Regionalism is a Civil Rights Issue

[Matthew.Ricchiazzi]

I've been saying for a very long time that REGIONALISM IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! This is a huge step towards ending exclusionary zoning practices, reversing historic socio-spatial segregation patterns, and (long, long term) addressing stark inequities across racial groups in terms of access to high quality public services, livable neighborhoods, and better schools.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/ny.../11settle.html


In Desegregation Pact, Westchester Agrees to Add Affordable Housing
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: August 10, 2009

Westchester County officials have entered into a landmark desegregation agreement that would compel the county to create affordable housing in overwhelmingly white communities and aggressively market it to non-whites in the county and in neighboring New York City.

The agreement, to be formally filed Monday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, would end three years of litigation by the Anti-Discrimination Center over Westchester’s responsibility to enforce fair-housing goals.

“Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care,” said Craig Gurian, executive director of the Anti-Discrimination Center, which filed the suit under the federal False Claims Act.

The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where blacks constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The county has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing units.

Among the towns and villages in which blacks constitute less than 3 percent of the population and would theoretically be eligible for affordable housing under the settlement are Bedford, Bronxville., Eastchester, Hastings-on-Hudson, Harrison, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, New Castle, Pelham Manor and Scarsdale.

It was not immediately clear where the new houses and apartments would be placed, although the settlement says that priority should be given to sites near public transportation. The overarching goal, though, is to locate them in the least racially integrated neighborhoods.

Given that 120,000 acres of land in the county meet the criteria, Mr. Gurian said, the federal monitor “should have no difficulty making sure that Westchester ends its policy of allowing affordable housing to be off-limits in the most highly white neighborhoods in the county.”

Brokered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the agreement promises to spark challenges to suburban counties across the country that have resisted pressure to undo decades of residential segregation.

“Westchester, belatedly acknowledging its authority to do so, is obligated to take legal action against resistant municipalities where needed to fulfill the affirmatively furthering fair housing purposes of the settlement,” Mr. Gurian said.

Westchester officials had originally dismissed as “garbage” the lawsuit’s premise that the county had fraudulently claimed that, as a condition of accepting federal funds, it fully complied with mandates to provide affordable housing without furthering racial segregation.

But the county’s claims were largely repudiated in February when Judge Denise L. Cote ruled that between 2000 and 2006 the county had misrepresented its efforts to desegregate overwhelmingly white communities when it applied for federal housing funds.

Judge Cote concluded that Westchester made little or no effort to find out where low-income housing was being placed, or finance homes and apartments in communities that opposed affordable housing.

Andrew Spano, the Westchester County executive, attributed the settlement" to "a historic shift of philosophy" by federal housing officials. Mr. Spano said that the settlement would have "a sweeping effect on communities nationwide” and that he signed the agreement to avoid further litigation and possible penalties.

The county admitted no wrongdoing, blamed the judge’s ruling on a technicalty, said it had always given made affordable housing a priority and said that since it had previously invested in affordable housing, "what is different is the locations where the housing must be built."

The false claims suit by the Anti-Discrimination Center, a nonprofit group, and the settlement apply to towns and villages in Westchester. The federal government deals directly with the cities in the county, among them Yonkers, which nearly went bankrupt before capitulating two years ago in a housing segregation case that dragged on for 27 years.

The agreement is to be formally announced on Monday by federal and county officials.

It is subject to approval within 45 days by the county Board of Legislators, which is also required to approve a $32.9 million bond sale to help finance the housing.

Without that approval, the litigation would resume and the county would be faced with having to prove at trial that it did not knowingly file false claims.

Federal housing officials would appoint a monitor to ensure compliance.

“Affordable” housing is defined by a complex formula, but generally it is meant for working families. In some cases, a family of four could make up to $90,000 and still qualify.

There is no minimum income level, “but it’s not going to be no-income,” Mr. Gurian said. “This agreement is not focused on facilitating housing for the poorest of the poor.”

Mr. Gurian said that while black and Hispanic residents have a disproportionate need for affordable housing, “this is an opportunity-creating agreement, not a guarantee” that the homes would go to members of minority groups.

Most of the homes would be new construction, although some existing houses and apartments could qualify if the county made them permanently affordable.

The case was litigated by Mr. Gurian and the center’s lawyer, John Relman. Their argument that the county had largely ignored local impediments to affordable housing was based, in part, on testimony by Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College of the City University of New York.

Dr. Beveridge found that “racial isolation is increasing for blacks, falling slightly for whites” and that “income level has very little impact on the degree of residential racial segregation experienced by African-Americans.”

