Appendix — Taylor v. Lavine

Supreme Court brief1974

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

INDEX TO APPENDIX

VOLUME I PAGE

Relevant Docket Entries in Hurley v. Van Lare ....

Relevant Docket Entries in Taylor v. Lavine .......

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SINGLE District JUDGE

try Hurzey v. Van Lanz, 72 Crv. 3423, S.D.N.Y.

PT Oe EN RRS roe ae

Notice of Motion for an Order Determining Class

Action and Summary Judgment on Behalf of

eR Oe ar age tre ars eon ae

Affidavit of Rose Hurley in Support of Motion ......

Decision After Fair Hearing, Exhibit “A” to

a ee ee er ee

Statement Pursuant to General Rule 9-G of the Rules

of the Southern District of New York in Support

of Motion for Summary Judgment .............

Notice of Motion to Intervene, for Preliminary In-

junction and Class Action Determination on Be-

De OE FI APIS oko hin ccd nesGarccs

Affidavit of Phyllis D’Alessio in Support of Motion

Correspondence Regarding Matrimonial Action,

Exhibits “A’’, “B”, “C” and “D’’ to D’Alessio

SP hs kp v0 is ea we Teas Ge os kee

Notice of Intent to Change Public Assistance

Status, Exhibit “E” to D’Alessio Affidavit ....

PAGE

Memorandum from Rachel Goldfinger to Phyllis

D’Alessio, Exhibit ‘‘F” to D’Alessio Affidavit 55

Notice of Motion to Intervene and for Preliminary

Injunction on Behalf of Loretta Clark .......... 56

{

Affidavit of Loretta Clark in Support of Motion ..... 58

Notice of Intent to Reduce Public Assistance, Ex-

hibit “A” to Clark Affidavit .......ccssecees 61

Decision After Fair Hearing, Exhibit “C” to

RO, CNN cos be nk onus d biewdecenssi as 63

Notice of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint or

for Summary Judgment on Behalf of State De-

I ei 6 0 vies bard po eho encdaeneneso in 66

Defendants’ Statement Pursuant to General Rule 9-G

of the Rules of the Southern District of New

York and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 9-G State-

NN ae ies oc 50 0 kk snions 67

Answer of County Defendant ..................... 68

Regulatory History of 18 NYCRR §§ 352.30(d) all

352.31(a)(3)(iv) Submitted in Response to

tice to Produce Directed to State Defendants.... 71

Opinion of District Judge Arnold Bauman .......... 74

Judgment and Order .. ome: i avke<sécduamewacess 95

Amended Judgment and Order .................... 98

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals

eae rr eee 101

INDEX

State Defendants’ Notice of Appeal to the Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit ...............

County Defendants’ Notice of Appeal to the Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit ................

PRocEepInes BrerorE THE Sinate Disrricr JupGEe in

TayLor v. Lavine, 73 Civ. 699, E.D.N.Y.

NI 50 gh bs ho cb ad wea dices has bx owns

Decision After the Fair Hearing, Exhibit “A” to

I ei ri kab oc bbc 04 bb 50s oko bess

Answer of Binte Detemdamst .5h coon io ececccccccs

Decision After Fair Hearing, Exhibit “A’’ to

Answer of State Defendant ................

Answer of County Defendant ............ he tab eves

Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf

of Annie Taylor and Charlotte Otey ............

Motion for Sumniary Judgment ...................

Affidavit of Theodore Hochstadt in Support of

PE cg shai e ass vbdbek bas scence seks canis

Letter From Justin B. Stone to Theodore Hochstadt,

Exhibit ‘‘A” to Hochstadt Affidavit ............

Notice of Cross-Motion to Dismiss Complaint and for

Summary Judgment on Behalf of State Defend-

iii

PAGE

103

107

120

122

126

129

133

134

135

138

iv INDEX

PAGE

POE COT CNRS nin i sini see Hoe hncaeevardacecs 144

Amended Judgment and Order .............e0e0005 146

State Defendant’s Notice of Appeal to Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit ................ 148

Proceepincs BreroreE THE Court or APPEALS FOR

THE SEconD CrecuiT IN THE CONSOLIDATED APPEALS

or Taytor v. Lavine, Doc. No. 73—2731, ann

Hurzey v. Van Large, Doc. No. 73—2671.

Letter from David S. Kellogg to Borge Varmer Sub-

mitted by State Appellants .................065 153

Letter From Elmer W. Smith to David S. Kellogg

Submitted by State Appellants ................ 155

Opinions of the Court of Appeals for the Second

NE ohare an ie ak Sa eee ES kiko bh oes 157

Order Denying Petition for Rehearing .............. 185

PRocEEDINGS BEFoRE THE THREE-JUDGE COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN AND Eastern Districts or New

York 1n Hurtey v. Van Lang, 73 Crv. 3423, ano

Taytor v. Lavine, 73 Crv. 699, on RemManp FROM

THE Court or APPEALS FoR THE Seconp Circuit.

Additional Regulatory History of 18 NYCRR

§§ 352.30(d), 352.31(a) (3) (iv) and Related Regu-

lations Submitted in Response to Notice to Pro-

duce Directed to State Defendants ............

Interrogatories to Defendant Lavine ...............

INDEX

Defendant Lavine’s Answers to the Interrogatories ..

Order to Show Cause for Order Granting Intervention

on Behalf of Francesca Aloise -.........+.000+:

Affidavit of Francesca Aloise in Support of Order to

Be CS cas boas oo iealhe bed Hace san steeo

Notice of Intent to Reduce Public Assistance, Exhibit

“A’’? to Complaint of Applicant for Intervention

Decision After Fair Hearing, Exhibit “B” to Com-

plaint of Applicant for Intervention ...........

Answer of State Defendants in Hurley v. Van Lare ..

‘ ‘

Excerpts From Case Record of Rose Hurley, Ex-

hibit “A” to State Defendants’ Answer ........

Partial Stipulation of Facts in Taylor v. Lavine .....

Supplemental Affidavit of Rose Hurley in Support of

Motion for Class Action and Summary Judgment

Second Supplemental Affidavit of Rose Hurley in

Support of Motion ............ssseseeseeteres

Supplemental Affidavit of Phyllis D’Alessio in Sup-

DOT OL DOT isc os. 5'0 0060 innvn’ Vu vee bh oe ns we

Supplemental Affidavit of Loretta Clark in Support

of Motion ..... Se ot ES eee

Affidavit of Susan E. Smith in Support of Motion ...

Table, Exhibit “A” to Smith Affidavit ........ .

PAGE

203

205

206

208

211

215

221

225

237

240

PAGE

Detailed Characteristics, New York 1970 Census

of Population, Exhibit “B” to Smith Affidavit 245

Affidavit of Garry W. Bickel, in Support of Motion .. 246

Table, Exhibit “A”, to Bickel Affidavit .’:...... 249

Table, Exhibit ‘*B’’, to Bickel Affidavit ...... 251

Metropolitan Housing Characteristics—New

York, N. Y., 1970 Census, Exhibit “CO? to Bickel | j

ES ccc icc dseanincedheccedics Ge eibeaes >

Affidavit of John T. Hand in Support of Motion .... 254

Letter From John T. Hand to Applicants to Legal

Aid Divorce Unit, Exhibit ‘‘A’’ to Hand

Affidavit . be OSE LS ON ee RO a Se 256

Affidavit of Linda ‘issles' in Support of the Consti- — ae

tutionality of 18 | NYCRR § DULG! ccdcecsvees 257

Affidavit of Marvin Rachlin in Support of the Consti-

' tutionality of 18 NYCRR § 352.30(d) ........... 261

lagi stohr ct of Hearing on June 26, 1974 (Hxecrpts). . 267

Geneai Social and Economic Characteristics—Ne ew

York, 1970 Census, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘‘A’’..... 363

Detailed Housing Characteristics—New York, 1970

Census, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “B” .

“Conelusions’’ From Survey Report on Rental Hous-

ing—New York, 1969, Plaintifis’ Exhibit “C” .. 367

‘“Welfare Housing” Prom The Urban Housing Dr.

lemma, New York City, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “D’’.. 368

f |

INDEX

ine

VOLUME II

_, Excerpts From Recent Housing Trends in West-

chester County—Westchester County, 1974,

PT EE I” os Gi. csccsiteddevetovses

Excerpts From Report of Housing and Rent Study

Group, Temporary State Commission on Living

Costs and the Economy, New York, Plaintiffs’

inde cevivbdcoscucevesebdvenes

Excerpts From Residential Analysis, Westchester

County, Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand

and Supply, 1970-1990, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “G’’. .

Excerpts From Residential Analysis, Westchester

County, Interim Report 5—Housing Require-

ments: Sub-market Housing Groups, Plaintiffs’

WN ER het cee ere dase thevcescnschensteces

Excerpts From Residential Analysis, Westchester.

County, Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households

and Housing, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit UT hinsukhsvese

Notice of Intent to Change Public Assistance Status,

I, oe rack voevcncceccce.

Memorandum From Rachel Goldfinger to Phyllis

D’ Alessio, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “K” .............

Westchester County Maximum Shelter Allowance

Schedule, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “L” ..............

Nassau County Maximum Shelter Allowance Sched-

rE ENE PL occ ctesccccgwse sce.

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

410

415

470

488

490

491

495

Shelter Allowance Schedules, Defendants’* Exhibit

SOR? Sian d0kn aden ceed cree co bebe os 16 i

Excerpts From Simplified Methods for Determining

Needs, HEW, 1964, Defendants’ Exhibit “C’’ ..

Excerpts From Shelter Costs and Selected Shelter

Characteristics of New York State Public Assist-

ance Recipients, 1971 N.Y.D.S.S. Shelter Cost

_ Survey, Defendants’ Exhibit ‘‘D’’..............

PAGE

614

Letter From David S. Kellogg to Borge Varmer and ,

Letter From Elmer W. Smith to David S. Kel-

logg, Defendants’ Exhibit ‘‘E”’ ..............

Notice of Motion to Strike on Behalf of Rose Hurley

Affidavit of Martin A. Schwartz in support of Motion

Affidavit of Judith A. Gordon in Opposition to Mo-

uk 06 BIN sg cin neck ces inte

Order Granting Motion to Strike ..................

Amended Answer of State Defendants in Hurley v.

CO BO ii 5k ain oi ae i nh ad Ons

Opinions of the Three-Judge District i Berane.

Re eee et eee eee ee

State Defendants’ Notice of Appeal to the Supreme

Court of tiie United States 2... 5.52.05. ceeesss

625

409

“Welfare Housing’ From The Urban Housing Dilemma.

preciation and profit elements, there is enough flow of

funds to substantially alter their buildings.

In sum, the basic rent levels paid by welfare recipients

buy relatively little in the way of housing amenity.

Despite a lack of landlord input, the Rent Control Laws

serve to increase welfare rents through the turnover pro-

visions more rapidly than is the case for non-welfare

tenanted buildings.

The tack of reinvestment by landlords in improvements

ts in part a tribute to a captive market and prejudice, but

the operating profits of the heavily welfare tenanted

buildings themselves are also poor.

410

Excerpts From Recent Housing Trends in Westchester

es ent County, 1974, Plantiffs’ Ex-

ibit “E”.

As Table V indicates, the increase in median income dur- -

ing the sixties barely kept pace with the increase in median

rents and median home value during the decade. Housing

costs increased twice as fast as ‘prices in general.

TABLE V

REeE.ative Increases In Hovusine Cost, Generat Prices & INcOME

1950, 1960, 1970.

WEsTCHESTER County, New York

% Increase % Increase

1950 1960 1950-60 1970 60-70

Mepian Income or $ 3,699 $ 6,823 84.5 $11,349 66.3

Famiuies & UNRE-

LATED INDIVIDUALS*

Mepian Montuoty $ 48 $ 78 62.0 $ 129 65.4

Rent

Mepian Home $17,390 $24,200 39.3 $40,500 67.4

VALUE

CoNnSUMER PRICE 71.2 87.3 21.6 119.0 36.3

Inpex (N.Y.,

N.E.-N.J.)

_ (1967—100)

* Incomes shown are from 1949, 1959 afid 1969 as revealed by

the 1950, 1960 and 1970 censuses.

Westchester renters spent a median of 19.5% of their

incomes on rent in 1970, which despite increased incomes,

was slightly above the 1960 renter expenditure in West-

chester. Across all income ranges there were 45,107 house-

_ holds spending more than 25%* of their incomes on rent.

* Twenty-five percent of gross income represents the maximum

amount economists and housing specialists recommend a family

pay for shelter.

411

Excerpt

inte: ‘rom Recent Housing Trends in Westchester

County—Westchester County, 1974.

One-third

comes atte @ll renters spent more than 25% of their in-

housing m=Pting to secure adequate shelter in today’s

rket.

Vacancy 7

2ENDS

The seve 3 Le

evidenced “© tightness of the Westchester housing market,

units, dowY the 16% decrease in the number of vacant

rapidly rié almost 1,500 stnce 1960, is a@ major cause of

in 1970 w%g rents and home prices. The vacancy rates

occupied v¢ 23% for rental units and 0.5% for owner

For unit!ts. — aS

for less t} renting for $100 to $150 per month or selling

Studied by® $35,000, the vacancy rates are even lower.

shortage aSize and by units in the structure, the greatest

pears to be in rental units having 6 or 7 rooms.

TABLE VI

TENURE BY STRUCTURE TyYPE*

WESTCHESTER County, NEw York

1960-1970

1960 1970 Absolute Percent

Sryewe-F'a Change Change

Moutt1-Far* Owner 102,196 118,486 16,290 15.9

Srncus-Fal¥ Owner 21,652 27,422 5,770 26.6

MouurFatt¥ Renter 13,530 9,612 -3,918 -29.0

Vacant ¥ Renter 103,903 127,109 23,206 22.3

ToTaL 9,211 7,748 -1,463 -15.9

250,492 290,377 39,885 15.9

* Exclue

seasonal ups seasonal dwelling units. In 1960 there were 4,274

units, a drcs in the county. By 1970 there were 1,114 seasonal

round units largely attributable to conversion of seasonal to year-

412

Excerpts From Recent Housing Trends in Westchester

County— Westchester County, 1974.

By location, the southern tier cities and communities

along the Sound have the lowest vacancy rates. In gen-

eral, vacancy rates are lowest for cities, villages, and towns

in that order, and lower for owner-occupied units than for

rental units. (See Table VIII, P. 11)

HovseHotp SUBMARKETS

Through a number of processes, both economic and so-

cial, certain citizens are concentrated in limited areas of

the county. Relatively concentrated groups are the first

and second generation Italians, the Spanish language pop-

ulation, and persons below the poverty level. Blacks are

twice as concentrated as any other large ethnic, social or

economic group in Westchester. .

Compared to white residents, black citizens have been

found three times more often living in overcrowded hous-

ing and three times more often living in dwelling units

lacking some or all plumbing facilities.

Moreover, because their incomes are lower, they spend a

_ greater proportion of their income on rent than their white

counterparts. Overall, blacks spent 27.5% of family in-

come on rent compared to 19.1% spent by whites.

413

Excerpts From Recent Housing Trends in Westchester

County—Westchester County, 1974.

TABLE VII

CHaRacTERISTICS oF Hoysine OccuPieD By WHITE

anp Biack HovseHoLps

Total =‘ Units Units”

Occupied Occupied Occupied

Housing By By

Units Whites Blacks

Occupiep Units 282,629 257,565 25,064

Lackine PLUMBING No. 6,444 4,984 1,460

% 2.3 is. 5.8

_ OVERCROWDED No. 16,402 12,635 3,767

- eG 4.9 15.0

% o¥ INCOME SPENT ON 20.0 19.1 27.5

Rent*

Mepian Rent $129 — $107

Source: 1970 Census

* Calculated by dividing median rent by median income.

** Figure not given by Census. Estimated at $132-133.

Market PROCESSES OF THE Existine Hovusine SupPiy

The existing stock of housing is not immutable. To

some extent it does adapt to changing demands via the

processes of conversion and demolition. In fact, during

the periods of relatively low levels of new construction,

which certain Westchester communities experienced during

the 1960’s and early 1970’s, alteration of the existing stock

became an important method of accommodating growth.

414

Excerpts From Recent Housing Trends in Westchester

County—Westchester County, 1974.

Conversion of single family houses into structures with

two or more units appears to have provided at least one-

fourth of the total increase in the housing stock of the

county between 1960 and 1970. While close to 20,000 single

family units were built during the decade, the net increase

in the single family housing stock was only a fraction over

7,000. This disparity is explained largely by conversion of

_ older single family units to provide for two or more dwell-

ings in the structure. As further evidence of the conver-

._sion process, the increase in the number of two family units

in the county substantially

Excerpts From Report of Housing and Rent Study

Group, Temporary State Commission on Living

Costs and the Economy, New York, Plaintiffs’ Ex-

hibit “F”.

——— FABLE IV

"(See opposite es)

+ omen we we

bet |998’h |po°t | Ovs‘e 9L4°T | T86‘L 86°T |Se8'9 TZ°OT| #92‘ HST 1 9S*b. | LOS‘TIz paanduos

QON

IO &SE

aie eck sis : He a

RGO°t [tte oi tvs OT ples Bb Il’at 4 ee 28°22 | TS0‘6L ZU°L | T8L‘BS LE°IT] vo00'BLz tez - O¢

1 ? ueyy ~~

OGt}9E9'z9e] OOT! BET‘BSH | OOT | TES’zSe 00T |0S9’Sswe'| oot | 69z‘sz6 | OOT] HHE’HHS’z s(ezo, |

“T tt ft he oe 7 r ‘ Sat. See * 7 z ‘ sis

BAUM TOT = 666 HT | 666 '6- 666°9- 0007s$ cers) SuGSuT pe

090‘S1$ 000’0T$ 000‘L$ 000‘S$ zepun abeqwWeorand st

Zuey ssol,

OL6T‘SLINA GdIdND90 UFLNTU NI $ALTIWVA 4O AWOONI

Bary ueqTTodorzzoOW YOK MON

aT Tava

416

Report of Housing and Rent Study Group—Temporary

State Commission on Living Costs and the Economy

—New York.

On local home rule for control of rents:

‘‘Such local home rule is a sound approach that

should be pursued. This is an approach that I have

pushed since I became a Senator, as evidenced by my

legislative record. In 1969, my bill (S-55007A) to

provide the City of Yonkers with the tools to set rent

control regulations by City Council action was passed

by the Legislature but vetoed by the Governor. In

1970, the same fate befell my bill (C-6439) to man-

date rent control in uncontrolled apartments.”’:-

~ ‘While some type of home rule must be adopted,

at the same time the basic question—who is to under-

write the cost of administering such rent control pro-

grams?—must be answered.’

On housing courts:

‘‘T was pleased to have co-sponsored the legislation

creating the New York City Housing Court, and it is

my hope that this works out well so that it can be

considered as a model for statewide legislation.’’

‘“‘The subject of rent control is a complex item,

firmly tied into the economy of our State, and I feel

that such Hearings by your Commission will help in

solving the problems we face in this area.’’

417

Report of Housing and Rent Study Group—Temporary

Mr.

State Commission on Living Costs and the Economy

—New York.

