation of Section 5304(b)(2) and 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (e)(6), in that…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 570.303(e)(4)(ii) — 1 case
Broaden v. Harris, 451 F. Supp. 1215 (W.D. Pa. 1978). “Likewise, Plaintiffs must fail as a matter of law in their challenge based on the allegation that the City has not given maximum feasible priority to activities benefiting low or -moderate income persons in violation of Section 5304(b)(2) and 24 C.F.R. § 570.303 (e)(6), in that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.