Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch

• Citation: 531 N.Y.S.2d 782,527 N.E.2d 265,72 N.Y.2d 121
• Parties: , 527 N.E.2d 265 ASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY et al., Appellants. v. Edward I. KOCH, as Mayor of the City of New York and Chairman of the Board of Estimate, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 07 July 1988
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 782

531 N.Y.S.2d 782

72 N.Y.2d 121, 527 N.E.2d 265

ASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY et al., Appellants. v. Edward I. KOCH, as Mayor of the City of New York and Chairman of the Board of Estimate, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 7, 1988.

Frank J. Barbaro, Brooklyn, Earle R. Tockman, Stephen Dobkin, Brooklyn, Geoffrey D.H. Smith, Richard Sussman and Ann L. Detiere, New York City, for appellants.

Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Edward F.X. Hart and Leonard Koerner, New York City, of counsel), for Edward Koch and others, respondents.

Ronald J. Offenkrantz and Michael H. Smith (Spitzer & Feldman, P.C.), New York City, for Henry Partners, respondent.

Leslie Salzman, Brooklyn, Shirley Traylor, New York City, Esmeralda Simmons, Brooklyn, Andrew Scherer, Jocelyne Martinez and Roger Wareham, New York City, for Ansonia Tenants Coalition, Inc., and others, amici curiae.

Kalman Finkel, Helaine Barnett, Arthur J. Fried, John E. Kirklin and Lynn M. Kelly, New York City, for The Legal Aid Soc. of New York, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SIMONS, Judge.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to challenge an amendment to the New York City Zoning Resolution which established the Special Manhattan Bridge District in Chinatown. Plaintiffs either live or work in Chinatown or represent those who do and the gist of their complaint is that the new zoning will displace residents who require low-income housing because it will eliminate some of the existing housing without providing sufficient incentives for the development of affordable new housing to replace it. They seek judgment (1) declaring the Special Manhattan Bridge District amendment unconstitutional because it was not enacted pursuant to a well-considered plan and (2) imposing a mandatory injunction compelling the City to create a zoning plan for the District "which provides for and mandates a realistic opportunity for the construction of low income housing". A divided Appellate Division, 128 A.D.2d 99, 514 N.Y.S.2d 939, dismissed the complaint finding the first and second causes of action failed to state a claim and the third cause of action, seeking to enjoin development of Henry Street Towers, moot after our decision in Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 509 N.Y.S.2d 499, 502 N.E.2d 176. On this appeal, plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their first and second causes of action. They contend in their complaint that the amendment results in exclusionary zoning and, referring specifically to Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (Mount Laurel II ), they seek affirmative relief similar to the relief fashioned in that decision. On appeal to this court they have modified their argument, however, placing principal reliance on our decision in Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102, 378 N.Y.S.2d 672, 341 N.E.2d 236.

I

Plaintiff Asian Americans for Equality is a not-for-profit corporation engaged in supporting the rights of men and women of all races for improved housing, job opportunities and working conditions. The individual plaintiffs are now or formerly were residents of the area known as Chinatown, a center of Chinese culture and services in New York City where persons of Chinese and Asian ancestry reside. The individual plaintiffs allege either that they live in substandard housing there or that they were compelled to leave because of their inability to find suitable housing. They are persons of low income and none own property in Chinatown. ¹ Defendants are the City of New York, various officers and agencies of the City and a private developer.

The Special Manhattan Bridge District was created in 1981 by amendment to the City's Zoning Resolution. The District encompasses 14 blocks in the area of the Manhattan Bridge and includes a part, but by no means all, of Chinatown. One area south of Monroe and Madison Streets and west of St. James Place, was excluded from the District because it had been redeveloped with public or publicly assisted housing. Others were excluded because they were commercial.