[Dougles]

Maybe you should study up on the last time the COB did some regionalism, i don't even know if you were alive. Do some reading the changes of the schools and bussing during the 80's! With the integration of schools (people from different neighborhoods, not race), their was a huge decline in population (white flight) and quality of Buffalo schools.

The majority of people would rather have the poor and unruly live in one confined area than spread out through every neighborhood, what's the famous saying, "one rotten apple spoils a bunch".

Since when is it a right for the poor to recieve the same benefits as the middle class without working for it?

[WNYresident]

Affordable Housing

IF it has to be subsidized at all it's not affordable to begin with. If you can't afford a house you simpley can't afford a house. Someone elses money should not be used to lower a price of a home for anyone who can't afford one in the first place.

I sort of have no problem with inexpensive apartments erected so people have a place to live but not the BS we see in the city of buffalo. WHen hundreds of thousand are spent on "affordable" homes it's BS. It's just a way for politically connected developers to skim off the community.

So why not say... you are in favor of other people paying so people who can't afford a home can get one?

[Save Us]

Maybe you should study up on the last time the COB did some regionalism, i don't even know if you were alive. Do some reading the changes of the schools and bussing during the 80's! With the integration of schools (people from different neighborhoods, not race), their was a huge decline in population (white flight) and quality of Buffalo schools.

The majority of people would rather have the poor and unruly live in one confined area than spread out through every neighborhood, what's the famous saying, "one rotten apple spoils a bunch".

Since when is it a right for the poor to recieve the same benefits as the middle class without working for it?

Buffalo's only approach to regionalism has been when they give up some asset like parks, zoo etc. because they can't afford it.

HUD money is not for animals just salaries

[Ragin]

Have you ever been to Yonkers? The City of Yonkers has been going to pot for over 20 years. I wouldn't send my kids to those city schools, even the ones in so-called "white neighborhoods".

What a shame, it used to be a nice place to live, but again I repeat, it has been going to pot for over 20 years.

But apparently Yonkers isn't going downhill fast enough.

This should really speed things along.

[Save Us]

Have you ever been to Yonkers? The City of Yonkers has been going to pot for over 20 years. I wouldn't send my kids to those city schools, even the ones in so-called "white neighborhoods".

What a shame, it used to be a nice place to live, but again I repeat, it has been going to pot for over 20 years.

But apparently Yonkers isn't going downhill fast enough.

This should really speed things along.

Heck Yonkers,, soon NY will look like Buffalo a few good neighborhoods interspersed in numerous areas of blight.

Thanks again PUS!!

[Ragin]

Heck Yonkers,, soon NY will look like Buffalo a few good neighborhoods interspersed in numerous areas of blight.

Thanks again PUS!!

You're right. I've seen it firsthand when I lived downstate. Busing kept us out of public schools. Homeless people from NYC fill the more affordable hotels/motels and schools in suburbia. HUD housing is everywhere. Not in only the poorest of neighborhoods. And along with that the crime rate has skyrocketed in direct proportion to urban sprawl.

Regionalism. What a crock.

[Ragin]

I've been saying for a very long time that REGIONALISM IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! This is a huge step towards ending exclusionary zoning practices, reversing historic socio-spatial segregation patterns, and (long, long term) addressing stark inequities across racial groups in terms of access to high quality public services, livable neighborhoods, and better schools.

You just lost my vote.

[CSense]

IF it has to be subsidized at all it's not affordable to begin with. If you can't afford a house you simpley can't afford a house. Someone elses money should not be used to lower a price of a home for anyone who can't afford one in the first place.

I sort of have no problem with inexpensive apartments erected so people have a place to live but not the BS we see in the city of buffalo. WHen hundreds of thousand are spent on "affordable" homes it's BS. It's just a way for politically connected developers to skim off the community.

So why not say... you are in favor of other people paying so people who can't afford a home can get one?

I agree, diagree an agree.

(1) I agree that if you can't afford to purchase a home you should not be subsidized one.

(2) I disagree that we shouldn't make apartments affordable for those who cannot afford market rate. Government should be out of the Housing Authority gig. Vouchers and subsidies for apartments only.

(3) I agree that Buffalo is not the norm, in cities like NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and others, they have unbelievable rents but in Buffalo there is no such problem.

I've stated it a thousand times, HUD needs to change the rules for midcities like Buffalo, Dayton, Rochester, etc. We need gentrification!

[therising]

I've been saying for a very long time that REGIONALISM IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! This is a huge step towards ending exclusionary zoning practices, reversing historic socio-spatial segregation patterns, and (long, long term) addressing stark inequities across racial groups in terms of access to high quality public services, livable neighborhoods, and better schools.

Matthew - You are running for Mayor in one of the most segregated cities in the country.
In theory, your desire to break through that is a commendable one.
In reality, it's political Hari Kari.

