Opinion ID: 497275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Relocation Act of 1970

Text: 7 In 1970, Congress passed the Relocation Act, concluding nearly a decade of effort directed towards standardizing federal legislation regarding relocation assistance. Alexander v. United States Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 441 U.S. 39, 49, 99 S.Ct. 1572, 1580, 60 L.Ed.2d 28 (1979). Prior to the 1960's, persons displaced when federal agencies acquired property for designated public projects received whatever assistance Congress, on an ad hoc basis, deemed appropriate. Id. 5 8 Responding to substantial variations in relocation benefits, the House Public Works Committee created the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition in 1961. Three years later, the Subcommittee proposed the Fair Compensation Act (FCA) to address the severe deficiencies in existing law. Although never enacted, the FCA, as progenitor of the URA, formed the basis for most of the provisions ultimately codified in the Relocation Act. Alexander, 441 U.S. at 49, 99 S.Ct. at 1580. Thus, the FCA's declared purpose--to afford persons affected by the acquisition of real property in Federal and federally assisted programs ... fair and equitable treatment on a basis as nearly uniform as is practicable--is instructive. Select Subcommittee Study 147 (emphasis added). Id. at 50, 99 S.Ct. at 1590. That Congress refused to abandon this broad objective is palpable in the express terms of Sec. 201 of the URA. That section provides: Declaration of policy 9 The purpose of this subchapter is to establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally assisted programs in order that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. 10 A House Public Works Committee report which accompanied the URA fleshed out the purpose of the law: 11 The need for [the URA] arises from the increasing impact of Federal and federally assisted programs as such programs have evolved to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly urban population.    Also, a major public project--be it a highway, urban renewal project, or hospital--inevitably involves the acquisition and clearance of sites which now provide residential, commercial, or other services. As the thrust of Federal and federally assisted programs have [sic] shifted from rural to urban situations, it became increasingly apparent that the application of traditional concepts of valuation and eminent domain resulted in inequitable treatment for large numbers of people displaced by public action. When applied to densely populated urban areas, with already limited housing, the result can be catastrophic for those whose homes or businesses must give way to public needs. The result far too often has been that a few citizens have been called upon to bear the burden of meeting public needs. 12 H.R.Rep. No. 91-1656, 2d Sess., reprinted in 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5850, 5851 (emphasis added). 13 Our review of the challenged awards under the URA must take place against this background of strong congressional support for the fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons and businesses, as well as Congress' expressed willingness to depart from traditional notions of valuation and eminent domain.