I can’t imagine anyone lacking for an opinion on the pending settlement in the False Claims Act case involving Westchester County, but here are some opinions to consider, from our editorials and contributions from others.

Here’s our editorial from Sunday. It calls on the Board of Legislators to Ok the agreement, which would have the county build some 750 units of affordable housing in mostly white communities that have long been resistant to housing choice. The county has always been in the affordable housing business, so to speak (it has built some 1,700 units over the last  decade); the difference here is, the county would be obliged to spread out that housing among more communities and be more assertive with local governments that play the NIMBY game. In other words, the settlement would have the county do what it is obligated under the law to be doing.

Here’s another piece from the previous Sunday. It sheds more light on how Westchester got into this soup in the first place.

For another view, here’s a link to a piece by Jim Russell, a former GOP candidate for Congress. He argues that Westchester taxpayers would be much better off continuing the legal fight, which would open the door to some $500 million in liability, according to an analysis that Board of Legislators Chairman Bill Ryan shared with me. Here’s Russell’s article.

Here’s another on the “con” side, from Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute. He writes in relevant part:

“Westchester may be forced to sign the settlement, but it has already been pursuing a far better policy: using federal funds to upgrade poorer neighborhoods and build subsidized housing in areas where beneficiaries will have incomes and education similar to their neighbors’.”

Of course, some opinions are worth more than others. To read U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote’s, its available here, along with other documents in the case.