HUD’s warped war on Westchester: Our county is already diverse

Washington throws its federal weight around White Plains

BY ROBERT ASTORINO 

 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

 

Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 4:00 AM

• A
 
• A
 
• A

111

15

4

CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

President Obama appeared with (left to right) then-economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, Housing and Uraban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Vice President Joe Biden in September 2010.

Only 15% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time, according to a recent poll.

Here’s one reason why. Common sense tells us you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Yet the Obama administration is constantly trying to manage without measuring costs or consequences.

A case in point is a fight that the federal Housing and Urban Development Department is waging against Westchester County, where I am county executive. In 2009, my predecessor signed a consent decree with the federal government to settle allegations that Westchester made false claims in connection with federal funds it received for affordable housing. The settlement called for the county to build at least 750 units of affordable housing in 31 so-called eligible or mostly white communities within seven years or face severe fines.

Two years later, the federal government, not content simply to see the housing built, is trying to use the settlement as a hammer to dismantle local zoning — oblivious to common sense, the rule of law and the bill to taxpayers.

I opposed the settlement from the outset, but since entering office last year, I’ve worked to comply with it. With 206 housing units already approved by the federal monitor, the county is a year ahead of schedule.

HUD is not satisfied. It views the settlement as an integration order to be used as a model for the entire country, and it is playing hardball to make its point. The agency is currently withholding $7 million in funding from Westchester — money designated, ironically enough, to implement the settlement — because the county has failed to show how its plans “will affirmatively further fair housing.”

No one knows how to translate that last bit, including HUD. Assistant Secretary John Trasviña has promised to provide “greater clarity over what affirmatively furthering actually means” next year.

In the meantime, top-down, Washington-driven social engineering marches on in search of problems that exist only in the minds of bureaucrats.

Here are the facts. Westchester already is the fourth most diverse county in New York (tied with Manhattan and behind Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx). If Westchester were a state, it would be the seventh most diverse in terms of Hispanic representation and the 14th in terms of African-American representation.

So what is the social ill that HUD would have us solve? HUD calls it de facto segregation, complaining that not enough African-Americans and Hispanics live on every block or neighborhood throughout the county.

That complaint, it turns out, is against local zoning. The hit list includes limits on multifamily housing, townhouse development, bedrooms per unit, minimum lot size and even sewers. In HUD’s mind, these add up to a set of restrictions that discriminate on the basis of race.

HUD now wants half of the 750 units required under the settlement to have three bedrooms — a brand-new requirement it concedes is outside of the agreement. Such an idea would double the cost of compliance at a time when Westchester, which already has the highest property taxes in the nation, is facing service cuts and hundreds of layoffs.

The federal government’s social engineering even goes so far as to add a page to Garrison Keillor’s “A Prairie Home Companion,” suggesting all the housing should be near “above-average schools.” Had it bothered to check, HUD would have found that Westchester’s worst-performing high school when it comes to the most fundamental academic performance metric, graduation rates, is above average on a statewide basis.

Where does it end? Is HUD going to call for the breakup of Vermont and Maine because they are 95% white? What about Chinatown or other predominantly ethnic city neighborhoods?

In Westchester, anyone can live anywhere they like. Where people live depends on the home they can afford. That’s not discrimination. That’s economics.

The 2010 U.S. census provides proof Westchester is a welcoming community. As a result of natural market forces, the African-American and Hispanic populations of the 31 mostly white communities in the settlement increased 56% over the past decade.

Integration is happening naturally. Yet if all 750 of the housing units required by this settlement were evenly distributed among the 31 designated communities and filled solely with African-Americans and Hispanics, their representation would increase by only 5% — at a projected cost approaching $100 million.

Westchester is a real place. It’s struggling with real problems. More attention to these real problems and less time spent on social engineering would help get people believing in the federal government again.

Astorino is Westchester’s county executive.

[Editor's Note: Marin County Supervisors VOLUNTEERED Marin for HUDs Analysis of Impediments. The HUD affordable housing will be one of the means to social engineer Marin. From Marin City to Novato, every city that does not meet with HUD's racial norm, will be subject to housing mandates.    But doesn't this deny people fair choice in housing? ]

Spotswood: County supervisors should have told HUD to 'get lost'

 HUD mandates. See the Full Article: Dick Spotswood: County supervisors should have told HUD to 'get lost' Posted:

ON TUESDAY, the Board of Supervisors approved a housing implementation plan demanded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that could significantly change Marin's landscape.

