Opinion ID: 385855
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: C. 1971, 20-8.1-6.5-1, et seq

Text: 8 These examples are taken from district court opinions published at 332 F.Supp. 655 (1971) and 368 F.Supp. 1191 (1973) 9 See 573 F.2d 400, 405-07 (7th Cir. 1978) and 541 F.2d 1211, 1217-18, 1221-22 (7th Cir. 1976) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 429 U.S. 1068, 97 S.Ct. 800, 50 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977) 10 Carson v. State to Use of Town of Hanover, 1867, 27 Ind. 465, and cases cited in 332 F.Supp. 655, 675, n.86 11 Indiana Acts 1931, Ch. 94 § 1 12 Indiana Act 1959, Ch. 202 (School Reorganization Act) 13 Indiana Act 1961, Ch. 186 (School Annexation Statute). The Act applied only to school corporations located in whole or in part in a county containing a civil city of the first class. Since Indianapolis is the only first class city in Indiana, the Act applied only to Marion County. Section 9 of the Act provided for a presumptive expansion of school district boundaries whenever a civil annexation occurred. In fact, section 9 applied only to the school districts of Indianapolis, Speedway, and Beech Grove 14 The district court also received and considered other evidence presented on the question of racial motivation, including the statements of a black state legislator who testified that race was never considered in drafting the legislation at issue here. That testimony was properly considered by the district court judge but does not compel a result contrary to the one reached 15 IPS argues that the district court erred in not making the findings suggested by this court and urges us to find from our own review of the record a significant present impact on residential housing segregation caused by intentionally discriminatory state actions. The record is far from clear, however, and we assume that the district court judge understood our instructions when he decided to limit his discussion of housing issues to the placement of public housing. We note that many of the blatantly discriminatory housing practices described in 332 F.Supp. 655, 662-663 were private acts, e.g., refusals by real estate brokers to show homes in white neighborhoods to blacks, newspaper advertising that described certain homes as for colored, and the harassment, sometimes violent, of blacks who did manage to purchase homes in white neighborhoods 16 The eleventh project is the Lockfield Gardens project, built in 1936, for blacks, by the U.S. Public Housing Administration. The management of that project (which is now closed by order of the district court) was assumed by HACI in 1964 17 Judge Tone notes in the dissent that in the outlying areas of old Indianapolis, where most of these projects were built, existing housing was occupied predominately by white families. The district court, however, specifically denied the 1971 request by the government to find that the placement of housing in those areas tended to promote integration. 332 F.Supp. 655, 674, n.81. (S.D. Ind. 1971). In any event, for the purpose of this appeal, the critical finding by the district court is the one quoted above, the finding of (an) invidious purpose to keep blacks within pre-Uni-Gov Indianapolis and IPS, and to keep the territory of the added suburban defendants segregated for the use of whites only. 18 See 332 F.Supp. 655, 674 (1971) 19 United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, c. 338. Title III § 301, 63 Stat. 422 (1949) 20 Technically this evidence was received solely on the question of what sort of interdistrict remedy might be appropriate in this case: i.e., in the remedy rather than the liability phase of the proceedings below. In a discussion of a school desegregation plan that crosses district lines, however, the line between liability and remedy is not always distinct and since the evidence, if accepted might support the district court's decision to impose a city-wide desegregation order, it is being discussed at this point in our opinion 21 456 F.Supp. at 191 22 368 F.Supp. 1191, 1205 (1973) 23 We are mindful of the contentions of the school districts of Speedway and Beech Grove that they were not affected by the exclusion of schools from the Uni-Gov legislation and that therefore their inclusion in the interdistrict remedy ordered by the court was inappropriate. We will discuss their situation at a later point in the opinion 24 Although it is appropriate to discuss the Dayton II and Columbus cases in light of our earlier discussion of Dayton I, we do not rest our decision on either case. Both dealt with single school districts only and it is not necessary that we attempt to extend their discussions of affirmative duties to desegregate or burdens of proof to this multi-district situation 25 We also note that the Uni-Gov legislation, while to a large extent preserving the separate identities of Speedway and Beech Grove, did modify the absolute bar to unilateral annexation which had previously existed. IC 1971 18-4-15-1 1 The case was filed on May 31, 1968. Its progress may be charted as follows: United States v. Board of School Comm'rs of Indianapolis, 332 F.Supp. 655 (S.D. Ind. 1971) (Indianapolis I ), aff'd, 474 F.2d 81 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 3066, 37 