All posts by Andrew McAllister

Response 5

Terrains of/for Action

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,

Project Update

The Future of Major Private Development

On April 15 I traveled to El Barrio Unite’s headquarters on East 116th Street. There, I conducted interviews with Anne Kadamani and Roberto Anazagasti. The following questions were used:

  • What is El Barrio Unite?
    • A newly formed organization of East Harlem residents
    • Goal: to preserve and increase affordable housing in East Harlem
    • Goal: to educate the public about the housing situation in East Harlem and about affordable housing in general
    • Goal: oppose the construction of luxury housing developments
  • What is the East River Plaza Residential Development?
    • A new luxury housing development being proposed over the existing East River Plaza mall
    • It will consist of three towers between thrity five and forty five stories on top of the existing mall
  • Why and how is El Barrio Unite opposing this development?
    • The development will bring in new, high-income residents to the community. They will be unlikely to shop within or contribute to the community. At the same time, their presence will result in an increase in property taxes in the community, thereby displacing current residents.
    • El Barrio Unite is attempting to educate the public through meetings, social media campaigns, and rallies. The next rally in opposition to East River Plaza is May 16th at the site of the development.
  • What is it about East Harlem that you are trying to preserve?
    • El Barrio Unite is seeking to preserve affordable housing in East Harlem.
    • They are also seeking to preserve the character of the largely Puerto Rican neighborhood. If wealthy residents move in, it will likely lead to the closure of many locally owned and operated businesses, as these new residents are more likely to “shop at Whole Foods and Macy’s” than at local grocery and clothing stores.
  • What are some policy recommendations you would make?
    • Make mayor de Blasio understand that his current 80/20 plan regarding luxury and affordable housing requirements is not desirable/working/enough
    • if the 421-A tax exemption is renewed, it would have to be seriously amended to better serve communities
      • add permanency requirements (at the moment, affordable housing created with 421-A is not required to be permanent)
      • disallow double dipping
    • currently, developments may be eligible to double the FAR (floor area ratio) of projects if they set aside space for something that provides a community service
      • however, this can be anything, like a private doctors office or private (even luxury) day care center
      • suggesting stipulation that this community service provider be not-for-profit, and be locally owned and operated if possible

Anne Kadamani also talked at length about the developers behind the project, Blumenfeld Development Group and Forest City Ratner. She noted Blumenfeld’s known relationship with Bernie Madoff, and his being required to pay settlements in the Madoff case. She also talked about FCR’s well known Barclays Center project in Atlantic Yards. She noted their promise to deliver affordable housing and permanent jobs, neither of which they have done.

Roberto Anazagasti talked about the immigrant character of the neighborhood, and why the current exodus of low-income residents is different than those in the past: those residents, he says, left willingly, while the neighborhood’s current population wants to stay and is being forced out.

After the filming session, Roberto also expressed interest in involving El Barrio Unite (who act as landlords for the building containing their office) in the local Community Land trust.

Response 4

Uncategorized

Steven Wishnia’s Gothamist article “How Your Tax Dollars are Wasted to Build Luxury Apartments” is intriguing and informative. Many of the issues raised in the article come up at community meetings and are referenced in our other class readings.

Familiar issues are raised again at the outset of the article. Of nearly 4400 apartments built under the 421-a program, about 260 were officially designated “affordable.” That’s about six percent. Of those, 31 were actually affordable to a family making $41k per year (the average for NYC renters in 2014). The numbers may be different, but the principle is the same: not enough affordable housing is available, and what little is isn’t actually affordable. The article is almost overflowing with accounts of 421-a subsidizing luxury buildings with one story noting that with the subsidies one building received, its eight affordable units (compared to 306 luxury) cost the public fund $642k each.

The article also tackles the loopholes in subsidy laws. Essentially, one unit can be used to apply for a basically unlimited number of programs. So each affordable unit is counted toward numerous government subsidies and programs at the same time. The same apartment used to apply for 421-a as well as any number of other loans, bonds, and tax credits. This sort of “double dipping,” as the article calls it, should be prohibited as one of the article’s proposed reforms of 421-a. If a developer receives subsidies form two programs, it stands to reason that they should be setting aside twice as many affordable units.

