HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe discriminatory impact of Southold’s local preference for occupants in affordable units
Norklun, Stacey
From:Noncarrow, Denis
Sent:Thursday, December 08, 2022 2:33 PM
To:Norklun, Stacey
Subject:FW: The discriminatory impact of Southold’s local preference for occupants in
affordable units
Attachments:LIHS ltr to southold on residential preferences.pdf
Importance:High
Denis Noncarrow
Southold Town Clerk.
Town of Southold, New York
www.southoldtownny.gov
denisn@southoldtownny.gov
631-765-1800
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Ian Wilder \[mailto:ian@lifairhousing.org\]
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 2:22 PM
To: Russell, Scott <Scott.Russell@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Evans, Louisa <louisae@town.southold.ny.us>; Doherty, Jill <jill.doherty@town.southold.ny.us>; Nappa, Sarah
<sarah.nappa@town.southold.ny.us>; Doroski, Greg <greg.doroski@town.southold.ny.us>; Mealy, Brian
<brian.mealy@town.southold.ny.us>; Noncarrow, Denis <denisn@southoldtownny.gov>; Stephanie Rosen
<Stephanie.Rosen@suffolkcountyny.gov>
Subject: Re: The discriminatory impact of Southold’s local preference for occupants in affordable units
Importance: High
December 8, 2022
Hon. Scott A. Russell
Southold Town Supervisor
53095 Main Rd
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: The discriminatory impact of Southold’s local preference for occupants in affordable units
Dear Hon. Scott A. Russell:
1
Long Island Housing Services is concerned that Southold's drive to require affordable housing be limited to
current town residents could potentially open it up to liability under the Fair Housing Act and under its duty to
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing as a HUD subgrantee.
The September 23, 2022 Suffolk Times article “Developers, advisory commission frustrated by response to
housing crisis”, by Brianne Ledda, revealed the affordable housing developers like Developer Todd
Feuerstein, have “expressed concern about a clause in town code prioritizing first responders for affordable
housing, as a potential violation of federal Fair Housing laws”.
The Southold Supervisor Scott Russell, responded to the concerns about fair housing, he stated establishing a
local preference for those who occupy affordable units does not violate federal law:
“Some of the most progressive cities in the US (New York City, San Francisco and Seattle) have local
preference provisions built into their affordable housing programs. As long as the provision isn’t a blanket
rule, it is defendable,” he said in an email. “\[The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\] has
its own guidelines that prohibit any project with preference requirements from receiving tax credits. That’s
not a requirement of the law, it’s just their policy.”
We believe the actions of the town in limiting the access to affordable housing to town residents violate the
Fair Housing Act and thwarts the town’s responsibility to advance affirmatively further fair housing in
accordance with its certification to be a HUD subgrantee.
Supervisor Russel’s comments do not address these concerns. His discussion about more diverse major cities is
exactly on point because they are not segregated compared to the surrounding area. Unfortunately, the statistics
below show the same cannot be said for Southold. Furthermore, neither his comments about blanket rules and
tax credits do not address these larger issues.
Town Supervisor Russell seems to fail to understand the effect of such a local preference is to solidify existing
segregation in the town of Southold from the surrounding county. In determining whether segregation exists,
context is important. Other municipalities may have similar policies to those proposed by Southold, but if those
municipalities are already more integrated than the surrounding area then they are not reinforcing segregation.
A review of US Census data for Southold town compared to Suffolk County revealed the magnitude of
Southold’s demographic race and ethnicity disparities in comparison to Suffolk County. The severity of the
disparity between the diversity of the population of Suffolk compared to Southold clearly shows that Southold
must take affirmative steps to desegregate rather than continue with its current plan which will prevent
integration.
SH SC
Census population percentages of Southold (SH) and Suffolk (SC)
White alone, percent 94.5% 83.6%
Black or African American alone, percent 1.3% 9.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 0.0% 0.7%
Asian alone, percent 1.3% 4.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 0.0% 0.1%
Two or More Races, percent 2.1%
1.0%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 10.1% 20.7%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 86.4% 65.7%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 10.1% 20.7%
2
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/southoldtownsuffolkcountynewyork,suffolkcountynewyork/HCN0
10217
Based on these demographics, it appears that the preference for residents would have a discriminatory impact.
The preference for residents limits the access to affordable housing and limits the ability of people in protected
classes such as race and ethnicity to live in Southold. This enforcement of a local preference by Southold could
be a violation of the Fair Housing Act in preventing protected classes from attaining housing.
Furthermore, it could be a violation for Southold, a sub-grantee that certifies annually to the Suffolk County and
HUD that it affirmatively furthers fair housing (AFFH). The policy barring non-local residents has an effect of
keeping the town segregated at percentage rates that substantially exceed the county.
Southold could be responsible to reimburse the HUD funds it receives and be barred from receiving further
HUD funds per the Westchester case. See United States ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Ctr. Metro N.Y., Inc. v.
Westchester Cnty., 668 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2009): “The AFFH certification was not a mere boilerplate
formality, but rather was a substantive requirement, rooted in the history and purpose of the fair housing laws
and regulations, requiring the County to conduct an AI, take appropriate actions in response, and to document
its analysis and actions.”
Additionally, Southold’s residency preferences subject the town to being sued in federal court under allegations
of these preferences violating the Fair Housing Act because they would exclude non-residents while favoring
current and former residents who are predominantly white. See housing discrimination cases Fair Housing
Justice Center Inc. v. Town of Eastchester, No. 7:2016cv09038 - Document 125, S.D.N.Y. 2019 (Eastchester
paid $635,000 to settle the case), and Vargas v. Town of Smithtown, 2:07-cv-05202 E.D. N.Y. 2009
(Eastchester paid $925,000 in settlement.)
Since courts have held that residential preferences have a racially disparate impact, there needs to be an
exploration of less discriminatory alternative policies to serve the town’s interests. We will be glad to work with
your town to move you forward on a path that serves all of the residents of Long Island.
Sincerely,
Ian Wilder, Esq.
Executive Director
Long Island Housing Services, Inc
www.LIFairHousing.org
640 Johnson Ave. Suite 8
Bohemia, NY 11716
631-567-5111 ext. 314
cc: Suffolk County Community Development
he/him/his
Our mission is the elimination of unlawful housing discrimination and promotion of decent and
affordable housing through advocacy and education.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic communication, and all information herein, including files attached
hereto, is private, and is the property of Long Island Housing Services, Inc. This communication is intended
3
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure of; dissemination of; distribution of; copying of; or taking any action in reliance
upon this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately call 631-567-5111 and destroy the original and all copies of this communication.
4