Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CARTER, ET AL Case No. 3: 12-cv-01 108 Plaintiffs VS. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE TOWN OF WINCHESTER De?ndanf September 21, 2012 ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The complaint contains several footnotes which are assumed not to contain allegations. because. if they did. they would have been pleaded in a numbered paragraph. For this reason no answers are directed to them. 1. To the extent that paragraph one characterizes the complaint it needs no response. The Defendant denies any implication that the Defendant, The Housing Authority of the Town of Winchester (WHA) has systematically or in any inamier discriminated against any persons based on color, religion or ethnic origin. 2. WHA admits the allegations of the ?rst and second sentences. As to the third sentence, WHA denies any implications that the purpose of the Section 8 program is to have persons or populations moved from any one geographic, rental market area to another. 3. The ?rst sentence is admittedbut WHA denies any implication that it is not allowed to set residency as a criteria for preference in awarding vouchers. 24 CFR The second sentence is denied to the extent that it states or implies that the WHA is not permitted to give a preference to an applicant based on residency. 24 CFR Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 17 The third and fourth sentences are denied to the extent that they state or imply that the policies of WHA are in any manner intended to promote or perpetuate segregation or in any manner do so. As to the fourth sentence, denies any implication that its programs deny minority families from the opportunity to move to the Town of Winchester or that they have any effect on the ethnic make up of the Town of Winchester or the towns that WHA serves. 4. The ?rst sentence is admitted. As to the second sentence the Plaintiffs are left to their proof as to what any surveys may portray as the population characteristics of the Town of Winchester. The third sentence is denied. 5. The ?rst two sentences are admitted. WHA neither admits nor denies the allegations of the balance of the paragraph and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 6. As to the allegations of the sixth paragraph, they are neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 7. As to the ?rst sentence, WHA admits that Ms. Carter contacted WHA to request a Section 8 voucher application but neither admits or denies allegations as to Ms. Carter?s motivations and leaves the plaintiffs to their proof. As to the second sentence, WHA admits that it was not accepting applications from non-residents of the alliance area at the time Ms. Carter contacted it. As to the third sentence, WHA admits that after Ms. Carter said she did not know where Winsted was located and that she did not drive, she was told that Winsted did not have public transportation. As to the allegation that Ms. Carter was told that Winsted was ?in the woods? and that there were no jobs, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. WHA further admits that Ms. Carter was given the phone numbers of the housing authorities of Stamford, Hartford, Waterbury and Bridgeport, all cities that had public transportation. Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 17 8. As to the allegations of the first and second sentences, they are neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. As to the balance of the Eighth paragraph it is denied to the extent that it states or implies that the Defendant is parsing any illegal housing practices or policies or that its policies preclude any disproportionate number of applicants of any ethnic background from receiving housing vouchers and the remained of the allegations are neither admitted nor denied and the plaintiffs are left to their proof. 9. WHA denies the first and second sentences. As to the third sentence, WHA denies that its actions deny any persons access to reside in the towns served by the Rental Assistance Alliance and further denies that the towns in the alliance have public services or employment opportunities better than other cities and towns in Connecticut. 10. Paragraph 10 is admitted. 11. Paragraph 11 is admitted. 12. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations of this paragraph and leaves the Plaintiffs to their proof. 13. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations of this paragraph and leaves the Plaintiffs to their proof. 14. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations of this paragraph and leaves the Plaintiffs to their proof. 15. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations of this paragraph and leaves the Plaintiffs to their proof. 16. The Defendant denies any statements or implications that it pursues discriminatory practices or that its policies are not administered in such a manner as to give equal Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 17 opportunity to all applicants without regard to their race, color or national origin; and, as to allegations of mission, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 17. Paragraph 17 is admitted except that it is denied to the extent that it states or implies that the real or personal property of WHA, or its choses in action are subject to levy, execution or otherjudicial process. See Conn. Gen. Stat. ?8-65. 