We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you agree to our use of cookies. To close this message click close.

Garden City Ordered to Remedy Effects of Intentionally Discriminatory Zoning Decision

24 April 2014

Hogan Lovells Pro Bono Teams Achieves Landmark Victory in Fair Housing Case

NEW YORK, NY, 24 April 2014 – On 22 April 2014, federal judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York entered final judgment in the discriminatory zoning case against the Village of Garden City in Nassau County on Long Island. Lawyers from Hogan Lovells, along with lawyers from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington, represented the plaintiffs.

According to the judgment, the Village of Garden City and its Board of Trustees must now implement changes to their residential housing practices to remedy the effects of their prior intentionally discriminatory conduct. The judgment comes on the heels of Judge Spatt’s historic 6 December 2013 ruling that Garden City violated the Fair Housing Act, the United States Constitution, and other civil rights statutes by enacting a discriminatory zoning ordinance in 2004. The Court found that the Village’s action illegally discriminated based on race and national origin against minorities and perpetuated segregation, which has allowed Garden City to remain a white enclave surrounded by predominantly minority neighboring towns.

Proclaiming in an earlier 17 March 2014 order that “…the law has been broken and the defendants cannot now complain of the ensuing consequences,” Judge Spatt imposed several mandatory affirmative remedies in the final judgment. Garden City must conduct annual in-person training for all elected officials and housing employees, and enact a Fair Housing Resolution to “assure equal housing opportunities and nondiscrimination in its zoning and other land use processes.” Garden City and its trustees are also enjoined from violating fair housing laws in the future. And Garden City will also be required to hire an independent third party Compliance Officer and pay for all remedial measures.

The court also imposed several remedies that open the door for affordable housing in Garden City – for the first time in the century-old town’s existence. If Nassau County, which owns the parcel of land at issue and was a defendant in the case until 2012, announces that it intends to sell the property (known as the “Social Services Site”) within one year of the judgment, Garden City must re-zone the Site to allow for development of residential multi-family housing. This re-zoning would allow affordable housing developers, including plaintiff MHANY Management, Inc., to bid for the opportunity to build much-needed and long-awaited affordable housing in Garden City. If Nassau County does not announce that it intends to sell the site within one year of the judgment, Garden City must set aside 10% of any future multi-family developments for affordable housing, join the Nassau County Urban Consortium (a group of municipalities in Nassau County that are eligible to receive federal funding for affordable housing development), and participate in Consortium activities in good faith.

Exclusionary zoning by white communities like Garden City to block affordable housing that would likely be occupied by minority residents remains one of the most persistent obstacles to open, integrated and fair housing in America today. The court’s judgment in this case is a much-needed step toward eradicating the lingering effects of centuries of racial discrimination and segregated living patterns in this country, and sends a signal to similar communities that such discrimination will be rooted out and remedied.

Stanley Brown, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a partner at Hogan Lovells US LLP in New York City, noted: "Local and state governments need to take note of this case, and understand that using restrictive zoning to bar minority residency will not be tolerated. This case exemplifies how housing discrimination and exclusionary zoning practices are being used across the country. It shows how these practices prevent affordable housing that can provide opportunities to all of us, and minorities in particular that have been historically shut out. Hogan Lovells' pro bono litigation team takes special pride in the opportunity to serve this effort. It has been a long campaign, but a worthy one on behalf of civil rights."

 
Loading data