In a stealth mode, supervisors approved their "Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Choice and Implementation Plan" that binds the county and its cities to a process that irrationally meshes the concepts of "affordable housing" and "fair housing" and sets a slew of vague requirements with the force of law.

Out-of-control HUD staffers have decided that upper-middle class, predominately white suburbs are their new targets. They started with Westchester County, New York. Now it's Marin's turn.



Dick Spotswood , Opinion writer at Marin IJ



Those areas which don't meet HUD's ideal of 1980s style of "diversity" will pay a price.

It's shocking and wrong that in 2011 anyone, much less a federal agency, is focusing on race-based policymaking. That they voice concern over "protected classes" doesn't make it right.

Pursuant to the "voluntary compliance agreement" signed with HUD last November and the new Implementation Plan, Marin agrees to "affirmatively further fair housing."

That's proper.

It then goes overboard by mandating that Marin must "go beyond the absence of illegal discrimination; there is also an obligation to take local action to change past patterns that emerge from historic inequalities."

This lingo means that Marin must satisfy federal racial and ethnic expectations or face sanctions.

Marin governments will now be subject to federal scrutiny to achieve an acceptable level of "diversity." If a jurisdiction's zoning doesn't allow more housing "opportunities," planning laws must be changed.

Even if Marin provides more housing, occupants must meet regional racial diversity guidelines.

Remember, the plan insists, never use the word "quotas" when referring to this process.

Most Marinites are not racists. They actively support nondiscrimination. That counts for little. The reality is that housing activists resent that upper-middle class whites and Asians can afford to live in attractive, crime-free communities.

HUD required the county prepare an "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices."

Staff chose Fair Housing of Marin to draft the all-important analysis. The Marin Community Foundation-funded nonprofit is an unabashed housing and diversity advocate. Choosing Fair Housing to perform an impartial housing study is akin to the Treasury hiring Goldman Sachs to determine if the financial services industry is taking undue risks.

MCF's hands are all over this process.

Once MCF began shifting from aiding nonprofits to shaping public policy to align with their agenda, it began funding advocates for its policies. Whether its Stand Up for Neighborly Novato, Fair Housing of Marin or Grassroots Leadership Committee, follow the money and you'll find MCF.

This "Implementation Plan" will ultimately increase high-density housing in all Marin towns. The county must recruit region-wide to fill that housing because Marin's current population isn't diverse enough.

Forget that affordable housing is supposedly for local cops, teachers and retail workers. Now it's aimed to satisfying HUD's racial diversity goals.

The supervisors weren't up-front about the plan's land-use implications. The Community Development Block Grant Committee, chaired by Supervisor Judy Arnold, held public hearings to obtain the input primarily from residents in Marin City, San Rafael's Canal and from housing activists.

There were no hearings in Novato, where housing is topic one.

HUD's jurisdiction is based on Marin's receipt of $2.4 million in federal affordable housing cash. That's small potatoes given high construction costs. Marin should have declined the money and told HUD to get lost.

Instead, with minimum notice, the Analysis and the Implementation Plan went to the Board last Tuesday.

Despite cries for a continuance to allow broad-based public input, supervisors barreled ahead and unanimously approved the package.

Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley shares his views on local politics every Sunday in the IJ. His email address is spotswood@comcast.net. Read his musings at http://blogs.marinij.com/spotswood/

Why are 500+ acres at St Vincents/Silveira Ranch an Affordable Housing Combining District?

Viturally all of the land from the 101 freeway to the Smart Train line has been given the Affordable Housing Combining District designation.  This is well over 500 acres and coincides with the imagined development that Peter Calthorpe envisioned in the 1980s. The Smart Trail is over a mile to the east from 101.  This is a HUGE area that has the potential for thousands of units of affordable housing at 30 units per acre.  It easily could DOUBLE our area population.

But the Community Development department is telling us than they "only 3.5 acres is needed to build 224 units of housing."  

Curious,  I began to ask questions.  "Why is so much land set aside for affordable housing? " "How much land will be set aside for essential commercial services, schools, and other dwelling types?"

I was told to consult the County Plan and the Housing Element for answers  (500 pages of planning goobledy gook).   

"You are interpreting it wrong" they told me. 

 "Okay",  I said, "then please point out to me the exact language that limits development to 3.5 acres   I did not receive a cogent response.

Why do YOU suppose they want to set aside so much land for their plans?   Why can't they state their plans explicitly?     

Come to the Planning commission on June 22nd to speak up for the future of our neighborhood

See the staff report from May 28th and for June 22nd.

Trust us. We are planning for the future of Marin.

How California Could Have Avoided Its Epic Water Crisis

Uncle Sam’s Assault on the Suburbs

Jonathan Nelson | 06/11/2015 | 

Share on tumblrShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services32

If the House of Representatives has its way, the suburban way of life will be safe once again—for now.

This week the House of Representatives passed Rep. Paul Gosar’s (AZ-04) amendment to the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Departments’ appropriations bill.  Its passage  successfully prohibited HUD from implementing and enforcing the intrusive “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule, which  would force communities to build high-density low-income public housing more common to cities.

Now the amendment will go to the Senate. Rep.  Gosar’s staffer told me that he is optimistic that the Senate will also pass the amendment, but will refrain from speculating about the outcome.

Advocates of the AFFH praise the rule as an extension of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Like much of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the CRA) prohibits the discrimination of buyers or renters of housing based upon race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. So it is already illegal for housing developments to discriminate and forcibly segregate based on race or ethnicity.

The AFFH rule would go a step further. Rather than simply prohibiting discrimination, this rule would mandate integration of minorities into suburban communities in an attempt to overcome so-called historic patterns of segregation.[Editor's Note: Marin County Supervisors voluntarily agreed to HUD's Analysis of Impediments in 2012  See Marin IJ Column HERE]. The rule could force all communities, even those with no record of discrimination, to build public housing targeted to ethnic and racial minorities.

The goal of desegregation is a noble one. Children who grow up in suburban communities tend to have greater levels of economic opportunity and education attainment. Living in a more affluent neighborhood can allow low-income families to break the cycle of poverty, increasing economic mobility. Encouraging ethnic and racial diversity in more affluent neighborhoods can reduce income and educational inequalities.

The rule, however, is likely more than just an attempt to combat ethnic and racial segregation. Stanley Kurtz claims that the rule “is really about changing the way Americans live.” He argues that the broader goal of the AFFH rule is to force “economic integration,” not to promote ethnic and racial diversity. The central planners in the Obama administration want to force families into densely-populated housing, including a reliance on public transportation instead of individual automobiles.

This kind of integration has already been attempted at a regional level in San Francisco. California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 mandated the creation of the “Plan Bay Area,” a blueprint for controlling the development of housing in the San Francisco area for up to 30 years. Under the guise of combating global warming, Plan Bay Area forces development into the existing “urban footprint” of the area. This mandate essentially prohibits the creation of new suburban areas.

In 2012, the agencies behind Plan Bay Area were awarded a “Sustainable Communities Grant” by the Obama administration. The official goal of the grant is to encourage connections between jobs, housing, and transportation in order to direct new residents into already prosperous communities. The broader and less obvious goal, Kurtz argues,  is to create Manhattan-style “priority development areas.”

Rules behind the grants generally require their recipients to partner with local organizations, many of whom have a leftist agenda. Some of these groups are even “grassroots” organizations that rally support for the urbanizing of the suburbs in San Francisco.

If you thought Plan Bay Area is bad, the AFFH rule is even worse. It would be applicable to the whole country. Any local community which has taken federal Community Redevelopment Grants would be subjected to the will of HUD. The department already has a regulation that allows it to develop low-income housing anywhere in that community if the community has received money from a Community Redevelopment Grant.

Not only does the proposed rule threaten the existence of some suburban neighborhoods, it abandons a core principle of our Constitution: federalism. If implemented, the AFFH rule would allow HUD, a federal agency, to override the zoning power of local governments. Without the ability for local and state governments to make their own sovereign decisions, the balancing power of federalism is lost.

The implementation of the rule would also be expensive. Land and development costs in already prosperous communities dwarf those of more impoverished areas. This leads to both higher prices and a lower number of housing units. In addition, HUD’s own estimates show that each assessment under the rule would require 200 hours of staff time, further increasing the cost of development.

At best, the AFFH rule represents a power grab by benevolent federal bureaucrats attempting to improve the lives of poor and minority Americans. At worst, it is an attempt by social engineers to urbanize American suburbs.

