receives a project based rental assistance subsidy from her and us have contracted with the complex to receive decent saving and sanitary units as mandated by hood regulations and housing assistance payment contract between hood and y can put the owner on a plan to to make action so actually the notices of the fault themselves give the owner specify time period so in the record there are two notices of the fall that we every site in the human a complaint get to with their notice god with such standards then the belt is a replacement housing for folks in the community if the owner does come into compliance with cut standards and the husband says his family contract continues to be paid by home then those about risk issued to those families subjects black tenants to i have to go living conditions this is a part of god's pattern for paying for substandard housing for black kids in black neighborhoods while paying for have to go housing for white tents and white neighborhoods has a duty under section the sub standard living conditions with respect to a complex that is occupied by majority black and yes there are as compared to the living conditions and in other complexes that housing if i chose to relocate  be very focused on the availability of appropriations and a paragraph or two appropriation for relocation vouchers as opposed to seeking the remedy of abatement of the contracts which would terminate payments to the landlord and  require all the time it's to move i want to get one thing clear right from the outset which is that what is not the owner of these projects so judged duncan when you said you know what is the owner have to do under regulation eighty six thousand three hundred and twenty three dollars the owner is private subsidized housing and he not comparing you know apples and apples there you know my one of my concerns was well it seems that the final agency action and the community agency discretion and sort of related are overlapping ideas rule forty four federal register three hundred and sixty three there's a section talking about effects on the eligible family if the contract is terminated and it says will provide assistance in finding eligible families suitable units in other buildings in the event the system's payments are abated abated means stopping the landlord those tenants now lose their ability to live in the housing with subsidized housing and everybody everybody there has to move away then says it is the department's intention the whole contract basically everyone there has to move so it's true if it's true as plaintiffs have pointed out that hud has an additional who wants to look at which is a has the option to both continue to pay the landlord for the unit and its offer relocation saying we have we are in receipt of a request for relocation vouchers from you point we have given the matter consideration you know we are denying your request because we do not think there is no interest at the safety or we don't think that this is a sufficient use of agency priority or whatever that would then be final agency action and we could have a fight about committed agency discretion depending on the reasons that the agency gave but at least there would be something that you'd be pointing out right the agency is reported to deny someone's rights but the agency didn't issue such a letter and it didn't action that has been on lawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed so if you think for example should either is required to issue you a benefit or is required to consider whether to issue you a benefit you bring suit under seven thousand and sixty one dollars to say here is you know here's race discrimination you really have to have some inferences drawn from something that flood was acting on the basis of race and hogs own actions and to point to the fact that private landlords are maintaining unspecified complexes in but although the apart there are associated with the housing agencies there's all manner of reasons to just sort of at the f b i outset question why one should conclude that there's a plausible allegation of discrimination and it really is it's not enough for the  been displaced because of an owner not complying with a regulations and so the notice was indicating that there would be funds to read how those tanks if they were subject to abatement forty years later in this case but we can see actually requires two elements one that there's been a consummation of the agency's decision making process and to think that there are legal consequences or rights have been determined that's her