Mhany Management, Inc. v. County Of Nassau

819 F.3d 581 (2nd Cir. 2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Garden City (D) is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and located in Nassau County (D). Those of Hispanic or African-American ethnicity comprised 20.3% of Nassau County's population. While constituting 14.8% of all households in Nassau County, African-Americans and Hispanics represented 53.1% of the County's 'very low' income, non-elderly renter households. African-Americans made up 88% of the County's waiting list for Section 8 housing. Garden City's African-American and Hispanic population in the year 2000 was 4.1%. Excluding the 61% of the minority population representing students living in dormitories, Garden City's minority population was only 2.6%. In addition, only 2.3% of the households in Garden City were headed by an African-American or Hispanic person. However, several of the communities surrounding Garden City are 'majority-minority,' communities in which minorities make up a majority of the population. Garden City contains no affordable housing. In 2002, Nassau County faced a budget and infrastructure crisis. The plan was to sell excess government property in order to raise revenue to fund renovations of the County's existing operations. Nassau County planned to sell the 25-acre Social Services Site to a private developer, hoping to receive at least $30 million. Garden City controlled the Site's zoning. Garden City began the process of rezoning. It created the P-Zone Committee. Garden City also retained the planning firm of Buckhurst Fish and Jacquemart ('BFJ') to provide a recommendation. BFJ proposed applying 'multi-family residential group' or 'R-M' zoning controls to this property. R-M zoning would have allowed for the construction of up to 311 residential apartment units on the Site, or 75 single-family homes. Residents expressed concern about the impact of 311 residential units on traffic and schools. The revised plan aimed the community at young couples and empty nesters. The Garden City Village Board of Trustees unanimously accepted the P-Zone Committee's recommendation for the rezoning. The development could include multi-family units or less dense alternatives such as single-family homes. Residents were against multi-family housing. BFJ and Garden City modified the rezoning proposal. BFJ scrapped the proposed R-M zoning and proposed 'Residential-Townhouse' ('R-T'), an entirely new zoning classification. It preserved R-M zoning on the 3.03 acres of the Social Services Site. The shift to R-T zoning moved rapidly through the Village's government. ACORN members subsequently attended the Nassau County Planning Commission and expressed opposition to R-T zoning. P sent a letter to the Nassau County Planning Commission strongly opposing R-T zoning and warning that the new zone would 'ensure that developers cannot create affordable multi-family housing.' The Garden City Board of Trustees unanimously rezoned the land to R-T. Nassau County issued an RFP to the site and announced it would not accept bids of less than $30 million. P was unable to submit a bid meeting the specifications of the RFP; It was not financially feasible to build affordable housing under R-T zoning restrictions at any acquisition price. The County awarded the contract to Fairhaven Properties, Inc., a developer of single-family homes, for $56.5 million, the highest bid. Fairhaven proposed the development of 87 single-family detached homes and did not include any townhouses. P prepared four proposals for development of the R-M zoning designation, with the percentage of affordable and/or Section 8 housing units of the 311 total rental units ranging from 15% to 25%. Under the proposal predicting 18% minority population, NYAHC would have been able to bid $56.1 million for the Social Services Site. P's proposals would likely increase racial diversity in Garden City, while the Fairhaven proposal would likely leave the racial composition of Garden City 'unchanged.' Ps filed suit against Ds under the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. D's shift from R-M to R-T zoning was racially discriminatory, and that Nassau County (D) failed to prevent this discrimination. The district court granted the County's (D) motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against the County (D), and (2) denied Garden City's (D) motion for summary judgment. At a bench trial, the district court concluded that Ps had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, liability on the part of the Garden City (D) for the shift from R-M to R-T zoning. In P’s judgment, Garden City got reeducation seminars and the appointment of a third party Fair Housing Compliance Officer. If the site was to be sol, it was to be rezoned R-M and if not Garden City was required to join the Nassau County Urban Consortium to become eligible for HUD affordable housing funds and 10% of newly constructed residential development of 5 units or more be reserved for affordable housing. Garden City (D) appealed. Ps cross-appealed, challenging the district court's grant of summary judgment to Nassau County.