Priest Uses Children as Ideological Pawns
I love the New York Times‘ David Gonzalez for his over-the-top use of metaphorical language — my first notice was in an article about the tenants of 64 Troutman (note the MLK ref), and now we’re really treated to a doozy today in an article about 208 Evergreen. A long intro marries a child’s geometry homework and the shapes reminiscent in the terrible conditions in which the residents of the building live.
I also am impressed with his access to Monsignor John Powis, the man behind (in various capacities) Make the Road NY, St. Barbara’s church, and the Orwellian named Bushwick Housing Independence Project. I enjoy Powis’ quotes, especially the more juvenile ones like, “the landlords come in and just want to make money” — which is apparently a shock to this man of God. Does he mean to tell us that people don’t put hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into purchasing property with the sole purpose of providing comfortable and inexpensive housing to strangers out of the kindness of their own hearts? Say it ain’t so, Monsignor.
Here’s some basic econ that I cannot repeat enough: the larger the gap between market and regulated rents, the more monumental the dirtbag who would even be interested in buying a regulated property. You can pass any law you want, landlords will find a way around it — and it will more often than not produce hideous unintended consequences for everyone involved. That’s when you end up with disasters like children breathing toxic black mold in the key developmental years of their lives.
The article ends with a shocking statement from Powis:
“My worry is the city’s going to put a vacate order on the building. That would just be playing into the hands of the landlords.”
Is Powis more concerned with getting his ideological kicks, or the wellbeing of the families mired in these putrifying apartments? If these places are as bad as they sound, shouldn’t the tenants find alternative housing as soon as possible? No, that would “worry” Powis because it would be harder for him to stick it to the Man. Maybe he prefers the days when his Catholic Church was the Man.
September 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
where are they supposed to go?
September 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
somewhere else.
September 29th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“If these places are as bad as they sound, shouldn’t the tenants find alternative housing as soon as possible?”
No, the landlords should be forced to fix up the properties, or the City should do it and send the bills to the landlords. It’s exactly what they do when Sanitation has to clean up owners’ failure to maintain their properties.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Where will they go? That’s none of my business, as they are adults and presumably can care for themselves.
The landlords WILL fix up the properties, when they have the right financial incentives. Regulation removes those incentives. Forcing them to make repairs they do not find profitable will bring about a proportional wave of disinvestment in housing. I think Bushwick has had enough of that, thanks.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
It’s upsetting when people who pay very little for rent and are surrounded by opportunity their whole lives
(i.e. living just outside Manhattan, that’s where America keeps the money guys)
get all charged up about landlords owing them things. And then it’s just ridiculous when they get racist. Like being white is some kind of a permanent vacation.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
i agree with Jeremy
September 29th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Lets face it the new comers wont be in this self seving Preists clergy. Jesus called the religious leaders of his day “vipers and snakes”,and a whole lot lot more…The more things change the more they stay the same.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Jeremy, I actually lived in that building back in 1970 before moving next door to 210 Evergreen. 208 was abandoned and vacant for more than a decade. Crack heads were the only tenants back in the 80’s. I always imagined that the building would eventually be razed.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:10 am
if the landlords do not obey the law they should be penalized. just because people are creative at flouting the law, this does not make them above the law. in bushwick, where the median household is not much more than 22k, affordable housing is needed to keep families out of shelters and off the street. if the laws that govern rent regulation/stabilization and landlord responsibility are unjust or inappropriate, how do we ensure that housing is made safe and affordable for the millions of new yorkers who are living in poverty? what sort of financial incentives can be used to protect children from exposure to black mold? eliminating regulation would place a greater burden on those 40% of bushwick families already paying more than 60% of their incomes on rent. i think it’s within the responsibility and the ability of government to tackle these issues, but i realize this is not always a popular opinion. what do you think? (I’m going off the figures from this article from 2005, that I believe jeremy recently criticized, but i’m assuming the stats havent changed much http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305bushwick.1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1#)
September 30th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“The landlords WILL fix up the properties, when they have the right financial incentives.”
Sorry, when you take title to a building, the responsibility of its upkeep and providing your tenants with a safe place to live comes along with it. Not only when you decide you have the “right” tenants. If you don’t want to be tied up by rent control, don’t buy a rent controlled building. I don’t believe in rent control, but it’s not like the regulations were a secret when the dickwad landlord bought it.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I know we must all look the same to you, but if you are going to take a shot at me, the last name is G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z.
Your readers may be educated, but whoever edits your copy needs a brush-up.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Hah, yeah David, I’m totally racist against surnames. Fixed.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:12 am
QC, unfortunately, people don’t behave the way you think they ought to, and laws and penalties for breaking those laws will never be as stern as you’d like. Which brings us back to unintended consequences. So you can pound your fist and demand the law be followed, but it helps to realize that while the low regulated rents were built into the price of the building when it was bought, so was constant harassment built into the cheap rent for the tenant. Tenants don’t get to be carefree children with all the benefits of ownership and none of the responsibilities — the market seems to hate that arrangement and seems to be constantly attempting to correct it.
And of course these landlords are dicks — but again, when the gap between market and regulated rents are high, only a dick will be attracted to buying such a property, because only a dick has the balls big enough to do what’s necessary to close that gap.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Katie: short answer, they move where they can afford, like everyone else, and then the city doesn’t have to do anything.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
It’s like immigration - the upside to crossing the border is so much higher than staying in Mexico, people come.
The upside to being a horrible landlord and forcing nonmarket tenants out is ridiculous.
You can’t change human nature. Mexicans will continue to sneak in. Landlords will continue to mistreat tenants who pay them $274 a month.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Landlords will be beaten until morale improves.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Reyna puts her two cents in (at the end).
