Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

a
e
a
e
e
e
e
a
R
reyui.reinents. I-n support. of its Motion, AttiLash
submitted LI letter from a represcntative of
MassHousiny staling that cert.ai.n of Chc cor1dj.t.i ons
were inconsistent w i t h agency rcquirement.s, arld Lhat
j.f such conditi ons were not. removed, the aqency would
not issue final approval. (undcr the NEE' proyrm) or
furid the projecl (under the Housinq Starts program).
See RA Vol.1, 67.
760 CMR 31.. 07 (1) (f) states tfic proof necessary Lo
establish "agency refusal. t o furid":
Une c on omi c /A y cnc y KF: fu s ill . t. o Fu n d " Pro o f t h a t
the subsidizing agency w i l l not fund tiic project.
because of a condition Imposed by thc Board, that
the applicant has request-ed a waiver of tiic
subsidizing agency requirement Lhat leads to this result, and that the subsidizing aqency has
denied a waiver, shall creat.e a rcbuttab1.e
presumption that the condition of the Board makes
the project uneconomic. "
Attitasti was thus required to ofLcr proof that it ~riadc
a request. to MassHoiising Lhat the agency waive t.hose
requireriicnts wi.th which the Board's Der!: sion is
inconsistent arid fur%her, ofter proof that MassNousing
denied any such request for a waiver. Attitash made no
These conditions are numbercd, in the order
ident.ified by MassHousinq, as 38, 39, 23, 26, 28, 23,
43K, 43F, 43G and 43il. RA Vo1.3, 69-70. MassHouslng
makes no mention of the reroakninq fourteen condit.ions
imposed by the Board. Thcse conditions are numbered
18, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43, 43A, 43H, 43D, 43K, 431,, 43N,
43w and 59.
14