18. Paragraph 18 is admitted. 19. As to Paragraph 19, any implication that the assistance is provided to persons other than the disabled, elderly or families with children who must ?rst be eligible for the voucher according the regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and then be placed on a waiting list according to legally adopted preferences including residence, military service and being a victim of a national disaster is denied, and otherwise the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 20. The ?rst and second sentences are admitted. The third sentence is denied. 21. The first sentence is admitted except that any implication that one or all of the towns serviced by the Winchester Housing Authority are high~opportnnity areas, as de?ned by the Plaintiffs, is denied. The second and third sentences are denied. WHA also denies any implication that it is not a legitimate goal to provide residential preferences to the disabled,- elderly and very poor families, whose welfare, health and well-being depend and rely upon the local net work of families and friends in the communities in which they reside. 22. Sentence one is denied to the extent that it alleges or implies that a goal of housing vouchers is to promote ethnic integration or the moving of populations from one rental market area to another. It is also denied to the extent that it alleges that a housing authority Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 5 of 17 cannot impose residency preferences in accordance with nondiscrimination and equal opportunity. Sentence two is denied to the extent that it is implied that WHA cannot establish residential preferences which are administered without regard to national origin. It is admitted that non-residents are only considered for vouchers after all applicants having preferences have been processed. As to the parenthetical sentence, it is denied to the extent. that it misstates the full meaning of the regulation cited and has been taken out of context because the Plaintiffs do not quote the next sentence which reads in its entirely ?However, the PHA may target assistance for families who live in public housing or other federally assisted housing, or may adopt a residency preference.? 24 CF R982.202 23. WHA denies that the allegations of Paragraph 23 accurately state the law. It is also denied that a prohibition on residency requirements would have any effect on the ethnic make up of the alliance towns served by WHA. Paragraph 23 is also denied to the extent that it implies that Congress did not establish and allocate the voucher program based on residency or that residency preferences do not serve the important purpose of assuring that disabled, elderly and poor families are able to live in their communities where they have the needed social support provided by friends and families. Paragraph 23 is also denied to the extent that it implies that vouchers should awarded according to one?s ethnicity. In all other respects, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 24. Paragraph. 24 is admitted. 25. As to Paragraph 25, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 26. Paragraph 26 is denied to the extent that it alleges or implies that the alleged ethnic make up of the state has any pertinence to awarding of Section 8 vouchers and otherwise the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 6 of 17 27. As to paragraph 27, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 28. As to paragraph 28, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 29. Paragraph 29 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof, except that it is denied that Ms Carter is homeless based on the allegation in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint that Ms. Carter lives at 498 Cornwall Street, Hartford, Ct which according to the assessment records of the City of Hartford is a four bedroom house and, upon information and belief, is owned by her parents. 30. Paragraph 30 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 31. Paragraph 31 is admitted to the extent that it alleges the Ms Carter contacted the WHA for an application, but the plaintiffs are left to their proof as to what Ms. Carter?s mental process was. Sentence two is admitted. 32. It is admitted that Ms. Carter spoke with Carol Henderson and was told that applications were only being sent to people who resided in the Rental Assistance Alliance and that she is an African American, but as to what else was said, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 33. Paragraph 33 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 34. As to the ?rst sentence, it is neither admitted 01' denied and Ms. Carter is left to her proof. As to the second sentence, it is admitted that Ms. Carter at the time of the call was not allowed to apply, but as to the effects the defendant leaves the plaintiffs to their proof. 3S. Paragraph 35 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 36. Paragraph 36 is denied. 