U.S. Attorney May Seek Contempt over Westchester Housing Settlement

Note: This article has been updated with information from Astorino's attorney.

United States Attorney Preet Bharara is warning Westchester County Executive to promote and sign disputed legislation pertaining to the county’s housing settlement or else a contempt order will be sought from a court.

In the letter, dated April 19 to County Attorney Robert Meehan and written on Bharara’s behalf, Astorino is given a Thursday deadline to reintroduce source-of-income legislation that he vetoed in 2010 and to agree in writing that he will sign it. Source-of-income legislation would prohibit landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants who would use public assistance payments for rent, such as Section 8 vouchers. Bharara’s letter disputes Astorino’s assertion that Section 8 would be converted from a voluntary to a mandatory program.

Astorino has balked at the concept, claiming that it will mean forcing landlords to comply with a voluntary Section 8 program. Federal courts have ruled against the county, however, arguing that the conduct over the matter puts it in breach of the 2009 settlement. A district court ruled against the county in May 2012, a decision that was upheld on April 5 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Bharara’s letter also admonishes Astorino for calling on the county’s Board of Legislators to introduce source-of-income legislation, arguing that he must be proactive on the matter.

“The County Executive has failed to meet his obligations under the Second Circuit’s ruling, leaving the Board of Legislators uncertain as to what legislation the County Executive would sign,” the letter states. It adds that the BOL directed Astorino to send legislation to it but that he has not done so.

The letter warns that a contempt order will be sought from a court if Astorino does not comply with its requests. This could mean fines against the county and Astorino himself, the letter notes.

The letter is the latest warning against the county. On March 25, before the appeals court ruling, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) demanded compliance on source-of-income legislation and to submit an analysis of local zoning that would be satisfactory; the county has done a study, Astorino’s camp has noted, although HUD has rejected it. More recently, a monitor who is overseeing the settlement has been undertaking his own study.

In its letter, HUD gave the county until April 25 to meet its requests or else it would withhold about $7.4 million in federal funds, including for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) that are used to support local projects for municipalities. On Monday, the board of legislators voted 12-4 to authorize Meehan to file an injunction to prevent the withholding in order to make sure that municipalities do not lose out on the funds, which are for the 2011 fiscal year. The earliest in which Meehan can seek legal action is noon on Wednesday, according to Donna Greene, a spokeswoman for Astorino, who requested the vote from the board.

The county's settlement, reached in 2009, calls for building 750 affordable housing units in mostly white communities by 2016. The county reports being ahead of schedule for the unit count.

The Bharara letter has ignited a new anger from Democratic legislative officials towards Astorino. Tom Staudter told Patch that Meehan did not disclose the letter when he was at a Monday meeting of the board for its injunction vote, despite having received it already. Staudter argued that such an action from the executive branch is a “gross dereliction of duty.”

“He’s not Astorino’s private attorney,” Staudter said of Meehan.

Staudter also claimed that Ken Jenkins, who chairs the BOL, did not receive the letter until Tuesday afternoon. In a press release, Jenkins, who is seeking to unseat Astorino (R-Mount Pleasant) in his re-election bid, took the incumbent to task.

“I have been asking County Executive Astorino, both privately and publicly, to comply with the fair and affordable housing settlement, especially in regard to submitting Source of Income Legislation to the Board, before it’s too late,” Jenkins (D-Yonkers) stated in the release. “Now, another hard deadline is upon the County, and for the sake of all our residents and taxpayers, I’d like that legislation delivered to the Board preferably by the end of day. Any excuse to the contrary is not acceptable.”

Meehan hit back at the letter with one of his own on Tuesday, disagreeing with the assertions made on Bharara’s behalf and arguing that the county is complying with the district court’s 2012 order.

Meehan also argued that Astorino complied with a recommendation to the monitor in connection with the  court order, based on an April 10 letter to the BOL. In that letter, Meehan states, the county executive requested the board to reintroduce the 2010 source-of-income legislation, that Astorino offered to provide assistance in analyzing its impact and that he stated the intent to “continue to with the District Court Order,” which Meehan argues means there is no veto threat.

Meehan also wrote that the BOL was not left with uncertainty over signing the legislation because the 2010 version was identified and that he intends to comply with the court.

Copies of the Bharara letter and Meehan's response are attached to this article as PDF files.