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1973); United States v. Board of School Comm'rs of Indianapolis, 368 F.Supp. 1191 (S.D. Ind.) (Indianapolis II ), supp. mem. of decision, 368 F.Supp. 1223 (S.D. Ind. 1973) (Indianapolis III ), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded, 503 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 929, 95 S.Ct. 1654, 44 L.Ed.2d 86, on remand, 419 F.Supp. 180 (S.D. Ind. 1975) (Indianapolis IV ), aff'd, 541 F.2d 1211 (7th Cir. 1976), vacated and remanded, 429 U.S. 1068, 97 S.Ct. 802, 50 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977), on remand, 573 F.2d 400 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 824, on remand, 456 F.Supp. 183 (S.D. Ind. 1978) (Indianapolis V ). This sequence excludes the many unpublished orders involved in the case 2 Indianapolis I, 332 F.Supp. 655 (S.D. Ind. 1971), aff'd 474 F.2d 81 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 3066, 37 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1973) 3 Indianapolis II, 368 F.Supp. at 1199 4 Indianapolis IV, 573 F.2d 400 (on remand from 429 U.S. 1068, 97 S.Ct. 802, 50 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977)) 5 Indianapolis IV, 573 F.2d at 410-11 (Swygert J.); id. at 415 (Fairchild, C. J., concurring); id. (Tone J., dissenting); but cf. id. at 404 (Swygert, J.) 6 Indianapolis IV, 541 F.2d at 1224 (Tone, J., dissenting); Indianapolis IV, 573 F.2d at 415 (Tone, J., dissenting) (on remand from the Supreme Court) 7 The clearly erroneous standard is applicable to the district court's findings of discriminatory purpose. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 454-55, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2945, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); id. at 468, 99 S.Ct. at 2952 (Burger, C. J., concurring); id. at 469, 99 S.Ct. at 2983 (Stewart, J., concurring and dissenting); Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 534-35 n.8, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2977-78 n.8, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979) (Dayton II ). But cf. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. at 490-92, 99 S.Ct. at 2953-54 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). See also id. at 457 n.6, 99 S.Ct. at 2946 n.6 (opinion of the Court) I take the standard to mean here, as elsewhere, that district court findings must stand unless we can form a definite and firm conviction, on the record, that they are in error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 541, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); Apolskis v. Concord Life Ins. Co., 445 F.2d 31, 34 (7th Cir. 1971). As the Dayton and Columbus cases make clear, school desegregation cases are not subject to a special laissez-faire theory of appellate review, Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, supra, 443 U.S. at 543, 99 S.Ct. at 2982 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Moreover, our duty of deference with respect to facts found in the district court is qualified by our especially heavy duty, in a constitutional case, to make an independent examination of the record. Cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285, 84 S.Ct. 710, 728, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). We must ascertain whether the evidence adduced supports the conclusion drawn under the controlling principles of law. The duty of both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, in a case such as this, . . . is to first determine whether there was any (state) action . . . which was intended to, and did in fact, discriminate against minority pupils . . . . Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2775, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (Dayton I ). 8 As the majority recognizes, this case does not involve the sort of stark pattern of disproportionate racial effect that may, without more, give rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., supra, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S.Ct. at 563; see also Washington v. Davis, supra, 426 U.S. at 254, 96 S.Ct. at 2054 (Stevens, J., concurring) 9 The district court's discussion of historical background was, in the main, limited to a general survey of past discrimination in Indiana. It was not focused on the history of the decision to adopt Uni-Gov. Indianapolis V, 456 F.Supp. at 186-87. Quite apart from what appear to be serious questions concerning the record support for some of the district court's historical findings, the fact that Indiana, like most if not all other states in the Union, has a history of past acts of discrimination does not, in my view, lend much weight to the conclusion that the present generation of Indiana public officials, or the public they represent, has learned nothing from the lessons of the past 10 I can find nothing in the district court's consideration of the specific sequence of events leading to Uni-Gov that would support an inference of invidious purpose. See id. at 187. For example, although the district court found otherwise, Mayor Lugar's testimony indisputably contains numerous educational or governmental reasons for excluding schools from Uni-Gov. See notes 11 & 12 infra 11 State Representative Ray Crowe, who is black, served on the Indiana House Committee on the Affairs of