please the court i'm more of a sharon along with mike danielle we were presenting close of communities project this case is about the federal long term housing tax credit program in the dallas area the largest federal affordable housing program is the longer mousing tax credit program and congress gave treasury the authority to regulate this housing program not hud treasury regulates it and administers a jointly with the state housing credit agencies just like h federal housing programs jointly with local housing authorities the tax credit program in dallas area is segregated by both location and occupancy the facts of the segregation of these tax credit projects  c approval and it must own the property in order to obtain the tax credit this case involves obligation to formally for there for housing under the fair housing act under section three thousand six hundred and eight dollars d if you were to win not just as the zero when the whole case what what would you want the district court to do selection regulations that would govern the location of the housing they could provide guidance and they could direct and influence the location of the projects not necessarily to where a specific result was achieved but just to aware that there were opportunities outside of segregated areas available it just seems so general and vague which which gets into this whole area that applies specifically to executive agencies which are the specific releases were leaf is what i mean if you're a treasury official and you get this court order what is it telling what would it be telling you to do would be telling you to implement a site  regulation height implemented its own a family for their for housing duty by doing that with respect to public housing the regulation controls the development of publication of public housing in the location of it  site regulation provide services it would provide for sufficient incomparable opportunities to examine whether there were sufficient comparable opportunities for housing outside of minority concentrated areas it doesn't prevent the placement of housing into we know we're not doing that now no they're not there's no evidence that they've ever done anything with respect to friendly for the for housing and never tried to move any of the public housing out of the  that is not the way the tax credit statute is written the tax credit statute does provide for placement for it and a bonus for putting it into a higher area of poverty but it only can happen if there's a concerted community revitalization plan implemented with it because of tried treasury's lack of regulation of the program all of these projects and dollars were put into place without any concerted community about a certain plan whatsoever it causes a severe discriminatory impact on the tenants involved because the housing is all located in segregated areas and of unequal conditions so when you when you talk about ordering the department of treasury to regulate are you talking about issuing a specific regulation as for example a regulation that would go in the c f r yes that is something that they could do but also they could take steps apart from that well all right but there is is that is there precedent for court having or court ordered an agency to put a specific regulation in the in this in the c f r and prescribing what that regulation is and how it's worded know what would not be prescribing exactly what it was or the leading case on the family for the for housing in that case on remand the court said yes it could have asked hud to regulate but it's decided it didn't need to because  texas it has been put into state law and it has the highest number of points is given for municipal support for of talks about a project therefore if the developer does not get that support from in  and those projects specifically did not get built what is the evidence about projects that were developers wanted to build in no minority areas but were not because they didn't get these points under the  applications in the record and in the city of dallas six of the nine applications submitted were in white areas and they were denied because of the vocal veto because they could not get the support of th with those high costs there were developers and white hair is that submitted applications for tax credits but were denied but but what a regulation by the court or guidance could do could could say that the local priorities for consideration of an application can remain in effect but they cannot be superceded by our overcome a federal requirement on a been impeded by the lack of tax credit housing in small minority areas is that any record any evidence in the record about success of those very few that have been constructed the final agency action in this case because the district court did not discuss what we think is the key president which is sierra club versus glickman which in that case there was a failure to comply with a statutory mandate for twenty five years and that the other to comply was considered to be final agency action now the provision at issue in that case isn't the endangered species act is it was an show that they have that it is a specific statutory mandate but it's not too hard to determine that the agencies can act and all of them agree that that meaning of a for money for the for housing is more than just not discriminating it means to taking affirmative actions over time that will begin to dismantle residential segregation and open up housing outside of minority concentrated area is getting at and there's just some tension between the fair housing act is its goal is eliminating segregated housing these low income tax credits part of their purpose is to help development in poverty stricken areas which in a lot of areas are heavily minority so it seems like there is there is just some tension between the goals of these two