Right to Housing by Ferhat Topuz

JUST AS QUICKLY AS YOU READ THIS...YOU ARE NOW INVOLVED

ENGAGING LOTS DIVERTING THE CAUSES OF DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACED PEOPLE

We believe the aim to divert the causes of displacement will lend the foundation towards a more engaged community. Through agreements with the owners of vacant lots, the actors can begin to build a space for the community to gather and pursue their shared image of the neighborhood. Other spaces are set up to divert the problems of displacement. The creation of skills and jobs are crucial as it can provide the people with a tool towards a more self-sustained future. The goal is to create permanent spaces of habitation both for the people at risk and already displaced people.

RENTS

RISE

Nowadays, Bushwick finds itself at the centre of a culture quake. New, hip and young people are attracted to the neighborhood bringing with them new lifestyles and identities. New bars and places to eat are popping up, streets are cleaner and properties appear to be well maintained. This wave of newcomers therefore appears to be a positive influence in the neighborhood; however, the new popularity has had some major effects on

new large developments for affluent newcomers residents move out

overcrowding

NEWCOMERS

residents move out

the housing stock of the neighborhood that may not be viewed as favorable to the local residents, of which not all newcomers are aware.

NEWCOMERS

residents move out

first newcomers move on followed by more affluent newcomers

to the landlords compared to the long-term contracts which most of the local residents have. At the same time, there have been instances where landlords persuade and help the long-term residents vacate properties sooner by presenting incentives such as refunding moving costs, airplane tickets, pay-out stipends, etc. The houses are then renovated and the rents multiply. The local residents are being displaced by the rapid rent increases and have pressingly become people at risk of entering into the shelter system and facing the overall reality of homelessness.

DISPLACED PEOPLE

Short Leases: First of all he short stays of students and young professionals have provided the perfect opportunity for very fast readjustments of rental prices every time a new tenant moves in. This has made these short-term tenants preferable

house renovated house deregulated landowner stops upkeep of rent-controlled house

in the city

DEVELOPERS

MONEY FLOW OUT OF COMMUNITY

Speculation: This wave has also brought the overwhelming interests of profit-driven developers. New condos are erected at an alarming rate, targeted for affluent populations that are coming from outside the neighborhood, and excluding local residents, who mostly fall within lower income brackets. The money flow coming from rents of the newcomers benefits absent landlords instead of the local economy.

OUR RIGHT TO THE CITY

Our Strategies

Frank morales: my life as a homesteader

INSIDE

MONEY

NEWCOMERS O N

RETURN DISPLACED PEOPLE

s nt e re ris

FLOW

D IV

DISPLACED PEOPLE NEWCOMERS

page 28

DEVELOPERS

O SI

ER IV

MONEY FLOW OUT OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPERS

HPD LEAD PHASE

OM THE STORY ENGAGING LOTS NK TO THE SHWICK COMMONS page 38 S1

From Urban Homesteading to A New Ecology Of Housing HPD

START

UHAB

competing with the permanent housing spaces of habitation – we need a strategic BUSHWICK HPD IDENTIFY HPD ACCEPTANCE DEVELOP FULL FINANCIAL stock and engage them and secondly to and supportive system of other REQUEST spaces. FOR QUALIFICATIONS (NOP) PROPERTY COMMONS (BC) PACKAGE: PURCHASE, REHAB, CLUSTER (SOCIAL ENTERPRISE ) divert speculative development. Under the These are the spaces of meaning that both TECH SUPPORT, LOW INCOME, RENTAL SUPPORT heading of “prevention is better than cure”, expose and sustain a new housing strategy our aim is to first prevent the displacement for Bushwick. The spaces we identified are: of long-term residents out of their (rent2. Spaces of engagement: providing BUSHWICK controlled/rent-stabilized/foreclosed) informational support. It can be a space COMMONS apartments. Secondly by using the moneyNOT FOR PROFIT for the education of tenants in their legal Together these effects instigated by the LAND DONATED TO flow of the newcomers, instead of letting rights but it is also a physical space to come newcomers together with the speculative BUSHWICK COMMONS AFFORDABLE BUSHWICK it flow out of the community through together and find communal support. developers that followed them, form a COMMONS HOUSIING speculative development, we aim to bring 3. Spaces of production: providing job powerful change within the community of OPENED OWNERSHIP TRANSFERED back the displaced people, intertwining both support, creating work- and learning places Bushwick, displacing local residents in the TO BUSHWICK COMMONS groups in the process. for people at risk to eventually become process. We believe that a strongly engaged 6. PLEDGE 3. BUILD can counteract this 5. ANTI - DISPLACEMENT 4. CO-CREATE more self-sustainable. local community CEREMONY STORY PROCESSION PUBLIC 1. Spaces of habitation: Rather than just 4. Spaces of transition: providing financial process,BANK welcoming the changes and new PRESENTATION providing new houses for already displaced support, generated on vacant lots from residents on the one hand, but preventing residents, we want to tackle the problem temporary housing for temporary residents. the displacement on the other hand. The at the root; increasing home-ownership in These spaces can absorb the pressure, strong engagement of local residents can Bushwick for the long-term residents to created by the newcomers, on the permanent separate the speculation that is happening counteract the volatile market fluctuations. housing stock, to at least slow down the from the wave of newcomers that is moving To transform the home-ownership and turn increase of rents, causing displacement. in and create a double diversion: First to these dwellings into permanent housing They could in future become permanent. divert the short-term newcomers away from

Through agreements with the owners of vacant lots, we can begin to ANK build a space for our community to gather and pursue shared images ORIES FOR REFLECTION AND ACTION of our neighborhoods. Other spaces are set up to divert the problems of displacement. 2. GATHER The goal is to create permanent spaces of habitation both STORIES for displaced people and our neighbors at risk.

UNITY CONTROLED ASSETS / SPACES OF OPPORTUNITY

NEGOTIATE PURCHASE

HPD

BUILDING INSPECTION

PRIVATE OWNERS

LOCAL RESIDENTS

UHAB

BUILDING REHABILITA

FUNDING: 1,5,7

This Gazette is part of a long term to renovate existing vacant urban research and design project buildings. In addition, it envisions When we look at a map with the new initiated by faculty and students platforms to recognize local developments in Bushwick it is clear that they follow a general direction from Eastfrom the Graduate Program in knowledge, resources and skills Williamsburg into West-Bushwick, but have not yet crossed Myrtle Avenue where the page 42 Design and Urban Ecologies at that could be disseminated and M-train line is currently being renovated. the New School. Starting from exchanged to collectively generate If a more inclusive community of stakeholders have access to socially an investigation of the current a more sustainable and inclusive innovative tools, resources, and networks, community projects will have housing condition, homelessness social and spatial development. a greater impact, leading to overall systematic change instead of just local and structural vacancy, and the Urban practices pursuing the interventions. In short, we want to create an innovative and sustainable success and failure of federal legacy of Homesteading are social impact venture to build affordable housing alternatives. STORY BANK COMMUNITY TRUST NEW of STOCK and local urban homesteading crucial in todays context forprograms, the project seeks to profit development, to acheive STORY BANK COMMUNITY TRUST NEW STOCK design alternative strategies the Right to Housing. However, for community based access they must be envisioned with Citysteading: the steady making PLEDGES STATEMENT NEW KNOWLEDGE STOCKTAKING to housing, renovation and complimentary urban processes of life as a city or community ASSETS SHARING infill of existing housing stock, leading to Citysteading, the path PLEDGES DEFINITION through the creation of shared STRATEGIZING PLEDGES STATEMENT SPATIALIZATION structured around the STOCKTAKING provision to fulfillSTRATEGIZING thr Right HABITABILITY to the City, INSTITUTIONALIZATION NEW KNOWLEDGE assets and dialog. PERFORMANCE ASSETS SHARING of public grants, loans, sweat and therefor access to alternative FINITION page 46 equity subsities and expertise STRATEGIZING models of learning, working, STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ION INSTITUTIONALIZATION ALLOCATION GATHERING MEMBERS to low-income citizens willing housing provision and ownership.

BUSHWICK INCLUSIVE

will be catalized by a core munity members, new local d local arts and culture to anti-displacement s the project develops other ibute.

Our team of local youth will pan out into South Bushwick visiting significant sites, meeting with residents and gathering stories about three meta themes: 1. Gentrification and displacement 2. Community controled assets 3. Spaces of opportunity

The story assets will be collected within an online STORY BANK, where people can watch stories, and add new ones. All stories will be located on a map, allowing for a spatialized analysis of the stories. But this is not all. The STORY BANK is not just a database. It will be used as a generative pedagogical and organzing tool.

The STORY BANK project team will work with the Story Assets to develop a performative event that presents the stories back to the community in the form of a Procession Against Displacement.

There is a strong history of walking tours, street parties and protest in Bushwick. The Procession Against Displacement build off this tradition. Through the live telling of stories, multimedia projections on buildings, street theatre and music, the event will publically honor stories of stuggle, celebrate collectively controled assets, and identify sites of opportunity including viable vacant buildings.

The group will define a route, write a script, produce multimedia installations, and invite other local organizations to contribute. Bushwick Collective will create a series of murals inspired by the STORY BANK meta themes and real stories of community members.

The teams will work with residents to produce digital stories.

The Procession will coalesce in a Pledge Ceremony, where individuals, organizaitons, and public officials will pledge a contribution towards the creation of a Community Trust. Contributions could be as simple as volunteer hours or in-kind legal services. Large organizations could pledge staff power, or even pledge to their properties for the future Land Trust.

CITYSTEADING

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

SUMMER

FALL

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

SPRING

WINTER

SUMMER

FALL

SUMMER

FALL

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

SPRING

WINTER

SPRING

WINTER

ESTABLISHING COMMONS BUSHWICK

PERFORMANCE

GATHERING STORIES

ESTABLISHING COMMONS BUSHWICK

GATHERING MEMBERS GATHERING STORIES

ACHIEVING NEW STOCK

ENVISIONING THE COMMUNITY GATHERING STORIES GATHERING MEMBERS

ACHIEVING NEW STOCK

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

tHe economics oF Housing: pRogRams, tHe economics oF Housing: policies, and insigHts pRogRams, AND policies

How diFFeRent initiatives Have cHanged ouR uRban landscape

How diFFeRent initiatives Have cHanged ouR uRban landscape Geography, history, technologies, economics and politics are some of the key influences that uRban Renewal shape a city. In the following article I will show how, through a political and economic lens,

Geography, history, technologies, economics and politics are some of the key certain policies, programs and housing initiatives have transformed our environment. The influences that shape a city. The following are some of the most influential initiatives to show how they different and practices in settlement New York City have used ingoal theiscity, because haveurban had policies drastic impacts on its patterns. It is the people and the places as a means to transform the city’s landscape. important to understand that these practices have always been driven by a power structure whose primary motive is the maximizing of profits.

