Letter to the Editor: Summit Greenfield’s Questionable Lawsuits
March 4, 2011
With 29 comments since publication
by Rob Greenstein
“Our town wants real, not questionable, affordable housing.”
Dear Editor,
At the town board meeting on Tuesday, February 22, Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard read her Supervisor’s Report into the record describing the upcoming public hearings on Chappaqua Crossing. She provided the time line for the board’s continued environmental review. She said the town board intends to finish their environmental review and make findings under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and then decide on Summit Greenfield’s petition for application of a Multi-Family Planned Development zone and other zoning amendments by March 31, 2011. Public hearings are scheduled for March 22, 2011. See “Supervisor’s Report on five public hearings for Chappaqua Crossing,” NewCastleNOW.org, February 28, 2011.
Summit Greenfield’s questionable lawsuits
Three days later after Supervisor Gerrard announced this timetable, on Friday, February 25, Summit Greenfield, the owner of Chappaqua Crossing, filed lawsuits against the town of New Castle in New York State Supreme Court, County of Westchester, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Not only were The Town of New Castle and the New Castle Town Board named in the suit but also Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard, Town Board Member Robin Stout and Town Board Member Michael Wolfensohn. See “No Surprises in Chappaqua Xing lawsuits except odd timing,” NewCastleNOW.org, February 28, 2011.
While the lawsuit was not surprising, the timing was very questionable. After waiting years for a final determination, why file a lawsuit weeks before that final decision will be made? Why name the individual board members in the suit? The answer is obvious: This lawsuit is not being brought in good faith, but rather as a means to intimidate town board members and the residents of our community.
Summit Greenfield’s questionable affordable housing
And this is not the first instance of questionable motives. It is no secret why Summit Greenfield is including the “fair-and-affordable” housing units in their planned dense residential development. The mandate for “fair and affordable” housing stems from a 2009 settlement between Westchester County and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a federal agency.
This Westchester Fair Housing Settlement requires the creation of 750 fair-and-affordable housing units in 31 Westchester communities, including New Castle, by 2015. Of the 750 units of fair-and-affordable housing units, New Castle would be theoretically responsible for creating 25 such units (750 units divided by 31 municipalities). The 31 communities were chosen due to their low percentages of African American and Hispanic households, not because of any Berenson-type exclusionary housing practices. (The Berenson suit was brought at a time when New Castle’s zoning laws permitted no condominium development; today, one-tenth of New Castle’s housing stock is condo.)
By offering to make 10% (20 units) of its 199 proposed market-rate housing units “compliant” with the settlement’s fair-and-affordable requirements, Summit Greenfield is hoping for a boost in support of its 199-unit project from Westchester County, and possibly the federal government.
For the county, tens of millions of dollars of HUD money are at stake with this settlement. Although New Castle itself doesn’t receive HUD funds, Summit Greenfield is betting that because the county can’t afford to lose HUD monies, the county will put what pressure it can on the municipalities to create fair-and-affordable housing, even in cases such as Chappaqua Crossing, where it is attached to large market-rate condo developments that otherwise might not pass muster with an individual municipality – and where required conditions for multifamily development are non-existent (proximity to shopping, service, public transportation).
Affordable housing at Chappaqua Crossing is the only appealing part of dense plan
But the problem is that the affordable housing component is the only appealing part of Summit Greenfield’s dense residential development. The affordable housing units are the smallest component of this dense residential development. These 20 affordable housing units come bundled with a dense residential development of 179 more units – 60 fee simple townhouses and 119 condos. These 20 affordable units come at the expense of compromising our last large commercially-zoned property. These 20 affordable units come with a dense residential development of market-rate condos that risks bankrupting our school system.
Another problem with these 20 affordable units is that they are not responsive to the requirements, intentions and spirit of the settlement. Nor does the Chappaqua Crossing location satisfy the conditions of a multifamily zone. They are not located near shopping, community facilities and public transportation. They are in an office park two miles from downtown, unconnected by sidewalks.
