Borinquen Plaza, East Williamsburg
Have to admire the New York Sun‘s ability to spin an editorial into a news story. On May 15, they made decent arguments (I disagree with a few items not worth getting into) for a wholesale give-away of New York’s public housing units to the people who live in them. Then this morning, after a week of poking around town searching for quotes from economists and social workers, the Sun published an article demonstrating support for last week’s editorial’s demands and assertions.
It’s fun to see this because I have been saying this for a while. The projects, built in the wake of the city’s program of “slum clearance” from the 30s to the 50s, and then with some built after parts of the city, including Bushwick, burned down in the 60s and 70s, have ironically remained the only slums left in this entire city of 8 million. Slum-like properties that are not city-owned are always directly adjacent to those that are. I advocate just handing the current residents a deed to their unit, and having the city withdraw from providing housing altogether. The article goes into the pros and cons, so I won’t restate them here. I do have one addition to the “pro” camp that nobody seems to be addressing: future affordable housing stock once the current inventory is converted to market-rate property.
What will happen to the poorest of the workers in the city — those who do the most menial jobs which require no skills? How will they afford housing in the city if they’re making typical unskilled wages? As with any product, when demand for labor rises but supply of labor does not, labor prices rise. In New York, everyone can agree there is a high demand for maids, janitors, drivers, and other no- or low-skill jobs. Hourly wages here are already slightly higher than most areas of the country — much higher percentagewise than the federal minimum wage.
What would happen to these workers if their housing converted to market-rate? Would they all immediately leave the city workerless: floors unmopped, beds unmade, shelves unstocked? Of course not, the idea is ridiculous — their labor would simply also revert to market-rate, whatever that may be in a city where a normal apartment costs $2000. If you think the rich will go without their domestic help, you are living in a fantasy world. And that brings me to my final point — public housing is in part an indirect subsidy for the richest among us. Sure, we all rely on people working unskilled and hourly jobs to keep the city running at its most basic levels. But the wealthy simply use more labor than the middle class. Mandating cheaper-than-market housing makes it easier for the rich to continue to pay a pittance for labor, instead of what it truly costs to maintain a decent labor force in New York City.
We’ll all still ultimately pay in the wake of significantly higher wages, this is true, but we will pay only the exact amount we rely on the labor of the unskilled. There’s no doubt this is much more efficient than involving massive, expensive bureaucracies to do what the market does on its own: keep workforce housing in the city, like it does in every other city without public housing.
Incidentally, I’m well aware there are quite a few physically and mentally sound people in subsidized housing who don’t work at all. That should be ended even if the city stays in the housing business. And yeah, I know they will make out like the bandits they are if they are handed a piece of property that may be worth millions. Did they earn it? No. But then again, living in them for any length of time might be payment enough. Get rid of the projects. Everyone will be better off.
UPDATE: Haha, the Sun considers this post evidence of building momentum.
More support for the Sun’s plan to give public housing tenants their apartments comes from, of all places, Bushwick, Brooklyn…
Mark May 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I didn’t yet read the Sun article so I really shouldn’t comment here but at the rate this website is going I won’t often have the chance of making the first comment, so here goes-
Yesterday I met a friend in my loft building in Bushwick who was sitting in the courtyard writing a letter to the Mayor, yes the Mayor, could you imagine, she actually had the nerve to sit and write to Hizzoner hisself.
Her grievence was about the fact that minorities get so much more chances to get free education etc. than the regular white person [maybe she's for affirmative affirmative action]
She doesn’t have a problem if she simply doesn’t get free college education, she understand that one has to work for ones goals etc. But to see how some people just get more of a chance than others and to add insult to injury they get their money through her taxes [she pays over 10,000 dollars taxes a year]that gets here all riled up. Maybe rightfully so.
It reminded my of Ayn Rand whom she happens to agree a lot with.
I can just imagine (or maybe I can’t) the Megillahs every official in town will be getting from her if this here idea ever takes off.
