Seriously, haven't we learned the lesson of the government sticking its nose into things better left alone? The housing bust was fueled in large part by Fannie & Freddie deciding not enough people could own homes so they lowered the requirements for doing so. The government never considers the unintended consequences of their actions and the rest of us are left to deal with it. Enough is enough.

The other major issue here is that the Federal government is actually asking Westchester County to violate New York State's Constitution, which confers authority on each municipality to set their own zoning laws. The government is basically telling the county to rip up all those zoning laws regardless of what the state's constitution says, to build all kinds of housing where they may or may necessarily fit in with the character of a neighborhood. The reason HUD and Fed are so insistent on this is because they are making an example out of Westchester County to scare other counties in doing more to force racial integration.

Never get between a democrat and an entitlement. You'll get crushed. Then they will take your money after they step over your corpse.

You have no idea of what you're talking about. I grew up in Yonkers, and this whole idea of the government "getting into your business" is because even if people of color could afford to live in your hood, they were not allowed to do so. If I can buy a one million dollar house, why shouldn't I be able to live where I can afford to live? That was the issue. No one wants to live among you racist people. The only thing that people of color is asking for is equality. If you can choose to live in Harlem, why can't people of color live in your hood. Being equal does not mean living next door to you. However, if I can afford to live next door to you, and i choose to do so, you have no right to say that I cannot live there. Check yourself and I bet you will find that you have a pointed white hood in your closet.

I am offended by those comments. People should live where they can afford to and not have the bar lowered for them. It's a money issues not a racial one.

Art, again I will say that I grew up in Yonkers. During the 80s I recall people of color attempting to buy homes in East Yonkers. If you're attempting to buy a home, that means that you can afford it right? My parents were turned down time after time because they were not welcome in the neighborhood. Do you recall around 1990 when a black family built a house from the ground up in the Central Avenue area of Yonkers and the people in the neighborhood burned it to the ground the first night that they moved in? Apparently those people could afford to live in that neighborhood, but racism did not allow it to happen. So, it's not just about them not being able to afford it. It's about racist peccawoods who are angry some people of color can afford the same things that they can.

Who turned it down? You don't make sense. If a seller chooses not to sell to someone because they are of color, as messed up as it is, they have every right to do that. If the bank downed it thats a different story...that's illegal and should be dealt with. But don't destroy long established zoning laws of these municipalities and build monstrosities to punish the sins of illegal banking practices.

Art, pay attention. I said that they people in the neighborhood BURNED the house down, not turned it down.

"My parents were turned down time after time because they were not welcome in the neighborhood." This is what I was referring to...who turned them down? As for house being burned well that's just ignorance. If you don't want to live near people of color just move. There is no reason to burn a house down.

Idaho is predominately white, but what about the 72% of government funded monies overall? As for home decreasing in value, that's only because racist people don't want them in the neighborhood. I have been in neighborhood that were predominately black and the homes and yards are much better kept than that of white neighborhoods. When one thinks that they are superior they also think that they are more valuable.

But all people have rights. If you can afford it, you have the right to live where you live. If certain people don't want to live near certain groups of other people they have that right too. Try to avoid sweeping generalizations about how people keep their yards and what not. How neat someone keeps their house is directly related to how they were raised and has nothing to do with their color. I know sloppy and neat people of all races.

Wonderboy - Marisol sees racism absolutely everywhere - you don't have to mention white or any other color, she's all about generalizations!

You have a point here but I would like to see some statistics. I don't know if the differences in resources between the different school districts is a make or break factor in determining how financially successful someone is in life. I think most of it comes from the home and how kids are raised. I draw on my own life, coming from a very poor family in a very poor neighborhood. I am doing very well now despite coming from humble beginnings. I know plenty of wealthy kids that grew up in wealthy neighborhoods and made nothing of themselves.

Nelson,

What I think your arguement leads to is that we need to change how education is financed.

Yes Nelson but I think the more desireable area cease to exist if big brother dictates who can live in them and at what rate? There has to be incentive for people to better themselves and use their education to get where they want to go whether it be the smallest home in Rye just to get the zip code or a nicer car , or a vacation home. It has to be human nature that propels us toward something. Not Uncle Sam. Do we tell Mercedes they have to sell 1 $90,000 car to a low income family for every 9 they sell to someone who can afford it ?

"And without that educational opportunity how will they be able to someday afford to live in those more desirable neighborhoods should they choose to do so?"

That's a crock, or a load, how can one plan for that decades in advance? You and will be dead before these kids decide where to live by then. I had no idea I would be able to get back to a place that I grew up in. A million life choices occurred before I made that choice. It took hard work, planning, opportunity, and a whole lot of raw luck. My overpriced education at John Jay did not prepare me for that.

The game of life did.

You know what . .. you are correct. Tomorrow I'm going to pass a law that allows all of us to take 50% of what you have and distribute it equally to those that most deserve it just to level the playing field. You can drive a less expensive car. Live in a smaller house. Give up your vacations. After all, it's for the children . . . It's only fair. Right?

Education at present is indoctrination. This curriculum is structured to make children be knee jerk liberals and taught to a mean standard. Not to create critical thinkers that love their Country. A country that sacrifices so much for them day in and day out. Housing is not a right, it's something you earn through work. The money you have in your pocket is yours, and if I want it I have to do something you value to get it, not just pass a tax increase, or a mandate, that forces you to pay for something I want. New York State used to be a state that lived on merit and hard work and welcomed immigrants and taught them english and got them into the melting pot as fast as possible. We manufactured Americans out of immigrants; our schools and "can do" culture are how we did that. Now? We treat them as a permanent class of second class citizens and allow them to self segregate from what historically has made America such a special and rare place.

continued . . . .

They are free to move into any community with a "better" school as long as they can afford the property and the taxes that come along with it or the rent in that community. No one should be getting a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers in a "better" school district. My family works very hard to afford to live in a fairly good school district and no one should just be able to go to this school for free on the backs of taxpayers without living in the community. If the parents want to get their kids into a better school then move to a community that they can afford with a "better" school - that's it plain in simple. By your thinking every student in Yonkers should be able to go to school in Scarsdale, Harrison, Chappaqua, or other such area just because they offer a "better" education - the system and life in general don't and can't operate that way it's an unrealistic fairy tale propagated by liberals.

Equal access to education is not the same as equal attainment. Schooling can rarely make up for a disadvantageous and damaging home life. There's a reason all top 5 public high schools in NYC are MAJORITY asian - and if you look at the stats it clearly isn't just income, its a cultural approach (and as such its NOT race).
You can take the kid out of a godawful secondary school and put them into Chappaqua or Rye or somesort, but if they still have just one parent trying to look after 3 other kids, TV on until 1am, food-insecure, music playing, no reading materials in the house, not being read to when they younger etc., never-ending household disputes resolved with shouting and anger etc. - their chances of improving their lot are slim. In short - opportunity is only that, an opportunity.

As to the article, Westchester has to suck it up - they took the money so they have to play by the rules.

But why can't certain communities be wealthy people only, if that's what they want? Why is that a bad thing?

Agee somewhat Kevin.But how do we stop slum lords from putting up 2-3 family homes or garden style apartments with low income residents who can't afford common charges or upkeep? It becomes a whole different layer of governance placed upon towns that were designed years ago to avoid this very thing. I think a lot of the problem stems from lack of jobs for the lesser educated. Most of the bad schools are in areas built around industrial areas. Mt Vernon , Sleepy Hollow , Port Chester etc. have many multifamily homes that were built years ago to accomodate the working class. The manufacturing industry moved out and the dwellings stayed. Most local govs never reacted and those working class homes evolved into lower income areas which overburdened the municipalities. We are just relocating the problem.

Good comment blue, look at the West End of New Rochelle. We have all those multi-family dwellings to accommodate the working class people and years ago there were many factories in the west end, most of them small shops that made whatever. There are not really any anymore but all the dwellings and population density is still there.

While I agree that it would be nice for people that are part of the community to be able to afford to live in the community I'd like to clarify something. Zoning in not the only issue. Take Larchmont for example, it's zoning laws allow for much smaller lots than Bedford, however, it is not considered an affordable place to live. Bedford, that has large areas of 4 acre minimum size lots also has many areas with 1/4 acre lots. The homes in these 1/4 acre areas, some that are modest, are also considered unaffordable to many ($400,000-$1,000,000 with exceptions). Home values are based on the desirability of an area as measured by buyers. Many factors go in to that and the quality of schools is a major one in suburban areas.

