Homelessness in New York City is a unique issue. The political and economic environment of the city has produced policies that continue pushing around the problem, but not directly facing it. Although homelessness in New York comes with its own set of challenges, studying past and present policy can help to better understand it and develop new proposals to move forward.

History
            Around the 1980s, the homeless population experienced a large demographic shift. Prior to that time, the typical homeless person was a substance abuser, white, and male.¹ After New York shut down numerous mental health institutions in 1975, a flood of patients was released and they often ended up homeless.¹ At the same time the economic gap in the city was growing, and as a result children and families also ended up in the streets for the first time. This marked the new age of homelessness due to poverty.
In 1981, a monumental court case known as Callahan vs. Carey established the right to shelter in New York City, the only city with this mandate.² This forced politicians to take on the issue more directly and has been a major policy shaper since it passed. Mayor Ed Koch made it illegal to sleep outside on freezing nights and eventually reshaped the shelter system into barrack style housing to eliminate those taking advantage of the system for free housing.¹ Afterward Mayor David Dinkins challenged Koch with a more comprehensive policy but he cut back on his promises due to lack of funding.¹ Mayor Rudi Giuliani introduced harsher policies, arresting homeless people and sending them to shelters, limiting time in temporary housing, and increasing requirements to get into the system.¹
Mayor Bloomberg proposed a much more ambitious plan designed to cut homelessness by two thirds in five years.²   While it did reduce the number of homeless individuals, the number of homeless families increased because of poor planning and the 2008 recession. He also instituted assistance for families on the brink of homelessness and subsidies for recent exits of the system. However, most families who received the subsidy saw a reduction in welfare and increased income from new job placement caused them to lose assistance, making them unable to afford housing. In 2011 funding was cut from the program and as many as 10,000 new families became homeless since nothing was created to replace it.²

Methods
In attempts to get a full understanding of this issue, our group made it a priority to engage by getting a first-hand experience with the community and those involved in the current housing system.  Observing the discussions at the Community Board 11 Meetings was crucial to gain perspective on the homelessness predicament in the East Harlem neighborhood specifically, as explained by local officials, community members, and activist groups.  Working with Picture the Homeless was another major strategy in searching for the best possible solutions.  With the organization, we visited a current cluster-site in the Bronx, met with several families and heard their heart-rending frustrations with the housing system. We saw personally the dilapidation of the sites, and then continued a dialogue with them on what they, the first-hand victims of this system, see as the most necessary future actions.
Our team of eight divided our research into three phases. Phase one consisted of preliminary research into the topic of homelessness in New York City and what Picture the Homeless is. We spent about two and a half weeks in phase one as we scoured through online sources to understand the nature and scope of the problem. To conclude phase one, our team arranged the first meeting with PTH where they formally introduced themselves and their goals.  Members from our team went to PTH’s office to discuss what specific policy recommendations they were pushing for.
Phase two focused on researching more into the history of NYC policy in handling homelessness and how the current administration is handling the current crisis. Phase two lasted about a month, during which PTH invited our team to visit cluster-sites and got to interview a couple of the residents. Most of our research was in reading newspaper articles, case studies, and especially looking into community land trusts. We focused a lot of our efforts on finding proposed solutions to the homeless problem at the advice of PTH, but also in our online research.
Lastly, phase three was our two-week wrap up session. We met with PTH for our third and final meeting to discuss our team’s action plan. PTH gave us specific directions as to how they would like us to create our public engagement piece. It was suggested that we create a trifold brochure that can be passed out as reading material. Our team has already split the tasks accordingly. One section of the brochure will address the current crisis for the general public, the other section we’ll list the goals of PTH, and the third section will encompass information on shelter-sites and rent-stabilized housing.

Current Policies
The current homelessness policy of New York City is maintained by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS). This department aims to “provide temporary, emergency shelter when needed; and to help individuals and families transition rapidly into permanent housing.”³ In terms of funding, the DHS operates with an open-ended Request for Proposal process. With this process, “nonprofit social services providers submit proposals to open shelters in neighborhoods throughout New York City, as needed to meet demand.” A committee from the department then approves the proposal, and once it is approved, Community Board meetings and meetings with local elected officials must take place in order to “address any community issues and concerns.” If there is a general consensus about allowing the building of a new shelter, then it is opened in that neighborhood. DHS also encourages the current residents of the community to welcome the incoming homeless people as neighbors who are overcoming personal crises.
Bill de Blasio also launched the “Living in Communities (LINC) Rent Program,”⁴ in which rent assistance is provided to homeless families who have been living in emergency shelters the longest. The enrolled tenants would have to pay thirty percent of the rent and the subsidy would pay the rest. This program is exclusive to people whose situations seem most dire, such as a homeless person over age sixty who is constantly in and out of shelters. Due to limited funding, not everyone is deemed eligible for the program. LINC has also gotten off to a slow start since it launched in January, so the mayor is offering an incentive to landlords who provide the apartments. “As a landlord, you have an opportunity to fill vacancies in your building and receive a $1,000 bonus from New York City,” de Blasio says in an interview recording with NY Post.⁵ This policy is different from that of the DHS because it is aimed to incorporate the homeless back into the general population by having them live within neighborhoods, surrounded by other families, which is meant to motivate them to maintain their financial stability. Even with these current policies, homelessness is still an overwhelming problem in the city. Although no one is turned away from receiving a place to sleep for the night, the homeless are forced to wait on long lines to enter overcrowded shelters.

