By John Anthony,
2/15/17,
How this picture happens
if Trump fails to rein in HUD Example of high-density
living
If you want to know what
will happen to your community if Trump fails to rein in the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, look at Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania, the
latest community to surrender to HUD’s aggressive tactics.
Much of the chaos we see
in America today is designed to stop President Trump from dismantling the
federal system of rampant waste, dishonesty, and bullying. The largest “swamp” he must drain, is the
embedded federal bureaucracy.
In theory, at least, we
can “fire” politicians every 2, 4, and 6 years.
But federal agency employees can linger for decades, beneath the radar,
issuing guidance documents on little understood regulations that are now
devastating our communities and property rights.
That is why the
administration must work closely with Congress to pass the House and Senate
bills, titled, the “Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017
(http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads /2015/11/2017-E__BILLS_H482-GOSAR-LOCAL-ZONING-DECISIONS-ACT.pdf?ct=t()&mc_cid=36709d9cda&mc
_eid=[UNIQID]) ”.
Once signed by the
President, the new law will outlaw HUD’s worst offenders, its “Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) regulation.
AFFH uses legal actions
against communities that accept popular HUD grants, to force them into a
bizarre, centrally managed program of regionalism and forced socio-economic
integration. AFFH use of litigation
threats is becoming a widespread enforcement tool for the agency.
Whitehall Township is
the most recent victim of HUD’s new legal intimidation. The community, located
in the heart of the Lehigh Valley, 90 miles north of Philadelphia, has its own
home rule charter. They have their own Mayor, Township Commissioners, and
Planning Commission. That autonomy and the voice of their voters, means little
to HUD.
In February 2014,
PathStone, a regional affordable housing developer from the Philadelphia area,
proposed purchasing a parcel of land in the Township and constructing 52 (later
reduced to 49) affordable housing units in the Loft Project. By May, the Planning Commission rejected the
proposal.
Rather than accept the
Commission’s decision and find another location to build, in April 2015,
PathStone hired a civil rights law firm who filed a complaint with HUD
requesting they investigate Whitehall for a,“discriminatory zoning ordinance
that discourages the development of affordable, multifamily housing in high
opportunity areas.”
(https://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 11/AFFHComplaintFinal.pdf?ct=t()&mc_cid=36709d9cda&mc_eid=[UNIQID])
The suit claimed, “The
Zoning Hearing Board denied zoning relief…on the basis of the race, color,
national origin, familial status, and disability status of the prospective
residents of the housing.”
HUD was involved because
the Township had received $395,000 in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
since 2009. But, how were the attorneys and HUD able to interpret the board’s
decision as discriminatory?
The Planning Commission
argued that PathStone’s proposal only allowed for 1 parking space per unit, in
violation of zoning laws that called for 2. In addition, citizens raised
concerns over reduced property values and increased crime.
PathStone’s attorneys
countered that the Commission had previously approved similar zoning relief for
the same parcel for a senior citizen’s home.
Therefore, they reasoned, any rejection for affordable housing is
clearly the result of discrimination.
Their rationale was
limited to selective portions of the voters’ issues. Rather than address the
community’s worries about crime, attorneys and HUD dismissed that issue as
racist.
But safety and racism
are different topics and the citizens’ fears were legitimate. While senior
citizen housing rarely raises crime rates, a detailed block-by-block study
(http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13030.html?ct=t()&mc_cid=36709d9cda&mc_eid=[UNIQID])
shows that high density, low-income housing does attract larger numbers of
homicides, no matter who lives there. This should be a real concern for any
community.
Whitehall’s citizens
were outraged at PathStone’s and HUD’s heavy-handed tactics and continued to
voice their objections to the Lofts, even in the face of threatened lawsuits.
It was a losing fight.
In HUD’s view, resistance to affordable housing is in itself discriminatory and
bore the threat of even greater charges.
(https://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/upload /2015/11/Not-In-My-Backyard-Removing-Barriers-to-Fair-Housing.pdf?ct=t()&mc_cid=36709d9cda&mc_eid=[UNIQID])
By June of 2016, Whitehall finally caved to the federal
government’s pressure. They altered
their zoning laws to meet HUD’s demands and agreed to sign a Voluntary
Compliance Agreement allowing the project to advance.
(https://sustainablefreedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/11/HUD-WHITEHALL-VOLUNTARY-CMPLIANCE-AGREEMENT.pdf?ct=t()&mc_cid=36709d9cda&mc_eid=[UNIQID])
As Commissioner Philip
Ginder, caught between signing an oppressive agreement voters did not want; and
facing mounting lawsuit threats, said before voting, “This is one of the
hardest ‘yes’ votes I’ve ever made in my life.
Among other
stipulations, Whitehall ‘voluntarily’ agreed to: Defend their zoning
changes from third party challenges and,“…extend its full cooperation
throughout the remainder of the planning, application and approval processes
relevant to development of The Lofts, and throughout the infrastructure
development, building permit process, construction, and initial rent-up phases
of The Lofts.”
Whitehall had to
“actively promote the Lofts by endorsing the development...”
In the biggest sting of
all, HUD ordered the Township, “No later than December 28, 2016, to remit the
amount of Three Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($375,000.00) to
Complainant PathStone.”
The payment was in
satisfaction for, “PathStone's claims for monetary compensation, additional
carrying costs, out-of pocket expenses and additional staff time related to
development of The Lofts from the time of the May 20, 2014, denial by
Respondent Zoning Hearing Board, as well as additional payments to the current
owner of subject property to reserve PathStone's purchase rights, the expense
of reapplication for PHFA funding in 2015, additional interest on the predevelopment
loan for The Lofts, and attorneys' fees and costs.”
What happened in
Whitehall Township can happen in any community that has zoning laws and accepts
federal money for fair housing or urban development. Even if AFFH is overturned, as the Whitehall case
shows, the agency can claim discrimination for a host of reasons that may or
may not be fair to communities. This is why communities must protect their
local autonomy and their right to control zoning and land use.
Community members must
stay informed and involved. Learn about HUD and how their grant requirements
can alter your town, city, or county
(https://sustainablefreedomlab.org/no-choice-dvdct=t&ct=t()&mc_cid=36709d9cda&mc_eid=[UNIQID]()).
Study the effects of
regional sustainable development on local jurisdictional authority, on taxes,
and on lifestyles. Then work with local
officials to protect your neighborhoods for now and for future generations. Yours in liberty, John
HB 482
nullifies HUD’s interference with local zoning and relocating minorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment