HOUSING SUIT VS. COUNTY REJECTED
Judge allows some parts of discrimination claim against S.D. to go forward
A federal judge has dismissed claims against San Diego County that elected leaders deliberately concentrated poverty in poor neighborhoods, but he is allowing some of the same allegations against the city of San Diego to move forward.
In a 19-page ruling this week, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Battaglia said plaintiffs from southeast San Diego failed to show that the county and its five elected supervisors violated fair employment and housing laws.
Battaglia also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims that San Diego city officials violated portions of the federal Fair Housing Act. But he allowed other allegations against the city to move ahead on a narrower path, if plaintiffs file an amended complaint by next month.
The judge said case law cited by city lawyers in arguing for a dismissal of alleged violations of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act were not directly applicable to the complaint filed last year.
“These cases all deal with employment issues rather than violations of racial segregation,” Battaglia ruled. “Accordingly, the court denies the city’s motion to dismiss regarding the FEHA claim.”
Neither city nor county officials responded to requests for comment this week.
San Diego attorney Michael Aguirre, whose law firm filed the suit in May 2019, said he planned to comply with the judge’s ruling and amend the original complaint. “We have a basis to move forward
on some claims against the city,” Aguirre said.
“Whether we can survive and persevere based on what the judge has issued remains to be seen. We are very encouraged,” he said.
San Diego residents Patrice Baker, Gloria Cooper, Leslie Dudley, Letitia Flynn, Kathleen Macleod, Eileen Osborne and Khalada Salaam-alaji sued the county and the individual supervisors as well as the city and city officials.
The federal complaint accused the city and county of promoting housing policies that directed lower-income housing in poor neighborhoods of San Diego rather than across the city.
The lawsuit accused the San Diego Housing Commission of failing to meet federal rules designed to promote access to better schools and reduce concentrated neighborhood poverty.
It also cited the commission
for requiring participants in the federal Section 8 housing program to pay up to half their income towards rent if they want to live in a higher-income ZIP code. The rule is 30 percent of income in lower-income neighborhoods.
The governments’ “combined efforts have denied equal housing and created a disparate impact on minorities in San Diego, California, by concentrating San Diego’s poorest residents in select neighborhoods, all of which predominantly consist of minorities,” the lawsuit stated.
The suit requested a moratorium on low-income housing developments in the affected communities.
It also sought to require the city to produce a comprehensive annual affordable housing study and to stop the city from putting off collecting development fees, so more money can be available for city services.
“The non-collection of these fees will negatively influence the quality of life and creates unsafe living conditions,” the lawsuit alleged.
Most notably, the legal claim sought an injunction against the county’s latest community project, a services hub and conference center called the Southeastern Live Well Center, to be built at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Market Street.
The suit argued that the project would perpetuate racial segregation by locating access to public service in a neighborhood already susceptible to lower incomes and other disparities.
But the judge refused that request, crediting the county for making it easier for people to apply for services.
“The allegations here do not show some invidious or discriminatory purpose underlying the county’s plan,” he wrote.
“The Southeastern Live Well Center is an office complex that will make it more convenient for the residents in the area to access county services.”
Battaglia invited the plaintiffs to rewrite their complaint according to his order.
The amended complaint is due within 45 days of the Monday ruling.
jeff.mcdonald@sduniontribune.com