The first reform would be to make affordable units mandatory for any construction project receiving the tax break (currently, this is only mandatory within certain zones). One group suggests that, for lower Manhattan, half of any new units should be dedicated for the $25k-$50k income level.

The next reform is essentially an overhaul of AMI. The problem with affordabe housing is that it isn’t. These units need to be designated for a much lower income level than they are now. AMI takes into account areas outside of the city, artificially inflating the perceived average income of the area. The result is that affordable housing may be affordable and priced below average income based on AMI, but this is not refelctive of the state of affairs in New York City.

The last reform should seem obvious: affordable housing should be affordable permanently. There is a trend of affordable units converting to market rate after their subsidy expires, leaving low income residents in danger of eviction. If developers want to reap the benefits of these subsidies, the benefits that they provide to tenants shouldn’t be only temporary.

In 1998, Congress passed a law that effectively prohibited the construction of new public housing. The effect was that avenues besides private development have been closed.

In 2013-2014, just over 1/12 of apartments that received 421-a were “affordable,” while over 100k truly affordable ($5-900 per month) have been lost since 2011. Soon, both rent regulation laws and 421-a will be on the floor in the state legislature. The article puts forth a likely situation: 421-a will be used as a bargaining chip to protect and strengthen rent regulation, and vice-versa. While opponents call 421-a deeply flawed and say that it puts money in the wrong places, they concede that if its renewal leads to better rent-control laws, it would be a victory.

Although I haven’t been able to look into it, it is entirely likely that East River Plaza will receive 421-a subsidies in addition to many others. In effect, while trying to ensure that some amount of “affordable” housing is created in New York, 421-a in fact serves first and foremost the profit margin of big developers.

Response 3

Roots of Community Planning

Angotti (Part 1)

Tom Angotti’s book New York for Sale provides some interesting readings. Chronicling the history of city planning in New York, Angotti focuses on key moments that served to “signal” community planning.

The first reaches back to the colonial and pre-Civil War eras. It challenges the popular conception of the North, and New York in particular, as a longtime bastion of progressivism. It is often forgotten that slaves were owned even in traditionally “liberal” cities. The Dutch, who founded New York as New Amsterdam, were also responsible for introducing the slave trade to the New World. New York had cited major slave rebellions starting from 1712. More interestingly, however, Angotti talks about what happened next. As renters rather than owners, blacks were especially vulnerable to displacement. Angotti quickly charts the forced path of New York’s black population northward, starting below Wall Street, moving past contemporary LES and Little Italy, eventually reaching Harlem. He also mentions the push into outer boroughs, particularly Brooklyn and the Bronx. He takes care to mention, however, that this geographic ascension stopped cold at the suburbs, primarily due to discriminatory mortgage laws. He also notes that the first instance of “urban renewal” involved moving blacks and other minority groups out of part of the Five Points neighborhood.

The second is Henry George’s campaign for mayor. George singled out real estate speculation as the major cause of poverty. Speculative investment and purchase of New York’s land led to disruption and displacement of communities, while concentrating wealth in the hands of land owners and monopolists. George noted that private entities unjustly earned profit by restricting access to natural resources. At the same time, actual productive activity was taxed heavily, leading to a system that George likened to wage slavery. George’s most known and enduring proposition was the land-value tax, in which the government would tax the value of the land itself. In this way, private entities would be unable to profit simply by owning the land – they would have to do something with it. Garnering support from Irish nationalist groups (an impressive feat for a politician of British stock), populist groups, and labor, George made a close but ultimately unsuccessful bid for Mayor in 1886. Despite finishing ahead of future president Theodore Roosevelt, George was defeated (possibly fraudulently) by the Tammany Hall Democratic candidate.

Immigrants poured in from Europe, many bringing left-wing political ideals and joining parties and organizations that furthered those notions. Tenants began to organize on increasing scales, with rents strikes becoming a somewhat effective tool against predatory landlords. Rent control represented a major victory for working class communities, serving to stabilize individual housing costs and thereby consolidating and protecting the community. However, as has been noted in more recent readings, rent regulation is falling out of favor. As the city puts its new affordable housing plan into action, landlords of rent-regulated properties tend to find it in their interest to sell to private developers, who evict, demolish, and rebuild on the lot. Sure, these new buildings have affordable units, but they are never as affordable, or as numerous, as old rent-regulated housing.

