Politicians Can't Back Sell-The-Projects Idea
Unsurprisingly, a group of legislators has a serious bone to pick with HUD regional director Sean Moss over his recent comments that selling some public housing developments might help solve New York’s affordable housing crisis. A letter addressed to HUD secretary Alphonso Jackson that was signed by 14 assemblymembers (including Joan Millman and Hakeem Jeffries)…
Unsurprisingly, a group of legislators has a serious bone to pick with HUD regional director Sean Moss over his recent comments that selling some public housing developments might help solve New York’s affordable housing crisis. A letter addressed to HUD secretary Alphonso Jackson that was signed by 14 assemblymembers (including Joan Millman and Hakeem Jeffries) makes the case that selling public housing is in no way a long-term solution for the city’s housing crisis:
At issue is the assertion that mass displacement of residents in one neighborhood, would benefit residents of another. At the very least, this assertion is misguided. The existing NYCHA developments are of much more value, to both the number of individuals which they provide shelter to as well as the diverse communities they help foster, than a short term budget windfall. Likewise, any purchase and/or development of affordable housing, short of new construction of full scale NYCHA developments, would be comparatively wasteful of the suggested sales proceeds and could by no means accommodate the same numbers of residents currently served by existing developments. In short, a sale of NYCHA properties would be a ‘one-shot’ deal, and would offer very few benefits for those in need of public housing extending past the year of the sale.
Full text of the letter on the jump.
HUD Official Speaks the Unspeakable: Selling The Projects [Brownstoner]
Benson, when is anyone grateful to the city, and who said anyone had to stay here? You are holding the poster’s mother to a standard few could live up to, in order to justify the rather heartless opinion of the conservative mindset that believes that all poor people somehow deserve their situation.
You state repeatedly that you are glad things worked out for her family, but to me, that’s just the face of “compassionate conservativism” that doesn’t want to look evil or heartless, whilst otherwise kicking people to the curb (for their own good, of course). Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Public housing is not perfect. One could argue it isn’t even good. However, it is necessary, and what we have is better than massive homelessness and desperate people doing desperate things to survive. Yeah, let’s fix it, or even come up with something entirelly different. But that takes massive amounts of money and the public will, and until those items are seriously addressed, we need to keep the system in place, fix it as we can, and keep people with an imperfect roof over their heads.
There was an aricle in the spring (I believe)in the NYT about job creation in NY. Know where 30% of the increase in jobs was? Home health care. Not Wall Streeters. So if that is the largest segment of job growth (and they make like $8/hr.), we have to have safe, clean affordable housing. These are the people who are taking care of our parents now, and will take care of us all too soon.
A simple solution:
Eliminate rent control and rent stabilization, increase all maximum FARs in the city by 50%. Require 20% of all units in a new housing development over a certain size be utilized for low-income persons.
Eliminating ghettos REQUIRES making room for poor people in every new building that is built in this city. Right now, zoning laws and rent stabilization hinder new development – but with proper vision we can eliminate all ghettos and have poor people integrated into the greater city fabric. It is the only solution. This is to an extent what was done in Chicago, although there the availability of vacant land and the far less restrictive zoning rules make it much easier to distribute poor people throughout the city.
Housing Projects are a dismal failure, and a permanent dark mark on every liberal who pontificates on city politics. The few success stories are no comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are ruined from the start.
no one has ever answered me this…while i agree that there is a need for public housing, why are they entitled to live so close to the city…whats so wrong about living an hour out and commuting via subway like most new yorkers???
thats what pisses people off the most, i think, and yes its may be for selfish reasons….but a valid argument
so i say no public housing in manhattan
phase out RC/RS asle (which is slowly happening)
11.21 AM;
Your story is not convincing, from a public policy point of view (though I am glad things worked out fine for your family). Basically you are stating that the city’s taxpayers’ should subsidize folks who need temporary help, so that they can get back on their feet and move to Westchester.
I must respectfully say that it is exactly this type of policy that drives the middle class out of NY. During the heyday of liberalism in NY (which I believe is the period you are talking about), politicians continually presented to the taxpayers the notion that they should fork out so that the city could serve as one giant social services organization. The result was a city that teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.
There are many things a city must do with its tax base: build roads, sewer systems, schools,etc. These should not be in the business of providing subsidized housing on a lottery basis. By your own account, your family had to pay a bribe to rig this lottery in your favor. Also by your own account, your family was not under any obligation for this privelege. When your mom found herself in a better situation, she moved to Westchester. Did she feel any obligation to the City for supporting her during her down time?
I am not trying to be harsh with your mom – she did what she had to do for her family, and I would have done the same thing. My criticism is towards a system that allows this.
Once again, let me state that I am glad that things worked our for your family.
Benson.
11:32 illustrates the mentality of these politicians..
“why do such and such?”
“cuz thats the way its always been done”
think.outside.the.box
Well, this is going to be a predictable sludge fest. It is an elected officials responsibility to look out for all of their constituents, especially those who do not have the power or money to put their issues first and formost in the public eye. Their letter makes perfect sense. Those of you who scream so loudly about the projects – where do you expect these people to live, and on what? Average income $21,520? To live in New York City? Come on. Subsidized housing is necessary for these people to continue to live in the city. And as is said every time this is brought up – these are the people who serve your food, clean your homes and offices, watch your kids, drive delivery trucks, answer the phones, empty bed pans, do data entry, and ring up your purchases, among other things.
Obviously NYCHA housing is not perfect, and some projects are horrible. But you can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. These buildings are also full of pensioners, retirees, the disabled, and others who are on a fixed income.
Many housing projects were built where no one wanted to live – under bridges, way east, west and south in Manhattan, near downtown areas, in “ghetto neighborhoods”. No one protested at the time because no one was interested in the land. Now that these areas are valuable and desireable by higher income folks, there is a huge uproar to get rid of the projects. Now people are talking about how they cause generational poverty, etc, etc.
These people don’t care about the lives of families they don’t see or know. They don’t care about affordable housing, or getting people out of poverty. They want the buildings and/or the land for luxury development. Pure and simple, end of story. So let’s not delude ourselves that getting rid of the projects is for the good of those in them, or to promote fairness and to give the middle class a break. If every project in the city – let me amend that – if every project in a now desirable part of the city became available tomorrow, there would be no middle class housing put there.
I am no fan of politicians as a group, but let’s give them credit for doing their jobs here. It’s not about Democrat or liberal, it’s about decency and humanity. If necessary replacement housing is not provided before the last person moves out of a NYCHA building, then we should all be up in arms.
11:21 – thanks for the story.
A few points that we should all make note of:
-Bronx location – not prime manhattan waterfront types
-You used it as temporary safety net. Bravo for how it all turned out, and you had the integrity to work hard and move on when appropriate. As opposed to generations of handouts for the underachieving.Unfortunatly you cannot legislate integrity.
-The ML program is a bit bettre than typical housing projects, since there is some sense of ownership and the buildings have a somewhat better design
i have no problem with the situation you described and glad it served its purpose. but its a far cry from the failed experiments in housing that Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn have been artifically forced to accept
Because 11:23 you that was the exchange for tearing down where they live and also life is not fair. You win some, you lose some.
And because it is already being done. I have a friend who lives not to far from Columbus Circle and pays 3,500 per month for a 1 bedroom, and her neighbor across the hall pay 653.00 per month for a 2bedroom, 2 bath.
New York City provides tax breaks for buildings who do this….