This was written by my town supervisor back in Greenburgh, NY. I agree with him 100%. I just read a book about Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses and while I see the good in what Jacobs did in organizing against Moses and protecting Greenwich Village. I also see how at the extreme it can turn into NIMBYism. In the end there is a way to build and develop which should involve the community but at the same time address societal issues that cannot be ignored any longer.

Incentives would make it easier to create affordable housing

September 11, 2009

Paul Feiner

Westchester County officials should consider providing financial incentives to neighborhoods that agree to implement the settlement in the false-claims lawsuit brought by the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York against the county government. The pending agreement calls for the county to build 750 affordable homes or apartments over several years, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black and Hispanic residents make up a small portion of the community. I suggest that County Executive Andrew Spano and the members of the county Board of Legislators schedule a meeting with all the mayors and town supervisors to discuss the implementation of any affordable housing plan.

As a former member of the Housing Committee of the county Board of Legislators and as town supervisor of Greenburgh, I have been very interested in affordable-housing initiatives. In recent decades, most elected officials have supported affordable housing until it’s proposed in their communities. Voters usually support the election of candidates who stand for affordable housing, until the proposed units are recommended in their back ards. The aggressive NIMBY reactions from residents in most communities in Westchester against any affordable housing has resulted in few affordable housing units being built in the county in recent decades.

Recently, the Greenburgh Town Board approved a zoning change to allow for workforce housing in the Fulton Park neighborhood. Although the housing is going to be situated across the street from a deli, a Verizon office building and office-supply store, many residents came out against the proposal. They also motivated other civic associations within the town to oppose the project. The location of this complex is ideal for affordable housing – within walking distance from downtown White Plains, the train station and Central Avenue. The site was previously used for homeless housing and, before that, it was a sleazy hotel. If an affordable-housing proposal for working people at this location is controversial, it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be significant opposition to all the units of housing that are proposed by the county – no matter where they are located.

If the county enters into a stipulation with the federal government and promises to build affordable housing within the county, it is important that a plan be implemented to reduce neighborhood opposition. If neighborhoods receive benefits should housing be placed in their community, members of the community might reluctantly support the housing instead of fighting it.

The county should consider offering to acquire and pay for additional open space in the immediate neighborhoods impacted by the housing units. Another financial incentive that should be considered: The county should pay for the costs of educating the additional children who will be attending the public schools. Perhaps, additional grants could be made by the county to the affected school district to provide enhancements for other students (such as free SAT preparation courses). Other financial incentives to neighborhoods that are affected by any stipulation should be considered.

Some people might suggest that it’s unfair for the county to reward neighborhoods that accept affordable housing. I disagree. Neighborhoods are accepting a social responsibility that other neighborhoods don’t want. The bottom line: The county should make affordable housing so appealing to neighborhoods that residents feel that their property values will go up because they will receive amenities not available to others if the housing is placed near them. Maybe we can make affordable housing so appealing that communities will compete for the privilege of having affordable housing within their boundaries.

Obviously, if this kind of agreement is implemented, a legal agreement will have to be approved. The state attorney general’s office and the state comptroller’s office should be asked to sign off on the plan.

Two other suggestions: The county should encourage school districts with surplus property to consider building affordable housing for teachers and staff on their campuses. Some prestigious private schools in Westchester already do this. This could be a win-win for everyone – the school is able to attract better teachers, because it can offer teachers affordable housing on campus, and students benefit because teachers can help students excel with their studies after hours.

And the county should consider promoting affordable housing near train stations. Most communities have parking shortages. The lack of commuter parking in Westchester is a problem that can be partially addressed if combined with affordable housing.

When I was still living in Westchester County, NY two years ago (I’m now in DC) one of the major concerns of the Westchester/Putnam Working Families Party chapter was affordable housing in the county. It would now appear thanks to a lawsuit filed by the Anti-Discrimination Center and with help from the Obama administration, affordable housing may now become a reality in Westchester.

Westchester County entered into a landmark desegregation agreement on Monday that would compel it to create hundreds of houses and apartments for moderate-income people in overwhelmingly white communities and aggressively market them to nonwhites in Westchester and New York City.

The agreement, if ratified by the county’s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments’ housing policies by the Obama administration.

“This is consistent with the president’s desire to see a fully integrated society,” said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. “Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people’s feet to the fire.”

