To the Editor:
Why are discriminatory comments supported by the environmental advocacy group Save the Pine Bush?

At the July 13 Guilderland Town Board meeting, there was a public hearing on the proposal to amend the previously approved Pine Bush Senior Living Facility Planned Unit Development [“Save the Pine Bush objects to affordable senior housing that would take 11 acres from preserve,” The Altamont Enterprise, July 15, 2021].

One of the proposed changes is to replace the previously approved 96 independent senior living units with 86 mixed-income affordable senior housing units. Included with the posted agenda materials was a market study showing there is a significant need for affordable senior housing in our community.

During the public hearing, a member of Save the Pine Bush, opposed to the project, made the following statements related to the affordable senior housing project:

— 1. Poorer people commit more crimes;

— 2. It will be more dangerous to hike in the Pine Bush;

— 3. Lower income seniors do commit more crimes than higher income seniors; and

— 4. There will be more muggings and pick-pocket activity and more cars broken into.

To make matters worse, when this individual finished his public comments, other members of Save the Pine Bush who were in attendance at the meeting clapped for this individual, supporting the discriminatory comments that were just made.

To some, these comments may come as a shock. Unfortunately for me, comments like this, and worse, are common, particularly when multi-family projects are proposed in our community.

A few of the discriminatory comments I’ve witnessed being made over the past three years from residents of our community include: “It’s not that we don’t like apartments, we don’t like the people that live in the apartments”; “I don’t want my kids going to school with the kids that live in those apartments”; “I don’t want those people walking through our neighborhood”; “I don’t want those people living next to me”; “I’m concerned about the clientele that will be living in those apartments”; and “I’m concerned about the safety of my family if this project is built.”

In November 2016, the Department of Justice and Department of Housing and Urban Development released a joint statement titled “State and Local Land Use Laws and Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing Act.”

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing related policies and practices that exclude or otherwise discriminate against individuals because of protected characteristics. Excerpts from the DOJ/HUD statement include:

— What types of land use and zoning laws or practices violate the Fair Housing Act?

Imposing restrictions on housing because of alleged public safety concerns that are based on stereotypes about the residents’ or anticipated residents’ membership in a protected class, by, for example, requiring a proposed development to provide additional security measures based on a belief that persons of a particular protected class are more likely to engage in criminal activity was one example provided;

— When does a land use or zoning practice constitute intentional discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act?

A land use or zoning practice may be intentionally discriminatory even if there is no personal bias or animus on the part of individual government officials. For example, municipal zoning practices or decisions that reflect acquiescence to community bias may be intentionally discriminatory, even if the officials themselves do not personally share such bias;

— Can state and local land-use and zoning laws or practices violate the Fair Housing Act if the state or locality did not intend to discriminate against persons on a prohibited basis?

Yes. Even absent a discriminatory intent, state or local governments may be liable under the act for any land-use or zoning law or practice that has an unjustified discriminatory effect because of a protected characteristic. Prohibiting low-income or multifamily housing may have a discriminatory effect on persons because of their membership in a protected class and, if so, would violate the act absent a legally sufficient justification.

— Does a state or local government violate the Fair Housing Act if it considers the fears or prejudices of community members when enacting or applying its zoning or land-use laws respecting housing?

Yes. When enacting or applying zoning or land use laws, state and local governments may not act because of the fears, prejudices, stereotypes, or unsubstantiated assumptions that community members may have about current or prospective residents because of the residents’ protected characteristics. Doing so violates the act, even if the officials themselves do not personally share such bias.

For example, a city may not deny zoning approval for a low-income housing development that meets all zoning and land-use requirements because the development may house residents of a particular protected class or classes whose presence, the community fears, will increase crime and lower property values in the surrounding neighborhood.

The public hearing was continued to the town board’s August meeting. The question for residents of our community is this: Do you support this hateful and discriminatory ideology? If not, then speak up, contact the town board members, and tell them not to acquiesce to this hateful ideology.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,” said Desmond Tutu.

Thank you, Save the Pine Bush, for showing your true colors.  

Kenneth Kovalchik, AICP

Town planner

Town of Guilderland

Editor’s note: See related editorial.