Try going to a largely white neighborhood (say South Buffalo), and saying, "Hey folks, because your neighborhood is so white, we are going to build this low income housing here, and fill it with 90% back people."

Go ahead, try telling the people in SB that. Good luck.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

(2) I disagree that we shouldn't make apartments affordable for those who cannot afford market rate. Government should be out of the Housing Authority gig. Vouchers and subsidies for apartments only.

This item right here could be a game changer. Not that it would ever happen.

If the COB got out of the housing business and went 100% towards a voucher system, things would change overnight.

It would eliminate most the people who make a career out of public housing, which would save a ton of money.

It would eliminate the large developers who gain jobs by playing politics with those in power.

It would encourage PRIVATE investment into the most run down areas of the city. Since PRIVATE investors would not have to compete with PUBLIC HOUSING, private investors could purchase homes, bring them up to proper standards and cash the government checks. There would be a level of competition between private landlords to keep their voucher tenants, similar to how regular landlords have to invest in their units to keep up with the pace.

All the city would do is ensure the houses were kept up to standards and they would no longer be responsible for construction. The improvements made would be done by multiple smaller businesses instead of a couple of large developers.

[CSense]

This item right here could be a game changer. Not that it would ever happen.

If the COB got out of the housing business and went 100% towards a voucher system, things would change overnight.

It would eliminate most the people who make a career out of public housing, which would save a ton of money.

It would eliminate the large developers who gain jobs by playing politics with those in power.

It would encourage PRIVATE investment into the most run down areas of the city. Since PRIVATE investors would not have to compete with PUBLIC HOUSING, private investors could purchase homes, bring them up to proper standards and cash the government checks. There would be a level of competition between private landlords to keep their voucher tenants, similar to how regular landlords have to invest in their units to keep up with the pace.

All the city would do is ensure the houses were kept up to standards and they would no longer be responsible for construction. The improvements made would be done by multiple smaller businesses instead of a couple of large developers.

Exactly! We think alike. We need to ditch the BMHA, allow private corps to develop various housing options. Vouchers would allow renters to select. In very limited cases, gov could subsidies developments where no developer wants to, due to cost and/or location.

Although I'm not a fan of subsidized homes (ownership), I do like the rent to own premise. It gives people the opportunity to own a home at slightly above renter prices. Maintenance and taxes are the responsibility of the developer, which basically eliminates housing voilations and foreclosure (two huge things that plague inner city developments). The only drawback is equity, but it's a small price to pay for haviing a home. If there is an early buy out clause, then I would be a huge fan.

[Matthew.Ricchiazzi]

Matthew - You are running for Mayor in one of the most segregated cities in the country.
In theory, your desire to break through that is a commendable one.
In reality, it's political Hari Kari.

Try going to a largely white neighborhood (say South Buffalo), and saying, "Hey folks, because your neighborhood is so white, we are going to build this low income housing here, and fill it with 90% back people."

Go ahead, try telling the people in SB that. Good luck.

South Buffalo isn't the problem--there is plenty of affordable housing there that is provided by virtue of the market and integration will happen by virtue of the market allowing access. We need to go to Williamsville, Orchard Park, Clarence, and other municipalities that implicitly engage in exclusionary zoning. Our region is a single economy, singularly burdened with poverty and market disequillibrium. Municipalities should not be able to externalize thier share of this regional burden to a single jurisdiction. We're all in this together. We need to start thinking like it.

[Matthew.Ricchiazzi]

I agree, diagree an agree.

(1) I agree that if you can't afford to purchase a home you should not be subsidized one.

I agree. You shouldn't be subsidized. But there should be a units available for each price point in the market. That doesn't mean we should subsidize unitis. Rather, we should scale the size, quality, and amentities of living units to each price point in the market. Unfortunately, municipalities often refuse projects that include mixed market housing.

(2) I disagree that we shouldn't make apartments affordable for those who cannot afford market rate. Government should be out of the Housing Authority gig. Vouchers and subsidies for apartments only.

(3) I agree that Buffalo is not the norm, in cities like NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and others, they have unbelievable rents but in Buffalo there is no such problem.

I've stated it a thousand times, HUD needs to change the rules for midcities like Buffalo, Dayton, Rochester, etc. We need gentrification!

YES!!! We need gentrification, I agree. We do, however, need to mitigate displacement, the oft demonized by-product of market rate development. We can do so by offering incentives (like a two-tier tax codified into the zoning code) for large scale developments that include units at every price point in the market.

[Matthew.Ricchiazzi]

You just lost my vote.

If you're argueing in support of propograting socio-spatial segregation patterns, then I'm delighted to have lost your vote.