Morton Zucker:

On Westchester ‘‘Fair Rent Agreements:’’ ;

‘‘Generally speaking this pattern was a 15% in-

crease for 2-year leases and 20% increase for 3-year

leases plus escalation for tax increases. The Phase

II regulations then allowed a 5% increase on top of

the renting pattern of May 15, 1971 to August 15,

1971 plus a 214% annual increase for each year after

January 1, 1972. The result was that_the tenants in

the five municipalities were being faced with in-

creases running far in excess of the permitted limited

inflationary increases contemplated by the Phase II

rules. The five municipalities then banded together to

petition the price commission for relief. At the hear-

ings conducted by the United States Reni Advisory

Board in April of 1972, relief was granted essentially

for two reasons: 1) The rent pattern that had been

established by the Fair Rent Agreements were recog-

nized as not having been entered into as arms-length

transactions; and 2) The Rent Advisory Board rec-

ognized that the vacancy rates in the five municipali-

ties as evidenced by the United States Census of 1970

published in September of 1971, showed that in each

of the communities the vacancy rate and rental hous-

ing was substantially below the standard used in the

State of New York to establish an emergency housing

condition. The state standard is 5%, the vacancy rate

for White Plains was 2.2%, for Yonkers 1.9%, for

New Rochelle 1.3%, for Mount Vernon 1.7%, and for

Eastchester 1.1%.’’

‘“‘The remedy was an 8% limitation on an increase

418

Report of Housing and Rent Study Group—Temporary

State Commission on Living Costs and the Economy

—New York.

year lease renewal. Thereafter the tenant would be

subject to an annual increment of only 214% in addi-

tion to tax escalations.’’

‘‘On January 11, 1973, the President by Executive

Order, terminated rent controls upon the adoption of

the Phase III Price Control] Regulations.’’

‘In the City of White Plains, the landlords’ asso-

ciation has been restricting itself to the general for-

mula of an increase on rent renewals to be a 15%

increase for two-year renewals and 20% for three-

year renewals which is a formula that had been ap-

plicable to the White Plains Fair Rent Agreement

which expired in July of 1973. Based on complaints

received in the Law Department from tenants, it is

believed that this is the the established pattern in the

large apartment houses (post 1947 construction). The

tenant complaints addressed to these increases is that

their incomes have not increased sufficiently to enable

them to afford high increases.’’

Proposal:

‘‘Tt is our recommendation that the most practical

method of regulating rents for post 1947 constructed

housing is for New York State to adopt the federal

regulations as they existed on January 11, 1973, roll-

ing back rents to that date and allowing for the con-

trolled increases from that date as provided in those

regulations, commonly referred to as the ‘Phase II

_ Rent Regulations.’ ”’

‘*Secondly, decontrol of those rents could be pro-

vided ‘for in a systematic way by having a special

housing census conducted in a manner provided by

419 .

Report of Housing and Rent Study Group—Temporary

State Commission on Living Costs and the Economy

—New York.

the State Emergency Housing Rent Laws to mandate

decontrol whenever the vacancy rate in a particular

community drops below a fixed standard such as 5%

vacancy rate.’’

Hon. Alfred DelBello: s

On rental housing in Yonkers:

‘‘Being involved in the 4th largest City of the State,

as you well know, has varying kinds of responsibili-

ties and problems, but I can say quite honestly that

no single problem has occupied more of my time dur-

ing the past four years than the housing.and rental

situation. ’’ he

“420

Excerpts from Residential Analysis, Westchester

County, Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand

and Supply, 1970-1990, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “G”.

SuMMARY

Over the next twenty years, it is expected that the

need for housing units in Westchester County will exceed

by nearly 100,000 the number of units available to fill that

need. This lack of equality between demand (number of

households seeking units) and supply (housing units ex-

pected to be built) results in“the “gap” or “deficit” of

100,000 units. Such a “gap” is only a way of looking at

the future, not a firm statement about the future. If it is

a county goal to achieve a projected amount of popula-

tion growth, then a land use and development policy should

be prepared and effectuated to make the goal an attain-

able one.

The alternative (scaling down of the population projec-

_ tions) is not a realistic approach in terms of the past

trends of county development. Westchester communities

are attempting to encourage non-residential land uses to

locate in their jurisdictions to offset the tax burden of the

residential sector. Firms finding operations in the heart

of the New York Metropolitan complex difficult may con-

sider suburban locations. The desire for such a suburban

location is tempered by space requirements at reasonable

cost and a labor pool sufficiently large to meet needs for

blue collar, clerical, technical and administrative workers.

Unless firms can be assured of finding a supply of labor

to meet their needs, they may not consider suburban areas

as a location.

A policy to increase the supply of housing is necessary

to assure firms that Westchester County will be capable

of supplying workers. If firms do not continue to move

to Westchester, localities and residents will be faced with

higher taxes to support public services.

421

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990-—Westchester County.

The examination of the demand-supply relationships for

housing in this report is based on two series of projections.

The first is of the number of households as derived from

projections of the size of population. The second is an

independent projection of the number of units the private

building industry may be expected to supply based on past

building trends in the county. It represents an approxima-

tion of future activity if no basic changes in construction

techniques and availability of land take place.

In spite of the increasing number of persons expected to

be living in the county in the next ten to twenty years, the

characteristics of the population are not anticipated to

change markedly. The only changes are that the average

age of the population in 1980 and 1990 will be slightly

younger than at present, and that the older-aged popula-

tion will increase in number.

The percentage of non-whites is expected to rise some-

what by 1990; the most significant increase for non- whites

will be in the under 25 age group.

As a result of a decreasing average size of household,

the rate of increase in the need for housing units will be

larger than the rate of population growth. In areas where

multi-family units account for a significant proportion of

the total housing stock (the cities and major villages),

there is a tendency for the average household size to be

smaller than in town areas. Trends in apartment size have

been correspondingly toward smaller units; few apart-

ments are built with more than 2 bedrooms, and local prac-

tices and policies in some areas restrict multi-family unit

construction to efficiency and one bedroom units.

Since less housing units are projected to be built than

population projections indicate will be needed, there will

be a growing deficit in the number of units available over

the next 20 years. Policies are required to enable pri-

vate builders and the public sector to reduce the deficit,

422

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—W estchester County.

especially in the north and centra! county. In the north

county, with the provision of sewers, new areas can be

opened for development; in the central and south county,

where many areas are already sewered, there should be a

more intensive use of ldfid and more extensive rehabilita-

tion and redevelopment programs. There should be a shift

from predominantly single family unit construction in

many parts of the county (especially in the north and in

sections of the central county). to multi-unit construction.

The income of Westchester households is anticipated to

increase faster than either the value or rent levels of

housing. However, an increasing number (though smaller

on a percentage basis) of households are projected to ex-

ceed the generally accepted standard of paying more than

2.5 times their income for single family housing or over

25 percent of their income for rent. This is due, in part,

to the excess of the projected need for housing over the

projected availability of housing. In addition, higher in-

come households may and do elect to occupy lower-cost

housing which would otherwise have been occupied by lower

income households. Accordingly, policies must be framed

which both increase the supply of lower and moderate cost

housing, as well on the higher priced homes and apart-

ments.

Section I

INTRODUCTION

Independent projections of the demand for and supply of

housing rarely show equality between the number of units

presumed to be needed in the future and the number of units

projected for construction. The divergence between the two

is meaningful only if both series of projections (demand

and supply pare considered as part of a policy of develop-

ment. A population projection may be carried out either

423

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

as an exercise in birth, death and migration statistics, or it

may be stated as a goal with action indicated to fulfill the

‘projection. A similar statement can be made for the num-

ber of housing units projected to be constructed in the

future.

For example, if demand is projected to exceed supply in

the future, elimination of the resulting gap can be achieved

either by increasing the supply of housing or being content

with a smaller population than was anticipated. On the

other hand, an excess of future supply over demand (a

much less likely situation) would mean that greater efforts

to attract new residents to the area should be made.

The population projections prepared by the Westchester

County Department of Planning embody the current expec-

tations for population growth in Westchester. These pro-

jections assume a moderate rate of increase in population

in terms of the amount of land in the county which could be

used for residential development and previous rates of

migration and natural increase. Accordingly, the West-

chester County Department of Planning’s population pro-

jection is viewed as an attainable goal or target.

The significance of future gains in population can beseen

by examining the present status of the county’s labor needs

in terms of the available number of workers and the impact

of these needs on the housing stock. If the County’s popula-

tion remains relatively stable, the need for workers (pro-

fessionals, technicians, clerical and service workers) will

outgrow the ability of the resident labor force to supply

workers. In-commuting to Westchester from other areas

could help, but, only for the higher paying occupations;

clerical, sales and service workers, generally will not travel

in excess of 20 or 30 minutes to work.

“The possibility of curtailment of economic development

because of shortages of lower and middle income workers is

far from idle speculation. Many of Westchester’s major

SRO NAAR ERY CERT (8 LORNA POE ERG EOE do SORES es

—---

PERL NT EET ESTEE ROE BNR AND Sek RESTS PRY:

424

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

employers are already experiencing serious shortages of

secretarial and ¢lericab personnel. Unless housing oppor-

tunities for middle income families in the County are dras-

tically increased, the shortaze will inevitably grow worse.

In 1968 there were approximately 52,500 secretarial and

clerical jobs in the County and 140,000 women in the labor

force for a ratio of 1 to 2.7. By 1985, the number of secre-

tarial and clerical jobs will increase by 90 percent to

100,000. However, the number of women in the labor force

will have increased by a much smaller figure with the result

that the ratio will fall to 1 to 2. Thus today’s already seri-

ous secretarial and clerical shortage will be greatly inten-

sified. The shortages cannot be relieved by in-commuting

because of the demonstrated unwillingness of women to

commute long distances to work.’”

Failure to construct an adequate supply of new housing

for an increasing population creates a ‘‘seller’s market’’

which will have a detrimental effect on the quality of the

housing stock. As the housing stock ages, the physical con-

dition of many rental units may deteriorate. With rela-

tively few units being added to the stock, the large demand

for housing will give landlords little incentive to maintain

and repair.their units. The costs of single family and multi-

family housing will increase rapidly under the pressure of

increasing demand and inadequate supply.

If the anticipated growth of the population in the county

is prevented by housing shortages, one serious effect will be

increased pressure on the tax structure of individual lo-

calities. As mentioned above, the supply of workers will not

be sufficient to meet the needs of firms. In turn, firms may

either shift their operations out of Westchester or new

firms may look elsewhere to locate. The result of these de-

1 Westchester’s Economy, Westchester County Department of

Planning, 1970.

et SLE FO PONE Oye CAC Sar ys Hee

425

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

‘cisions would be a contraction of the tax base of municipal

governments and school districts alike. Without the tax

payments of an increasing non-residential sector, home

owners (and renters, through rent paid to the landlord for

taxes) will have to assume a larger proportion of the prop-

erty taxes. The resistance of many localities to population

growth because of its supposed fiscal burden may thus have

exactly the opposite effect of what is intended.

Projections of housing units and households (population)

are developed in order to gauge the supply-demand rela-

tionship in the future. In most population projections, it is

implicitly assumed that demand4for housing will inevitably

result in its supply. This is a traditional assumption and,

in many cases, made with little risk of later embarrassment.

In Westchester County, at the present time, it may be made

only at great peril. There are forces at work which tend to

threaten the likelihood of the simple maxim that demand for

housing will generate a supply of housing.

Other reports in this series indicate, in detail, some of the

forces affecting the housing market and attempt to assess

their impact on the supply of housing. One of these reports,

Interim Report No. 2, Factors Affecting the Cost and Sup-

ply of Housing, deals with cost and other interrelationships

which serve to drive up the final price of housing. This re-

port is based on data from. builders and developers. In

general, builders have been able to construct high cost

housing and find buyers or renters with little difficulty. A

large pool of potential demand from high income house-

holds is being generated by the exodus of both families and

jobs from New York City. The desire of new residents in

the New York Metropolitan Region to avoid the problems

(and perceived dangers) of the City of New York also adds

to demand for housing in the suburbs. These high-income

households can afford $50,000 to $80,000 homes or apart-

ments renting for $250 and more per month.

es Ee teagan ecw nmatots

— a aA a

ate SES |

ae Stam S ABO ew) erty i as

aah NS 2

SAR PR EAE

426

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

Minimum housing costs in Westchester are now at such

a high level that the lower and middle income families can

“demand” but cannot obtain housing at prices they can

afford. This need is not being met by the private market

‘and is only partially satisfied by the public sector.

New housing for families with annual incomes below

$10,000 cannot be provided in the county under present

circumstances. New single family housing costs at least

$40,000 per unit while new two bedroom apartments rent

for a minimum of $250 per month. . Because the private

building industry, by its own admission, cannot meet the

needs of lower income families, the need for action is

passed along to the public sector. A number of programs

and procedures have been developed, but they have not as

yet come close to satisfying the demand for low cost

housing.

For example, Urban Renewal and construction of public

housing have had little impact on the number of units

available to low income households. In most insiances, new

units built merely replace existing units removed from

the stock. The Federal Model Cities program has not been

extended to all cities in the county; Mount Vernon alone

has received a planning grant for a Model Cities program.

The New York State Urban Development Corporation and

its subsidiary, the Westchester Development Corporation,

has only recently begun te consider specific action in

Westchester.’

The State Constitution prohibits the County, as a unit

of government, from taking direct action in providing hous-

ing. Moreover, local governments generally tend to be

+The New York State Urban Development Corporation has

signed memoranda with 5 Westchester communities as well as

with the County; all of these agreements involve the provision of

housing.

SEDC PU TE LOE IRIS OOS EE ILE A OOROEIA LENG OIL CLT Ay CON te a ORS NE IE ER TR SE

427

Interim Report 38—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—W estchester County.

reluctant to grant permits for low (or even moderate

cost) housing in response to their residents’ fears of rising

municipal and school costs and the alleged destruction

of the present environment and the tax abtatement such

projects require.

Therefore, when lower cost housing is discussed, ques-

tions are raised, such as: “Is there any reason why West-

chester County should provide a mechanism by which lower

cost housing could be constructed?’’ and “Why can’t only

those families who can afford to live in Westchester

County live here and those who can’t, live somewhere else?”

Variations are prevalent but an attempt is usually made to

state the point with circumspection. As indicated earlier,

the most meaningful response to such questions is that the

need for workers in local firms’ is‘rapidly outgrowing the

available supply. Accordingly, the supply of workers must

be considered if Westchester residents wish to see a con-

tinuation of the recent rapid economic growth. It would

seem reasonable to expect that most of the county’s work

force should be able to live in adequate housing located

in the county. However, the county is oriented mostly

towards housing for middle and upper income groups and

cannot satisfy the housing needs of clerical, service and

other lower paid workers.

An examination of the demand and supply relationships

(or the lack of a relationship) is the purpose of this re-

port. On the demand side, population forecasts (pre-

pared by the Westchester County Department of Planning)

have been used to develop projections of households by

income group. For the supply of housing an independent

projection of housing units, by cost levels, Was prepared

by the consultant.

A major change in conditions affecting either the de-

mand or supply side of the market would call for revision

Sean,

SERS patter ges:

TE a DES RR RRS SRE WPT ELLE LEVEN REALITY Be LRA TARO HES ET ON RECS ae

428

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supely,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

of these projections. For example, if sewer lines were

extended to large areas of the North County, the. supply

projections would have to be revised upwards. On the

other hand, if a new federal subsidy program of the mag-

nitude of the FHA home mortgage guarantee program of

the late 1940’s and 1950’s were to go into operation, both

the demand and supply projections would need»revision.

The supply projections are based on the number of units

and the costs of new housing built in the 1950’s and 1960's.

Continuation of the past trends into the future was ac-

complished by examining the factors which were believed

to underlie the trends. The number of units projected for

the future was based on the rates of change for the most

typical period in the past. The impact of the recent in-

flationary period in home prices and rents was softened

by using data prior to the onset of the period of most

rapid price increases.

Income projections were derived from the population

projections. Again it was necessary to discount the rapid

rise in income in the last few years to keep the cost and

income projections consistent. Changes in the level of in-

come from the 1950 to 1960 period as well as later data

for Westchester and other areas were used to develop pro-

jected rates of increase. ;

Both the income and cost projections are given in terms

of the price level for each projection year. This approach >

combines the real increases in value of rent or income

with those of prices generally (inflation). Separation of

real from absolute price increases would have greatly

understated the actual dollar costs of housing, or of income

earned in future years.

Section III

PROJECTION OF THE SuPPLY oF HovusIna.

(See opposite >)

ij SME AR ORIS AEL mgr orem economies

Ee Ne cena

PROJECTION OF THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING

A. Projection of Fousing Units:

On an overal! basis, fewer housing units are projected

to be built/l than the population projections indicate will be needed

(Table 9). Theoretically, there will be a "gap" of 7,700 unite in

1970, rising to a'yan"of over 190?,000 units by 1990/2 (Figure 5 and

Table 10). Since the population projections are assumed to be the goal

which should be attained, action will be necessary to make it possible

for the private building industry anc/or the public sector to construct

the required number of units. .

FIGURE 5

PROJECTED SUPPLY AND DEMA

FOR HOUSING UNITS

WESTCHESTER COUNTY

1960 - 1990 ©

500

=) 400 :

Lae]

a A

ra)

= §

5 ~ |

re)

Z 390

200 1 l __j

1960 1970 1980 : 1990

YEAR

ii The projection of housing units is based on past building trends

for each type of structure in each Planning Area in the cougty.

They represent what the building incustry in Westchester will

probably produce, assuming no basic change in the conditions of

supply which prevailed from 1950 to 1968.

LE The amount of the gap is determined by subtracting the number of

housing units projected to be in existence in 1990 (397,910,

Tabte 7} from the >rojected number of households (500,030, Table

7) for the same «--"r.

TABLE 10

—— a

RATIO OF HOUSING UNITS TO HOUSEHOLDS

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, BY PLANNING AREA

1960-1990

Actual Projections

Planning Areas: 1960 1970 1975 1980 1935 1996

Planning Area tf - ase 91 -82 74 o7e -63

Planning Area 11 rcs 1.06 1.03 -99 -93 -86

Planning Area {11 ° aie 1.07 .98 -86 .71 58

Planning Area IV 1.05 89 81 -77 73 ° 70

Planning Area V 1.04 99 95 -90 -87 82

Planning Area VI 1.01 1.00 -97 90.8? 82

Planning Area Vi! 1.01 -99 97 4 91 87

Planning Area ¥I1i 1.01 97 «92 89° = .87 85

Stecniee apes IX 1.02 96 -92 -86 82 77

Westchester County 1.04 ‘ 97 -93 -88 84 -80

. Shortage 410,000 7,757 32,390 46,984 68,697 102,120

A ‘Levels of less than 1 point towards an under-supply.

/2 These areas have a large number of seasonal units which accounts for

the high initial ratio of housing units to households.

Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing,1960; building

permit information provided by builders and estimates

by consultant.

Table 10, Ratio of Housing Units to Household.

(See opposite eS)

431

432

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

Specific geographic areas where public action will be

needed if the population as projected is to be attained are

those with the greatest divergence between the number of

projected households and the number of projected housing

units (Table 10). Accordingly, programs to increase hous-

ing production will be necessary in the north and parts of

the central Planning Areas in the later projection years

(1980, 1985, 1990). In the South County, emphasis should

be placed on rehabilitation and redevelopment of areas

which have relatively high density development. In the

7 central and southern Planning Areas where there are al-

ready services available, more intensive’ use of land in

: suitable locations is consistent with the generalized develop-

ment objectives as formulated by the County Planning

Board. In the northern area, provision of sewers to areas

not presently served, but sewerable, could ‘‘open up” large

parts of the county to higher density development.

