Update on Summit Greenfield’s Chappaqua Crossing federal court case
Monday, September 19, 2011
by Christine Yeres
Last Wednesday in federal Court in White Plains, lawyers for the town of New Castle told Judge Kenneth Karas that the case by Summit Greenfield against town board members Michael Wolfensohn and Robin Stout, and Supervisor Barbara Gerrard—as individuals—was meant “merely to harass and burden town officials” and should be dropped.
According LoHud reporter Elizabeth Ganga in her September 15 posting, “New Castle officials ask Chappaqua Crossing case to be dismissed against them; town amends approvals to facilitate sewer district expansion,” the town’s attorneys argued that it was inappropriate to include the three board members individually in the by Summit Greenfield against the Town of New Castle.
Lawyers for Summit Greenfield countered that if if the case against the three were dismissed, the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ discovery process would be hampered. According to the LoHud piece, Summit Greenfield lawyers are seeking access to personal emails of the three board members.
Karas agreed to consider written arguments and issue a decision sometime in the next several weeks.
Town board amends Chappaqua Crossing approvals to promote county consideration of sewer extension
In its meeting last Wednesday, town board members made changes to the approvals last April for development by Summit Greenfield of 111 residential units at Chappaqua Crossing described in a Preliminary Development Concept Plan [a description of what form development must take at Chappaqua Crossing if Summit Greenfield or any subsequent owner should proceed with development].
Only 88 of the proposed and approved-in-concept 111 units fall within an existing sewered area of the Reader’s Digest property. Summit Greenfield would need approval from the county to extend the sewer district for the remainder of the units. The town board officially requested the county to extend the district, adding Chappaqua Crossing to long-standing requests for sewer extension for Random Farms, Riverwoods and Yeshiva, whose failed septic systems are in violation of Croton watershed regulations.
Repairing a Catch-22
As the April 2011 Preliminary Development Concept Plan approvals stand, Summit Greenfield must have approval for a sewer extension to go before the New Castle planning board for site plan approval; however, the county wants some indication of local planning board site plan approval before deciding to approve the sewer extension.
This Catch-22 is cited by Summit Greenfield in its lawsuits against the town (and town board members) as demonstrating that the town’s approval process was a “sham,” meant to prevent Summit Greenfield from developing the site.
Last Wednesday, the town board voted to amend its April 2011 approvals to allow Summit Greenfield to come to the planning board for site plan approval prior to an extension the sewer district, but will require proof that it has such an extension before any building permits are issued.
Interesting article
From the Wall Street Journal on 09/16/2011:
“Social Engineering in Suburbia
Federal regulators try to integrate counties by housing fiat.
You’d think that federal housing officials these days would focus on repairing a housing market that continues to retard economic growth. Yet the Department of Housing and Urban Development is preoccupied with the precise racial and ethnic make-up of American neighborhoods, such as Westchester County north of New York City.
In 2009 Westchester’s then-county executive, Democrat Andrew Spano, reached a settlement with HUD that ended a lawsuit brought by a liberal activist group. The suit alleged that Westchester had accepted federal grants while making false claims about “affordable housing” in the county. Never mind that prior to Team Obama’s strong-arming, HUD officials in Republican and Democratic Administrations had praised Westchester’s housing practices. Mr. Spano said he agreed to the deal instead of going to trial because he didn’t want to put federal funds for the county at risk.
Westchester officials admitted no wrongdoing, but the county did agree to spend $50 million on 750 new subsidized housing units—630 of which must be constructed in enclaves that are less than 3% black and 7% Hispanic—and to market them to minorities. According to the current Westchester executive, Republican Rob Astorino, the county is well along in meeting those goals, but the Obama Administration won’t take yes for an answer.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
“HUD is trying to expand the terms of the settlement from a straightforward stipulation to build housing into an open-ended utopian integration order,” Mr. Astorino says. The Administration wants the county to say that its housing patterns stem from discriminatory practices, though there’s no evidence to support the claim. “All of the objective studies that have been done show that housing patterns in Westchester are driven by economics,” says Mr. Astorino.
Even the activist group that filed the original lawsuit couldn’t show any pattern of discrimination, which is why it filed a false claims suit instead. According to the 2010 Census, Westchester is the fourth most racially diverse county in the state, trailing only Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, and tying Manhattan.
That’s not good enough for HUD. Even as more blacks and Hispanics enter the middle-class and migrate to suburbia, liberals fret over their neighborhood preferences. Yet there is a significant body of research detailing how and why ethnic and racial groups often cluster in separate residential areas. Studies have shown that most blacks prefer to live where a majority of the residents are also black. This may horrify HUD officials, but racial and ethnic minorities often prefer to live where they have family ties and social networks.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
The Obama Administration acknowledges that its demands on Westchester—which include rezoning—fall outside of the settlement, but the White House is determined to make an example of the county. “We’re clearly messaging other jurisdictions across the country that there has been a significant change in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we’re going to ask them to pursue similar goals as well,” said Rob Sims, a deputy secretary at HUD at the time of the settlement.
The good news is that Mr. Astorino is fighting back, and the case could end up back in court, which could spare communities nationwide a lot of grief. Westchester isn’t the Jim Crow South, and government attempts to shoehorn people into communities where they otherwise can’t afford to live often result in needless racial tensions and divided communities. The problem is not Westchester’s “affordable housing” policies. The problem is a government mentality that wants to determine where people should live.
End of article.
HUD is promoting a discriminatory policy. Perhaps HUD will promote a policy that says that high end automobile manufacturers must market their vehicles at reduced rates to people who can not afford them in order to be sure that no less than 3% black and 7% Hispanic people can own them. This country is going in the wrong direction.
What happened to the emails of the Board members that is causing such a fuss?
Does anyone know the number of affordable housing units New Castle has built in the last 10 years?
Editor’s Note: Since 1990, 68 affordable housing units have been built in Town—65 units in the 1990’s, 3 units since 2000. These figures are from the town’s planner, David Brito.
3 units in the last ten years is problematic.
i have not heard one person express opposition to affordable housing. What I have heard is that the CC location makes no sense whatsoever since it is relatively far from town (stores, others services) and the Metro North stops in Chappaqua and Mt. Kisco. I think people think a walking distance location makes the most sense, but practically speaking, there are not so many parcels of land available. What comes to mind is the property where the restaurant used to be across from the Post Office in Chappaqua. I guess I am missing something here, but that seems to be the most obvious location for such housing and it would help inject more monies into the businesses there. Isn’t this a win/win? I know finding funding for the construction is a separate issue, but assuming that can be done, doesn’t the location work?
It is not enough that no one in New Castle is expressing opposition to affordable housing. The problem is that only three units have been built in the last 10 years. This is actually outrageous given Supervisor Gerrard’s position that New Castle is out front on this issue. This is limousine liberalism at its worst. Hopefully, HUD is not paying close attention to what is happening in New Castle or the Town is at risk.
I think funding is a big part of the picture. From what I know, there is one proposed building for affordable housing waiting for full funding which has not come through yet. I don’t like the town supervisor at all but I am not sure what people expect local government to do on this—build the units itself or provide the funding? How could our town do either? It is easy to criticize but I would like to know what concrete steps did the town not take. I am not interested in an argument, just facts on this.