Marion County in 1969, when Uni-Gov was debated by that committee. He testified at trial, in response to a question that asked if race had been a factor in excluding schools from Uni-Gov: I am positive race did not enter into the discussions or reasons whatsoever. See also note 12 infra. Two members of the Metropolitan Planning Commission that participated in the development of the Uni-Gov proposal were also black Then Mayor, now Senator, Lugar testified at trial that his task force for the planning of Uni-Gov discussed the inclusion of schools only briefly and rejected the idea out of hand because, first, under the 1959 School Corporation Reorganization Act, see note 31 infra, officials had already thoroughly considered and rejected the idea of a county-wide school system, see notes 12 & 14 infra, and, second, the administration of schools had traditionally been handled separately from the administration of civil government. Lugar testified after having reviewed the minutes of the task force meetings. Cf. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268, 97 S.Ct. 555, 565, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). 12 As is clear from even a cursory study of the history of school district boundaries in Indiana, one factor of great importance has always been school financing. Mayor Lugar testified at trial that IPS opposed expansion of its boundaries because it would be to the disadvantage of the Indianapolis Public School System if the tax base was county-wide. He further observed that, at the time reorganization of the school systems was considered, Indianapolis had already built its schools, but that the same was not true of the suburbs. Expansion would have caused city taxpayers to assume the burden of financing the construction of suburban schools and would thus have been unfair. In 1967, the Board of School Commissioners of IPS adopted a resolution declaring that expansion of IPS throughout Marion County would serve neither the economic interests of IPS nor the educational interests of its students Representative Ray Crowe testified that the objection to inclusion of IPS in Uni-Gov was that the schools have been recently reorganized and the school systems prefer to be independent and carry on with their school systems as they were at that time. Charles Whistler, one of the drafters of Uni-Gov, testified to the same effect. He further testified that inclusion of the schools in Uni-Gov might have impaired the value of their bonds. It appears that factors usually considered important, such as financing, local control, and administrative continuity, strongly favored the result reached in Uni-Gov, and not its opposite. It should be noted also that any inclusion of schools in Uni-Gov would have presented very complicated problems. Among other things, the statutory inclusion would have had to deal with the method of selecting a governing body; the rights of teachers serving under different collective bargaining agreements with different pay scales; the degree of local control to be accorded to suburban schools, if any; and an equitable apportionment of existing assets and liabilities of the various school corporations. 13 The district court apparently was of the view, in fact, that discriminatory effects alone, if foreseeable, are sufficient to shift to the state the burden of proof on the issue of purpose. Indianapolis V, 456 F.Supp. at 189 (citing Oliver v. Michigan State Bd. of Educ., 508 F.2d 178, 182 (6th Cir. 1974)). As the Supreme Court has since made clear, this view is incorrect. Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 536 n.9, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2978 n.9 (1979) 14 See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 270 n.21, 97 S.Ct. 555, 566 n.21, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). As the majority observed in Indianapolis IV, 541 F.2d at 1217, The Marion County Reorganization Committee, appointed pursuant to the (School Corporation Reorganization) Act (of 1959), initially recommended that all school systems in the county be merged into one, but the unanimous opposition of the suburban school districts defeated the merger proposal. There is no evidence that this opposition was racially motivated. Ultimately, IPS, like the suburban districts, opposed consolidation. See note 12 supra. The following passage from the 1975 trial is also illuminating: The Court: I don't know. The defendants will tell us in due time what these exhibits all mean, but I at this moment I rather infer that the purpose of the exhibits is to prove or tend to prove that the present division of Marion County into eleven separate school districts is something that happened because of reasons pertaining primarily to school finances as well as to the desire of non-IPS schools to maintain local autonomy rather than for reasons of separating students based on race. I presume that is the point of these exhibits. I presume that if the Government or the intervening plaintiffs had some evidence to the contrary that they would be cross-examining, or examining along those lines. Now I have said at one point in these proceedings that it may not make a difference what the motive was, the only question would be what was the result . . . . The record contains nothing to indicate that the normal desire for local financing and control of the school districts, see note 12 supra, was not the prime reason for the failure of the county-wide school district proposal. Thus, the desire for autonomous local schools would, so far as the record reveals, have blocked any county-wide consolidation of the schools either in Uni-Gov or elsewhere. There is nothing sinister about this: No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools; local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support for public schools and to quality of the educational process. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 741-42, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125-3126, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974). 15 Indianapolis V, 456 F.Supp. at 188. The schools were never eliminated from Uni-Gov. As Mayor Lugar testified at trial, no draft of the proposed legislation ever included the schools The crucial section was § 9 of Indiana Acts 1961, Ch. 186. It provided, in pertinent part, (a) Whenever the boundaries of any civil city are extended by a civil annexation which becomes effective as of a date subsequent to the effective date of this act, the boundaries of the school city which has jurisdiction over the area of such civil city or the major portion thereof shall be correspondingly extended by virtue of such civil annexation, subject only to the further provisions of this Section. Section 9(b) gave a right of remonstrance to the losing school corporation. Further provisions of the Act are summarized in note 33 infra. Section 9 was repealed by Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 52, § 2 (codified as Ind.Code § 20-3-14-11). This Act substituted a provision which allowed alteration of school boundaries only through a modified school annexation procedure. 16 Indiana Acts 1905, Ch. 129, §§ 241-244 (as amended by Indiana Acts 1955, Ch. 269) (repealed); Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 239, §§ 301 & 401-414 (codified as Ind.Code §§ 18-5-10-8 & -19 to -32) 17 For example, unlike the Indiana civil annexation procedure for effecting a union between two towns or cities, see Indiana Acts 1905, Ch. 129, § 241 (repealed); Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 239, § 301 (codified as Ind.Code § 18-5-10-8), Uni-Gov provided for a limited merger of Indianapolis and other cities and towns in Marion County without a consolidation agreement or a referendum. See Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 173, §§ 102(e) & 406 (codified as Ind.Code §§ 18-4-1-2 & 18-4-4-6). Similarly, the resulting consolidated city did not possess powers that were uniformly applicable to all territory within its borders; civil annexation or union of cities and towns could not have produced this result. Compare Indiana Acts 1905, Ch. 129, §§ 241, 242a & 244 (as amended by Indiana Acts 1955, Ch. 269, § 2) (repealed) and Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 239, § 407(c) (codified as Ind.Code § 18-5-10-25(c)), with, e. g., Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 173, §§ 234, 314 & 406 (codified as Ind.Code §§ 18-4-2-34, -3-14 & -4-6) 18 Civil annexation as a means of expanding Indianapolis boundaries had proved unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, because unilateral annexation by Indianapolis could not affect the territory of adjacent cities and towns. Speedway, Beech Grove, and Lawrence blocked Indianapolis expansion on the west, southeast, and northeast. The fifteen other municipalities in Marion County were also immune to unilateral civil annexation. Second, the remonstrance procedure gave property owners and residents the right to effectively block annexations by tying them up in lengthy litigation. This right was employed against virtually every attempt by Indianapolis at unilateral annexation, because, as city planner Vogelgesang testified, residents resisted annexation and felt the city could not provide them with services for the additional tax money that they would be paying. Thus, Mayor Lugar stated the reasons that led him to pursue the idea of Uni-Gov as follows: (A)nnexation as it was then part of our law was simply not going to make any difference, . . . in each of these cases we were successfully blocked and it did not occur to me circumstances in which annexation by the civil city could be successfully pursued in any large manner. So, as a result, I was intrigued by (the idea of Uni-Gov) . . . . He further stated: (T)he Uni-Gov concept was not a concept of annexation. It was essentially a concept of governmental reorganization which left the whole annexation question really totally to the side. Thus Charles Whistler, one of a group of attorneys who drafted Uni-Gov, testified at trial that civil annexation statutes had no application to Uni-Gov. No different conclusion can result from the provision of Indiana Acts 1961, Ch. 186, § 1(e), which defined civil annexation as any action extending the boundaries of a civil city. The remainder of the 1961 Act makes plain that the annexation meant was that previously defined by statute. E. g., id. § 9(b): Whenever . . . a civil city shall adopt an ordinance effecting such a civil annexation as is described in Section 9(a) of this act, the losing school corporation shall have the right to remonstrate under the provisions of Indiana Acts 1905, Ch. 129, § 243 (as amended), the then applicable civil annexation statute. 