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.
Complete refusals to admit or deny
That, in the City’s judgment, the existence of racial and ethnic segregation in NYC schools is a major problem, is contrary to the City’s interests, and that it is important to reduce such segregation; and that Mayor de Blasio has believed this to be true throughout his mayoralty. 81-83
That a significant portion of the racial and ethnic segregation that exists at the elementary school level has been and remains a function of racially and ethnically segregated neighborhoods; that such segregation contributes to material differences in the elementary school education that New York City children receive; and that Mayor de Blasio believes that existing residential demographic patterns limit the extent to which the problem of school segregation can be fully solved in NYC. 84, 86, 87
That the City (and Mayor de Blasio) have known for many years of the phenomenon of community opposition to greater racial or ethnic integration in schools. 95
That when proposals to change school admissions policies or to change the catchment area from which a school draws its students bring the prospect of a change in school demographics (a reduction in the level of dominance of the racial or ethnic group that, up to that point, had been demographically most dominant in the school), in defendant’s judgment, it is often the case that strong opposition arises. 88
That Mayor de Blasio has believed since at least the beginning of his mayoralty and continues to believe that NYC is characterized by a substantial level of residential racial segregation. 33
Admit that Mayor de Blasio believed and believes that any effective effort to confront residential racial segregation and to take action to overcome it would require the expenditure of significant political capital. 120
That that an outsider, non-disability household may be in equal or greater need of a lottery unit for which that household is income- and household-size eligible than the household who was awarded the apartment because of the operation of the community preference policy. 10
Admit that, in the New York City context, a community district can be measured as relatively diverse on the racial diversity index yet have an African American population sharply below the citywide percentage of African Americans. 36
That Mayor de Blasio believes that, in the course of the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, defendant’s efforts to fight negative impacts of gentrification and to fight involuntary displacement were materially inadequate. 135
That, if a Council Member were to oppose an affordable housing development or action needed to facilitate affordable housing development only because the “community preference” policy had been reduced or eliminated by Court order, that opposition would be contrary to the City’s interest and contrary to the interests of the Council Member’s constituents. 22
Admissions
That community preference is not limited to insiders who:
a. Have been long-term residents of the community preference area;
b. Have had to persevere through years of difficult conditions;
c. Are at risk of involuntary displacement from their household’s existing residence; or
d. Are at risk of involuntary displacement from their household’s existing neighborhood.
(The City wouldn’t recite the language as posed, but the substance is admitted.) 1
That prior to 2014, even in its federally-required “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” statements, the City did not analyze citywide the extent to which the community preference policy may cause a disparate impact on the basis of race in affordable housing lotteries or may perpetuate segregation on the basis of race. 37, 38