The following are some of the most influential initiatives in the city and were chosen because they have had drastic impacts on its settlement patterns. It is important to understand that these practices have always been driven by a power structure where dominant economic This phenomenon refers to real-estate agents and speculators working together to players have made the decisions. Though these are simple diagrams, meant to be guidelines trick white homeowners in selling their properties at low rates. They try to scare to help understand different policies andproperties programs,might it is important to understand comresidents by tellingthe them that local area lose value because ofthe racial plexity behind each drawing. First, they cannot be seen as separated from a contextualized minorities moving in. “blockbusting” plays upon racial stereotypes and fears. Real and historical situation. Second, itdevelopers is important to paid understand the implications of the differestate companies and building use non-white agents provocateurs urban policies in the construction and transformation of our neighborhoods. And are finally, toentdeceive white residents of a neighborhood into believing that black people “moving in,” encouraging them tocontinue flee andtoquickly sellcity. (at a loss) to those it is crucial to thereby understand how these policies shape our

blockbusting

This national program was instituted under the Federal Housing Act in 1949, as a means to put new infrastructure in the cities. Although the program was also meant to stimulate housing development, more emphasis was given to big development projects that did not Title One of the Housing Act of 1949 kick-started the modern “urban renewal” prioritize housing, or at least not low-income housing. program that would reshape American cities. Although the program was meant to Consequences: Some say that the idea behind urban renewal was to eliminate the slums in stimulate housing development, more emphasis was given to big development projects the inner city for city profitable development. At the end many properties were taken away instead of prioritizing (especially for low-income Act provided from existing communitieshousing to city-initiative development projects,families). displacingThe many citizens.

This informal policy refers to both public and private development projects beign deferred in certain areas, waiting for these areas to devalue on their own, making it easier and cheaper to proceed with redevelopment.

Spatial de-concentration

HOPE VI

The phrase “spatial deconcentration” refers to a late 1960s federal program of dispersing entire low-income communities in order to reduce the likelihood of “civil disorder.” Growing ou tof studies of “civil disorder” conducted by the Kerner Commission in 1968 whose recommendations on housing advocated a “theory of white middle class predominance” as a requirement of stable communitites. A “planned shrinkage” practice linked to motives of social control through the dilution and directing of poor urban communitites towards the suburbs, spatial deconcentration differs from “planned shrinkage” in that its motives are other than purely economic.

uRban Renewal

federal funding to manicipalities to cover the cost of aquiring areas perceived to be “slums.” Those sites were then given to private developers to construct new housing. In the process, entire neighborhoods were destroyed, displacing thousands of residents (most of whom were poor and black). Because of the ways in which it targeted the most disadvantaged sector of the American population, novelist James Baldwin famously dubbed Urban Renewal “Negro Removal” in the 1960s.

very companies and emigrate to generally more racially homogenious (white) suburbs. The tactics included hiring black women to be seen pushing baby carriages in white neighborhoods, so encouraging white fear of devaluated property; selling a house to a black family in a white neighborhood to provoke white flight, etc. Blockbusting is a very common and very profitable form of racist exploitation.

REAL-ESTATE AGENTS blockbusting

CITY CENTER spatial de-concentRation

POOR SUBURBS

Dilution of the urban poor minorities toward the suburbs. = LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD

= HIGHER INCOME HOUSEHOLD

moving to oppoRtunity (mto) A social experiment from the department of Housing and Urban Development that started in 1994. Low-income families living in public housing in high-crime and poverty neighborhoods were selected randomly to be assigned to one of the three program options: 1. The Experimental group was given special assistance regarding rent subsidy vouchers that could only be used in low poverty areas (poverty rate below 10%, as CITY CENTER measured by 1990 US Census). This group also received counseling regarding the rent vouchers and possible neighborhoods to move to. (mto) moving to oppoRtunity 2. The Comparison group was given vouchers that could only be used in Section 8 A socialand experiment the counseling. department of Housing and Urban Development that started housing did not from receive in 1994. Low-income families in public housing in 3. The Control group did not living receive any vouchers or high-crime assistance.and poverty neighbor-

hoods were selected randomly to be assigned to one of the three program options: 1. The Experimental group was given special assistance regarding rent subsidy vouchers that POOR SUBURBS could only be used in low-poverty areas (poverty rate below 10%, as measured by 1990 US Census). This group also received counseling regrading the rent vouchers and possible neighborhoods to move to. 2. The Comparison group was given vouchers that could only be used in Section 8 housing and did not receive counseling 3. The Control group did not receive any vouchers or assistance. = LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD

= HIGHER INCOME HOUSEHOLD

HOME OWNERS

This phenomenon refers to real-estate agents and speculators working together to trick SPECULATORS homeowners to sell their properties at low rates. They try to scare residents by telling them that local area properties might lose value because of racial minorities moving in.

Redlining Introduced by Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) in 1937, red lining classified the different urban districts to indicate which areas offered opportunities and which areas where risky places for investment. The good places to invest where marked with a blue line in the map, while the risky places were marked with a red line. Usually these redlined places were neighborhoods with low-income and minority populations. It became illegal on 1968. Consequences: The people living in places with a red line around them would have This phenomenon refers to the migration of middle class and affluent populations a hard time getting any type of insurance into low-income neighborhoods. The result is the further displacement of the initial or loan. It paralyzed the housing market, population and transformation lowered the properties values and of the neighborhood. incentivized abandonment from those areas.

gentRiFication

RACIALLY CHANGING NEIGHBORHOOD

DISINVESTMENT This informal policy refers to both public and private development projects beign deferred in certain areas, waiting for these areas to devalue on their own, making it easier and cheaper to proceed with redevelopment.

CHANGING INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD

LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD

MIDDLE INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SPECIAL ASSISTANCE rent subsity vouchers and possible neighborhoods to move into.

CONTROL GROUP no vouchers no assistance

COMPARISION GROUP given vouchers that could only be used in section 8 housing and no counciling

The reduction of essential services in declining and troubled neighborhoods. In 1970, Roger Starr proposed that these neighborhoods should not receive more funding and instead to use those resources to invest in those neighborhoods that “could be saved”. The idea behind it was that when services such police, fire departments, etc.,concentration were Thisasprogram responded to the of poverty in large public housing sites. taken, peopleinwould leave. Theand expectaIt started 1992also to eradicate transform the nation’s severely distressed public tion was that they left these troubled complexes and replacing them with mixedhousing bywhen tearing apart the subsidized neighborhoods would recover from their income development. The program sought to reverse the spiral of decline providing problems.

SHRINKAGE The reduction of essential services in declining and troubled neighborhoods. In 1970, Roger Starr proposed that these neighborhoods should not receive more funding and instead to use those resources to invest in those neighborhoods that “could be saved”. The idea behind it was that when services such as police, fire departments, etc., were withdrawn, people would also leave. The expectation was that when they left, these troubled neighborhoods would recover from their problems.

more integrated structures with the capacity to bring new services, facilities and job opportunities. Demolition, displacement and relocation are at the center of the program, similarly to the Urban Renewal Program, the difference is that in this case the undesired and regrettable relocation is encouraged and embraced. Moving to “neighborhoods of opportunity” is one of the benefits of the program. However, there has been criticism since the program does not require a “one for one” replacement. It has built fewer units than it has torn down. Families that used to live in the complexes find difficulties to go back to the rehabilitated site, and also to establish in better neighborhoods. There are more disadvantages than benefits for the ones displaced, most of the time households relocate to similar distressed sites and never Hope vi recover their social networks, their sense of community is lost. Housing for very lowThis program from the has Department Housing Urban keeps Development (HUD) started in income households been lostofwhile theand program running. 1992, also known as Urban Revitalization Demonstration. It started as a program to eradicate and transform the nation’s severely distressed public housing by tearing apart the subsidized complexes and replacing them with mixed-income development. Hope VI is a program that comes out of the idea of defensible spaces (Oscar Newman) and New Urbanism. Defensible spaces states that an area is safer when people feel a sense of ownership, which are thought to be strengthened by the theories of New Urbanism: walkable neighborhoods and shorter buildings. Criticism: Hope VI has built fewer units of public housing than it has torn down, not having enough housing and displacing many of the families that already lived in the torn down complexes.

Redlining Introduced by Home Owners Loan Corporation in 1937, red lining classified the different urban districts to indicate which areas offered opportunities and which areas where risky places for investment. “Redlining” is a bank practice in which bank officials deny loans to landlords and homeowners in a racially determined manner. The practice refers to marking a “red line” on a map delineating the area where banks would not invest, or even actively dis-invest. The practice of neighborhood disinvestment insures the decline of whole communities, most often black and Latino inner city neighborhoods. After sufficient “minority” displacement a “tipping point” is acheived and new waves of investment, speculation and redevelopment ensue.

gentRiFication

This phenomenon refers to middle class populations migrate into low-income neighborGOOD INVESTMENT hoods. The result is the displacement of the initial population and transformation of the neighborhood. BAD INVESTMENT

AREA DEVALUES

CHEAPER TO PROCEED WITH RE-DEVELOPMENT

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS DEFERRED

NO INSURANCE NO LOANS DISPLACEMENT OF ORIGINAL POPULATION

10 years

15 years

LOWERED PROPERTY VALUES INCENTIVIZED ABANDONMENT

Bloomberg’s Housing Plan Moving To Work 1994 Hope VI 1992

20 years

= LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD

Tenant Interim Lease (TIL)

= MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD

Shrinkage 1970 Spatial De-concentration Kenner Commission Report 1968 Mitchell Lama Housing Project 1955 Community Economic Development (CED) Jane vs Moses Urban Renewal Housing Act 1949 Blockbusting 1950- continues to happen Redlining 1934-1968 1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

policy in tHe Housing united states TAX POLICY IN policy in tHe Housing Housing THE UNITED united states policy in tHe policy in tHe STATES united unitedstates states

lished by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, is the agencies (usually state housing finance single largest active subsidy for low-income agencies, or HFAs). rental housing. It is not a federal housing Rental housing developments are eligible for program but an item in the Internal Revenue the tax credit if at least 20% of their units The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, estabhousing developments state Code. are affordable earning upbyto designated 50% of the metcredit hasthe helped fund the development by designated state agencies (usually lished by2003, Tax Acthas of helped 1986, isfund the agencies area’s (usually state family housing finance Through theReform tax credit ropolitan median income or ofsingle morelargest than active 1.2 million housing units, state housing finance agencies, or for low-income agencies, HFAs). the development of subsidy more than 1.2 million if at leastor40% of the units are affordable 28% of all multifamily units built during Rental HFAs). Rental housing developments rental housing. It isofnot federal housing housing earning developments arethe eligible for housing units, 28% all amultifamily units to households 60% of median. this period, and it now accommodates are eligible for the tax20% credit if at units program but an item in the Internal Revenue the tax credit if at least of their built during this period, and it now accomAlthough federal statute requires state housThe Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, estabhousing developments by designated state more households thanTax public housing, least 20% ofearning their are affordable The Low-Income Housing Credit, estab- a housing developments byunits designated are (usually affordable up to least 50% ofstate theofmetmodates more households than public ing agencies to allocate at 10% all lishedCode. by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, is the housagencies state housing finance earning up to 50% of the metropolitan program that started 50 years earlier. lished by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, is the agencies (usually state housing finance Through 2003, the tax credit has helped fund ropolitan area’s median family income or a program that started 50 years earlier. taxorcredits singleing, largest active subsidy for low-income agencies, HFAs).to nonprofit housing developers, area’s median family income or if at single largest active subsidy forthan low-income agencies, or HFAs). development 1.2 million at least 40% of the units are affordable rental the housing. It is notofa more federal housing Rental if housing developments are eligible for nonprofit groups account for more than twice 40%developments of the unitsare areeligible affordable rental housing. It 28% is not aallfederal housing Rentalleast housing for to housing multifamily households earning 60% of units the developmedian. program but anunits, item in the of Internal Revenue units the taxto credit if at least 20% their this amount: 22% of allof tax-credit What benefits for investors? households earning 60% of the median. The federal government subsidizes housprogram but an item in the Internal Revenue the tax credit if at least 20% of their units What benefits for households?Code.built during allows this period, and it accomAlthough federal state housare affordable earning upstatute to 50%requires of service the metments and units placed in through The LIHTC investors to now reduce their Although federal statute requires state ing not only through direct expenditures but Code. are affordable earning up to 50% of the metA big issue concerning this program is that modates more households than public housing agencies to allocate at least 10% of all Through 2003, the tax credit has helped fund ropolitan area’s median family income or 2002. federal income taxes by $1 dollar for every advantages of homeowners. If the tax The federal government subsidizes houshousing agencies to allocate at least 10% Through 2003, the tax credit has helped fund ropolitan area’s median family income or especially through tax expenditures: deducThe LIHTC allows investors to reduce relatively few low and moderate-income ing, a program that 50 years earlier. tax credits nonprofit housing developers, the development morestarted than 1.2 million if 40% oftothe units are affordable dollar of taxof credit received. Investors re-at least code were to give more assistance to ing nottions, onlyand through direct expenditures of all tax credits to nonprofit housing the development of more than 1.2 million if at least 40% of the units are affordable credits connected to housing-retheir federal income taxes by $1 dollar households benefit from tax advantages of nonprofit groups account for more than twice units, all10 multifamily units to households earning 60% of segregation? the median. ceive the 28% creditoffor years while the propDoes it generate them, the current set of deduction could housing but especially through tax expenditures: developers, nonprofit account for housing units, 28% of of tax all multifamily units to households earning 60% ofgroups the median. lated expenditures and investments. Tax exfor every dollar credit received. homeowners. If tax code were to give more this amount: 22% of all tax-credit developWhat benefits for investors? built during this period, and it now accomAlthough federal statute requires state houserty must remain occupied by low-income Tax credit housing is more likely to be loto tax credits. In fact, low deduc-tions, andare, credits connected The federal government subsidizes hous-be changed more than twice this amount: 22% of all built during this period, and it now accomAlthough federal statute requires state housWhat benefits for households? penditures in fact, far larger than direct Investors re-ceive the credit for 10 assistance to them, the current set of deducmodates more households than public housing agencies to allocate at least 10% of all ments and units placed in service through The LIHTC allows investors to reduce their households for at least 15 years. The amount cated in low minority and low-income neighand moderate-income tax payers take to housing-related expenditures and ing not only through direct expenditures but tax-credit developments and units placed modates more households than public housing agencies to allocate at least 10% of all A big issue concerning this program is that subsidies. years while the property must remain tion could be changed to tax credits. In fact, program that started years earlier. tax credits to nonprofit developers, 2002. income taxes50by $1 dollar for every of the credit depends on cost, location and borhoods than ishousing other2011. rental housing. This the relatively standard deduction on their federal ing, a federal investments. Tax ex-penditures are, in especially through expenditures: deducingroups service through a program that started 50 years earlier. tax credits to nonprofit housing developers, few low and tax moderate-income In 2004, the federaltaxgovernment spent $30 occupied by low-income households low and moderate-income payers take the ing, nonprofit account for more than twice dollar of tax credit received. Investors rethe proportions of the units occupied by lowissue has opened the program to criticism fact, far larger than direct subsidies. income taxes and therefore receive no tions, and creditssubsidies connected(public to housing-renonprofit groups account for more than twice households benefit from tax federal advantages of billion on direct housing, for at least 15 for years. The ofpropthe standard deduction on their income this amount: 22% of all tax-credit developWhat benefits investors? ceive thehouseholds. credit for 10 yearsamount while the Does it generate segregation? income that it perpetuates “existing condition In 2004, the federal government spent tax benefit from mortgage and property Therental federal government subsidizes housthis amount: 22% of all tax-credit develop-of ralated expenditures ex-What What benefits investors? households? homeowners. Iffor tax code werenototax givebenefit more voucher, etc.)and andinvestments. nearly $120Tax billion depends onfor cost, and the taxesbenefits and therefore receive ments Tax and and unitseconomic placed through The credit LIHTC allows investors to location reduce their erty must remain occupied by low-income credit housinginsegregation”. isservice more likely to be loThe federal government subsidizes houscial Anyway, it What benefits for households? $30ing billion on direct subsidies (public tax payments. not only through direct expenditures but ments and units placed in service through The LIHTC allows investors to reduce their penditures are, in fact, far larger than direct issue concerning this program is of that to them, the current set deducproportions of at the units occupied by 2002. in tax breaks to homeowners and investors inA bigassistance from mortgage and property tax payments. federal income taxes by $1 dollar for every ing not only through direct expenditures but households for least 15 years. The amount cated in low minority and low-income neighA big issue concerning this program is that is still less concentrated in these neighborWhat developments are eligible? housing, rental voucher, etc.) and especially through tax expenditures: deduc2002. income taxes by $1 dollar for every subsidies. few be lowchanged and moderate-income tion could to tax credits. In fact, federal rental housing and tax mortgage revenuededucbonds.relatively ofthe taxcredit credithouseholds. received. Investors relow-income especially through expenditures: of depends onassociated cost, location and borhoods is other rentaland housing. This relatively few low and moderate-income dollar hoods thanthan is public housing other housUnlike other tax breaks with nearly billion in taxgovernment breaks to spent $30households tions, and credits connected to housing-redollar of tax credit received. Investors re-real benefit from tax advantages of In$120 2004, the federal Tax credit housing is more likely to be low and moderate-income tax payers take the Of the $119.4 billion in federal tax expenceive the credit for 10 years while the propDoes it generate segregation? Tax incentives for investors tions, and credits connected to housing-rethe proportions of the units occupied by lowissue has opened the program to criticism households benefit from tax advantages of ing with project-based federal subsidies. estate, the LIHTC not awarded homeowners and investors in rental lated expenditures andsubsidies investments. Taxhousing, exceive the credit for 10isyears while theautomatipropDoes it generate segregation? homeowners. If tax code on were to give more billion on direct (public lo-cated inisminority andtocondition low-income standard deduction their federal income ditures in 2004, 88% ($105.2 billion) erty must remain occupied by low-income Tax credit housing more likely be lo- of raInvestor tax incentives, account lated expenditures and investments. Tax went exincome households. that it perpetuates “existing homeowners. If tax code although were to give morefor cally. Tax credits are assigned to individual housing and mortgage revenue bonds.Of penditures are, in fact, far larger than direct erty must remain occupied by low-income Tax credit housing is more likely to be loassistance to them, the current set of deducrental voucher, etc.) andthe nearly $120 billion neigh-borhoods than is other rental taxes and therefore receive no tax benefit to homeowners. By far, largest tax break households for at least 15 years. The amount cated incial lowand minority and low-income neighonly 12%toofthem, total,the are current essential for the develpenditures are, in fact, far larger than direct economic segregation”. Anyway, it assistance set of deducthesubsidies. $119.4 billion in federal tax expenhouseholds for at least 15 years. The amount cated in low minority and low-income neighInvestor tax incentives account for only couldmortgage be changed tax credits. fact, in the tax deductibility breaks to homeowners andinterest investors intion from housing. This issuehousing. has opened the andtoproperty taxIn payments. is of mortgage payof theWhat credit depends on cost, location and borhoods thanless is other rental This opment ofbelow-income housing. subsidies. is still concentrated in these neighbordevelopments are eligible? tion could changed to tax credits. In fact, ditures in 2004, 88% billion) In 2004, the federal government spent $30 the credit depends on cost, location and borhoods than istoother rental that housing. This 12% ofmoderate-income total, and yet are low and tax essential payers takefor the the the of rental housing and($105.2 mortgage revenue program criticism it perpetuates ments from taxable income. Investors proportions of the units occupied by lowissue has opened thepublic program to criticism table 3_LIHTC vs PUBLIC HOUSING In 2004, the federal government spentbonds. $30in low Although they can rightly be criticized hoods than is housing and other housUnlike other taxthe breaks associated with real and moderate-income tax payers take the as billion on direct subsidies (public housing, went to homeowners. By far, the largest the proportions of units occupied by lowissue has opened the program to criticism standard deduction on their federal income devel-opment of low-income housing. Of the on $119.4 in billion federal tax expen“existing condition of racial and Tax incentives investors housing received $14.2 of the standard income households. that it perpetuates “existing condition of rabillion directbillion subsidies (public(1/8 housing, inefficient, since only a portion of income that goes deduction on for their federal with project-based subsidies. estate, the LIHTC is not awarded automativoucher, etc.) and nearly billionwenttaxes taxrental break is the deductibility of$120 mortgage (S: Schwartz, 2010) income households. thating iteconomic perpetuates “existingfederal condition of ra-less and therefore receive nobetax benefit Although they can rightly criticized Unlike other tax breaks associated with ditures in 2004, 88% ($105.2 billion) segregation.” Still itit is cial and economic segregation”. Anyway, Investor tax incentives, although account for homeowner total). These tax expenditures rental voucher, etc.) and nearly $120 billion to bricks and mortar, nevertheless, they do taxes and therefore receive no tax benefit cally. Tax credits are assigned to individualcial and economic segregation”. Anyway, in tax breaks to homeowners and investors in interest pay-ments from taxable income. it from mortgage and property tax payments. as inefficient, since only a portion of that real estate, the LIHTC is not awarded to tax homeowners. By far, the largest tax break concentrated concentratedininthese theseneighborhoods neighborWhat developments are eligible? is still less only 12% of total, are essential for the develalso include Low-Income Tax in breaks tothe homeowners andHousing investors in bring private investments intopayments. low-income from mortgage and property tax rental housing and mortgage revenue bonds. Investors in housing received $14.2 is still less concentrated in these neighborWhat developments are eligible? 1,234,555 units goes to bricks and mortar, nevertheless, automatically. Tax credits are assigned Public housing is the housing deductibility ofmost mortgage interest payhoods than is public housing and other Unlike other tax breaks associated with real than is public housing andhousother housopment low-income housing.can become Credit - the single important funding rental and mortgage revenue bonds. housing,ofand tax incentives Of the $119.4 billion in federaltotal). tax expenhoods than is public housing and other housbillion (1/8 of the homeowner Unlike other tax housing breaks associated with real incentives forinvestments investors theyAlthough do bringthey private into as totable individual developments ments from taxable income. Investors inTax ing with project-based federal subsidies. 3_LIHTC vs PUBLIC HOUSING estate, the LIHTC is not awarded automatiing with project-based federal subsidies. can rightly be criticized source development of low-income rentOf the for $119.4 billion in federal tax expenmoreincentives efficient over for time-as in the case with estate, the LIHTC Tax investors Low-Income ditures 2004, 88% ($105.2 billion)the went ing with project-based federal subsidies. is not awarded automatiThese taxinexpenditures also include tax incentives, although for low-income housing, and taxaccount incentives 1,141,650 units housing $14.2 billion (1/8 of theInvestor cally. Tax credits are assigned to individual inefficient, since only a portion of that goes al housing. ditures inreceived 2004, 88% ($105.2 billion) went the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Investor tax incentives, although account for (S:Housing Schwartz, to homeowners. By far,Tax the Credit; largest tax Tax Credit cally. Tax credits2010) are assigned to individual Low-Income Housing thebreak only 12% of total, are efficient essential for the timedevelcanto become more over homeowner total). These tax expenditures to homeowners. ByAustralia far, the largest tax break bricks and mortar, nevertheless, they do Although Canada, and some Euroonly 12% of total, are essential for the develis themost deductibility of mortgage interest paysingle important funding source opment of low-income housing. as in the case with the Low-Income also the Low-Income Housing Tax opment is the include deductibility of quite mortgage interest paybring private investments into low-income pean countries have homeownof low-income housing. from taxable income.similar Investors in table 3_LIHTCPublic vs PUBLIC HOUSING 1,234,555 units Although they can rightly be criticized as for ments development of low-income rental funding housing Housing Taxand Credit. Credit from - the they single most important ments taxable income. Investors in housing, tax incentives can become ership rate, offer far less generous tax table 3_LIHTC vs PUBLIC HOUSING Although they can rightly be criticized as housing received $14.2 billion (1/8 of the inefficient, since only a portion of that goes housing. source for development low-income (S: Schwartz, 2010) housing received $14.2 of billion (1/8 of rentthe table 4_RESIDENTS AND HOUSING STOCK more efficient in of thethat case with breaks. inefficient, sinceover only time-as a portion goes Low-Income homeowner total). These tax expenditures (S: Schwartz, 2010) Although Canada, Australia and some to bricks and mortar, nevertheless, they do 1,141,650 units al housing. homeowner total). These tax expenditures the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. to bricks and mortar, nevertheless, they do Tax Credit also include the Low-Income Housing Tax (S:Housing Schwartz, 2010) bring private investments into low-income Euro-pean countries have quite similar Although Canada, Australia and some Euroalso include the Low-Income Housing Tax 1,234,555 units Public housing bring private investments into low-income Credit - the single most important funding housing, and tax incentives can become 1,234,555 units homeown-ership rates, they offer far less Public housing pean countries havemost quiteimportant similar homeownCredit - the single funding housing, and tax incentives can become new construction source for development of low-income rent- SUBSIDIES more efficient over time-as in the case with table 1_TAX EXPENDITURES vs DIRECT generous tax breaks. Low-Income source of low-income rentership for rate,development they offer far less generous tax more efficient over time-as in the case with 1,141,650 units Low-Income al housing. the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. 1,141,650 units Housing Tax Credit table 4_RESIDENTS AND HOUSING STOCK al breaks. theLow-Income Low-Income Housing TaxTax Credit. (S:housing. Schwartz, rehabilitation The Housing Credit Although Canada,2010) Australia and some EuroHousing Tax Credit Although Canada, Australia and some Euro(S: Schwartz, 2010) pean countries have quite similar homeown(LIHTC), estab-lished by the Tax pean countries have quite similar homeown(52 units average each dev.) ership rate, they offer far less generous tax Reform Act of 1986, is the single largest $30 billion ership rate, theysubsidies offer far less generous tax Tot. direct new construction table 4_RESIDENTS AND HOUSING STOCK breaks. active subsidy for low-income rental table 1_TAX EXPENDITURES vs DIRECT SUBSIDIES developments table 4_RESIDENTS AND HOUSING STOCK A big breaks. issue concerning this program is public housing

