Hits: 115
WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From the Westchester County Department of Communications (Edited). June 13, 2013:
The federal monitor hired by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has sent “report cards” assigning “obligations” and “benchmark allocations” to the 31 eligible communities in the 2009 affordable housing settlement with Westchester County that far exceed the terms of the settlement, in particular the target of developing 750 affordable housing units by the end of 2016, the Westchester County Executive Robert P. Astorino stated at a news conference Wednesday afternoon, despite earlier HUD denials.
(To read the Monitor reports go to http://www3.westchestergov.com/news/all-press-releases/4537-federal-housing-monitor-s-report-cards-and-municipalities-responses)
The two largest allocations were 975 affordable housing units for Mount Pleasant and 756 units for Harrison, meaning each town’s individual report card allocation surpasses the original 2009 settlement’s total. The combined number of suggested affordable housing units HUD monitor feels should be built for all 31 municipalities is 5,847 units – 5,097 units more than the settlement’s figure.
County Executive Robert P. Astorino on the HUD Numbers: HUD Monitor’s own Report Cards Call for thousands more affordable housing units. Mayors, leaders, confounded. (L to R:Tuckahoe Mayor Steve Ecklond; Lewisboro Supervisor Peter Parsons; Rye Brook Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Rednick; North Castle Supervisor Howard Arden; Bedford Planning Director Jeff Osterman; Somers Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy; Mount Pleasant Supervisor Joan Maybury; Cortlandt Deputy Director of Planning Chris Kehoe; and North Salem Supervisor Warren Lucas. Photos Courtesy, Westchester County Executive
The report card allocations, which were based on a 2004 Rutgers study that was never adopted by the county and is not part of the housing settlement, come at a time when HUD has confirmed that it expects Westchester to go beyond the settlement’s 750 units.
To wit: In a May 31, 2013 letter, HUD Deputy Secretary Maurice A. Jones wrote: “The county is obligated to ensure the development of ‘at least’ 750 new affordable housing units that affirmatively further fair housing. By its terms, this is a floor not a ceiling.”
Jones reiterated that the 750 figure is just a starting point at a news conference in White Plains on June 4, saying: “We would never say only do 750 units and stop. No.”
The county is posting the report cards and responses from the municipalities as they come in, as well as the monitor’s benchmark allocations for all 31 communities, at www.westchestergov.com/monitorreportcards.This is being done in an effort to make the settlement and its implications for Westchester residents as transparent as possible.
“The report cards clearly document HUD’s overreaching and the vulnerability of local communities to Washington’s attempts to take control of or abolish local zoning,” said Westchester County Executive Robert P. Astorino. “I urge everyone to read them. It is important for residents to see for themselves just what the federalgovernment is trying to do in Westchester. The county is ahead of schedule in complying with the settlement, but it won’t be bullied or threatened by HUD to do things that are not in the settlement.”
Reaction from local municipalities has been confusion, anger and disbelief.
Joan Mayberry, Mount Pleasant Supervisor speaking at the Wednesday news conference. To her right are North Castle Supervisor Howard Arden, Mr. Astorinio. At her left is Somers Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy.
Nowhere are the costs of these allocations discussed, or their impact on local services or the environment. The overarching complaint is the Catch-22 nature of the report cards. The municipalities have been assigned affordable housing allocations, which they never adopted, but nonetheless trigger without any apparent authority “obligations” to change their local zoning.
“The proposed findings and report card wholly fail to recognize that there is no benchmark allocation required by Westchester County or any other jurisdiction,” wrote Tuckahoe Village Attorney John Cavallaro in his response to the report card. “It appears the Federal Monitor has premised his conclusions on a study that was never effectuated by the county that is without any force of law or authority.”
The municipal allocations in the report cards are derived from a 2004 Rutgers study that was never adopted by the county and was not part of the housing settlement. Under the home rule provisions of the New York State Constitution, the power and responsibility for local zoning rests solely with local municipalities.
Other issues addressed by the municipalities from the monitor’s report cards include:
- sloppy research (“the report overlooks the fact that the Village of Ardsley adopted the Fair and Affordable Housing Model Ordinance on Nov. 19, 2012); (“there is no hotel in the village of Bronxville”);
- faulty methodology for establishing housing prices (“the $650,000 average price for a condominium in the Village of Tarrytown as asserted by the Federal Monitor has no basis in fact”);
- unsubstantiated statements (“the report’s opening statement regarding Larchmont [Larchmont has not adopted the County’s model zoning ordinance for affordable housing, nor does it in any way promote fair and affordable housing] is not only inaccurate, but very unfair to the Board members and the citizens of Larchmont who have overwhelmingly supported the development of these units”);
- little awareness of environmental concerns (“one of the largest impediments to the creation of affordable housing in Northern Westchester is the difficulty in creating a sewerage system within the requirements of the New York City watershed.” – Bedford); and
- faulty assertions of legal obligations (“the Town of Mount Pleasant … did not receive or accept CDBG funds alleged therein and therefore has absolutely no ‘affordable housing obligation under the Settlement’ ”).
The county has conducted several comprehensive reviews of all 853 zoning districts in Westchester and found no evidence of exclusionary practices based on race or ethnicity.
The county’s findings were supported by a legal analysis conducted by the Pace University Land Use Law Center.
To comply with the settlement, the county has to have 300 units of affordable housing with financing in place by Dec. 31, 2013. As of June, the county had surpassed the goal with 386 units; at least 115 of which are already occupied.
The fact that the county is ahead of schedule developing affordable housing is further proof that zoning is not exclusionary.
The report cards were sent to the 31 municipalities on March 21 by the federal monitor hired by HUD, James Johnson. The report cards were prepared by the Pratt Center for Planning at the request of the monitor.
The countywide allocation from the Rutgers study was 10,768 units, with 6,961 of them in the eligible communities. The 5,847-unit allocation in the monitor’s report cards acknowledges that 1,114 units of affordable housing were built or under construction in the 31 eligible communities between 2000 and November 2012, again more proof that the zoning in these communities is not exclusionary.
