Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
128 A.D.2d 99 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under New York law, a municipal zoning ordinance does not violate the state constitutional mandate to exercise zoning powers for the general welfare simply because it provides incentives rather than a mandate for the creation of low-income housing. An ordinance is valid if it is part of a well-considered plan for the community as a whole and gives consideration to regional needs.

Facts:

The Chinatown area of Manhattan experienced a large influx of immigrants, leading to severe overcrowding in deteriorating tenement housing.
Existing zoning regulations set density limits that were already exceeded by the old tenements, discouraging the construction of new replacement housing.
In 1979, the New York City Planning Commission published the Manhattan Bridge Area Study, which identified a critical housing shortage in Chinatown.
The City then created the Special Manhattan Bridge District (SMBD), a 14- to 20-block special zoning district, based on the study's findings.
The SMBD amendments allowed developers to build with a higher floor area ratio (F.A.R.) if they provided a 'bonus amenity' to the community.
These bonus amenities included providing space for community facilities, rehabilitating existing housing, or creating dwelling units for low- and moderate-income families.
Henry Street Partners (HSP) applied for a special permit to build a 21-story condominium on a vacant parking lot within the SMBD.
To receive the F.A.R. bonus, HSP's proposal included providing community space for a YMCA and contributing $500,000 to a low-income housing fund, but did not include the construction of any new low-income units within its project.

Procedural Posture:

Asian Americans For Equality and other plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, New York County (the state's trial court of general jurisdiction) against the City of New York and its agencies.
The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the zoning amendments creating the Special Manhattan Bridge District were unconstitutional.
The City defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
The trial court (Special Term) denied the City's motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action, which challenged the validity of the zoning amendments.
The City defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a zoning amendment that provides incentives, but does not mandate the construction of low- and moderate-income housing in a specific district within a large city, violate the New York State constitutional mandate that zoning powers be exercised for the general welfare?

Opinions:

Majority - Ross, J.

No. The zoning amendment does not violate the state constitutional mandate because a municipality is not required to affirmatively mandate low-income housing. New York courts have rejected the 'Mount Laurel' doctrine from New Jersey, which imposes an affirmative obligation on municipalities to zone for low-income housing. Instead, New York follows the two-part test from Berenson v. Town of New Castle, which requires that a zoning ordinance (1) provide a properly balanced and well-ordered plan for the community, and (2) give consideration to regional needs. The court found that the relevant 'community' for this analysis is the entire City of New York, not the small 14-block district. There is no requirement that every individual district within a city contain a specific housing balance, so long as the city's overall Zoning Resolution provides for an integrated community. The SMBD amendments, which were part of a 'well-considered plan' and included incentives for low-income housing, satisfied this standard, and the court must defer to the City's legislative judgment.

Dissenting - Carro, J.

Yes. The zoning amendment violates the state constitutional mandate because it fails to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of low-income housing. The state has an affirmative obligation under its zoning power and the New York Constitution to adopt measures that genuinely promote needed housing. The SMBD's incentives are illusory and counterproductive, as the floor area bonus for providing community facilities (7 sq. ft.) is far more lucrative than the bonus for providing low-income housing (2 sq. ft.), ensuring developers will never choose the housing option. This plan ignores the primary need identified in the City's own study and will accelerate gentrification and displacement, thereby harming the public welfare. The amendment fails the Berenson test because it is not a 'well-considered plan' for the Chinatown community and disregards the severe, documented need for affordable housing.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Asch, J.

Yes, a trial is required on the limited issue of whether the city gave adequate consideration to the need for low-cost housing. The significant disparity in the bonus system—offering a much greater incentive for community facilities than for low-income housing—creates a 'built-in financial prejudice' against the construction of needed affordable housing. This raises a sufficient question of fact to warrant a trial. However, the legal focus should be strictly on the provision of low-cost housing and not, as the dissent might be interpreted, on perpetuating a specific ethnic enclave, which could set a dangerous precedent for excluding other land uses like homeless shelters.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies New York's rejection of an affirmative-duty approach to inclusionary zoning, distinguishing its jurisprudence from New Jersey's 'Mount Laurel' doctrine. It establishes that providing incentives for low-income housing, even if they are not utilized, can be sufficient to satisfy a municipality's constitutional obligations under the 'well-considered plan' standard. The ruling strengthens judicial deference to legislative zoning choices and makes it more difficult to challenge a specific zoning district for its failure to provide a housing balance, by defining the relevant 'community' as the entire municipality rather than the smaller district.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"