It's on the flyer if you click on the link but here are some highlights.
RESIDENTS ARE FED UP!
We're tired of waiting months for repairs. We're sick of broken elevators. We're fed up with living in over crowded apartments. We're disgusted by the garbage piles.
RESIDENTS ARE TAKING ACTION!
The SOUND Campaign demands that GOV Patterson include funds for public housing on the budget being released in December. We Demand:
State fully fund $64 million
City fully fund $30 million
Stop requiring NYCHA to pay $70 million for police and sanitation services.
Invest $100 MILLION of STIMULUS money to the weatherization of developments.
RALLY at City Hall November 12th @ 11 AM
I feel it's a bad, corrupt and broken system that needs to be done away with. People who live there have no incentive to ever get out and then get entitled, thinking they deserve a manhattan apartment with a view to be subsidized by us. I think it's wrong.
That money would be better spent on a new plan for public housing, not lipstick on a pig.
Public housing should be a temporary safety net, not a permanent living option.
So the RESIDENTS are fed up, are they? Well, let me tell you, the TAXPAYERS are fed up too! We're tired of being taxed to death (while having to pay for our OWN full-price, market-rate housing) so that a bunch of lazy bums can have an "affordable" place to live.
Don't like the living conditions? Here's a suggestion: L E A V E.
way much more taxpayer's money is wasted by artificially inflating housing prices (along with inflating market rate rentals). along with that artificial inflation comes a huge wealth transfer from future wanna be homeowners towards current homeowners that should be opposed on moral grounds. obviously the policy of inflating them comes along with having to provide cheap housing for the least able to afford those inflated prices.
it would be much better imho to officially welcome very low home prices across the board by not allowing tons of credit into the sector (both by not relaxing lending standards nor subsidizing the cost of credit).
Yes people need housing. This is not Survivor. We can't have people on the streets, it's not good for them. But it is also not good for others who want their streets clean and safe, right?
Who said anything about not helping those who can't afford market-rate housing? I'm just not sure that the answer lies in mega blocks (a lot of NYCHA projects were constructed on mega-blocks with no through access, making them to access) of apts with zero socio-economic & racial diversity. Are we better served with mixed-income housing, for example? Or converting them into privately-owned homes (ala council estates in Thatcherite UK)? Don't be so dogmatic.
"Yes people need housing. This is not Survivor. We can't have people on the streets, it's not good for them."
Well, if it's a choice between an apartment and living on the streets, maybe "they" would be best served by getting off their asses and WORKING for a living.
"Based upon the 2000 Census, NYCHA's Public Housing represents 8.6% of the city's rental apartments and is home to 5.2% of the city’s population. NYCHA residents and Section 8 voucher holders combined occupy 12.7% of the city's rental apartments."
That doesn't even include the subsidies to programs like Mitchell-Lama. I've known 3 people who grew up in Mitchell-Lama housing in NYC and are all now in their late 30s early 40s. All of them are professionals making very good incomes (lawyers, etc.) but are essentially, in my opinion and probably legally, ripping off the system.
1 of them keeps the Mitchell-Lama apt. as a pied-a-terre, and b/c he previously rented it out for profit (I think illegally), had the funds to buy an enormous house in the suburbs. The 2nd person was put on a list as a child and got an apt in the same building as her mother, and because the rent is so low, is able to work only part-time. The 3rd person bought an apartment in Boston where he lives full-time, and rents out his apartment for income. His parents divorced when he was 6 yrs. old, both parents moved out but somehow kept the apt in their names so when he hit 18 they could transfer it into his name.
Ridiculous.
Also know a guy whose parents got a rental in Stuy-Town back in the 50s. He was born in the 60s and they put his and his sister's name on the list. They got another apartment this way, then the parents passed away, and the sister moved to Westchester. So he lives in one of the apartments and illegally sublets out the other one.
I'm opposed to all of these types of government programs - they always lead to massive abuse and fraud. I know many more stories (first hand - people seem to have no shame and love to brag about how the rip off the system) of rent-controlled apartments and rent-stabilized apartments being used by people who do not need these subsidies.
They drive up the rate of market-rate housing. They increase taxes. They destroy the social fabric by making it seem to otherwise law-abiding people that it is ok to cheat the government, which is really the same as cheating their friends and neighbors (just try to tell them that, though.)
