By Vanessa Rene and Vita Xie
Alone in Public Housing, With a Spare Bedroom
According to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), there are about 55,000 public housing units that are “underoccupied,” about 15,000 units that are overcrowded, and about 160,000 families still on the waiting list to get into public housing.
The problem stems from the fact that there are too many single people living in 2- or more bedroom apartments. According to the article, the Housing Authority’s leases do state that the tenants need to live in apartments that will appropriately accommodate their family size, but that has not been widely enforced. NYCHA has sent letters to residents of underoccupied apartments, asking them to move into smaller apartments. However, the letters are largely ignored. In the past year, only 5,000 households signed up to move and only 600 households actually made the move, unable to efficiently meet the demand of residents of overcrowded aprtments and larger families on the waiting list.
This reluctance to move stems from a variety of factors. Older residents like Ms. Jones, who lives in a 2-bedroom apartment by herself for decades have no intention of leaving and cannot imagine living anywhere else. While the NYCHA allows residents registered to move to choose the development for their new homes, including their own, there is no guarantee that residents can stay in their original building. Residents have established themselves in their neighborhoods and buildings: their doctors are there, their family and friends are there, they feel safe, etc. In addition, NYCHA gives $350 to help with moving expenses, but as the article states, ‘this offer…has not proved compelling.” The idea of packing and moving several decades of possessions accumulated in their homes is a troubling hassle for more elderly folks like Ms. Jones. However, there are so many 6+ member families living in tiny one bedroom apartments in living conditions the article likens to “refugee camps.”
Another facet is that NYCHA does not have enough smaller apartments. NYCHA spokeswoman, Shelia Stainback, acknowledges this problem and states that the NYCHA are trying to solve this imbalance though initiatives for new developments and reconfiguration of older apartments. However, these plans need time.
NYCHA has continuously sent letters to tenants living in underoccupied apartments requesting that they live in more suitable spaces, but many of these letters have not been responded to. There is no follow-up to make sure the tenants follow through, only more letters that remain unanswered. No one can force the tenants to move out of their apartments.
Remedies to this problem aren’t clear and easy. There are feelings of both the older residents of underoccupied apartments and larger families in overcrowded ones to consider. While building more apartments is part of the plan, there are issues like finding locations for new developments, zoning, and providing them quickly. Perhaps, the follow-up effort of the NYCHA for asking underoccupied residents to move needs to move beyond non-enforced letters to an actual knock on the door.
#1 by Deborah on March 14, 2012 - 7:43 pm
Clearly the current enforcements aren’t working. I think we need to take a step back and reassess the reasons behind the unwillingness to move in order to devise compensatory measures that actually address residents’ concerns about moving. As Vita mentioned, some of these concerns are pragmatic (eg. proximity to doctor etc) and some are psychological (eg. wanting to stay in the neighborhood where one grew up), so we need to address the pragmatic concerns with pragmatic solutions (eg make sure residents’ doctors’ office is easily accessible from new location) and the psychological concerns with psychological solutions (eg build a community center where senior citizens can engage in recreational activities with old friends).
#2 by Joseph Langer on March 14, 2012 - 8:27 pm
I’m not sure I understand the point of this article. Was it that we should be kicking the elderly out of public housing units they have lived in for decades, because they have an extra bedroom or two? What I got from this article was that we have a serious shortage of public housing. The most staggering number in that article was the 160,000 people are on the waiting list, plus the 15,000 who are in under-occupied apartments. In total, that means, that 175,000 people are in need of (better) housing. This is not a problem we are going to fix by evicting people from their apartments. We need more public housing projects! It is as simple as that. The 55,000 under-occupied apartments account for less than a third of the total number of people who are in need of housing, finding a better way to get them to move is not going to solve the problem.
#3 by Eden Goykadosh on March 14, 2012 - 8:45 pm
Even though people may not want to move for valid reasons, if there are a considerable amount of more single apartments available, it is more likely that this move will be an option to consider. The articles mentions that the NYCHA does not have enough smaller apartments to provide, so I think this is a primary issue that should be dealt with. Once they become available, there can be ways to draw people towards such housing. If the housing is more appealing then the current housing of these residents, and the apartment is lying vacant, it seems a lot more feasible for people to get up and move.
#4 by Farnia Naeem on March 14, 2012 - 9:25 pm
It is rather difficult to sympathize with residents living in under-occupied apartments and it seems reasonable to begin enforcing rules that require residents to downsize their homes based on need. Even if Ms. Jones has decades of memories in her apartment and may not feel comfortable moving, priority must be given to people on waiting lists and those in overcrowded apartments. Of course, it is also imperative to keep the big picture in mind and continue building more public housing projects because with the current number of public housing projects even if everyone lived in an appropriately sized apartment, there would still be a waitlist. Additionally, as the population grows, the need for such projects can only increase.
#5 by Tova Medetsky on March 14, 2012 - 9:42 pm
Although I think that it is a smart idea in theory, I don’t see how requiring people to leave their homes will really work in practice. Imagine someone came up to you and told you that since you are an only child, you and your parents simply don’t need a three-bedroom house, and that you were being requested to move to a smaller home. Not only does this mean that you are leaving the home you grew up in, you are also leaving your neighbors, friends, and everyone else in the neighborhood. You need to find a new grocery store to shop at. You may even end up too far to travel to the school you used to go to. It’s not just about leaving your house. It’s about leaving your entire life behind simply because you have an extra bedroom in your house. I think this is a nice idea (theoretically), but I don’t know how I would feel if I were the one being told to move.
