42 U.S.C. § 4501
Congressional statement of purpose
It is the policy of the Congress and the purpose of this chapter to provide for the development of a national urban policy and to encourage the rational, orderly, efficient, and economic growth, development, and redevelopment of our States, metropolitan areas, cities, counties, towns, and communities in predominantly rural areas which demonstrate a special potential for accelerated growth; to encourage the prudent use and conservation of energy and our natural resources; and to encourage and support development which will assure our communities and their residents of adequate tax bases, community services, job opportunities, and good housing in well-balanced neighborhoods in socially, economically, and physically attractive living environments.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1973–2015 · leading case: Bor-Son Bldg. Corp. v. Keith R. Heller, 572 F.2d 174 (8th Cir. 1978).
Bor-Son Bldg. Corp. v. Keith R. Heller, 572 F.2d 174 (8th Cir. 1978). “Here, the project agreement executed in 1971 between the Secretary and Cedar-Riverside Land Company recited: “[T]he Secretary’s interest in the development of the Project as a new community is not limited to his financial interests as guarantor .”
Mid-Texas Commc'ns Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 615 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir. 1980). “It qualified under the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq., which provides for government guarantees of the bonds of private new community developers up to a maximum of $50,000,000, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development…”
Piszel v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 793 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “2654; 42 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. HERA, among other things, replaced OF-HEO with the newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”).”
Cedar-Riverside Assocs., Inc., Etc. v. The City of Minneapolis & the Minneapolis Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 606 F.2d 254 (8th Cir. 1979). “], the specific provisions of which Plaintiffs have alleged Defendant City of Minneapolis and MHRA with violating. Although the appellants’ argument on this point is somewhat vague, the “specific provision” of the Housing Act which the appellees allegedly violated apparently is…”
Cedar-Riverside Env't Def. Fund v. Carla A. Hills, 560 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1977). “2 In *379 1971, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guaranteed $24 million of the developer’s obligations pursuant to Title VII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4501 et seq. On December 13, 1973, the plaintiffs…”
Cedar-Riverside Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 459 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Minnesota 1978). “In 1971, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guaranteed $24 million of the developer’s obligations pursuant to Title VII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4501 et seq. The New Community Development Corporation within…”
Sierra Club v. Lynn, 364 F. Supp. 834 (W.D. Tex. 1973). “, and the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4501 et seq. Subsequently, the Edwards Underground Water District (EUWD) and Bexar County, Texas, intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB)…”
Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1974). “, and the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq., four citizens groups (the Sierra Club, Citizens for a Better Environment, League of Women Voters of the San Antonio Area, and American Association of University Women, San…”
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.