Monitor sends county back to drawing board for specifics on affordable housing implementation plan

County must resubmit its plan by March 12, 2010
February 19, 2010
by Christine Yeres

Municipal officials across Westchester are beginning to wonder whether the federal monitor appointed to oversee the fair and affordable housing settlement is as flexible as he was portrayed by the legislators who approved the affordable housing settlement over the summer.  The terms of the settlement require 31 of the county’s municipalities to build 750 units of affordable housing and to “affirmatively further fair housing” in marketing them.

The county’s first step in complying with the terms of the settlement was to produce an Implementation Plan, or IP, by the end of January.  The IP was released on February 2, 2010—see the county’s press release by clicking HERE—and eight days later, in a letter to County Executive Robert P. Astorino dated February 10, 2010, the federal monitor of the affordable housing settlement, James E. Johnson of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, wrote, “there is more work to be done before I can accept the [Implementation P]lan, and I am directing the County to take steps to revise it.”  To see Johnson’s to letter Astorino in its entirety, click HERE.

According to Donna Greene of Westchester County’s Communications Director’s office, Johnson stated in a February 16 press conference at the county executive’s office that what he had found lacking were specifics—clear time lines, and short- and long-term goals. He also emphasized, she said, that “not accepting” the Implementation Plan, or IP, was not the equivalent of “rejecting it.” 

Also released on February 10, 2010 was a document still more critical of the IP written by the Anti-Discrimination Center, or ADC—the organization that originally brought the suit against the county—entitled “Prescription for Failure.”  To view that document in its entirety, click HERE. When asked in the press conference of February 16 what role in the settlement the ADC would have going forward, Greene said, Johnson answered that ADC “would have no formal role,” but that Johnson “will accept input from all parties.”

Johnson’s ten-page letter sets out in detail the deficiencies of the county’s IP, in some cases spelling out what changes to the IP the county must make.  Below are some of Johnson’s main points, quoted and summarized by NCNOW.org, below: 

Astorino and Johnson at Tuesday’s press conference

1. Deficiency: The Implementation Plan “lacks any concrete strategies (short-, medium- and long-term) for how the County plans to develop the 750 units required by the Stipulation.” (Stipulation ¶ 7) “For example, the IP does not include the County’s strategy for allocation of the $51.6 million it must spend” on land acquisition, infrastructure improvement, construction and other development costs. (Stipulation ¶ 2, ¶ 5) 

Do-over: Spell out the strategy for resource allocation and specify the process to be used for making such decisions.

2. Deficiency: “Rather than ‘specify steps and activities needed to meet’ interim benchmarks required by the Stipulation”(¶ 23-24), the [County’s IP simply] repeats those benchmarks,” and “does not include ‘proposed timetables and benchmarks for the first six-month and one-year periods and for each year thereafter.’ (Stipulation ¶ 19).  Instead, the County states that since the first checkpoint (six months from agreement to the Stipulation) occurs only ten days after the submission of the IP, the County will not submit a report for this six-month benchmark.

Do-over: In the Monitor’s view, allowing the County an extension (from end of December 2009 to end of January 2010) for submission of the IP did not create an exemption from meeting a key IP requirement, a report due six-months from the time of the agreement.

3. Deficiency: The IP lacks any timetable for assessing potential properties for development of the 750 units “and is unnecessarily vague on the whole.”

4. Deficiency: “The IP lacks a system for tracking the number of units in progress for each of the locational criteria categories (Stipulation ¶ 7(a)-(c)) or units that count toward the limits on the number of age-restricted units (Paragraph 7(f)) or existing housing (Stipulation ¶ 7(h)).

1. Deficiency: “The IP is not transparent as to who within County government will be responsible for the various tasks that must be addressed to implement the Stipulation’s requirements. For example, it is not clear which person or department is responsible for identifying and assessing the sites, meeting and coordinating with developers, or engaging with municipalities regarding local approval processes.”

Do-over: “For each general Stipulation requirement, the revised IP should state the number of full-time employees assigned and a description of their job responsibilities, with the understanding that personnel may shift over time (as occurred following the November 2009 election).”

1. Deficiency: Understandably, the county is reluctant to make public information about sites it is considering for possible development into affordable AFFH units, since “the simple act of publicizing the County’s interest could have an impact on the price of a parcel (IP at 18).”

Do-over: “A revised IP should include general information about sites under active consideration, including the number of potential units, the locational category into which they fall, and the processes being used for identification and assessment, in a manner that will not jeopardize the delveopment of the units.  The County should continue to provide such updates to the Monitor on at least a monthly basis.”

1. Deficiency: In discussing the model inclusionary zoning ordinance in the IP, the County emphasizes “its lack of authority with respect to zoning and land use controls.” Yet the Stipulation explicitly states that the County “shall use all available means as appropriate,” including “pursuing legal action,” to address a municipality’s failure to act to promote the objectives of Paragraph 7 of the Stipulation (which lays out the general requirements for the 750 units), or actions that hinder those objectives.” (Stipulation ¶ 7(j)) 

Do-over: “The IP should include a clear strategy for how the County will employ carrots and sticks to encourage compliance by municipal governments. The IP should also include the County’s plan for monitoring local approval processes and municipalities’ cooperation with the County’s efforts to implement the Stipulation.”

2. Deficiency: The IP “lacks a concrete plan to promote the model ordinance beyond letters from the County Executive and Deputy county Executive to municipal officials that do not contain any real enforcement mechanisms.” (IP Appendix D-1(ii))

3. Deficiency: The IP also lacks a concrete plan to enact “Source of Income” WHAT’S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS???? legislation, “which has apparently been promoted only by letters form the former County Executive to fair housing advocates.  (IP Appendix C-3(iii))

Deficiency: The IP “does not lay out a plan for ongoing reporting to the Monitor about the development of the Affordable AFFH Units outside the quarterly reporting schedule. For example, the IP does not specify the point at which the County will seek approval from the Monitor or HUD during the site identification or assessment process, or when it will provide information about local approvals or the status of funding for individual units. Maintaining transparency will be important to all parties.”

Deficiency: The IP is vague as to how the County will carry out marketing, outreach and education activities,” only addressing this issue in “Fair Housing Outreach & Education Plan,” a single page composed mainly of bullet-points.  The County also states that “it will not proceed with its outreach obligations under Paragraph 33(h) of the Stipulation until its centralized intake tool is ready, without a sufficient explanation as to why this is the case. IP at 11.  [And] the county’s target completion date [for the intake tool] is not until September 1, 2010.”

Redo: Include in the IP an actual plan for outreach and education.
__________
To view James E. Johnson’s letter to County Executive Robert P. Astorino dated February 10, 2010, click HERE.

To access NewCastleNOW.org archives of all our coverage of the affordable housing settlement, click HERE

Copyright 2012 NewCastleNOW.org