37. Paragraph 37 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 7 of 17 38. Paragraph 38 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof, except that it is denied that WHA acted unlawfully or that it was necessary to expend any efforts other than to read WHA websites to know of its application policy and procedures. 39. Paragraph 39 is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof except that it is denied WHA administered the Section 8 voucher program unlawfully. 40. With respect to Paragraph 40, what poseurs did is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. It is admitted that WHA had a message on its phone system that it would send applications only to residents of the towns that it served and that residents should leave their names and addresses. 41. With respect to Paragraph 41, what posenrs did is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. The allegation as to the content of the recorded message is admitted. 42. With respect to Paragraph 42, what posears did is neither admitted nor denied and the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. It is admitted that it was the policy of WHA not to accept applications from persons not residents in the towns it served. 43. It is admitted that it was the policy of WHA not to accept applications from persons not residents in the towns it served. 44. Paragraph 44 is admitted as to the quotation from the Administrative Plan being acurrate at the time, but as to all other allegations they are neither admitted nor denied and the plaintiffs are left to their proof 45. It is admitted that it was the policy of WHA not to accept applications from persons not residents in the towns it served and this was announced over its phone system but denied Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 8 of 17 as to the implication that it is still the policy of the WHA or that the phone message referenced is still in use. 46. As to Paragraph 46 it is denied that as of the date of this answer, said statement is on the website, but admits that a message of similar import was at one time on the site. 47. Defendant denies any implication that the pictures on the website portray or are meant to portray persons who have been awarded Section 8 vouchers, but admit that said pictures do portray elderly residents of public housing operated by WHA. WHA denies any implication that the showing of its public housing residents was intended to or did discriminate against any persons based on color or ethnicity. 48. Paragraph 48 is denied. 49. Paragraph 49 is denied. 50. Paragraph 50 is admitted. 51. Paragraph 51 is admitted to the extent that the alleged statistics are based upon the self?identifications of those who chose to identify their ethnic background. It is denied to the extent that it implies that those statistics accurately re?ect the ethnic composition of all of the persons holding WHA vouchers. In all other respects, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 52. Paragraph 52 is denied. 53. As to paragraph 53, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 54. Paragraph 54 is denied subject. to lack of definition as to what ?neighboring towns and cities? refers to. It is admitted that there is one other towns in Northwestern Connecticut which had higher non-white populations compared with towns within the alliance. 55. Paragraph 55 is admitted to the extent that WHA is aware the towns in the Rental Assistance Alliance are disproportionately white compared to many cities and towns in Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 9 of 17 Connecticut and the United States, but denies any implication that its policies included residency requirements as opposed to residency preferences. It further denies that either its applicants or voucher holders were disproportionately white compared to its relevant market area. 56. Paragraph 56 is denied. 57. Paragraph 57 is denied. 58. Paragraph 58 is denied. 59. Paragraph 59 is denied together with any implication that Ms Carol Henderson, an African American, or any other employee of WHA in any manner discourages applicants based on their color or ethnic origin. . It further denies that either its applicants or voucher holders were disproportionately white compared to its relevant market area. 60. As to paragraph 60, it is admitted that the green tinted towns on Attachment One represent the towns included in the Alliance. It is denied that the towns set forth in Region 1 are comparators of the towns in the Alliance with the exception of the Towns Morris, Bethlehem and Woodbuiy. It is denied that any of the towns in Region 2 or Region 3 are comparators with the towns in the Alliance. It is further denied that the total areas set forth in Regions 1,2 or 3 are comparators with the region of the Alliance. And it is denied that Regions 1,2 and 3, so called, are in the Alliance?s relevant market area for purposes of determining a discriminatory impact. 61. Paragraph 61 is denied to the extent that the arbitrary collection of regions shown on Attachment A are alleged to demonstrate anything pertinent to a claim of illegal discrimination or disparate impact. Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 10 of 17 62. Paragraph 62 is further denied to the extent that it is implied that the statistics represented in Attachment 4 demonstrate that Regions 1,2 and 3 are comparators with the Alliance. And it is denied that Regions 1,2 and 3, so called, are in the Alliance?s relevant market area. The defendant further denies the alleged statistical analysis. 63. As to Paragraph 63, the Plaintiffs are left to their proof except that it is denied that Regions 1,2 and 3, so called, are in the Alliance?s relevant market area for purposes of determining a discriminatory impact and the Plaintiffss statistical analysis is denied. 64. As to what the 2005-2009 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy show, the plaintiffs are left to their proof. It is further denied to the extent that it is implied that the towns and regions shown as Regions 1,2 and 3 are comparators with the Alliance. And it is denied that Regions 1,2 and 3, so called, are in the Alliance?s relevant market area for purposes of determining a discriminatory impact. 65. Paragraph 65 is denied. 66. Paragraph 66 is denied as to allegations that the WHA administration of the Section 8 program was unlawful, admits the referenced tenant list was produced by software of the WHA, and leaves the plaintiffs to their proof as to all other allegations. 67. The first sentence is admitted. The second sentence is denied. Paragraph 67 is further denied to the extent that it implies or alleges that there is any disparate impact with respect to minorities within the relevant market area. 68. Paragraph 68 is denied to the extent that it alleges or implies that there is any disparate impact with respect to minorities within the relevant market area. It is further denied that the policies of the WHA have any disparate impact with respect to the rest of the world or any portion of it. Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 11 of 17 69. Paragraph 69 is denied to the extent that it alleges that the impact of application policies should be measured against any population group other than that of the relevant market area. Comer Cisnero, 37 F3d. 775, 782-783 (2mI Cir. 1994). It is further denied that application policies have had any disproportionate impact on minorities within it relevant rental market. 70. Paragraph 70 is denied. 71. It is denied that CFHC was required to do any ?testing? or diversion of resources to discover the application policies of WHA. WHA denies that with respect to the activities of WHA, CFHC expended any resources for any purpose other than attempting to render itself standing in this lawsuit. WHA further denies that CFHC has undergone any loss or injury other than ones unnecessarily self in?icted or self imposed. And otherwise the Plaintiffs are left to their proof. 72. Paragraph 72 is denied. 73. Paragraph 73 is denied. 74. Paragraph 74 is denied. 75. WHA repeats its answers to the extent the foregoing paragraphs are repeated or re- alleged. 76. Paragraph 76 is denied. 77. Paragraph 77 is denied. 78. Paragraph 78 is denied. 79. Paragraph 79 is denied. 80. Paragraph 80 is denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 12 of 17 First Af?rmative Defense The actions of CFHC taken by ?testers?, as alleged in the complaint, were unnecessary to obtain the information sought, but were taken instead to manufacture standing for status as co-plaintiff. Second Affirmative Defense The ?comparator? regions used by the Plaintiffs in their complaint do not constitute the correct relevant rental market area for purposes of analyzing the impact of the actions of the WHA. The Plaintiffs? alleged ?comparator? regions are random geographic areas chosen for the purpose of skewing statistics rather than making the proper comparisons. Third Affirmative Defense The administration of the Section 8 voucher program by the has resulted in greater integration within the relevant rental market area, not segregation. Fourth Affirmative Defense The pictures on the home page of the WHA website were taken at an event held at a WHA elderly housing facility and depict the individuals who chose to attend. On the page that describes the Section 8 voucher program there is only one picture of individuals and it depicts what appears to be an Asian family of four individuals. No pictures on the WHA website are ?advertisements? for Section 8 voucher programs. Fifth Affirmative Defense Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 13 of 17 By the nature of the Section 8 voucher program it is impossible for a local housing authority to propagate segregation through administration of the program. After 12 months of participation in the section 8 voucher program a participant is free to move at will anywhere in the state taking his or her the voucher and using it for similarly priced housing anywhere in the state. Sixth Affirmative Defense The WHA does not provide the housing under the section 8 voucher system, but only a rent voucher guaranteeing payment of rent. The plan participant is responsible for locating appropriate housing within the private rental market that meets HUD guidelines. It is