(White Plains, NY) — A federal magistrate’s recent ruling regarding the Fair and Affordable Housing Settlement between Westchester County and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is no “major victory” for disabled residents, seniors, veterans and others who depend on housing assistance vouchers, said Westchester County Board of Legislators Vice Chairman Lyndon Williams (D-Mount Vernon).
At issue is the problem of discrimination against potential homeowners and renters who rely on housing vouchers and other subsidies—the so-called “Source of Income.” Though the magistrate concluded that the Settlement requires the County, as a whole, to promote Source of Income legislation, it does not require the County Executive to sign the legislation into law.
The magistrate states, however: “It is certainly unusual – not to mention awkward and apparently self-defeating – for a person or entity to promote a goal and then not undertake a step within its lawful power to accomplish the goal of that promotion.” In regard to the Source of Income promotion required in the Settlement, the magistrate adds that “the Monitor is free to re-examine the question of whether the County breached (its) duty in… other ways and what measures, if any, should be taken by the County to remedy any breach that may be found.”
Nonetheless, County Executive Rob Astorino and the Republican members of the Westchester County Board of Legislators have mistakenly declared the magistrate’s ruling a “major victory” for Westchester County, even though the ruling also rejected the County Executive’s challenge on how the County will eliminate exclusionary zoning practices that may exist in Westchester, and rejected the contention that the Monitor could approve a HUD document that would release Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that are being withheld as well.
“It is a sad day for Westchester when several of its elected leaders, including the County Executive, declare victory the second they believe that discrimination has been sanctioned by a court,” said Williams. “The ruling makes plain that Source of Income legislation is still needed here, and for folks who need fair and affordable housing, the issue remains real. In the end, it’s about respecting each other’s rights and affording dignity to others. These are core values that strengthen our communities.”
The Source of Income legislation, passed by the BOL in 2010, was vetoed by the County Executive, although it could have gone into affect without his signature. While the BOL certainly agrees that no elected official can be forced to vote for or sign anything, a bi-partisan majority of legislators voted for legislation that landlords should not be able to employ a discriminatory process against potential tenants receiving housing assistance vouchers or veterans’ housing vouchers.
As for County Executive Astorino and the Republican legislators’ repeated insistence that HUD should reinstate the $7 million of CDBG funds, Williams noted that the BOL called on the court-appointed monitor last summer to help break an impasse between the County Administration and HUD so that this federal funding can be restored to the County.
“HUD withheld the community development block grants last May, and the Administration never even bothered to inform the Board of this,” remarked Williams. “Now, my Republican colleagues on the Board of Legislators are demanding that HUD reinstate the funds. Where were they a year ago, when the County Executive gave up eight million dollars of federal money over a two-year period to run the Housing Choice Voucher program?”
Source of Income
Mr Williams appears to be making an argument similar to that before the Supreme Court on the so-called Obama Health Care program. It is one that argues for big government as opposed to limited government. Of Course the Obama Care question is one based on Interstate Commerce and the ability of the federal government to mandate coverage. However, it does come down to the question of mandate versus other ways to ensue equality under the law. One way is to put the right laws on the books, enforce them even-handedly and allow for open litigaion for aggrieved parties who cannot afford to be buried in the court system.
This is not a trivial point. For example, the NYS Open Meeting Laws are excellent EXCEPT they are not enforced by the state. You must take the grievance to court and need deep pockets to do so.
All this said, Mr Williams would prefer that (1) Mr Asterino lower his tone and stop crowing loudly about a “victory” in the courts and (2 Mr Williams would prefer a system that promoted “entitlements” and dictated that demographics point to where people could live and ratinalizes that if these communities are not represented as he and the federal government suppose they should, that this must be cured.
It sounds like Justice Garoufulis in New York City socially engineering the testing and acceptance of fire department recruits as well as New Rochelle’s large edifices “encouraged” to accept Section 8 and subsidized students; in effect acting like a dormitory. In Social Engineering someone has to pay and it becomes those with the lowest voices and least power, mostly, seniors in housing.
I am totally for equality under the law, but as a wise professor in Harvard Business school was heard to say .. “policy is no substitute for good judgment.” What is offensive are the social engineers, the racial, sexist and other arsonists who seek headlines, voter, contributions and issue command voices in loud tones from a house or home that is not at all affected by these rulings.
I content that the battleground for freedom in the USA will be a new paradigm of governance that preserves and protects our unique form of government without doing harm to the legimitate needs, social justice, and political voices in the community. It can happen without every action subject to scrutiny, every law dividing and not binding people…. people of color, of both sexes, of all ages and ethnicitie are not stupid or incapable of success. Every American deserves a quality of life of their chosing, not Williams or Bramsons or Obamas.
It can be done within the framewor of good law, decent protectors and safeguards and without the destructioness of social engineers, political hacks, monied enablers, talking, repetitive heads on the 24 hour media channels, runaway blogs with their dark, rabid overtones, and most of all, a renaissance of neighborhoods that bind and not break, churches that get out nto the street, families that stay onn top of their children, resources that serve children who don’t have the love and luxury of a family and more.
Give Mr Astorino his day.