Board has no power to ensure Summit Greenfield will build affordable housing
But the very biggest problem is that the town board has no power to ensure when, or even if, these affordable units will be built. Summit Greenfield is building primarily market-rate units. As Summit Greenfield’s website indicates “Summit Development LLC is a diversified real estate services company that owns, operates, develops, manages and markets a wide range of residential, office, industrial and retail properties throughout the Northeast. As their web site also indicates, they raise equity from a variety of institutional and private investors. http://www.chappaquacrossing.com/developers.html
They have not applied for county financing that would commit them to construct the affordable housing they propose. So even if the town board were to approve the 199-unit condo development or a smaller number of condos, the board cannot ensure that the affordable units will ever be built, since the board will have no control over the staging of construction on the Chappaqua Crossing site. It is possible that the market rate units will be first on the developer’s agenda and that the developer will never reach the point of building the affordable units.
Real affordable housing opportunities in New Castle
In Paragraph 3 of Summit Greenfield’s New York State complaint, it states “the Town’s motivations for indefinitely preventing any development and economic use of the Property are the Town’s continued desire to prevent, unlawfully, the construction of affordable housing units in New Castle, effectively foisting this social responsibility on other municipalities in the region.” Howard Stahl, an attorney for the venture was quoted in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal as well saying that this is largely because the town opposes affordable housing.
But the Town Board has never opposed affordable housing. The town board has repeatedly announced its desire to provide more affordable housing within the town. In an effort to bring affordable housing to New Castle, the New Castle Town Board recently approved a local law that adds workforce housing to permitted zoning uses in parts of downtown Chappaqua. See “Town board eases the way for affordable housing in downtown,” NCNOW.org, June 25, 2010.
And the Town Board has encouraged the Hunts Lane affordable housing development, which would include 36 affordable rental units.
The Hunts Lane proposal is responsive to the requirements, intentions and spirit of the county’s fair-and-affordable housing settlement. The Hunts Lane proposal satisfies all the conditions of a multifamily zone. At Hunts Lane, community facilities are within the half-mile of the units: the Metro-North train station, library and post office, shopping, a pharmacy, a hardware store, delis, Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks, a variety of restaurants and take-outs, senior community center and more. All are within walking distance, plus there are sidewalks.
We have the certainty that the Hunts Lane units will be built as affordable units since that is the sole mission of its developer. The Hunts Lane developer specializes in the development and management of high-quality, affordable housing communities. http://www.coniferllc.com/ And the Hunts Lane developer is seeking public financing, which will ensure that the 36 affordable units are built.
Our Town Board most certainly wants affordable housing. They and residents just want affordable housing that complies with the Westchester County Settlement and affordable housing units that will definitely be built. Our town wants real, not questionable, affordable housing.
Rob Greenstein
___________________________
To view NCNOW’s archived articles and letters—in chronological order, newest to oldest—on Chappaqua Crossing and Summit Greenfield’s application for a zoning change, click HERE.
Bravo Rob! Once again, you did an excellent job explaining the “real” issue to lay people such as myself. After reading the article in yesterday’s WSJ, I was hoping you would have a response. Go get them and keep up the excellent work.
Is this the reason that Summit Greenfield has said it will not ask for money from the county? Does this leave them free to tackle the residential (if the board changes the zoning) in the order they want and at the pace they want? And could that pace be so slow as to never deliver on the affordable I wonder? Interesting. Thanks, Rob, for keeping track of this.
we keep hearing that the timing of the lawsuit is “questionable.” why was new castle so blindsided? seems like new castle is playing checkers while the developers are playing chess. this one sided explanation of this ongoing situation since 2004 has led us to where we are today. the developers rightly do not trust the town board and had no other choice but to take this to the courts. this, imo, will not bode well for the town if outside commentary is any indication of things to come. who’s smiling now?
Rob, What happens if the town approves of some of what they requested such as the zoning change for commercial when it makes its decision at the end of the month? Would that make the residential claims any different in weight?
Bravo, Rob; you nailed it.