Cluster-Site Shelters
Homeless families comprise about four-fifths of the homeless shelter population, or 14,524 homeless families.⁶ The current policy to address these outrageous numbers is a program referred to as cluster-site shelters. Cluster-sites were conceived in the 2000s and are similar to the welfare hotels concept that was used to house homeless families back in the 1980s and 1990s. Cluster-sites were only supposed to be a temporary solution to the lack of Tier II shelters, which could not be contracted fast enough to combat the growing problem of homelessness in New York City. Tier II shelters are apartments for families eligible for shelter and are the most common type of housing available to the homeless population.
Back in 2011, when the New York City Department of Homeless Services issued 9,000 units to house homeless people, only 5,000 of them were Tier II.  The DHS requires that shelter families adhere to certain responsibilities listed under the Client Responsibility Rules. In some instances, these rules prohibit guests and extended family from visiting, even during the holidays.⁷ Failure to comply would potentially result in eviction.
The Department of Homeless Services spent $360 million dollars in the year 2014 in their homeless-shelter apartment endeavor. While the amount of money being put into this effort may seem like a positive thing, the most recent reports show that a large amount of the funding is being wasted. The city of New York pays roughly “$2,450 a month for cluster site apartments,” despite the fact that the average rent in these neighborhoods was is closer to $1,200.⁸ This is mainly due to the fact that the department is forced to negotiate prices with private owners, who have the ability to set their own rates. A prime example of this system abuse is found in the Podolsky family, who owns a significant amount of shelter housing real estate funded by the city. In the last four years this family has been able to generate 90 million dollars worth of rent revenue by exploiting New York City’s shelter system.⁹
One can argue that perhaps generating revenue from running private shelters may be justified if families are being helped off of the street. An underlying problem, however, is the fact that the Department of Homeless Services, despite investing millions of dollars, has not been enforcing a reasonable standard of living for these shelters. If private owners are receiving a significant amount of money from the city for housing the homeless, they must follow the basic living standards that any other landlord is legally obligated to provide, but this isn’t happening.
This month, the DOI completed a year-long investigation into 5 cluster site shelters in the Bronx and Brooklyn.¹⁰ Their conclusions were that of all types of shelters, the cluster-site shelters were the most badly-maintained, the least secure, and offered the least adequate social services to families. In these five shelters, they found 223 total violations from the Department of Buildings.
Fire Department, and Housing Preservation and Development.¹⁰ These included things like rats and roaches in the apartments, holes in the walls, uncovered radiators, trash bags piled in the halls, exposed electrical wiring, and broken windows, elevators, and appliances. There were also serious security concerns. Residents and guests are supposed to sign in and out with a guard, but this wasn’t enforced. Some buildings didn’t have guards, and at multiple locations the inspector found the front door unlocked. One building in Brooklyn had 100 NYPD complaints in the past two years, and residents said they didn’t leave their apartments after dark because they felt so unsafe. Residents also weren’t receiving the services to help them get out of the shelter system that the city says it provides. Only 10% of the case files that were selected for review in the Bronx showed any progress towards independent housing, and 87% were missing the Independent Living Plans that are supposed to be completed biweekly. Many residents said they didn’t have caseworkers, and had to travel long distances to meet with anyone about their case.¹⁰
The violations that the inspection reports account for are only a small portion of a corrupt system. The magnitude of the issues in the shelter system can be emotionally understood through the stories and opinions of the homeless individuals in the system. Many of these stories demonstrate the maltreatment of these individuals and their families. They are consistently viewed as another disposable homeless family. These homeless families also note that their landlords for their cluster site ignore their requests for repairs and that the negligence of the apartment building as a whole has also been of harm to them. In the opinion of one cluster-site resident, a single mother of six, “You are made to feel like a criminal simply because of how the system is run.” It’s important to note that she believes the “condition of the shelter system and its rules that deny basic comforts fail to empower New York City’s most vulnerable population to get back on its feet.”⁷
Many families also complain about the efforts of the shelter agencies that arrange their temporary residences. One family reported that they felt that their needs were regarded as less important that those of individuals who have been sheltered for many years prior to their induction in the system. The efforts of these agencies to provide services to the homeless should be directed towards the newly registered homeless peoples. Because these individuals are more recently considered homeless, their ability to transition out of the shelter system is more feasible. When compared to a family who has been sheltered for 7 years, one can become very skeptical of how they remain in this position. Of course, this issue has many layers. New policies should be applied to provide a more seamless transition back out of the shelter system. In addition, another family reported that they were being requested for eviction merely one week after the death of their father. There are consistent complaints about the lack of humanity in those who run shelter systems, especially from the business end. The attitudes of those housed in the shelter system need to be fully understood by those who run these shelters. Their cries for help from negligence and maltreatment must be heard so that changes can occur.
The roots of these problems are easy to point out, but difficult to solve. The pressure for economic growth creates ever-increasing land values that make housing unaffordable, which makes families homeless. As the system currently stands, private owners have a majority of the power when it comes to housing the homeless. The city of New York is forced to negotiate and pay owners in order to utilize private apartments, simply because the city government does not own enough property on its own. Since the privately owned cluster site system is spread out in various parts of the city, the Department of Homeless Services does not have the resources to consistently check up on all of these sites and make sure they are being maintained to their standards of living. With private owners in control it is easy for the government to waste money overpaying for apartments that are inadequate for families.

Solutions
When looking at this issue of abuse and neglect from the policy standpoint, one simple change is clearly necessary. The city government currently does not publicize shelter addresses or their private owners. This policy allows for landlords, such as the Podolsky family, to get away with making an unreasonable profit from housing the homeless. The city should be required to create and maintain a current and accurate database where anyone can look up the addresses and owners of all shelters, along with how much the city is paying them. Allowing for a more democratic and transparent system when it comes to funding privately owned shelters is essential because it will allow the information regarding owners and building to be put out in the open, and provide a forum for any injustice or exploitations to be brought to life. For Picture the Homeless and organizations like them, this tool would be very useful in organizing efforts. The individuals and families who are going to reside in the privately owned housing have the right to weigh in on the decisions made regarding funding and living conditions.
One of the greatest fears of someone involved in the shelter system or other current forms of “affordable housing” is that they have no rights, no voice in their living situations, and no security of tenure.¹¹ If the defining characteristics of a community are personal commonalities, interdependence, and a collective capacity for growth, then solutions that instill human value and let the local community control its land and growth are what are best to ensure that the future development is based on what is most needed and desired.¹²  These principles are embodying in the following several suggestions for progress away from the current shelter system.
The 7A Program is a government takeover of abandoned properties that pose health and safety hazards to their tenants. The court chooses a new manager, usually a housing management company with experience, to take over the building, make repairs, and collect rents.  Sometimes the program allots financial assistance to pay for the repairs and management of the building. There is a rather rigorous application and selection process that attempts to limit a repeated mismanagement. This program often results in the owners relinquishing the buildings, since the process is so expensive for them. This program could be useful in reclaiming cluster cites in poor conditions from slumlords and turning them over to non-for profit organizations. Policy recommendations for this program are to redefine what classifies the building as “in hazardous condition.” If they are turned over to experienced managers before their condition deteriorates further, a large investment in repairs can be avoided and the process streamlined as a whole. ¹³
Community Growth Corporations aim to take underutilized and unoccupied spaces and develop them for desired uses, such as affordable housing.¹⁴ Outer boroughs would leverage the air rights, allowing them to use this money to finance improvements in a city where open land is rare to come by.  Excess floor area ratio (FAR) is auctioned, and then exchanged for CGC shares.  With new regulations, this land (such as rooftops or backyards) which would normally go unused, can be repurposed for necessity and absorb greater density.  This exchange of shares puts landowners in control, with investments that go right back into maintenance of the housing.  All residents thus are able to gain shares, and this way, not only is the future of these units staying in community control, but the returns go back to the land itself.  Similar to CLTs, this puts the land in community control, but also creates a system of funding that ensures that money goes directly into the housing itself rather than to a private owner for profit.
Policies regarding an allocation of funding and power, though moderately radical, can start to be more seamlessly adapted if first smaller steps are made to assuage the bigger picture.  There are many abuses of the housing system, and actions such as rent freezes for stabilized units, speaking out against AirBnB as their presence drives up housing costs and takes housing stock, stop Section 8 housing from downsizing, and ensuring lower rent for the disabled and seniors who have no income to pay high housing costs. Another part of the problem is that the number of rent-stabilized apartments that are declining, which correlates to an increase in the amount of homeless people in New York City. This issue is caused in part by vacancy deregulation, in which an apartment qualifies for permanent rent deregulation if it is vacated without coercion from the landlord and had a rent of $2500 per month.¹⁵ Therefore, this is an incentive for landlords to push out their tenants in order to increase the rent afterwards, which results in a larger homeless population. A possible solution is repealing the Urstadt Law that would repeal vacancy deregulation and give more control over rent regulation to the city instead of to New York State, which would allow greater efforts to be made to preserve affordable housing.¹⁶ Moreover, if affordable housing is preserved, then cluster-sites can be converted to permanent housing more smoothly versus if rents continue to increase, which contributes to increased homelessness.
In an era where real estate is highly contested and the current solutions to homelessness are inadequate, providing affordable housing has never been so crucial. Community land trusts offer the most promising alternative since they permanently remove land from the speculative market and lease it to non-profit organizations committed to providing affordable housing for families in needs¹⁷. With boards that consist equally of affordable housing residents, community members, and various urban planners and government representatives, community land trusts don’t only serve as liaisons between politicians and the community, but also place great emphasis on the longevity, accessibility, and stability of affordable housing; an emphasis that isn’t hindered by gentrification or any speculative pressure.¹⁸ Moreover, community land trust models offer considerable flexibility in terms of subsidy dependence.¹¹ Cooper Square, a slowly gentrifying neighborhood in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, offers a prime example of the benefits offered by community land trusts. Ever since its foundation in 1991, the Cooper Square Mutual Housing Association (MHA) has continued to provide affordable housing units to families earning 30-45% of Area Median Income (AMI) and has slightly increased rent only once in 1994.¹¹ Although maintaining low prices for residential units may seem irrational- for instance $431 for a 2-bedroom apartment instead of the market value of $2200- the method, when compared to affordable housing accommodated by private developers, ultimately saves the city a considerable amount of money in terms of subsidies allotted to individual households. More specifically, with less money directed towards costly rent, “the Cooper Square units cost on average $1,900 per year in subsidies compared to over $3-5,000 for the Partnership [private] units.” ¹¹
It might be difficult to imagine how homeless people could afford to live in a CLT on very low or no income, but it is very possible. A survey of CLTs that Picture the Homeless did with City College in 2011¹⁹ studied urban CLTs and MHAs all over the country to look at how they were founded and run. 70% of them housed formerly homeless people, and 18% had housing set aside specifically for housing the homeless. They did this by getting money from places besides tenants paying rent. They got funding through government housing assistance programs, foundation grants, and renting out commercial space in the buildings. Some of them also charged higher rents to some tenants to subsidize other tenants. Through these methods, 65% were able to house families that made less than 20,000 a year. This shows that CLTs can be a housing solution for all people.
It is therefore apparent that the existence of stable and affordable housing directly correlates with the growth of community land trusts in New York City.  Furthermore, the acquisition of land should be central for the expansion of community land trust networks. One way how the city could expand the community land trust system is by essentially increasing the amount of properties that are available through the Third Party Transfer Program (TPT). Although a considerable amount of land is acquired from the Third Party Transfer program, most of the properties are identified as “physically distressed” that inevitably entail costly repairs for the organizations that lease them.¹⁸   However, with the city adopting the Alternative Enforcement Program (AEP), the owners of such precarious buildings can be fined for neglecting such hazardous conditions and could eventually see their properties in the hands of the Third Party Transfer Program as a result of unpaid repair bills.¹⁸ Additionally, the utilization of specific task forces could allow for the identification of many more buildings that are not as distressed as the ones currently flowing through the Third Party Transfer Program but still eligible for community land trust procurement. By identifying and penalizing both seriously and moderately distressed buildings, the pool of properties available to community land trusts will be significantly augmented.
Neighborhoods like East Harlem need to be seen as environments that can be shaped over time by the aspirations and needs of their inhabitants to influence positive development.  Putting the power in the hands of the people isn’t just righteous, it’s also intuitive.  New York is currently amidst a social divide where funds are invested in the expanding luxury sector despite a growing need for middle and low-income housing.  The evidence is in the numbers; 60,000 homeless people in New York are currently living in shelters, 40,000 of which are in families, and 20,000 are children.⁶ The stigma most people assign to the homeless is ignorant; they are people who want to escape poverty and need a chance to advance.  Those stuck in this predicament aren’t demanding a long list of programs, handouts, or funding, or asking for much at all.  The first step is to get the homeless a home.