I tutor blind and legally blind adults for their GED and college degrees. They are bright and motivated, but remain unemployed, even after graduation. Do you have any idea how many people with vision impairments live in NYC? Over 300,000. How many blind people work in your company? How many with other disabilities? Not many live in your building, right? The reason you don't interact with this large population is that they live in public housing and cannot obtain work. I've had students whose sole income is an SSI payment of $868/month, which is why they need subsidized housing. They mostly live in the outer boroughs, where transportation is not as available or reliable as in Manhattan. You would lose your job in a month if you had to rely on Access-a-Ride to get you there. The city's audit showed that 6.3% of the time your ride won't even show up: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/07-28-09_ME09-078A.shtm
I think you have an inaccurate image of who lives in public housing. Many people with disabilities would be on the street if not for public housing. Many elderly too. Some truly cannot work; others just have no realistic hope of finding employment. It is also wrong to think that nobody in public housing works or that they never leave. I knew a family who lived in public housing for several years, and was able to move out a few years ago. These people had jobs, but it took time for them to save enough and develop seniority at their jobs (both for a higher wage and security against layoffs) to get their own place. They were happy to get their kids out of public housing.
That family had the advantage of being a two-parent home. I think there are many single parents living in public housing as well. They do not possess skills that allow them to earn enough to cover their childcare expenses, so working outside the home is not feasible. You may say that is a life choice you do not wish to pay for. I say, maybe if all those people had job skills, you would be out of a job or earning less than you do, due to a more competitive job market. In that case, they are subsidizing your lifestyle.
It's facile to tell people who have struggled all their lives to get off their asses and work. If you have a job, job training or other help to offer, please post it on this board and I will forward it to my students and graduates.
NYC10023
You make an interesting point. Part of why Matt and I live in a totally different New York is that I interact with a population that remains invisible to him. I am not a fan of the mega-block complexes, which were eliminated during the 90's in some other cities. Have you read Gang Leader for a Day? It gives an interesting description of life in such a complex and anecdotal evidence of how some of the families found housing together so that they could continue to watch each other's children, share rides to work, etc. after their Chicago mega complex was torn down.
Katie please. No one argues that society should not take care of people unable to take care of themselves, like the blind. But this is a small percentage of the people who are actually using the system (NYCHA, mitchel lama, rent stabilization). Very few people don't have the choice to work hard and develop skills necessary to be able to support themselves.
Matt didn't make that distinction, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he meant to. Then do you agree that the disabled and elderly shouldn't have to wait months for repairs, including broken elevators which make it impossible to leave their apartments? That's what the flyer quoted above is demanding.
I strongly disagree with your belief that only a small percentage of people using NYCHA housing are unable to take care of themselves. The numbers simply do not bear out calling them "a bunch of lazy bums" as Matt did. Let's say the 5.2% number posted above by Augustus is correct. Wkikpedia also has the most recent population estimate in NYC at 8.3 million. That means under 432,000 people live in NYCHA buildings. What we know is the majority of these residents are children, right? People get upset with single moms with 2 or 3 or more kids. I am adding that in my experience, many of the residents are disabled or elderly. So the residents are mostly children and people who cannot be employed and, as you acknowledge, should be entitled to care in our society. There is also slice of people who do work, but are still poor. They're the ones trying. Should we cut them off?
Perhaps the discussion got mottled by people lumping in other forms of rent subsidies. I am not saying nobody ever games the system. I'm saying nobody likes NYCHA housing that much. The majority of the people there lack other options and deserve decent maintenance and sanitation.
The sense I get from comments on this board is that people recognize that handing AIG, or Citi or others billions of dollars at taxpayers expense was wrong, but people feel powerless to do anything about it. Matt screams that "TAXPAYERS are fed up too!" The anger is misdirected toward people in NYCHA housing and is disproportionate to their actual impact, but more closely correlated to what people feel they can control. Bailing out large corporations was orders of magnitude more expensive than making needed repairs to buildings. It feels like bullying the weak because the bigger bullies got away with it toward us.
"RESIDENTS ARE FED UP!
We're tired of waiting months for repairs. We're sick of broken elevators. We're fed up with living in over crowded apartments. We're disgusted by the garbage piles."
Bash me & thrash me, but, here goes:
Often, not always, but often, it's the residents who cause some of the damage which necessitates the repairs. Of course, there are some good people who take care of their apts, but there are those who cause the damage & then the whole building suffers. Residents need to take responsibility for themselves.
