Today we discussed our final set of readings!  We talked about the different forms of “direct action” that people can take with regard to housing struggles, if/when working “within the system” is deemed inadequate.  We also talked about why it can be challenging to think about direct action in re. to housing, when at first, the idea of building your own housing or sleeping in a vacant property may not seem like such a radical thing for a homeless person to do.  However, our readings and discussions over the course of the semester have illustrated why these can be seen as direct confrontations to the “growth machine.”

In each of your groups you should be thinking about the range of “shaping strategies” that your community contact could embrace, and the pros, cons, and various implications involved in each of these.  The recommendations that you make and organizing materials that you produce should reflect the careful thought that you and your contacts have given to the range of possibilities.  As we wrap up the semester, please be thinking as well about how your group’s issue, your community contact, and you! are situated within the broader shapes and shaping forces in/of NYC.

The Borgos article was certainly an eye opener. I had been vaguely aware of the idea of squatters, mostly in relation to the old West, or to homeless people taking up residence in unfinished houses in my neighborhood (it was common for these projects to go on start-stop over several years). Suffice to say, my opinion of squatting was not a predominantly positive one. But with more thought, why isn’t it? After all, at this point in the year, I’m well aware of the fact that vacant homes greatly outnumber those without a place to live. Borgos’ article presents the story, following a brief history of squatting, of the ACORN squatting campaign in the 1980s. The idea was radical to me – squatting as form of protest – but he immediately lends legitimacy by noting that this is common practice in Europe. As a method for procuring affordable housing for low-income residents of the community, this proved to be a helpful method. Just as importantly, it was a dramatic method that drew attention to the issue and shattered the myth that Americans were well housed. Many of these people had previously been crammed into tight living spaces with large families to make rent or were left to live in deeply unsafe housing projects. This method gained traction in various cities and even drew occasional (and very limited) support from local governments. The ultimate goal of these squatting campaigns was to get the squatters titles to the houses they were fixing. Many eventually did. Although their actions were illegal, they gained support from neighbors, the public at large, and occasionally elected officials. They pried off barricades to get to their new homes in defiance of the law, and then worked themselves to make the home liveable. This method, however, would seem most effective when pertaining to homes still in good conditions. The potential to work as a large scale program would be somewhat hampered by the possibility that for more run-down abandoned homes, it could become too reliant on self-help housing.

Schuman comes out immediately to say that it is mortal sin in America to speak against self-help methods, as we have always celebrated this individualist model in all areas. He mentions the very real merits of self help housing, which allow it to work on an individual scale. However, its inability to work as a program stems from many of these same factors. While it keeps labor costs minimal for and individual  project, as it relies on individuals and there neighbors to labor for cheap/free, this also drives down wages in the construction field. If the gap between cost and income is the source of the problem, implementing self-help housing programmatically would seem likely to exacerbate the problem. It is also said that the construction skills gained would help these residents in the job market, but in reality the construction industry was not in the best shape and tended toward racial exclusivity. Self-help was intended to keep buildings from falling into the hands of speculators, but was not likely to salvage more than a few buildings in a given neighborhood. Self-help also reduces the demand on government to address the housing problem when these same people should be calling on the government to act responsibly in this area. While not programmatically applicable, self-help was certainly helpful on a small scale, and proved a good starting point for housing rights activists.

95% of post-recession growth went to the top 1%. And I’m not sure which problem is bigger here: that this happened or that it isn’t even a shocking statistic. When I read this, after about .5 seconds of indignation, I quickly devolved to “yeah, business as usual.” The Fields article makes this point early on. She also attacks the REO-to-rental economy that has developed. Investors and speculators are profiting by converting foreclosed homes into rental properties. People having to rent the homes they once owned, as foreclosure came to be seen less as a personal failure and more as a failure of the system, is a major issue “akin to sharecropping” as the article says,

The chapter by Tony Schuman introduced a totally new concept to me, self-help housing. I had never heard of this before and, as such, it took a while for me to understand that the self-help tradition could be applied to housing, since we have spent such a long time talking about how residents of communities are often incapable of making real change in the face of government and big businesses. Although in theory this idea is for the people by the people, like any proposal, there are shortfalls, and Schuman discusses these. Not only are the issues of wage levels and income distribution unaddressed in projects, the attitude of self-help homeowners is generally very elite even towards public housing, which can imply that the results of programs like these aren’t actually for the poor. However, it remains true that self-help organizing is an important activity for local housing activists.

The chapter by Seth Borgos discusses a protest method known as squatting, which is occupying a vacant property without permission in order to fix it up and make it livable. Borgos reports that squatting has assisted hundreds of low-income families with finding affordable housing. This ties in well to the discussion we recently had in class: We read an article explaining that there is a massive number of properties that are vacant that can be used for housing, but the government is certainly not quick to do anything about it or even present honest numbers to the public. Squatting seems like an excellent idea to carry out in the face of a government who won’t act.

The article by Desiree Fields discusses a movement for equal financing in the face of inequality that never happened but still should. She presents a shocking statistic; despite the nature of the 2008 recession, 05% of the post-recession development has gone to the top 1%. This was a very difficult article to understand as it used many terms I am not familiar with, but what I gathered is that a popular movement toward financial equality set in place by en educated public and taking from the top 1% would help to balance our economy.