Backgrounder - English v. The Town of Huntington, L.I. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

    PressRelease P ae ae os 
vuly 15, Lo7L 

BACKGROUNDER 

ENGLISH v. THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, L.I. 

In the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the 

Second Circuit 

New York, New York --- On Friday, July 16, NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) attorneys will ask the Federal 

Court at Foley Square to enjoin the Town of Huntington, L.I. from 

enforcing local zoning ordinances which would result in the 

eviction of some forty poor tenants from "the only housing available 

to them in the community in which they live." 

Huntington officials have been trying to enforce codes 

against white landlords who have rented four single family homes 

to seventeen black and Puerto Rican families, 40 persons in all. 

As horrendous as these conditions are, LDF attorneys have charged 

that absolutely no other housing is available to the plaintiffs in 

Huntington, and until such housing is made available, code enforcement 

would deprive them of basic constitutional rights. If their "right 

to remain" is not upheld, LDF lawyers will argue, then all their 

basic rights -- including the right to vote in the community, to 

hold gainful employment there, etc. ~~ will be compromised. 

It is believed that this is the first time a court has been 

asked to determine whether the “right to remain in a community" is 

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 

In their brief, LDF attorneys claim that the town and the 

racial feelings of its white citizens are largely to blame for the 

decrepit and overcrowded conditions of black and Puerto Rican 

neighborhoods. 

(MORE) 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-839 

William T. Coleman, Jr. - President 
Jack Greenberg - Director-Couns: 



HUNTINGTON SUIT 
PAGE Two 

Citing census statistics, the population of Huntington has 

grown from 126,221 in 1960 to 200,588 in 1970, an increase of almost 

60%. In the same period, the non-white population grew even faster, 

from 2,875 in 1960 to 6,048 in 1970, and now makes up about 3% of 

Huntington's population. 

Yet during this period of tremendous growth, and despite the 

recommendations of the Town Housing Authority and planning consultants, 

Huntington has maintained a moratorium on the construction of multiple 

dwelling homes. In the 10 years covered by the census, 16,424 single 

family homes and 189 two family homes were built, and the effect has 

been to substantailly diminish the available land and create the 

critical housing shortage that now exists. 

Census figures also point out the fact that while the non- 

white population more than doubled in the ten years, only seven of the 

newcomers found housing outside the town's ghetto areas. 

Also named as a defendant in the suit is the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, which sponsored an urban renewal 

project in Huntington begun during the 1960's. That project called 

for the demolition of over 240 households -- about 75% of these black 

and Puerto Rican. By 1967, only forty units of public housing, not 

nearly enough to accommodate the households displaced by urban renewal, 

had been built on that site. 

Because of the urban renewal program, at least forty of the 

black and Puerto Rican households -- entitled by law to be relocated 

in adequate housing -- were instead placed into illegal, overcrowded 

apartments. 

Now, having contributed substantially to the growth of a 

cancerous ghetto, the town would simply like to enforce its housing 

codes to eliminate overcrowding there. 

LDF attorneys believe that in enforcing its codes, the town 

should be made responsible for the relocation, into adequate housing, 

of the forty persons being displaced. 

(MORE) 



HUNTINGTON SUIT PAGE THREE 

Earlier, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of New York turned down LDF's request for an injunction. It did so 

on the grounds that the plaintiffs -- who brought the case as a class 

action (on behalf of all minority citizens of Huntington) -- were not 

themselves displaced by the urban renewal project nor relocated by 

the town into the four overcrowded houses. According to the lower 

court, plaintiffs’ present plight was not a direct result past actions 

by the municipality and, therefore, no relief was required. LDF 

attorneys now hope that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

will take a broader stand , reverse the lower court's decision, and 

remand the case for the granting of relief to plaintiffs. 

=30= 

NOTE: Please bear in mind that our organization is completely separate 
and distinct, even though we were established by the NAACP and 
retain those initials in our name. Our correct designation is 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., frequently 
shortened to LDF. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Attorney Jonathan Shapiro or 
Sandy O'Gorman (Public Information) 
212-586-8397