CITATIONS

1) Jeantet, Diane. “A Brief History of Homelessness in New York.” City Limits. Institute for Non-Profit News, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

2) “Callahan v. Carey.” Callahan v. Carey, No. 79-42582 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, Cot. 18, 1979). International Network for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, 05 Dec. 1975. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

3) “NYC Department of Homeless Services.” NYC. Gov, 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/about/about.shtml>

4) “Living in Communities.” New Destiny Housing Co. 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://www.newdestinyhousing.org/get-help/living-in-communities-linc>

5) Gartland, Michael. “De Blasio Offers Landlords Cash for Housing Homeless Families.” New York Post. 30 March 2015. Web. <http://nypost.com/2015/03/20/de-blasio-offers-landlords-cash-for-housing-homeless-families/>

6) “Basic Facts About Homelessness: New York City.” Coalition for the Homeless. 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/>

7) Bah, Abdulai. “New York City’s homeless find little comfort in shelter system.” Aljazeera America. 30 March 2015. 31 March 2015. Web.<http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/articles/2015/3/30/new-york-citys-homeless-find-more-discomfort-in-shelter-system.html>

8) Peltz, Jennifer. “Study finds rats, rot, deplorable conditions at New York City-run homeless shelters.” Online. 12 March 2015. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://7online.com/news/study-finds-rats-rot-deplorable-conditions-at-nyc-run-homeless-shelters/555175/>

9) Rice, Andrew. “Why Run A Slum If You Can Make More Money Housing Homeless People?” New Yorker. 1 December 2013. 31 March 2015. Web. <http://nymag.com/news/features/podolsky-homeless-shelters-2013-12/index5.html>

10) Peters, Mark G. “Probe of Department of Homeless Services’ Shelters for Families with Children Finds Serious Deficiencies.” New York City Department of Investigation. March 2015. Web. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doi/downloads/pdf/2015/mar15/pr08dhs_31215.pdf

11) Angotti, Tom. “Community Land Trusts and Low-Income Multifamily Rental Housing: The Case of Cooper Square, New York City.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy(2007): Lincoln Institute. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <http://nyccli.inq13.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2013/09/Angotti.Cooper-Square-CLT-case-study.pdf>.

12) DeRienzo, Harold. “Community Organizing for Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned from a LIfe in the Trenches.” Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned. Ed. DeFilippis, James, and Susan Saegert. New York: Routledge, 2012. 244-248. Pdf.

13)  “7A Management Program.” Requirements to Qualify as a 7A Administrator. N.p., n.d. WEb. 29 Apr. 2015

14) “Uneven Growth: Community Growth Corporation (CGC).” Situ Studio. 20 November 2014. 31 March 2015. Web.

15) New York State Homes and Community Renewal. Fact Sheet #36: High-Rent Vacancy and Regulation and High-Rent High-Income Deregulation. 2, The Official Website of New York State, 20 January 2014. Web. 31 March 2015.

16) “Real Affordability for All: An Affordable Housing Policy Platform for Mayor de Blasio.” April 2014. Web. 31 March 2015. <http://coalhome.3cdn.net/1b1d743c30b064ba1a_y7m6bnd7e.pdf>

17) Ansanelli, Sean et al. “Community Land Trusts In New York City.” (2012): Community Land Trust Network, May 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. <http://cltnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012-CLTs-in-NYC.pdf>.

18) Wilner, Claudia. “Oversight Hearing – Building Homes, Preserving Communities: A First Look at the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Plan” Testimony before the New York City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings and the Committee on Land Use. NYC Community Land Initiative. November 17, 2014. Web. 25 April 2015.

19) City College and Picture the Homeless. “National Survey of Community Land Trusts and Mutual Housing Associations.” Picture the Homeless Fact Sheet. Fall 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Project Goals
This project aims to establish the issues surrounding the homelessness crisis in New York, and using those, research and analyze different policy recommendations involving a full understanding of the different authorities that currently uphold the complex, and who should be given the power instead.  This week centered on clarifying the main question of how that power-play is currently structured, and why the city may be investing so much in a strategy that causes more harm than good.

Project Design/Strategy & Key Activities
In attempts to finish the white paper, we all have been working to clarify most of our data. We have a firm understanding of the historical roots of the issue from a vicissitude of readings and texts, thus the historical context and current predicament are well debated and comprehended in the context of New York. In the white paper, we have been researching more into expanding on the root issues with cluster sites, including private owners and their control, the lack of organization of regulations of standards, etc.   Further research was also put into an organization of the cluster side violations, which have been put into a spreadsheet, listed out by location, and filled in with the various code violations from the recent Department of Buildings Information System report.