September 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Tenants want to stay in their apartments for life.
Landlords hate these tenants and want to make a profit.
Simple have the landlord sell the building to their tenants.
Tenants will learn how difficult it is to maintain a building. If landlords can’t workout a way to make a profit from selling their buildings to tenants then they shouldn’t be in the real estate game.
“short answer, they move where they can afford, ”
Review your history during the Great Depression millions couldn’t afford their homes so many became nomads, traveling the highways and railways. Countless died on the road. There was a tent city in Central Park.
Guess what today they would be shot or arrested for trespassing, there is no where to move when you don’t have money.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Man wrote “there is no where to move when you don’t have money.”
Anyone heard of East New York?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Review my history? haha, the Great Depression was practically pre-history compared to the sophistication of the economy now.
You contradict your own “simple” solution: if they don’t have money to move, how do you expect them to buy their building?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
So, if a tenant doesn’t have money, but wants to stay in his apartment for life, the landlord should sell the apartment to his tenant who has no money? And the landlord actually should be able to find a way to profit from this transaction? This is a great idea, everybody wins!
—-but I don’t get it
September 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
oops - sorry Jeremy, my comment #21 redundant due to your post above me.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“there is no where to move when you don’t have money.”
Generations of poor people weren’t born into and died out of this building. The current tenants found the money to move in there from wherever they were living before. They can find it again if they really want to move out.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Rent payments become mortgage payments.
Tenants Interim Leasing program … tenant groups agree to refurbish city-owned properties, using their rent money to make repairs.
An agreement with landlords can bring something similar to private transaction that are also being neglected.
“people weren’t born into and died out of this building”
Hell yes they are my 10 year old neighbor is living in the same place his grandma was born, she’s 60.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Rent payments become mortgage payments”
Man - your solution of giving mortgages to people who can’t afford to pay them off is a large part of why our economy is a huge pile of shit these days. In their case I don’t think their usual monthly rent payments will equal a monthly mortgage payment.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
No charging a ridiculous interest and idiots buying stuff they can’t afford is why. The landlord was to make money buy collecting the rents so the monthly rents should equal the mortgage payments.
There is a complete lack of understanding poverty with statements like, “They can find it again if they really want” and “If these places are as bad as they sound, shouldn’t the tenants find alternative housing as soon as possible?”.
Don’t you think a poor person ever thought “hey it’s time to stop being poor” and tried to make it true. Sure let them move around every few years to find the cheap places, ignore the cost and toll of relocation.
If the New Bushwick residents can’t stand these people for being themselves, flaws and all, imagine other places.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
If old Bushwick residents can’t stand landlords for being themselves, flaws and all, imagine other living situations.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
True, I always remember the Michael Moore Doc. where the family was evicted on Christams and their stuff is left on the street.
That is common everywhere but NYC thanks to regulations. Which is why tenants should keep NYC the Mecca for tenants rights?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
They have rent control in SF and every apartment is a palace.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Sounds like the Archie Bunkers moved to Bushwick and want the old time hispanics out.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Yeah, Man, because Michael Moore films are FULL of representative samples. LOL
Whatever, we’re slipping back away from what is into what ought to be. The fact is, rent regulation has unintended consequences, and wishing it was all rainbows and no rain won’t make it so.
Mopar, SF has disgusting slum apartments and has whole neighborhoods still considered bum-druggie no-go zones full of crumbling shithole buildings. I have personally been in horrific SF apts. So, no. SF is the only place WORSE than NYC in 1) landlord-tenant laws and 2) slum districts. Coincidence? Could be. I know we can’t tell from citing one or two stats and calling it decided.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
Mopar - SF is a dump buddy. The tenderloin has apartments that are palaces?
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
Come on.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
““people weren’t born into and died out of this building”
Hell yes they are my 10 year old neighbor is living in the same place his grandma was born, she’s 60.”
THIS building, hunny. It was empty except for the crack addicts until a bunch of poor people found the money to move here. They can magically find the money to leave too, I am sure. Maybe they can ask the priest for it. Maybe they should ask you. Maybe some of the people here can volunteer helping these people find a better place to live and then help them physically move into it. That would actually be charitable as opposed to making NYC the guardian of adult children.
Meanwhile, actual poor people with absolutely nothing pour in over the borders, find work, and stop being poor everyday. There’s more at work here than bad luck and throwing money in the slums isn’t going to repair it.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“pour in over the borders
Illegally
“find work”
Illegally
When you break laws making money is easy.
“throwing money in the slums isn’t going to repair it.”
This is not a slum and never was.
Plus no one ever threw money at us.
Funny how you don’t think money won’t fix anything but you call on us to help these people, which would cost us time and…money.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Try physically getting off your nalgas, knocking on that woman’s door, and fixing the wiring in her kitchen. That will help her way more than whining on the internet that the poor should be helped in some vague way that involves taking money from the general public and giving it to slumlords. You might also learn something that isn’t featured in a Michael Moore movie.
“When you break laws making money is easy.”
When you create a byzantine system of crappy laws making money is hard. Help the poor by removing most of the idiotic laws that keep them down.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mañosa deregulation never works especially for the poor. Re-read I never said give money to slumlords. I think Moore is a douche I used him as an example to relate to a mass audience.
The Byzantine empire ruled for 1100 years.
Elian got what he deserved.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Oh, I see you are typing again. You fixed those lady’s outlets superfast.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“Jeremy”
Your writing is blatantly pretentious, insensitive and elitist. How dare you dismiss these people as if you are in anyway superior to them? As a native of Bushwick I am ashamed that you are my neighbor.
BB