(167,961 - 167,980 of 182,719)
Pages
-
-
Title
-
CRS83557EPWpage03
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:87381
-
Text
-
4‘ ~.4T..;,,.._..._-.,,.,...__ __,, 4..,._ ‘<“~—\ .— 0- . ABSTRACT The Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) was the primary source of Federal financial assistance supporting school districts‘ desegregation efforts until its repeal in 1982. Its activities were included in an education block grant. This paper reviews the provisions of ESAA prior to its repeal, delineates the impact of its repeal
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage44
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
replaced him with a black.;-I . black instructor.’ It was stipulated that the college had been under an affir- mative action plan "designed to remedy the effects of past discrimination." The §§/ 36 FEP Cases 1019 (E.D. Mich. 1984). fifif 36 FEP Cases 778 (11th Cir. 1984).
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage39
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
consent decree specifically disclaimed past discrimination, Detroit's history of past discrimination had been exhaustively documented by previous “litigation. Zfij FEP Cases 630 (E.D. Mich. 1984). 22] Baker v. Detroit, 483 F. Supp. 930 (E.D. Mich. 1979), aff'd sub nom. Bratton v. Detroit, 704 F. 2d 878 (6th Cir. 1982) cert. denied 104 S.Ct. 703 (1984). .9
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage18
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
, or through the employer's own internal investigation 33/ Tangren v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., 658 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1981), 5 cert. denied 456 U.S. 916 (1982); Van Aken v. Young,.541 F.Supp. 448 (E.D. Mich. 1982); Baker v. City of Detroit, 483 F.Supp. 930 (E.D. Mich. 1979). ."‘34/ fIBEW, Local 35 v. City of Hartford, 625 F.2d 416‘(2d~Cir.‘l980),.l .cert.fHenied 453 U.S. 913 (1981); Dennison v
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage19
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
Co., 657 F.2d 962 (8th Cir. 1981). See, also, Warsock v. City of Omaha, 726 F.2d 1358 (8th Cir. 1984). gzj E.g., Anderson v. San Francisco Unified School District, 537 F.Supp. 248 (INODO. i ' 38/ Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denieE*Z29 U.S. 1041 (1977). Q2] Valentine v. Smith, 654 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. ), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1121 (1981); Vaughn v
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage47
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
was handed down, DOS had_taken the position that prefsfl ‘erential treatment for any but specific identifiable victims of proven past _2Q/ 36 FEP Cases 1431 (6th Cir. 1985). _2l/ 35 FEP Cases 538 (3d Cir. 1984).
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage05
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
participation of groups previously excluded from an employer's workfoce. While sometimes avoiding the term "quota," with the 1/ _See, e.g., Labor_Management Relations Act, title I,,§ 10, 29 U.S.C.i 141 et seq.; Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460 (1950). 3/ Executive Order 11246 prohibits discrimination in employment on ac- count of race, color, religion, sex, and national by federal
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage34
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
;the total seniority of that person with the City." The depart- ment fell short of its goal however, and to settle another lawsuit, in 1980 entered an additional consent decree to supplement the earlier city-wide decree. The 1986 decree again committed the city to achieve a ’,wa:k force racially representative of the county, then 35% black, byl adopting a 50% ratio of black to white in hiring, and 20
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage13
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
CRS-10 they had previously set forth in Bakke and found the minority business enter- 16/ i prise program constitutional. The trilogy of Supreme Court cases in Bakke, Weber, and Fullilove, despite O their limits as legal precedent, indicate a strong support for affirmative ac- tion remedies to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, including pre- ferential treatment in appropriate
-
-
Title
-
CRS85661Apage26
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53597
-
Text
-
that such‘ differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . ." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(h). 31/ 424 11.3. 747 (1976).
-
-
Title
-
CRS83635ENRpage64
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:88993
-
Text
-
if the use of such land is restricted to farming by a qualified covenant binding on all future owners. Representatvie Beverly Byron ‘h - has introduced a bill (H.R. 2119) that would permit the rollover of a gain from the sale of farmland development rights to qualifying public agencies or chari- table organizations having a farmland retention program. This bill would also provide a one-time $125,000
-
-
Title
-
CRS83635ENRpage07
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:88993
-
Text
-
CRS-vi Farmland Conversion Concerns and Analysis The conversion of farmland to urban and transportation uses has produced a wide variety of concerns. The most commonly expressed concern (known as the "adequacy concern") involves the long-run impact of farmland conversion on the Nation's ability to satisfy increasing domestic and international needs for food and fiber at reasonable prices. In addition to the direct impacts of farmland conversion on food and fiber production, scattered urban development may cause nearby farmers to disinvest in their farm enterprise due to an expectation of selling their farm in the near future for nonagricultural uses. This so~called "impermanence syndrome" may affect far more farmland than will ever be developed in the foreseeable future.c Recent interest in using farmland to produce biomass energy crops has also led to a concern regarding the impact of potentially intense competition between food and energy production for U.S. agricultural land. And finally, the relative irreversibility of farmland conversions to urban and transporta- tion uses and the uncertainty of future conditions have led some people to advocate the retention of farmland as "insurance" against unexpected economic or environmental problems. Even if a smaller farmland base will be adequate under anticipated future conditions, some people feel that efforts should be made to retain more farmland just in case unanticipated problems occur., Apart from concerns related to food and fiber needs, several other concerns have resulted from the conversion of farmland to more intensive uses. One of these concerns involves the various costs associated with urban sprawl, e.g. high costs of public services and nuisance conflicts between farm and nonfarm neighbors. Some people have also been concerned about the adverse economic impacts of farmland conversion on local agribusinesses. And finally,
-
-
Title
-
CRS83635ENRpage55
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:88993
-
Text
-
or interpretations, it had been difficult for other Federal agencies to "deal with the complexities of balancing the preservation of farmland with other national interests" (U.S. General Accounting Office 1979, p. 44). The recommendations from the NALS focused on five objectives: 1. To share information on successful approaches for agricultural land protection by states and local governments; 2
-
-
Title
-
CRS83635ENRpage56
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:88993
-
Text
-
retention rather than discourage it. And finally, it was recom- mended that Federal programs designed to provide planning assistance to States, local governments, and regional planning organizations should ensure that these planning entities consider the agricultural land impacts of their projects. In February 1981, the findings and recommendations of the NALS were presented at a conference sponsored
-
-
Title
-
CRS83635ENRpage61
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:88993
-
Text
-
land, or in any way affect the property rights of owners of such land." A , The Act mandated a June 1983 progress report from the Secretary of Agriculture. Information on the effects of Federal programs with respect to farmlandprotection and the results of the departmental reviews of existing federal policies were to be included in this report.32/ The Secretary of Agriculture is expected
-
-
Title
-
CRS83635ENRpage41
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:88993
-
Text
-
, this property tax relief is provided by assessing farmland on its agricultural use value rather than its market value, which may be inflated by various nonfarm influences.l2/ Some States provide this "differential assessment" with minflmal eligibility conditions and no penalty for subsequent conversion of the farmland to nonfarm uses. iMore frequently, landowners are required to repay all or part
Pages