The nitty-gritty comes in with policies, mainly, trying to dive deeper into why certain policies are still in commission when they are clearly not doing as much good as others could be in their substitute. Change is not instant, but it is inevitable, and the question of when is very pressing, now more than ever, and increasingly as this homelessness issue starts to grow in magnitude. It’s very difficult to dig into these more covered-up processes, and since the majority of funds are given to private developers, and those records are not published, it makes the system difficult to track. However, we have focused efforts on instead trying to elucidate the processes towards solutions better suited to the problem, such as CGCs, but primarily CLTs.

Also, with Model City Council this weekend, we have been thinking about how to structure our presentation and somewhat collectively agreed that we need visuals and a PowerPoint presentation to present a well-rounded analysis and extrapolation of homelessness. Since our project decided to focus on how we got here, the here and now, and policy recommendations, the presentation will follow this chronology of evolution and end in our suggestions for the policy we support (CLTs) as well as an outline of how these work, since that seems to be the primary source of confusion. Clarifying this policy will help people not only to see how wrong the current state is, but also to see how the power needs to shift into the hands of the community. This is a rather ingenious policy, but a lot gets lost in translation with the many characters and circumstances of the land and its ownership. Perhaps a visual flow chart, or graphic, will be utilized to trace the timeline of necessary events and transactions.

With the brochure, much of our information will be re-directed verbally as if speaking to one of the three audiences; shelter residents, rent-stabilized residents, and the general public.  All can relate to and understand the historical context, but since the policies are regarding the current structure, it is important that each group sees how the system is affecting them directly, and how it could be better.

Work Plan:
– working on presentation materials
– SATURDAY 5/2: Model City Council
– MONDAY 5/4: meeting with Picture the Homeless
– MONDAY 5/11: presentation to Picture the Homeless (have draft of pop-ed brochures to present for feedback)
-MONDAY 5/18: submit final pop-ed piece

Proposed Deliverables:
– White Paper – all
– Pop-education piece (jobs previously assigned)
– pamphlet & website design
– pamphlet info
– Presentation boards/powerpoint:
-based on who did what for the white paper, consolidating this information into a short speech and choosing appropriate graphics and summarized text.

On Friday, Brett and I went to a meeting at the Picture the Homeless office. We met with Eric, Ryan, and Jenny Akchin, who’s a new policy organizer with PTH. We gave them a summary of what we’ve done, and they gave us a lot more direction about how we can help them.

First we discussed the white paper. Jenny is working on researching the ways that buildings can be converted to to CLTs. She explained four main paths: eminent domain, 3rd party transfer, a 7A administrator, and an alternative enforcement program. Briefly, eminent domain is when the city takes buys a building from its owner to use it in the public interest; a third party transfer is when a non-profit takes over a building and then turns it into a CLT; a 7A administrator is when a building is so badly run that they city assigns an outside organization to manage it and make repairs that are paid for by the owner (this often results in the owner relinquishing the building, because it’s very expensive for them); and alternative enforcement is when owners are given deadline by which they have to repair serious problems, and if they don’t a tax lien is placed against the property. We agreed to do more research on these to see how they might work. We’ll include this information, and anything we discover about policies that might make more buildings become CLTs through these methods, in our white paper.

I asked Picture the Homeless specifically about what power city council has to create CLTs, and they said that one thing city council could do was outlaw using rent-stabilized buildings for cluster-sites. This would effectively outlaw cluster sites, because market rate buildings would be too expensive for the city to turn into shelters. Jenny also said that the city council has been passing lots of harassment laws recently, so they could define poor living conditions as harassment (or maybe they already are harassment, I wasn’t clear on that point) and then say that the consequence for this harassment is that the building comes under administration by a 7A administrator. As I understood it, this would effectively increase the number of buildings that fall under 7A administration, and then hopefully become CLTs. In our white paper, we’ll explore these two ideas for policies to suggest to City Council.

I anticipate these new research goals being challenging, because they seem to get deep into the specifics of New York housing law, which is not something that any of us are experts on. We’ll do our best, and ask Jenny for help when we need it, and hopefully we’ll be able to get some useful information. I found this nyc.gov site (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/owners/compliance-housing-quality-enforcement-programs.page) that had a clear overview of a lot of the different types of housing quality enforcement, and it looks like there’s a lot of information in links on that page, so hopefully that helps, although none of it will address conversion to a CLT specifically.

We also discussed what they would like us to do for a popular education project. Ryan told us that the main need they have is for a brochure explaining the problems with cluster-site housing. They want something short and attention-grabbing that they can hand out to people. We brainstormed about that, and decided that what would be best is a single sheet of paper folded into thirds that will tell rent-stabilized tenants in cluster site buildings, cluster site residents, and the general public how cluster site shelters affect them. Our proposed format is three sections titled something like “what you need to know about cluster sites if you’re a… cluster site resident” “…rent stabilized tenant in a cluster site building” “… New York City taxpayer.” Then on the back of the brochure we’d explain what Picture the Homeless wants to happen. They have a Prezi that they made about shelter site housing that they shared with us to give us ideas about how to talk about these issues, and they’re also going to share their list of demands for the campaign, which we will also mention in the brochure. We decided that we would give them a draft of the brochure on May 4th. On that day, at 5:30, we’ll have a meeting at their office to discuss our draft and what changes we can make.

Eric also mentioned that it would be helpful to have a website for the cluster-site campaign that they can use to post popular education tools and information about all the organizations that are sponsoring the campaign. We said that we’d look into how difficult that would be, and if we could do it. I was just looking around WordPress to see how it worked, and I started a site called https://endclustersites.wordpress.com/. I haven’t added anything to it, but it does look like it’s pretty easy to use, so we’ll keep working on it.