The projections of housing units envision a continued

shift towards multi-family’ units in the Central County

(Planning Areas IV, V, and VI) >and Southern County

(Planning Areas VII, VIII and IX). Multi-family struc-

{ tures are projected to predominate in the southern areas;

i in the central Planning Areas, multi-family units as a

: proportion of total units will rise. (Tables 11 and 12).

‘Multi-family housing is considered to be any type of struc-

ture, containing two or more housing units. The projection of

both single and multi-family units is based on past construction

trends of each type of unit in each Planning Area in the county.

ae,

Table 11, Projected Number of Single-Family

Housing Units. ,

(See opposite gg)

aa TABLE 11

: {

PROJECTED NUMBER OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, BY PLANNING AREA

1960-1990

, “actual Projections

Planning Areas: 1960 1970 1975 1580 1985 1950

Planning Area |. . 75,408 19,540 21,470 23,280

25,000 26,620

Planning Area |! 9,148 11,990 14,200 17,040 20,350 24,180

Planning Area itt + 3,504 4,830 5,750 6,850 8,130 9,580

Planning Area IV 12,335 15,380 16,860 18,420 19,900, 21,460

Planning Area V 14,703 17,220 18,430 «= 19, 740 20,950 22,260

Planning Area V1! 14,209 15,650 16,260 16,800 17,270 17,680

Planning Area Vit 17,786 19,410 20,220- 21,030 21,840 22,650

Planning Area VIII _ 23,240 - 24,720 25,450 26,190 26,900 27,660

Planning Area IX 13,741 15,590 16,520 17,440 18,370 19,290

Westchester County 124,974: 14,330 155,160 166,790 178,710 191,380

odes ) U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1960, New York State

Division of Housing and Community Renewal; and estimates

by consultant.

434

Table 12, Projected Number of Multi-Famil

y Housing

Units.

(See opposite >)

TABLE 12

. PROJECTED NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, BY PLANNING AREA

1960-1990

Actual . Projections

Planning Areas: 1960 1970 1975 1580 T985 TSFU

Planning Area! | 4,992 6,070 6,570 6,990 7,430

Planning Area 11 1,801 2,930 3,700 4,060 4,800

Planning Area 111 247 290 .300. 330 340.

Planning Area IV 4,011 5,610 6,410 7,210 8,010

Planning Area V 11,097. 14,130 15,990 17,169 --19,020

Planning Area VI_ 12,162 15,780 17,980 19,390 21,590

Planning Area Vi1 42,981 52,880 57,830 62,780 67,730

Planning Area VITT 39,304 43,150 45,220 47,720 50,090

Planning Area 1X 11,003 12,540 13,460 14,080 14,990

Westchester .County 127,598 153,380 167,460 179,720 194,000

7.770

5,190

.37¢

8,810

2C€,190 .

23,000

72 ,680

52,900

15 ,620

206 , 530

Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing,1960; New York State

Division of Housing and Community Renewal; and estimates

by consultant.

_ B. The Overall Need for New Housing.

(See opposite gq~)

Sieg PEAS

B. The Overall Need for ‘New Vousineg:

The need for new housing includes demands by newly formed

families, by families moving into Westchester County from other areas,

ee and the replacement of suvs.a utd ur: 23 “3ble 13 and Figure 6). A

minimum overail vacancy rate is assumed to be about 1 percent of the

total stock of housirg.

FIGURE 6

SOURCE OF DEMAND FOR NEW

___ HOUSING UNITS

WESTCHESTER COUNTY

1960 - 1990

140

| omy © VACANCIES

[20] REPLACEMENTS

NEW FAMILIES:

103 F

TOTAL OF NEW UNITS NEEDED

(000) -

80-90

oh get |

438

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

TABLE 13

Source or DEMAND For Hovusine Units

WESTCHESTER CoUNTY

1970-1990

Source of Demand

New Familv Formation’

New Family Immigration’

Units to replace demoii-

tions?

Units to replace substand-

ard housing*

Vacancies*

Total New Units Needed

Sources:

Additional Units Needed

1970- 1975- 1980- 1985-

1974 1979 1984 1990

19,522 21,873 25,100 28,843

22,264 24,368 22,813 29,780

996 956 1,048 1,008

2.885 2,885 2885 2,885

249 939 262 252

45,916 50,321 52,108 62,768

‘Based on population projected by Westchester County De-

partment of Planning and projected average household size.

* Estimated on basis of urban renewal and highway construc-

tion relocations.

* Includes only those housing units substandard in 1960; any

units which may become substandard are not included. U-S.

Census of Housing, 1960.

* Assumed to be at least 1 percent of the average housing stock,

for each period.

439

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—W estchester County.

The total number of new units projected to be needed

from 1970 to 1990, 211,143 (for both new families and as

replacements) exceeds the projected increase in supply of

110,200 units by 100,943 units’ (Tables 9 and 13). Most new

construction has taken place in areas of the county where

there is relatively little need for replacement of units.

Replacement housing needs in the south and parts of the

central Planning Areas are not being satisfied. In the

cities where urban renewal has resulted in the demolition

of units, efforts have been made to find standard condi-

tion relocation housing at cost levels which could be paid

by the relocatees. Relocation remains complicated by the

fact that a sufficient supply of new housing is not avail-

able?. To replace substandard units (not including urban

renewal), additional new units will be required. Demoli-

tion (and an equal level of new construction) of all sub-

standard units (17,310 in 1960 and an estimated 17,500 in

1970°) has been assumed to take place from 1970 to 1990

1 The projected overall demand for 211,143 units from 1970 to

1990 (Table 13), less the projected overall increase of 16,550 in

the number of units to be replaced during the same period (also

from Table 13) is 194,563 units. The result is the same as sub-

tracting the projected number of households in 1970 from the

projected number of households in 1990, 305,467 from 500,030

(Table 7). Adding back the 16,550 units needed for replacement

of existing units, gives a total need of 211,143 units. Of this total,

110,200 units are projected to be built by the private construction

industry leaving a ‘‘deficit’’ of 100,943 units if the projected

number of households is to be attained.

2In many cases, just providing new housing would not be satis-

factory for relocation needs because the rent levels or purchase

prices would be too high for relocated families to absorb. Some

type of public subsidy would be necessary for most of the families

(or housing units).

’ Data from the 1968 Household Survey indicate that residents

classify 5.9 percent of all units in ‘‘poor’’ or ‘‘bad’’ condition.

This percentage, multiplied by 298,000, the estimated 1970 number

of housing units, yields the estimate of 17,500 units.

| PISO AP Ca a IO 5 oe

} ‘

440

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

(Table 13). If replacement is accelerated, a larger num-

ber of new units in the earlier years would be required.

The replacement needs from 1970 to 1990 are understated

to the extent that no account is taken of additional units

which may fall into substandard condition after 1970.

D. Additional Housing Units Needed to Meet Demands:

The gap between the demand for housing and the pro-

jected supply of units is based on the assumptions that

Westchester will attain its projected level of population

and that the private construction industry will continue

to construct housing at rates indicated by its past perform-

ance. These two conditions assume a responsibility by all

levels of the public sector (the county, as well as individual

municipalities) in providing leadership in attaining the

projected population through increased construction of

housing units.

Needs for additional housing units have been mentioned

earlier. The breakdown of the units needed into single and

multi-family and then by cost level is an indication of the

extent of the problem and the type of action needed. About

half the units needed (over and above the projected supply)

will be single family homes (Table 18). The number of

such additional units needed is anticipated to rise from

3,750 in 1970 to nearly 49,000 by 1990. Both relatively in-

expensive homes (selling for less than $30,000) and expen-

sive units (over $50,000) will be needed during the 1970 to

1990 period. Extrapolating the estimated minimum con-

struction cost of $40,000 in 1970, $65,000 in 1980, and

$100,000 in 1990 reveals that an additional 2,000 single

family units below the minimum market cost level are

needed in 1970.- This number will rise to 11,500 in 1980

and 26,000 in 1990. However, the private construction

” SACI AOR SATTALITES OIE 8 PE LI Mee : radar CRON Pyeere

IE ne ment a ccncnm nn neneit tare

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

industry will not be able to build units below these price

levels unless there is a major cost reduction in construc-

tion.

The additional need for multi-family units, in excess of

the projected construction level, will be slightly greater

than that for single family homes. A gap of about 4,000

rental units is estimated in 1970, 23,000 in 1980, and 53,000

in 1990 (Table 19). In 1970, units in all price ranges from

less than $80 to over $300 will be needed. About 3,500

additional units in 1970 should be available to rent for less

than $250 a month, about the minimum rental for new two

bedroom units. In 1980, about 15,500 rental units costing

less than $300 will be needed above the number projected

to be built. By 1990, approximately 27,000 units which will

rent for less than $400 will be needed.

Local builders, on the basis of past trends, will be able

to construct housing which about 80 percent of the pro-

jected population in 1990 can afford. The additional 20

percent or 100,000 units needed by 1990 can be built only

if there is some type of public action. Publie sector

involvement ranges from willingness on the part of some

(or all) municipalities to permit higher density single

family housing to the construction of more public housing

units. Intermediate steps are granting of tax abatements,

permits for multi-unit construction in areas where they

would be consistent with the overall development of the

county, or sponsorship of rent supplement and other f ederal

housing programs. On its part, the county can encourage

the use of land available and suitable multi-unit housing.’

* * *

1 See Interim Report 2, Factors Affecting the Cost and Supply

of Housing, pages 55 through 73 for the role of the County in

providing roads, water and sewage disposal.

nT TT —

442

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

B. Housing Cost to Income Relationships:

The amount of household income spent for housing is an

indication of the balance between the supply and demand

factors in the market. If rent to income and value to in-

come ratios are excessive’, over 25 percent, and more than

2.5, respectively, some households may be assumed to be

living in housing that is priced above their means or are

forced to allocate income to housing which should be used

for other purposes. On the other hand, rent income ratios

below 25 percent and value income ratios below 2.5 times

income may be an indication that households have sufficient

income to meet their housing needs.

In order to determine the ability of Westchester County

household to spend income for housing, rent and value

income ratios have been projected into the future by income

group. These projections are based on the income projec-

tions discussed in the preceding section and also on the

relationship between projected median income and pro-

jected median rent and value. Initial rent and value income

ratios by income group, used as starting points for the

projections, were developed from the 1968 Westchester

County Household Survey data, and the U. S. Census of

Housing for 1960.

On an overall basis, the rent-income and value-income

ratios are projected to decline assuming that household

1 Rent-income and value-income ratios depict the relationship

between the monthly rental cost of rental housing and the value

(selling price) of single family housing and household income.

Rent-income is calculated by dividing annual rent by income;

value-income is determined by dividing value by household income.

_r Ad teed A NAHE) ZEON Ne AR AM MAS BATES

443

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—W estchester County.

income, rents and values continue to increase at their

present rates. A decline also takes place for particular

income groups as the level of income for the group rises

over time. Accordingly, the ‘‘low”’ income group in 1960,

1970, 1980 and 1990 will have a successively lower value

(or rent) to income ratio. The same situation holds, al-

though at different income levels, for the moderate, middle

and upper income groups. (Figure 8)

SS tite cece ae \

spicatinnis seid a LS MARIN PRIETO NO eerie ep ant EN en

2 I EAPO BA RR ISE DIO LOL ELSE IEEE SIE

_ AM YIELD TORE PIAL LAL PAARAE LA

444

i |

;

Lage

POSS Gedo bec.

Figure 8, Cost of Housing to Income Relationships.

(See opposite a”)

Jolande ae a

ADRS

Se a ee

Le NA A A Ie oe SSE NOONE ODE BOO! MERRIE SIE AAS IGG I

EMAAR RIRN i 0 96008 Ye ain sonvmeee waite maser ate

PCROCENT

- bh -

Although a declire in rent-incore and valuc-incame tutios

J is s7-jegted, it must be realized that large se.rents of beth the hone

own.-z and rent.ng population will seill be spending excessive percent-

eres of their 1 comes for housing. In fact, because of the county's

perulation growth, the absolute number of families spending more than

25 percent of their income on housing will actually increase although

the proportion of such households will decline.

FICURE 8

COST OF HOUSINC TO

INCOME RELATIONSHIPS

WESTCHESIER COUNTY

1970 - 1990

7 TL -15 _ [h

20 rr) 14 sy 1 TT £

? . o

é “ > - . %

a 4 oO,

20-

z = | - . ~ = 2 = z =

4 4 z iz z = 5 ° 4 a siv

oj {°F] isle} jéle = ol

] ’

Py ©

1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990

Percent of households paying wore theo Number of households paying aore than

25 percent of income for reat or owning 25 percent of income for reat et ovning

houses valued at aore then 2.5 times houses valved et more thao 2.5 times

yearly income. 3 yearly income.

However, projected white and sen-white value and cent incom

ratios by income group iodicate that the ratios will tise over the 1970

to 1990 period for the same income group (holding the level of incese

constant). (Tables 24 through 27) For example, the white (or nee-vaite)

$10,000 to 14,990 income group will have a higher rent (or walue) income

ratio in 1990 than in 1970. Moving to successively higher income greups,

the rent or value to income ratio will be less than for the preceeding

lover-income group.

The cost to income relationship, as discussed earlier, tadi-

cates the need for housing priced at « level which will permit owners

—_ a

s -

‘

oe ee ee eos ama o

— TaLUEs RATIO (INCOME

. -

IWS EE PRO LL OEELII TLE LCI LBL ELL ELA LL SF IIA SONG IE EEE TE I MEE AGG OUP Tr Pe. ne vga TE

446

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand and Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

and renters to satisfy their housing needs without spend-

ing more than 25 percent of their income for rent or more

than 2.5 times their income for housing. For renter house-

holds paying in excess of 25 percent of their income for

rent, subsidy programs which have been designed to sup-

plement rent payments may be needed. For owner house-

holds with a greater than 2.5 to 1 ratio of housing cost to

income, equivalent supplementation may also be called for.

However, the existence of high value-income ratios may

‘*force” households who would prefer to own, to seek rental

quarters. This potential shift of households with high

value-income ratios from sale housing to rental units would

serve to increase the demand for rental units further, pos-

sibly driving the monthly rental to a higher level and thus

increasing the difficulty of finding rental housing.

Translating these concepts to numbers of housing units

and households cannot be accomplished on a precise basis.

‘*Nothing prevents a household which could afford to rent

a $250 a month apartment from renting a $200 a month

apartment. The same applies to purchasing a house. This

situation always works to the disadvantage of the lower

income household which may eventually be ‘squeezed out’

of the market. Combined with the potential increase in

demand for multi-family housing from households who can-

not find single family housing, the plight of the low-income

households becomes very serious.”

Under conditions of an inadequate supply of low cost

housing, existing units may be allowed to fall into disrepair

because there is no reason to maintain them. If one tenant

leayes an apartment, another will move in to replace him,

1aps at a higher rent level.

n examination of rent-income, value-income ratios and

the rates of increase in the number and cost levels of units

in the future will indicate whether or not the situation is

Obs

repeat pr meee —nmemrmrerem an

Sr ror et

PIRES NOS POEL PLO

ee eee

MATER BENE OOS Ne Aaa ROPE RR AOE . PORES RTT. . a eS ada oe he FO lea ee EE aR eS

447

Interim Report 3—Growth of Demand end. Supply,

1970-1990—Westchester County.

improving. If there is a continuous decline in the number

of housing units built, and costs continue to rise, the situa-

tion will become progressively worse. Higher income

groups will begin to be affected and the private market

may not be able to reverse the trend without massive public

assistance. This could occur because higher income house-

holds might elect to pay lower rents and buy cheaper hous-

ing than might be expected. Occupancy of rental housing

priced below 25 percent of income or single family units

selling above 2.5 times income by higher income households

would reduce the number of units which could be occupied

by lower income households. The only mitigating factor

would be injection of public funds to support lower housing

costs, supplement rents or subsidize interest payments.

The need for new housing, improvement of the existing

stock of housing, and policies regarding use of vacant land

must be considered as an interrelated network. For this

reason, detailing of the recommendation and choices of

policies-is postponed until ‘the analysis of all aspects of

housing is complete.

2+ VENER RARER OE TEI RL LRT BEE

a .\

448

Excerpts From Residential Analysis, Westchester

County, Interim Report 5—Housing Require-

ments: Sub-market prousenot Groups, Plaintiffs’

Exhibit “H”.

SuMMARY

Six groups of households are included in the analysis

of housing problems, resident attitudes, and projected

housing needs. The information on the characteristics

and attitudes of the sub-group households is drawn from

the household survey conducted in 1968. The six sub

groups are: ,

(1) low income households (less than $5,000 income in

1970 and the same percentage share of all house-

holds for 1980 and 1990) ;

(2) moderate income households ($5,000 to $9,999 in-

come in 1970 and the same percentage share of all

households for 1980 and 1990) ;

(3) middle income households ($10,000 to $19,999 in-

come in 1970 and the same percentage share of all

households for 1980 and 1990) ;

(4) elderly households (head of household 65 years

old or over in 1970, 1980, and 1990) ;

(5) large households (six or more related persons liv-

ing in the same housing unit in 1970, 1980, and

1990).

(6) non-white households (head or spouse of head

non-white in 1970, 1980, and 1990).

The so called “sub-group” household categories are not

mutually exclusive. The same household could be part of

from two to four sub-groups. There is known to be con-

siderable overlapping of the low income and elderly sub-

groups and also of non-white and low income household

SBE TN PORE

449

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups-——Westchester County.

groups. The three income categories (low, moderate, and

middle) are mutually exclusive in any one year, but not

over time.

The following summaries or profiles of the households in

each group supplements the longer discussion in the body

of the report. In this summary each group is presented

separately, while in the body of the report the analysis is

compared for all groups. This dual approach presents

two points of view: A concise “picture” or “profile” of

each group and then a more lengthy treatment of the same

groups, emphasizing similarities and differences among

the groups.

Low Income Households

Low income households are comprised of a small number

of persons (median 1.7), reflecting the median age of all

heads (male or female) of 60 years. Slightly over half

have a male head. About 60 percent of low income house-

holds are white. Household income was a median of $3,100

with approximately a quarter of all households receiving

public assistance.

Nearly a fifth of the households lived in owned single

family housing with a median value of $31,200. Those low

income owner households who had a mortgage paid a

median of $123 monthly. The remaining 80 percent of the

households rented and paid $98 monthly for rent and util-

ities. The proportion of income spent for housing was

higher for owner households than for renter, medians of

47.6 percent compared to 37.9 percent. The value of owned

single family homes is 10 times household income. About

40 percent of all low income households had moved to

their present unit within the past three years.

Roughly 15 percent of the low income households re-

ported their unit in “poor” or “bad’’ condition. A larger

—

" ee Nee

= Sep

PEE TOT CE Te ieee eee Ng at) r FO rm.

