Letter to the Editor: There is a real need for affordable housing in New Castle
January 21, 2010
by Jane Lindau
Dear Editor:
I am writing to respond to the recent letters to the editor and subsequent comments in NewCastleNOW.org on December 13, “Letter to the Editor: Hunts Lane affordable housing plan too massive for site,” and December 24, 2010, “Op-Ed: Process & thoughtfulness will make affordable housing that fits our town,” both by William R. Spade, concerning the building of fair and affordable housing in New Castle.
Contrary to what many people think, there is a great need for affordable housing in New Castle – far greater than what is proposed to be built at Hunts Lane. While household incomes in New Castle are generally high in relation to other municipalities in Westchester and the county as a whole, roughly 20% of New Castle households meet HUD’s eligibility criteria for affordable housing (i.e., have combined gross household incomes at or less than $83,800 for a family of four).
These figures (which come from 2000 Census data and can be found at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/aff_transition.html) indicate that 26% of households (1,411 households) in New Castle were housing cost burdened in 2000, which means that they were paying in excess of 30% of their gross household income toward housing costs.
Both the number of households eligible for affordable housing and the number of households that are housing cost burdened in New Castle are expected to increase when the 2010 Census numbers are released because incomes in the U.S. have not increased at the pace that housing costs have increased over the last ten years, according to data compiled by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Housing Policy, the research arm of the National Housing Conference.
As a 21-year Chappaqua resident and the Director of Senior Citizens’ Housing for Westchester Residential Opportunities, a HUD certified not-for-profit housing agency, I can tell you that there is virtually no way for New Castle seniors who are living off Social Security alone to afford to stay in New Castle.
With the recent downturn in the economy we have seen many senior homeowners, who would otherwise have been able to downsize, instead use up their equity and their retirement savings to help out unemployed children, to put their grandchildren through college or to pay for catastrophic healthcare costs. These seniors have been forced into the rental market because they cannot afford to buy a smaller home, but the current waiting time for affordable senior citizen rental housing (available to households where all members are age 62 or older) in Westchester County currently exceeds two years.
The high level of volunteerism and other community involvement by seniors are some of the things that make New Castle such a great place to live. Also, with all the talk about the rising school budget, seniors comprise one segment of the population that will not add to this expense.
While we can talk about what we are required to do under the Westchester County Housing Settlement, the fact remains that there is a great need for affordable housing in New Castle. And while there is no guarantee that the residents of affordable housing here will be the current residents, if past experience in Westchester is any indicator of future results, the vast majority of those who apply for affordable housing are people who already live or work in the community. We should support our neighbors by supporting the building of affordable housing in New Castle.
Jane Lindau
Director of Senior Housing
Westchester Residential Opportunities
As a senior who has lived in New Castle for over 3 decades (and now live in a condo in the town to be near my family) I recognize the need for senior housing, including “affordable” housing.
However, there is one part of the argument for subsidized affordable housing in upscale neighborhoods that I have never quite understood, typified by the following quote from the above letter:
“I can tell you that there is virtually no way for New Castle seniors who are living off Social Security alone to afford to stay in New Castle.”
I wonder why it is that someone “living off Social Security alone” is entitled to the luxury of living in New Castle. Is someone in such circumstances entitled to drive a Mercedes? In our free-enterprise society, people are “entitled” to what they can afford, and for a person with an income derived solely from Social Security (twenty-something thousand dollars per year) someone (read us, the taxpayers) must heavily support this “entitlement”.
Why??
In reading Mr. Spade’s two pieces that you refer to, I didn’t find that he in any way denied the need for affordable housing, whether senior or no. I thought that he was duly questioning the form of one recently proposed project, the Hunts Lane 5-story building that would reach all the way up to (and beyond) bridge height. It might be a good idea, but it also might be too ambitious a squeeze by the developer to fit in as many units as he can. I thought his points were worth thinking about. I didn’t find him to be negative overall on affordable housing, as you imply by writing “Contrary to what many people think…”
Second: It would be nice to have affordable rental housing also for seniors, but the settlement-mandated housing IS the priority right now for towns and the county. I don’t think the settlement even allows the housing that would satisfy its requirements to be senior—not at first, at least. First things first. I’m sorry seniors are on a long waiting list, but other affordable comes first.
Pragmatist, you’re forgetting the greater good. We just propped up the banks and car makers because it served the greater good or at least we hope it did. Senior citizens have a lot to offer Chappaqua, and I would support higher taxes to try to keep them here.
As an empty nester that will soon be weighing housing options and possibly downsizing I feel compelled to chime in. I see no reason why the existing residents of New Castle (myself included) need the burden of accommodating “affordable housing”. Life works in cycles and when we enter the next phase and cycle we must make the appropriate choice based on finances and many other criteria. Missing in your discussion is that the affordable housing you encourage for seniors can not be mandated exclusively for seniors.
In other words if affordable housing is built (mandated by recent court ruling or any other way) then we are as likely to see young families with school age children move in. What we will then have is “affordable housing” dwellers paying considerably less in taxes then the rest of us while sending children to Chapp schools. Do the math- our budget is already in miserable shape. More students with parents not paying fair share is not needed right now. So while I understand your concern and desire for seniors to have a way to afford staying in our town, affordable housing in no way assures it will be seniors moving in.
Why Not,
I’m not sure how the “greater good” fits into the concept of taxpayers paying for those who cannot otherwise afford to live here to do so.
