New York City Outsider-Restriction Policy Challenged

Affordable Housing |
Residential segregationRaceDiscrimination

Scroll down for case filings and developments and go here, here, and here for plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

July 7, 2015 — The Anti-Discrimination Center (ADC), acting on behalf of three African-American plaintiffs, is challenging New York City’s policy of barring City residents who live outside the community district in which affordable housing is being built from competing on an equal basis for all available units. The complaint was filed in federal district court in Manhattan today.

New York City remains the second-most residentially segregated major city in the country, within one of the most segregated major metropolitan areas in the U.S. The patterns of segregation in New York City are unmistakable, and arose from decades of intentional discrimination and segregation.

they’re our neighborhoods, too

A new study from ADC, based on field interviews with well over 600 New Yorkers — overwhelmingly African-American; the balance Latino — is out.  

The study demonstrates that a strong majority of each group is willing to consider a wide range of  mobility options.

Read the study

The segregation extends to the community district level. Because of this, the City’s policy in connection with half of the units in a development — favoring existing community district residents and disfavoring New Yorkers who live outside the community district — winds up helping the dominant racial or ethnic group in the community district and hurting those groups who are underrepresented in the community district. In other words, the City has long started with mostly segregated community districts and has then put in place a process that tips the scales in favor of the status quo.

The developments identified in the complaint are all in community districts where whites are overrepresented and where African-Americans are underrepresented. The lawsuit aims to open up neighborhoods of opportunity to all New Yorkers. Eliminating the outsider-restriction policy would allow all income-eligible New Yorkers to compete on a level playing field.

Craig Gurian, ADC’s executive director, said: “If in 2015 we can’t agree that all our neighborhoods belong to all of us, it’s a very sad state of affairs.”


More about residential segregation in New York

Contrary to its reputation for diversity, New York City is really, really segregated:
  • Especially for African-Americans, there has been less decline in segregation from 1980 to 2010 than in most other major cities;
  • 17 of 59 community districts have an African-American population of less than 5 percent;
  • 14 of 59 community districts have a combined African-American and Latino population of less than 20 percent;
  • 17 of 59 community districts have a combined African-American and Latino population of 80 percent or more;
  • The “center of gravity” of the African-American population (where about 50 percent of the African-Americans in the City live) is comprised of only 9 of 59 community districts; the equivalent center of gravity for whites is compromised of of only 13 community districts.
  • Of those 22 “center of gravity” community districts, there is zero overlap (not one that is a part of the center of gravity for both African-Americans and whites).
     

Abandoning the outsider-restriction policy will not change income eligibility

It is important to understand that, whether an insider or an outsider, a New Yorker must meet the same income-eligibility criteria in order to be eligible for the affordable housing being developed.  In other words, the outsider-restriction policy has no impact on the ability of persons of limited financial means to obtain housing.  The outsider-restriction policy does not determine where housing will be built, only who (among people of the same income level) will get to live in it.
 

Our co-counsel: Cuti Hecker Wang LLP

Cuti Hecker Wang LLP is a six-attorney civil rights litigation boutique.  Its practice focuses primarily on employment discrimination and retaliation, including sexual assault and harassment, housing discrimination, First Amendment issues, children’s rights, election law, police misconduct, and prisoners’ rights.  

Learn more about the case:

Note: It is best to open documents in Acrobat, both for better readability and because some documents will only show the bookmarks that faciliate navigation in Acrobat (as opposed to your browser).
ADC Press Release, July 7, 2015
Read the press release that the Anti-Discrimination Center distributed after filing the complaint in federal court.
City loses bid to prevent deposition of Deputy Mayor Glen
Throughout this case, the City has been fighting tooth and nail to limit discovery into the facts. One of its efforts was trying to block the deposition of Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen. This particular effort at limiting discovery was rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The document link is to the brief of the plaintiffs' that explained why the opposition to the deposition was without merit.
City prevails in bid to keep expert report on impact of outsider-restriction policy secret
Plaintiffs had their demographic expert prepare a report that examined (a) the extent, if at all, to which the odds of insiders (those who live in the community preference area for a lottery) in competing for affordable housing are better than the odds of outsiders (New Yorkers who live outside the community preference area); (b) the extent, if at all, to which the City effectively bestows better odds to compete on the racially dominant group in the community district where the housing is being built; and (c) the extent, if at all, to which applicants for affordable housing lotteries have demonstrated their interest in applying for housing outside of their community district, or even their borough of current residence. The City wanted to keep it secret, even though, as the Court later acknowledged, "no personally identifiable information is contained" in the report. Despite the absence of personally identifiable information, despite the lack of harm to the City, and despite the public interest in learning what the outsider-restriction policy actually does, the City was allowed to have its way. And most of the papers filed by the parties are secret. This is the only public filing by plaintiffs on the issue.
City successful so far in preventing discovery from Council members
Even though the City tries to justify its outsider-restriction policy by saying it needs the policy to get support from Council Members for land-use decisions that facilitate the creation of affordable housing, it doesn't want to allow discovery from any Council Members, including discovery about why those Council Members support outsider-restriction, and whether those Council Members would act contrary to the City's interest in the absence of outsider-restriction and spitefully refuse to support affordable housing. The Magistrate Judge ruled in favor of the City, and plaintiffs are now appealing to the District Court Judge. This document is plaintiffs' memorandum of law to the District Court judge explaining why discovery of a limited subset of Council Members is necessary and proper.
Civil rights plaintiffs file objections to vindicate their right to explore the factors motivating the City's outsider-restriction policy
Plaintiffs' March 8, 2018 memorandum of law, with the exhibits filed along with it.
Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
The City's effort to avoid a trial on the merits.
District Judge opinion sustaining plaintiffs' objections to opinion allowing City to keep assessments of fair housing from plaintiffs
The Dec. 12, 2018 District Judge decision rejected the analysis of "deliberative process privilege" that had been used to prevent plaintiffs from having access to the City's "preliminary" assessments of fair housing, and sent the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration.
Frequently (and not-so-frequently) asked questions about the outsider-restriction policy
Magistrate Judge decision prioritizing secrecy of governmental deliberations over robust civil rights fact-finding
The February 1, 2018 decision allowing the City to keep documents, including those discussing potential alternatives to its outsider-restriction policy, secret. The decision also limits the questioning of City officials at depositions.
Magistrate Judge opinion denying plaintiffs' motion to depose a representative of DOE
Magistrate Judge's April 2, 2019 opinion denying plaintiffs' motion to take a single deposition of a representative of the City's Department of Education (DOE) on the topic of fear of, or opposition or resistance to, potential or realized changes in the racial or ethnic composition of schools resulting from City policies or practices.

Pages