Case: Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp

1:89-00248 | U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Filed Date: April 1, 1989

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In April 1989, Project B.A.S.I.C. ("BASIC"), a Rhode Island tenant-advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the United States Housing Act, the federal Fair Housing Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by race-based mismanagement of public housing units in the city of Providence, and they asked the…

In April 1989, Project B.A.S.I.C. ("BASIC"), a Rhode Island tenant-advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the United States Housing Act, the federal Fair Housing Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by race-based mismanagement of public housing units in the city of Providence, and they asked the District Court for an injunction to prevent the proposed demolition of condemned public housing units in the city.

On July 17, 1989, the District Court (Judge Raymond James Pettine) denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, holding that they had stated cognizable claims, but that they had not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of those claims. The District Court ordered the plaintiffs to submit a memorandum of law within two months, detailing more specific allegations as to which statutes it believed to have been violated. The Court also entered an order establishing a time schedule for construction of replacement housing. Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 721 F.Supp. 1501 (D.R.I. 1989). The defendants appealed.

On July 6, 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Judge Stephen Breyer) remanded the case for reconsideration, holding that the amendment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) "demolition permission" statute did not apply to post amendment demolition activities in the case at bar, but that alternative bases might exist for the District Court's time schedule injunction. Project B.A.S.I.C. v. O'Rourke, 907 F.2d 1242 (1st Cir. 1990).

On April 2, 1991, the District Court (Judge Pettine) denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether sufficient, comparable housing opportunities existed in nonminority areas of the city. Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 637 F.Supp. (D.R.I. 1991).

On April 16, 1991, the parties entered into a stipulated settlement in the case, agreeing that HUD would fund 109 replacement housing units in specified areas of the city within 36 months. The settlement also stipulated that all parties would bear the costs of their own attorneys' fees. Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, No. 89-0248, 1991 WL 329756 (D.R.I. April 16, 1991).

Shortly after the stipulated settlement, a contractor selected to build the replacement housing filed a lawsuit to enjoin the housing authority's withholding of $500,000, pursuant to the order of HUD. On June 14, 1991, the District Court (Judge Pettine) issued an order holding HUD in contempt of the stipulated settlement, fining them $250,000, with an additional fine of $2000 per day until the organization removed all barriers to the money. Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 768 F.Supp. 21 (D.R.I. 1991). The defendants appealed. On October 17, 1991, the First Circuit (Judge Bruce Marshall Selya) reversed the District Court's contempt order and remanded the case, holding that HUD had not been given fair notice of the violation. Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1991).

We have no further information on the proceedings in this case, and as of 1/12/2007, there is no PACER docket available.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (1/10/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)

Pettine, Raymond James (Rhode Island)

Selya, Bruce Marshall (Rhode Island)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Arnwine, Barbara R. (District of Columbia)

Dacey, Timothy J. (Rhode Island)

Dineen, John William (Rhode Island)

Fischbach, Steven (Rhode Island)

Goolkasian, Gail A. (Massachusetts)

Hershkoff, Helen (New York)

Holtzman, Paul (Massachusetts)

Judge(s)

Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)

Pettine, Raymond James (Rhode Island)

Selya, Bruce Marshall (Rhode Island)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Arnwine, Barbara R. (District of Columbia)

Dacey, Timothy J. (Rhode Island)

Dineen, John William (Rhode Island)

Fischbach, Steven (Rhode Island)

Goolkasian, Gail A. (Massachusetts)

Hershkoff, Helen (New York)

Holtzman, Paul (Massachusetts)

Kaye, Judith (Rhode Island)

Lovell, Stephanie S. (Massachusetts)

Mann, Robert B. (Rhode Island)

Patrick, Deval L. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Almond, Lincoln D. (Rhode Island)

Brodsky, Irving (Rhode Island)

Butler, Mona (District of Columbia)

Clifton, Edward (Rhode Island)

Cosentino, Robert (Rhode Island)

Curt, Suzanne (Rhode Island)

Daly, John F. (District of Columbia)

Dole, Ellen (Massachusetts)

Gerson, Stuart M. (District of Columbia)

Goldberg, Arthur Joseph (District of Columbia)

Gross, David J. P. (District of Columbia)

Herold, John W. (District of Columbia)

Kimm, Peter Jr. (District of Columbia)

Lobue, Joseph W. (District of Columbia)

McHugh, Kevin F. (Rhode Island)

Pelczarski, Karen A. (Rhode Island)

Price, Richard M. (District of Columbia)

Ratner, Gershon M. (District of Columbia)

Reid, Stephen J. Jr. (Rhode Island)

Sammartino, Everett (Rhode Island)

Schmeltzer, Howard M. (District of Columbia)

Schnitker, John P. (District of Columbia)

Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Baer, Arthur A. (New York)

Gonzales, Claire (District of Columbia)

Montgomery, Carleton K. (District of Columbia)

Smith, Jane M. (District of Columbia)

Thompson, Everald F. (Maryland)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Opinion and Order

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

721 F.Supp. 1501

July 17, 1989 Order/Opinion

Memorandum and Order

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. City of Providence

April 25, 1990 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. O'Rourke

U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

907 F.2d 1242

July 6, 1990 Order/Opinion

Declaration of Professor Yale Rabin

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

March 11, 1991 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Memorandum and Order

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

776 F.Supp. 637

April 2, 1991 Order/Opinion

Settlement Stipulation

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

1991 WL 329756

April 16, 1991 Order/Opinion

Consent Order

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

April 22, 1991 Order/Opinion

Consent Order Regarding Homeless Shelter

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

April 23, 1991 Order/Opinion

Memorandum and Order

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

768 F.Supp. 21

June 14, 1991 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Jack F. Kemp

U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

947 F.2d 11

Oct. 17, 1991 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Achieving Institutional Reform Through the Political Process: The Story of the Providence Housing Authority

Sookyoung Shin

This paper analyzes the story of the Providence Housing Authority's institutional reform through political processes. It first provides some background history of the Hartford Park high rises. It the… May 1, 1999

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Rhode Island

Case Type(s):

Public Housing

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 1, 1989

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Unincorporated association of tenants and housing advocates, including low-income and minority persons residing in housing project, challenging proposed demolition of high-rise apartment towers at public housing project

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Rhode Island (Providence, Providence), State

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1991 - 0