Question 1: When the HUD-City contract was voided, why wasn't the subsequent City-Citizen contract voided with cause?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1: The HUD, Participating Jurisdiction, and Citizen Relationship HUD and the City of Roanoke, VA entered into a contract where the City would accept “-federal funding to create housing and follow the regulations of the federal spending clause that allowed for this to happen. The City was found non-compliant by HUD as they were not following the regulations in effect, and the HUD-City contract was voided when the City repaid the federal funds. ; : When the HUD-City contract was voided, why wasn’t the subsequent City-Citizen _ contract voided with cause? a When the city repaid the federal funds, why was the citizen still bound by now nonexistent federal funds in the City-Citizen contract? Question 2: 4" and 14" Amendment _The District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded (7:16-cv-07) that City met the minimal requirements of due process guaranteed in the 14" Amendment for a 4" amendment seizure of property. The Citizen was allowed a choice of losing either a Constitutionally protected right of liberty, or losing a Constitutionally protected right of property. How can a minimal requirement be sufficient when either outcome of a choice allowed to a Citizen by a local government results in the loss of a Constitutionally protected right? If these rights deprived then wouldn’t Monell apply? Question 3: Wright (479 U.S. 418) and Wilder (496 U.S. 498) v. Gonzaga (536 U.S. 273) In both Wright and Wilder, the Court concluded that a private cause of action exists when there is a tangible loss of property in a federal spending clause. In Gonzaga, the Court concluded that there is no private cause of action in a federal spending clause if there is no tangible loss of property. : Does Gonzaga foreclose on all private causes of action in a federal spending clause, or | ee just those where there is no tangible loss of property? ,