We want to have a group meeting soon to talk more about the white paper and the popular education materials, and coordinate our efforts.

Tasks

graphic design of the brochure- Brett, Bethany, Annalise

designing the website and putting information on it- Brett, Bethany, Annalise

Brochure text (all of these will be very very short)

info for shelter residents- Riley

info for rent-stabilized residents- Riley

info for the general public- Corrin

Picture the Homeless’s goals- Corrin

White paper

research paths to turn buildings into CLTs- Omar

research policy proposal about making it illegal to use rent-stabilized buildings for cluster sites- Zumana

research policy proposal about giving 7A administrators to more buildings- Anna

Download (PDF, 35.2MB)

After reviewing the white paper once more and going over unanswered questions from Professor Krinsky’s class, it was determined by the group that a more concrete proposal was needed to address homelessness. Formulating such a proposal at first seemed like a daunting task because of numerous possibilities that the policy could take. It was critical to reorganize and develop a strategy for creating new policy. However, due to the members’ general unfamiliarity with policy beyond the scope of the class, drafting policy from scratch would not be a practical method for creating a solution. The group elected to review more historical approaches to the issue, this time including successful, partially successful and unsuccessful models to analyze and understand. While policy that works out is wonderful and could possibly create a lasting precedent, the environment of New York City is so unique that it is difficult to isolate an application from elsewhere and visualize it’s implementation. Just as it is important to highlight what makes policy work, it is just as critical to understand what causes policy failure and how people and institutions react to the problem.

The framework for revising policy was based on the goals of Picture the Homeless’s initiatives. During the first meeting with them, they explained how eminent domain, community land trusts, and rent stabilization could be used to solve the problem of CLT’s and create a more rehabilitative system where chronic homelessness can be cured. While these are good ideas and seem to be able to work in New York City, the class discussion on Monday and mapping out the issue exercise convinced the group that the policy needed to address more than just the goal. While it would be convenient to cure homelessness by putting everyone in buildings on community land trusts, there are more factors affected by these decisions. Creating effective policy requires a selling point. Through the lens of the class discussion, the idea of removing land from a prospective market and making it non-for-profit was a retrograde approach to increasing funding. Because raising taxes and drawing more from the city’s budget are unpopular options, saving money on current wasteful policy will have to be the bottom line.

The following are a few highlights of policy that the group collectively explored and attempted to follow in its development, implementation, implications, and success.

Mayor Ed Koch’s administration saw the first rise of family homelessness. While his administration first put these people in hotels, the numbers continued to rise until he was forced to take on the issue more directly. Koch’s policy avoided a more permanent solution in fear that families would become dependent on “welfare hotels” and as a result become chronically homeless. Barrack style shelters were created to emphasize the temporary aspect, and expansion of affordable housing and transitional programs produced record lows of homelessness after Koch concluded his last term.

Under Mayor Bloomberg, the number of homeless individuals and families soared to all time highs. Bloomberg’s general business approach to running the city not only contributed to this problem but also created extreme rent rise further widened the economic gap. He replaced federal housing programs with wasteful short-term subsidies that avoided a permanent solution and instead emphasized the private market. His failures have shown how turning over the solution to private companies
(CLT’s) creates big business and lack of permanency and increases homelessness. What can be concluded is that the policy proposal must include government owned and operated shelters because no profit margin means money is not flowing into someone’s pocket.

Oftentimes understanding the root of a problem is the best way to solve it, by working backwards and developing a more all-encompassing approach to address it. From the class on Monday the group developed a tree model where the economic causes branched out into social and political points of the issue. Since the 1980’s, homelessness experienced a new demographic shift known as economic homelessness, where individuals and families are on the streets because they are unable to afford housing. The main reason behind the lack of affordability is a stagnant minimum wage in comparison to the rising costs of living. In this unbalanced race one cannot keep up with the other, and as a result the income gap widens. The ultra-rich are profiting from not only homeless services and cluster site housing, but in general labor from the lower class that has been devalued from a lack in raise of the minimum wage. When one value is being depreciated and the other increased, the gap pulls in both directions and further widens.

While turning over control of shelters to government or non-for-profit organizations could cut out the notorious Podolsky family and save the city money, it will not address the underlying cause of economic homelessness. Creating affordable housing means either lowering rents to affordable rates or increasing wages to compete with rising rents. Such a solution would not only solve the solve the shelter issue but reduce it and put people in homes rather than cluster sites.

The group is going to meet today with Picture the Homeless to clarify policy goals and ask for their input on more permanent solutions and sell-ability of the policy to city council.

As a group, we feel that the feedback that we received from Professor Krinsky’s class. Some of the questions the audience asked include: How will homeless people pay even the low rent to live in a CLT if they don’t have a job? Would CLTs offer any social services to homeless people? Do homeless people need social services? Why does the city pay so much for these shelters and then not check on them? These are the questions that we are collectively trying to answer in order to edit our white paper draft and include in our popular education piece. We all have the task of looking for sources to use as evidence and background information to support our policy proposals. However, we still have to meet and discuss what direction our proposal should take, in terms of how radical or how conservative our proposal should be in order to be effective. Here is a breakdown of what we have been working on individually.