When ever you get government involved in this you always end up in a bad place. You don't need more government to fix it. You need less. The free market works if we just give it time to work it's magic.

Kevin,
One of HUD's main concerns:
Astorino's rejection of legislation that would have barred landlords from discriminating against would-be tenants based on their source of income, such as Section 8 rent subsidies

"Could there be zoning and development that provides alternatives to single-family large-lot zoning."

Why?? I moved out of the city exactly because I wanted a street with nice size lots, lawns and mature trees. I don't want the dense neighborhood - thats what the cities are for - abnd those that do can chose to live in the city.

BG7, I am not saying we should all be cities. You can still have a lawn with a 5,000 square foot, or 10,000 square foot lot. We can maintain our suburban character with one- and two-family houses, townhouses, accessory apartments, and apartments above our main street stores. Look at the development around most of our older suburban towns around train stations.

Nelson your point works both ways. I think it is what these towns ( and the county) are saying. They made plans years in advance to prevent too many multi- family dwellings , keep the population under control and have their area remain desireable. Now the feds are saying " no good". The feds are now planning for the towns. If a town rezones an area they can't force people to change use. Its grandfathered in. How can the feds change the rules. By this president anyone should be able to take their 5 acres in Bedford and apply to have it changed to 1/2 acre lots without being denied. Or am I over-reaching? LoL

Blue, despite what the towns may have individually done in the past, the County took federal dollars to provide affordable housing several years back. Some group sued claiming the County was not properly using the funds. The court agreed, and the result was a settlement that requires the County to provide 750 affordable units.

I understand that Nelson but nowhere in the settlement does it say the Feds can dictate where within the town tax maps the homes have to be built. It looks like social engineering.

I don't believe the Federal government has dictated how the County is to meet its requirement to provide 750 units. I believe that is up to the County. I could be wrong. I think many people are just pointing their fingers at Washington.

kevin,
HUD is calling for the county to challenge the zoning practices of local municipalities and "list the steps that the county will take if the municipalities do not enact the changes within three months of the county's notification." If a municipality fails to make a change, HUD wants the county to take a number of actions including suspension of funds and litigation

I still don't see where HUD is proposing specific sites for affordable housing, which is what you had eluded to earlier. From your quote, it seems they are requiring a plan, which would include a review of the local zoning. If the county cannot do this, there will be consequences.

The county executive says in his press release that he would be asking Donovan in a meeting next month in Washington, D.C., to retract demands by HUD that by its own admission in a May 13 letter to the county "go beyond the four corners of the settlement."
Also HUD: A failure to address local zoning practices HUD officials say are exclusionary.

". . . a smart society . . . "

Wow. The federal government is trillions in debt and deficit. In short order will be in charge of your medical care via "Obamacare." The State of New York is just under half a billion, give or take, and any one with any money sends their kids to private schools, whether it is NYC or up here(was not always like that up here). People who work their whole lives here count the days till they can get out and get more for their money elsewhere. We are not a smart society because we allow too much government to run our lives. From the schools all the way to the feds.

We can't afford it.

We can vent and vote all we want to. But in the end there's limited time and limited resources to fight any of this and the feds and Andrew Cuomo/Sheldon Silver in Albany know it. The Feds can print all the money they need, raise taxes, and pass mandate after mandate, to stick us with whatever they wish.

You can keep planning, but in the end it will not amount to an ant hill, which will promptly get wash away by higher taxes and the cost the societal problems associated with those who choose to sit in the hammock of the welfare state.

Thanks Blue. We'll see what happens.

Kevin,
The Fed is making the county challenge local zoning laws which would probably lead to litigation the county taxpayers have to burden. Are the zoning laws exclusionary? Probably but thats a seperate issue that was not in the original settlement. If your town's zoning states no three bedroom or multifamily in certain sections of town then how can the county demand they build the housing there without picking a legal fight?

