Court Opinion

ID: 9472354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:57:55.840374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:53.482272
License: Public Domain

FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The Supreme Court in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975), clearly held that plaintiffs must show a particularized injury in order to have standing to challenge zoning practices. Although “[a] particularized personal interest may be shown in various ways, ... usually the initial focus should be on a particular project.”1 Id. at 508 n. 18, 95 *817S.Ct. at 2210 n. 18. I share the dissent’s view that the usual requirement of a particular project is not necessary where exclusionary policies are so successful that they chill the interest of commercial developers who otherwise would propose and build specific low-income housing projects. The district court in the present case identified such a factual setting when it found that “because [developers] are aware of the County’s housing policies ... [they] simply do not attempt to build integrated low and middle income projects in DuPage County.” District Court Opinion dated October 1, 1981, at 94. However, based on the record presented to this court, I am unable to conclude that this finding is supported by sufficient evidence. I thus agree with the majority’s conclusion that this finding cannot be sustained under the clearly erroneous standard and that therefore this suit must be dismissed for lack of standing.
The most significant facts upon which the district court based its findings are set forth in the majority opinion. See ante at 800-802. These facts do not indicate that the DuPage County Board (“Board”) actually foreclosed developers from pursuing or proposing a specific housing project. The plaintiffs argue that the widely known policies of the Board prevented developers from presenting projects that they knew would meet with defeat. Yet, the plaintiffs chose to offer no testimony on this point. At oral argument before the en banc court, the plaintiffs’ counsel explained that the absence of testimony was a result of the Board’s intimidation — no developer would want to testify against the policies of the Board for fear of incurring the displeasure of the Board and thus losing all opportunity to work in DuPage County.
In the absence of any affidavits or appropriate representations by the plaintiffs that developers were asked to testify but refused for fear of pecuniary retaliation by the Board, I cannot find the explanation of the plaintiffs’ counsel to be any more than speculation. This conjecture, no matter how sincerely offered, is an insufficient ground upon which to affirm the key finding of the district court that developers do not attempt to build low-income housing projects because they are aware of the county’s housing policies. Since this finding cannot be supported by the record created below, and since we have no particular project on which to focus in this case, Warth compels me to agree with the majority that the plaintiffs lack standing. In light of this conclusion, I deem it inappropriate to express any opinion on the merits of this suit. I therefore must respectfully disassociate myself from the unnecessary view of the merits expressed in footnote 9 of the majority opinion.

. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982), does not alter the Warth requirement of a particular project. In Havens, the plaintiffs alleged that on a number of specific occasions a realty had engaged in racial steering within two existing apartment complexes, in violation of § 804 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The Court found that the individual plaintiffs and the plaintiff organization, which conducted a housing referral service, had standing to sue because they alleged that as a result of the actions of racial steering they suffered a palpable injury. See id. at 372, 374, 379, 102 S.Ct. at 1120, 1122, 1124. In Warth, the plaintiffs alleged that the zoning laws of the town of Penfield were discriminatory. The Court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because, without a specific project that was allegedly thwarted by the zoning laws, they could not show a particularized injury. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 516, 95 S.Ct. at 2214. Thus, both cases require allegation of a specific instance of the alleged wrong-doing in order to *817find a personal injury that is sufficient to establish standing.