Broken elevators: I'd say bet 70%-80% of the time, elevator damage is caused by residents abusing the elevators.
Overcrowded: Who chooses to 'over crowd" their apts? Residents.
Garbage Piles? Why isn't NYC Sanitation picking up? Why don't residents call 311? I have done this & eventually, I spoke to someone at my local garbage depot, made a complaint, found out the pick up schedule & things improved.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, NYCHA is a behemoth bureaucracy that responds slowly, if at all, to resident's complaints & requests for repairs. I feel sorry for anyone who has no alternative but to live in a NYCHA bld. These buildings have never been a good place to live & that's not likely to change.
matt and lic are blind twin children of a junkie dad and a hooker mom--despite these incredible diasadvantages they pulled themselves up by by their bootstraps and have thrived to the extent that they spend much of each day bleating their selfish garbage on this site--who can blame that thye resent help for the weak and disadvantaged--dont waste your sincerity katie--keep using your energy to help people
dwell, you appear, you disappear. we're having another gathering in a week. do show.
if you're a fascist, you're a delightful one.
i'm letting katie fight for the cause on this one. although i doubt there is the means to do anything at this point to change substantially the system, i'm sadly afraid we didn't choose wisely when we designed public housing in NYC.
Agree, dwell. I can't point to any studies, but can anyone disprove that residents of public housing cause more damage to common facilities and their own apts than residents of market-rate rentals? From what I can see of south-west & west London, the older council (public) housing were sold to the occupants and have been sold on the open market for a while. Newer council housing tends to be integrated with free market units and are also more integrated with the street (i.e. no mega blocks or courtyards or clover-leaf type configurations).
Has anyone run the numbers? At some point, it may be more cost-effective for the NYCHA to turn over the leasehold to the tenants and to let them own instead of pumping money in the system.
nyc10023: it's a perfectly logical, great idea, and that's why it will never happen.
There's always some al sharpton type making a very good living off the current situation. To have the fouth-generation 14-year old mothers of three to take responsibilities! Awful! Discriminatory!
"From what I can see, I don't see any well-designed public housing from the 60s & 70s anywhere."
That's at least partially because they were meant as a TEMPORARY support, not as inheritance for the system gamers.
"Better yet: turn over management to Al Sharpton."
It's already done, don't you agree?
I think we're stuck until some mildly suicidal lawyer brings a law suit against the financial waste, glaring abuse and open thievery in the "low income" housing.
"I can't point to any studies, but can anyone disprove that residents of public housing cause more damage to common facilities and their own apts than residents of market-rate rentals? "
I haven't seen much graffiti in market-rate rentals, have you?
the harvard law grad, future Sidley associate, who recently became an arsonist? although he had never been admitted, and won't be now, so you may have lost your chance.
The sad thing about many public projects (in NYC) is that they started off very well and at the time, were a HUGE improvement over the tenements that their original occupants moved from. They were well-maintained (based on news stories) and there was a sense of community. Various factors combined to change this. Upwardly-mobile tenants left, and were not replaced by more of the same. Projects lost their diversity. Crack epidemic followed, the rest is history.
The problem isn't unsolvable - we have very good examples from different countries and also in the U.S., as to what to do. The long-term strategy should be to turn over units to occupants (self management, leasehold), vacate some buildings (I think the NYCHA is already warehousing) and demolish, replace with mixed-income housing.
I can anecdotally say that a good friend of mine works for a contractor that does business for the city in the housing projects, and when it comes to the elevators, he says that the tenant abuse is a major factor with them. He can't believe how many projects he has been in where the tenants basically use the elevators as bathrooms.
There doesn't have to be a lawsuit. The gov'ts at all levels are running out of $ for subsidies. Self-management and ownership is a win-win situation for both sides.
nyc10023, you are absolutely right. And again, the only solution in a litigious country is a litigation. In this case, against NYCHA.
MAybe at some point, the fed up Streeteasy denizens can come up with more or less organized step.
wow i can't wait to see what kind of vitriol this thread induces. for those who truly feel angered by the NYCHA I suggest a quiet weekend with a few volumes of Jane Jacobs
"The sad thing about many public projects (in NYC) is that they started off very well and at the time, were a HUGE improvement over the tenements that their original occupants moved from. They were well-maintained (based on news stories) and there was a sense of community. Various factors combined to change this. Upwardly-mobile tenants left, and were not replaced by more of the same. Projects lost their diversity. Crack epidemic followed, the rest is history."