SBP ek S

;

450

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester Counti.

share, 28 percent of the households planned to move within

one year. Approximately 30 percent would prefer to own

if they moved, the remainder renting. Two-thirds of the

low income households would prefer to move to another

location in the community (town, village or city) in which

they presently reside.

Housebreaking is feared by 60 percent of all low in-

come residents. A third also are isolated from the com-

munity and their own neighborhood and families. In addi-

tion, low income households report a lack of police protec-

tion, parking spaces in the neighborhood and indoor as well

as outdoor recreation facilities. Major neighborhood and

social problems are reported to be petty crime, lack of

eare for the elderly, lack of homes for illegitimate chil-

dren, care for the handicapped, lack of day care centers,

juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, and discrimination

in housing. In addition, more than 60 percent of the low

income households feel that local government officials and

agencies are not trying to solve problems of discrimina-

tion in housing and lack of day care facilities.

The number of low income households is projected to

increase by 66 percent over the 1970 to 1990 period. Since

low income is, by definition, relative, the share of the

county’s population classified as low income remains con-

stant, but the number of such households rises as popula-

tion increases. In 1990, low income households are pro-

jected to have median income of $8,400 and be able to

pay $21,000 for a single family home or monthly rent of

$202. Both of these levels, but especially the amount to

be spent for single family homes, are below the projected

prices of homes for 1990.

Moderate Income Households

These households had a median of 3 persons, and over

85 percent had a male head. All heads for moderate in-

SELES W TATE RWIS LGA OPI Te

Se eee tet te eee ee eae ee

451

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

come households, regardless of sex, had a median age of

41 years; over three-quarters of the total where white

households. Median household income was $7,900, with

about 3 percent listing public assistance as a source of

income.

Nearly 30 percent of the moderate income households live

in single family homes; a slightly larger share, 34 per-

cent, own their unit. The difference is made up of house-

holds owning 2 or more family houses or possibly a unit

in a cooperative apartment complex. Monthly payments

made by those who own and have mortgages is $155

(median level) while all owner occupied homes are valued

by their occupants at $28,700. These cost levels reflect a

monthly payment to income ratio of 23.57% and a value to

income ratio of 3.6 times income. The two-thirds of the

moderate income households who rent pay a median of

$118 monthly and have a rent to income ratio of 17.9 per-

cent. About 30 percent of the moderate income households

have moved from a different house within the past three

years.

A tenth of the units occupied by moderate income house-

holds were reported in “poor” or “bad” condition, while

about a fifth of the households planned fo move within a

year. Slightly less than 60 perecnt would like to own if

they moved. About half would prefer to remain in the

same town, village, or city.

' About 75 percent feel their home is safe from house-

breakers, while some 17 percent indicated they were alien-

ated from the community. The major service or facility

which moderate income households reported was lacking

was recreational facilities (both indoor and outdoors).

- Moreover, households reported that juvenile delinquency,

drug addiction and petty crime were problems in their

areas. At least 60 perecnt of the moderate income house-

ee ake en

452

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

holds mentioned care for elderly persons, discrimination

in housing and employment and day care centers as prob-

lems which local government units were not trying to solve.

The number of moderate income households has been

projected to increase by 63 percent from 1970 to 1990. In

the latter year, the median annual income of these house-

holds may reach a level of $23,700. Translating income to

purchase price and rent level of housing, moderate income

households in 1990 could afford a $59,000 single family

home or an apartment renting for more than $400 monthly.

Middle Income Households

The median household size for middle income house-

holds is 3.6 persons. Over 95 percent of these households

have a male head and all heads (either male or female)

have a median age of 42 years. Nearly 95 percent of the

middle income households are white. The median house-

hold income earned by all households is approximately

$13,000, with less than half of one percent receiving public

assistance.

Nearly 70 percent of the middle income households live

in single family units; a slightly larger proportion, 74 per-

cent, own the unit they live in. Monthly payments for

owners averaged $191 while the reported median value

was $34,700. In relation to household income, owners had

a monthly payment to income percentage of 17 and a

value-income ratio of 2.6. Renters paid a lower monthly

rent, and a slightly lower rent to income percentage, 14

percent.

Less than 3 percent of middle income households re-

ported that their unit was in ‘‘poor’’ or ‘‘bad’’ condition.

A much larger proportion, 17 percent, replied they would

move to a different house within a year. About 38 percent

453

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

of all residents in the middle income group would stay

within the same area or community if they moved to a dif-

ferent unit. About 80 percent of the middle income house-

holds would own if they changed residences.

Seven-tenths of the households feel safe from house-

breakers in their present area of residence. Less than 6

percent feel alienated from society in general or their par-

ticular community. Dissatisfaction was voiced over the

lack of nearby indoor and outdoor recreation facilities.

Middle income households did report drug addiction, petty

crimes and care for the elderly and handicapped as prob-

lems in their areas. In addition, at least 60 percent felt

thta local government was not doing enough to solve prob-

lems for elderly persons needing care, discrimination in

housing, care for physically handicapped, and provision

of day care centers.

Over the two decades 1970 to 1980 and 1980 to 1990, the

number of middle income households is projected to in-

crease by 63 percent over the estimated 1970 level. At the

end of this period, 1990, median household income is pro-

jected to be $40,600, while the median value of houses

which could be occupied and rent levels which could be

paid are projected as $101,700 and over $400 per month,

respectively.

Elderly Households

Half of the households headed by an individual ovex

age 65 have less than 1.7 persons. Seven-tenths of all

elderly households are headed by a male; about 4 per-

cent of the households receive public assistance; 90 per-

cent of the elderly households are composed of whites;

median income of elderly households was $5,400.

Less than half of the elderly households, 46 percent,

live in a single family house; however, 56 percent own

SPORE ORIN

Se ee

ies le ati tal

454

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

their unit. For the owners with mortgages, the median

monthly payment is $147, about 33 percent of their

monthly income. The median value of single family homes

is reported as $34,000, or 6.3 times annual income. For the

elderly households which rented, the median monthly rent

was $105 or about 23 percent of monthly income.

Nearly 6 percent of the housing occupied by elderly

households was classified as in ‘‘poor’’ or ‘‘bad’’ condition.

Eighteen percent of the elderly households planned to

move in the year following the interview while 15 percent

reported they had moved during the three preceding years.

About two-fifths of all households would prefer to own

if they moved; 63 percent would like to stay in the same

community as they presently live.

Over two-thirds (69 percent) of the respondents from

~ elderly households feel safe from housebreakers. However,

about 15 percent of the households indicated they were

relatively isolated from society and the community. The

major service lacking in the areas where elderly house-

holds reside is recreation (indoor and outdoor). In ad-

dition, petty crime is reported as a problem in the neigh-

borhood. Moreover, elderly households feel local govern-

ment is not doing enough to solve the problem of discrimi-

nation in employment.

The number of elderly households is projected to grow

by. nearly 50 percent by 1990. By this terminal year,

elderly households are projected to have a median income

of $18,800 and occupy either single family housing costing

a median of $44,500 or rental units at a median rent level

of $375 per month.

Large Households

Large households have a median of 6.9 persons. Ninety-

three percent of the large households have a male head;

the median age of all heads (male or female) is slightly

— ig wae Gate? *

eS”

455

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

over 40 years old. A little less than 8 percent of the large

households receive public assistance as a source of income.

The median income for all these households was $11,300 in

1968. About 85 percent of the large households are white.

Nearly 70 percent of the large households lived in a

single family home and approximately the same propor-

tion owned their unit. For the owner households, with a

mortgage, the median monthly payment was $191, while

the median value of all single family housing occupied by

large households was $37,200. Relating these costs to in-

come results in monthly payment to income ratio of 20.2

percent and a value to income ratio of 3.3. Large house-

holds which rented their quarters paid $130 monthly for

a rent-income ratio of 13.8 percent.

About 4 percent of the large households reported their

unit was in “poor” or “bad” condition. Nearly a quarter

of the residents had moved to their present home within

the past three years and about 20 percent plan to move to

a different home within one year. Slightly less than 80

percent of the large households would own if they moved;

about half of all movers would relocate in the same com-

munity.

Seven-tenths of the large households feel their home is

safe from housebreakers. Other probiems mentioned were

lack of recreation services, drug addiction and need for

family planning services. Local government, in the opin-

ion of at least 60 percent of the large households, was not

doing enough to solve the problem of lack of day care cen-

ters. In spite of these problems or lack of facilities, only

13 percent of the iarge households indicated alienation

from society in general or from their community in partic-

ular.

The number of large households is projected to rise by

00 percent during the 1970 to 1990 period. By the ter-

< ry wy 5 Ry SN LY I AEG AUTRE CSM PT PAE DOBLE TIF RI I ie ONTO NA TE DERE PM

ROR acini RrS

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

minal year, the median household income will be a pro-

jected $23,600 and owner households could afford to pur-

chase an $83,000 single family house. Renters could af-

ford an apartment costing more than $400 a month.

Non-White Households

Half of the non-white households have more than 3.3

persons per household, while about two-thirds have a male

head. The median age of the head (either male or female)

is 40 years. Over a third of the non-white households re-

ceive funds from public assistance as part of their total

household income. Median income for all non-white house-

holds was $6,200 in 1968.

Slightly less than a quarter of the non-whites live in a

single family unit while an even smaller share (16 per-

cent) own their home. This distinction indicates that some

non-white households are renting single family units. All

renters, as a group, pay a median rent of $114 or 22 per-

cent of their monthly income. On the other hand, owners

with mortgages pay median monthly: payments of $175.

All non-white households living in single family units

valued their home at a median of $30,700.

Nearly 20 percent of the non-white households reported

their unit was in “poor” or “bad” condition. About 43 per-

cent of all non-white households moved to their present

unit within the three years previous to the interview while

nearly 32 percent plan to move within a year after the

interview. For those who would move, 45 percent indi-

cated they pefer to own. About 60 percent would like to

remain in the same area in which they presently live.

Non-white households reported a lack of parking spaces

and recreation facilities in their neighborhoods. In addi-

tion, they mentioned drug addiction, petty crimes, juvenile

delinquency, discrimination in housing and unemployment

ELIOT TE PLR! SI OED:

RIE SE BABES LACS WELROS T ARDC ARIE Ne BDA OES IRR A AA RSG Ea 8 NE tM, OTOL i's LS SHS

9 ~ e x LPL ALLE GLE ICLP QA IL DAL AIL ALIN, SOAP AOR IIMS O NEDA IWAN Go QAM

—— ANA Danae br hen NOR hs -_

457

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

as problems in their areas. At least 60 percent of the non-

white households felt that local government was not trying

to solve mental illness, care for elderly persons, housing

and employment discrimination and lack of day care cen-

ters problems. Direct contact between the non-white

households interviewed and the remainder of society and

the community in which they resided is not prevalent for

36 percent of households. These 36 percent report high

alienation from the surroundings, indicative of the social

and environmental isolation of at least some of the non-

white households.

From 1970 to 1990, the number of non-white households

is projected to increase by 113 percent. By the terminal

year, non-white households, as a group, are projected to

have a median income of $32,200. This implies the ability

to own an $80,800 single family home or to rent an apart-

ment costing more than $400 per month.

These condensed profiles of the six types of sub-group

households are a first approximation of the characteristics,

attitudes, and problems of the groups. Even though specific

programs tailored to the various sub-group household prob-

lems and circumstances is postponed until a later report,

there are several areas of problems and overall conditions

which form the framework for programs:

(1) Although low income and ‘non-white households

differ in household characteristics, the housing oc-

cupied by these two groups appears to be similar.

However, poor environmental or poor social con-

ditions are not limited solely to low income and

non-white households.

(2) Based on the attitudes of residents, housing prob-

lems (the condition of the unit, the amount of

rent paid) are not as important as the more gen-

eral neighborhood or community problems (drug

hy,

DIM ta .

ne os ad BME 962s crea we aneiLyt WAT IRON L AAG! AGM BLIP LOOM VA LODE ELIAS ENE AID

458

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

(3)

(4)

(5)

Household Groups—Westchester County.

addiction, petty crime, juvenile delinquency, lack

of recreation).

The lack of involvement in the community (as in-

dicated by high anomie), the relatively high rate of

moving, on the part of low and non-white house-

holds, increases the difficulty of “reaching” some

of these households to affect change. In addition,

there appears to be little support for self-gen-

erated programs when a high degree of isolation

is prevalent.

Elderly and large households have more of a prob-

lem with housing than with their environment due

to their particular needs for specific types of units.

Elderly households need cheaper multi-unit hous-

ing while large households seek large. single family

homes,

Moderate and middle income households share

some of the difficulties in finding a home at costs

they can afford and also feel the need for im-

provements in community services (recreation)

and elimination of problems such as petty crime,

drug addiction and care for the elderly.

Figure 2, Median Persons Per Household.

(See opposite jy)

- 6 -

FISLRE 2

MEDIAN PERSI.S PER HOUSEKOLD

BY 3.5=MA°<£T 547U°S, 1968

SUB GROUP a

LOw tm

cone cnee a F) dad

MODERATE: *_ f& &

$ 5000-3 pore uy 1 0 3.0

MIODLE INCOME rm” - Cig s6

4 $10,000-Sias09 9 NN

- 4

ELoeRcy HP | 4 1.5

° i) A @® @ @

LARGE HOUSENOLOS E. oe | 7 Fles

OAH:

NON-WHITE B 2. % 8 f f '

WOUSEMOLOS i fy 7, se

' 2

34567

NUMBER OF PERSONS

The median number of persons in households

is smallest in low income and elderly house-

holds.

Information gathered in the- household survey relating to the

characteristics of housing units doints towerd specific needs of partic-

ular sub-groups. These data revea! +he general similarity among all sub-

group housing units.

(1) only large households have a persons per room

ratio of greater than 1.0, indicating overcrowding;.

(2) low and middle income, and non-white households

are more likely to rent their quarters and live In

high rise buildings;

(3) low income households have a median rent to In-

come ratio of 38 percent, well over the 25 percent

"normal" levels;

A are SEGRE A ig RA We LE ENA ASA ARO NI a OP IY AARNE BN,

460

Figure 3, Median Household Income.

(See opposite ga”)

—— a

=o 7 «

(4) low Income, elderly, and non-white households al!

have median monthly payment ratios in excess of 25.

percent of their income;

(5). median value of home to income ratios of greater than

2.5 are reported by al! types of households, but low

income, elderly, and non-white owners have ratios of

5.0 or more;

(6) low Income and non-white households are the most mobile

of the sub-groups;

(7) non-white households moved fron out of New York State

to Westchester County to a greater extent than other

sub-group households (Table 12).

The excessive rent, monthly payment, and value to income ratios

indicate the generally high cost of housing in the County. While the

sub-groups with lower incomes are at a greater. relative disadvantage, all

sub-market groups are confronted with high priced housing (Figure 4).

Since the monthly payment to income ratio Is always larger than the rent

to income ratio, housing expenses appear to fall more heavily on house-

holds who own compared to those who rent.

FIGURE 3

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF

' - SUB-MARKET GROUPS

144 1968 }

124

c-}

: 7 -—

$4; |

& = i

x ; ;

¢ : =.

LOW INCOME mODERATE °

INCOME TR COME Neoue acadiead nOuSENDLDS mous "ous eet

sus- MARKET GROUP

Middle income and large households have the highest

median household inconmes,$13,+-29 and $11,300, .

respectively.

462

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

Elderly, large and non-white households will be able to

afford higher rent payments than low income households.

By 1980, elderly households are projected to-be able to pay

a median of $222 for their rental units while both large

households and non-white households will pay over this

amount, $400 and $362, respectively.

For the 1980 to 1990 period, rents for all sub-groups will

continue to rise as income increases. Low income house-

holds are projected to be able to pay a maximum of $308

(with a median rent of $202) while the middle income

households could spend at least $650. Moderate income

households could afford rents between these two extremes

on a monthly basis. Elderly, large and non-white house-

holds are also projected to be able to pay a median rent of

about $400 monthly in 1990 (Table 19).

B. Availability of Housing for Sub-group Households

The need for housing suitable for sub-group households

has been examined in terms of the present and future

characteristics of these households and the housing they

occupy; the remaining aspect is the availability of units.

From 1970 to 1980, the number of single family units

available has been projected to rise from a total of 144,330

to 166,790... The number of units projected to be avail-

able at different values is compared to the number of

households in each sub-group able to afford the values.

Two distributions of the need for units is presented on the

following tables. The first assumption is that, the prefer-

ences of the sub-group households as expressed in the

household survey and shown in Table 18 are the basis

for the needs for housing. The second assumption is that

1Interim Report #3, Growth of Demand and Supply, 1970-

1990, Westchester County Department of Planning, 1970, Table

14.

estes ? ba aa i Ne a eee oa i ek Se a ee aS

463

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

there will be no change in the overall tenure status (type

of structure)? from 1968 to 1990. These two approaches to

the needs for future housing depict different needs for

units. Generally, the preferences approach yields more of

a need for single family housing in the future (1980 and

1990) than does the continuation of the 1968 tenure status

approach (Tables 20 through 23). On the other hand, con-

tinuation of the 1968 tenure status results in a larger need

for multi-unit housing compared to the preferences ap-

proach.

While it is possible (indeed likely), that neither of these

two assumptions are accurate projections of the type of

structure-tenure needs of sub-group households, both indi-

cate the need for additional construction of lower cost~

housing in both 1980 and 1990. In 1980, at the minimum,

using the preferences assumption, there is projected to be

an under supply of at least 4,000 single family units. On

the other hand, under the tenure assumption no under-

supply is projected for single family units for 1980 (Table

20). Using the preferences data as indicative of the mini-

mum needs results in an over-supply of multi-family units

renting for less than $159, but under the tenure assump-

tion, there is a slight undersupply of these low-rent units,’

(Table 21).

By 1990, the shortage of both lower cost single and multi-

family housing units persists under either assumption

* For the purposes of these calculations an owner is assumed

to occupy a single family unit while renters are assumed to live

in multi-unit structures.

* Even though the table entries can not be added vertically, it

is possible to form conclusions regarding deficits or surpluses due

to the needs of the low, moderate and middle income groups.

These three components are mutually exclusive compared to each

other, but not with regard to the elderly, large, and non-white

households.

464

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements: Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

concerning demand (Tables 22 and 23). If the demand is

based on preferences, the shortage will be smaller for

multi-family units renting for less than $150 by low income

households than if the assumption utilizing the 1968 tenure

distribution comes to fruition. The projected shortage of

single family housing selling for less than $30,000 will be

more extreme under the preference assumption compared

to a continuation of the 1968 tenure status to 1990.

In both 1980 and 1990, there are several factors which

can have an impact on the demand-supply balance. These

factors will tend to obscure the specific relationships be-

tween the need for housing at a certain cost level and the

supply of housing at that cost level. The first factor is

that households which have occupied their unit for a long

period of time, 10 or 20 years, may have a low value or

rent to income ratio. For example, a household earning

$6,000 and purchasing a home in the early 1950’s for

$15,000 would have had a 2.5 value to income ratio. If by

1970 their income had risen to $15,000, but the market

value of their home was placed at $30,000 their current

value to income ratio would be 2.00, a drop from the 1950

level. This household would be assumed to be able to

Table 20.

(See opposite .Q3>)

~ ne DUO NN ENE RI A RR INS id I RE Koad

Lt Aa ad TS 6S

- 45 -

TABLE 20

AVAILABILITY AND NEEDS OF SU8-GROUP HOUSEHOLDS

FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, BY VALUE LEVEL

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, 1980 .