statues part of the fair housing act the goal was to help create better conditions in minority concentricity gated areas and the tax credit statute only you can only put the tax credits in these high poverty areas if there is a concern a community revitalization plan and the record shows that these units were put there with th so part of their friendly fire for housing duty would have been right to require a reviles action plan that would have provided wise these areas or help work toward that goal and and then that housing could possibly become available for if it wasn't in such conditions of higher distress and have been revitalize oh i see peace spent three million dollars from two thousand and eight to two thousand and seventeen and mound of security deposits and learn more bonuses on private landlords to accept their clients because of the lack of tax credit housing if there had been tax credit units are required by law to not discriminated against voucher holders and do except after you promised me that the i c p is funded by the walker housing terrible trust fund your honor to add to to the colloquy between the court and counsel and their briefs and the district court decision i would emphasize that the that there are a number of insurmountable problems with with the plaintiff's position here first of all with respect to the relief claims counsel is emphasizing the possibility of regulation well  again the plaintiffs could if they if they chose to do so petition for such a regulation and secure review of it if the did if if the agency's declined to to adopt it but they have not done that they do refer to a petition for rule making that i believe they filed in two thousand and eight but that is not what they're actually challenging here as as as the court correctly pointed out what they are bringing is a much more kind of global programatic challenge of the sort that it's clear from the from the supreme court's decisions in national wildlife that said that the united states had argued this cursorily and rejected it but to date that that decision is if not explicitly overruled certainly at the very least called into question by the courts on bond decision two years later in another case sierra club versus peterson in which the on bank court made it clear that these sorts of the proceed either that the way that the plaintiffs there would have had to proceed would have been by challenging individual timber sales and that's not what they did and d glickman is further distinguish  treasury in your view was that decision and i understand that the result was favorable to you and you wish for us to affirm  but address the question of standing and particularly redress ability as to treasury yes your honor we we we do believe that the district court erred with respect to  situation is also is virtually identical because the there too it's entirely speculative speculative whether whether their injury would be redressed by the by the relief they're seeking because it it all depends on the actions of rd parties from the state state housing author already this project even clearer because o c c regulates such a small slice of the pie on national banks and related institutions and there are so many other potential investors involved but also regarding treasury  the the relief that they're see in the kind of general regulation that they are seeking there is no there there is no assurance whatsoever that that would actually change facts on the ground that it would that or that it would be likely to change facts on the ground that it would be likely to result in more projects being located in the area in the areas where they wanted to and the supreme court highlighted court the the supreme court noted that tension and said that the basic problem is that the that the that the statute favors placing projects the placing using these this case is it further it's also this is also the tail wagging the dog because their principal case which was the one that they brought in two thousand and eight against the texas department of housing and community affairs that was the one that went to the supreme court the they were litigating against the agency that had much more responsibility under the statute for for allocating low income housing tax credits and they were they  timidly failed their claims against against that and these states agency were ultimately dismissed this action which was brought in in two thousand and fourteen and it really  it comes across as essentially an afterthought against agencies that are much more federal agencies that are much more further removed from the from the discrimination the so i'm i'm happy to to to answer any further questions from the court but i believe that we have probably we've covered the issue in our the issues in our submitted a petition for rulemaking to treasury and asked them to enact in a friendlier for their for housing regulations specifically for the tax credit program in that petition i c p informed treasury of the extensive segregation in criteria for the agency to take into account a friendly furthering fair housing obligations and to assess the courses of action that would open up housing outside a segregated areas and assess s sierra club versus peterson is not is not this case because in peterson there has been an action by the agencies that was being challenged here there's been no action at all by either agenc there is standing by c b s standing against o c c as well as treasury o c c has complete and total regulatory control of our banks and can control their behavior in addition i c p offer significant incentives to bank development example of what what hud site selection regulation does the governs the siting of public housing it requires an examination of whether there is significant in comparable opportunities for housing outside of minority concentrated areas before