Actually, the real reason for most of the changes was left out. Alan reminded me.
In the 80s, they started fast-tracking homeless into projects. This meant getting rid of INTERVIEWS, which is where you figured out who would actually take care of their apartment. Once they let just anyone in, the projects went to crap. This happened all over the place.
Also, there was a huge downside to the projects relative to the former slums. The projects were about clearing the slums, creating air/light, and that part was true. But what they left out is, they now had 200 families who all had to go through one common entrance. Meaning gangs/dealers/whatever could control entire buildings via the lobby.
And, then that housing can never really gentrify. The slums that didn't get replaced in manhattan... well, many of those have become fancy neighborhoods. But the projects got worse.
In general, I think you can consider the high-rise project a flop.
And, I do believe that there is something to the fact that projects do need to stink a little. There has to be disincentive to live there, period. They *have* to be less attractive than the more expensive options... otherwise, you create a scenario where there is little reason to leave the projects and end the subsidy.
"There doesn't have to be a lawsuit. The gov'ts at all levels are running out of $ for subsidies. Self-management and ownership is a win-win situation for both sides."
Unfortunately, I think that the gov'ts will tax the rest of the population to death before they ruffle a sharpton lite's feathers. Just getting rid of the provision that the projects can run for generations will be amazing.
A combined effort — a lawsuit fortified by press and mass media exposure — will do wonders.
I just heard from a very old lawyer who just might get interested.
As a taxpayer, I don't want to be on the hook if the elevators are broken, window-guards are broken, etc. leading to unsafe conditions for the innocent. Better to turn 'em over to self-management (and thus relieve us of liability). Sharpton and sharpton-lites can't be complaining if they are running the buildings.
Somewhereelse: it's not undesirable for people not to leave. If you build in permanence, ever think about the fact that senior citizens are generally NOT the source of crime? Esp. violent ones? As a long-term strategy, an aging population in the projects is a good thing. And if new tenants have to buy in, even better.
Glamma: so far the comments have been remarkably unvitriolic (except for the predictable). It's one thing if you believe in a no-subsidy-ever kind of world when it comes to housing, and another if you believe in subsidies like me, but wise subsidies.
Hi nyc10023!! "Self-management and ownership is a win-win situation for both sides." Yes, that would be great. If tenants feel that the bld is theirs, they will take better care of it. But, ya know that ain't gonna happen.
"He can't believe how many projects he has been in where the tenants basically use the elevators as bathrooms." GROSS!! A private Landlord could kick that Tenant out, but much harder, if not impossible, for NYCHA to do so, so the good tenants (& all other tenants) suffer.
"but it might be nice if the elevators worked so the paramedics could reach and retrieve someone having a heart attack on the 25th floor." Agree, AR. It's horrible. If feel esply sorry for the older residents; they're really prisoners.
Why not, dwell? Thatcher, with one stroke (okay, maybe many strokes) of the pen privatized council housing in the UK. They tore down a vast housing proj. in Chicago a few years ago. I think that harsh economic times are perhaps the best time for radical action. The $ ain't there.
Not only is it bad for paramedics, but every 12 months, some disaster seems to befall some kid in public housing (falling out of windows, into chutes, trapped in elevator).
I'm disturbed by what seems to be a growing grassroots movement for more funding, including stimulus funding going towards NYCHA housing projects.
http://www.thelodownny.com/.a/6a01127920a5dc28a40120a64fc099970b-pi
They're planning on a big rally at City Hall on November 12th. I feel like rallying against this.
11201,
Do you have additional details?
It's on the flyer if you click on the link but here are some highlights.
RESIDENTS ARE FED UP!
We're tired of waiting months for repairs. We're sick of broken elevators. We're fed up with living in over crowded apartments. We're disgusted by the garbage piles.
RESIDENTS ARE TAKING ACTION!
The SOUND Campaign demands that GOV Patterson include funds for public housing on the budget being released in December. We Demand:
State fully fund $64 million
City fully fund $30 million
Stop requiring NYCHA to pay $70 million for police and sanitation services.
Invest $100 MILLION of STIMULUS money to the weatherization of developments.
RALLY at City Hall November 12th @ 11 AM
11201,
How do you feel about this?