Armstrong May 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 am
There are poor white people in this city too. In fact the majority of people who receive public assistance in this country are white. I have to disagree slightly with Jeremy’s analysis. Most likely people will not pay their maids, busboys, etc. enough to afford market rate rents. Instead, these people would be displaced to the far suburbs and even further out and face daunting reverse commutes, a reversal of what began happening in the 1940′s and 1950′s. These poorer people however would have less access to the cars necessary to engage with work, family and health care. Capitalism is a system clearly designed for “winners,” or those who succeed; however, this paradigm therefore requires “losers.” The criteria for how any society is judged includes how it, as a whole, treats its “losers.” Our disgusting rates of infant mortality, illiteracy, life span, etc (largely problems of the poor) humble us on the world stage of industrialized nations… Now, please excuse me while I cut and paste all that for my next paper for school. LOL
Armstrong May 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
And actually, yes – I do agree that having high rise projects of concentrated poverty is not a good idea. Instead, having mixed income developments is a far better option, IMHO.
Jeremy May 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 am
Armstrong — you’re right, many may be forced to move to the suburbs. To commute like, uh, everyone else does. However, you’re wrong about cars — “poor” people looove their cars and here in Bushwick, many families even have two. And they are NICE. Anyway, you don’t need a car to get to work from the burbs — it just makes it easier.
As for your winners and losers comment — it *belongs* on a paper for school. Seriously, could you explain what the definitions of “winner” and “loser” are in this context, and explain why the presence of the former requires the latter? This should prolly be taken to the forum…
Jeremy May 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 am
Back on topic — mixed-income developments are a pipe dream. Mixed-income *neighborhoods* are possible and already exist all over the world. Overly-strict zoning hampers this phenomenon, however. You can’t complain about architecture/density context AND the lack of affordable housing. Not without sounding ridiculous.
Armstrong May 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“Winners” are those that succeed in the capitalistic system (making money, owning real-estate, etc) either through birth or ability. The “losers” in capitalism are those that can’t or won’t due to birth, dis-ability, inability etc. And what I’m saying is that in an equitable society that is diverse and interesting, I’d rather not shuttle no small percentage of the population off somewhere else so I can live in a gated community. I left the suburbs in order to not live in that environment.
Actually, what I’ll further say is this (and I’m in the middle of finals and stressed, I’ll admit): I was quite excited to initially come across this blog. How cool would it be to know what is going on in my hood in terms of food, art, culture, architecture, history, etc.? Yet it is a bit alienating when every other post/article of yours reads like an anti-poor at best/racist at worst, rant. Is it possible that you’d be open to requests to stick to lighter fare and lay off your political views?
You might find you’d be attracting fewer psychos bawling you out on here – like that dude a couple weeks ago; not to mention it would simply be a more pleasant place overall.
Jeremy May 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Oh here we go. I’m a ranting racist. Pretty much all you have to say to dismiss anything I say without finding it necessary to respond. It’s an old trick but it won’t stick here, because I haven’t said anything racist, and I have not ranted. I DID truly intend to stick to mostly curiosities and fluff, here’s my problem:
if I post about real estate — gentrification
new places opening in the hood? — gentrification
architecture and fixing stuff up — gentrification
if I post about history — whitewashing Latinos out of Bushwick’s history
if I post about my own garden full of trash — racism
The post that provoked the psycho was about CONDOS. Really what it seems this is about is that you disagree with me, so I’m the antagonist for not posting only about art and what I ate at Northeast Kingdom. Something tells me that if I were calling for a bigger pool of Section 8 vouchers, I wouldn’t hear anything from you about “ranting.” But I think people should take initiative in their own lives, so I’m an anti-poor, racist ranting jerkass white gentrifier. I make organic bread out of the blood of black babies, which I buy from the government who is in cahoots with all us evil white people.
The above is a rant. Not my blog posts up to now.
Anyway, I agree with you on the blog — I’d like this to be a big source of neighborhood info and fun facts and nice pictures and good food and cool events. I’m warming up and slowly figuring out my direction and style. I’d also love to not be the only schmuck here blathering about my one little corner of this big hood, so if you want to maybe fill a niche here, please pitch me something.
Let’s just take a chill before this place ends up like Curbed.
Armstrong May 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Indeed. Under a bit of pressure here so some things that would normally roll off my back are not, just for today anyway. Cheers.
