Hanly v. Kleindienst

471 F.2d 823 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are members of groups residing or having their businesses in an area called 'The Manhattan Civic Center' which comprises not only various courthouses, government buildings, and businesses, but also residential housing, including cooperative apartments in two buildings close to the MCC and various similar apartments and tenements in nearby Chinatown. MCC will house approximately 449 persons awaiting trial or convicted of short-term federal offenses. In February 1972, Ps sought injunctive relief against construction of the MCC on the ground that GSA had failed to comply with the mandates of § 102 of NEPA. Ps' motion was denied in that that GSA had concluded that the Annex would not have such an effect and that its findings were not 'arbitrary' within the meaning of § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Upon appeal, the Court affirmed the order as to the office building but reversed and remanded as to the MCC, on the ground that the GSA's threshold determination, which had been set forth in a short memorandum entitled 'Environmental Statement' dated February 23, 1971, was too meager to satisfy NEPA's requirements. D was required to give attention to other factors that might affect human environment in the area, including riots, disturbances in the jail, the crime from housing an out-patient treatment center in the building, traffic, and parking problems. D must 'affirmatively develop a reviewable environmental record' in lieu of limiting itself to perfunctory conclusions with respect to the MCC. The Court granted the injunction as to the MCC but after consideration of the balance of hardships stayed the order for a period of 30 days to enable GSA to make a new threshold determination which would take into account the factors set forth in the opinion. A 25-page 'Assessment of the Environmental Impact' was made by D and submitted to the district court. It analyzes the size, exact location, and proposed use of the MCC; its design features, construction, and aesthetic relationship to its surroundings; the extent to which its occupants and activities conducted in it will be visible by the community; the estimated effects of its operation upon traffic, public transit and parking facilities; its approximate population, including detainees and employees; its effect on the level of noise, smoke, dirt, obnoxious odors, sewage and solid waste removal; and its energy demands. It also sets forth possible alternatives, concluding that there is none that is satisfactory. It concluded that the MCC was not an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Ps’ motion for injunction was again denied, and Ps appealed.