WPCNR THE FEINER REPORT. By Paul Feiner, Greenburgh Town Supervisor. August 24, 2009:
Westchester County officials should consider providing financial incentives to neighborhoods that agree to implement the desegregation agreement–which will require 750 affordable homes or apartments, 630 which must be provided in towns and villages where black and hispanic residents make up a small portion of the community. I suggest that Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano and the members of the Westchester County Board of Legislators schedule a meeting with all the mayors & Town Supervisors to discuss the implementation of any affordable housing plan.
, comptroller’s office should be asked to sign off on the plan.
As a former member of the Housing Committee of the Westchester County Board of Legislators and as Town Supervisor of Greenburgh – I have been very interested in affordable housing initiatives. In recent decades almost every elected official has supported affordable housing until it’s proposed in their community. Voters usually support the election of candidates who stand for affordable housing until the proposed units are recommended in their back yards. The aggressive NIMBY reactions from residents in most communities in Westchester against any affordable housing has resulted in few affordable housing units being built in the county in recent decades.
Recently the Greenburgh Town Board approved a zoning change to allow for workforce housing in the Fulton Park neighborhood. Although the housing is going to be situated across the street from a deli, a Verizon office building & Staples store – many residents came out against the proposal. They also motivated other civic associations within the town to oppose the project. The location of this complex is ideal for affordable housing – within walking distance from downtown White plains, the White Plains train station, Central Ave. The site was previously used for homeless housing and before that was a sleezy hotel. If an affordable housing proposal for working people at this location is controversial – it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be significant opposition to all the units of housing that are proposed by the county–no matter where it is located.
If the county enters into a stipulation with the federal government and promises to build affordable housing within the county – it is important that a plan be implemented to reduce neighborhood opposition. If neighborhoods receive benefits if housing is placed in their community – members of the community might reluctantly support the housing instead of fighting it.
The county should consider offering to acquire and pay for additional open space in the immediate neighborhoods impacted by the housing units. Another financial incentive that should be considered: the county should pay for the costs of educating the additional children who will be attending the public schools. Perhaps, additional grants could be made by the county to the affected school district to provide enhancements for other students (such as free SAT preparation courses). Other financial incentives to neighborhoods that are impacted by any stipulation should be considered.
Some people might suggest that it’s unfair for the county to reward neighborhoods that accept affordable housing. I disagree. Neighborhoods are accepting a social responsibility that others neighborhoods don’t want. The bottom line: The county should make affordable housing so appealable to neighborhoods that residents feel that their property values will go up because they will receive amenities not available to others if the housing is placed near them. Maybe we can make affordable housing so appealable that communities will compete for the privilege of having affordable housing within their boundaries.
Obviously, if this kind of agreement is implemented – a legal agreement will have to be approved. The State Attorney General’s office