Riley looked at a survey of CLTs that Picture the Homeless did with City College in 2011, in order to answer the question we received in class about how homeless people can afford to live in a CLT on very low or no income. (http://www.picturethehomeless.org/PTH_National_CLT_Survey_Findings.pdf) They studied urban CLTs and MHAs all over the country to look at how they were founded and run. 70% of them housed formerly homeless people, and 18% had housing set aside specifically for housing the homeless. Most CLTs in the survey got money from places besides tenants paying rent. They got funding through government housing assistance programs, foundation grants, and renting out commercial space in the buildings. Some of them also charged higher rents to some tenants to subsidize other tenants. Through these methods, 65% were able to house families that made less than 20,000 a year. The study did not say anything specifically about families that have no income at all, so Riley is still looking for information on that. To try to answer the question we received in class about how homeless people can afford to live in a CLT on very low or no income, she also looked at a survey of CLTs that Picture the Homeless did with City College in 2011. (http://www.picturethehomeless.org/PTH_National_CLT_Survey_Findings.pdf) They studied urban CLTs and MHAs all over the country to look at how they were founded and run. 70% of them housed formerly homeless people, and 18% had housing set aside specifically for housing the homeless. Most CLTs in the survey got money from places besides tenants paying rent. They got funding through government housing assistance programs, foundation grants, and renting out commercial space in the buildings. Some of them also charged higher rents to some tenants to subsidize other tenants. Through these methods, 65% were able to house families that made less than 20,000 a year. The study did not say anything specifically about families that have no income at all, so she is still looking for information on that. Furthermore, we were also asked if CLTs would provide social services. In the 2011 survey, 35% of the CLTs they looked at did include social services, so obviously CLTs are not incompatible with social services. As for the larger question of how much homeless people really need services, this research review from Florida State found that programs where people received housing and were offered supportive services but not required to use them had better outcomes then programs that required people to graduate from specific treatment or education programs before receiving housing. (http://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/institutional_subscribers/40.1.Groton.pdf) This points towards the idea that housing is more important than social services. She could not find any information that Picture the Homeless had put out about this question, so she will ask our community contacts, Ryan Hickey and Eric Goldfischer, about it at our next meeting. Riley initially took on the task of compiling a list of 10-20 cluster-site shelters, their building code violations, and the payments they have received from the city. She plans to ask them if it would still be useful to make that list, or if it would be redundant.

In addition, Brett and Annalise are looking into the conditions of the cluster sites and homeless shelters because they are so unsanitary that if the public knew about the conditions, they may see the shelters themselves as an issue. They will also research into methods of motivating the homeless with programs, such as those for job assistance, in order to include problems like those to our white paper. Before we can propose new programs to motivate the homeless, we need to educate ourselves on the current programs available from the Department of Homeless Services, and their website is the main source for that information.

Moreover, Omar will focus more on solidifying our knowledge of how CLTs work and what can be done to access, maintain and even expand them (Specific task forces, Third Party Transfer program, Alternative Enforcement Program etc.). He also found a lengthy article on the importance of integrating social equity with community land trusts, which could answer some of the questions presented to us. The links below should be helpful for us to consider when answering the questions from the other class.

1) http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/foreclosure/pdf/austincommtrust.pdf

2) “Testimony before the New York City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings and the Committee on Land Use by NYC Community Land Initiative” http://www.neweconomynyc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/City-Council-11-17-2014-Affordable-Housing-FINAL-1.pdf

3) http://cltnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2003-Integrating-Social-Equity-and-Smart-Growth.pdf

Omar will be analyzing these articles in order to share more information about how CLTs work, with the rest of the group. Our policy recommendation may include changing the system of CLTs in order to make them more effective to support those who are homeless.

Anna and I are researching the underlying causes and current homeless housing policies, while sharing that information with the group so that everyone is well informed about the problem before working on a solution. A goal for the upcoming weeks is to focus more on the solution and policy proposal after we pin down the causes of the problem. As for the useless services and expensive rent on shelters, families like the Podolskies and another man named Alan Lapes, who owned shelters himself and worked with them, have a big say in politics. They actually donated a lot to de Blasio’s campaign. (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/don-big-bill-article-1.1448237) One reason the city keeps giving them money is because they give large campaign donations and they get to have a say in policy. This is a fundamental flaw of American democracy and there is not much we can do about it, but we can propose a new policy for communities and the people to have a louder voice, in terms of housing and how shelters are run. Anna thinks we need to gather more evidence and show how it is a huge block in getting anything done. She would advise a full-scale poor class strike and homeless protest/ march through rich neighborhoods, like occupy Wall Street. That would get media attention, which is very important to get their voices heard. This kind of protesting would cause the routine of everyday life to be disrupted and eventually the rich would be forced to respond. She is also working on a more radical approach for achieving political justice, and she is considering the political disadvantages that the homeless and low-income people are at. I suggest that we reread parts of David Harvey’s “The Right to the City” to consider what forms revolution can take because there may be ways to attract attention without sparking chaos in society. We should also look at Sam Stein’s article “La Guardia’s Heir,” in order to analyze de Blasio’s current policies and how progressive he is since he plays a large role in affordable housing policy that the homeless are directly affected by. These class readings can also add depth to our white paper, by providing the perspective of individuals who have written about issues, such as zoning and community planning, which impacts the homeless population as well.

Corrin has also been researching possible solutions and policy changes that we can propose as a group. She found the Eagle’s Nest program, in St. Louis, which establishes a transitional housing facility for single-homeless men and women, focusing on the area’s veteran population. Volunteer members from Eagle’s Nest who worked at facilities that serve homeless veterans and other single homeless individuals came to the conclusion that temporary, emergency accommodations and services are no the solution. Together, they wanted to propose a transitional housing program that will support “these individuals in their struggle to self sufficiency and more permanent housing” (p.10). Ninety percent of 128 homeless veterans surveyed voiced strong support for this program. In this transitional housing program would commit an individual to a treatment plan (for substance abuse) “with required counseling and other services necessary to become self sufficient in a period of 24 months” (p.13). (http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/Research/Student/GregoryQureshy.pdf) In addition, there are education and training workshops that are uniquely designed by themselves and their case worker. These procedures are intended to get each participant economically independent and self-sufficient. Corrin’s findings include that idea that our proposal can use parts of the program, which plan to achieve the following: 60% of the project participants will be successful in obtaining full time employment within the two-year scope and 50% of program participants will successfully maintain a saving’s account within 18 months in the program, with an initial deposit of at least $50. As a group, we will determine if we can apply any of this information into a New York Transitional Housing Proposal. The questions we face are: how come shelters are running so inefficiently? Some of our policy recommendations could be from this legal end of changing what social programs are available based on what the homeless population wants/does not want. There is another housing alternative called micro-housing, which Corrin wants to look into as well.