I feel it's a bad, corrupt and broken system that needs to be done away with. People who live there have no incentive to ever get out and then get entitled, thinking they deserve a manhattan apartment with a view to be subsidized by us. I think it's wrong.
That money would be better spent on a new plan for public housing, not lipstick on a pig.
Public housing should be a temporary safety net, not a permanent living option.
So the RESIDENTS are fed up, are they? Well, let me tell you, the TAXPAYERS are fed up too! We're tired of being taxed to death (while having to pay for our OWN full-price, market-rate housing) so that a bunch of lazy bums can have an "affordable" place to live.
Don't like the living conditions? Here's a suggestion: L E A V E.
Just as long as they pay their own Con Ed bills.
way much more taxpayer's money is wasted by artificially inflating housing prices (along with inflating market rate rentals). along with that artificial inflation comes a huge wealth transfer from future wanna be homeowners towards current homeowners that should be opposed on moral grounds. obviously the policy of inflating them comes along with having to provide cheap housing for the least able to afford those inflated prices.
it would be much better imho to officially welcome very low home prices across the board by not allowing tons of credit into the sector (both by not relaxing lending standards nor subsidizing the cost of credit).
GUys get over it, public housing is an important public good, and we can't have housing complexes that are not well maintained. It isn't punishment.
Is it an important public good, Jenn? Or does more harm than good result from having housing projects with no income diversity....
Yes people need housing. This is not Survivor. We can't have people on the streets, it's not good for them. But it is also not good for others who want their streets clean and safe, right?
Who said anything about not helping those who can't afford market-rate housing? I'm just not sure that the answer lies in mega blocks (a lot of NYCHA projects were constructed on mega-blocks with no through access, making them to access) of apts with zero socio-economic & racial diversity. Are we better served with mixed-income housing, for example? Or converting them into privately-owned homes (ala council estates in Thatcherite UK)? Don't be so dogmatic.
"Yes people need housing. This is not Survivor. We can't have people on the streets, it's not good for them."
Well, if it's a choice between an apartment and living on the streets, maybe "they" would be best served by getting off their asses and WORKING for a living.
do i hear advocacy of mixing subsidized tenants/owners into free market buildings/communities?
From Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Housing_Authority
"Based upon the 2000 Census, NYCHA's Public Housing represents 8.6% of the city's rental apartments and is home to 5.2% of the city’s population. NYCHA residents and Section 8 voucher holders combined occupy 12.7% of the city's rental apartments."
That doesn't even include the subsidies to programs like Mitchell-Lama. I've known 3 people who grew up in Mitchell-Lama housing in NYC and are all now in their late 30s early 40s. All of them are professionals making very good incomes (lawyers, etc.) but are essentially, in my opinion and probably legally, ripping off the system.
1 of them keeps the Mitchell-Lama apt. as a pied-a-terre, and b/c he previously rented it out for profit (I think illegally), had the funds to buy an enormous house in the suburbs. The 2nd person was put on a list as a child and got an apt in the same building as her mother, and because the rent is so low, is able to work only part-time. The 3rd person bought an apartment in Boston where he lives full-time, and rents out his apartment for income. His parents divorced when he was 6 yrs. old, both parents moved out but somehow kept the apt in their names so when he hit 18 they could transfer it into his name.
Ridiculous.
Also know a guy whose parents got a rental in Stuy-Town back in the 50s. He was born in the 60s and they put his and his sister's name on the list. They got another apartment this way, then the parents passed away, and the sister moved to Westchester. So he lives in one of the apartments and illegally sublets out the other one.
I'm opposed to all of these types of government programs - they always lead to massive abuse and fraud. I know many more stories (first hand - people seem to have no shame and love to brag about how the rip off the system) of rent-controlled apartments and rent-stabilized apartments being used by people who do not need these subsidies.
They drive up the rate of market-rate housing. They increase taxes. They destroy the social fabric by making it seem to otherwise law-abiding people that it is ok to cheat the government, which is really the same as cheating their friends and neighbors (just try to tell them that, though.)
Did anyone see the 60 minutes report on Medicare Fraud 2 weeks ago? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml
Don't watch the report or read the article if you have high blood pressure.
Medicare loses seven times as much money in fraud every year than the combined profits of the 14 health insurance companies on the Fortune 500.
I would love some economist or the Freakonomics guys to calculate the real cost of public housing to NYers.
Matt,
I tutor blind and legally blind adults for their GED and college degrees. They are bright and motivated, but remain unemployed, even after graduation. Do you have any idea how many people with vision impairments live in NYC? Over 300,000. How many blind people work in your company? How many with other disabilities? Not many live in your building, right? The reason you don't interact with this large population is that they live in public housing and cannot obtain work. I've had students whose sole income is an SSI payment of $868/month, which is why they need subsidized housing. They mostly live in the outer boroughs, where transportation is not as available or reliable as in Manhattan. You would lose your job in a month if you had to rely on Access-a-Ride to get you there. The city's audit showed that 6.3% of the time your ride won't even show up: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/07-28-09_ME09-078A.shtm
I think you have an inaccurate image of who lives in public housing. Many people with disabilities would be on the street if not for public housing. Many elderly too. Some truly cannot work; others just have no realistic hope of finding employment. It is also wrong to think that nobody in public housing works or that they never leave. I knew a family who lived in public housing for several years, and was able to move out a few years ago. These people had jobs, but it took time for them to save enough and develop seniority at their jobs (both for a higher wage and security against layoffs) to get their own place. They were happy to get their kids out of public housing.
That family had the advantage of being a two-parent home. I think there are many single parents living in public housing as well. They do not possess skills that allow them to earn enough to cover their childcare expenses, so working outside the home is not feasible. You may say that is a life choice you do not wish to pay for. I say, maybe if all those people had job skills, you would be out of a job or earning less than you do, due to a more competitive job market. In that case, they are subsidizing your lifestyle.
It's facile to tell people who have struggled all their lives to get off their asses and work. If you have a job, job training or other help to offer, please post it on this board and I will forward it to my students and graduates.
NYC10023
You make an interesting point. Part of why Matt and I live in a totally different New York is that I interact with a population that remains invisible to him. I am not a fan of the mega-block complexes, which were eliminated during the 90's in some other cities. Have you read Gang Leader for a Day? It gives an interesting description of life in such a complex and anecdotal evidence of how some of the families found housing together so that they could continue to watch each other's children, share rides to work, etc. after their Chicago mega complex was torn down.
Katie please. No one argues that society should not take care of people unable to take care of themselves, like the blind. But this is a small percentage of the people who are actually using the system (NYCHA, mitchel lama, rent stabilization). Very few people don't have the choice to work hard and develop skills necessary to be able to support themselves.
LIC,
Matt didn't make that distinction, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he meant to. Then do you agree that the disabled and elderly shouldn't have to wait months for repairs, including broken elevators which make it impossible to leave their apartments? That's what the flyer quoted above is demanding.
I strongly disagree with your belief that only a small percentage of people using NYCHA housing are unable to take care of themselves. The numbers simply do not bear out calling them "a bunch of lazy bums" as Matt did. Let's say the 5.2% number posted above by Augustus is correct. Wkikpedia also has the most recent population estimate in NYC at 8.3 million. That means under 432,000 people live in NYCHA buildings. What we know is the majority of these residents are children, right? People get upset with single moms with 2 or 3 or more kids. I am adding that in my experience, many of the residents are disabled or elderly. So the residents are mostly children and people who cannot be employed and, as you acknowledge, should be entitled to care in our society. There is also slice of people who do work, but are still poor. They're the ones trying. Should we cut them off?
Perhaps the discussion got mottled by people lumping in other forms of rent subsidies. I am not saying nobody ever games the system. I'm saying nobody likes NYCHA housing that much. The majority of the people there lack other options and deserve decent maintenance and sanitation.
The sense I get from comments on this board is that people recognize that handing AIG, or Citi or others billions of dollars at taxpayers expense was wrong, but people feel powerless to do anything about it. Matt screams that "TAXPAYERS are fed up too!" The anger is misdirected toward people in NYCHA housing and is disproportionate to their actual impact, but more closely correlated to what people feel they can control. Bailing out large corporations was orders of magnitude more expensive than making needed repairs to buildings. It feels like bullying the weak because the bigger bullies got away with it toward us.
"RESIDENTS ARE FED UP!
We're tired of waiting months for repairs. We're sick of broken elevators. We're fed up with living in over crowded apartments. We're disgusted by the garbage piles."
Bash me & thrash me, but, here goes:
Often, not always, but often, it's the residents who cause some of the damage which necessitates the repairs. Of course, there are some good people who take care of their apts, but there are those who cause the damage & then the whole building suffers. Residents need to take responsibility for themselves.