19 The majority attempts to draw an inference of discriminatory purpose from the fact that the repeal of § 9 passed as a special bill, just sixteen days before final passage of the Uni-Gov legislation. Ante at 1107. Even if § 9 had had any potential application to Uni-Gov, which it plainly did not, the time of passage of the repealer bill should not be considered in isolation from the history of the bill. The majority has overlooked the fact that the repeal was first proposed in 1967, and indeed was passed by both houses of the Indiana legislature in that year but failed to become law because vetoed by the predecessor in office of the Governor who ultimately signed the repeal. The former Governor's 1967 veto message said that the bill might contain a possibility of partisan political mischief. As Mayor Lugar testified: In '67 Uni-Gov was not being thought of. Moreover, as is demonstrated in note 18, supra, there were virtually no civil city annexations for IPS to follow for many years before 1969 because the difficulties described in note 18, supra, made them impracticable; this failure of the annexation mechanism was, as Mayor Lugar testified, the major reason for the passage of Uni-Gov. The failure of civil annexation was surely also a prime reason for the repeal of § 9 and other civil annexation provisions in 1969. All this, as well as the inapplicability to Uni-Gov of a statute dealing with civil annexation, see text supra, is ignored in the majority's conclusion, ante at 1107, that the repeal of section 9 of the 1961 Act appears to have been done in direct response to concerns that otherwise the boundaries of IPS would expand with the borders of the new City of Indianapolis. The record contains no evidence that such concerns existed and no basis for inferring their existence from other facts 20 Uni-Gov was beyond the terms of the 1961 Act, and thus unaffected by the 1969 repealer of § 9 of that Act, for yet another reason: Uni-Gov itself explicitly excluded schools from the reorganization plan, Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 173, § 314 (codified as Ind.Code § 18-4-3-14); there was thus no need to attempt to exclude the schools by another enactment. Nor was the exclusion of schools from Uni-Gov remarkable. The Health and Hospital Corporation was excluded, as were the county offices of auditor, recorder, treasurer, sheriff, coroner, surveyor, clerk of the circuit court, and assessor. Police and fire protection were organized into special service districts which expanded beyond Indianapolis only in accordance with defined procedures; these districts apparently have expanded little since 1970. The excluded cities of Speedway, Beech Grove, Lawrence, and Southport retained control over aspects of local government such as police, fire, and sanitary services. The following agencies were also wholly or partly excluded: the airport authority and board; the county department of welfare and board; the county home board; the building authority, board of trustees and board of directors; the capital improvements board of managers; the housing authority; the library districts and boards; and all other municipal corporations, boards, agencies and commissions not expressly included in the Act. Id.; see also id. § 404 (codified as Ind.Code § 18-4-4-4). The reason for these exclusions, Mayor Lugar testified, was to limit Uni-Gov and thereby insure the passage of its needed organizational improvements. Lugar said his attitude at the time was that so long as a reasonable structure that allows for a county executive and county legislature and a bare boned situation . . . gives us some possibility to amend our future, I would be willing to settle for that. He further noted that many compromises in the areas of fire, police, and administrative agencies had to be worked out before the intricate process of negotiations produced the accommodation that was Uni-Gov. See also note 12 supra 21 Ind.Const. art. IX, § 1 (1816) (superseded); Indiana Acts 1818, Ch. 49; Indiana Revised Laws 1824, Ch. 97; Indiana Revised Laws 1831, Ch. 86; Indiana Revised Statutes 1838, Ch. 94; Indiana Revised Statutes 1843, Ch. 15; H. Hawkins, Indiana's Road to Statehood, A Documentary Record 9-16 & 60-67 (Indiana Sesquicentennial Commission 1964) 22 Indiana Revised Statutes 1843, Ch. 15, § 32 23 Id. §§ 35 & 38 24 Ind.Const. art. 8, § 1 (1851) 25 Indiana Revised Statutes 1852, Ch. 98; Indiana Acts 1855; Ch. 86; Indiana Acts 1859, Ch. 119, § 1 (codified as Ind.Code 1971, § 20-2-8-1); Indiana Acts 1861, Ch. 41, § 4; Indiana Acts 1865, Ch. 1, § 4 (repealed by Indiana Acts 1972, P.L. No. 170, § 1) 26 Indiana Acts 1897, Ch. 72, § 1 27 Indiana Acts 1899, Ch. 160 28 Indiana Acts 1901, Ch. 200 29 Indiana Acts 1911, Chs. 187 & 193; Indiana Acts 1915, Ch. 141; Indiana Acts 1917, Chs. 19, 23 & 148; Indiana Acts 1919, Chs. 151, 216 & 229; Indiana Acts 1921, Ch. 268; Indiana Acts 1925, Ch. 134; Indiana Acts 1927, Chs. 58, 111 & 225; Indiana Acts 1937, Ch. 154 30 Indiana Acts 1947, Ch. 123 (codified as Ind.Code 1971, § 20-4-5) (as amended); Indiana Acts 1949, Ch. 226 (codified as Ind.Code 1971, § 20-4-8) (as amended) 31 Indiana Acts 1959, Ch. 202 (codified as Ind.Code 1971, § 20-4-1). The statute disregarded municipal, county, and township boundaries in its pursuit of an efficient and economical reorganization plan best suited to local conditions. Id. § 1 (Ind.Code 1971, § 20-4-1-1). Under this statute, the present boundaries of school corporations in Marion County were set. I do not understand appellees to contend that there was anything unconstitutional about the process that fixed these boundaries. It is also noteworthy that the school reorganizations accomplished pursuant to the 1959 Act resulted in school boundaries not coterminous with other units of government in 70% of the school corporations in Indiana. Indianapolis IV, 541 F.2d at 1217 32 The majority observes, ante at 1107, that, although there was seldom a perfect correspondence between civil city and school boundaries the exceptions were generally in favor of larger, rather than smaller, school districts. This appears to be a reference to the 1959 School Corporation Reorganization Act, which, as noted above, disregarded civil unit boundaries to achieve school corporations with a larger tax base. It seems to me possible, however, that the majority means by this comment to indicate that the failure to expand IPS boundaries was somehow inconsistent with a subsidiary policy favoring the larger over the small school corporation. As is plain, however, IPS had no need to expand to improve its tax base: IPS was, and apparently still is, the most fiscally secure school corporation in Marion County. Moreover, IPS is now the 29th largest school corporation in the nation, and Marion County contains no school corporation below the median size of Indiana's 305 school corporations. As there was no need after 1959 to enlarge the tax base of any of the Marion County school corporations, there was also no need to expand IPS boundaries to the county line The majority also appears to believe that the policy favoring coterminous boundaries was enforced particularly in Marion County. Ante at 1108. I have, I hope, sufficiently demonstrated the absence of such a policy either in Marion County or elsewhere in Indiana. Moreover, neither the record nor the majority opinion suggests any rationale that could conceivably underlie a policy of coterminous boundaries with respect to only one county in Indiana. 33 The 1961 Act contemplated, by its very terms, that coterminous boundaries were not an inviolate policy. It speaks of school districts and cities that occupy all or the major part in area of one another. Indiana Acts 1961, Ch. 186, § 1(b) & (c); see also note 15 supra. Moreover, it allowed two school corporations to transfer territory between them by agreement regardless of civil boundaries, § 3, allowed IPS, as well as the School Cities of Speedway and Beech Grove, a conditional power of unilateral annexation of territory from an adjoining school corporation, § 4, and provided, in the case of a civil annexation, for agreement between the losing and the gaining school corporations to disregard for school purposes all or part of the alteration brought about by the civil annexation, § 9(c). Indeed, actions taken pursuant to the 1961 Act did in fact cause the separation of IPS and Indianapolis boundaries 34 Concerning the turn-key method, see 24 C.F.R. § 841.201 et seq. (1979) 35 Indianapolis IV, 541 F.2d at 1216 36 The Housing Authority depends on federal contributions and federal guarantees of its bonds. Neither Indiana nor any state agency underwrites the Authority's financing. Ind.Code § 18-7-11-14 37 The applicable provision at the time was 42 U.S.C. § 1415(7)(b)(i). 42 U.S.C. § 1437c(e) (1976) is the recodification of that provision and is identical in all relevant respects. It provides, in pertinent part, In recognition that there should be local determination of the need for low-income housing to meet needs not being adequately met by private enterprise (1) . . . (2) the Secretary shall not make any contract for loans . . . or for annual contributions pursuant to this chapter unless the governing body of the locality involved has entered into an agreement with the public housing agency providing for the local cooperation required by the Secretary pursuant to this chapter. 38 Although a cooperation agreement requires the governing body to agree to waive real and personal property taxes on the project, the governing body can receive, in lieu thereof, up to ten percent of the rental income. 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(d) (1976); see also Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metrop. Housing Auth., 355 F.Supp. 1245, 1248 (N.D.Ohio 1973). Besides the waiver of taxes, HUD regulations current in 1966 required that cooperation agreements contain a promise by the governing body to eliminate unsafe and insanitary dwelling units and to supply public services, as well as other forms of cooperation to the projects. 24 C.F.R. § 1520.1(f) & .3 (1966). Deputy Mayor Carroll so testified at trial. See also James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137, 143 n.4, 91 S.Ct. 1331, 1334 n.4, 28 L.Ed.2d 678 (1972): (T)he local government body must agree to provide all municipal services for the units and to waive all taxes on the property. The local services to be provided include schools, police, and fire protection, sewers, streets, drains, and lighting. The applicable regulations today are no different in this regard. 