Chester, N.Y.'s Dilemma: What Would You Do?

[Perknose]

I am torn.

For the past two years, the residents of a small town 60 miles north of New York City have openly fretted about a proposed housing development that they fear will be filled with Hasidic Jews.

Officials in Chester, N.Y., according to a lawsuit filed against it, have passed ordinances, denied building permits and imposed costly requirements on the developer in a concerted effort to slow or even stop the project.

“We’re doing what we can to alleviate 432 Hasidic houses in the town of Chester,” Alexander Jamieson, who was then the town supervisor, said at a heated public meeting in 2018 that was posted on YouTube. “There’s nobody on the board, nobody who wants the development to go through.”

Now the town of Chester has something else to worry about: A proposed lawsuit and investigation by Letitia James, the state attorney general.

The proposed project encompasses over 430 homes on 117 acres, potentially adding thousands of new residents to the town of 12,000. This could stretch public resources, and shift the town’s political balance: In the town’s elections this November, for example, town supervisor Robert Valentine, who is also named in the lawsuit, won re-election by just 12 votes.

http://www.chroniclenewspaper.com/n...-12-votes-in-tight-supervisor-s-race-GN681866

I have to admit that if I were a long term resident of Chester I would likely support fighting this development "by (almost) any means possible." I am not proud of this.

The NY State AG is entering the fray because there is absolutely prima facie evidence of discrimination. Otoh, this development would be the tip of the spear that will radically change the political and social future of Chester.

I am beyond uneasy with my negative reaction, but there it is. This might legitimately make me a bigot.

I'm going to start a poll to gauge other's reactions here. Please at least try to keep your posted reactions on a high-minded plane.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I stay away from these decisions, you really need to be local to make the right decision.

 

[LurchFrinky]

Here in the U.S. we specifically do not have the right to choose our neighbors. This is not the first time this situation has come up and it is illegal to stop progress simply due to ones own prejudices.
This is a free country. If you don't like it, you can leave. /s

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why is such a large development being created for such a small area? I mean I guess in the end it doesn't matter that much, people are gonna come eventually... I guess I just wonder why someone wants to plop down such a large development all at once (and who wants to move there?).

 

[pauldun170]

Welfare Queens want to build low income housing project in neighborhood and then start taking over School Boards, Commerce boards etc.
The state is subsidizing a religious group who are milking the system.

Hasidic neighborhood in South Williamsburg is a top beneficiary of Section 8, but some question whether law is strictly followed

Little boys in yarmulkes peer from apartment balconies, watching the men below toss bread into a bonfire. The annual spring ritual marks the first day of Passover in the Hasidic Jewish enclave of S…

www.nydailynews.com

Religion and Welfare Shape Economics for the Hasidim (Published 1997)

Fourth article in series Welfare Neighborhood discusses how religion and welfare shape economics for Hasidim in Southside section of Brooklyn; at least one third of 7,000 Hasidic families in Williamsburg section receive public assistance; work of United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, main...

www.nytimes.com

Insular Hasidic Jews struggle to preserve customs as legal and social pressures build

They have large families – a brood of 10 doesn’t raise eyebrows in their communities. It is their duty to multiply, they are told.

www.foxnews.com

Poor, state subsidized religious nuts suck.

 

[pauldun170]

Who discriminates against who?

Minority Groups: NYC Is Letting Hasids Shut Us Out Of Brooklyn Housing

"In the past few months, apartments are being rented and sold strictly to Hasidic residentswhat we've been arguing the past few years is now coming to life."

gothamist.com

Critics charge city’s Broadway Triangle’s two new prIvate apartment buildings being unfairly filled with Hasidic families in Williamsburg

A new fight is erupting over a plan to develop private land at Williamsburg’s Broadway Triangle, with critics citing two new buildings allegedly filled with Hasidic families. Last year, a fed…

www.nydailynews.com

‘I Put in White Tenants’: The Grim, Racist (and Likely Illegal) Methods of One Brooklyn Landlord

He explains the tricks he uses to get black renters — and even owners — out of their homes in gentrifying neighborhoods.