Summit Greenfield is cynically exploiting the federal court’s “fair housing” ruling to depict New Castle residents as racists and elitists and smuggle past the courts its plan for self-enrichment at the community’s expense, by disguising that plan as a fair housing project. We can respond to both media pressure and the courts in the same way: by telling the truth. What Summit Greenfield is trying to do is maximize its profits. What New Castle has been trying to do is protect itself from Summit Greenfield. This has nothing to do with prospective low-income residents, whose interests are being used as pawns in SG’s game to force its condos on the people of New Castle.
Good work, Rob. Keep fighting.
Has anyone prepared for what if the developer wins this lawsuit or appears to have enough leverage to extract huge dollars from the town? I have friends looking to buy here and the homes are “cheap,” but the taxes are ridiculous. So while people may want to buy a $1.2m home here, they can’t afford to pay $35-$40k taxes on that house. Where is all this going? I can’t help but think that the future of Chappaqua is horribly bleak.
Great job Bob! As always you cut through all the “legalize” and put the issue in everyday terms. Obviously, SG knows about the Hunts Lane proposal,they know that a vast majority of residents don’t want the zoning changes they are pursuing, and intimidation is their “Hail Mary”. Lawsuits and bullying are what is left for SG.
Thanks for constantly staying on top of this issue.
omt, if the lawsuit isn’t brought about “in good faith” perhaps it’s because the town never dealt “in good faith” with the developers. remember last year when the town broadsided them by suddenly announcing they had to re-do the FEIS report?(at that point consider-able time and money had gone into the effort.) the foot dragging cost the developers a large fortune. frankly, it’s embarrassing to hear the town say they were caught off guard by the timing of the lawsuit. what is this, amateur hour? this is not surprising to anyone who’s been watching their handling of one fiasco to the next. when the garbage starts piling up come april, there should be a huge dumpster, set up outside their office, for the refuse.
@concerned resident
Don’t worry friend. Rob Greenstein will pay for it.
If YOU believe that SG’s lawyers were “blindsided” by anything the town board told them, you’ve got the same blinders on that those lawyers did. SG has been an antagonistic actor in this mess from the get-go. The town board has acted properly and will be vindicated.
To “By who laughs last”;
By following all of the various town and state laws, the Town Board has followed procedures as they should. If SG feels this is footdragging, then perhaps they should have followed more closely how the board handled zoning changes in the past.The board, by adhering to the proper protocols, have placed New Castle in the best possible light to handle the lawsuit.
If they had “just said no”, as so many in town had called for in the past, SG would probably have a worthy case. However,he board dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” and have patiently allowed SG to present their case multiple times in many forms.
That is why SG is pursuing the sham “fair housing” claim as a means to push thru their agenda.
I note that you have chosen the display name “by who laughs last”;the rest of that phrase is, “laughs best”. If you are a resident of New Castle and the town were to lose a lawsuit to SG, how is that “laughing best”?
Rob, you continue to inform and enlighten the community with your clear and thoughtful analysis of the Summit Greenfield situation. I, for one, appreciate reading your comments, whether in the form of an article or when you are merely playing the role of commentator to discussions on this site. My own feeling is in our very litigious society, people seem to get easily intimidated whenever the threat of an attorney or some legal action is mentioned. Any good attorney would tell you that when a case actually goes to court, there are absolutely no guarantees as to the outcome of a suit. In this case, this applies not only to our town, but to Summit Greenfield, as well. Summit Greenfield has obviously invested a lot of money in this venture in the hopes of reaping immense profits without regard to the effect on the surrounding community. They have no real commitment to this town and are simply looking to maximize revenue from this investment and then move on to another project in some other area. I respect the town board’s efforts in trying to make a fair decision based on the facts of the Summit Greenfield rezoning application. I would hope they will render a decision based on these facts and not be intimidated by the threat of a lawsuit. I would hope they stand up for their convictions.
I knew that the lawsuit was coming but I never imagined that the basis for the lawsuit would be so without merit. The basis for the lawsuit is so preposterous that I can now sit back and relax feeling 110% confident that SG is destined to be a loser (and they deserve whatever additional financial losses this lawsuit may cost them). What would ever make SG think that the Town of New Castle owes them a living?
SG’s newly commenced action is frivolous. It alleges that the Town Board is against affordable housing, yet the approval of Hunt’s Lane is still pending. Had Hunts Lane been denied, the allegation might at least pass the smell test. in this case, it does not.
