United States v. Yonkers Board of Education

662 F. Supp. 1575, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6051
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 10, 1987
Docket80 CIV 6761 (LBS)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 662 F. Supp. 1575 (United States v. Yonkers Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 662 F. Supp. 1575, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6051 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION

SAND, District Judge.

By letter dated July 8, 1987, counsel for the City of Yonkers forwarded to the Court copies of three resolutions adopted by the City Council on July 7, 1987:

1) Resolution No. 139-1987 with respect to the adoption of a Housing Assistance Plan (Appendix A);
2) Resolution No. 140-1987 with respect to a request to the County of Westches-ter (Appendix B);
3) Resolution No. 141-1987 with respect to an “alternate plan” (Appendix C). Resolutions Nos. 139 and 140 are said by

the City to be in compliance with this Court’s Order of July 1, 1987 (Appendix D). At a telephone conference among all the parties held at the City’s request on July 9, 1987, counsel for the Department of Justice advised that the Department was not yet in a position to state whether or not Resolution No. 139 was adequate. The Court directed that counsel for the Department and HUD expeditiously review the matter and promptly advise the Court if there were any perceived inadequacies in that resolution.

Counsel for the City, at said conference, assured the Court and the parties that Resolution No. 140 (the request to the County) was a separate, completely independent resolution and was not subject to any conditions or qualifications set forth in Resolution No. 141. Nor was Resolution 140 superseded by Resolution No. 141. (See Transcript, July 9, 1987). Counsel for the City further assured the Court and the parties that the City intended to furnish to the County, together with its request, the amplifying data set forth in this Court’s July 1st Order and that the City would furnish the Court and the parties with copies of such submission prior to transmission to the County. Here too, the parties are to advise the Court as soon as possible if they believe that there are any inadequacies in this resolution’s compliance with the July 1st Order.

Resolution No. 141 proposes an alternative plan and seeks to impose conditions upon the Court before the City would seek to obtain the necessary consents and waivers. The conditions include a 90-day stay; a limit of 100 on the amount of construction in addition to the first 200 units; a prohibition against mixing affordable and public housing. The resolution which proposes eight sites also contains a proviso that if any portion of the resolution is not complied with, the entire resolution is to be deemed null and void. The resolution recites that it is enacted pursuant to a request by a number of east side civic groups listed in the resolution.

As the Court advised the parties at its July 9th conference, the constructive participation by the Yonkers City Council and these and other civic groups in the formulation of a housing remedy is welcomed and is to be encouraged. Before the Court would enter any final order directing the construction of any housing, it would give due consideration to any proposals made on behalf of Yonkers including proposals involving alternate or additional sites and densities. However, before any such alternatives could be seriously considered, the Court would have to be assured that the proposals were viable and met all relevant criteria. In this regard, the Court directed HUD to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the Andrus Field site, the only site listed in the resolution not previously inspected by HUD.

*1577 The Court urges Yonkers to proceed as expeditiously as possible to obtain the consents and waivers needed to demonstrate the feasibility of its alternative plan. If and when Yonkers comes before the Court and makes a showing that it has either obtained formal approvals for the sites or a persuasive showing that the requisite approvals have informally been given, the Court will give careful and sympathetic consideration to any such alternative plan. In the interim, the parties are, of course, to proceed pursuant to the timetable set forth in the July 1st Order. ■

Insofar as any request for a stay is concerned, if it should develop that construction is about to commence prior to any ruling by the Court of Appeals in the appeal now pending before that Court and any party shall move for a stay of such construction, the Court will also give such an application careful and sympathetic consideration in the light of the conditions then obtaining. It is not the intent of the Court to require that any wasteful or counterproductive action be taken. The Court further assures the parties that it will permit a sufficient interval of time between any ruling of this Court with respect to a stay and the commencement of construction to enable any party dissatisfied with any aspect of this Court’s ruling on such an application to seek appellate review of this Court’s determination.

As was acknowledged at the July 9th conference, any determination as to the total number of units eventually to be constructed pursuant to the housing remedy order prior to the receipt of the Outside Housing Advisor’s reports and the comments of all the parties would be premature. No such determination of the total number of units to be built or of any mix of public and affordable housing will be made, however, without a full hearing, at which the views of Yonkers will be carefully considered.

SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX A

BY VICE MAYOR OXMAN:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order of the Hon. Leonard Sand, United States District Judge, entered May 28, 1986 in the matter entitled “U.S.A. v. City of Yonkers etc.” in part VIII thereof the City of Yonkers was required to prepare and approve appropriate Housing Assistance Plans in a timely manner; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to said Court Order the plaintiffs have previously submitted a Three Year Housing Assistance Plan dated June 19, 1986 with a period of applicability from October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1986; and

WHEREAS, on advice of Appellate Counsel and without prejudice to our rights on appeal,

BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Yonkers, in City Council convened, hereby adopts the attached Housing Assistance Plan for the fiscal year 1987 with a period of applicability from October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987 for Grant No. B-85MC-36-0112 as the Second Year of the Three Year HAP approved July 11, 1986 and the City Manager is directed to forward same to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Block Grant Program, Entitlement Program.

Adopted by the City Council at a stated meeting held on July 7,1987, by a vote of 9 to 4, Minority Leader Longo, Councilmem-bers Palais, Spallone and Fagan voting “NAY.”

*1578 [[Image here]]

APPENDIX B

BY MAYOR MARTINELLI AND VICE MAYOR OXMAN:

WHEREAS, on July 1, 1987 the Hon. Leonard B. Sand, United States District Judge, entered an Order requiring the City Council to adopt certain resolutions under threat of contempt of court which would result in devastating fines to the taxpayers of the City of Yonkers, and

WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution is in compliance with the Order of the Court and is without waiver to the City’s right to appeal from the Order requiring the adoption of this Resolution;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
662 F. Supp. 1575, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-yonkers-board-of-education-nysd-1987.