The proposed rule will be hotly debated in the Senate, and may even become an issue in the current presidential campaign cycle. It is now up to the Senate to pass the Gosar amendment to stop this rule from becoming a reality once and for all.

Major Legal Victory for the Citizens! Housing Element violates CEQA !

Superior Court Strikes Down the Marin County Housing Element SEIR for Violating CEQA

The Marin Community Alliance filed its legal challenge against the Board of Supervisors County Housing Element SEIR in Oct. 2013 on the grounds that it failed to comply with State Environmental Quality Act requirements. In a long awaited court ruling, Marin Superior Court Judge Roy Chernus ruled in favor of the MCA and ordered that the County Housing Element SEIR, approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2013, be set aside as invalid unless the County conducts additional study and analysis.

The Court’s Conclusion:

“The court finds that the Housing Element SEIR violated CEQA by not conducting its own environmental analysis for the significant traffic impacts discussed above, which impact was not adequately covered in the prior CWP EIR. The petition is granted on this ground…. “

Pursuant to Pub Res Code 21168 (9)b, it is ordered that a preemptory writ of mandate shall issue directing Respondent County to set aside the certification of the SEIR, the Approvals for the Housing Element and its Statement of Overriding Considerations, and take no further action until Respondent conducts the necessary environmental review consistent with CEQA” (California Environmental Quality Act) “… and to recirculate that new document as necessary.”

The secret St. Vincents Vision, Peter Calthorpe and the 55 acres of Affordable Housing that may be in the works today.

Peter Calthorpe's Original Vision for St. Vincents/Silveira Ranch from the 1980s.  Note the SMART rail line and the Marinwood exit on 101  designed as a cloverleaf in the upper left hand corner. Apparently people won't be driving cars anywhere.  Each time parking has been ignored such plans have resulted in failure. Mobility is key to the modern world.

From the Congress of New Urbanism website regarding Peter Calthorpe's St. Vincent plan:

The pedestrian pocket

One of the West Coast strands began with the “pedestrian pocket” initiative that Peter Calthorpe launched in the early 1980s. That work started with a study—funded by a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts and completed in 1982—of a proposed rail corridor in Marin County. After the study was released, Calthorpe’s ideas generated a great deal of interest within the academic community and some media attention, but they sparked very little interest on the part of citizens or elected officials within the study area. [Editor's Note: The Citizens of Marin rejected the high density urban vision of development. Ironically they elected Susan Adams to stop it.  Instead she carried the vision forward for the next twelve years at ABAG. After suffering a humiliating defeat at the polls, she now serves as a "citizen's representative" at ABAG. ]

Since that time, severe traffic congestion has prompted local officials to ask Calthorpe to update his earlier study. The current plan is much more ambitious than the 1982 study: the rail link in the latest iteration, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, or SMART, will connect Sonoma County to Marin, terminating in a ferry at Larkspur Landing with service into San Francisco. This 70-mile passenger rail line is now under construction, with an initial 37-mile segment due to open in 2016.

Peter Calthorpe, Architect, Developer and one of the Pied Pipers behind the New Urbanist movement.  He teaches at UC Berkeley and lives in a multimillion dollar compound in Berkeley Hills.  No high density housing for him.  He just sells it.

Just recently I learned that 55 acres of St. Vincents has been set aside for the "Affordable Housing Combining District" at 30 units per acre and can house 2227 units of housing for roughly 6500 people.  This is roughly the footprint of what you see above.  Without water, jobs and a significant tax base, it is difficult to image the real effects of building housing like this in the real world.  It will double the population of Marinwood-Lucas Valley with this project alone.  Affordable Housing usually pays almost no taxes and community costs are carried by the surrounding taxpayers.

 We believe the entire Community Development Planning department, Gary Giacomini (also involved in the first effort) and big interests from the world of finance and development are working to bring this vision to life.

Marin Affordable Housing story on NPR.

NPR story on affordable housing in Marin PART ONE   PART TWO

Unfortunately, Marin wasn't cast in the best light. Old stereotypes were dredged out and the announcer called a story about NIMBYS.  It really wasn't fair. After interviewing people for hours, the most sensational quote was from 2013 during Susan Adams community meeting on housing at Marinwood Plaza.   I guess our current concerns with Grady Ranch were not exciting enough.

I recommend you listen to both stories and write your comments below.