Broken elevators: I'd say bet 70%-80% of the time, elevator damage is caused by residents abusing the elevators.
Overcrowded: Who chooses to 'over crowd" their apts? Residents.
Garbage Piles? Why isn't NYC Sanitation picking up? Why don't residents call 311? I have done this & eventually, I spoke to someone at my local garbage depot, made a complaint, found out the pick up schedule & things improved.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, NYCHA is a behemoth bureaucracy that responds slowly, if at all, to resident's complaints & requests for repairs. I feel sorry for anyone who has no alternative but to live in a NYCHA bld. These buildings have never been a good place to live & that's not likely to change.
OK, now call me a fascist.
matt and lic are blind twin children of a junkie dad and a hooker mom--despite these incredible diasadvantages they pulled themselves up by by their bootstraps and have thrived to the extent that they spend much of each day bleating their selfish garbage on this site--who can blame that thye resent help for the weak and disadvantaged--dont waste your sincerity katie--keep using your energy to help people
dwell, you appear, you disappear. we're having another gathering in a week. do show.
if you're a fascist, you're a delightful one.
i'm letting katie fight for the cause on this one. although i doubt there is the means to do anything at this point to change substantially the system, i'm sadly afraid we didn't choose wisely when we designed public housing in NYC.
Hey, AR!!!!!!!!!!!! Looking forward to seeing you on 11/11? (is that the date?? The 11th month, 11th day, 11th hr?)
Yes, I am a delightful fascist: Like Springtime for Hitler!!!
i'm fairly certain i'll still be there 11/11 at 11:00. know thyself, i always say. will bump the thread shortly.
Agree, dwell. I can't point to any studies, but can anyone disprove that residents of public housing cause more damage to common facilities and their own apts than residents of market-rate rentals? From what I can see of south-west & west London, the older council (public) housing were sold to the occupants and have been sold on the open market for a while. Newer council housing tends to be integrated with free market units and are also more integrated with the street (i.e. no mega blocks or courtyards or clover-leaf type configurations).
From what I can see, I don't see any well-designed public housing from the 60s & 70s anywhere.
Has anyone run the numbers? At some point, it may be more cost-effective for the NYCHA to turn over the leasehold to the tenants and to let them own instead of pumping money in the system.
nyc10023: it's a perfectly logical, great idea, and that's why it will never happen.
There's always some al sharpton type making a very good living off the current situation. To have the fouth-generation 14-year old mothers of three to take responsibilities! Awful! Discriminatory!
Better yet: turn over management to Al Sharpton.
"From what I can see, I don't see any well-designed public housing from the 60s & 70s anywhere."
That's at least partially because they were meant as a TEMPORARY support, not as inheritance for the system gamers.
"Better yet: turn over management to Al Sharpton."
It's already done, don't you agree?
I think we're stuck until some mildly suicidal lawyer brings a law suit against the financial waste, glaring abuse and open thievery in the "low income" housing.
"I can't point to any studies, but can anyone disprove that residents of public housing cause more damage to common facilities and their own apts than residents of market-rate rentals? "
I haven't seen much graffiti in market-rate rentals, have you?
Anybody know a brave lawyer with a death wish?
the harvard law grad, future Sidley associate, who recently became an arsonist? although he had never been admitted, and won't be now, so you may have lost your chance.
The sad thing about many public projects (in NYC) is that they started off very well and at the time, were a HUGE improvement over the tenements that their original occupants moved from. They were well-maintained (based on news stories) and there was a sense of community. Various factors combined to change this. Upwardly-mobile tenants left, and were not replaced by more of the same. Projects lost their diversity. Crack epidemic followed, the rest is history.
The problem isn't unsolvable - we have very good examples from different countries and also in the U.S., as to what to do. The long-term strategy should be to turn over units to occupants (self management, leasehold), vacate some buildings (I think the NYCHA is already warehousing) and demolish, replace with mixed-income housing.
Actually, lack of diversity is a very good reason for a law suit.
We need a Denny Crane or Alan Shore from Boston Legal on the case.
I can anecdotally say that a good friend of mine works for a contractor that does business for the city in the housing projects, and when it comes to the elevators, he says that the tenant abuse is a major factor with them. He can't believe how many projects he has been in where the tenants basically use the elevators as bathrooms.
it isn't unsolvable, but it will take money. particularly the creation of (or conversion of existing to) mixed-income housing.
There doesn't have to be a lawsuit. The gov'ts at all levels are running out of $ for subsidies. Self-management and ownership is a win-win situation for both sides.
nyc10023, you are absolutely right. And again, the only solution in a litigious country is a litigation. In this case, against NYCHA.
MAybe at some point, the fed up Streeteasy denizens can come up with more or less organized step.
wow i can't wait to see what kind of vitriol this thread induces. for those who truly feel angered by the NYCHA I suggest a quiet weekend with a few volumes of Jane Jacobs
"The sad thing about many public projects (in NYC) is that they started off very well and at the time, were a HUGE improvement over the tenements that their original occupants moved from. They were well-maintained (based on news stories) and there was a sense of community. Various factors combined to change this. Upwardly-mobile tenants left, and were not replaced by more of the same. Projects lost their diversity. Crack epidemic followed, the rest is history."
Actually, the real reason for most of the changes was left out. Alan reminded me.
In the 80s, they started fast-tracking homeless into projects. This meant getting rid of INTERVIEWS, which is where you figured out who would actually take care of their apartment. Once they let just anyone in, the projects went to crap. This happened all over the place.
Also, there was a huge downside to the projects relative to the former slums. The projects were about clearing the slums, creating air/light, and that part was true. But what they left out is, they now had 200 families who all had to go through one common entrance. Meaning gangs/dealers/whatever could control entire buildings via the lobby.
And, then that housing can never really gentrify. The slums that didn't get replaced in manhattan... well, many of those have become fancy neighborhoods. But the projects got worse.
In general, I think you can consider the high-rise project a flop.
And, I do believe that there is something to the fact that projects do need to stink a little. There has to be disincentive to live there, period. They *have* to be less attractive than the more expensive options... otherwise, you create a scenario where there is little reason to leave the projects and end the subsidy.
"There doesn't have to be a lawsuit. The gov'ts at all levels are running out of $ for subsidies. Self-management and ownership is a win-win situation for both sides."
Unfortunately, I think that the gov'ts will tax the rest of the population to death before they ruffle a sharpton lite's feathers. Just getting rid of the provision that the projects can run for generations will be amazing.
but it might be nice if the elevators worked so the paramedics could reach and retrieve someone having a heart attack on the 25th floor.
i know, i'm such a softie.
A combined effort — a lawsuit fortified by press and mass media exposure — will do wonders.
I just heard from a very old lawyer who just might get interested.
As a taxpayer, I don't want to be on the hook if the elevators are broken, window-guards are broken, etc. leading to unsafe conditions for the innocent. Better to turn 'em over to self-management (and thus relieve us of liability). Sharpton and sharpton-lites can't be complaining if they are running the buildings.
Somewhereelse: it's not undesirable for people not to leave. If you build in permanence, ever think about the fact that senior citizens are generally NOT the source of crime? Esp. violent ones? As a long-term strategy, an aging population in the projects is a good thing. And if new tenants have to buy in, even better.
Glamma: so far the comments have been remarkably unvitriolic (except for the predictable). It's one thing if you believe in a no-subsidy-ever kind of world when it comes to housing, and another if you believe in subsidies like me, but wise subsidies.
Hi nyc10023!! "Self-management and ownership is a win-win situation for both sides." Yes, that would be great. If tenants feel that the bld is theirs, they will take better care of it. But, ya know that ain't gonna happen.
"He can't believe how many projects he has been in where the tenants basically use the elevators as bathrooms." GROSS!! A private Landlord could kick that Tenant out, but much harder, if not impossible, for NYCHA to do so, so the good tenants (& all other tenants) suffer.
"but it might be nice if the elevators worked so the paramedics could reach and retrieve someone having a heart attack on the 25th floor." Agree, AR. It's horrible. If feel esply sorry for the older residents; they're really prisoners.
Affordable housing should be in affordable places. Not the most expensive city in the nation.
Why not, dwell? Thatcher, with one stroke (okay, maybe many strokes) of the pen privatized council housing in the UK. They tore down a vast housing proj. in Chicago a few years ago. I think that harsh economic times are perhaps the best time for radical action. The $ ain't there.
Not only is it bad for paramedics, but every 12 months, some disaster seems to befall some kid in public housing (falling out of windows, into chutes, trapped in elevator).