24 C.F.R. § 841.102(c) & .110(b) (1979); cf. id. § 200.710; see also notes 44 & 45 infra. Thus, without a cooperation agreement promising both a waiver of taxes and the provision of essential services, HUD would not finance the project and, as a consequence, see note 36 supra, the Housing Authority could not build it. 39 Indiana Acts 1937, Ch. 207, § 3(g). This provision was amended by Indiana Acts 1969, Ch. 291, § 3(g) (codified as Ind.Code § 18-7-11-3(g)), to provide that the Housing Authority had jurisdiction to build in a city or town within five miles of Indianapolis only if the city or town consent(ed) thereto by resolution of its governing body. Whether or not the Housing Authority had jurisdiction, prior to 1969, to build in towns, as distinguished from cities, within five miles of the boundary of Indianapolis, federal law would have required the governing body of the town in question to enter into a cooperation agreement with the Authority, see note 37 supra. I know of nothing in the record to indicate whether any such agreement with a town was ever sought or denied. The record is also vague on which towns, other than perhaps the Town of Speedway, might have been within the Authority's pre-1969 jurisdiction, and whether any suitable sites existed in any such town during the time in question. The reason for this is that the plaintiffs have never pursued the theory that the failure to build in towns as opposed to cities or unincorporated areas of Marion County was the essence of the Housing Authority's allegedly wrongful conduct. Even assuming plaintiffs have preserved this precise issue, they have clearly failed to meet their burden of proving that the failure to locate projects in towns within five miles of Indianapolis was prompted by discriminatory purpose. 40 There is no question that, as to location of housing projects in the unincorporated areas of Marion County, the Board of County Commissioners and the Marion County Council together constituted the governing body involved. They were the body that would be required by federal law, see notes 37 & 38 supra, to sign a cooperation agreement and promise to provide essential services before federally funded housing could be located in their jurisdiction. See 24 C.F.R. § 1520.1(e) & .3 (1966); Ind.Code § 18-7-12-2 The majority notes, ante at 1110, that (o)ne project was built just across the street from Warren township (then 98% white). Another (the Eagle Creek project) was located on land that was once a part of Wayne township (then 99% white), but was annexed by the old city, at HACI's request. Aside from the fact that the integrative impact of the location of these projects scarcely evinces a segregative purpose, see note 45 infra, the inference of discriminatory purpose the majority would draw from these sitings is entirely undercut by the fact that the Housing Authority had no cooperation agreement with the governing body of either Warren or Wayne township; the Authority thus could not locate projects in these townships. This fact explains both the sitings and the annexation of one of the sites to Indianapolis. 41 In the majority opinion in Indianapolis IV, the fact that an effort was made to obtain cooperation agreements was recognized. 541 F.2d at 1216 42 I understand the reference to traditional public housing to mean housing developed by the Housing Authority and financed by HUD under the terms of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437 et seq. (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.) (as amended). Ten such projects were built in Indianapolis in the 1960's. The record contains many references to other types of housing, some of it built in the suburbs, and some of it apparently under the control of the Housing Authority. The location of these other types of housing is not alleged to have been discriminatory 43 Testimony at trial established that the task force, while acting on behalf of the Housing Authority, determined that sites outside of Indianapolis were not suitable both because of an absence of a cooperation agreement with the county government and because of an inability to secure from that body either a cooperation agreement or the municipal services that the agreement would have required the county to provide. See note 44 infra, and accompanying text. To say that the task force determined that suburban sites were not feasible is not to say, however, that suburban sites were not considered 44 Deputy Mayor Carroll, who served on the staff of the task force, testified: At that time we were attempting to select the locations for the Housing Authority sites, the county government, which was current before Uni-Gov at that time, operated by the County Council, County Commissioners, indicated in the process of early discussions with the committee that they were unable to provide the kinds of services that were required for public housing location at that time. An idea of the type of services that the County Council and County Commissioners were being asked to provide, see note 38 supra, can be gleaned from the following: September 1965 HUD Guidelines on Site Selection required that sites be well related to public transportation, public schools, shopping and all other essential services; they further required that consideration be given to the proximity of playgrounds, off-street parking, and the availability of sewer services. Id. § 205.1(3) & (4). City planner Vogelgesang testified at trial that the search for project sites in the suburbs was virtually precluded by a combination of jurisdictional and HUD guideline requirements. Deputy Mayor Carroll testified that the task force's site selection criteria included the availability of water, sewer, utility, police, fire, public transportation, school, park, shopping and other basic community services; that access to places of employment was considered; and that many of these criteria were incorporated into the then current HUD guidelines. Carroll further testified that a substantial concentration of services was required for public housing projects that (t)hese did not exist in the unincorporated areas of the county, and that the public transportation and low cost health, legal, and welfare services that were necessary to the tenants of housing projects were not available in the suburbs. John Mullin, Assistant Director of the Housing Authority, testified that many public housing tenants do not own automobiles and that that fact makes access to public transportation essential for a public housing site. Public transportation was not available in the suburbs at the time in question. Seven years later, at the time of trial, many potential suburban sites were still without public transportation. Yet the county government was being asked to provide public transportation, as well as other services, before projects located in its jurisdiction could open. HUD regulations currently require that sites be served by utilities such as water, gas, and electricity, and that they have adequate sewer and street service. 24 C.F.R. § 841.107(b) (1979); see id. § 200.710. HUD's criteria for site approval includes, among other things, the presence of recreational, social, educational, commercial, and health services; the absence of flooding, air pollution, excessive noise, sewage hazards, septic tank backups, mudslides, smoke or dust, vibration, vehicular traffic, rodent or vermin infestation, and fire hazards; the cost and time involved in travel to places of employment providing a range of jobs for low(er) income workers; and general consistency with environmental, developmental, and social goals for the area in question. Id.; see also note 45 infra. 45 Testimony during the 1975 trial showed that in 1968 about thirty percent of the residents of projects were white, and that a majority of the ten projects were in nearly all-white neighborhoods when they were built. For example, the Eagle Creek project that was located on land annexed from Wayne township and was earlier mentioned in another regard, see note 40 supra, was located in an area 99.3% white in 1960 and 91.7% white in 1970. Moreover, HUD approval of projects has, at least since 1972, been in part contingent upon their being located in a fashion that will promote integration. 24 C.F.R. § 200.710 (1979). HUD approved the project sites on which the Housing Authority built, and even if integrative impact was not an explicit criterion at the time HUD gave its approval, it is difficult to believe that HUD would have approved locations that were selected to promote segregation. In addition, Housing Authority Assistant Director Mullin testified at trial that the Authority had attempted to maintain a racial balance within the projects themselves, but that HUD regulations requiring applications to be granted without regard to race had made it impossible to maintain a racial balance. Indeed, the Justice Department, though it takes a contrary view now, suggested in 1971 that the district court find that the locations of six of the ten projects . . . have tended to promote integration. Indianapolis I, 332 F.Supp. 674 n.81. The majority notes, ante at 1110 n.17, that the trial court determined that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of integrative effect. This determination was made before the evidence just chronicled had been heard. Moreover, it appears obvious that the location of the projects did produce integration in housing. The location did not, apparently, further school desegregation; but the Housing Authority's business was housing, not schools 46 Because of my view that discriminatory purpose has not been demonstrated, I do not consider here the difficult remedial problems that I believe are posed by this case 47 This is clear from Milliken v. Bradley, supra, and from our outright reversal in Indianapolis II, 503 F.2d 68, of the interdistrict remedy as to school districts outside Marion County 48 As the majority acknowledges, Uni-Gov would not have passed had the schools been included. Ante at 1107. As the record makes plain, the absence of necessary services and cooperation agreements precluded the location of housing projects in the suburbs 49 But cf. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 489, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2971, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 542, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2981, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); id. at 2988-93 (Powell, J., dissenting)