THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER From the Westchester County Department of Communications. August 24, 2012:

In a news release Thursday, Westchester County said it would move ahead to reintroduce legislation that would require owners of affordable housing to accept Section 8 Vouchers without question. The County Executive had previously refused to consider such legislation.The county faced a possibility of being charged with contempt of court.

This move comes after a county appeal still not decided, of the Housing and Urban Development directive to do so as part of a housing settlement in the Astorino administration ongoing fight against HUD positions on the the county’s settlement on providing 750 units affordable housing.

County Executive Robert Astorino outlined the county’s dispute with HUD on constitutional grounds Wednesday evening before over 100 persons in a Town Meeting in White Plains.

The release details the reasons for moving ahead with the Section 8 mandatory acceptance legislation. The County Executive is also fighting HUD on its demand county cities and towns remove all restrictive zoning.

The release:

            In the letter to James Johnson, the monitor, Astorino makes the following points:

·        The county is well ahead of schedule in meeting the benchmarks for building the 750 units of affordable housing required in the 2009 housing settlement signed by former County Executive Andrew J. Spano and ratified by the Board of Legislators.

·        The county believes its appeal before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals will vindicate its position that the federal government’s demands go far beyond the terms of the settlement.

·        The county’s actions continue to demonstrate its compliance with the terms of the settlement.

            “Our case continues,” Astorino said. “The arguments we have made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are strong and grounded in the principles that are fundamental to our Constitution. While I think it would have made much more common sense for the government to wait until the Second Circuit rules in the case, the District Court has told me to move forward on source of income legislation and I am compelled to follow the order of the judge.”

            The letter to Johnson addresses the three points in Judge Cote’s order: reintroduction of source of income legislation, followed by analysis and signing of the legislation.

·        On point one, the county executive will submit a letter to Board of Legislators Chairman Ken Jenkins by Aug. 31, asking him to have the board reintroduce the prior source of income legislation that had been before the board.

·        On point two, the administration will provide information and assist the board in analyzing the impact of the legislation.

·        On point three, the county executive will wait to see the final legislation before making a determination of whether he will sign it because its content will not be known until then.

            The last point is at the heart of the county’s legal case. The county maintains there is nothing in the settlement that requires the county executive to sign source of income legislation – the agreement says only that he must “promote” it. In addition, the county believes the source of income requirement expired in 2009 because legislation referenced in the settlement was “currently” before the board at that time.

            “To compel an elected official to sign legislation sight unseen and to give up his or her responsibility to vote his conscience goes against everything our country stands for,” Astorino said. “We don’t think the settlement says that, and that is one of the issues we are fighting in court.”

            Astorino has taken a principled stand against source of income legislation because he believes it would take away the rights of property owners and hurt the prospects of building affordable housing. At the heart of the legislation is the requirement that property owners must accept Section 8 vouchers as rent. The program now is voluntary. If made mandatory, every property owner offered a Section 8 vouchers would be required to accept it and be bound by all the rules and regulations and potential fines attached to the program.

            Astorino stressed, “I will continue to abide by all lawful orders of the Court in effect at any given time.”

            The 2009 housing settlement requires the county government to take steps to ensure that 750 units of fair and affordable housing are built in 31 so-called “eligible,” or mostly white communities.

            Just this week, the county exceeded the two key benchmarks for the end of 2012; it has in place 130 building permits and secured financing for 207 units. The settlement required 125 building permits and 200 units with financing by the end of the year.

WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From the Westchester County Board of Legislators.(Supplemented by WPCNR) August 21,2012;

A resolution for an independent audit of Playland, the 280-acre amusement park and beach facility owned and operated by Westchester County, received approval today by the Westchester County Board of Legislators (BOL) Government Operations Committee and will now be set for a full vote at the BOL’s next regular meeting on September 10.

The resolution, was supported only by the Democratic legislators on the committee. The call for an independent audit implies that administration reports of Playland being 10% off in revenues has left out important sources of revenue.

In midsummer, Astorino gave legislators a grim report. He even told CBS Radio “Cash strapped Westchester losing $3 to 5 Million a year on Rye Playland is no longer going to be an option,” and that trend in losses is likely to continue. A decison on the park future will be made in September.

The resolution authorizes BOL Chairman Ken Jenkins (D-Yonkers) to employ an independent financial firm to audit and review the actual revenues and expenses of Playland along with the current procedures in place to ensure proper and accurate compilation of the data; and instructs the Budget Director and the Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Conservation to provide the professional auditors with all information and documentation requested.

“This is a thirteen million dollar a year business that deserves a full financial and operational audit so that legislators can make informed decisions about Playland’s future,” said Legislator Catherine Borgia (D-Ossining), chair of the BOL Government Operations Committee. “With this in mind, it is entirely prudent that we start planning for an audit right now.”

The County Charter mandates that the BOL “investigate the official conduct and the accounts, receipts, disbursements, bills and affairs of any office or officer of the county, or of any office or officer of any special county district or other unit of county government, and make such studies or investigations as it deems to be in the best interests of the county,” as well as “employ such…financial or other technical advisers as may be necessary from time to time, in relation to the performance of any of the functions of county government.”

WPCNR notes the cost of Playland’s deficit, that the Astorino administration has been wringing its hands over for the last 2 and a half years, apparently did not stop the county from spending $6.7 million (approximately two years of Playland’s revenue shortfalls) to ready the bathhouses for a Children’s Museum and giving that museum a $1 a year lease with no financial resources as yet revealed by the museum’s backers.

Ned McCormick, Director of Communications for the County Executive told WPCNR this month that the museum would have to demonstrate their financial resources before the County Committee on Contracts and Acquisitions would approve the lease. If that lease is denied, of course, it would mean the county wasted that $6.4 Million paid to fix the bathhouses that a developer could have paid for.