This was always a major problem and it never had to be this way. People deserve an opportunity to move up in the world and on to better things. Westchester County is full of opportunity that everyone should have the chance to partake in. At least now there will be some progress towards a more equal county for everyone. I hope that the County Board of Legislators will ratify the agreement. The board is a progressive one so the future does look bright.

When I was a teenager in the Bronx after my father died when I was fourteen. My mother saved up our Social Security survivor’s benefits and worked at the US Post Office to pay the bills. She was eventually able to put a down payment on a co-op apartment in Hartsdale, NY–where she still lives today– and get a 30-yr mortgage. The co-op board of our building accepted us and approved of us as owners. Because of that opportunity I was exposed to a much better environment from the one I was surrounded by in the Bronx. It was in the school system of the Town of Greenburgh that I discovered my love of civic issues and public policy.

So you see I’m quite adamant about opportunity for everyone. I want people to have that same chance for their families. Hopefully we’ll see tons of new families move into the county and reinvigorate it while at the same time diversifying it and bringing a fresh perspective to all things Westchester.

This has got to the most depressing thing I’ve seen today anywhere. I happened to see this on The Nation website and got to learn more about the American News Project as well. It’s good to see something like the ANP happening and they are in the area on 17th Street NW DC .

This is really amazing to say the least. Hat tip to Mother Jones and the MoJoBlog for pointing this out.

publish.nyc.indymedia.org | Images from Tenants Rally for Affordable Housing

Tenants and allies from across New York City gathered in Harlem on a rainy Wednesday, October 1 to demand “Real Rent Reform” amid the housing crisis. October 1 was Day 1 of new rent hikes for over 1 million rent stabilized apartments, at a time when New Yorkers face rising prices, falling wages, cutbacks and layoffs. Tenant activists came with 4 demands: Reinstate Home Rule over Rent & Eviction Rules. Repeal Vacancy Decontrol. Reform the Rent Guidelines Board. Save Affordable Housing in the Mitchell-Lama and Section 8 Projects.

I really don’t know what’s going to happen to working-poor and middle class people all over this country. Where are they all going to go once they can’t afford to live where they are now?

This sort of corporate arson by the banks isn’t only limited to the US.

The government is tonight on the brink of a part-nationalisation of the troubled buy-to-let mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley as Congress finally agreed to a $700bn (£380bn) bail-out for Wall Street intended to draw a line under the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

After a weekend of frenetic activity in both London and Washington, Alistair Darling was confident of finding a private sector buyer for B&B’s 200 branches and £22bn of savings in B&B but resigned to taking its mortgage book into state hands.

They’re actually going to nationalize a bank! Although I’d have to agree with Tory leader David Cameron that if the Bank of England could take over Bradford and Bingley then that should be done instead of nationalizing and bailing out a bank.

The Conservative leader, David Cameron, tonight opposed the nationalisation of B&B, saying it was wrong “to throw the whole thing onto the taxpayer”. He suggested the Bank of England should be able to take over an ailing Bank and then undertake a reconstruction safeguarding the depositors and allowing the profitable parts to be sold.

JP Morgan has now taken over a few institutions for this purpose in the US. Wachovia is looking to be bought out in the same manner. If the Bank of England could get B & B for whatever price then that’s probably better than forcing taxpayers to pay for it.

I’ve been amazed by the activism of people in Boston over evictions. This story here is just one of the thousands of people all over the country facing foreclosures and evictions.

Ana, 51 and Raul Esquivel, 55 have considered Boston their home for the last 22 years. They are immigrants—Raul is from Guatemala and Ana is from The Dominican Republic. They bought their home at 21-23 Rowe Street in March 2006, with hopes of renting out one half of the house to pay the mortgage. Their bank, Deutsche Bank, had valued the property at $498,000—a gross over-inflation of the actual value. Last year, the Esquivels began falling behind on their payments. They asked Deutsche Bank to refinance. Unfortunately, in a matter of months, the value of their house had dropped to $285,000, making refinancing no longer feasible. Their monthly payments rose from $3,200/month to $4,200/month, an increase that Ana and Raul, who both work, could simply not afford.

This is why any bailout plan that is going to pass will not really help the American people. Sure it will probably save the country as far as a complete meltdown is concerned, but we’re not doing anything to help stop evictions and foreclosures.

Despite all this, Deutsche Bank refused to negotiate with the Esquivels. Raul’s sister even offered to buy the house back at market value—which wouldn’t cost the bank a cent of real money—but the bank still refused to negotiate and instead continued with the eviction. This type of policy has been indicative of the investment banks, whose predatory lending practices have led to a national surge in foreclosures.

So banks are probably going to get bailed out and all this worthless paper is going to be picked up by the governemnt. But who’s picking up the people with no homes anymore? Granted some people got mortgages who should not have been granted them in the first place, but cases like the Esquivel’s are a serious problem. The Esquivels wanted a house–the American dream like many people—and they did have a plan that would’ve made this a reality. They had a way they were going to pay for their home even though it was over-valued. So when the price of their home came tumbiling down they were stuck with a mortage they could not refinance and they no longer could afford.

ACORN just put out a press release on the Presidential debate talking about foreclosures.

Senator McCain failed to acknowledge the trigger of this explosive crisis: predatory lending, which entrapped hundreds of thousands of homeowners into toxic mortgages they could not afford fueling record numbers of foreclosures. If Mr. McCain is unwilling or unable to acknowledge such facts, how is he suitable to lead our country out of the worst financial mess since the Great Depression?

Senator Obama acknowledged foreclosures as the root of the financial crisis and has pledged to help homeowners.

ACORN is calling on both candidates to support a bipartisan approach to a legislative solution that includes help for ordinary homeowners who are on the verge of foreclosure, and not just the big financial institutions. Specifically, any bailout proposal must include provisions that assist struggling homeowners, including greater access to loan modifications and a change in the bankruptcy law to allow homeowners to restructure their mortgages in bankruptcy court as is allowed with vacation homes and yachts. Ordinary taxpayers are being asked to bail out financial institutions that caused this crisis. If Main Street is footing the bill, it should also reap the benefits.

I’m really curioius as to why I’m not hearing anything about this in the local media or in the Washington Post at all.

Soon, as cops on cars and motorcycles started showing up, everyone started crossing with the walk signal in the crosswalk, which is completely legal. Nonetheless, this tactic shuts down left and right turns as motorists must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

As of the 23, Franklin is down to about 73 beds while men are SLEEPING ON THE FLOOR at the shelter on NY Avenue. A resident there who gives out blankets on “detail,” confirmed that he was giving out blankets to men sleeping on the floor.

As this is going on and about 20 people have alreay lost that so-callled “permanent supportive housing,” the Mayor’s men are still taking apart beds at Franklin Shelter! This is despite last week’s council legislation demanding the shelter be kept open-which will not take effect until Sep 30, presumably without Fenty’s signature.

I fear that the Mayor is focusing a lot on development and progress—but at the same time ignoring a need for affordable housing and adressing the homeless situation. That is, unless he plans to run the homeless and poor out of the district. Look, I know it’s hard to solve the problem of homelessness and poverty. Does this mean we have to give up and accept it? While we may never truly eradicate it can’t we focus on keeping the levels as low as possible?

To develop or not develop—to gentrify or not gentrify–is that the only question? I was listening to an .mp3 by some activists who caught up with the Mayor at an opening of a new Safeway supermarket near K Street–where they confronted him about the closing of homeless shelters and the new developments of luxury in the district.

Now I like development, there I said it. I like having a Gallery Place and a Penn Quarter (and an Arlington, VA for that matter) where I can go relax, eat, shop (I don’t shop a lot) and catch a movie. Back in my hometown of Westchester County, NY I’ve also liked the development which occurred in White Plains, NY. However, with both of these cases and even with Harlem, NY one thing is always tossed aside. The one thing that is tossed aside are the people who become gentrified.

It’s one thing to kick criminals (and sex workers) out of an area when new developments are going up. It’s another to just force poor people out by the increase in rent payments, closing shelters and not building affordable housing. Everyone ends up moving and I’ve heard that Prince George’s County, MD has been the recipient of this migration. Does development mean the upheaval and removal of the less fortunate in our society?

Is there no confidence in mixed-income neighborhoods? Are with that beholden to developers who want it their way? I would really like to hear the Mayor give a speech on development in DC. I want to hear his views. Is there not room in his city for luxury and affordable housing? If that shelter is closed what does he plan to do? Where are those people going to go? Do you just let them live on the streets or do they end up in PG County or somewhere else? In the end the development is good for the city and I really think Fenty is doing some good things (also his efforts with public education may pan out we’ll have to see), but that can’t be it.