nymag.com

Landlord trying to ‘rid the building’ of Latino residents: suit

Longtime Latino residents of South Williamsburg claim their Hasidic landlord is trying to harass them out of their apartment building — and out of their once diverse neighborhood. Cindy Sanchez, Sa…

nypost.com

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Here in the U.S. we specifically do not have the right to choose our neighbors. This is not the first time this situation has come up and it is illegal to stop progress simply due to ones own prejudices.
This is a free country. If you don't like it, you can leave. /s

Yes, however that is what zoning is for. Adding 1200 to 2000 more residents over an unknown period of time in single family homes that will likely have children add burden to the schools which they likely are unprepared for, Police, Fire, snow removal, road maintenance and traffic patterns. These are perfectly fine concerns to have.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are not a bigot.

This scenario is playing out across the country and has in the past. Replace Hasidic Jews with “X”.

“X” can be the introduction of any group that, if introduced into a community in large enough numbers, could rapidly change the political, cultural or traditions landscape of the community.

In parts of California, “X” is the homeless.

In much of the northeast, “X” is the percentage of low income housing that affluent communities legally need to support.

In Greece and other parts of Europe, “X” is refugees from wars in the Muslim world.

There are entire demographics of people who are in need of housing, but how do you balance this need with a community maintaining some level of autonomy?

Who will absord the infrastructure costs that inherently come with the introduction of new housing? This will create fear, anger, resentment...and the incoming population will become the target of it.

People tend to value their communities and naturally will resist change to it. That is not bigoted, even if the incoming group is a protected class.

This is a difficult conversation. There are no easy answers. Labeling someone a bigot for wrestling with the situation is a poor way to shape the conversation.

 

[fskimospy]

This idea that people can prevent their communities from changing is short sighted and deeply damaging. It’s one of the reasons the coastal areas are suffering from a housing crisis.

You don’t get to choose your neighbors and despite personally thinking the Hasidic community is absolutely toxic it doesn’t change the fact that they have as much a right to live there as anyone else.

 

[KMFJD]

As long as all the rules/regulations are followed no problem.

 

[jameny5]

Here in the U.S. we specifically do not have the right to choose our neighbors. This is not the first time this situation has come up and it is illegal to stop progress simply due to ones own prejudices.
This is a free country. If you don't like it, you can leave. /s

I live in Orange County, NY - in a city north of Chester. Believe me when I say there are a lot of people who oppose Hasidic and other Jews from expanding there communities. A lot of them have been subjected to hate crimes in NY City. Three quarters of New York State has been named racist by Google Maps. Go figure. Start right there and you will see for yourself!

 

[K1052]

Land use regulation in the US as a vehicle for exclusion on racial or religious grounds has a long and ongoing tradition.

It's not supposed to be that way but it absolutely is.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yes, however that is what zoning is for. Adding 1200 to 2000 more residents over an unknown period of time in single family homes that will likely have children add burden to the schools which they likely are unprepared for, Police, Fire, snow removal, road maintenance and traffic patterns. These are perfectly fine concerns to have.

Increased housing, in theory, should lead to a bigger tax base and more state aid to develop infrastructure. Housing an infrastructure need to go hand in hand, not one first, then the other.

Historically, zoning has been used as a way to exclude so-called undesirables, and now, communities are using zoning to plastic wrap their communities to keep new people from moving in, in a perverse FYGM kind of way.

With regards to this particular situation, I know there may be some concerns, but it isn't a good reason to enact exclusionary zoning rules targeted at a minority group. With regards to the concerns: if I remember my lower NY news correctly, in one community, a large group moved in who sends kids to private religious institutions, got themselves elected to local school boards, and then tried to trash the public schools by massively cutting funding.

 

[jameny5]

This idea that people can prevent their communities from changing is short sighted and deeply damaging. It’s one of the reasons the coastal areas are suffering from a housing crisis.

You don’t get to choose your neighbors and despite personally thinking the Hasidic community is absolutely toxic it doesn’t change the fact that they have as much a right to live there as anyone else.

Is this sort of like the Israelis vs the Palestinians and the settlements in the West Bank? Just US style or preventing there of...

 

[jmagg]

Infrastructure first, housing development second, and 5 stars for op honesty.

