Before reading Frank P. Braconi’s excerpt, “In Re In Rem: Innovation and Expediency in New York’s Housing Policy”, I have never heard of in rem. Even as a New Yorker, it was certainly an unfamiliar term to me. It derives from Latin, meaning “against the thing”. But used in the context of housing today, the term refers to the range of rules, regulations, and programs governing foreclosed homes. Nonetheless, the program was initially developed to fix New York’s increasing during the late 1960-70s housing abandonment. A variety of strategies were implemented to counter the problem.
What exactly caused this wave of ditching New York? According to Braconi, the city was simply too expensive to live in. Two-thirds of the housing stock was rental housing, which made the city sensitive and vulnerable to “profit and loss calculations, as absentee investors are more likely to be aware of, and act upon, bookkeeping judgments than are owner-occupants” (95). Other factors include the city’s large public housing projects and rent regulations. Large-scale projects threatened the private rental stock and rent regulations undercut the availability of funds for operational costs.
Nonetheless, one thing I found particularly startling were the statistics provided in the reading. Braconi first states that operating costs increased exponentially during the 1970-80s. “Heating oil prices increased 430 percent and overall operating costs of apartment buildings in New York City rose by 131 percent, whereas the cumulative permitted rent increase for rent controlled apartments was 106% and for rent stabilized apartments 81 percent” (96). There were also data tables – one of which depicted great differences between in rem housing maintenance deficiencies and all rental housing maintenance deficiencies.
Today, New York City is still considered to be one of the most expensive places to live. But instead of facing housing abandonment problems, we are struggling to find more housing (particularly affordable housing). I think that another factor that played a role in the housing abandonment of the 1960-70s was the level of desirability of living in New York. Modern day improvements and advancements in the quality of life has increased the desirability of being here. So despite the high prices, people still choose to come or stay in New York.
Overall, I found the reading very informative and fascinating. Braconi provided great insight into New York City’s housing past, particularly the in rem program. And since I have never heard the term before this reading, I consider myself to be a ‘moderately informed member of the general public’ now (93). In addition, it was interesting to see how housing abandonment was such a big problem, whereas now, we face the exact opposite.