Jeremy May 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Bump for the update.
veronica May 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
well i’m not saying your a racist, but i think your thoughts are somewhat idealistic. i agree that people will not pay more for so-called “un-skilled labor” just because the cost of housing goes up. people will be pushed out, that is the whole problem with gentrification. housing is so bad as it is that people who are considered “professionals”, who have degrees, cannot afford the average rent. so what happens? they find someplace cheaper, ie. places like bushwick. gentrification doesn’t have to be a bad word if the newcomers work with the people who are already there.
what also makes gentrification seem bad is that when the middle class folk move in (ie. mainly white people, i’m sorry to say) neighborhoods that were trashed and run down start to get attention. why? because it’s all about money and the system has a history of racism and as a result, the disenfranchised, who where also people of darker colored skin, of the past were never really enfranchised and they had kids who are disenfranchised today.
as for the claim that white people are disadvantaged by all the help that “minorities” get from the government, i’m hardpressed to believe that. ever driven through skid row in downtown LA? has it ever occured to you that the majority of people on the street are mainly african-americans? that the majority of the people in jails are african-american or hispanic? why is that?
instead of trying to further commodify housing by ridding of all public support, why not be an activist for the poor? why not find out why public housing projects are such an eye sore? why not find out why the people who live in the projects lead such miserable lives? there are other solutions to the problem and not all of them are so antagonistic.
anyhow, sorry if i come across to strongly! :)
Jeremy May 30th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hey Veronica — you said you think workers will not get paid more if housing costs increase and that they will be pushed out by professionals — will said professionals also be cleaning toilets and wrapping sandwiches? A bit of a hole there in your argument, but maybe you accidentally left the solution out.
As for “commodifying housing” — housing is a commodity. It’s a product created by businesspeople to satisfy the demands of consumers.
As for the rest of your questions concerning the poor — I have no idea how one makes the jump from observing criticism of the way in which the poor are “helped” to demanding that the critic become an activist for the poor. Wow. Even if I did have the desire or extra time, I’m certain it would not be in a manner with which you’d agree.
The projects are eyesores (to say the least) mainly because they are physically hideous, built not according to the demands of the customers who might live in them, like market-rate housing, but to the specifications of the elite classes who hoped the wave of the future would be a tiny percentage of the population deciding what’s best for the rest and then ordering us to obey. They are filthy slums because with few exceptions the only people who live there are the bottom of the barrel of tenants, ineligible for the absolute worst, most far-flung craphole market-rate apartment for one reason or another, and that’s why they have to clamor for the government to house them.
A plea to end the projects and to end housing subsidies is not in any way meant to be antagonistic. New York is the filet mignon of housing — I don’t go stomping into Tavern on the Green demanding filet for the price of a diner hamburger. I absolutely can’t wrap my brain around the New York entitlement mentality — it’s my right to live in any neighborhood I want no matter how popular and nice, and regardless of trifling details like how much money I make! A person has got to be a bit juvenile to refuse to so much as move to a farther-out suburb or a different city, likely with more opportunities, just because he *wants* to live in NY. It’s the adult equivalent of a toddler’s temper tantrum.
Sorry if *I* came across too strongly. :)
Antonio August 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I am so sick of hearing some White people complaining about minorities getting a free education. Back in 1994 when I was attending college if you made more than $4,000 dollars you didn’t qualify for Pell and/or TAP. In order to qualify for those grants you had to be scraping the bottom of the gutter before you get help. I had to borrow money to go to school. And does your friend forget or even care that for years and years minorities were excluded from well paying jobs not because they weren’t qualified but because of racisim? Many of us have had to make due with whatever crumbs fell from the table. You’re friend should stop complaining and be thankful that she hasn’t had the same hardships many minorities have encountered.
Jeremy August 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I think most of us here agree, Antonio…though that assumes that non-whites actually do get more free education opportunities — I don’t see it. In fact, they sometimes get the shit end, for example, my partner was the top honor student in his school, but so that they could give that award to a white kid, they gave him top Hispanic honor. Which you really can’t blame anyone for looking at as a gimme award, when the reality is it was not at all.