Blue, I agree with you. This is a home rule state, so this settlement has certainly created a unique situation between federal, state and local. BTW, thanks for sticking to the topic of this article and avoiding the rhetoric some people insist on posting. It's such a wast of time.

Joshua, you are 100% correct. Yet, most here are blaming the consumption of their tax dollars on blacks and legal hispanics.

I don't know what you mean by this. Immigrants are good for a nation. They grow it. There is no housing shortage. The feds want to "integrate" our community because it suits their political purposes. It's about money and staying in political office. It has nothing to do with right v. wrong.

"Immigrants are good for a nation"

If they are needed - and if they aren't criminals - and if they dont sign up for benefits, bankrupt hospitals etc.

Legal immigrants in earlier ages were screened for disease, criminality etc. Now other countries send their criminals north - a reason US prison population is 1/3 illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants have highest birthrate in the nation - 3 times that of whites and Asians and 1.5 times that of blacks. Many of those births and subsequent care are being paid for by the welfare and benefits systems that anchor babies open the door to. Too many people are bankrupting hospitals, schools, states, local services etc. Diseases like TB and critters like bed bugs are resurgent. Roads are flooded with intoxicated people with no licenses, insurance etc (well they do often have fake IDs). Blacks often have older roots in America than whites yet illegal immigrants come in and take over resources - like housing. America is just being forced into being dysfunction while Democrats sue border patrol and states in order to flood America with a new voter base. Its treasonous behavior basically. Its no surprise this week NY Times wrote US Constitution was outdated. They would flush the whole thing if they could.

Jill - what is an " anchor baby"? You can get neither citizienship nor permament residency through a baby or child. So what is an "anchor baby", besides being a loaded-term implying something it doesn't actually provide?

Great, thanks Francis. I see now how the notion of living in a community with a diversity in income levels is somehow akin to "communes" of the USSR.

Marisol, have you ever looked at the demographics of Westchester? 65.7% are white persons. 15.9% are Black persons.17.6% are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, Stats from the census department. Now why would an elderly person be on MEDICAID? Wouldn't they be on MEDICARE? Unless you have a different standard for the the term "elderly"?

Sorry Jeff we were have a discussion on the HUD " settlement". Nobody was arguing whether the towns were originally at fault.

Blue, as I said in my post the county should not fight or resist this "settlement" because they will not win. They will also waste millions in tax payers dollars that can go elsewhere. Learn from this. Jeff Meyer Tuckahoe, NY

They are not fighting the settlement. They are fighting the changes being made to it. And this case has such huge implications throughout the country they should fight it up to the Supreme Court wereright now there are favorable conditions.

"The county executive says in his press release that he would be asking Donovan in a meeting next month in Washington, D.C., to retract demands by HUD that by its own admission in a May 13 letter to the county "go beyond the four corners of the settlement."

Well Blue, let's just hope that the contesting of the so called changes in the presumed "settlement" does not dismantle the progress that has been made up to this point. JM

Agree on that Jeff. Sometimes the hard way is the right way and other times its just harder. Though I do like to see any politician take a stand even though it could potentially ruin a career.

jeff hit the nail on the head - they took the money in the first place. Its pointless for the county to behave like this - it comes across as them just trying to weasel out of it.

why - because I call you out on your own seething racism?
Please.

I doubt the editors know that Marisol is using a derogatory racial term when she/he states in an earlier post above "It's about racist peccawoods.." due to the (likely purposeful) incorrect spelling. In any event, racial slurs, have no place in Patch discussion boards.

Marisol - please continue to add to your list of clichéd retorts, better that than the racist posts.

Congratulations on moving away from the monomanical obsession with race. Lets hope you can keep it up, though by looking at your posting history on other topics, the chances seem slim.

I don't care for racists.

Peekskillman, I will say this, then I'm done with this dialogue. Word for word, this is what you said, "Marisol-the 20% or so that you speak about being used by illegals is 20% too much;. Now, what I said was that 20-25 % that are used by legal AND illegals. The other thing that you said was, " Please, if you are here illegally, you dont have rights, except the right to be sent back to the country of origin". That is the reason I let you know that I am Native American and there's nothing illegal about that. If I misunderstood and thought that you were not talking directly about me; please except my apology. Have a good evening.