The amendment was preceded by a study of the Manhattan Bridge area which confirmed that Chinatown contains a substantial proportion of high density, substandard housing occupied by low-income groups who work there in the garment, tourist and related industries. The amendment sought to correct these housing conditions by encouraging construction of new residential facilities, the rehabilitation of existing structures and the expansion of community facilities. To achieve those aims, it authorized development of mixed-income housing on land vacant or substantially vacant at the time the amendment was enacted. ² The amendment provides that new construction must be authorized by special permit and regulated by a system of bonus points permitting increased density in new housing units for those developers who agree to do one or a combination of the following: (1) donate space for community facilities such as senior citizen or day care centers, educational facilities, or a combination of these; (2) construct low-income dwelling units; or (3) rehabilitate existing substandard housing. Defendant Henry Street Partners obtained a permit to build mixed-income housing with a greater floor area than otherwise permitted on vacant land on condition that it provide community facility space on the first floor and contribute $500,000 to help fund low-income housing in the District.

Recognizing that the stated goals of the City's study of the Manhattan Bridge area and the amendment creating the District are "very similar" to their own, plaintiffs nevertheless contend that the amendment is invalid because the means adopted to achieve them are inadequate. They charge that the bonuses awarded to permit high density housing favor moderate and high-income development and do not provide sufficient incentive to encourage construction of low-cost housing. They ask the court to require defendants to (1) improve existing housing in the Special Manhattan Bridge District, (2) provide more affordable low-income housing, (3) minimize the adverse affects of rehabilitation and (4) assure that the present residents who wish to stay in Chinatown are able to do so.

Defendants assert that the complaint fails to state claims for legal relief because (1) the amendment creating the Special Manhattan Bridge was in accord with a well-considered plan for the City of New York and (2) the City has no obligation to zone specific areas for low-income housing nor any constitutional obligation to affirmatively provide substantive guarantees of low-income housing in Chinatown.

II

Zoning, as first devised, was a means of dividing the whole territory of a municipality into districts and imposing restrictions on the uses permitted in them. Restrictions on size and density of construction to control fire and traffic hazards, for example, or to eliminate offensive uses from residential districts were deemed a reasonable exercise of the police power ( see, Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303). Such traditional zoning is both restrictive and passive, providing minimum encouragement for development of the municipality as a whole.

Special district zoning--exemplified by the Manhattan Bridge District questioned here--represents a significant departure from this traditional Euclidian zoning concept. It is based on the idea that zoning can be used as an incentive to further growth and development of the community rather than as a restraint. It is one of several imaginative legislative schemes intended to encourage, or even coerce, private developers into making the City a more pleasant and efficient place to live and work. Incentive zoning is based on the premise that certain uneconomic uses and amenities will not be provided by private development without economic incentive. The economic incentive frequently used, and the one used in the Manhattan Bridge District amendment, is the allowance of greater density within a proposed building, more floor area than permitted under general zoning rules, if developers provided certain amenities for the community. The amendment awards bonus points which entitle developers to expand their construction in return for increased construction of other, uneconomic projects such as low-cost housing, slum rehabilitation or public facilities. The bonus awarded for each amenity must be carefully structured, however, to make the cost-benefit equation favorable enough to induce the developer to provide the desired uneconomic benefit to the city but sufficiently limited to avoid a windfall to it.

New York City has used these special district incentive programs to develop uneconomic but necessary uses since 1961. By means of them they have encouraged the preservation and redevelopment of the Broadway Theatre District, protected a major investment in the Special Lincoln Square District, preserved historic shopping areas such as Fifth Avenue and provided relocation housing in the Lower Third Avenue District (see generally, Elliott and Marcus, From Euclid to Ramapo: New Directions in Land Development Controls, 1 Hofstra L.Rev. 56; Marcus and Groves, The New Zoning: Legal, Administrative, and Economic Concepts and Techniques, at 200 et seq. [1970]; 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning § 17.06[2] [4th ed.] ). The districts created are not traditional zoning districts, narrowly limited to particular uses, but broad-based plans intended to preserve and enhance troubled areas of the City which, because of their singular characteristics, are important to its wealth and vitality. The Special Manhattan Bridge District was created to protect a badly deteriorated part of the unique area of New York City known as Chinatown.

III

A

In plaintiffs' first cause of action, they allege that the Special Manhattan Bridge District enactment is "piecemeal" legislation. Piecemeal...