Assuming Resident's Preferences are Fulfilled

Value of House (in thousands)

Less than $30.0-to $50.0 to $75.0 to $100.0

ype of Household $30.0 $49.9 $74.9 $99.9 or more

ow income 15,557 os — —— oon

oderate income 18,250 31,640 --- --- ----

iddle income —— 18,031 63,763. a ee

Iderly 14,800 6,028 3,229 1,615 1,738

arge households 5,448 7,028 6,528 2,929 3,674

on-white 5,105 4 954 4,168 1,172 1,339

Assuming no change in the 1968 distribution by tenure status.

ow Income 10,042 o<- --- --- ---

oderate income 6,144 10,652 --- --- ---

iddle income — 20,524 52,056 = —_—

Iderly 17,040 6,978 3,831 1,869 1,432

arge. househotds———-- 4,65 ~- ~ 5,783 5,363 2,389 2,997-

on-white 1,622 1,575 —-'1,325 372 426

nits projectec to

> avai lable 19,669 47,167 41,033 30,579 28, 342

fable entries can not be added vertically,

Source: Estimates by consultant and tnterim Report #3, The Growth

of Demand and Supply, Westchester County Department of

Planning, 1970, Table 14,

Table 21. - *

(See opposite a>)

Penecta.s f areca id alti PEN BS GREP EMG BEEN B IE I RR AG itil

_ —— OE NELLIS

“.

AVAILASILITY AND NEEDS OF SU8-GROUP HOUSEHOLDS

FOR MULTI-UNIT HOUSING BY ENT LEVEL

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, 1980

Assuming Resident's Preferences are Fulfilled

Rental Ranges::

Type of Less than $150 to $2C2 to §250 to $300 to $400 or

Household $150 $199 $199 $299 $399 more

Low income 26,314 5,275 one --- - ee se

Moderate e ; ;

income --- 3,476 7,184 7,329 10,978 ---

Micdle income --- --- --- --- 2,374 13,246

Elcerly 9,685 3,342 2,549 2,407 - 3.399 _ . - 6,939,

Large house-

holds 539 WW 366 395 805 2,603

Non-white 2,326 1,478 1,476 1,528 3,160 7,414

Assuming no change in the 1968 distribution by tenure status.

Low income 30,908 6,196 --- --- --- ---

Mocerate

income --- 7,447 15,391 15,701 23,521 ---

Middle income --- --- --- --- 3,896 21,736

Elcerly 8,236 2,842 2,167 2,046 2,890 5,900

Large house-

holds 1,056 219 - 724 781 1,590 5,151

Non-white 3,857 2,446 2,446 2,533 5,238 12,260

Units proj-

ected to be

available 27,097 35,480 33,649 . 25,260 29,938 28,296

“Table entries cannot be added vertically.

“Source: Estimated dy consu'*an* anz interim Report #3, Growth

of Berane ave Siott ow: 970-'970; vestchester County

setmen® of ~ are 2 2 6, tle 16.

BF ~— .

oe one Wf Ng RCE LO EO ELUENT LED LEO TELA EMAAR IS

‘

468

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements; Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

afford a $42,500 house, but they actually occupy a $30,000

house. In terms of the value to income ratios, the $30,000

house should be occupied by a household with $12,000 in-

come. This continued occupancy of housing by households

when the household could afford a more expensive unit

absorbs part of the supply of houses available for lower

income households.

The second absorbing factor results from the occupancy

of lower rent units by higher income households as de-

fact that rent control continues to keep down the rents of

some units built before 1947. Again, the rent-income re-

lationships is thrown out of alignment, resulting in house-

holds with higher income occupying units renting for less

than 25 percent of their monthly income.

A third factor which complicates the supply-demand re-

lationship for housing is the overall shortage of units for

all income levels as well as the specific shortage of housing

(public or private) for low income households. A final

barrier is the negative attitudes’ of many residents of the

county toward additional housing or the occupancy of exist-

ing housing by minority groups, especially if the housing is

moderately priced or publicly supported.

The projected median costs of housing by Planning Area’

indicate that in 1980 single family housing costing $50,000

or less is projected to be available in Planning Areas I,

VII, and VIII. Median values of $60,000 and $70,000 are

projected for Planning Areas III, IV, and V while housing

in Planning Areas II, VI, IX are valued in the $80,000’s

and $90,000’s (Table 24). In 1980, multi-unit quarters rent-

ing for medians of less than $250, are anticipated to be

? Prepared as part of the projections discussed in Interim Re-

port #3, Growth of Demand and Supply, 1970-1990, Westchester

County Department of Planning, 1970, Tables 15 and 17.

RLS

ais a aiieitecita ae eer ea

469

Interim Report 5—Housing Requirements; Sub-market

Household Groups—Westchester County.

available in Planning Areas I, IV, VI, VII, and VIII. More

expensive rental units (between $250 and $300 monthly

rent) will be located in Planning Area IX, while units with

median monthly costs of over $300 will be in Planning

Areas II, III and V (Table 25).

PIO RO 6 tO

470

Excerpts From Residential Analysis, Westchester

County, Interim Report 7—Welfare: House-

holds and Housing, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “I’’.

SuMMARY

Payment of shelter costs to public assistance recipients

represents one of the oldest forms of direct intervention

by Government in the housing market. Although the pay-

ments are direct in form, being made by the Department

of Special Services, the Department is not directly in-

volved in the market place; the payments are made

directly to the recipient, who is responsible for obtaining

housing through his own efforts. With a few exceptions,

notably with regard to housing code enforcement, the De-

partment of Social Services has neither the authority nor

the staff to play an active role in the provision of housing

for recipients.

In Westchester County, as of the spring of 1970, the

public assistance caseload, totalling some 43,000 persons,

was equally divided between whites and blacks. As a sub-

group of the two larger groups, persons with a Spanish

surname accounted for about 6 percent of all recipients.

Most (70 percent) of the recipients either came to West-

chester County before 1958 or have always lived in the

county. The bulk of the whites are natives of New York

State. Most of the black recipients came directly from the

south: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia

and other South Atlantic States.

Whites receiving public assistance are generally older

than blacks or recipients with a Spanish surname: half of

the white families and two-thirds of ‘the black families are

headed by women without mates; educational levels of

heads of households are low; occupations held are those of

laborers, service or household workers.

£ ~ A ea AMO SO AT Hg PAM AN iia Fa Aa DBE

_ AB Sad 4! as i aba eet ome me

471

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing—

Westchester County.

The overwhelming proportion (95.3 percent) of public

assistance recipients are tenants; only 5.9 percent of the

whites, 3.4 percent of the blacks and 1.9 percent of respond

ents with a Spanish surname owned their dwelling units.

Part of the problem of public assistance recipients liv-

ing in housing in poor condition lies in the responsibility

for maintenance. There appears to be considerable con-

fusion as to responsibility; thus, most recipients inter-

viewed said that the landlord was responsible for major

repairs (e.g., cracked walls, defective heating systems,

etc.), for painting the outside of the building and for snow

removal. On the other hand, about 25 percent of the re-

cipients said that they were responsible for removing

garbage, painting the apartment, or cleaning halls and

stairways.

There is a substantial degree of overcrowding (more

than one person per room) in units occupied'by recipients.

Nearly half of all large familiés of 6 or more persons lived

in overcrowded units. Also, one-parent families had less

bedroom space than two-parent families, even though the

size of family was substantially the same for the two

groups.

As mentioned above, most recipients are tenants. Their

average (median) rent level is about $100 per month.

Recipients, both black and white, living in public housing

paid a monthly rent of $86, some $20 less per month, on the

average, than that paid by recipients living in private hous-

ing units ($107).

What are the conditions of housing lived in by public as-

sistance recipients? Responses to:a personal interview

survey of over 1,000 households receiving public assistance

revealed the following:

EWE ROA AIR e WET A hile EILEEN 0! Ti tg Pte ete: GP OV bel AM

472

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing—

Westchester County.

Percent of Respondents

Reporting Condition

Spanish

Condition White Black Surname

Lack of janitorial services ...... 37.2 44.3 44.6

No Laundry facilities in building 65.6 70.5 77.2

No protection of front doors

through a tenant-controlled buz-

zer system ........-+. va olvney oe 604 675 73.7

Apartment not painted in last five

WOME Save wavececives tec cates 68.7 66.3 59.6

Cracked or broken ceilings ...... 32 373 3889

Water leaks in walls orceilings.. 145 27.2 158

Falling plaster from walls or ceil- |

TT rye Cre eT eer eee 12.4 23.5 22.4

Broken steps in staircase ....... 5.3 9.6 8.6

Lack of heat during cold weather 14.1 25.1 20.7

Bethan Wie i. ise ee coos SD Ma 807

Vermin, including roaches and —

met Te ee 246 513 51.7

How people find out about housing is an important part

of what kind of housing they obtain, as well as their plans

for future moves. The public assistance recipient, lacking

many of the ‘‘contacts” or knowledge about housing, has no

entry into the formal system (real estate brokers, dealers,

bailders, etc.). He relies heavily instead, on friends and

relatives to help him find housing. Despite exposure to pub-

lic assistance, fewer than ten percent obtained their housing

through the Department of Social Services. That help was

not obtained from voluntary social agencies is indicated by

the fact that very few of the private agencies were known

to respondents. However, about 20 percent of the black re-

473

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing— —

Westchester County.

spondents knew about anti-poverty groups. A further indi-

cation of the recipient lack of knowledge about the rental

process is that few respondents had any information con-

cerning the rent control status of their units.

Generally, both white and black respondents moved to

Westchester only to be close to family and job opportuni-.

ties. To a considerable extent, blacks rented their current

housing because they ‘‘had no choice’’. Having chosen a

unit in a particular neighborhood, most respondents would

prefer to move to another house within a few blocks of their

current residence or in the same community. This desire

not to move very far from their present location held es-

pecially for blacks, despite the fact that more black than

white respondents gave negative responses about their

neighborhood: Don’t like neighborhood”; ‘‘slum neigh-

borhood’’; “come only if you have to’’. On the other hand,

while white respondents would not recommend their neigh-

borhood to friends, many did not know where they wanted

to move should they be obliged to leave their current living

quarters. Whites who did state a preference, chose to re-

main within the same neighborhood, the same community,

or elsewhere in Westchester. Some of the respondents had

relatives and friends in the community or neighborhood,

and had frequent contact with their relatives and friends.

As indicated above, the choice to remain in the neighbor-

hood was despite ap awareness that many problems existed

in the area. These problems were identified as: Petty

crime, juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, unemployment,

unsupervised children, lack of day care facilities for work-

ing mothers, and out-of-wedlock children. Blacks were more

aware of neighborhood problems and of job and housing

discrimination than were whites.

Blacks were aware of neighborhood social problems more

than whites. Blacks also did not feel that anything was

474

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing—

Westchester County.

being done by public and private groups to solve these

problems. On the other hand, although whites, as a group,

did not indicate as many social problems, as did blacks, the

whites felt that the authorities were trying to solve tfiese

problems.

While public assistance recipients generally felt anomie,

that they could not hope to improve their present position,

blacks had a much higher level of anomie than whites.

Despite the high level of anomie, nearly half of the black

families participated in the political life (political elec-

tions) of the community since, it would appear, they were

seeking change in conditions; nearly a third of the blacks

were involved with school and community action elections.

The white respondents, on the other hand, were relatively

uninvolved with such decisions.

The welfare client has little access to formal systems in

housing, education and employment since he belongs to few

formal organizations (professional organizations, League

of Women Voters, etc.) with the exception of the Church.

Instead, he is forced to rely for help on informal networks,

such as friends and relatives, in order to locate housing.

Frequently, such informal channels are without much in-

fluence in the welfare system since the recipient has re-

mained for long periods of time in housing in which he is

unhappy and which is reported to have many problems.

The poor receive little in the way of housing services.

Often, unable because of limited resources or experience,

to maintain basic houskeeping functions, welfare clients

have been labeled as destructive and poor tenants. This has

“further deepened their feelings of rejection by society, thus

resulting in high alienation.

Poor neighborhoods are not necessarily completely ‘*dis-

organized” neighborhoods. The welfare client. maintains

complex kinship networks which operate to provide him

475

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing—

Westchester County.

with considerable support, especially in time of emergency.

Becxuse of these networks which exist in his neighborhod,

the welfare client, in seeking better housing is not neces-

sarily requesting removal from neighborhood or com-

munity. Often, this means that rehabilitation of existing

units is as much if not more, a prerequisite for a housing

program than is clearing of sites for the construction of

new units, especially if the latter involves relocation to

another part-ef the community or to another community.

Since a minimum of a quarter of public assistance recipi-

ents have serious problems with their housing units, some

4,400 units would have to be rehabilitated or replaced. If

the caseload rises by some 50 percent over the next five

years, or half the rate of increase for the last five years,

then by 1976, another 2,600-units would require either re-

habilitation or replacement.

Number of Rooms and Number of Persons

Generally, 4.4 rooms was the median size of a unit oc-

eupied by public assistance recipients; of this number, 2.4

rooms were used as bedrooms, and the size of household

averaged somewhat under 4; however, white households,

containing many more elderly persons proportionately,

were smaller (2.9 persons) than black families (4.1 per-

sons). Overcrowding (more than one person per room)

was substantially greater where the size of family was

larger. 31.1 percent of black families reported more than

one person per room, compared to 16.8 percent for whites

(Table H-1). For Westchester’s total renter population in

1970, the comparable figures for overcrowding were 17.7

percent for blacks and 7.4 percent for whites. .

Considering overcrowding by size of family, it is ap-

parent that overcrowding is a far greater problem for the

large family, containing 6 or more persons than it is for the

RA NEE LN tale Re Pak BME ied COO EDL OLN LE Re TEIN I A 8 Cab ED SL ee TEIN BS

476

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing—

Westchester County.

smaller family. Yet, more than one out of every four

middle-sized families (3 to 5 person) receiving public as-

sistance was living in overcrowded quarters (Table H-8).

More than one person per room is considered a measure

for substandard housing since the housing unit then is too

small to accommodate satisfactorily the number of persons

occupying the unit.

Rooms without windows and kitchens without running

water were the most serious deficiencies in facilities, ac-

cording to recipients (Table H-9). Bleck families and

families with a Spanish surname had the greatest incidence

of missing facilities, while the poorest conditions-were re-

ported in the White Plains, Portchester, and New Rochelle

areas. Generally, at least two, if not three or more, families

shared kitchens and bathrooms, where these were not

private and separate units (Tables H-10 and H-11).

The lack of facilities was especially significant in struc-

tures containing two or more families (Table H-12). The

failure of at least half of all units to have fire escapes

indicates that a serious problem would exist in event of a

fire; this problem is accentuated by the fact that few multi-

family units have a fire sprinkler system and about one out

of every three does not have more than one exit in case of

emergency’. As indicated in Table H-12, fire hazards are

greater for black and Spanish surname respondents than

for whites, although they are still serious for the latter

group.

1 Fire escapes are not necessarily required for all types of multi-

unit structures; about two-thirds of respondents, however, do live

in five or more family units where fire esscapes are probably called

for. Sprinkler systems, also, may not be required under the housing

code of the community.

‘Table H-1.

(See opposite a>) ’

_¥ °0L61 ‘6961 ‘A3uN0D 4@3sey23SemM Aaasns ployesnoH + @24N05

Be eiqe,jere JON = “YN

det

2é 8°6 9°0l Ort S*0l L°g L°ol €°Ot S°O1 (Ue| paw) pe ze; dwod vojjJeInps j4O SIBBA

ao . ° ° je . . . ad Bujsnoy azeajid

' l ‘ }snoy !

as v°N v°N VN v'N %5°Z1 Si*ti %a°Zi . KEE p> aha Hin 50 eo

= 2 . ° ° ° . ° . . Buysmoy bus asodey

22 WN v°N v°N VN %O°OZ = HO"OZ_— HO" SZ %L° 0% rt lg omen

LE" %2°91 %5°91 29° nl W'nl EOL =4O°SL = 9S ee eee Te ree

%Q° 2h “LOE 78° HE hy” €€ HE *6Z we°ze 86 XL BE Hi°HE 394 Uy aseasous Bujysodas Qusrs0g

V'N vV°N W°N W°N O1ls 601$ zoi$ «OS Buysnoy azeAlsd-juas Aj yyueH

. WN v'N WN W°N 66$ ges 4s 98S Buy snoy 21 (Gnd-3Ua45 Aj y3UOH

$oi$ L6$ 901$ _ L6$ 601$ 66$ L6$ 66$ (uejpow) pred quad Apt que,

Sf %n° 61 49°71 %e°61 %°3 %S°1% = =Kl°Z %9°L1 Buysmoy d4yqnd uy Bulayy 3u9949g

‘ 49° 96 - %E°86 48° £6 40°96 = 5 H2°B6, «= AL* 96 ig ay Rc 3u9I5a

%I . . yce ai) £ eon °6 . i P- ?

a . ms =* sa Vi et ” y JO ssawoos Buy 4Odas YuarI2g

‘ z°2z €°z $°z $°z 4°@ S*z Z°2 °@ (ue] pau}

’ SWwOOJpeq SB pasn swood 50 Jaq7N

VN vin WN v°N MU°6E PRE 4°91 HL (woos 4ad ucssoc

ra - QUO URY} B40W) PapmosridAO 3U99I2_

; z°h €*4 ! Ht S*t €*h oh Zh tH (uejpaw) swoos yo sacuny

6°2 9°€ 6°E i 9° 6°€ 6°@ “°¢ (ue | paw) suosiad JO Jaquny

° 7

Ajuno) 9, Le4yooy MON UOuUJdSA *I4W SABHUOA aweUINS Wels SQ 4A. [e301

YyIJONn 493$042340g ysjueds

SUJeid 2344M 4

eoly apey

V3UV ONY DIve Ad

: *S1N31d193% ZONVLSISSY J176Nd AG 3idNII0

SLINA ONISNOH ONY 630 Tips. JO SJILSIYILIVEWHI

im" a1GVvi

—

478

Interim Report 7—Welfare: Households and Housing—

Westchester County.

TasiEe H-8

OvercrowpiInGc (More THan One Person Per Room),

By Size or Famity anp Race

Spanish-

Size of Family Total White Black Surname

2 6.4 1.7 8.5 143

3-5 27.1 24.3 27.9 29.4

6 or more 67.2 61.0 68.3 66.7

Total 27.1 16.8 31.1 39.2

Source: Household Survey Westchester County, 1969, 1970.

Table H-9.