(http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/07/whod-live-here-micro-apartments-and-nyc-housing-needs/) Ultimately, we still have the task of fine-tuning one policy recommendation to compliment the work of Picture the Homeless.

Bethany has been looking more into CGCs, the MHA, and CLT to see how the three can work together to provide a solution for what we believe is the problem. Questions brought up at the presentation class taught us that we need more understanding of how exactly each of these work, mainly regarding the community involvement, and how homeless people can be both represented and accounted for. She attended the “Uneven Growth: Tactile Urbanism for Expanding Megacities” and was pleasantly surprised that many great urbanists too believe in the power and potential of PLT, and the exhibit had a great video and diagrams explaining how the process works and who is involved, as well as projections for the costs, which she thinks we need to include to be realistic about this plan. The next step is consolidating information and creating a coherent explanation of how this process works with relation to the homeless, as well as thinking about the public education piece, which she feel may involve a very simplified version of how this process works, maybe with clear simple colored diagrams. Getting the public to understand this “abstract” and “liberal” concept is the challenged, but we think it will be possible with just a change of perspective and presentation.

I, myself, will edit the current homeless policy section of the white paper that I worked on, since we want to include some of the long-term programs and services that the homeless are offered to get back on their feet. Simply having a place to stay for the night is not enough to prepare a homeless person for a job interview, so the shelters should provide job assistance and possibly even therapists to help the people through the process of getting their lives back on track. These suggestions may be included in our policy recommendation and our solutions to the problem. (http://usich.gov/plan_objective/pathways_to_employment/how_to_build_employment_programs_that_prevent_and_end_homelessness) I found this source to be helpful because it outlines plans to create employment programs that could benefit the homeless, who need jobs to afford rent and live in New York City. I am also going to work on editing the final white paper to make it more concise because for our popular education piece, we are planning to possibly publish an article outlining the topics discussed in our white paper, along with a few words from our community contacts, in order to educate the public about the issue of homelessness and the current shelter system we have now. Once we have an article written and edited by everyone in the group, we plan to send it to the NY Times, Picture the Homeless’ newsletters, the CCNY student newspaper, and several other publications to spread the information about homelessness and how it is such a huge problem in the city.

After we each fully understand and find sources about the questions that we should consider in our white paper, we plan to meet one day and sit down to edit our white paper draft as a group. We need to incorporate more long-term solutions that the homeless need in order to be motivated and rejoin the workforce because their ultimate goal is to achieve financial stability and never return to shelters. On Monday, April 13^th, half of our group will meet with Ryan and Eric to update them on what we have been working on so far and get their feedback/ input. They may also answer some of our questions of how CLTs work and share some of their policy recommendations, so we can take their work into account and build on it.

Project Brief

The Future of Homelessness and the Shelter-Industrial Complex group has broken down the expectations and specific subjects for each member this week as we finalize our goals and work on the white paper. Anna, who is focusing on the history of homelessness policy, has been exploring how “the political and economic environment of the city” is a key component in how policy is shaped. She points out the different factors and changes that occurred with each new mayor, and how their own personal beliefs affected homeless policy. Corrin also went back in time in her portion in order to define what cluster sites are, how they have been represented in the past, and how they play a role in the present. Then Zumana is working on outlining the current homelessness policies that the city is working with. Since talking to our contact, it has become clear that current policies leave much to be desired.

That is where Riley and I come in. We have decided to outline and focus on the specific problems with homeless policy that have been highlighted in the past five years. Our research, from various sites that have looked over the most recent shelter reports, has concluded that while the city is spending roughly $360 million dollars towards the shelter system, private owners are pocketing a large portion of this. The most disgusting part of this dilemma is the condition these shelters are left in, specifically in terms of building code violations and overall low standards of living. We are specifically focusing on the most recent report, as it exposes the fact that there are hardly any inspections of these privately owned shelters on a consistent basis, thus leaving many homeless people to have to choose between the streets and mold/rat infested housing. Our contact has also shared various documents, which expose one specific family that we have mentioned in class before, who have made $90 million dollars from the city through their control of shelter housing.

Brett is also looking at what’s wrong with the current situation, but from a different perspective. After we have presented all the facts regarding the wasted money and building violations, Brett will be talking about how the homeless feel about this situation. This is vital towards our project because at the end of the day it is the homeless themselves that our contact speaks out for, as they are the people who are victim to the current lack of fair policy and regulation for their housing.

Then comes the most important part of our presentation where we can go from here. Omar and Bethany will be discussing the pros and cons of realistic solutions to the current problem, such as community land trusts and mutual housing authorities. One important key concept that will be focused on is the idea behind the term “affordable housing.” Our concept may be different from the one currently held as the standard for the city. We also want to propose the idea of making these policies more democratic, which is to say that the people should have input into the future of homelessness policies.

Overall the white paper is going well. Each member has a specific area/ assignment that has been committed to. Together our pieces put together an entire picture of the problems that face the homeless in New York City and how we can positively change the current policies that are preventing the homeless from getting assistance of living. Our major goal is to propose ideas that will, in the long-term, allow the homeless time and space to get on their feet and for them to have a high standard of living.

Download (PDF, Unknown)