“In Re In Rem: Innovation and Expediency in New York’s Housing Policy” by Frank P. Braconi explains the situation of New York City owning and managing tax foreclosed housing. This was referred to as in rem. This was an idea that I was unfamiliar with but I thought the plans made sense considering the circumstances.

I had never heard of this concept of New York City using properties that have been foreclosed on for tax delinquency. This is probably because, I imagine, this idea is far less practical today than it was during the time Braconi writes about. Property in New York City is extremely desirable today so if a property owner were facing the financial difficulties that would lead to tax foreclosure, it would be easy to find a buyer for the property. This was not the case in the 1970s. New York City faced a crisis as people moved out of the city, the economy declined, and crime rose. As we discussed in previous readings, this was due to a combination of a suburbanization and a decline in certain industries, such as manufacturing. This left New York City with a great number of properties that people either couldn’t afford or didn’t want. Many buildings were abandoned as a result of this.

At a time when New York City was facing so many problems, drastic action needed to be taken by the government. Looking back, it made sense for the government to take on the responsibility of owning and managing the foreclosed properties. Doing so improved the city because they were able to put the buildings to use when no one else was willing to do so. At the same time, they were able to help the people of the city by providing housing to those who otherwise couldn’t afford it. The decision for the city government to own and manage these tax foreclosed properties helped to solve two major problems New York City was facing at the time.

Of course, this was not a simple and perfect solution to New York City’s problems. Managing low-income housing comes with its own problems. The city had trouble paying for the maintenance of the buildings it managed. Braconi explains that in rem housing typically had far more maintenance deficiencies than other rental housing. He states that, at one point, the property management operations cost $294 million annually while rent collections were only $85 million. Braconi also mentions a case in which the family of a child who suffered from lead poisoning while living in an in rem apartment was awarded $10 million. This example describes the difficulties of managing housing. It is important to keep up with maintenance otherwise there could be horrible and costly results. In low-income housing, this is particularly challenging because the rent collections often don’t provide enough money to pay for maintenance. I believe this is the largest issue for all low-income housing and I’m not sure that a good solution exists. The best solution I see when it comes to low-income housing is to spend public money to keep it maintained. Otherwise it could end up being a bigger waste of money and detrimental to the community, as we saw in the film about Pruitt-Igoe. Fortunately, New York City did what it could to maintain the in rem housing.

Eventually, New York City improved and once again became a desirable city. As this occurred, the city government began to reduce its in rem inventory. Although it wasn’t a perfect scenario, I believe New York City’s actions regarding in rem housing made the most of the bad situation and were beneficial to the city overall.