I am all for taxpayer support for needy seniors to provide decent housing, but I still do not understand why we should pay for others to live in any expensive, upper-class neighborhood. Just as Social Security, unemployment benefits and the like provide basic economic support, any taxpayer support for subsidized housing should be for basic decent housing in an affordable neighborhood.
Perhaps the “greater good” should also factor in that we in Westchester (and in particular in New Castle) are already paying some of the highest taxes in the country. Perhaps that is why there are no commercial enterprises rushing to move into Chappaqua Crossing.
Is it really in the “greater good” to further increase our tax burden with a “luxury-neighborhood subsidy”?
Here’s how I look at it: The problems caused by poverty and under-par urban schools are so grave that we can’t really expect or wait for some systemic change to occur to ameliorate them. And the overall economy puts us in worse shape than ever to find money to find and finance systemic solutions.
So instead, as a policy matter, I think government (or our consciences) should tell us that each community should do its part to take into their communities people who need a chance to do better—and for their children to do better—by living among people who have been luckier, as we have been.
We tend to make use of some false logic when we think of these matters. We say: “We can’t take in EVERYBODY who needs a chance, there would be no end to qualified candidates. We ourselves would sink under the weight.” But no one’s suggesting that we take in everybody, just more people than we have so far. The county settlement makes it easy by setting a number. Let’s aim to fulfill its requirements cheerfully and energetically.
I agree, Another View. There IS endless need, and I, too, think the settlement is a useful tool. Humans have a tendency to quit when overwhelmed by information or by huge problems. I would have added to “poverty and under-par schools” the problem of “race.”
Whether or not the settlement was fair or wise, and no matter whose actions opened the county to such a lawsuit, I think the settlement’s terms can be viewed as an opportunity to cut an tremendous problem down to a size people can comprehend and accept. If each community across the country were to do even this little to increase the presence of minorities, many lives would be materially better. It may not be able to happen any other way. The U.S. is that strapped now.
I don’t know how to fit into this plan of action the great need for senior affordable housing that Ms. Lindau describes, but with the settlement’s timelines and deadlines, I’m afraid other needs may have to stand in line.
Perhaps Ms. Lindau could answer the factual question brought up by another poster: CAN senior affordable housing by law be truly reserved for seniors? What are the requirements? A certain percentage of seniors present in a development?
To why not,
You would support higher taxes to keep seniors in Chappaqua? If you will kindly supply your mailing address I will be happy to send you a copy of my next New Castle/Ossining school tax bill so you can help this senior citizen stay in New Castle.
The mentality of our nation can best be summed up as “entitlement.” My wife and I both work for ourselves, meaning we are part of small businesses. If I don’t have clients, then I don’t get paid. If I don’t get paid we all know what happens next. I am far from “rich” and barely break the $250K a year family “rich” threshold (who made up that insane number). My wife and I are not entitled to a guaranteed pension with health care. My wife and I are certainly not entitled to government assistance with our mortgage, state aid for our two kids’ education, etc. We don’t drive a BMW, Audi, Mercedes (or luxury car by any standard). We save our money and manage to send our kids to Town Camp. We rarely go away on vacation, but when we do it is usually within driving distance. We pay down our college and graduate school loans. We fight and struggle and live well within our means to live here. There is a “greater good,” but that does not entitle one to live in this community. We are not “poor,” but we both earned it. Earn it like the rest of us. Sadly, you can thank the “entitlement” and “greater good” mentality for causing the cost of living in NY to spiral out control.
I didn’t at all get the impression that Bill Spade does NOT believe in the need for affordable housing. Why does the author imply that he does?
I think Spade is right about a three-story “house” rising up in the middle of nowhere (nowhere where there are other houses, anyway)from the bridge. Maybe it shouldn’t be THREE stories, but TWO? I can see that without the entryway onto the bridge, the residents of such a building will be stuck at ground level between the RR, the Saw Mill and the bridge. So it really needs to come up to bridge level. The question is how far BEYOND bridge level.
In response to questions raised about my letter, please see the following. Up to 25% of the affordable housing to be built in Westchester under the settlement can be age restricted, but only after 175 of the 750 units to be built have received building permits. However, in other communities in Westchester, a large percentage of the applicants for one bedroom units in non-age restricted affordable housing have been Senior Citizens.
As to the comment “I wonder why it is that someone “living off Social Security alone” is entitled to the luxury of living in New Castle. … someone (read us, the taxpayers) must heavily support this “entitlement” please note that no New Castle tax funds will be used to fund the construction or operation of affordable housing built under the settlement. Housing built to satisfy the settlement will be partially funded by the $51.2 million dollars of Westchester County funds that the county was required to set aside for this purpose. This has already been funded and no new county taxes will be levied to fund building under the settlement. Further, the builders of affordable housing will not receive subsidized property taxes going forward.
I am the author of the comment “I wonder why it is that someone “living off Social Security alone” is entitled to the luxury of living in New Castle. … someone (read us, the taxpayers) must heavily support this “entitlement” quoted in the response above.
The post states that no New Castle tax funds will be used, which may be true but is totally irrelevant since we are all taxpayers to Westchester and NYS as well as New Castle.
Further, the response does not address my fundamental question, which goes beyond New Castle. I ask again - in these tight times, why should taxpayer money be used to enable anyone to live in an upscale, expensive community like Chappaqua? If public support for housing for the poor is to be provided, it should be for clean, decent basic housing in an affordable area.
Pragmatist