(See opposite a>)

a A LS NAA EEE PR I ID AOR ANE ATI \

Swe|qgoig-buj soday yusedsad

Wau ONY 39vu Ag

*SIN3Id193¥ JINVISISSY 2178Md OL ONIGYOIIY

LINN ONISMOH NI ONISSIW S3ILIT19VS

6-H 319VL

. $32|3n0

{Lem (@31}439913

woouyzeq UMG

dgajzen Gujuuns

BNOYT YM YOYIT]H

SMOpuTM

WOU PLM Sean -Y

yoy) DLALIE

pur ayeredas y

Joye Guyuuind yop)

Buyer pesyery

~~ bul ssin

$Oj 314204

: "0L61 ‘6961 ‘AjunoD 4935949359 A@Auns ployesnoH faduNn0s

acme ‘

ao $°4 0°! i°€ Le 4 [ia | e°¢ 0°! 4°?

ee ‘ -

L°6 g*hl gd gg n't 9°01 0°9 $°6

S*gt €*0z n°2 e°8l ose =— «OG "GL 9°41 6°61

E°hz 6°21 €*tl 0°6L 0°SZ iH z°02 £°91

°s - €°si 8°8 O*h L*\ e*il 4° 1°6

‘0 9°0 ee 0° ive ere oe €*1 n't

Orit int 1H 46 (e. . Hn” £9 0'OI

yun Bayo MAN UoUJ2A °aW $10:;U0A BUIEUANS y2e19 334M [#30],

yq4sON 4azS9yI40g ° ysjueds,

SUICtd 9I!1UM :

easy % o2ey

wee Lees

Table H-10.

(See opposite a>)

BE ATE eT ek

ee ERE Mat RH,

- 64 -

4-]

Kitcthe

wing

*0/61 ‘6961 ‘A3unog 4@3s8e493Seam AadAsns pj oyssnoH > 9D4uN0g

0°001 0°O0I 0*001 0°001 0°001 O*001 0°O01

aie 9°91 o-- £°91 one gc Ste

—) L°z one oon one C°Z aon

--- 61 at €*€e os SLL een

0°08 “°gi 9°92 0°0S 0°O0l 0°S2 0°Sz

0°0¢ 1"0S 2°49 oF one 6*es |. 8°de

Ayunej «= Dypaqroy wos; = Touran “IW STOHUOT Dueuan§ y2c1g. O14

yyaen AD} S9YIIIOY ysyueds

SUICLd VIM

eo! y o2ey¥

0°O0l

g°0l

2°6

9°Le

L°0s

peqOL

burjsodoy yuadsag

VW3UV ONV J9Ve AS

“SIN3Id193Y JINVISISSY JITENd OL ONIGHOIIV

N3HILIN ONIYWHS S3ITIWWI 40 NOI LNGIYISIO

Ol-H 318VL

{e391

@s0w JO KIS

DAL j

ano

Oty

“Sapp cl

gO JON

DRE PLL PEM,

iia sans

TE LIE

SA NEI AEE REEY SALLOU ALIA BO NING A RECLINE IA At APIO L TATE AA SOO tale

482

Table H-16. zh

(See opposite g~)

“Deion cad Mos aa

Sp wies

g*ol

S61

— ome se wees

Dy re rene PADS

« ae

‘ APPT IG ITAA

suEeLy OU

me ee ee

“veut “Gj0t SAaunes 4

’.

7."

@ yeaa rean ASLAN HLOUNSINENH Persdsnag mm

i rm “o Treats 9°11

ort 9°21 $*tri g°ol = *S €°6

£05 €°SS LS OTS tHe E

1°S2 S*0£ L°G6E #27 6°" z°22

(*h2 €°SZ £°Os- . HS eh, $°12

€°91 n't £701 = att $6 g°tl

97th €°6 9°93 ha Sa 4°8

Brit o°S\ gti = Gt s€°8 z°El

o°64 G*he deozovtz ss g*Ol «N°

S°L\ ae | S°St 2s ae <a sul

RES O° ed est S4. WH, £°02

ole L°Sz est aed StH L*zz

cag “tle 6°te ‘cu :t'R "2

ty Gly L°Ge C°Sy =°9°RE. 9°Oh

wre 6°hz €°€E = OGLE ‘ghz

TOUDIA * IW SADAUOA oweuins }2e1 93,4M {e301

usjueds

aoey

Sud, q4O4g bulyuodoy JuaAdWIIY

~~. 2

psedy2eq JO 3aa43S UU] Bdeqsed

B6ulpying uy e2eqse6 pdsaaodu)

sque pue sayreos Bujpn(ou! ‘ujwsaa

a21w sO sey

daydean-pyod uj yedy yo 439e7

sesodiund Gujyzeq 40j JazeM YOu jO 42327

a@seouyeys uy sdays useyxo1g

. S1yeys 2y(UN yxJseQ

sitet poueoj oun Ajalg

sipey ap pun y4eg

: ppem 40 Guyyyord wosy soyseyd Guyy pes

| Buyp jo 4o {pcm uf $409} 330M

Buy, j2d uayo.1g JO paxoesy

$j (eM payout)

sieok dAly Se, Ul poyused you JuowysEly

wa qoug jo adAL

VauV ONY 39Vu AD ‘SINIId193u JONVISISSY 2179aNd

O1 ONIGUOIIV d3axdN ONISNOH JO SW3I1E0Ud

—_

-H WIOWL

nae

Table H-17.

(See opposite ga~)

V3uUV ONY JuWy AA

“SIN3I1d 1338 JINVISISSVY 2178Nd OL-ONIGYOIIV

31938809 LON d33Xxd1 ONISNOH JO 'SW37IGOYd INIAVIIQNI SINIGrOdS3¥ :

= : =

2 —

a : : ~

a O : “0261 ‘696| ““Aguno2 421Seys38aKM A@AINS PjoyasnoH :234N0S

v ‘ 3 a

= "dA J@UaSaiday $,p4o|pue; 4O PsOlpUe, JO UO{IUGI3@ 0} pai (ed 17

o : ‘ ‘ oes

c . = : é

= .

3 ond o*0 6° $6 o°o0l = 9" $*2 £28 oe

? = . * ’ : sees é 40 3aas3S U} aGequed

rs : ; s c*f3. Gurpiira

> S : 8°18 wil 5°18 oi o°sd 6°t8 £°s8 8 sit silane pesenaean

dt Peay % | 6°£S e'Sh hth $*4S: z°*9y = (O° E°hy dol Lah

zs : sayr@os Biipnjou: *u, 2424

Se eee L°99 0°€9 1°49 g's 6°99 «0°09 a9 " G2IW 3O SIey

0°0S 4°S9 $°s9 0°69 o°sd 6°S9 €°e9 £°s9 nei bhi

PjO> u! YedXY, jo 42e%

neil 61d 9°24 €°99. °~ o°001 2°69: 4°89 0°69 . sasodund Su; 4229

. Of JOON YOY 4O HT

J £°se8 0°03 o°s z°2Z 0°00| <°sd 0°08 i*9Z | BSODAPEYS Ul Se pS YBLGAy

0°Or | 6°€d "36 i*hd Q‘ool 0°08 0°0S- 1°92 . ~ SALES Bur Yeu

o*sé 0°08 £°8 0°sd L°s8 iad €°€g €*gd SLLOyY pouwopous Aare

0°O001 0°Sé 0°S9 id 0°00! zd 8°89 €°id Sypey appen y4er

o°sé S°2d -~ 9°é L£°¢Z Ve se 6°92 -0°Sd pies 4o Fuyy a>

_ WOdJ APISE[S Gasp [ey

i°ds €°89 o°ed _ 96S 1°2s 2°69 i°dh $°£9 Sutt.92

rae JO {JOM UL SHEE AaAIVEr,

' 2°9! ee “st: Se 2°69 oH O46 Te Gulp pad wayosg 4O jroyresy

: 2°6y $*0d 6°92 6°12 9°9d a 24 <°99 0°zd Juowysede uy $/ jem payrdc4)

°°08 $°9Z a 74 €*ed ce: 0°S9 L*yd saead aay uy payujed you ajua

; Ayuno} «= B] [aydOY MON =VOUIOA “IW SJeHUOA aweusng)” 49218 = 93 14A (Sse, ee GEE

: Yd4or, 4935 949340g ysjueds ;

i Bee SUI@ld 9314M

| - @auy a2ey

| $w2|G0ug bujuodoy Jusdiag :

pee MENT a GTA SEINE EPSON OMIT Neh Ph Sagrin ok wong en RRR RE arte est pee

Sat Sate Sate ee ee ee

Method for Obtaining Housing.

(See opposite ga)

*OZ61 ‘6961 ‘A3uno) 423S9y93Sam% AaAsnsS ployasnoH +924N05

oneal ote n oooh «tc 001 OTD. -OT0D1- O01 TeIoL

gta “aw ene ee enn — €°0 "0 MOUY 9,4O0C f

wre iy wes, ce ote sate —

ah 9° 4 ar woe se Lo os AoueBy Teasuey ueqin

- we i*t = on 1 n't Aqpioygne Butsnoy TesoT |

l'> o*t rar We a se ts = 0S

uk Lz 9°I a 8° I $*¢ L*2 ze PIOTPUBT IO YUepUEeQUTIedNs oYyQ MOLY

Lt; uk g*zl S*¢ g't 's L°¢ S*t quede e4eq4se Teer Aq Petsesey

4 eg ze ica cet Ste £0 2 SeToUSese QueUMZEAC’ 1830 aq sdteq

Gut 25 9° ye ue Lg od {ty S®2FAtes TeToos Jo quemzredeq kq pedtex :

| z*61 4° yl S*tyl . 982 sci ort €*9I seaTzeter Aq pedTey 10 PTO} SBM

2g Ie orth IEE or a a a sé) deeeeay: Aen a ehh ie

Kral ueg G°9 S* tl G6°¢ G*y Ot Gtx SQUeTOSTUSApPS oUTZeZeW 10 zoedeismen

‘ Ry as 9°f ee is epTsyno uo squemenyssenee Wi O1UY

Pie SE ky MA QT STAR RATT SEA TIT ToT

ters wept tes ys teria FSsnoH SuUFUTeIGO JO PQUIEN

scan Rene Sd Sa Ts +a: dibmeneiaaicaniiale we yee i

- - ee ee eee oe ee TS SS NN oe ee Re ee ee --

HUPPMOGOY PUIdeay

VAUV GNV 39Ve AD

See EES WRVES ESO DETTE Gt TPAsvoaAnY SOLES OEM EVERQO wot Goes

Table N-11

Reason Chosen

*0L61 "6961 ‘Ayuno9 4936949389m AdAuns pjoyasnoy :a24N0s

0°00! 0°00l 0°001 0°00! 0001 0°00| 0°001 0°00!

0° i*t 9°? e°e g*e _ 9°2- z’e ie

z°Sl 0°% 1°@t L°Si z°Ol i°St 0°Zi

a8 OR jfeorn’ | 2.8 eee S? Qh? ome” | ge

’ #°0 : ve Ae J g°0

oe nytt. 6%

oT Of. * 8

€1z Hh 0°0¢

9°8h 6°Sh L°%s S°1S €°SE S* Oy 9°05

one if. "1 i) one 9° I €*I

yuna Di 12304 MeN SII4UOA MIOUINS wy | Weer

Y3.10H JD} SIYISOd 7 ysjueds

aie Fue d O314e prea

ee Na vO; 90cn ein

swan qoig Buy jsoddy yuoa10g te ee eee eee

. |

h VIYV GNV 9VU AG

: S.1N31d1934 JINVISISSV JIIONd OL ONI GIO DY

"LINN ONISNON MVINIIIHV JSOHD ATINVI JO AV > mV

TeqoL

MOU 3 ,U0d

123430

qqun snojtaerd

JO UOTZTPUOD 100d

qoeford

UT SATT OF PSQUBM

quetTusauog

pooysoqu#Teu 10990q

(3Fun zo esnoy)

evetTd 104900

SoTous OU PBH

'USIPTTYUD peqdedoe8 9s0B8Td

488

Notice of Intent to Change Public Assistance Status,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “J”.[*]

Louis P. Kurtis

COMMISSIONER

JoHN J. ALLEN

DIRECTOR

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILD SOCIAL SERVICES

Norice oF Intent To CHANGE Pustic Assistance STATUS

Phyliss D’Alessio

40 S. West Street

Mt. Vernon, New York

Category and

Case No.: F-015335

Date: 1/22/73

This is to advise you that this department intends to

( ) Discontinue

(X) Reduce from $336.00 to. $292.40 your Public As-

sistance

( ) Suspend

grant on 2/1/73 for the following reason(s) :

(proposed date)

Quality control reports of 10/15/72 indicates that Mr.

Mattrola resides with you and your family. Therefore

we are pro-rating your rent 34 of 175 = 131.40.

[*] Repeating Exhibit “Bp to D’ Alessio affidavit in support of

motion, pp. 53-54, ante..

s | aM EEO 0 Nin te na iy ache 28 tas

489

Notice of Intent to Change Public Assistance Status.

You may lave a conference at the department address

noted by the number at the bottom of this page to re-

view your case at any time before the proposed date

of change in the status of your grant.

R. Goldfinger RG

(Signed ) (Date)

Ricut To A Farr HEARING

If you believe the status of your assistance should not

be changed, you may request a state fair hearing by

telephoning 212-488-6550, or by writing to Fair Hear-

ing Section, New York State Department of Social

Services, 1450 Western Avenue, Albany, New York

12203. If you request a fair hearing, a notice will be

sent to you informing you of the time and place of

your hearing. At the hearing, you, your attorney or

other representative will have an opportunity to pres-

ent relevant written and oral evidence to demonstrate

why the status of your assistance should not be

changed, as well as an opportunity to question any

persons who appear at the hearing and present evi-

dence against you. If you request a fair hearing be-

fore the date proposed for the change in the status of

your assistance, you will continue to receive your as-

sistance unchanged, until the fair hearing decision 18

issued.

Nat bles I ETE CALA PTO —

490

Memorandum From Rachel Goldfinger to

Phyllis D’Alessio, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “K’’.[*]

1/30/73

Dear Mrs. D’ Alessio,

We are sending you an additional check of $43.60 in

addition to your regular recurring grant of $292.40. For

the month of February. As of March 1, 1973 we will be

sending you just $292.40 per month. Perhaps this can

give you some time to make the necessary adjustments.

Very truly yours,

(Mrs.) RacHet GoLpFINGER

(Ine. Maint. Sup.)

[*] Repeating Exhibit ‘‘F’’ to D’Alessio affidavit in support of

motion, p. 55, ante.

491

Westchester County Maximum Shelter Allowance

Schedule, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “L”.

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

432 County Orrice Bupa.

Wuire Puatns, N. Y. 10491

IV. SHELTER

A. Rent

Rent is allowed as paid, based on family or in-

dividual housing needs and on local low-cost rent

levels for housing and rooms furnished and un-

furnished.

(Special approval of the Administrative Super-

visor, PA Section, for rent in excess of the follow-

ing schedule must be requested on Form #664.)

Rent ScHEDULE SA-9

Allowance Schedule—Unfurnished—Heat Provided

Effective 7-1-72

Monthly Maximum

Rent*

With Without

Heat Heat

1-2 Persons, 1 room ‘‘as paid’’ to a

I OF nis ccckccasssscnee’ $145 $107

* NoTE:

The determinant for approval for a monthly rent is

the number of rooms in a unit and not the number of

persons in a family.

The number of persons represents a guide and sug-

gests the minimum number of persons in a family for

which approval for a particular sized apartment rental

is given. For example, a 5 room unit would not be

approved for one person occupancy, nor should a

seven person family occupying 6 rooms be approved at

the rate for a 7 room unit.

492

Westchester County Maximum Shelter Allowance Schedule.

1-2 Persons, 2 room studio or shared

apt. ‘‘as paid’’ to a maximum of .. 155 118

2-3 Persons, 3 rooms (1 Bedroom)

‘fas paid’’ to a maximum of ...... 166 129

3-4 Persons, 4 rooms (2 Bedrooms)

‘‘as paid’’ to a maximum of ...... 182 145

3-4 Persons, 5 rooms (2 Bedrooms)

‘‘as paid’’ to a maximum of ...... 198 166

5-6 Persons, 6 rooms (3 Bedrooris)

‘fas paid’’ toa maximum of... ... 247 209

7-8 Persons, 7 rooms (4 Bedrvoms)

‘‘as paid’’ to a maximum of ...... 279 236

9-10 Persons, 8 rooms (5 Bedrooms)

‘fas paid’’ to a maximum of ...... 322 263

11 Persons and over, ‘9 rooms and

over ‘‘as paid’’ to a maximum of .. 359 283

Water Charges

- When the tenant recipient is obligated to pay for water

as a separate charge, an additional allowance shall be

made for the amount required to be paid.

Shelter—Living in Self-Maintaining Household

For children or adults residing with a self-maintaining

non-legally responsible relative or friend, the allowance

;

- —_ a |

reer eee

493

Westchester County Maximum Shelter Allowance Schedule.

for rent and/or shelter costs shall be computed on a

pro-rated basis.

Rent—While in Medical Facility

An allowance for rent shall be made for a period not in

excess of 60 days, when essential to retain a housing

accommodation to which a recipient temporarily re-

ceiving care in a medical facility may return upon dis-

charge.

Public Housing

An allowance for rent shall be made for recipients who

are tenants of State or Federally-aided public housing

not in excess of the following schedules:

Monthly Rent

New Rochelle Peekskill

Apartment State (Eff. (Eff.

Size Schedule 8-1-71) 4-1-72)

‘‘0’? Bedrooms $ 65.00 — —

1 Bedroom 77.00 $ 84.00 $ 84.00

2 Bedrooms 90.00 99.00 99.00

3 Bedrooms 101.00 112.00 112.00

4 Bedrooms 107.00 120.00 120.00

5 Bedrooms 110.00 125.00 125.00

(Nore: Required fees or charges shall be provided for

such items as security deposit, extermination,

ie Sas AAAI wR lin ik Ce he,

494

Westchester County Maximum Shelter Allowance Schedule.

\deposit against breakage and loss, and keys.

See Page A-17.)

B. Shelter Allowance for Home Owners

Purchase of Interest in Low-Cost Housing Development

The Administrative Supervisor may approve a grant,

not to exceed $750.00 toward the purchase of an interest

in a cooperative unit in the low-cost housing develop-

ment. The Housing Supervisor shall first be asked to

review this plan. Assignment of recipient’s equity in

such cooperative housing shall be required.

Carrying Charges

Property costs in lieu of rent are allowed when they

are not in excess of a reasonable monthly rental. Such

costs are estimated on actual bills and include.

taxes, water rates, special assessments, and interest on

mortgage. Fire insurance is allowed as paid when due.

—

495

: Nassau County Maximum Shelter Allowance

Schedule, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit “M”’.

Nassau County DeparTMENT oF SoctaL SERVICES

County Seat Drive

Mineola, L.I., N.Y.

Maximum SHELTER SCHEDULE

Rent allowances shall not exceed this schedule.

Furnished Rooms

Furnished accommodations shall provide essential furni-

ture and household equipment for daily living.

No.of No.of Inclusive Rent

Persons Rooms Items Allowance

1 , ae Heat, Hot water, $110

utilities

, a 1 double “ 125

Apartments and Houses

With Heat WithoutHeat

is $4 $145 $135

i Be 165 150

a Ax BS 180 165

56 46 —~ 195 180

7-8 68 210 190

9 68 220 200

Add $25.00 a month for each additional person.

Hotel/Motel Accomodations

if approved only while other housing is unavailable.

Minimum hotel/motel rates shall be paid in accordance with

available facilities.

Effective 7/1/70 to present

496

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans, Plaintiffs’

Exhibit “O”.

Biography and List of Publications—Herbert J. Gans

Place, Date of Birth:

Cologne, Germany; May 7, 1927, U.S. Citizen, 1945.

