Group Alleges Broadway Triangle Buildings Favor Hasadim

70-union-avenue-050813Two as-yet-unbuilt private apartment buildings in the contentious Broadway Triangle area are illegally discriminating against blacks and Hispanics, according to a group called Broadway Triangle Community Coalition, The New York Daily News reported. Hispanics and African Americans who inquired about apartments at 70 Union Avenue and 246 Lynch Street were told there were no applications and turned away, said the group, which sent the applicants. The buildings have already been filled with Hasidim, they said. The buildings are slated to rise in now-empty, privately owned lots in a 31-acre area called Broadway Triangle on the border of Williamsburg, Bushwick and Bed Stuy. Previous plans to build public housing in the area were halted last year by a federal judge on the grounds that the plans “illegally favored Hasidim over blacks and Latinos.” The Broadway Triangle Community Coalition alleges a rezoning of the area in 2009 from industrial to residential use favored the Hasadim, according to the story. A City spokeswoman scoffed at that notion and said, “if private landlords are acting in a discriminatory manner, as is alleged, that is not to be tolerated, and concerned citizens should make a report to the authorities responsible for enforcing laws against discrimination.”
Critics: Two Apartment Buildings Unfairly Filled With Hasidic Families [NY Daily News]
Photo by Christopher Bride for PropertyShark

26 Comment

  • Never a more prejudiced group!!!

  • Is it illegal if the buildings really were filled with Hasidic applicants without any public notice for others to apply? I’d suspect not, though it is still icky.

  • It is illegal if apartments were available and others were turned away.

  • This is a very sensitive issue in a city with such a tight housing market. This sounds like Hasidim developers building apartments for Hasidim families, I’m not sure how outraged I am at this. I think it does violate the fair housing law in that a landlord cannot discriminate based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation but in this case it seems like the buildings were specifically built for a tight-knit group. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had, and still have, many such buildings in Brooklyn Heights. I always assumed that was legal.

  • The reality is that the Williamsburg Satmars are separatists. I have no problem with that until they use public subsidies to fund amenities that are not shared with the rest of the community. But is that the case here?

  • This is not public housing, so it is unlikely to be illegal. Unfair or unethical? Of course. This is not the same situation as with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn Heights, Minard, because the people living in those buildings are religious volunteers who have taken a vow of poverty and work for their organization for free. Their housing is no different than that of a monastery or convent for other religious groups. I used to live in a house on Remsen Street next to one of their converted brownstones. It was like a dormitory. Very few of them are married and if the wife of a married couple gets pregnant, they are asked to leave “Bethel.” Those religious volunteers do not collect food stamps or welfare in order to support their religious work. They eat in communal dining halls and their food is sourced from their farms upstate. I don’t agree with their philosophy, but aside from lost property tax revenue(less of a problem as they gradually decamp for upstate), they are not a a drain on public resources. They are also friendly and don’t ignore you or treat non-members as subhuman scum when you encounter them on the street.
    The Hasidim are separatists, too, but unlike the JW’s who prohibit voting or political involvement, they vote as a bloc and often successfully get away with questionable behavior. It is extremist religious teachings that teach people to discriminate against or despise others who are different, not one’s race. But accusing anyone who calls out a group on illegal or unethical behavior as racists seems to be a very effective strategy.

  • brownstoner staff: I understand that you reserve the right to delete comments and I understand all the justifications for that. fair enough. this is a contentious thread, people had plenty of provocative things to say, and it’s no shocker you decided to step in here. but when you do delete comments, why leave the replies in place? one of my comments is now gone. an extant reply says I should admit I hate jews! for the record–I DO NOT, but no one who reads this thread now can decide for him- or herself. I made an attempt (clearly a failed one!) to use humor and refer to myself in order to call out what I thought was another commenter’s rush to judgment. now all that’s left is his hyperbolic condemnation and I don’t really see how that’s fair.

  • you should lose the hate for Ohio. It is a perfectly nice place with many fine people.

  • Pot=Kettle with the Ohio comment.

  • ? because I commented that Hassidic men smell bad, that makes me an anti-semite? hah! Have you ever been to South Williamsburg? take your PC BS and take it back to wherever the hell you come from

  • They are more accustomed to the weather, how many have you gone up to and smelled up close. Come on man….. admit you hate Jews.

  • I meant exactly what you said. Unfortunately the truth is offensive to some

  • How does your yuppie/hipster self deal with the fact that you hate Jews……. you’re not very cosmopolitan or worldly….. I assume it doesn’t bother you.

  • I’m sure there are people who think you smell!!!

  • well this all escalated retardedly

  • “retarded”? why do you hate the mentally handicapped?

  • seriously?? my BROTHER is jewish. are you telling me I actually hate the person I thought I respected most in the world? you’re really bringing out the TROLL in trolleydodger…