 

[fskimospy]

Is this sort of like the Israelis vs the Palestinians and the settlements in the West Bank? Just US style or preventing there of...

Well the settlements in the West Bank are illegal, unlike attempting to build houses in the United States.

Yes though, this appears motivated by animus against the ultra orthodox. I mean I get it, the community is not a pleasant one to live around, but you don’t get to exclude people from your town using the law because you don’t like how they act. (When those actions are legal)

 

[jameny5]

I know some of the opposition is because the size of the community will put a strain on services and this new community will need several thousand gallons of water a day.

 

[K1052]

I know some of the opposition is because the size of the community will put a strain on services and this new community will need several thousand gallons of water a day.

Call me skeptical since the town previously entitled the land for development then are now trying to block it since it got sold to the orthodox Jews. Weird how the infrastructure is suddenly not sufficient for what was already approved huh?

 

[fskimospy]

Call me skeptical since the town previously entitled the land for development then are now trying to block it since it got sold to the orthodox Jews. Weird how the infrastructure is suddenly not sufficient for what was already approved huh?

Also the infrastructure argument has always been specious. Infrastructure is built and expanded as community needs expand. The idea that we should only build new housing in communities that randomly decided to wastefully overbuild their infrastructure in the hopes that new development would someday show up is absurd.

The ultra orthodox are somewhat of a unique case in that they are often low income and use large amounts of public services but generally speaking more development funds its own infrastructure.

 

[K1052]

Also the infrastructure argument has always been specious. Infrastructure is built and expanded as community needs expand. The idea that we should only build new housing in communities that randomly decided to wastefully overbuild their infrastructure in the hopes that new development would someday show up is absurd.

The ultra orthodox are somewhat of a unique case in that they are often low income and use large amounts of public services but generally speaking more development funds its own infrastructure.

When I hear "infrastructure" it really means: We don't want *those* people here (whatever "those" people happened to be like minorities, renters, the poor, etc at the time).

 

[fskimospy]

When I hear "infrastructure" it really means: We don't want *those* people here (whatever "those" people happened to be like minorities, renters, the poor, etc at the time).

It's a weird argument from a temporal standard - 'don't build here, the transit can't support it!' means presumably we should build houses only where people foolishly built a bunch of extra roads and mass transit resources that are just sitting there doing nothing, wasting taxpayer money. So what, do we only get to build houses in the dumb municipalities?

 

[zinfamous]

I'd make sure they vaccinate themselves and their children before being allowed in there and in condition of maintaining residency, then I'm mostly cool with whatever.

 

[K1052]

It's a weird argument from a temporal standard - 'don't build here, the transit can't support it!' means presumably we should build houses only where people foolishly built a bunch of extra roads and mass transit resources that are just sitting there doing nothing, wasting taxpayer money. So what, do we only get to build houses in the dumb municipalities?

The idea usually goes that they aren't anti-growth or discriminatory but that there is simply some objectively better, yet unspecified, place to put development other than their neighborhood/city because reasons. It's all bullshit.

 

[IronWing]

Also the infrastructure argument has always been specious. Infrastructure is built and expanded as community needs expand. The idea that we should only build new housing in communities that randomly decided to wastefully overbuild their infrastructure in the hopes that new development would someday show up is absurd.

It's a matter of who pays. A scumbag developer shows up and dumps a few thousand residential units in a community and the people who already lived there and who don't benefit from the new units and who get stuck with the increased traffic, noise, and ugliness also get stuck with higher taxes to pay for the infrastructure the developer got to skate on. Developer pays is the only reasonable approach to development but political corruption being what it is, that never happens.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a matter of who pays. A scumbag developer shows up and dumps a few thousand residential units in a community and the people who already lived there and who don't benefit from the new units and who get stuck with the increased traffic, noise, and ugliness also get stuck with higher taxes to pay for the infrastructure the developer got to skate on. Developer pays is the only reasonable approach to development but political corruption being what it is, that never happens.

1) The people in the community definitely benefit from the new units, it makes their housing more affordable.
2) The people who move in to those units pay taxes which in the end far exceed the costs of new infrastructure.

The right approach in almost all cases is that infrastructure is made the way it always is, with tax money.