It is known that with every decision made, not everyone is happy about it. Robert Moses’ slum clearance and redevelopment projects were some of the most controversial changes he made to New York City. His value on efficiency executed his plans but resulted in the suffering of the former residents. In an interview with WNET, Moses became very defensive about his slum clearance programs. This attitude was demonstrated by his negative opinions about the Puerto Rican slum that became Lincoln Square and his insistence that the relocated residents were happy. Moses even scolded the interviewer to make sure his facts were accurate.
Hilary Ballon describes one of the ways Moses responded to Title I guidelines to speed up the development process. According to Title I guidelines, the city was responsible for the relocation and clearance before the land sale. However, Moses sold the land before moving and demolishing and gave the responsibility of relocation and clearance to the buyer because Moses felt that political pressures would slow the processes. Even though Moses thought of relocation and clearance as gradual processes to go in hand with construction, by giving these duties to the buyers, each project’s relocation procedures were different.
Moses was right that the former residents in the space that is now Lincoln Center and Fordham University were happy. The two sponsors hired a reputable relocation firm that helped owners and tenants during the process by searching for new housing, paying brokers for listings, and maintaining apartments during the waiting period. However, this is one project that succeeded in helping the displaced, and it does not describe all of Moses’ projects. For example, Manhattantown residents were not as fortunate because their apartments were not maintained and still had to pay rent to landlords and land buyers that profited from their misery. From 1951 when the buyers bought the land to 1954, there was no new construction and the site was not considerably demolished. If Moses was responsible for the relocation and clearance or just relocation and he did what he imagined, to what degree would it help the evicted?
Ballon adds an idea on how FHA insurance policy contributed to the poor quality of Title I housing. City builders had to cut costs in order to qualify for FHA insurance because the set maximum base cost per room was $8400 and an extra $1000 per room was allowed only in apartments of four or more rooms. In addition, the FHA did not define a bathroom as a room but considered a balcony as a room. Thus, more balconies were built. What or who contributed more to the grievances of the displaced tenants: FHA regulations or Moses? Did each create similar issues?
Works Cited
Ballon, Hilary. “Robert Moses and Urban Renewal.” Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York. Eds. Hillary Ballon and Kenneth Jackson. New York:
W. W. Norton and Company, 2007. 94-115. PDF.
“The Master Builder.” The Next American System. Thirteen. WNET, New York. 1977. Web.
Extra:
This is a great interactive map from Columbia University that shows the locations of Moses’ pools, parks, highways, redevelopment sites, and more. It can help us visualize the locations of Moses’ works and their proximity to each other.
To answer your question, I don’t think FHA regulations had as much of an impact on the grievances of the displaced tenets as Robert Moses did. If I’m understanding your post correctly, Robert Moses basically evaded political involvement in the selling/clearance process (like Title I would normally entail). While the FHA regulations and qualifications for insurance set unrealistic standards that furthered the grievances of the displaced, Moses is the one who left the selling/buying to the privatized market which ended up hurting many of the evicted. Although Moses was hoping to expedite the process by not involving the government, what he did was allow for buyers’ and sellers’ greed to get in the way of relocating people. When people, like the Manhattantown residents, could then not sell their apartments, they ended up suffering greatly because they were forced to pay considerable amounts to the landlords. I’m not saying governmental intervention would have been appropriate, but I am saying that forcefully causing sales within a privatized market can have many detrimental affects on those forced to participate in the market.