low-income Housing taX cRedit

low-income Housing taX cRedit low-income Housing taX cRedit

FedeRal taX policy to Housing

What benefits for investors?

FedeRal taX policy to Housing

FedeRal FedeRaltaX taXpolicy policyto toHousing Housing

Does it generate segregation?

Tax incentives for investors

What developments are eligible?

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

What benefits for households?

housing. It is not a federal housing that relatively few low voucher and moderate(S: Schwartz, 2010) rental program but an item in the Internal income households benefit from tax Revenue$120 Code.billion Through 2003, the tax table 1_TAX EXPENDITURES vs DIRECT SUBSIDIES

Tot. tax breaks Tot. direct subsidies homeowners (S: Schwartz, 2010) (S: Schwartz, 2010) public housing investors (LIHT) rental voucher Tot. direct subsidies Tot. direct subsidies Tot. tax breaks public housing public housing homeowners table 2_WHO BENEFITS? rental voucher rental voucher investors (LIHT) (S: Schwartz, 2010) Tot. tax breaks Tot. tax breaks homeowners HIGH-INCOME homeowners investors (LIHT) HOMEOWNERS investors (LIHT)

table 1_TAX EXPENDITURES vs DIRECT SUBSIDIES

$30 billion $30 billion $120 billion $105,2 billion $14,2 billion $120 billion $120 billion $105,2 billion INVESTORS IN PRIVATE $105,2 billion $14,2 billion LOW-INCOME HOUSING $14,2 billion

table 2_WHO BENEFITS? (S: Schwartz, 2010)

table 2_WHO BENEFITS? HIGH-INCOME table 2_WHO BENEFITS? (S: Schwartz, HOMEOWNERS 2010) (S: Schwartz, 2010)

HIGH-INCOME HIGH-INCOME HOMEOWNERS HOMEOWNERS

$30 billion $105,2 billion $14,2 billion

88% = $ 105,2 billion $$ 88% = 88% 88% = =105,2 billion . billion 105,2 105,2 billion

80% = $ 100% low-income (no extremely low) developments 80% $$ = developments 80% developments 80% low-income 100% (no extremely low) and =Limitations = critics 100% low-income Limitations and critics low-income 100%

(S: Schwartz, 2010) (S: Schwartz, 2010)

60% 40%

60% 40% rehabilitation 45% central city 60% new construction (52 units each dev.) 60% newaverage construction 40% 28,2% . suburbs 40%rehabilitation rehabilitation (52 units average45% each dev.) central city (52 units average each dev.) 45% 28,2% 45%

central city suburbs to market-rate rents after the expiration central city of the initial 15 years affordability ofperiod. the initial 15 years affordability period. Perhaps more importantly, there Perhaps more importantly, there is a big lack 1.1.Unlike housingand andSection Section (no extremely Unlike public publiclow) housing 8, tax suburbs is a big lack of funds to replace major low) suburbs funds to systems. replace major building systems. 8,(no taxextremely credit does not provide deep that ofbuilding credit does not provide deep subsidies For overcome this For overcome this issue, state and local govsubsidies that adjustwith automatically adjust automatically changes in tenant issue, state and local government are ernment are providing additional resource with changes in tenant income.ofInincome fact, income. In fact, the percentage providing additional resource including of the initial 15 affordability period. Limitations critics including taxyears credits helpfor paythe for the the percentage ofand income thatmay tenants that tenants spend on housing increase new taxnew credits to helptopay PRIVATE INVESTORS IN Perhaps more importantly, there is a big lack capital improvement. 1. their Unlike public decline housing and they Section 8,start tax spend onincomes housing may increase if their if and may capital improvement. 4. Limited supply LOW-INCOME HOUSING of funds to replace major building systems. 4.ofLimited supplythere of tax there credit does not provide deep that incomes decline and may start out out spending more thanthey 30% ofsubsidies their income tax15credits: arecredits: many more are of the For initial yearsthis affordability period. Limitations andthan critics overcome issue, state andcredit local govmany more applications for tax than to adjust automatically with changes in tenant spending more 30% of their income on rent. Extremely low-income families can of the initial 15 years affordability period. applications for there tax credit credits PRIVATE INVESTORS IN Limitations andand critics Perhapsernment more importantly, is a bigthan lackresource 1. Unlike public housing Section 8,oftax are providing additional PRIVATE INVESTORS IN credits to allocate. income. In fact, the percentage income on rent. Extremely low-income families seldom afford tax credit housing unless they Perhaps more importantly, there is a big lack 1. Unlike public housing and Section 8, tax of funds allocate. LOW-INCOME HOUSING to replace major building does not provide deep subsidies that including new tax credits to systems. help pay for the LOW-INCOME HOUSING credit that tenants spend on housing may increase can seldom tax credit housing funds to replace major building systems. also receive federal housing vouchers. credit does notafford provide deep subsidies that Forofovercome this issue, state and local govadjust automatically with changes in tenant capital improvement. if their incomes decline and they may start unless they alsooffers receive federal housing overcome this issue, state and local gov2. The program incentive forFor Strengths adjust automatically with minimal changes in tenant STRENGTHS ernment are providing additional resource income. In fact, the percentage ofofincome 4. Limited supply ofadditional tax credits: there are out spending more than 30% their income The tax credit is a very flexible form of subvouchers. 2. The program offers minimal ernment are providing resource building mixed-income housing. Because the income. In fact, the percentage of income including new tax credits to help pay for credit the than that tenants spend on housing may increase many more applications for tax ontenants rent. of Extremely low-income canincluding sidy. housing agencies haveof incentive for mixed-income TheState tax credit is afinance form new tax credits tovery helpflexible pay for the amount tax building credit available is families directly that spend on housing may increaseprocapital improvement. billion if their incomes decline and they may start credits to allocate. seldom afford tax credit housing unless they considerable latitude in deciding the types housing. Because the amount of tax capital improvement. subsidy. State housing finance agencies portional to the percentage of low-income if their incomes decline and they may start 4. Limited supply of tax credits: there are out spending more than 30% of their income also receive federal housing vouchers. ofhave housing that of should receive there tax credit 4. Limited supply tax credits: are and credit available is directly pro-portional considerable latitude deciding units, the vast majority of of projects are 100% out spending more than 30% their income many more applications for tax credit in than on rent. Extremely low-income families can Strengths 2.rent. The program offers minimal incentive formany giving preferences toforwhat they think is a more applications tax credit than the percentage of low-income units, the types of housing that should receive low-income. ontoof Extremely low-income families can credits to allocate. seldom afford tax credit housing unless they The creditand is agiving very flexible form ofto subtotax allocate. building mixed-income housing. Because thecredits priority. the vast majority of housing projects are 100% tax credit preferences what seldom afford taxprovide credit unless theysus3. It does not for the long term also receive federal housing vouchers. sidy. State housing financeIt agencies have amount of tax credit available is directly proIt is often used in conjunction with the fedof low-income.3. It does not provide they think is a priority. is often used in also receive federal housing vouchers. tainability of the housing it helped financing. Strengths billion 2. The program offers minimal incentive for considerable latitude in for deciding the types portional to term the percentage of low-income eral HOPE VI program revitalization of the long sus-tainability of theTheStrengths conjunction with the federal HOPE VI 2.for The program offers minimal incentive for Some tax credit housing is at risk of converttax credit is a very flexible form of subbuilding mixed-income housing. Because the housing should receive taxofcredit Theof tax credit public isthat a very flexible form sub- and units, the majority ofafter projects arethe 100% distressed housing. housing itvast helped financing. Some tax program revitalization distressed building mixed-income housing. Because ing to market-rate rents the expiration sidy. State housingforfinance agencies of have amount of tax credit available is directly probillion giving preferences to what they think sidy. public State housing finance agencies have is a of low-income. credit housing at risk of converting housing. amount of tax creditisavailable is directly pro- considerable latitude in deciding the types billion portional to the percentage of low-income

