Our ‘Desegregation Battle’

Print

Sunday’s New York Times editorial about the Westchester “desegregation” agreement has brought much reaction. One notable comment comes from former Mamaroneck Village Councilman Tom Murphy:

Please read the  New York Times editorial about the Westchester housing settlement. (County Executive Rob) Astorino has been blatantly violating the terms of the agreement and has been flagrantly distorting both the terms and the meaning of the agreement for partisan political purposes.

This behavior could possibly cost the county hundreds of millions and result in years of litigation and bad publicity for Westchester. Those of us who live in Mamaroneck should be aware that Astorino’s chief advisor and Deputy County Executive is none other then former Mamaroneck Village Attorney Kevin J. Plunkett.

Kevin’s advice cost the Village upwards of 10 million dollars on settlements and litigation costs on losing civil rights litigation such as the (Westchester) Day School and Day Laborers cases. He never met a civil rights litigation that he won’t fight to the death with the last taxpayer dollar.

Fighting this already agreed upon housing settlement is a huge waste of our time and resources. It will only serve to divide us. (But maybe that is the real plan?) — Tom Murphy

What do you think?

photo: perfect sonnet

Related Posts

4 thoughts on “Our ‘Desegregation Battle’

  1. “Westchester has dozens of communities where the black and Hispanic populations are negligible. Instead of working to change that…”

    “…and to identify municipalities that were persistent in excluding minorities…”

    Excuse me, since when has it been the business of government to change, or seek to change – in ANY direction – the ethnic/demographic makeup of the community which elected them?

    As far as I am aware, anyone can move into my neighbourhood. All they have to do is what we did: work hard enough and earn enough money to afford to live on our street. There are other streets where we couldn’t afford a house; there are other streets where the houses are cheaper but less attractive to us. Thus it always has been, thus it always will be.

    This litigation smells suspiciously similar to this piece of claptrap: http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/

  2. Pretty sure the settlement has race as its target. It is not about creating affordable housing; it is specifically about increasing minority population in Larchmont. That is what I read in the NYT at the time of the original settlement.

  3. There are and, when the NY Times published its editorial, already were 51 affordable/workforce housing units, condos, scheduled for construction in the Village of Larchmont which, last I heard, is in Westchester.

    Despite the rhetoric by the NY Times, which really should know better, almost 1/3 of all of the dwelling units in Larchmont are apartments, coops or condos, many of which sell for substantially the same price as the new “affordable” units will sell for.

    Maybe the NY Times should get the facts before it publishes an editorial, and maybe it should include those facts in its editorials, so that they are fit to print?

  4. I understand the lawsuit was an undercover operation of a civil rights group, Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, on the basis of race discrimination. They allege the County falsely claimed they were creating affordable housing, but not based on race. Is race part of this issue or is it merely affordable housing? Can someone, preferably one of our elected officials, clarify the problem?

    I believe the apartments on the south end of Larchmont are being built to satisfy this court order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *