Agenda - 05-16-2006-5j - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4(P City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 45 88 o BB Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice what products are being used, how minorities, low and moderate income households and men and women are faring in the City lending market. They can also monitor how well local lenders are doing, how the sub prime market is moving and other important information. 8.0 Fair Housing Activities The City of Cuyahoga Falls does not currently have a fair housing program. As of this report they distribute no brochures or other information that would inform residents of their fair housing rights and responsibilities. There are two private non - profit fair housing agencies that service Summit County and offer assistance to residents of the City. Neither organization responded to a request for type and number of fair housing complaints (if any) that they have received regarding the City. City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (Buckeye) is a not -for profit corporation that develops affordable housing through the use of low- income housing tax credits. In 1995, Buckeye purchased land in the City of Cuyahoga Falls, with the intent of developing a affordable housing complex. The site plan was approved by the city council in 1996, but thereafterwas stayed pending a voter's referendum seeking to overturn the approval of the plan. The referendum was later ruled to be in violation of the state constitution. Buckeye brought a fair housing action against the City of Cuyahoga Falls, alleging that the City's decision to allow the referendum to stay the effectiveness of the site plan violated its federal constitutional and statutory rights. The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing Buckeye's equal protection, substantive due process, and Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims. The court of appeals reversed, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact with regard to all three claims. The Supreme Court, by a 9 -0 vote, reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the city could not be held liable for the racially discriminatory actions of its citizens, even if those citizens were city officials were acting in their private capacities. The court seemed to place particular emphasis upon the fact that the referendum vote had never become official (because of the agreement to withhold certification of the vote), by which it held that there had never been any "state action" upon which to find the city liable.