12% = 14,2 12% = 12% 12% = =14,2 . 14,2 14,2

28,2% 28,2%

priority. latitude in deciding the types considerable 3. It does for of thelow-income long term susportional to not the provide percentage of housing that should receive tax credit and units, the vast majority of projects are 100% It is often in receive conjunction with and the fedof housing thatused should tax credit tainability the housing it helped units, the vastofmajority of projects arefinancing. 100% giving preferences to what they think is a of low-income. giving preferences to what they think is a of eral HOPE VI program for revitalization of Some low-income. tax credit housing is at risk of convertpriority. 3. It does not provide for the long term suspriority. distressed housing. 3. ing It does not provide rents for theafter longthe term sus- It is often toofmarket-rate expiration used inpublic conjunction with the fedtainability the housing it helped financing. is often used in conjunction with the fedtainability of the housing it helped financing. eralItHOPE VI program for revitalization of Some tax credit housing is at risk of converteral HOPE VI program for revitalization of Some tax credit housing is at risk of convert- distressed public housing. ing to market-rate rents after the expiration

Public housing is extremely diverse. About ing States. halfinofthe theUnited nation’s Public Housing AuthoriPublic housing is extremely diverse. ties (PHA) oversees fewer than 100 About units; half of the nation’s Public Housing Authorialmost 90% of all PHAs are responsible for ties (PHA) oversees fewer than 100 units; 500 or fewer units. almost 90% all Housing PHAs areAuthority, responsible for The New YorkofCity whose 500 or fewer units. portfolio of 180,000 units accounts for 12% The New York City Housing Authority, of the nation’s public housing stock, iswhose wideportfolio of 180,000 units accounts for 12% Public housing, originated in 1937 ly considered among the nation’s best. of the the past nation’s public housing stock,resources is wideduring thequarter New Deal, is the oldest and In century far more ly considered among the nation’s best. most widely known form of subsidized have gone to the preservation and redevelopIn theof past quarter century farto more resources low-income housing inthan the United States. ment public housing the expansion have gone to the preservation and redevelopPublic housing is extremely diverse. of the program. Only 5% of the current pubAbout of the nation’s ment ofhalf public housing than to the 1985, expansion lic housing stock was built after and Public Housing Authorities (PHA) of the program. Only 5% of the current pubmost of that replaced older public housing oversees fewer than 100 units; almost lic housing stock 1985, buildings that hadwas beenbuilt tornafter down. On and the 90% of all PHAs are responsible for 500 most of that replaced older public housing other hand, 57% of all public housing units or fewer units. buildings that 30 hadyears beenold, tornand down. are more than 38%On are the 15 Thehand, New57% YorkofCity Housing other all public housing units to 30 years old. Authority, whose portfolio of 180,000 are more 30 years and 38% are 15 Since the than beginning, theold, program has always units accounts for 12% of the nation’s to 30 years old. targetedhousing low-income families. However, over public stock, is widely Since the beginning, the program has always time, the public housing population considered among the nation’s best.has betargeted low-income families. However, come increasingly impoverished. In the past quarter century farOriginally, moreover time, the public housing population hascritebepublic housing imposed strict resources havemanagers gone to the preservation come increasingly impoverished. Originally, ria inredevelopment selecting tenants. Post war period saw and of public housing public managers imposed strictremain critethan tohousing the“submerged expansion of the program. less of the middle class” riaPublic in 5% selecting war period saw Only of thetenants. current public in Housing since Post low costhousing homeownless of the “submerged middle class” remain stock was built after 1985, and most ership, made possible by FHA mortgage inin Public Housingolder sincepublic lowclass cost homeownof that replaced housing surance, enabled working families to ership, made possible by FHA mortgage buildings that had been torn down. OnAsin-a move to new suburban developments. the other hand, 57% of allof public housing surance, working class families to result, theenabled median income public housing units are more than 30 years old, and move to new suburban developments. As residents fell from 57% of the national me-a 38% are 15median to 30 years old. result,in the income of public housing dian 1950 to 41% in 1969, 29% in 1970, Since the beginning, thethe program has residents fell from 57% of national meand less than 20% by the mid-1990s. always targeted low-income families. dian in 1950 to 41% in 1969, 29% in 1970, In 1998, Congress sought to reduce the However, over time, themid-1990s. public housing and less than 20% by the concentration ofbecome poverty in public housing population has increasingly In 1998,a public Congress sought to reduce the through housing (Qualimpoverished. Originally,reform publicact housing concentration of poverty in public housing ity Housingimposed and Work Responsibility managers strict criteria in Act of through a public housing act 40% (Qual1998). It mandated that post no reform more of selecting tenants. The warthan period ity Housing and Work Responsibility Act of the households into middle public housing saw less of the admitted “submerged class” 1998). Itinmandated that no 30% more than of can have incomes below of the40% area’s remain Public Housing since low cost the households admitted into public housing median family income. homeownership, made possible by FHA can have incomes below 30% working of the area’s mortgage insurance, enabled median familytypes income. class families to move to new suburban Building

public Housing IN THE UNITED STATES

developments. a result, the public medianhousAlthough many As people associate Building types income of public housing residents ing with high-rise buildings, most offell them from 57% ofother the national median in 1950 Although many people associate public housconsists of building types: high rise to 41% 1969, 29% in 1970, andofof less ing within high-rise buildings, most them elevator buildings account for 30% the tothan 20%ofbyother the mid-1990s. consists building types: high rise In 1998, Congress sought to reduce elevator buildings account for 30% of the totable 5_CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC the concentration of poverty in HOUSING STOCK, 1949-2004 public housing through a public housing table 5_CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC (S: HUDact 2004) reform (Qual-ity Housing and Work HOUSING STOCK, 1949-2004 Responsibility Act of 1998). It mandated year total units (S: HUD 2004) that no more than 40% of the households 1949 170,436 admitted into public year total units housing can have 422,451 1959 incomes below 30% of the area’s median 1969 170,436 792,228 1949 family 1979 income. 1,204,718 422,451 1959

seldom blends in with the surrounding com25%. However, theofdesign of public munity, regardless building type. housing seldom blends in with the surrounding community, regardless of buildingand type. racial Residents: income

composition high most rise elevator buildings account forfor Residents: income racial The common source and of income 30% of the total public housing stock composition public housing residents consists of social

and they are mainly source locatedof in the largest The most common income for security disability or retirement benefits and cities. Low-rise townhouse and row public housing residents consists of social pension payments. This reflects the large houses comprise an additional benefits 25%. and security disability or retirement proportion of elderly and disabled residents. However, the design of public housing pension payments. This reflects the large One third of public housing households are seldom blends in with the surrounding proportion of elderly and disabled residents. elderly, 38% of whom are disabled. An community, regardless of building type.adOne third19% of public housing households are ditional of public housing households elderly, 38% of whom are disabled. An are headed by disabled adults under age ad62. ditional 19%salaries of public housing the households Wages and constitute second are headed byof disabled under largest source income,adults received by age 31%62. of Wages and salaries constitute the second all public housing households. A far smaller largest source of income, received by16%, 31%reof segment ofcommon public housing tenants, The most source of income all public housing households. A far smaller ceive somehousing form of residents welfare. Although for public consists many of segment of public housing tenants, 16%, resocial housing security disability or retirement public residents work, the extremely ceive some of welfare. Although benefits andform payments. This many low income ofpension public housing residents sugpublic housing residents work, the extremely reflects the large proportion of elderly gests that thy earn very low wages and/or low ofresidents. public housing residents sugand income disabled One third work for a limited number of hours. In terms gests that thy earn very low wages and/or of public housing households are of the total population living in public houselderly, of whom areofdisabled. work for38% aare limited number hours. In under terms ing, 42% under 18, including 15% An ad-ditional 19% of public housing of the total population living in public housage 6; 14% of all residents are 62 or older. households headedincluding by disabled ing, 42% areare under 15% under With respect of the18, ethnicity, Whites make adults under age 62. Wages and salaries age 6; 14% of all residents are 62 or older. up half of the public housing population, folconstitute theofsecond largest source of With ethnicity, Whites lowedrespect by Africanthe Americans with 46%.make Hisincome received by 31% of all public up half of theinclude public housing population, folpanics, who Whites, African Amerihousing households. A far smaller lowed by African Americans with 46%. Hiscans, and of other races, make up 20%. 16%, segment public housing tenants, panics, who include Whites, African Amerire-ceive some form of welfare. Although cans, and other races,power make up(PHAs) 20%. Effects of local on

Residents: income and racial composition

many public housing residents work, the

racial and segregation extremely lowincome income of public housing Effects of localthat power (PHAs) on The original legislation is responsible residents suggests thypartly earn very low racial and income segregation for the and/or locationwork of public housingnumber developwages for a limited

