Court Monitor Rejects County's Affordable Housing Plan

Westchester County officials now have until March 12 to submit a revised implementation plan to create 750 affordable housing units in affluent neighborhoods, after a court-appointed monitor rejected the outline for lack of a concrete time frame and for being "vague on the whole."

Harrison is among more than two dozen Westchester municipalities likely to be affected, though no specific locations have been decided yet for the housing.

According to the settlement, at least 84% of units must be in municipalities with an African-American population of less than 3% and a Latino population of less than 7%.

The plan is the result of a $62.5 million settlement reached by former County Executive Andrew Spano's administration in August, after the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, or ADC, sued the county for $150 million under the federal False Claims Act for not providing affordable housing in mostly white affluent neighborhoods, despite having received $52 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The county, which submitted its outline by the extended Jan. 30 deadline, was chided earlier this month in an ADC report, which charged the county's
plan "fails entirely even to acknowledge the existence of segregation (in Westchester), let alone discuss its scope."

James Johnson, the monitor who rejected the IP, will meet with county officials Tuesday to discuss the deficiencies and solutions noted in his report. In his letter to County Executive Robert Astorino, Johnson says he has invited members of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to send representatives
to attend the meeting.

He expects to continue the plan with the county through March second, which will afford the opportunity to ask the county for responses to at least some issues raised by the ADC.

Detailing the vague nature of the county's report, Johnson says it is not clear who or what departments will be responsible for identifying and assessing sites, meeting or coordinating with developers, or engaging with municipalities regarding local approval processes.

"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 occured following the November 2009 election)," wrote Johnson.

He does express appreciation for the challenges likely faced by Astorino as he was transitioning into office, and thanks him for the effort. Most of 
the settlement money—$51.6 million—will be leveraged for the project, while the difference went to fees and other matters.

Also missing from the implementation plan were identified territories, which the county has been reluctant to name publicly out of concern any publication could impact the price of the parcel.

"Nevertheless, a revised IP should include general information about sites under active consideration, including the estimated 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 development of the units," wrote Johnson, adding that he wants updates from the county monthly.

In terms of timetables, the county's plan acknowledges requirements of long-range timetables and benchmarks, including for the first six months after stipulation, the first year and each year after that. However, the county's plan plainly says "the County is not issuing any proposed 6-month benchmarks as part of this Implementation Plan" because it was granted an extension to submit the IP, making the six-month mark fall 10 days following the actual submission.

But Johnson said the extension did not exempt the county from having to meet "a key IP requirement."