# Appendix — Taylor v. Lavine > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0417%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1974 - **Citation:** 419 U.S. 1046 ## 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 .... 32 38 41 43 48 53 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 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 gc* |ece‘t |te°t | ot0’9 et'y | zoc‘at | op'zt |ese‘zp 66°09/6ZE‘EOS | Te°ez | 6L2z‘°2LS azou IO &SE oo'e |ysz‘e kes | ze6‘ez | epter | 600'T9 | zS*zz | 6pe’ce | TeE'9tls6s’6eT | L9°zT] 259 60E we - Sz 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¢ Tove free'se feortez] z2e9'oots| 1622 zzerozt| acez | eco‘ be | sete fete’oe |o9°9t] 9zz‘Lov BG - GI 69°u/ |(86'Bu¢ [oe °LS] O94'@9z | T9°SE | ZST‘TOT| SB°zt | 6Ge’oy' | zo't |vec’s ce°TE | 929'S9L BSI | 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 3 - 2) =) 400 : Lae] ° a A ra) = § 5 ~ | re) Z 390 nm > © 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) - uw w 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. Sg 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 - A i | 3 4 p 4 ; Es q : Lage POSS Gedo bec. Figure 8, Cost of Housing to Income Relationships. (See opposite a”) Jolande ae a ADRS Se a ee i . 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 z 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 a ] ’ 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 : 3 ; 3 : 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” ss 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- ) ~ 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 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. 2 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. a CT 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 oe 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 7 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 c : "0L61 ‘6961 ‘AjunoD 4935949359 A@Auns ployesnoH faduNn0s os z= 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 - ia - 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 i 2°6 9°Le L°0s peqOL burjsodoy yuadsag VW3UV ONV J9Ve AS “SIN3Id193Y JINVISISSY JITENd OL ONIGHOIIV N3HILIN ONIYWHS S3ITIWWI 40 NOI LNGIYISIO i Ol-H 318VL {e391 @s0w JO KIS DAL j ano Oty vn “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 4 ‘ 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 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| _ 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 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 — t | 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 ee 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 > a 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 c 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 i j ; ‘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. m2 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 = y 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 Con [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0417%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.