King v. Harris
| Decision Date | 08 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78 C 1967.,78 C 1967. |
| Parties | Evelyn M. KING, Individually and as President of the Staten Island Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Donald Asinobi, Individually and as Treasurer of the Clifton Home Owners Association, Cynthia Mailman, Individually and as Representative of the Stapleton Civic Association, Inc., Louis P. Wein, Individually and as Chairman of the Clifton Homeowners Association, Amelia Hall, Individually and as Representative of the Clifton Homeowners Association, Helen R. Pose, Individually and as President of the Stapleton Civic Association, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Patricia HARRIS, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Faymor Development Co., Inc., a Corporation and as General Partner of Tenhill-Faymor Housing Associates, a partnership, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Hall & Thompson by John S. Wellekens, Staten Island, N. Y., for plaintiffs.
Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., by Homer C. LaRue, Asst. U. S. Atty., for Patricia Harris.
Davis & Cox, New York City, by Marc Adelsohn, Brooklyn, N. Y., for Faymor Development.
This is an action brought by neighborhood residents and community organizations seeking to preserve a racially integrated neighborhood on Staten Island. In this case, a racially mixed and balanced community is attempting to prevent not only the undue concentration and segregation of minorities in the area, but also the ultimate destruction of the community. See Otero v. New York City Housing Auth., 484 F.2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1973). It is the first time, to this court's knowledge, that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") has sought legal action to oppose the development of low-income housing designed to aid minority groups.1 Compare Jones v. Tully, 378 F.Supp. 286 (E.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 961 (2d Cir. 1975).
The plaintiffs are individuals living near a proposed housing project and community and homeowner associations which represent the interests of area residents. They seek to enjoin the use of federal funds for the construction of a low-income highrise2 apartment building. They allege that the development will further the creation of an area of minority concentration and upset the delicate racial balance which presently exists.3
Defendants are Patricia Harris, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the developers of the proposed complex. The jurisdiction of this court is based on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., and 28 U.S.C. 1343.4 Plaintiffs ("homeowners" or "area residents") sue as a class comprised of all New York State residents who live near the proposed development.5 Initially, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction. During the hearing on the preliminary injunction, the court found a sufficient basis to proceed to a trial on the merits. Fed.R. Civ.P. 65.6 The court must now determine whether to issue a permanent injunction.
The proposal in issue involves federally funded low-income housing. On June 3, 1977 HUD published a Notification of Fund Availability ("NOFA") for 1,000 family dwelling units to be funded under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program ("§ 8").7 On June 22, 1977 the developer, in response to the NOFA, submitted a preliminary proposal for the construction of new § 8 low-income housing.8 The proposed development was a 96 unit six story apartment house to be located at the corner of Hill Street and Tompkins Avenue on Staten Island ("Tenhill").
On August 10, 1977 HUD informed the developer that the preliminary proposal was approved and that $719,568 in federal funds was reserved for the project. HUD directed the developer to furnish information for the final proposal. HUD also notified the local New York City authorities, requesting objections to the proposal. Apparently, no objections were filed. On July 6, 1978 HUD approved the final proposal for low-income housing.
HUD had previously reviewed a proposal submitted by the developer for housing for the elderly at the same site. That proposal was disapproved by both the Equal Opportunity ("EO") and Housing Management ("HM") Divisions of HUD.9 The EO specialist indicated a likelihood of increased minority population in census tract 29 discussed infra, not indicated by the 1970 census data. He found that the complex would create an undue concentration of subsidized housing in the area. The HM analysts had similar objections. They recommended a housing survey to ascertain the need for additional housing in the area because several projects in the vicinity were having difficulty renting their units. John O'Rourke, an HM analyst, indicated in his supplemental report that the proposed project would adversely affect the other subsidized housing. He indicated a generally questionable and unsavory neighborhood with a high occurrence of muggings and drug use. He indicated that he feared for the safety of the elderly and believed the site very inappropriate for any housing.
The various HUD branches10 also considered the preliminary and final proposal for low income housing. All but the Economic and Market Analysis Division ("EMAD") found the preliminary proposal to be acceptable. The EMAD, however, disapproved the proposal because the site was impacted with subsidized housing.11 The analysis also indicated that the 1970 census data did not reflect the current condition of the neighborhood. However, HUD decided to approve the final proposal on the basis of the recommendations of its other branches, and filed its report. HUD's technical checklist on that report indicated that the preliminary proposal was approved by only four of its six branches. The HM and EMAD recommendations were not listed. The report indicated, however, that the proposal was approved on the basis of all reviews.
