Dear Editor,
I write in response to the recent letter by Bill Spade, founding member of Chappaqua for Responsible Affordable Housing (CFRAH), on behalf of Conifer Realty, LLC (Conifer). Since early on in the project, the members of CFRAH have been engaged in a campaign to bring an end to the affordable housing development underway at 54 Hunts Place.
That such a group materialized only in opposition to this development is disappointing. For the decades preceding the start of this project and Westchester’s 2009 federal desegregation agreement, no such campaign had been mounted in order to create affordable housing in the community.In a town with black and Latino populations of just 1.25% and 2.68%, respectively, this is an imbalance that was simply not being addressed.
Conifer was encouraged to undertake this project because of the clear need for safe, affordable, and diverse housing in Chappaqua. HUD’s interest and involvement only came after strong opposition threatened to undo the important progress being made. Approvals granted by New Castle’s previous town board suddenly fell at risk of being reversed. Initially the site wasn’t appropriate for affordable housing because it was the “gateway” to the community, then it was said that the residents would be ridiculed for being different and living in the “low-income project”. Now as a last resort, new efforts to deter the housing are under a pretext of fire safety issues. An Assistant Chief of the FDNY has thoroughly debunked the safety claims in his evaluation and report. The bottom line is that HUD would not have initiated an investigation without a legitimate concern about discrimination.
Yet, mischaracterizations continue. For example, it was not Conifer that selected the site at 54 Hunts Place, but New Castle officials, who re-zoned the location in 2010 (with unanimous approval from the Planning Board) to accommodate transit-oriented workforce housing of greater than 40 units. Town officials, who believed the site worthy, conscious of the needs of affordable housing residents, and safe, directed Conifer to the site after they re-zoned it, and Conifer’s own evaluations confirmed that belief.
Not only is Conifer a nationally-recognized developer of affordable housing, but even CFRAH made note of its socially and environmentally conscious work, when it remarked on the praise it received from the Town of Brookhaven. Similar praise has been extended for its affordable housing developments in Ithaca. Conifer illustrated its commitment to these ideals when it submitted a proposal for a 36 unit development, despite the city’s zoning allowing for a larger development. After more than two years of meetings, and public hearings to include community voices it again revised the proposal to the 28-unit concept now on the table.
The promise of these units with easy access to the commuter lines with rents that will attract diversity to the town is something that should be praised, and an example that should be built upon. A mere 28 units is an important first step, but it should not be the end.
If community members are dedicated to addressing the need for affordable housing, then I say the proof is in the pudding. One development does not preclude another, and future residents of Chappaqua would surely welcome the additional options.
In the meantime, I am certain that those currently seeking convenient, aesthetic, and safe affordable housing will continue to praise the high quality and socially conscious work that Conifer has built its reputation upon, and which will be exemplified in the development at 54 Hunts Place. The only risk these residents run of stigmatization is if the community at large fails to open its arms and its doors to new neighbors.
Randolph McLaughlin,
Co-chair, civil rights practice group, Newman Ferrara LLP
Pam says
If you want to put low income housing in a safe place, this is not it. You couldn’t build any closer to the train tracks. It’s only a matter of time until a child decides it would be “fun” to climb the fence and end up on the tracks. What about the noise from the trains as the whistle blows before it comes into the station? Doesn’t anyone think about that?
It’s not that we don’t want low income housing, it’s just that Hunts Place is not a fit place for anyone to live. That spot is just about the worst place to build housing.
Ed Frank says
Bill Spade’s letter is spot on and sets the record straight regarding the McLaughlin-Conifer concocted smear campaign against Chappaqua, Town of New Castle and its citizens. McLaughlin continues his campaign of misinformation, illusions, and distortions of fact under the pretext of affordable housing whereas facts point to Conifer’s desire for monetary gain in the highly profitable business of affordable housing being financed with the aid of taxpayer money. McLaughlin continues to be unable to counter the testimony presented by building and fire prevention experts regarding the unsafe 54 Hunts Place site. McLaughlin continues to be unable to counter the deficiencies of the site described by Mr. James Johnson, the Westchester Housing Monitor as well as the deficiencies of the site described by Mr. Craig Gurion who brought the lawsuit against Westchester County that resulted in the Housing Settlement. Failing on fact, McLaughlin has sadly and disappointedly pursued a smear campaign. Citizens in East Rochester and Horseheads, New York as well as citizens in Middle Township, New Jersey have found out what happens when they get in the way of Rochester based Conifer Realty, LLC. In this instance, Conifer Realty via their attorney Mr. McLaughlin, may have in my opinion sunk to new lows by besmirching the Town of New Castle and its citizens for monetary gain. And let us not forget that Conifer came to the Town of New Castle with the proposal to place the school bus stop for their project adjacent to the foot of the Saw Mill Rive Parkway off-ramp; gorging on taxpayer money is not more important than the safety of school children.