#6 by Tahmina on March 14, 2012 - 10:48 pm
A house is a home and is thus an integral part of everyone’s life. One cannot simply ask someone to just get up and leave the one place that is his or her home. Not only is that displacing someone from what they know to be comfortable and familiar, it is also very inconvenient particularly if the person has accumulated a large number of possessions in their larger house which wont be able to fix in a considerably smaller place. It is understandable that the needs of those who really require a bigger house is more but at the same time, it just isn’t practical to ask someone to just leave, especially if they’ve spent a good portion of their lives there.
Instead of asking the old residents to leave why not just establish new housing to accommodate the new applicants or those who need more rooms. It is true that this is obviously the more costly option but it seems to be the only viable way to let the old residents keep their homes while being able to accommodate needy families with more rooms.
#7 by Oleksandr Dudnyk on March 14, 2012 - 11:03 pm
A home is a necessity for everyone. I find it selfish that many single people live in two or more bedroom apartments. This is especially inconsiderate if one takes into account that 6+ member families live in one bedroom apartments. It is hard to imagine the difficulties these people experience. If single people cannot be forced to move into smaller apartments, then the only solution I see is building more apartments. Sure, this may mean building less in less desirable areas, but this is a sacrifice we have to make. The population of New York will continue to grow, and new housing projects must be implemented to meet demands for housing.
#8 by Hayoung Ryu on March 15, 2012 - 12:45 am
Home is a home and everyone has the right to feel comfortable in their own homes. It is not hard to understand why people that live in the under-occupied house may not want to move to somewhere more suitable (probably smaller house). It is difficult to leave a neighborhood that you have grown attachment to but I think that the NYCHA should come up with a workable enforcement for rearranging the people/families around the public housing system. If there are 15,000 families living in a house too small to accommodate every family member and there are 55,000 under-occupied houses, there should be more action/effort to make arrangements other than sending out letters. After all, it is a public housing, and I think it would be a lot better if people living alone could be more considerate to large families in need of a better housing.
#9 by shdienstag on March 15, 2012 - 12:46 am
The question that needs to be asked here is, will reshuffling tenants and apartments really make a difference? At first glance the numbers seem to shout “Of course!” 55,000 under-occupied and only 15,000 overcrowded, a simple swap would leave you with an additional 40,000 apartments available for reshuffling for the waiting list. However, this may not be the case. Would a two-bedroom apartment suffice to alleviate the over-crowdedness of many of these families? Or do they really need more and shifting single tenants will help only a few hundred families?
If on the other hand shuffling tenants would alleviate public-housing stress, then the moral dilemma is a no-brainer. While moving is not a pleasant endeavor, the city has to do its best with finite funds. The comparison between moving a single occupant in public housing to a family being evicted from its three bedroom home is unfair, one subsides on governmental intervention and one is self-sufficient. The former is therefore bound to the abilities of the said government in a way that the latter is not.
All said, what is clearly needed before a rendered judgment is a clearer, unadulterated version of the facts on the ground.
#10 by Rahima Nayeem on March 15, 2012 - 2:19 pm
Even though the residents who live in under-occupied homes have memories that they don’t want to give up, I think it’s time for them to move. The housing authorities need to start doing something that will actually make people move. It sounds wrong that someone living in one public housing development has a “guest room and computer room,” while another development there has a “mother with six kids in a one-bedroom.” I don’t think it is fair that people are living under the same system, but one has too much room, and another doesn’t have enough. The residents, who are able to move from under-occupied apartments but aren’t moving, are taking advantage of the government’s help. They should realize that someone else needs the extra rooms that they have. It’s true that moving all the residents from under-occupied units will not be enough to accommodate everyone who lives in an overcrowded unit or is on the waiting list, but at least it will be a start. By moving the people from under-occupied homes, a couple more families will be able to live more comfortably.
#11 by Brian Ghezelaiagh on March 15, 2012 - 2:34 pm
I hate to say it, but if I get an unsolicited know on my door from a person who aims to tell me that my place of residence is too big for me and that I should downsize because too many people live in “refugee camps,” I wouldn’t take too kindly to it. People are entitled to the space they deem appropriate for the maintenance of a quality of life that is within reason of their budget and circumstance. The argument comes down to the simple fact that people have a right to do what they want with their money, as long as it is lawful.
It wouldn’t hurt me personally if I died and let Joe Schmo off the street do with my money what he will. Still, it gives me a piece of mind knowing that I can do what I want with it. Now replace “money” with “apartments” and we have the argument. One could argue that it is the responsibility of the haves to help the have-nots, but suggesting that one vacate their residence to benefit these “refugees” is unrealistic and its mere suggestion outlandish.
#12 by Helen Yee on March 15, 2012 - 2:46 pm
I think the best solution to this problem of having many underoccupied apartments and many families on the waiting list for apartments is like most of the previous comments mentioned, to construct more public housing complexes. NYCHA has even mentioned that they have a deficiency of smaller apartments, so even if all the people living in the underoccupied apartments were to move, there probably wouldn’t be enough apartments for them. Though I really understand the reasons for not wanting to move out of your apartment that you might have lived in all your life because simply it’s home and you feel happy in it, viewing the situation from the other side, I sympathize with the families that are living in overcrowded apartments or need a place to live and think that it’s unfair to them. Thus, I can see why NYCHA have been so reluctant to force tenants to move beyond just sending letters, as it’s a difficult problem to resolve. Building more apartments for public housing would be great, but a huge issue would be the cost of it.