The original legislation is partlypopulation responsible of hours. terms ofthethe total ments andIn therefore tendency to be situfor the location public housing developliving public of housing, 42% areneighborunder ated in in low-income, often minority ments and therefore the tendency to situ18, including 15% under age 6; 14% of hoods. By relaying on PHAs to buildbepublic ated in low-income, often minority neighborall residents are 62 or older. With respect housing, the federal government gave local hoods. By relaying on to PHAs to up build of the ethnicity, Whites make halfpublic government the right decide whether to of the public housing population, fol-local housing, the federal government gave build any public housing at all. Moreover, lowed by African Americans with 46%. to government the right decide whether affluent suburbs and toother municipalities Hispanics, who include Whites, African buildnoany public housing at all. Moreover, had obligation even to establish a public Americans, and other races, make up 20%. affluent suburbs and other municipalities housing authority. As a result, public houshad no obligation even a public ing could be located onlytoinestablish jurisdictions that housing authority. As a result, public houschose to participate in the program, virtually ing could be located only in jurisdictions guaranteeing that public housing wouldthat be chose to participate in the program, virtually guaranteeing that public housing would be table 7_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE-

Effects of local power on racial and income segregation HOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY

2004 1,391,312 1,234,555 1990 Although many people associate public 1999 1,273,500 housing with high-rise buildings, most 2004 6_PHYSICAL 1,234,555 table OF of them consists ofCHARACTERISTICS other building types:

The original is partlyOF HOUSEtablelegislation 7_DISTRIBUTION (S: HUD 2004) responsible for the location of public HOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY housing develop-ments and therefore % income (S: HUD 2004) the tendency to be situated in low5 $0 income, income often minority neighborhoods. % $1-$5,000 16 By relaying on PHAs to build public 42 $5,000-$10,000 5 $0 housing,$1-$5,000 the federal government16 gave 18 $10,000-$15,000 local government the right to decide 8 $15,000-$20,00 42 $5,000-$10,000 whether $10,000-$15,000 to build any public housing 4 at $20,000-$25,000 18 6 other Aboveaffluent $25,000 8 $15,000-$20,00 all. Moreover, suburbs and $20,000-$25,000 municipalities had no obligation4even 6 Above $25,000 to establish a public housing authority. table 8_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE-

table 6_PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF (S: Harvard University GSD 2003) PUBLIC HOUSING

table 8_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE% income

1990 1969

1,391,312 792,228

Building 1999 1,204,718 1,273,500 typeS 1979 PUBLIC HOUSING

HOLDS BY SOURCE OF INCOME HOLDS BY SOURCE OF INCOME

57,5%

with any wages 31 % income with any welfare 16 SSI/SS/pension 55 with any wages 31 other income with any welfare 16 17 with any SSI/SS/pension 55 with any other income 17 table 9_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE-

2,7%

table 9_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE% househole type

units property (S: Harvardage University GSD 2003) less than 15 years property age 15-30 years morethan than15 30years years less Total years 15-30 more than 30 years building type Total detached building type row type/townhouse semidetached detached walktype/townhouse up row high-rise/elevator semidetached mixedup walk high-rise/elevator mixed

63,901 units 482,972 739,258 63,901 1,286,131 482,972 739,258 units 1,286,131 35,257 units 297,370 120,592 35,257 146,963 297,370 389,731 120,592 296,201 146,963 389,731 296,201

5% 37,6% 57,5% 5% 37,6%

23,1% 9,4% 2,7% 11,4% 23,1% 30,3% 9,4% 23% 11,4% 30,3% 23%

HOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE HOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE

disabled househole type elderly all households with children disabled all female headed houseelderly all households with children holds with children all female headed households with children

31 % 16 55 31 16 17 55 17

Phas

thorities (Phas) (nYcha: 12% of nation’s Public housing aupublic housing stock) thorities (Phas) (nYcha: 12% of nation’s public housing stock)

public Housing Phas

authorities (Phas) consensus stronglY affected bY local Political consensus

Public housing are located far aWaY operations and financing of public froM WealthY Public housingand are = housing HOUSINGauthorities. Unlike White suburbs, MainlY located far aWaY duringother talsubsidized public housing stock and they are infroM central cities (61%) housing and market ratemainly WealthY and

