Where’s the Independence?
Getting some air, by for the love of BROOKLYN
The Bushwick Housing Independence Project — another brainchild of Father Powis, former chief of St. Barbara’s Catholic Church — is an organization that helps people fight eviction from, and get repairs made to, their rent-regulated Bushwick apartments. NYT’s David Gonzalez makes much sap of a serendipitously (for the reporter) placed portrait of MLK in a particularly stinky building being targeted by Bushwick Housing Independence: “Bushwick Tenants’ Dreams Are Mired in the Stench.” The landlord has offered buyouts to the tenants: two years of rent and help finding another regulated apartment somewhere else. It seems to me if Bushwick Housing Independence cared even about the near-term well-being of its clients, it would tell them to take the money and run. Are we to believe that existing another 30 years in a crummy railroad is what passes for “dreams” in Bushwick?
What mostly bothers me is BHIP’s Orwellian name: nothing about an organization that demands landlords become the de facto guardians of their customers evokes “independence.” Being independent means taking responsibility for one’s own life. Demanding that your rental apartment be considered, for all intents and purposes, your property with NONE of the duties ownership generally entails is the opposite of taking responsibility. It’s to demand to be taken care of like a child and simultaneously be allowed all the freedoms that come with adulthood. Unfortunately for the “children” this situation is unsustainable long-term and when it ends, they find themselves with few skills for coping with life as the adults they are. This then somehow is the fault of everyone else in the world who didn’t save them from their own personal failings.
Priorities are truly skewed in this city. Even if the situation were sustainable, even if it were just, it is not in any way “independence.”
April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hi Jeremy, You hit upon something very central to American culture, the idea of homeownership. There is a wealth of research highlighting the benefits and behavioral changes that result from ownership. It seems astounding that a person would turn down the opportunity to recieve two years of rent up front. But they are recieving counsel from someone they trust. This generous payout amount is enough to place a downpayment on a modest place in other parts of New York. I’m thinking Brownsville or Canarsie. There are places in the Bronx too. Of course, there are places here in Bushwick that may be within reach. Of course, a person has to live within their means which dictate where you live.
Please consider the following, there can be nothing more liberating than liberating oneself from dependency. Be it substance, alcohol, nicotine, or even landlords.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I suggest you read my piece carefully. Wolfe Landau, the person offering the Troutman tenants relocation and rent money told me he does not own the building. So there is no offer from any landlord.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Yes I saw that it just slipped my mind when I was doing the final read. Doesn’t change the direction of the post, or the fact that these offers, even when they are legit, are often sneered at and treated as “further” victimization of the tenants.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Jeremy,
If you want a reason for the vitriol that you are sometimes subject to, then look no further than the above post. Instead of showing the people in these buildings any sympathy, since these people are arguably, well, people, and your neighbors, your article begins with sarcasm and ends with an unbelievable level of presumptuousness, since you dismiss them not only as essentially dependent sub-humans, but as bad parents as well.
Aside from this unexplainable distain for people you have never met, and who have never done anything to you, we have the issue of the two buildings that these Bushwick residents actually live in. First, the tenants that live at 665 Central Avenue are dealing with 151 open Housing Code violations for such things as failing to provide heat, the existence of lead based paint, broken stairs and many, many, other apartment specific violations. I found this out by going to the HPD website and entering the address. What I also found out was that the landlord for this building is registered at 199 Lee Avenue, and this is perhaps significant for David Gonzalez of the NY Times. David, if you are still reading this blog I would suggest that you look into this address, because it is linked to some of the worst landlords in all of New York City. I would wager that the owners of maybe two dozen buildings, many of them in Bushwick, that the new HPD program has placed on their two hundred worst buildings in NYC list (also known as the Alternative Enforcement Program), have some connection to 199 Lee Avenue in Brooklyn. As for 64 Troutman Street, the landlord hasn’t even taken the most basic step of registering with the City at all, and the tenants in that building are dealing with 29 Class “C” emergency Housing Code violations, for such problems as the failure to provide heat, defective electrical work, also breaking the stairs (which is a classic harassment move), and many other serious problems.
The reason my comment is so long is because, after reading your post, I was, to say the least blown away by your cold hearted cynicism. The problems that these tenants are dealing with in their apartments are immense. These are their homes, where they have raised their families. Instead of showing any sympathy, you simply suggest that if they don’t like it they should leave, since as tenants, they have no interest in the property. Aside from the fact that each of these tenants have a lease hold interest, which is significant even if you don’t understand the issue, these are people that call Bushwick home, while the landlords at issue here have owned the building for less than two years, and see it simply as their next short term investment. What is more, these housing standards are the result of a democratic consensus about how our neighbors should live, not merely some arbitrary decision by some low level government inspector. People like Jacob Riis and countless activists and attorneys fought to make sure slum conditions were eradicated and these laws are the result.
It is clear by their actions that the landlords are neglecting these buildings, and in some ways actively making them less habitable, so as to push these tenants out. The meager “buyouts” being offered by the landlords (even if they provide them with $15,000.00) will only last a year or two at best if they have to pay the inflated prices often found on this website. In fact, I think the tenants would be better off having the repairs made and staying in their apartments.
Good luck tenants.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The only thing that is clear is that these housing standards are due to price controls (rent stabilization). Price controls discourage capital investment. No amount of legislation will force building owners to invest money for an inadequate return. Abolish the price controls and let the market work. Things will get better.
As for 665 Central Ave, did you notice, ’sup, that the vast majority of the violations stem from one tenant in one of the ground floor apartments? Did you ask that tenant if he or she has even been paying his or her rent lately? I know it’s hard to believe, but sometimes tenants call HPD every couple of days as part of a strategy to avoid paying rent (no way, say it ain’t so!) Did you ask the tenant if he or she is the one who broke the stairs, then called HPD to report it? Seriously, do you really believe the landlord did it?
All I’m saying here is that there’s more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. None of us knows the full story here. This landlord may or may not be a saint. But, and this is for David: Don’t let yourself be fooled by tenants and tenant advocates. The rent stabilization system turns landlords and tenants into adversaries. As a result, everyone has an agenda. Some are just better at manipulating the press than others. On this one, it looks to me like you were “spinned” - sorry to inform you.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
the article is kind of confusing, Gonzales implies ominous forces at work when in reality he just doesn’t really know what’s going on (so what was the stench from? some torn up stairs and walls aren’t going to stink).
assuming Wolfe Lansau’s offer would be put in writing, why wouldn’t the tenants take the deal? it’s not just 2 years’ rent, it’s moving expenses, it’s help finding another (regulated) apartment. how is that outweighed by staying in an admittedly-messed up building?
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Ah details, shmetails. Why let details get in the way of a good story?
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“sup”:
I suggest you re-read the post, if you think I called anyone subhuman or referred in any way to any actual minors.
I have no sympathy for adults who would rather live like this than do better for themselves. It’s too damn easy in this country to make a living. In NYC, maybe not. But certainly NYC is not the only place in the world to live. So you’re right — no sympathy what. so. ever.
Your dismissal of a $15,000 lump sum as “only lasting two years” shows that it is actually YOU who think these people are somehow dumber than the average person who has no problem managing their money. How do they pay their rent now? Presumably, this would be $15,000 EXTRA dollars, and you basically say they would just spend it all instead of saving it or spending it wisely. I’m offended by that. If you are right, and they do blow all that extra dough, then it’s clear whose fault their situation is — their own.
All you have proven is that the vitriol I am often subject to is due to density and ignorance (both often willful), not for anything I actually said.