Education:

Ph.B., The College, University of Chicago, 1947.

M.A., Social Sciences, University of Chicago, 1950. (Thesis:

Political Participation in a Suburban New Town:

Park Forest, Illinois.) Phi Beta Kappa, 1950.

Ph.D., Department of City Planning, University of Penn-

sylvania, 1957. (Dissertation: Recreation Planning for

Leisure Behavior: A Goal-Oriented Approach.)

Professional and Academic Positions:

Research Assistant, American Society of Planning Officials,

Chicago, 1950.

Assistant Planner, Chicago Housing Authority, 1950-1951.

Chief Research Planner, P.A.C.E. Associates, Chicago,

1951-1952.

Field Representative, Division of Slum Clearance, U.S.

Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington,

1952-1953.

Research Associate, Institute for Urban Studies, Univer-

sity of Pennsylvania, 1953-1957. Lecturer, Department

of City Planning, 1956-1957.

Assistant Sociologist, Department of Psychiatry, Massa-

chusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical

School, Boston. 1957-1958. (On leave from University

of Pennsylvania.)

aaah ait ae CORT TAIL MBI 8 a LPM OLRM SPAT OEE YH: e

en ee aed ACMA EI joe er ae Oe NR AOL EAL tt OL ANNA AREER ha eas Mb

497

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Assistant Professor of City Planning, Institute for Urban

Studies and Department of City Planning, University

of Pennsylvania, 1958-1961; Lecturer, Department of

Sociology, 1958-1959; Research Associate Professor of |

City Planning and Urban Studies, 1961-1964.

Associate Professor of Sociology and Education, Teachers

College, Columbia University, 1964-1966; and Research

Associate, Institute of Urban Studies, Teachers Col-

lege, 1964-1965; Center for Urban Education, 1965-

1966.

Senior Staff Sociologist, Center for Urban Education; and

Adjunct Professor of Sociology and Education,

Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966-1969. .

Visiting Professor of ; Sociology, Columbia elena

Spring 1969.

Professor of Sociology and Planning, Department of Urban

Studies and Planning, M.I.T.; and Faculty Associate,

M.I.T.—Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies,

1969-1971.

Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Columbia

University, (Ford Foundation Chair) (1971- . Senior

Research Associate, Center for : Policy Research,

19714:.--+ i

Americal Sociological Association; Member, Council, 1968-

1971.

Society for the Study of Social Problems; Chairman, Com-

mittee on Standards and Freedom of Research, Publi-

| cation and Teaching, 1965-1966; Member, Executive

Committee, 1968-1971. ere

Eastern Sociological Society; President-Elect, 1971-1972;

President, 1972-1973.

| Scholarly and Professional Offices:

’

Sede MN AENN n AI neti ti

498

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Seskiioiand, Research Association; Member, 1972-

Planners for Equal Opportunity; Board Member, 1964

1965.

Architects Renewal Committee for Harlem; Board Member,

1965-1967. « ‘ :

Advisory Editor: Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, 1965- . Library of Urban Affairs,

1965- ; Urban Life and Culture, 1971- ; Society

(Trans-action), 1971- ; American Journal of So-

ciology, 1972- ; Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972-

Journal of Communication, 1974.

Transaction, Inc. Member, Board of Directors, 1970-

_ Research Grants:

Center for the Study of Leisure, University of Chicago,

Summer 1957: yer anal Films and Television on

British Screens.”” «

National Institute of Mental Health; 1959-1960: ‘‘Charac-

teristics and Aspirations of New Suburbanites”

(Levittown study).

Annenberg School of Communications, University of Penn-

sylvania, 1960, for continuation of study: ‘‘ American

Films and Television on British Screens.’”

American Philosophical Society, 1961: ‘‘The Impact of

' an Life on its Residents’’ (Levittown study).

Social

‘Penjerdel (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware Metropoli-

tan Project), 1962-1963: “The Origin and Development

of a New Suburban Community” (Levittown study).

Urban Studies Center, Rutgers University, Senior Fellow-

ship, Fall, 1963.

ience Research Council, 1962: Levittown study.

—

499

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Bullitt Foundation, Seattle, 1964-1968: “The Shaping of

Mass Media Content: An Analysis of the Creation and

| Decision-Making Processes in the Mass Media.’’

Ford Foundation, ‘‘Coverage of Social Issues in the News

Media,” 1969-1973.

National Endowment for the Humanities, ‘‘The Social Role

& _ of the News Media,’’ 1973.

Major Consultant Activities:

; Conservation Study, Metropolitan Planning and Housing

Council, Chicago, 1952.

American Council to Improve Our Neighborhoods, New

York, 1954, 1956.

Social Planning Division, Puerto Rico Planning Board,

1958.

Jack Meltzer Associates, Planners, Chicago, 1959, 1962.

US. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,

Washington, 1961.

Urban Renewal Project, Menninger Foundation, 1962.

Community Progress, Inc., New Haven, 1962.

*®

Housing and Home Finance Agency (Advisory Committee

to the Administrator), 1962. —

Fifth Annual Ruberoid Design Competition (Member of

Jury), 1963.

‘Community Research and Development, Inc., Columbia,

| -» Maryland, 1963-1964.

Member, Planning Session, White House Conference to

Fulfill These Rights, 1965.

Member, Seminar on Poverty, American Academy of Arts

and Sciences, 1966.

ee or

I RE Re RS OR EE? oe SN ET OOH,

500

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Redevelopment Land Agency, Washington, D.C., 1966-1967.

Office of Social Development, Ford Foundation ees

Income Tax Panel), 1967.

Secretary’ 's Task Force on Exits from Poverty, Department _

of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of

the Secretary, 1967.

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1967-

1968.

Wayne County Planning Commission, 1968.

Llewellyn-Davies Associates, Amherst New Town Project,

1969.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1972.

North Pickering — Development Project (Can-

ada) 1973.

Irwin Miller Management Company, Columbus, Indiana,

1973.

Community Research and Action Laboratory, Columbia,

Maryland, 1973.

PUBLICATIONS

I. Books and M onographs

1. Accelerated Urban Growth in a Metropolitan Fringe

Area, Philadelphia: Institute for Urban Studies,

1953, Summary Report, pp. 82, mimeographed.

2. American Films and Television Programs on

British Screens: A Study of the Fumctions of

American Popular Culture Abroad, Philadelphia:

Institute for Urban Studies, June, 1959, pp. 180,

mimeographed.

Dili Da SOF WY

;

‘501

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

3. The Urban Villagers:/ Group and Class in the Life

of Italian-Americans, New York: Free Press, 1962,

pp. 367. Paperback edition, 1965.

4. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a

New Suburban Community, New York: Pantheon

Books, 1967, pp. 472. London: Allen Lane, The

Penguin Press, 1967. Berlin: Bertelsmann Fach-

verlag, 1969. Vintage paperback edition, 1969.

Florence: Saggiatore, 1971, Penguin Paperback,

1973.

5. People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and

Solutions, New York: Basic Books, 1968, pp. 395.

Paperback edition, 1971, Penguin paperback, 1972.

6. The Uses of Television and Their Educational Im-

plications, New York: Center for Urban Education,

June 1968, pp. 205.

7. More Equality, New York: Pantheon Books, 1973.

8. Popular Culture and High Culture,-New York:

Basic Books, 1974.

II. Articles;

1. ‘‘Park Forest: Birth of a Jewish Community,”’

Commentary, Vol. I, April, 1951, pp. 330-339. Re-

printed in E. Cohen, Commentary on the American

Scene, Knopf, 1953, pp. 205-223; Mack, Race, Class

and Power, American Book Company, 1963, pp. 201-

216; R. O’Brien, C. Schrag and W. Martin, Readings

+ This list does not include film reviews, book reviews, or ex-

cerpts from my books published as articles in anthologies. Items

preceded by an asterisk are reprinted in my People and Plans;

items preceded by two asterisks are reprinted in my More

Equality.

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

in General Sociology, Houghton Mifflin, 3rd ed.,

1964, pp. 34-42; S. Feldman and G. Thielbar, Life

Styles, Little Brown, 1972, pp. 274-287; Bobbs-

Merrill Reprint Series in the Social Sciences, #90.

‘Political Participation and Apathy,” Phylon, Vol. .

12, 1952, pp. 185-191.

‘*Planning and Political Participation: A Study of

Political Participation in a Planned New Town,’’

Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol.

19, 1953, pp. 3-9.

‘‘The ‘Yinglish’ Music of Mickey Katz: A study in

American-Jewish Popular Culture,” American

Quarterly, Vol. 5, 1953, pp. 213-218.

Review Article: “The Negro and the Schools,’

Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 50, 1955,

pp. 124-130.

“‘The Sociology of New Towns,’’ Sociology and

Social Research, Vol. 40, 1956, pp. 231-239.

‘*Planning, Institutional Policy and User Be-

havior: The Public Library, A Case Study,’’ pre-

pared for the 1956 meeting of the Institute of

Social Research, University of Chicago.

‘« American Jewry: Present and Future,’’ and

‘‘The Future of American Jewry,” (two-part ar-

ticle), Commentary, Vol. 21, May and June 1956,

pp. 422-430, 555-563.

“The Creator-Audience Relationship in the Mass

Media: An Analysis of Movie Making,’ in

B. Rosenberg and D. White, Mass Culture: The

Popular Arts in America, Free Press, 1957, pp.

315-324.

Rsk =

LAS STADIA ai TEA TATE TT ARTES i I RATT AISA.

10.

"1h.

> 8

13.

14.

15.

*16.

17.

*18.

503

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

‘‘The Progress of a Suburban Jewish Community,”

Commentary, Vol. 22, February 1957, pp. 113-122.

Reprinted in Bobbs-Merrill Reprint Series in The

Social Sciences, #396.

“The Goal-Oriented Approach to Planning,” pre-

pared for the Puerto Rico Planning Society and

Puerto Economic Association, February 1958.

“Social Planning,” prepared for the Puerto Rico

Central Planning Board, March 1958. Reprinted

in Bawwelt (Germany) No. 51-52, December 1969,

pp. 252-256.

“The Origin and Growth of a Jewish Community

in the Suburbs: A Study of the Jews of Park

Forest,,” in M. Sklare, The Jews: Social Patterns

of an American Group, Free Press, 1958, pp. 205-

248.

“Popular Culture and Its High Culture Critics,”

Dissent:, Vol. 5, 1958, pp. 185-187.

“Informal Sociology: A Proposal for a New Pub-

licatiom,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 23,

1958, pyp. 441-442.

“Physical Environment, Human Behavior and Their

Relatiomships,’’ (published as “The Potential En-

vironment and the Effective Environment’’), pre-

pared ffor an NIMH Seminar on Determinants of

Mental Health, September 1958.

Review Article: “The Loneliness of Man in Modern

Americean Society,” Kyklos (International Review

for Soczial Sciences, (Basel), Vol. 13, 1959, pp. 102-

105.

“The Hiuman Implications of Current Redevelop-

ment aand Relocation Planning,” Journal of the

*19.

*20.

°21.

*99.

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, 1959, pp.

15-25. Updated version reprinted as “An Evalu-

ation of the Redevelopment Plan and Process,” in

W. Wheaton, G. Milgram, M. Meyerson, Urban

Housing, Free Press, 1967, pp. 458-474.

“Diversity and Homogeneity in American Life,”

(published as “Diversity is Not Dead: A Report on

Our Widening Range of Choice’’), The New Re-

public, Vol. 144, April 3, 1961, pp. 11-15. Reprinted

in P. Ehrensaft, Sociological Anatomy of America,

Macmillan, 1969.

“The Effect of a Community Upon Its Residents,”

prepared for the Urban Sociology Colloquium, Rut-

gers University, May 1961.

“Planning and Social Life: An Evaluation of

Friendship and Neighbor Relations in Suburban

Communities,” Journal of the American Institute

of Planners, Vol. 27, May 1961, pp. 134-140. “Re-

printed in R. Gutman and D. Popenoe, Neighbor

hood, City and Metropolis, Random House, 1970,

pp. 746-755; H. Proshansky, et al., eds., Environ-

mental Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

1970, pp. 501-509; G. Lindberg, ed., Urbana Proc-

esser, Glerup (Sweden), 1972, pp. 225-236..

‘‘The Balanced Community: An Evaluation of

Homogeneity and Heterogeneity in Residential

Areas,’’ Journal of the American Institute of Plam-

ners, Vol. 27, August 1961, pp. 176-184. Excerpted

in Current, November 1961, pp. 32-36; in Ekistics,

Vol. 13, 1962, pp. 57-59. Reprinted in L. Balbo

and G. Martinotti, Metropoli e Sottocomunita,

Marsilio (Italy), pp. 75-94; G. Lindberg, Urbana

Processor, Glerup (Sweden), 1972, pp. 236-251.

505

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

93. “‘Communitas’: Its Impact on City Planning,”

Dissent, Vol. 8, 1961, pp. 326-332.

24. ‘‘Pluralist Esthetics and Subcultural Program- :

ming: A Proposal for Cultural Democracy in the

Mass Media,’”’ Studies in Public Communications,

No. 3, Summer 1961, pp. 27-35.

25. ‘*Planners and Suburbs,’’ Landscape, Vol. II, 1961,

pp. 27-35.

*96. ‘‘Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A

Re-evaluation of Definitions,’ in A. Rose, Human

Behavior and Social Processes, Houghton-Mifflin,

1962, pp. 625-648. Reprinted in Peter Rosd, Study

of Society, Random House, 1967, pp. 322;

R. Pahl, Readings in Urban Sociology, Pergamon

Press (London), 1968, pp. 95-118; S. \Fava,

Urbanism in World Perspective, Crowell, \1968,

pp. 63-81; A. Callow, American Urban H story,

Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 504-518;

1972, pp. 507-521; R. Gutman and D. Popenoe,

Neighborhood, City and (Metropolis, Random

House, 1970, pp. 70-84; A. Cousins and H. Nag-

paul, Urban Man and Society, Knopf, 1970, pp.

j 157-164; J. Kramer, ed., North American Suburbs,

/ Glendessary, 1972, pp. 31-50; J. Richardson, ed.,

The American City, Xerox, 1972, pp. 389-407;

J. Palen and K. Flaming, Urban America, Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, 1972, pp. 184-201.

27. Review Article: “The Split Level Trap,’’ in Jour-

nal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 28,

February 1962, pp. 47-49.

*28. ‘‘City Planning and Urban Realities; 2 Commen-

tary, Vol. 33, February’ 1962, pp. 170-175. Ex-

cerpted in 1 Current, March 1962, pp. 21-22. Re-

SGP an meee DY TERRE OM oP ’

SU A iT COLELLO ENR +E a BRN a bE

*30.

32.

*33.

506

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

printed in M. Freedman and P. Davis, eds., Con-

temporary Controversy, Scribner’s, 1966, pp. 368-

377.

‘‘Hollywood Films on British Screens: An Analy-

sis of the Functions of American Popular Culture

Abroad,” Social Problems, Vol. 9, 1962, pp. 324-328.

‘‘Outdoor Recreation and Mental Health,’’ in Out-

door Recreation Resources Review Commission,

Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recrea-

tion, U.S. Government Printing Office, ORRRC

Study Report No. 22, 1962, pp. 234-242.

‘“The Mass Media in the Life of a Working Class

Audience,’’ Comment, Vol. 3, 1962, pp. 16-19.

(Adapted from The Urban Villagers.)

‘‘Planning and Power,” Commentary, Vol. 34,

February 1963, pp. 176-179.

‘‘Social and Physical Planning for the Elimina-

tion of Urban Poverty,’’ Washington University

Law Quarterly, February 1963, pp. 2-18 and in

American Institute of Planners, Proceedings of

the 1962 Annual Conference, AIP, 1963, pp. 176-

190. Reprinted in B. Rosenberg, I. Gerver and

W. Howton, Mass Society in Crisis, Macmillan,

' 1964, pp. 629-644; D. Mandelker, Managing Our

Urban Environment, Bobbs Merrill, 1966, pp. 449-

456; B. Frieden and R. Morris, Urban Planning

and Social Policy, Basic Books, 1968, pp. 39-54;

R. Kramer and H. Specht, Readings in Community

Organization Practice, Prentice Hall, 1969, pp.

425-437.

‘*Jewish Parody as American Popular Culture’’

(published as “Allan Sherman’s Sociologist Pre-

sents’) The Reconstructionist, Vol. 29, May 1963,

pp. 25-31.

Repairs 0 em awe oun

35.

37.

39.

507

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

‘‘Effects of the Move from City to Suburb,’’ in

Leonard J. Duhl, ed., The Urban Condition, Basic

Books, 1963, pp. 84-198. Reprinted in E. Schuler,

et al., Readings in Sociology, Crowell, 1967, pp.

557-568.

‘‘Planning for Urban Renewal,’’ Trans-action,

Vol. 1, November 1963, pp. 5-7, 19. Reprinted in

R. Schasre and J. Wallach, Reading in Planned

Change, University of Southern California, Youth

Studies Center, 1965, pp. 60-66; F. Harris, National

Policy and Social Science, Aldine, 1970.

“Access to Public Libraries: The Controversy, the

Real Issues and Their Implications for Urban

Library Planning’ (published as ‘‘The Access

Survey: From the Social Scientist’s Viewpoint’’)

as ‘‘The Access Survey: From the Social Scien-

tist’s Viewpoint’’), Wilson Library Bulletin, Vol.

38, December 1963, pp. 336-341.

“Some Proposals for Government Policy in an

Automating Society,’ The Correspondent, No. 30,

January-February, 1964, pp. 74-82. Reprinted in

the Congressional Record, March 12, 1964, pp.

4971-4975, and excerpted in Current, April, 1964,

pp. 58-64. Reprinted in A. Shostak and W. Gom-

berg, New Perspectives on Poverty, Prentice Hall

Spectrum, 1965, pp. 142-157; R. Dentler, Major

American Social Problems, Rand McNally, 1967,

Prentice Hall, 1968, pp. 157-167.

“The Rise pf- the Problem Film: An analysis of

Changes in’ Hollywood Movies and the American

Audience,” Social Problems, Vol. II, Spring 1964,

pp. 327-336. Reprinted in E. Mizrachi, The Sub-

stance of Soctology, Appleton-Crofts Century, 1967,

pp. 538-548.

508

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

*40. “Planning for the Everyday Life and Problems of

the Average Suburban and New Town Resident,”

prepared for the Planning Work Group, Columbia

New Town, of the Rouse Company, February 1964.

41. Review Article: “Nostalgia for the Rural Past,”

Progressive Architecture, May 1964, pp. 200, 202,

206, 212.

42. “Planning for School Site Selection in Today’s

Cities,” (published as “Comment on School Integra-

tion Policies in Northern Cities”) Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, Vol. 30, August

1964, pp.. 189-191.

*43. “Redefining the Settlement’s Function for the War

' on Poverty,” Social Work, Vol.-9, October 1964, pp.

3-12. Reprinted in R. Lubove, Poverty and Social

Welfare in the United States, Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, 1972, pp. 54-63.

44. “Sex, Vitality and Skepticism: America’s New

Image of Britain” (published as “America’s New

Sexual Idols”), Twentieth Century (London), Vol. §

173, Autumn 1964, pp. 86-92. Reprinted in Vogue,

March 15, 1965, pp. 108, 151. |

45. ‘‘Planning—and City Planning—For Mental

Health,” in American Society of Planning Officials,

Planning 1964, The Society, 1964, pp. 168-184.