As a institution result, public hous-ing could be + located in jurisdictions that+chose civilonly society Public housing, originated in 1937 institution to participate in the program, virtually + Deal, is the oldest and the New most widely located in White the largest cities. Low-rise +would = rental suburbs, MainlY townhousing, PHAs report expenditures guaranteeing that public housing civil society in central cities (61%) known form of subsidized low-income houshouse and row houses comprise anand additional Public housing design and revenue on a system-wide basis be concentrated in central cities and is thought for not housing institution ing in the United States. 25%. However, the design of public assign limited authority and responworking-class suburbs and absent form coMPeting With Pri+ Public housing design + = sibility Public housing is extremely diverse. seldom blends inMarket with the(in surrounding comto on-site management personnel. most affluent suburbs. Indeed, 61% of About real estate vate terMs is thought for not institution investors of originally architecture housing was structured all half public units are located in Authori-Public of+housing the nation’s Public Housing munity, regardless of building type. coMPeting With PriqualitY and renters) +of all = so that the federal realcities, estate government central compared to 45%than vate Market (inpaid terMs ties (PHA) oversees fewer 100 units; investors of architecture of buildingincome the projectsand and racial rental housing. Localities almost 90% of all PHAsthat aredecided responsible forthe costs Residents: qualitY and renters) concentrated in central cities and workingauthorities. Unlike other subsidized housing tenants paid for the costs of operating to participate in the program had also 500 or fewer units. composition class suburbs and absent form most affluent and market rate rental housing, PHAs report them. Local housing authorities issued almost control over Authority, where The complete New York City Housing whose The most common source of income for concentrated in central cities and workingauthorities. Unlike other subsidized housing suburbs. Indeed, 61% of all public housing expenditures and revenue on a system-wide bonds to finance the costs of project public housing would be situ-ated portfolio of 180,000 units accounts for 12% public housing of social class suburbs and form most affluent and market rate rentalresidents housing, PHAs report units aretheir located inabsent central cities, compared basis and assign limited authorityconsists and respondevelopment and Washington paid within jurisdiction. This virtually of the nation’s public housing stock, is widesecurity disability or retirement benefits and suburbs. Indeed, 61% of all public housing expenditures and revenue on a system-wide to 45% of allthat rental housing. sibility to on-site management personnel. principal and interest. Maintenance guaranteed public housing would considered among nation’s best. unitslyare located in central cities, compared basis and assign limited authority and responpayments. This reflects the Localities thattodecided tothe participate in the Public housing was originally structured so large and pension other operating costs were be subjected racial segregation. to 45% of all rental housing. sibility to on-site management personnel. In the past quarter century far more resources proportion of elderly and disabled residents. program had also almost complete control that the federal government paid the costs covered by rental income. he system White neighborhood typically opposed Localities that participate insituthe Public housing was originally so are gone todecided the preservation andberedevelopOne third public housing households work reasonably well into thestructured 1960s. thehave development ofhousing anytopublic housing over where public would of building the of projects and tenants paid for program had also almost complete control that the federal government paid the costs ment of public housing than to the expansion elderly, 38% of whom are disabled. An adEventually, operatingthem. costs Local increased in their midst, if such housing ated within theirand jurisdiction. This virtually the costs of operating housing over where public housing would be situof building the projects and tenants paid for Only 5% of the current ditional 19%bonds of public housing households faster thanissued tenant incomes. At first, hadoftothe be program. built, it would be reserved guaranteed that public housing would be sub- pubauthorities to finance therents costs ated within their jurisdiction. This virtually the costs of operating them. Local housing were increased regardless of the tenants’ for lic low-income Whites. the other housing stock wasOn built after 1985, and are headed by disabled adults under age 62. jected to racial segregation. White neighborof project development and Washington paid guaranteed public housing would be subauthorities issued bonds to constitute finance thethe costssecond ability toand pay butsalaries also many PHAs hand, elected officials from black most ofthat that replaced public housing Wages and hood typically opposed theolder development of principal interest. Maintenance and other deferred basic repairs andWashington maintenance. communities were more jected to racial segregation. White neighborof project development and paid buildings that had been torninterested down. On the largest source of income, received 31% of any public housing inoften their midst, and if such operating costs were covered by rentalby inIn the late 1960s and early 1970s in having public housing built in their hood typically opposed the development of principal and interest. Maintenance and other otherhad hand, 57% of itallwould public housing households.well A far smaller housing to be built, behousing reservedunits come.allhepublic system work reasonably into Congress responded tohousing the problem with neighborhood than it developed any public housing inhaving their and38% ifhand, such operating costs bytenants, rental inmore than 30 years old, are 15 segment of were publiccovered for are low-income Whites. Onmidst, the and other the 1960s. Eventually, operating costs 16%, in- rea series of amendments to the Public on a more integrated More housing to be built,basis. itblack would be than reserved come. hefaster system work well into many to 30had years old.from ceive some form ofreasonably welfare. Although elected officials communities creased than tenant incomes. At first, Housing Act that capped rental payments halflow-income of all public housing units are inhand, the for Whites. On the other 1960s. Eventually, operating costs inbeginning, theinprogram always housing regardless residents work, extremely wereSince oftenthe more interested having has public rentspublic were increased of the the tenants’ at 25% of income (later raised to 30%) census tracts with poverty rates of 30% elected officials from black communities creased than tenant incomes. At first, sugtargeted low-income However, housing built in their neighborhood than hav- over ability tofaster pay but also many PHAs deferred low income of public housing residents by instituting a new operating cost subor higher, compared to families. lessinthan 20% of were often more interested having public rents were increased regardless of the tenants’ ing it developed on a housing more integrated basic repairs In(named the lateand/or time, the public population thatand thymaintenance. earn veryrents low wages sidygests to supplement tenants other federally subsidized units andbasis. lesshas behousing built inof their neighborhood than havability to pay but also many PHAs deferred More than half all public housing units are 1960s and early 1970s Congress responded come increasingly impoverished. Originally, work for a limited number of hours. In terms after Senator Edward Brooke). than 13% of all rental housing. Public ing it developed onmanagers a poverty more integrated basis. basic repairs and maintenance. Ininthe late housin census tracts with rates of 30% or to the problem with a series of amendments public housing imposed strict criteof the total population living public housing renters are two to three times More half of all public housing units are 1960s and42% early 1970s Congress responded higher, compared lessrenters than 20% ofperiod other to theing, Public Housing Act that capped rental riathan in selecting tenants. Post arehousing under 18, including 15% under more likely than to other towar live in saw Public in in census subsidized tracts with units poverty rates of 30% or payments to the problem with aincome series of amendments federally and less than 13% at 25% of (later raised to predominantly minority neighborhood. less of the “submerged middle class” remainthe age 6;perception 14% of all residents are 62of or older. higher, compared to less than 20% of other to the Public Housing Act that capped rental of all rental housing. Public housing 30%)With by instituting a new sub- make Half all public housing located in in of Public Housing since islow cost renters homeownrespect of the operating ethnicity, cost Whites the population federally units andlikely less than 13% payments at 25% of income (later raised to tracts minority neighbor-hoods are twowhere tosubsidized three times more oth- insidy to tenants rents (named after ership, made possible by FHA than mortgage upsupplement half of the public housing population, folof all rental housing. Public housing renters 30%) by instituting a new operating cost subcomprise at enabled leastin50% of the population, er renters to live predominantly Senator Edward Brooke). Despite its problems, most public surance, working classminority families to lowed by African Americans with 46%. Hisare two to threeHalf times likely than othto supplement tenants rents (named after including tracts are housing 80% is in decent condition neighborhood. of more allthat public isAs sidy move to38% newinsuburban developments. ahousing panics, who include Whites,and African Amerier renters to live in predominantly minority Senator Edward Brooke). minorityinortracts higher. provides homes its20%. located whereincome minority neighborPublic housing in theforup percepresult, the median of public housing cans, satisfactory and other races, make neighborhood. Half of all public housing is tion residents. Established by Congress in hoods comprise at least 50% of the populaof the population residents fell from 57% of the national melocated in tracts where minority neighborPublic housing in the percepPhysical 1989, the National Commission on tion,dian including in tracts that 29% are 80% Despite its problems, most public(PHAs) housing on in 195038% to 41% in 1969, in 1970, Effects of local power hoods comprise at least 50% of the population of the population Severely Distressed Public Housing minority or higher. is in decent condition and provides satisfaccharacteristics and less than 20% by the mid-1990s. racial and income segregation esti-mated that 6%residents. ofmost the nation’s tion, including 38% in tracts that are 80% Despite its problems, public housing tory homes for its Established by Inpoor 1998, Congress soughtcondition to reduce the The original legislation is partly responsible The design and physical public housing was severely distressed, minority or higher. is in decent condition and provides satisfacCongress in 1989, the National Commission Physical characteristics of public housingofis poverty partly, but concentration in not public housingaccounting for the location of units. publicAhousing forits 86,000 survey developtoryseverely homes for residents. Established by on Distressed Public Housing estiThe poor design andthe physical condition completely, to severereform financial through adue public housing act of (Qualmentsinhousing and therefore the tendency to be situof public residents conducted Congress 1989, the National Commission Physical characteristics public housing is partly, not completely, mated that 6% of the nation’s public houslimitations imposed by but the original ity Housing and Work Responsibility Act of ated in low-income, often minority neighborfor HUD in 1999 found that two thirds Distressed Publicaccounting Housing estiThe poor conditionimof on ing severely was severely distressed, for due to thedesign severeand financial limitations legislation on physical the amount ofthan 40% 1998). It(1937) mandated that no more of of the respondents were hoods. By relaying onsatisfied PHAs toorbuild mated that 6% of the nation’s public hous-public public housing is partly, but not completely, units. posed bythat thecan original legislation (1937) on 86,000 money be spent on construction. satisfied with their apartments and the admitted limitations into public imhousingverywas housing, the federal government gave severely distressed, accounting for local due to households the severe financial Athesurvey of public housing residents conthe amount of by money thatpublic can behousing spent on ing Furthermore, linking development as a whole. Less than can have incomes below 30% of the area’s government the right to decide whether to units. posed by therenewal, original the legislation (1937)pubon 86,000 with urban legislation ducted for HUD in 1999 found that two construction. Furthermore, by linking 10%build were verypublic unsatisfied. median family income. any housingThe at survey all. Moreover, A survey of public housing residents conthe amount of money that can made be on thirds imposed additional costs that even of the respondents were satisfied or lic housing with urban renewal, thespent legislacertainly showed roomand for other improvement, affluent suburbs municipalities ducted for HUD in 1999 found that two construction. Furthermore, by linking publess conspicuous the money available with theirdissatisfaction apartments andwith the tion imposed additional costs that made even very withsatisfied 21% expressing had even to establish aorpublic Building types of no theobligation respondents satisfied lic urban renewal, the legislaforhousing the newwith buildings. Theavailable original development as a whole. were Less than 10% less conspicuous the money for the thirds their homes; nevertheless, the results authority. As a result, and public Although many people houshousing legislation also shaped theassociate look ofpublic public satisfied withthe their apartments the houstion imposed additional costs that made even were verytounsatisfied. The survey certainly new buildings. The original legislation also very do seem belie popular image ing couldas be alocated only in jurisdictions that ing with high-rise buildings, most of them housing through its admonishment development whole. Less than 10% less conspicuous the money available for the of public housing as an unmitigated room for improvement, with 21% shaped the look of public housing through its showed chose to participate in the program, virtually consists of The otherwith building types: high rise against competing the rest of the were very unsatisfied. The survey certainly new buildings. original legislation also disaster. “Public housingwith is unpopular dissatisfaction their homes; admonishment against competing with the expressing private real estate industry. guaranteeing that public housing would be elevator buildings account forthrough 30% of its the toshowed room for improvement, shaped the look of public housing with everybody except those who live21% in nevertheless, the results do seem towith belie the rest of the private real estate industry. dissatisfaction with to their admonishment against competing with the expressing it and those who are waiting in it” popular image of public housing asget anhomes; unmitManagement issue table 5_CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC table 7_DISTRIBUTION OFthe HOUSEnevertheless, the results do seem to belie rest of the private real estate industry. (Stegman 1990). igated disaster. “Public housing is unpopular Management issue HOUSING STOCK, 1949-2004 HOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY popular image of public housing as an unmitOther major problems derive form the Other major problems derive form the choic- with everybody except those who live in it Main strength: disaster. “Public housing Management issue choices, practices, and attitudes public igated (S: HUD 2004) HUD 2004) and those who(S: are waiting to getisinunpopular it” (Steges, practices, and attitudes of publicofhousing housing administrator and government with everybody except those who live in it Other major problems derive form the choicpublic ownershiP 1990). administrator and government officials. Pub- man year Public % totalhousing units in officials. cities those whoincome are waiting to get in it” (Steges, practices, attitudes of some public housing lic housing inand some cities has been treated as and Public housing has proven to be the has been treated as a source of patronage, 1949of patronage, 5 170,436 $0 administrator and government officials. Pub- man a source with hiring decisions Main strength: most1990). durable of thepublic nation’sownership low-income 422,451 $1-$5,000 1959 16 with hiringindecisions based on personal lic housing some cities has been treated as housing programs. The secret to the its most based on personal and political connections. Public housing has proven to be 1969 42 792,228 $5,000-$10,000 political connections. is reflected aItand source of patronage, with It hiring decisions Main strength: public ownership longevity is its public ownership. Unlike is1979 reflected in lax tenant selection procedurable of the nation’s low-income 18 1,204,718 $10,000-$15,000 housing in lax tenant selection procedures, based on personal and political connections. housing hastypes proven be the is most virtually all of to subsidized dures, failure to respond to tenants com- Public programs. Theother secret to its longevity 1990 8 its 1,391,312 $15,000-$20,00 failure to respond to tenants complaints, It is1999 reflected into lax tenant procedurable ofpublic the$20,000-$25,000 nation’s low-income housing housing, housing guarantees plaints, failure repair andselection maintain Unlike virtually all other 4 1,273,500 failure to repair and maintain appli- appli- public ownership. dures, failure to respond to tenants comprograms. The secret to its longevity is perpetual low-income occupancy. The 2004 6 its 1,234,555 Above $25,000 ances ances and and building building systems, systems, and and failure failure to types of subsidized housing, public housing only threat to its long-term viability plaints, failure to repair and maintain applipublic ownership. Unlike virtually all other develop andand implement long-term plans to guarantees perpetual low-income occupancy. to develop implement longterm con-sists of poor management andhousing ances and building systems, and failure to types of subsidized housing, table 6_PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 8_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEreplace systems as they approach to its long-termpublic viability conplans tobuilding replace building systems as they OFThe only threattable security and inadequate fundingoccupancy. to develop and implement long-term plans to guarantees perpetual low-income PUBLIC HOUSING HOLDS BY SOURCE OF INCOME the end of their useful life. useful life. A sists of poor management and security and approach the end of their replace systems and to provide replace buildingUniversity systems as they approach The only building threat to its long-term Akey key impediment theeffective effective manageinadequate funding to replace viability building consys- % (S: Harvard GSD 2003) impediment totothe manageincome adequate maintenance. the end of their useful life. sists of poor management and security and ment of public housing is the centralized ment of public housing is the centralized tems and to provide adequate maintenance. with any wages 31 units property age A key impediment to the effective manageinadequate funding to replace building sysoperations and financing of public housing with any welfare 16 mentless of than public15housing centralized tems5% and to provide adequate maintenance. 63,901 years is the with any SSI/SS/pension 55 37,6% operations and financing of public housing 15-30 years 482,972 with any other income 17 57,5% more than 30 years 739,258 Total 1,286,131 building type

units

table 9_DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE

HOPE VI and the transforma- Limitations and critics tion of distressed public housing However, we notice that the program does not

Hundreds of public housing projects across the nation have been transformed since the 1990s into housing developments that defy popular conceptions of public housing. DistressedVI public is being replaced HOPE and housing the transforma-tion of by smaller scale, often mixed-income housing, distressed public housingHundreds to a design standard inspired by the ofbuilt public housing projects across thenew urbanism. Most redevelopment projects nation have been transformed since have been funded through the developments HOPE VI program the 1990s into housing for severely distress housing. 1993 that defy popular conceptions From of public through 2004, HOPE VI has funded the housing. Dis-tressed public housing isdemolition of more than 150,000 units of disbeing replaced by smaller scale, often tressed public housing and has invested more mixed-income housing, built to a design than $5.5 billion in the redevelopment of 224 standard inspired by the new urbanism. public housing projects. Most redevelopment projects have been The National Commission on severely Disfunded through the HOPE VI program tressed Public Housing has defined distressed for severely distress housing. From 1993 public housing using four criteria: through 2004, HOPE VI has funded the 1. Families living in distress (low levels of de-molition of more than 150,000 units educational attainment, high unemployment of dis-tressed public housing and has rates, low household incomes) invested more than $5.5 billion in the 2. High rate of serious crime within the pubredevelopment of 224 public housing lic housing development or the surrounding projects. neighborhood The National Commission on severely 3. Barriers to managing the environment Dis-tressed Public Housing has defined vacancy rates, high turnover rates, low urbanization distressed of(high housing and jobopportunities public housing using four rent collection and high units rejected affordable housing, unemployment, highrate priceoffor transportation criteria: by applicants) 1. Families living in distress (low 4. Physical deterioration of buildings