only speculation that Ms. Carter, with her large family, would have been able to locate appropriate affordable and available rental housing within the private rental market within the Rental Assistance Alliance. Seventh Affirmative Defense CFHC never openly contacted the WHA with its concerns as to the administration of the Section 8 voucher programs. Had they done so, the WHA would have investigated the policy and made appropriate changes. By launching an unnecessary investigation of facts that are alleged to have been openly available through inspection to the WHA website, rather than contacting the WHA, the CFHC failed to minimize and mitigate its damages. Eighth Affirmative Defense Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 14 of 17 WHA has established legal residential preferences for awarding its Section 8 vouchers. Applicants with preferences are placed higher on the waiting list than non residents. Because of the limited number of vouchers and the great number of residentially preferred applicants, some applicants with preferences have been waiting for years. No non?residential applicants have been awarded vouchers because of their limited supply. refusal to accept applications from non-residents, had no impact. upon the ethnic cross section of voucher holders, because the limited supply of vouchers were insufficient to satisfy resident applicants. Non resident applicants would never be in a position to receive a voucher. Ninth Affirmative Defense The refusal to take Ms Carter?s application within the time frame in which she called had no impact upon Ms. Carter, because as a non-resident, their were insufficient vouchers for her to be in a position to receive one. If the plaintiff had submitted an application at the time she ?rst called, she would still be on the waiting list. Therefore, the harms alleged in the complaint, which the plaintiffs claim occurred because of a lack of appropriate housing, would have still occurred regardless of the actions of the WHA. Tenth Affirmative Defense It is impossible to determine the ethnic make up of persons on the voucher waiting list for the following reasons: Matters of race and ethnic background are voluntarily self- reported on the application forms and many applicants do not report their race or ethnic background; and (ii) those that do report only report themselves as heads of households. Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 15 of 17 There are no statistics as to the racial or ethnic background of family members. Eleventh Af?rmative Defense The Plaintiffs misstate the statistics on the WHA 2000 and 2010 administrative plans. The percentage cited from the 2000 plan represents Non-white Families with Children as a percentage of all Families with children. The percentage cited from the 2010 plan represents Non-white Families with Children as a percentage of the entire list, including Elderly Families and Families with Disabilities, both white and non?white. As such, all the arguments that the Section 8 waiting list was ?lling with non-white applicants and that the WHA had a motivation to restrict access based on racial bias is baseless. Twelfth Affirmative Defense Congress established the public policy of allocating vouchers within the Section 8 program to towns to allow for the care of local needy families. At least 75% of the vouchers administrated by the WHA are held by families with incomes at or below 30% of the area median income. Approximately 25% or those holding a section 8 voucher within the WHA area of responsibility are Elderly Families and Families with a disability. By establishing legal, residential preferences WHA ensures vouchers to the neediest families in the least discriminatory manner and ful?lls its legitimate governmental role of ensuring that the local elderly and disabled, who often depend on local networks of family and friends for support, Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 16 of 17 are safeguarded. For all practical purposes removal of the residential preference would grossly reduce or eliminate the availability of vouchers to the local elderly and disabled. Is/ James Stedronsky James Stedronsky Stedronsky D?Andrea, LLC 62 West Street PO. Box 1529 Litch?eld, CT 06579 (860) 567-9111 Facsimile (860) 567-1666 hjs@stedlaw.com Case Document 24 Filed 09/21/12 Page 17 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CARTER, ET AL Case No. 3: 12?cv?01 108 Pfaimijfs VS. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE TOWN OF WINCHESTER Defendant September 21, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that 011 the date ?rst above a copy of the foregoing ANSWER and AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSES was ?led electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic ?ling. Notice of this ?ling will be sent by e?mail to all parties by operation of the Court?s electronic ?ling system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic ?ling. Parties may access this ?ling through the Court?s system. James Stedronsky James Stedronsky (ct06523) Stedronsky D?Andrea, LLC 62 West Street, PO. Box 1529 CT 06579 (860) 567-9111 Facsimile (860) 567-1666 hjs@stedlaw.com