The final HUD report on the proposal was submitted after the institution of this action. This court had remanded the matter of HUD to reconsider the site proposal and to review the EMAD report. An EO specialist, Eli Forman, prepared the final report. His report and findings were limited to census tract 29. His conclusions concerning the racial composition of the census tract were based mainly upon the 1970 census data. Nevertheless, he found a high percentage of minorities in the Stapleton Houses project, which is a public housing project in census tract 29 adjacent to the proposed site. He indicated that the only updated material available showed a dramatic increase in the number of minorities in the housing project. He found a need to deescalate the racially sensitive housing market in the census tract, and recommended a public relations program to overcome the high crime stigma of the neighborhood. The proposal was reapproved by HUD over any previously filed divisional objection and the matter was brought before the court for a hearing on the preliminary injunction.
Tenhill is located in census tract 29 ("Tract"). Tract 29 is an area encompassing parts of the Stapleton-Concord section of Staten Island. Its designated boundaries are Tompkins Avenue to the East, Vanderbilt Avenue to the South, Broad Street to the North, and Van Duzer Street to the West. Tenhill is approximately 300 feet from Vanderbilt Avenue and is adjacent to Tompkins Avenue. Tompkins Avenue is the boundary between Tracts 29 and 27.12 Vanderbilt Avenue is the dividing line between Tracts 29 and 40.13
HUD considered Tract 29 to be the relevant area for estimating total minority concentration. HUD relied exclusively upon the census data compiled in 1970 for Tract 29 in making that determination. In 1970 that data indicated a total population of 4,623 in Tract 29. There were 4,000 white persons and 623 minority persons. Thus in 1970 the minority population for Tract 29 was approximately 12.8% of the total population. HUD considered the census data to be accurate, even though it recognized that the 1970 census data was outdated. The evidence supports the conclusion that because the 1970 census data was clearly outdated it was an insufficient indicator of minority and low-income concentration in the area.
The technical boundaries of Tract 29 do not represent the relevant neighborhood for any consideration of minority or low-income population. The evidence at trial indicates the difficulty with confining the neighborhood to Tract 29. Based on the testimony of area residents, the proximity of the housing complexes in Tracts 29 and 40, and the natural and man-made boundaries in the area, the court finds that the relevant neighborhood extends beyond the imaginary boundaries of Tract 29. The relevant community includes Tract 27 and parts of Tracts 29 and 40. It extends along Canal and Water Streets in Tract 27, Broad Street in Tract 29 up to Targee Street. Targee Street is the western boundary from Broad Street to Mary Street in Tract 40. The railroad track which represents the southeastern border of Tract 40 is the outer boundary of the community. That boundary extends to Bay Street. The eastern boundary is Bay Street from Greenfield Avenue to Water Street.14 The center of this community is concentrated with high rise apartment complexes in the immediate vicinity of Tenhill. This core of the neighborhood shows an excessive concentration of a low-income, minority population.15
The community contains mostly low density one and two family dwelling units. In the context of Staten Island housing, and this neighborhood, a six story apartment complex represents a dominant feature in the community. Undoubtedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Pierce
...472, 481 (7th Cir.1982); Little Earth of United Tribes v. U.S. Dept. of Housing, 584 F.Supp. 1292, 1296 (D.Minn. 1983); King v. Harris, 464 F.Supp. 827, 836-37 (E.D.N.Y.) aff'd w/o op., 636 F.2d 1202 (2d Cir.1980); see Clients Council v. Pierce, 711 F.2d 1406, 1425 (8th Cir.1983) (citing In......
-
Little Earth of United Tribes v. US DEPT. OF HOUS.
...Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a). Wyatt, slip op. at 38; Shannon v. HUD, 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir.1970); King v. Harris, 464 F.Supp. 827 (E.D.N.Y.1979). In Wyatt, the court held that its finding that HUD had committed a constitutional violation mandated a conclusion that it ha......
-
Alschuler v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
...to promote racial and economic integration in administering the section 8 program. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437f(a), 3608(d)(5) ; see King v. Harris, 464 F.Supp. 827 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. without op. King v. Faymor Development Co., 614 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir. 1979) , vacated, 446 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct.......
-
N.A.A.C.P. v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 86-1111
...Development, 686 F.2d 472, 482 (7th Cir.1982); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 503 F.2d 1236, 1246-47 (6th Cir.1974); King v. Harris, 464 F.Supp. 827, 837-44 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd without opinion sub nom. King v. Faymor Development Co., 614 F.2d 1288 (2d Cir.1979), vacated on other grounds, 446 U......