Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

“All of the adults looked after all of the children. Everybody knew each other. Everybody helped each other.”

Oakwood was special from the beginning. When the 106-home subdivision opened in 1964, it was only the second development in Lexington where African-Americans could buy a new house. The first, St. Martins Village, had opened a few years earlier, about a mile down Georgetown Road.

Oakwood opened the same year that Congress passed landmark civil rights legislation that prohibited housing discrimination. Before that, such discrimination was not only legal but widely practiced.

The city’s two daily newspapers, the Herald and the Leader, worked hand in hand with respected pillars of the community and decided to ignore the revolution. The press took their orders from the powerful and didn’t report one of the biggest news stories in American history. Lexington had demonstrations, sit-ins and other protests, but the papers didn’t acknowledge their complicity in telling a lie until earlier this month.

The white citizenry of Lexington decided that pretense was preferable to the truth and chose not to point out the elephant in the living room. “Good” white people like Fred Wachs, general manager and publisher of both newspapers, said they wanted change, but didn’t think that anyone demanding it was worthy of an expenditure of newsprint.

The godfathers of Lexington told people where they could and could not live, and could and could not work, and could and could not go to school and yet were not labeled rabble rousers. That honor fell on those who risked death, injury and loss of livelihood to demand a just society.

The parties to this action include: Plaintiffs (1) South Hill Neighborhood Association, Inc. (South Hill), a non-profit Kentucky corporation having as one of its purposes the preservation of historical buildings; (2) The Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, Inc. (Bluegrass Trust), a non-profit Kentucky corporation having as one of its purposes the preservation of historical buildings; (3) Curtis Harrison, a citizen, taxpayer and President of South Hill; (4) Mrs. Stathis Kafoglis, a citizen, taxpayer and owner of property within the area in controversy; (5) Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Dennis, citizens, taxpayers and owners of property within the area in controversy; and Defendants (1) George Romney, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); (2) The City of Lexington, Kentucky, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; (3) Honorable Charles Wylie, Mayor of Lexington, Kentucky; (4) The Board of City Commissioners of the City of Lexington, authorized city board for the City of Lexington; (5) Joseph Graves, Harry Sykes, Thomas Fugazzi, duly elected and qualified members of the Lexington Board of City Commissioners; (6) Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of the City of Lexington (Lexington Urban Renewal Agency), a municipal corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; (7) Robert E. Featherston, William R. Embry, Byron Romanowitz, D. C. Noble and H. J. Hagler, duly appointed, qualified and acting members of the Lexington Urban Renewal Agency; (8) Jennie Bryant, director of the Lexington Urban Renewal Agency; (9) Citizens Union National Bank and Trust Company, Inc. (Citizens Union Bank), a national banking corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the United States of America; (10) Norwood Construction Company, Inc. (Norwood Construction Co.), a Kentucky corporation; and (11) J. Norwood Hodge, President of Norwood Construction Co.

It is likewise clear that none of the plaintiffs have any real interest in this litigation. None of the plaintiffs own or have owned any of the seven buildings in controversy. None of the plaintiffs had legal control or title to the buildings when they were placed on the National Register. The Lexington Urban Renewal Agency had acquired title to these buildings in February, 1969, and the buildings were placed on the Register in July, 1969. None of the plaintiffs, though informed of the urban renewal plan's alternate use for historic preservation, submitted a proposal for development of the area. The plaintiffs' interest in the litigation is not sufficient to give them standing to bring a mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, or court review of administrative action under 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. They do not have a personal stake in the outcome. Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 927 (2 Cir.1968).

The reason given for the repeal is the large number African American women voting in a block in the 1901 Lexington school board elections.