Plaintiffs' move to challenge adequacy of defendant's responses to requests to admit

September 10, 2019 — In an oral ruling issued from the bench, the Magistrate Judge in the case has denied plaintiffs’ motion to determine the sufficiency of defendant’s responses to plaintiffs’ requests to admit.

What follows below is a selection of requests that the City either denied, evaded (including partial refusals to answer); completely refused to admit or deny; or admitted.  The number in bold following an item represents the Request number; an asterisk following the number indicates that the language of the Request had been modified from its original version. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to review relevant filings.

Denials

That some actions taken by, on behalf of, or in concert with the City from 1941-1968 had a material role in creating, maintaining, or perpetuating residential racial segregation in NYC.  (The City did separately admit that it was involved “with the ratification and cooperated with the creation” of Stuyvesant Town.). 64

The City made the same denials for the period from 1968 to the end of the Giuliani administration, but also denied knowledge sufficient to answer to admit or deny that the segregating actions included racial steering by NYCHA. 65

Denies having sufficient information to admit or deny for that a fear of and resistance to neighborhood residential change was a phenomenon that existed in NYC from World War II through Bloomberg administration and denies that the phenomenon exists during the de Blasio administration. Speaking both to the past and the present, affirmatively states that “the ‘fear of and resistance to neighborhood racial change’ is not and was not a ‘common phenomenon’ in New York City.” 98, 100

That some actions taken by, on behalf of, or in concert with defendant during the Bloomberg Administration had a material role in creating, maintaining, or perpetuating residential racial segregation, including reductions in permissible residential density that occurred disproportionately in disproportionately white areas; increases in permissible residential density that occurred disproportionately in disproportionately African American or Latino areas; and the failure to rezone many middle-income and wealthier, disproportionately white neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island.  66

That the City has frequently heard, in connection with rezonings and/or affordable housing development proposals, the desire to maintain a neighborhood’s cultural character, history, heritage, identity, or integrity. 128

That, throughout NYC, there is fierce competition for available affordable housing (admitting only that there is “known” competition for such housing). 132

That defendant knew prior to August 2016 that the community preference policy was a potential impediment to fair housing choice. 107

That, in the context of demand for affordable housing far exceeding the supply of affordable housing, any desire of some members of any racial or ethnic group to “self-segregate” is in conflict with the desire of New Yorkers who are not members of that racial or ethnic group to be able to secure housing in the same locations that the “self-segregators” are seeking to occupy or continue to occupy. 133

That defendant’s efforts to support or implement pro-integrative mobility programs were either non-existent or highly limited during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, and have remained limited during the de Blasio administration. 139-40

That defendant takes political considerations into account when selecting areas for rezoning (admitting only that there are those type of considerations after an area is selected as a potential rezoning area). 144

That the harms to some residents of New York City materially contributed to by the existence of residential racial and ethnic segregation in New York City include disparities in the policing practices to which neighborhoods with different racial and ethnic demographics are subjected, even after accounting for neighborhood differences in crime rates. 167*

That there remain huge disparities in public safety between and among neighborhoods. 168*

That the practice of tradition of other City Council members deferring on land-use matters to the Council Member whose district would be affected by the land-use matter (“Councilmanic veto”) is contrary to the interests of the City. 26
 
That, as a practical matter, a principal mission of both HDC and NYCHA is to help achieve the City’s housing policies and priorities. 181, 183

Evasions (including partial refusals to answer)

That many New Yorkers maintain family and social connections across different boroughs and that many New Yorkers have cross-borough commutes to work (denying enough information to admit or deny the first, and only admitting that “some” residents have cross-borough commutes to work in regard to the second). 51 and 52

That not only were there some community districts in the periods 2002-13 and 2014 to the present where no affordable housing subject to a lottery was marketed to the public, but that a disproportionate number of those CDs were disproportionately white in relation to NYC’s white population. 70-72

Denying that City-supported housing, HUD-supported place-based housing, and HUD-supported housing voucher holders are concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods that tend to be predominantly African-American or Latino (admitting only that there are “some” such housing developments and voucher holders). 67-69

Concerning the consequences of racial and ethnic segregation:

That the existence of such segregation contravenes one or more interests of defendant and that the existence of such segregation does not advance any interest of defendant. 164*

That, in the period of 1990 to the present, such segregation has caused and continued to cause (165*):

(a) one or more substantial harms (i.e., harms of considerable importance) to all New York City residents; or

(b) one or more substantial harms (i.e., harms of considerable importance) to a majority of New York City residents; or

(c) one or more substantial harms (i.e., harms of considerable importance) to a sizable plurality of New York City residents.