Document: 444 U.S. 223 100 S.Ct. 497 62 L.Ed.2d 433 STRYCKER'S BAY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, INC.v.Roland N. KARLEN et al. CITY OF NEW YORK v. Roland SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Nos. 79-168, 79-181, and 79-184. Jan. 7, 1980. PER CURIAM. 1 The protracted nature of this litigation is perhaps best illustrated by the identity original federal defendant, "George Romney, Secretary Department Housing Urban Development." At center dispute site a proposed low-income housing project to be constructed on Manhattan's Upper West Side. In 1962, New York City Planning Commission (Commission), acting in conjunction with United States Development (HUD), began formulating plan for renewal 20 square blocks known as "West Side Renewal Area" (WSURA) through joint effort part private parties various government agencies. As originally written, called mix 70% middle-income 30% designated at issue here location one projects. 1969, after substantial progress toward completion plan, local agencies determined that number units WSURA would insufficient satisfy an increased need such units. response shortage amended designate future high-rise building containing 160 housing. HUD approved amendment December 1972. 2 Meanwhile, October 1971, Trinity Episcopal School Corp. (Trinity), which had participated combination school development nearby location, sued District Court Southern enjoin from constructing site. present respondents, Karlen, Alvin C. Hudgins, Committee Neighbors To Insure Normal Environment (CONTINUE), intervened plaintiffs, while petitioner Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc., defendant. 3 entered judgment favor petitioners. See 387 F.Supp. 1044 (1974). It concluded, inter alia, petitioners not violated National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 seq. 4 On respondents' appeal, Second Circuit affirmed all but Court's treatment NEPA claim. 523 F.2d 88 (1975). While Appeals agreed was required prepare full-scale environmental impact statement under 102(2)(C) NEPA, 4332(2)(C), it held complied 102(2)(E),1 requires agency "study, develop, describe appropriate alternatives recommended courses action any proposal involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses available resources." 4332(2)(E). F.2d., 92-95. According Appeals, consideration placing "was either highly limited or nonexistent." Id., 94. Citing "background urban factors" behind HUD's decision, remanded case, requiring "statement possible alternatives, consequences thereof facts reasons against . ." Ibid. reflect "HUD's concept Authority's views how these choose resolve city's low income group situation," rather explain "how within framework Plan its objective economic integration can achieved minimum adverse impact." believed that, given assessment "the cooperation interested should able arrive equitable solution." 95. 5 remand, prepared lengthy report entitled Special Clearance (1977). After marshaling data, asserted "while choice Site 30 percent has raised valid questions about potential social impacts involved, problems associated fabric community structures are considered so serious require component rated unacceptable." Report 42. last portion incorporated study wherein evaluated nine locations found none them acceptable. conceded may have credited Commission's conclusion relocation entail unacceptable delay two years more. HUD, "[m]easured costs two-year delay, benefits seem justify mandated substitution sites." 54. 6 soliciting parties' comments report, again Harris, 445 204 (1978). court "impressed [HUD's analysis] being thorough exhaustive," id., 209-210, neither arbitrary nor capricious"; contrary, "[i]t done good faith full accordance law." 220. 7 vacated again. Karlen 590 39 appellate focused upon where rejected sites, particular reliance entail. purported recognize role reviewing decision defined Administrative Procedure (APA), 706(2)(A), provides actions set aside if "arbitrary, capricious, abuse discretion, otherwise law Additionally, however, looked "[t]he provisions NEPA" substantive standards necessary review merits decisions F.2d, 43. "given 'consideration' alternatives" redesignating 44. Nevertheless, " end itself." Concentrating finding could "an overriding factor" proceed development. court, when considers projects, "environmental factors, crowding into concentrated area, determinative weight." therefore case Court, instructing attack manner avoid "concentration" 30. 45. 8 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power NRDC, 435 519, 558, 98 1197, 1219, 55 460 (1978), we stated establishing "significant goals Nation," imposes duties "essentially procedural." stressed designed "to insure fully informed well-considered decision," necessarily "a judges reached they been members decisionmaking unit agency." cuts sharply Appeals' agency, selecting course action, must elevate concerns over other considerations. once made subject NEPA's procedural requirements, only consequences; cannot 'interject itself area discretion executive taken.' Kleppe Sierra Club, 427 390, 410, n. 21, 96 2718, 2730, 49 576 (1976). also FPC Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 423 326, 579, 46 533 (1976).2 9 there no doubt redesignate petitions certiorari granted, 10 Reversed. 11 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. 12 cases far more difficult than per curiam opinion suggests. (HUD) acted arbitrarily concluding prevention construction process justified selection produce effects, including racial concentration. Today majority responds "once consequences," "there more." finds support closing paragraph our 13 does stand broad proposition advances today. relevant passage meant "further observation some relevance case," 557, S.Ct., 1218. That "observation" perception attempting "under guise judicial action" assert own policy desirability developing nuclear energy source Nation, properly left Congress. 1219. because single alleged oversight peripheral issue, urged who never cooperated indeed below," ibid. context remarked "NEPA forth significant mandate essentially (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, "[a]dministrative context, every other, statute," Thus solely factual whether "considered" consequences. agency's still law," "has taken 'hard look' 14 did "substitute actions," ibid., acknowledged action: involved." These arise fact 68% public sited crosstown axis City. observed, resulting high concentration hardly further integration. "impact structures" B rating indicating perspective "questionable" ameliorative measures "mandated." lists make discusses Sites 41, both size "only minimal" amounts clearance. Concerning explicitly concludes "[f]rom standpoint impact, superior low-rent housing." sole reason rejecting environmentally were shifted 9, projected 15 before therefore, free reject preferable ground change sites cause delay. This "peripheral issue" case. Whether sets goals," supra, U.S., permits time difference controlling superiority means clear. Resolution certainly normal scope determine arbitrary, discretion.* question paramount concern restatement considering gave those "hard look," exactly proper ask. 21. 16 Secretary's capricious sufficiently important merit plenary Court. Further, I do subscribe apparent suggestion limits mindless task determining factors even effectively decided ignore reaching conclusion. Indeed, believe adhere position different setting. Our establish arbitrary-or-capricious standard prescribes "searching careful" inquiry ensure exercised unreasonable manner. Citizens Preserve Overton Park, Inc. Volpe, 401 402, 416, 91 814, 823, 28 136 (1971). Believing today's summary reversal represents departure principle, respectfully dissent. 17 me type disposition. We least hearing. section numbered 102(2)(D) codified 4332(2)(D) (1970 ed.). Congress redesignated weeks later. Aug. 1975, Pub.L. 94-83, 89 424. If agree dissent "arbitrarily" housing, might warranted. But expressly concluded capriciously reading satisfies us overturn finding. Instead, admittedly legitimate, Neither APA reordering priorities court. * concedes little weight values capricious. Pet. Cert. No. 79-184, p. 15, 16.

Category: 8