Angotti talks about LaGuardia’s role in the city during the Depression, and briefly discusses his association with Robert Moses. Moses used eminent domain to claim public land for highways and other projects. The resulting displacement was neither the beginning nor the end of “urban renewal’s” status as Negro removal.

Response 2

What's Taking Shape?

It’s interesting coming back to these articles now. A lot of why I find these the most magnetic readings has to do with contemporaneity; these are recent articles about recent events, so they feel more immediate.

The first two articles read about the same as the first time around, with the points emphasized by what we’ve learned. Obviously and unfairly, the the poor bear the greatest burden in post-Sandy New York. They’re the least able to rebuild, the least able to find a new place to live when rebuilding isn’t possible. All of this is awful, none of this is surprising. Bloomberg was many different kinds of mayor, from environmentally conscious to dangerously pro-police.

But the de Blasio article reads so much differently this time around. The article paints him as New Yorkers saw him before he took office. In the article, he is a progressive crusader. He is the naturally occurring next step following Occupy Wall Street and other grassroots progressive campaigns. He is the staunch opponent of neoliberalism and a force fore the public good. In light of the other pieces we’ve read this semester, this is not exactly the case. His housing plan, while certainly a bit more progressive than Bloomberg’s, is a modest improvement rather than a radical progressive change. de Blasio, while likely better than some of the alternatives, isn’t turning out to be exactly as progressive as voters expected, or as he portrayed himself.

On a side note, I overlooked something interesting the first time around on that article. Right near the end, the author predicts a period of Democratic dominance in national politics. We already know that isn’t exactly the case, as we are now faced with two Republican controlled houses of Congress.

Response 1

The Capital of Capital, Part 2

Stein’s article is easily one of the most interesting, and easiest to read, pieces we’ve looked at so far. It talks about the issues we’ve studied so far: gentrification, affordable housing, displacement, and urban development. This content is not surprising, given Stein’s background in housing and labor. In the article, he paints a critical picture of DeBlasio’s “new” housing plan.

Stein starts off with a fairly unbiased recounting of DeBlasio’s plan: to use inclusionary zoning to create more affordable housing in a city desperately in need of it. And at first, Stein’s criticisms seem aimed at the broad inequality in the city rather than at the mayor’s “new” initiative. I can’t stop using quotes for the word new, because as Stein points out, this is not a wholly new plan. It’s a stepped up version of Bloomberg’s plan, replacing voluntary incentives with mandatory rules. And if one were to be considered better, it would be one requiring more of developers. But better does not necessarily mean good.

Stein outlines how this plan would lead to greater displacement, touching on concepts we’ve read before in this class. The required “affordable units” are priced according to a scale not actually in line with the average income of the city. For instance, units marked as “affordable” are noted as being priced for households making roughly $10,000 more than the average income in New York City. The other criticism leveled is that not enough affordable housing is created. The units created are unlikely to match the amount of affordable housing lost in the process. Stein specifically brings up rent regulated apartments in his argument. These apartments are priced to be more affordable than the so called affordable housing created by DeBlasio’s plan. Landlords of these units could easily be enticed to sell the buildings, and new owners could evict, demolish, and rebuild for greater profit. In addition, the number of wealthy people moving into the area would significantly outweigh the number of lower income people living in the affordable units. This would accelerate gentrification, driving up costs in the entire neighborhood and forcing low income residents out.

The author notes several alternatives that would be preferable to inclusionary zoning. The first seems obvious: for the city to own and properly maintain public housing; this would serve to stall gentrification. He also suggests an expansion of rent regulated housing, noting that it is far more universal and therefore more useful than simply cheapening a small number of otherwise expensive units.

Stein touches on elements of the housing system that by this point we are quite familiar with. However, he makes it seem more relevant than chapters from books set in what can seem like the distant past. By bringing the attention to issues going on right now, and explaining them in todays terms, he brings the issue to life. He also makes an important statement about profit: it shouldn’t, and really can’t, be king when it comes to housing. There isn’t a way to make affordable housing both truly affordable and profitable for developers. And at the end of the day, don’t we owe it to our citizens to at least house them?