I would hope that the Town’s attorneys make a Rule 11 demand that the complaint be withdrawn as it is not well founded in fact or law. then, once SG loses, the District Court can hold them responsible for the Town’s attorneys fees.
SG has implemented pressure tactics and the Town should provide a measured and appropriate response. That said, this lawsuit is frivolous and SG and it’s cow sell should bear the ultimate responsibility for initiating it.
Thanks for the summary. I want affordable housing in this town. But that location is ridiculous and so it SG’s gameplaying. They want people to believe they care one iota about affordable housing? No, the want to sell 179 units for between $700,000 and $1,000,000! That’s a whole lotta bucks they have their eye on and this
The opposition to affordable housing led by oppenents of the project, as reflected by the record and various comments on this website, is an embarassment to the Town of New Castle. It will haunt this Town for years in the form of federal oversight of the Town as well as damages to the form of payment of legal fees and damages to the devoloper, including the Town’s own leagl fees. The developer will not give up on those claims, even afrter the Town Board allows some residential devlopments on the site, which it will certainly do.
It appears SG has moles posting inflammatory “affordable housing” rhetoric on this site. I think residents of Chappaqua should avoid engaging with these imposters. The record surrounding the Hunts Lane project and the strict requirements regarding access to public transport and services reflected in the federal settlement speaks for themselves.
I am sure SG and their counsel are spending the weekend trying to find a way to spin the recent article regarding Hunts Lane and the affordable housing developer’s application for state funds. The town board supports this. Very inconvenient fact for them!
There will be no federal oversight and damages unless SG wins its lawsuit, and that is not going to happen. As comments above point out, the Town has “crossed every ‘t’ and dotted every ‘i’” in reviewing the Summit Greenfield proposal, and has not rejected affordable housing, but merely looked to Hunt’s Lane, for example, to create affordable housing that complies with the federal court directives. “Affordable housing” on the RD property would not comply with that order, it part because RD is too far way from the town’s commercial center.
Moreover, the so-called “affordable housing” elements of the plan were added by SG belatedly, after it became clear that SG could not ram its zoning changes through the Town Board; i.e., that, in assessing the SG application, the Board would follow established town, county and state procedures, rather than cut corners or be bullied. The Board is clean on this one, whereas SG is manipulating a federal court order for commercial purposes, including by trying to intimidate the Town Board by filing a meritless law suit. I wouldn’t put my money on SG.
The Town’s attorneys will, I am sure, point out all of the above in answering the complaint. Yet Chappaqua has nothing to be ashamed about. We are taking steps—Hunt’s Lane—to comply with the federal court’s order. We oppose SG’s development because it would add to our tax burden and, increase traffic on already-crowded town roads and, by changing a small, quiet community to a more crowded one, adversely affect the value of our property. We support affordable housing, but do not have to swallow a barrel full of rotten apples—the SG development—merely because the vendor places a good one—affordable housing—in their midst.
As Rob Greenstein has pointed out, even if Summit Greenfield’s proposals were approved by the Town and all of the zoning changes it seeks were granted, Summit Greenfield has said that it cannot guarantee it would be able to build the “affordable housing” component. To the contrary, at various hearings and elsewhere, they have stated that their ability to build affordable housing is contingent on there being “sufficient profits” from the market rate development to subsidize building affordable units. They have never explained where the necessary funds would come from to subsidize the operation, upkeep and maintenance of the affordable units if they are ever built. Are they going to somehow require the purchasers of their market rate units to subsidize and pay the taxes on the affordable units in perpetuity? Seriously? Also people should recognize that if Summit Greenfield claims after the initial market rate units have been sold (assuming they could be sold) that there wasn’t enough “extra profit” to subsidize the then still unbuilt affordable housing, who doesn’t believe Summit Greenfield will be back before the Town Board arguing that it needs to be able to build another 150 or 200 market rate units, so it can build the affordable units? And you can bet if their ploy works this time they will be saying that if they are given permission they will increase the number of affordable units and really build them this time. Once the door is open it will be impossible to close it.
