It is often said that the only thing that devastates cities more than physical destruction is a poor housing policy. The term is often applied to those coming from underprivileged backgrounds, and the urban decay often wrought in low income areas. As has been a common theme in the readings in our class, Frank Braconi explores the failures and successes of New York’s public housing departments in combating urban abandonment and housing degradation.
Beginning largely in the 1960s and intensifying in the 1970s, a rather despairing trend began in New York. More and more people (mostly from low income areas), began abandoning their homes. The pattern was most observed in New York’s public housing units. As tenants began to vacate, landlords started neglecting their properties. Standard maintenance and upkeep went unheeded. Slowly but surely through back taxes and overdue fines, these delinquent properties began filtering into the possession of New York City. These In Rem housing stock quickly became a thorn in the side of New York. With tenant vacancy low, the housing was costing more for the city to keep than than the revenue rent was generating.
A number of initiatives were taken to manage the In Rem real estate from of party other than the city. One such as ideas implemented was the cooperative or co-op. In a co-op there are no said owners or landlords of an apartment building. Every tenant is a co-owner and services such as maintenance and heating are organize by the tenants. This idea is especially popular because it both eliminates the capitalistic for-profit component., while placing the responsibility for the well-being of the housing with the actual people who use it. I am in fact very intrigued by this concept of housing. Generally people are enticed by incentives. If your going to do something, your going to want to get some benefit from it. Co-ops capture that idea, and empower people to define their own destinies and living standards which I think is a marvelous idea.
Another propositions implemented by the New York housing authority handed over In Rem housing to non-profit organizations. The idea seems simple enough. Ideological groups such as non-profits who are not out to make a quick buck are best suited to run housing for the underprivileged. Yet as Mr. Braconi elaborated in his piece, there are still difficulties with this model. Generally, non-profits are hesitant to raise rents. With rising operating costs and skyrocketing utilizes in the 1970s and 80s, expenses began to outpace revenues. Thus non-profits who were unequipped psychological to raise rents were caught desperately off guard. This inability to make difficult decisions would constantly undermine the not-for-profit model.
Lastly, the housing authority began turning over their housing stock to for-profit businesses. This model happens to be the most controversial. Critics argue that for-profit organizations should be the last parties involved in housing for the poor and underprivileged. Yet, people respond to incentives. In many way for-profit enterprises are the only ones who actually have the incentive to keep and maintain delinquent housing. Personally, I believe a combination between for-profit housing and government subsidies could make for an effective match. In truth, this model proved to be one of the most successful employed by the new york housing authorities.