Excerpted in Ekistics, Vol. 19, 1965, pp. 184-188.

Reprinted in H.W. Eldredge, Taming Megalopolis,

Doubleday Anchor, 1967, Vol. 2, pp. 897-916.

*46. “The Failure of Urban Renewal: A Critique and

Some Proposals,” Commentary, Vol. 39, April 1965,

pp. 29-37; and “Controversy: Urban Renewal,”

Commentary, Vol. 39, July 1965, pp. 77-80. Re-

printed in Commentary Reprint series, League of

OEE TE SOE, HENS GOONS, gh SBN LORE LB OGL! ALT AES REPENS A A EPRI IO UNLRE IE EM SERIE AIR IR CR ak SF ot et ol

DO iti

BORIS 78 0. Ee ee

*47.

“ Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Industrial Democracy. Reprint Series; Congres-

stonal Record-House, April 8, 1965, pp. 7206-7211;

Current (excerpts), No. 60, June 1965, pp. 29-32;

American Review (India), Vol. 10, October 1965,

pp. 17-32; J. Wilson, Urban Renewal, M.I.T. Press,

1966, pp. 537-557; J. Bellush and M. Hausknecht,

Urban Renewal, Doubleday Anchor, 1967, pp. 465-

504; R. Perrucci and M. Pilisuk, The Tripple Revo- .

lution, Little Brown, 1968, pp. 264-280; A. Callow,

American Urban History, Oxford University Press,

1969, pp. 567-596; and 1972, pp. 614-628; J. Tager

and P. Goist, The Urban Vision, Dorsel, 1970, pp.

278-292; L. Lowenstein, Urban Studies, Free Press,

1971, pp. 366-385 ; R. Wade, Cities in American Life,

Houghton Mifflin, 1971, pp. 229-236; D. Rasmussen

and C. Haworth, The Modern Cits — Hall,

1973, pp. 160-167.

“The Negro Family: Reflections.on the ‘Moynihan

Report’,” Commonweal, Vol. 83, October 15, 1965,

pp. 47-51. Reprinted in L. Rainwater and W.

Yancey, The Moynihan Report and the Politics of

Controversy, M.I.T. Press, 1967, pp. 445-457; P.

Dodyk, Selected Materials on Law and Poverty,

West, 1969. Excerpted in H. Miller, Education for

the Disadvantaged, Free Press, 1967, pp. 46-52,

and P. Worsley, Problems of Modern Society,

Penguin, 1972, pp. 261-270.

“The City and the Poor,” prepared for the Action

Symposium on the Troubled Environment, Novem-

ber 1965. Reprinted in P. Meadows and E. Mizruchi,

Urbanism, Urbanization and Change, Addison-

Wesley, 1969, pp. 542-553. Shorter version pub-

lished as “Slum Housing: Doing Something About

the War on Slums,” Commonweal, Vol. 83, March

1966, pp. 688-693. Excerpted in Current, May

1966, pp. 46-47.

49,

*50.

51.

52.

53.

*54.

*55.

*56.

510 .

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

“Some Changes in American Taste and Their Impli-

cations for the Future of Television,” in Stanley

Donner, The Future of Commercial Television,

1965-1975, Stanford University Department of Com-

munication, 1965, pp. 35-50.

“The Library in Perspective,” in Ralph Conant, ed.,

The Library and the City, Cambridge: M.I.T.

Press, 1965, pp. 67-73.

“The New Radicalism: Sect or Political Action

Movement,” Studies on the a hc Vol. 5, Sum-

mer 1965, pp.-126-131.

“A Rational Approach to Radicalism,” Studies on

the Left, Vol. 6, January-February 1966, pp. 37-46.

“Popular Culture in America: Social Problem or

Social Asset in a Pluralist Society,” in Howard S.

Becker, Social Problems: A Modern Approach,

Wiley, 1966, pp. 549-620. Excerpted in P. Blum-

berg, The Impact of Social Class, Crowell, 1972,

pp. 452-467. Revised as “Popular Culture and

and Mass Media,” in Becker, op.cit., 2nd edition,

forthcoming.

“The Suburban Community and Its Way of Life,”

in L. Balbo and G. Martinotti, Metropile Sotto-

comunita, Marsilio (Italy), 1966, pp. 3-20. Re-

printed in R. Gutman and D. Popenoe, Neighbor-

hood, City and Metropolis, Random House, 1970,

pp. 297-308.

“The White Problem,” (satire) Dissent, Vol. 13,

September—October, 1966, pp..538-540.. Reprinted

in P. Sexton, ed., Reading on Schools in Society,

Prentice Hall, 1967, pp. 53-55.

“Negro Problems and White Fantasies,” Urban Re-

view, Vol. I, December 1966, pp. 2-3.

ieee eat

erage

57.

58.

61.

*62.

big

ARE Mareen ree.

POOPED POLLED LL ELE LE

511

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

“The Mass Media as an Educational Institution.”

Urban Review, Vol. 2, February 1967, pp. 5-14. Re-

printed in Television Quarterly, Vol. 6, Spring 1967,

pp. 20-37; G. Pappas, Concepts in Art and Educa-

tion, MacMillan, 1970, pp. 319-332.

“Income Grants and Dirty Work,” The Public In-

terest, No. 6, Winter, 1967, pp. 110-113. Revised

version published as ‘‘Malemployment: The Prob-

lem of Unpaid and Dirty Work,” New Generation,

Vol. 50, Winter 1968, pp. 15-18. Original version

reprinted in D. Mermelstein, Contemporary Econ-

omic Policy, Random House, 1970, pp. 920-932.

“Planning for a National Income Maintenance Pro-

gram: A Proposal for Systematic Experiments,”

The Center Forum (Center for Urban Education,

New York), April, 1967. Reprinted in Current,

June 1967, pp. 56-57.

“Urban Poverty and Social Planning,” in P. La-

zarsfeld, W. Sewell and H. Wilensky, Uses of So-

ciology, Basic Books, 1967, pp. 437-476. Excerpted

in R. Gutman and D, Popenoe, Neighborhood, City

and Metropolis, Randoni House, 1970, pp. 746-755.

“Some Comments on the History of Italian Migra-

tion and on the Nature of Historical Research,”

International Migration Review, Vol. I, Summer

1967, pp. 5-9.

“The Federal Role in Solving America’s Urban

Problems,” in Federal Role in Urban Affairs,

Hearings before the Subcommitte on Executive Re-

organization (“Ribicoff Committee on the Crisis of

the City”), Committee on Government Operations,

U.S. Senate, 89th Congress, Part II, December 8,

1966, pp. 2400-2417. Reprinted as “The Case for

SAD he OOH wey TOA OTA, PRA iia ne

a naw: 4 . 6 MME eo

512

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Federal Help” in the City in Crises, A. Phillip Ran-

dolph Educational Fund, 1967, pp. 39-60. Excerpted

in Trans-action, Vol. 4, October 1967, pp. 52-53.

63. “Social Accounting for a Democratic Society,” in

Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act of

1967, Hearings, Subeommittee on Government Re-

search, U.S. Senate, July 1967, Government Print-

ing Office, 1968, Part II, pp. 181-189. Reprinted in

American Psychologist, Vol. 22, November 1967,

pp. 983-991. .

*64. ‘“‘The Ghetto Rebellions,” paper presented to the

“National Advisory “Commission on Civil Dis-

orders,” October 6, 1967. Excerpted in National

Observer, December 18, 1967; The City, Vol. 2,

January 1968; Per Se, Summer, 1968; R. Connery,

Urban Riots: Violence and Social Change, Pro-

ceedings of the Academy of Political Science,

Vol. 29, June 1968, pp. 42-51; and Vintage, 1969,

pp. 45-54.

65. ‘‘Where Sociologists Have Failed,’’ Trans-action,

Vol. 4, October 1967, p. 2 (Editorial). Reprinted in

N. Denzin, The Values of Social Science, Aldine,

1970, pp. 83-86; P. Horton and G. Leslie, Studies in

the Sociology of Social Problems, Appleton-Cen-

tury-Crofts, 1971, pp. 16-17.

66. ‘‘The Futhre of the Suburbs,’’ (published as ‘‘The

White Exodus to Suburbia Steps Up”) New York

Times Magazine, January 7, 1968, pp. 25, 85-97.

Reprinted in A. Shank, Political Power in American

Cities, Holbrook, 1969; H. Mahood and E. Angus,

Urban Politics and Problems, Scribners, 1969, pp.

163-174; N. Glazer, Cities in Trouble, Quadrangle,

1970, pp. 35-54; Social Profile, USA, Van Nostrand,

1970, pp. 77-91; P. Hor d G. Leslie, Studies in

*67.

*68.

69.

70.

513

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

the Sociology of Social Problems, Appleton, Cen-

tury-Crofts, 1971, pp. 431-440; T. Dye and B.

Hawkins, Politics in the Metropolis, Merrill, 1971,

pp. 150-162; T. Venetoulis and W. Eisenhauer, Up

Against the Urban Wall, Prentice Hall, 1971, pp.

123-134; J. -Palen and K. Flaming, ed., Urban

America, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972, pp.

121-132; C. Haar, ed., The End of Innocence, Scott

Foresman, 1972, pp. 82-92.

‘City Planning in America: A Sociological Analy-

sis,’’ (published as an entry under ‘Planning:

Social’’) International Encyclopedia of the Social

Sciences, Macmillan, 1968, Vol. 12, pp. 129-137.

“The Princes and the Paupers” (satire), Center

Forum, January 1968, and Current, March 1968, pp.

62-64.

‘‘Comparing the Immigrant. and Negro Ex-

perience,” Report of the National Advisory Com-

mission on Civil Disorders, Government Printing

Office, March 1968, Chapter 9. Reprinted anonym-

ously in many anthologies.

“Why Did Robert F. Kennedy Die?’’ Center Forum,

June 1968, and Trans-action, Vol. 5, July-August

1968, pp. 5-6. Reprinted in J. Short, Modern

Criminals, Aldine, 1970, pp. 153-160.

“The Equality Revolution,” New York Times

Magazine, November 3, 1968, pp. 36-37, 66-76. Ex-

cerpted in Current, December, 1968, pp. 6-14. Re-

printed by the U.S. Information Agency; in L.

Freeman, Issues of the Seventies, Wadsworth, 1970;

A. Rubenstein and G. Thumm, The Challenge of

Politics, Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 1970; N. Yetman |

and C. Steele, Majority and Minority, Allyn Bacon,

Mh Spits, telat a AP TOE ORO a ea hcerteest _—

Ui meer LE Mig TPO

PESOS G IRATE ROBO

alr al i

eed

fA AAPL

73.

*74.

75.

514

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

1971, Chapter 39. C. MeAuliffe, Counterpoint,

Lippincott, 1970, pp. 40-48; L. Reichman and B.

Wishart, American Politics and Its Interpreters,

Brown, 1971, pp. 279-288; C. Bryant, Social

Problems Today, Lippincott, 1971, pp. 155-166; W.

Moore, Technology.and Social Change, Quadrangle,

1972; P. Blumberg, The Impact of Social Class,

Crowell, 1972, pp. 100-110; D. Westby-Gibson,

Education in a Dynamic Society, Addison-Wesley,

1972, pp. 18-28.

. **Report for the Center for Urban Archaelogy,’’

(satire) Urban Review, Vol. 3, November 1968, pp.

16-17. Reprinted in National Elementary School

Principal, Vol. 49, January 1970, pp.-14-16.

“‘The Participant Observer as a Human Being:

Observations on the Personal Aspects of Field

Work,” in H. Becker, B. Greer, D. Riesman, R.

Weiss, Institutions and the Person: Essays Pre-

sented to Everett C. Hughes, Aldine, 1968, pp. 300-

317.

‘‘Culture and Class in the Study of Poverty: An

Approach to Anti-Poverty Research,’’? in D.P.

Moynihan, On Understanding Poverty, Basic Books,

1969, pp. 201-228. Excerpted in S. and N. Fainstein,

View From Below, Little, Brown, 1972, pp. 80-98.

An earlier version was published as ‘‘Poverty and

Culture:. Some Basic Questions About Methods of

Studying Life Styles of the Poor,’’ in P. Townsend,

The Concept of Poverty, Heinemann (London),

1970, pp. 146-164.

‘‘Negro-Jewish Conflict in New York City: A

Sociological Evaluation,” Midstream, Vol. 15,

March 1969, pp. 3-15. Reprinted in Bobbs-Merrill

77.

78.

79.

51E

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans. |

Reprint Series, and P. Rose, Nation of Nations,

Random. House, 1972, pp. 294-308.

‘“‘The Urban Crisis as the Failure of American.

Democracy,’’ (published as ‘‘We Won’t End the

Urban Crisis Until We End Majority Rule,’’ New

York Times Magazine, August 3, 1969, pp. 10-15,

20-28. Reprinted by U.S. Army War College, US.

Information Agency; in K. Deutsch, S. Lipset, D.

Bell, Issues in Politics and. Government, Hough-

ton Mifflin, 1970, pp. 241-248; R. Mack, Prejudice

and Race Relations, Quadrangle, 1970, pp. 126-141;

T, Venetoulis and W. Eisenhauer, Up Against the

Urban Wall, Prentence Hall, 1971, pp. 500-510; J.

Kinch, Sociology in the World Today, Addison-

Wesley, 1971, pp. 193-205; J. Livingston and R.

Thompson, Dissent of the Governed, Macmillan,

1972, pp. 126-137.

‘‘Planning for People Not Buildings,” Environment

and Planning, (London), Vol. I, 1969, pp. 33-46.

Excerpted in Byplan (Copenhagen), Vol. 22, Jan-

uary 1970, pp. 3-10. Reprinted in M. Stewart, The

City, Penquin, 1972, pp’ 363-384.

“The Politics of Culture in America: <A Sociologi-

cal Analysis,’? Communications (Paris), No. 14,

1969, pp. 162-171. Reprinted in D. MeQuail,

Sociology of Mass Communication, Penguin, 1972,

pp. 372-385.

‘“T'V News Selection Practices and the Depiction of

American Society’’ (published as ‘‘How Well Does

TV Present the News?’’), New York Times Maga-

zine, January 11, 1970, pp. 30- Reprinted in

W. Hammel, Popular Arts tn Amgpc, Harcourt,

Brace and Yovanovich, 1972, pp. 205-219.

LOS TRIAS

;

Sb eh ARE GER RE POLARS RS ALMA ONAL EE SRP ALAA PIE MYND BPEL NAGE IES AOR ANE Paes

eta

80.

81,

82.

86.

87.

Land

516

~ Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

‘Planners and Urbanists: The Changing Role of

the Planning Professions,’’ in EK. Erber, Urban

Planning in Transition, Grossman, 1970, pp. 239-

245. ‘ '

‘*From Urbanism to Policy-Planning: Some Pre-

dictions About the Future of Planning,’’? Journal

of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 36, July

1970, pp. 223-225.

“The Protest of Young Factory Workers,” New

Generation, Fall, 1970, pp. 10-13. Reprinted in Cur-

rent, February, 1971, pp. 29-34.

. ‘*Broadeaster and Audience Values in the Mass

Media: The Image of Man in American Television

News,’’ in Transactions of the 6th World Congress

of Sociology (1966), Milan: International Socio-

logical Association, 1970, Vol. 4, pp. 1-14.

. ‘*The Amerik and the Rusa”’ (satire), New Society,

November 12, 1970.

. ‘*The Indochina War and the New Domestic Ex-

pectations of the American People’’ (published as

‘*The Demands of Consciousness II’’), The Nation,

March 1, 1971, pp. 275-277.

‘‘The Welfare Problem as the Failure of the Amer-

ican Economy”’ (published: as ‘‘Three Ways to

Solve the Welfare Problem’’), New York Times

Magazine, March 7, 1971, pp. 26-27, 94-100. Re-

printed by Foundation for Change.

‘‘The Dirty Work Movement”’ (satire), Social Poll-

icy, Vol. 1, March-April, 1971, pp. 34-35.

‘*Social Science for Social Policy,’’ in I. Horowitz;

The Use and Abuse of Social Science, Trans-action

Books, 1971, pp. 13-33.

89.

**O(),

wi;

*°92.

93.

**94.

95.

96.

517

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

‘“‘The Famine in American Mass Communications

Research,’’ American Journial of Sociology, Vol.

77, January 1972, pp. 697-705.

‘“‘The American Malaise,’’ New York Times Maga-

zine, February 6, 1972, pp. 16-17, 24-34.

‘‘Foreword’”’ to The Great School Legend, Colin

Greer, Basic Books, 1972, pp. vii-xiil.

‘‘Toward a More Egalitarian America’’ (published

as ‘‘The New Egalitarianism’’), Saturday Review,

May 6, 1972, pp. 43-46.

‘‘Media Violence and Its Effects,’’ Social Policy,

Vol. 3, July-August, 1972, pp. 58-61.

‘““The Positive Functions of Poverty,’’ American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, September 1972, pp.

975-289. An earlier version appeared as ‘‘The Uses

of Poverty,’’ Social Policy, Vol. 2, July-August

1971, pp. 20-24. The former is reprinted in Nursing

Digest, March 1973, pp. 11-14, 65-70; K. Mahmoudi

and B. Parlin, Sociological Inquiry, Kendall Hunt

1973, pp. 178-193, and as Warner Modular Publica-

tion 76; the latter, in J. Landis, Current Perspec-

tives on Social Problems, Wadsworth, 1973, pp. 232-

238, Dushkin Group, Annual Readings in Social

Problems 1973-1974, pp. 178-82. :

“The Journalistic Sociology of Vance Packard’’

. (published as ‘‘Vance Packard Misperceives the

Way Most Americans Live’’), Psychology Today,

Vol. 6, September, 1972, pp. 20-28.

‘‘Kquality and the Public Interest’’ (published as

‘‘Commentary: The Journal Forum’’), J ournal of

the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 39, Janu-

ary 1973, pp. 3, 10-12.

2A SEER MR ee ey Ne

CRATE RESELL EE IEE

97.

*100.

101.

518

Resume of Dr. Herbert J. Gans.

Foreward to Stay Where You Were, by Harlan

Padfield and Roy Williams, Lippincott 1973, pp.

Xi-XVi.

. ‘The Possibilities of Class and Racial Integration

in American New Towns: A Policy-Oriented Anal-

ysis,’’ In H. Perloff and N. Sandberg, New Towns:

Why and For Whom, Praeger, 1973, pp. 137-159.

An earlier version was excerpted in Design and

Environment, Vol. 3, Winter 1972, pp. 28-9, 50-52.

‘‘Some Problems of Equality,’’ Excerpted in Dis-

sent, Fall 1973, pp. 409-414; Psychology Today,

Vol. 7, December 1973, pp. 66-70.

‘‘The Possibilities of Income Redistribution”’

(published as ‘‘More Equality: Income and

Taxes’’), Society, Vol. 11, January-February 1974,

pp. 62-69.

‘‘Kthnicity, Acculturation and _ Assimilation.’’

Foreward to Ethnic Identity and Assimilation, by

Neil Sandberg, Praeger, 1974, pp. vil-xiii.

. ‘*The Integration of Soc

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.