EFS is right, not to engage with the moles. We will stick to the facts which make SG’s lawsuit bogus. It will not succeed.
Their pathetic attempt to use affordable housing for their own gain is reprehensible.
I, too, think—excuse me, KNOW—New Castle has nothing to be ashamed of in connection with affordable housing. I have never, ever heard one mention of opposition to affordable housing from those I have spoken with about either Hunts Lane or CC. One is supported because it would indeed be affordable housing, the other is not because it is 100%, a major commercial development that will cost this town untold funds but is being rammed down out throats one way or another.
I agree that some of these postings are clearly trolls for SG.
So if someone disagrees they are a troll? I get it.
Anyone taking seriously anonymous comments on these blogs does not understand the waste of time that these anonymous comments are to anyone other than the posters themselves. Mine included.
Frooks v. Town of Cortlandt, 997 F. Supp 438 (1998), aff’d 182 Fed.3 899 (2d Cir. NY 1999)
“Frooks” is certainly of help. Y’all should read it.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3730749940844601008&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
SG’s filing is the equivalent of a SLAPP suit.
I’m not an attorney living in Chappaqua nor am I a troll or mole for SG. I am a real-estate professional living in Chappaqua (yes, we live here too), who purchases, plans and executes real-estate strategies. The anger and arrogance of some posters on this site reminds me of the contested middle school construction and 9-11 memorial controversy. I did speak out publicly against the middle school construction and was attacked with the same fervor as this issue and choose to be anonymous on this post like many others here.
There are two sides to every argument and in real estate there are many more options than emotional residents realize. I have been involved in these types of zoning fights across the country and Chappaqua like many other communities, is a “not in my backyard” town, it’s true. Frankly, I do not oppose smart development for Readers Digest and believe the town needs diverse housing. SG is an experienced, intelligent group of professionals and has invested millions, and they will not just walk away.
Rob G believes the affordable housing is the only appealing portion of SG’s plan, well if that’s true, here’s my professional analysis from a real-estate perspective. SG should secure the commercial asset as the exit strategy and donate the residential portions of the property for affordable housing as a parting present to New Castle. Sell the building, take the tax credit for the donation and move on. If 36 units can fit on Hunts Lane next to the rail road tracks, think about how many can fit on 10 or 12 acres of the Reader’s Digest property.
SG does not need my advice, and to all the smart attorneys who post comments here, real-estate is my business and smart well financed investors always have many exit strategies. I hope our towns attorneys are prepared…..this could potentially just be the beginning of a disastrous chapter for New Ca
To “a blind person could see this coming” on 03/04/2011 at 10:04 am
Why the personal attack on Rob Greenstein? At least he, unlike you coward, has put his name on everything he writes and fights for what he believes is right for our town without ever making any personal attacks on anyone. You should be ashamed of yourself.
RD won’t be effective affordable housing because of its location which is not within walking distance of any store, business services or the trains. The goal is not to find any open land to put affordable housing but open land near commerce and transportation and RD simply doesn’t cut it. As we all know, in the burbs, you either need a car or perhaps two cars if one spouse is working and the other raising kids or some effective mass transit. As someone else posted, if the only mass transit within walking distance is the Bee Line bus, you are not going to be able to lead a particularly efficient life.
Can you imagine with all this flooding what would be happening on the former RD property if they had built residential buildings?
There are no sewers for residential use and it is doubtful that the County will grant access, as they haven’t in years to other parts of New Castle. Roaring Brook Rd. is flooded, the Sawmill River Parkway is flooded, and there is uncontrolled chlorinated waste creating an ecological and health hazard.
It would be a disaster. CC is no site for residential use.
I agree with a poster above—please town board, consider asserting an anti-SLAPP claim in your answer and counterclaims.The town board is engaging in well established zoning procedure including environmental studies and public comment sessions and filing this lawsuit at this time without a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claims (e.g., SG does not have a “property interest” under law) is nothing more than an effort to intimidate and run up legal costs. A SLAPP!!!!!! Such claims have been asserted before in zoning disputes. Prevailing in such suits means attorney fees to the town.
