The Congress hereby declares that the general welfare and security of the Nation and the health and living standards of our people require, as a matter of national purpose, sound development of the Nation’s communities and metropolitan areas in which the vast majority of its people live and work.
To carry out such purpose, and in recognition of the increasing importance of housing and urban development in our national life, the Congress finds that establishment of an executive department is desirable to achieve the best administration of the principal programs of the Federal Government which provide assistance for housing and for the development of the Nation’s communities; to assist the President in achieving maximum coordination of the various Federal activities which have a major effect upon urban community, suburban, or metropolitan development; to encourage the solution of problems of housing, urban development, and mass transportation through State, county, town, village, or other local and private action, including promotion of interstate, regional, and metropolitan cooperation; to encourage the maximum contributions that may be made by vigorous private homebuilding and mortgage lending industries to housing, urban development, and the national economy; and to provide for full and appropriate consideration, at the national level, of the needs and interests of the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in them.
Notes of Decisions
Menge v. North Am. Specialty Ins., 905 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.R.I. 2012).
“Menge sued HUD as evidenced in paragraph five of his Complaint 1 and as an agency of the federal government, HUD is immune from suit. “It is beyond cavil that, as the sovereign, the United States is immune from suit without its consent.”
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 64 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
“; and the HUD Development Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3531 , et seq. Among other things, these contracts restricted the use of low income rental units and the rents chargeable thereon.”
Angleton v. Pierce, 574 F. Supp. 719 (D.N.J. 1983).
“…as large a part of the total need as it can”); Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, §§ 2, 3(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3531 (HUD to “encourage the maximum contributions that may be made by vigorous private home-building and mortgage lending institutions to housing,…”
Jeannette Silva v. East Providence Hous. Auth., Carla A. Hills, Etc., 565 F.2d 1217 (1st Cir. 1977).
“Coming to the specific termination statutes on which the district court relied, we do not view them as unambiguously restricting the general powers provision of 42 U.S.C. § 3531 (i)(6). We start with the observation that a contract provision specifying failure to prosecute…”
Hodges v. Shalala, 121 F. Supp. 2d 854 (D.S.C. 2000).
“2539 (discussing claims against federal housing agency that are not subject to mandatory exhaustion), with 42 U.S.C. §§ 3531 et seq. (1993) (granting authority to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to implement executive policies and legislation).”
United Am., Inc. v. N.B.C.-U.S.A. Hous., Inc. Twenty Seven, 400 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2005).
“Accordingly, under Plaintiffs theory, “HUD has [] been enriched by obtaining the value of [Plaintiffs services in furtherance of the Capital Advance Program under a contract which specifically promises to reimburse the [Pjlaintiffs costs for construction plus a reasonable profit.”
CITY-WIDE COALITION, ETC. v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 356 F. Supp. 123 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
“The statute under which HUD was created, 42 U.S.C. § 3531 et seq., transferred to the Secretary of HUD all the functions, powers and duties of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Public Housing Administration.”
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.