Hope VI

levels of educational attainment, high unemployment rates, low household A new approach for designing incomes) and managing public housing 2.HOPE HighVI rate of serious crime within design targets are: the pub-lic housing development or the - to overcome the physical isolation of many surrounding neighborhood public housing developments by blending in 3.with Barriers to managing the environment the physical fabric of the surrounding (high vacancy rates, high turnover rates, community low rent collection and high rate of units - to minimize public spaces, over which resirejected by applicants) dents are less likely to exert control, and give 4.them Physical deterioration of buildings gentrification instead private and semiprivate spaces. per unit than has been alA- higher new costs approach forwhat designing lowed for public housing in the past for imand managing public housing proving construction and design quality HOPE VI design targets seek: changes in The program has also engendered - the to overcome the physical isolation of management of public housing, introducmany public housing developments by ing a more decentralized approach: most sites blending in managed with theindependently. physical fabric of are, in fact,

owned Rental The largest housing subsidy program for Housing built low-income Americans it does not involve specific buildings or projects. Vouchers, in witH FedeRal fact, enable low-income households to obtain already exists in operating the private mardebt service and costs and HOPE VI developments may excludehousing that subsidies ket. Compared to project-based subsidies,

necessarily improves the lives of all the residents of the original public housing. First, by replacing public developments - higherlarge costs per housing unit than what has with smaller scale, mixed-income projects, been al-lowed for public housing in the leave a margin for profit. families with poor credit histories, vouchers are less expensive and provide acHOPE VI developments typically have past for im-proving constructionfewer and For about Eventually, unlike public housing, with20criminal records, or that do not years, from 1960s to 1980s, the cess to a wider range of neighborhoods and public housing units than the projects they design quality federal subsidies for all these programs demonstrate acceptable house-keeping federal government financed the develop- housing. However, the households must find supplant. On average, only 39% of the origiThe program has also engendered extend for only a finite period of time; skills. In Chicago, prospective tenants ment of more than 1 million low-and mod- an apartment that does exceed the pronalchanges units will be replaced by units targeting in the management of afterward thenot housing may be con-verted for newrental pub-lic housing mixederate income housing unit within owned by gram’s standards for physical adequacy, and households with incomes up to 30% of the public housing, introduc-ing a more to market-rate occupancy. Therefore, a privateincome entities.complexes developed with funds whose owner is willing to participate the proarea median, and this percentage range from decentralized approach: most sites are, in key challenge for this housing program from HOPE VI and programs The different programs haveother started during must gram. 9 to 102% (Center for Community Change & fact, managed independently. isaccess its preservation as anisasset also be working at least 30 hours a week A good example is the to jobs. While there built a for goodlownetwork of highways to 1960s recession as a way of stimulating the displaced JoboppoRtunities FRom The Housing Act of 1974 established the first ENPHRONT 2003). access both the centralincome business households. district and the new sprawled industry from the suburbs. For or enrolled inadministration, school full time. economy. Kennedy particunational voucher program, originally known Limitations and critics A second andcity related criticism of HOPE VI inneR neigHboRHoods thewith inner city residents, surely the ones without a car, it became difficult to access these jobs. larly, was interested in helping families as the Section 8 Existing Housing Program. concerns the fate publicthat housing residents They will spend a lot of time to transfer to these jobs. Neither new affordable housing was However, we of notice the program income too high totoqualify foropporpublic housing Affordable housing is linked to income and thus we have to rethink how create job As first designed, it provided rental certifiwho do not not necessarily get to live inimproves the new housing in the suburbs. does the lives but not high enough to secure standardbuilt houstunities in the inner city neighborhoods. Since the fifties mostly the manufacturing jobs have cates to households with incomes up to 80% developed the program. of of all theunder resi-dents of the Residents original public ing in the private market. The largest housing subsidy program been displaced more and more out of the city. of more the area median income. certificates public housing slated demolition reA second and recently displacement ofThe manufacturing jobs happened towards cheap lahousing. First, by for replacing largeorpublic for low-income Americans it does not covered like the China. difference between goods 25% of development under HOPE VI havesmaller four opbor Asian countries Manufactured arefamnow imported and arrive in the New housing developments with subsidy programs involve specifictobuildings or projects. The first important displacement was suburbanizationMortgage of housing and job opportunities from income (later 30%) tions: York/ New ily Jersey port. The jobincreased opportunities in the and port Fair are also difficult to access from scale, mixed-income projects, HOPE Since 1960s, 3 main programs that subsidizes Vouchers, in fact, enable low-income thePass innerthe cityscreening neighborhoods to the the limited suburbs.numFor the larger differentiated communities in the Market that rentlost (FMR). 1. test for the neighborhoods there manufacturing industries. The service sector is not able to VI developments typically have fewer the interest on the project’s mortgage, have The quality households to obtain housing that inner cities it is harder to address their problems and needs to the about local government and ad- the federal For 1960 to 1980, Housing and Work responsibilreplace all lost jobs in those neighborhoods. ber of public housing unitsthan in the new develpublic housing units projects been Section 221(d)3 in 1961, vocate for change, as there are manythe different problems andestablished: many different needs. Smaller already exists in the private mar-ket. government financed the develop- ity Act of 1998 merged the certificate and opment. they supplant. On average, onlyproblems 39% and Section 236 in 1968, and Section 515 (for rucommunities like suburbs that have fewer happen likely to be the same for Compared to project-based subsidies, ment of more than 1 million low-andvoucher programs into a single program, 2. of Use housing choice (Section 8) rental thea origi-nal units will be replaced planned housing) inincome 1962. All three housing programs renamed the everybody, have it easier to address their problems toral therental local government. vouchers areChoice less expensive andshrinkage mod-erate rental Housing Voucher provoucher to find a home in the private market. by units targeting households with ran into serious trouble in the inflationary provide ac-cess to a wider range units owned by private entities. As a gram (HCV) that, among other news, it also of 3. incomes Move to aup vacant unit,of if the available, in difto 30% area median, years of 1970s. by rapidly and housing. However, means ofDriven stimulating the escalating economy, the states thatneighborhoods extremely low-income households ferent housing development andpublic this percentage range from 9 to oil prices, operating costs rose far faster than the households must find an apartment Kennedy administration, in particular, (earning less than 30% of area’s median fam4. Leave assisted living altogether 102% (Center for Community Change tenantwas incomes. Many projects wentfamilies into de- with that does not exceed interested in helping ily income) must receive at least the 75%pro-gram’s of all Not all residents of public housing projects & ENPHRONT 2003).A second and fault, income unable totoo cover their debt service obstandards for physical adequacy, and high to qualify for publicvouchers issued annually. redeveloped under HOPE VI are eligible to related criticism of HOPE VI concerns ligations after meeting operating owner is willing to participate housing but nottheir high enoughcosts. to secure By 2004, whose vouchers assisted more than 1.8 reside in the new housing that replaced the the fate of public housing residents who the pro-gram. The Housing Act of 1974 million households, more than any other standard hous-ing in the private market. old. Local housing authorities and site mando not get to live in the new housing Direct rental subsidy programs: federal housing established the(40% first of national voucher program all HUDagers have the latitude to devise and enforce Mortgage subsidy programs assisted). program, originally known as the Section developed under the program. ResidentsSection 8 LMSA and NC/SR stricter tenant eligibility criteria than is typiof public housing slated for demolition In 1974, Congress established Section that Since the 1960s, 3 mainthe programs 8 Existing Housing Program.As first cal for public housing as a whole. HOPE VI or re-development under HOPE VI 8 Loan Management Set-Aside program subsidizes the interest on the project’s designed, it provided rental certifi-cates Strengths and Limitations developments may exclude families with have four op-tions:1. Pass the screening(LMSA), to improve cash flowestablished: and also re- It is clear to mortgage, have been households with incomes up to 80% of that vouchers provide a greater depoor credit histories, with criminal records, test for the limited num-ber of public lieve the excessive rent in burdens. The pro-236gree Section 221(d)3 1961, Section in the area median income. The of residential choice than project-basedcertificates or that do not demonstrate acceptable househousing units in the new devel-opment. gram, thoughtand for+Section properties funded through 1968, 515 (for ru-ral rental covereddo, theenabling difference between + subsidy program recipients to 25% of + keeping skills. 2. Use a housing choice (Section 8) mortgage subsidyinprograms, covered the dif- live housing) 1962. All three programs ran fam-ily income (later increased an a wider array of neighborhoods. Com- to 30%) In Chicago, prospective tenants for new pubferenceinto between 25% of tenant income (later pared to public rental voucher to find a home in the housing especially, a much serious trouble in the inflationary and Fair Market rent (FMR). The quality lic housing within mixed-income complexes to 30%) and the rent. private market.3. Move to a vacant unit,increased smaller percentage of voucher holders live in 1970s. Driven by rapidly escalating oil Housing and Work responsibil-ity Act of developed with funds from HOPE VI and similaroperating program costs for new developif available, in dif-ferent public housingA veryprices, economically distressed neighborhoods. For rose far faster 1998 merged the certificate and voucher other programs must also be working at leastPrime loan + Subprime loan was also established by Congress in example, while more than half of the nation’s development4. Leave assisted living ments than tenant incomes. Many projects went programs into a single program, renamed 30 hours a week or enrolled in school full 1937: the ameRican Section 8 New Construction and public housing units are in census tracts with FRom ameRican to nigHtmaRe altogetherNot all residents ofdReam public into de-fault, unable to cover their debt the Housing Choice Voucher pro-gram time. Substantial Rehabilitation. housing projects redeveloped under a poverty rate of 30% or more, this is true

PRIVATELY owned Rental Housing built witH FedeRal SUBSIDIES

VOUCHERS

The American dream of homeownership

service ob-ligations after meeting their (HCV) that mandates that extremely HOPE VI are eligible to reside in the of just 15% of all voucher holders and 13% less low-income households (earning operating costs. From thehousing Americanthat dreamreplaced to an American nightmare. new the old. LocalStrengths and Limitations of all rental units. However, the voucher prothan 30% of area’s median fam-ily The American dream of homeownership 8 program, designed to avoid the gram is no guarantee against racial segregahousing authorities and site man-agers SectionDirect rental subsidy programs: the surrounding community income) must receive at least 75% of coffee organic To be protected from the sky rocking market prices and displacements as a consequence, pro+ of capital subsidiesand that we have tion. Minority voucher have the latitude to devise and enforce limitations brooker Section 8 LMSA NC/SR holders usually reside - to minimize public spaces, over which moting all vouchers issued annually.By 2004, homeownership can be a good option. Unfortunately this dream of many Americans described, guaranteed a combination of the in minority neighbor hoods. tenant eligibility criteria than is resi-dents are less likely to exert control, hasstricter vouchers assisted more than 1.8 million turned into a nightmare since the last crisis. In 1974, Congress established the typi-cal forOFpublic housing as a whole. deep rent subsidies and generous tax advan- Moreover,households, Prime loan aremore Subprime loan vouchers far +less expensive table 11_them PUBLIC HOUSING COMPARED TO OTHER TYPES RENTAL HOUSING and give instead private and than any other federal 8 Loan Management tages.inSection This made 8 program Set-Aside very per unit compared to project-based subsidy The American dream to own a house has been advanced the first halfthe of Section the last decade. semiprivate (S: Newman spaces. & Schnare 1997) housing program (40% of all HUDprogram (LMSA), to improve cash attractive. WhenThe Regan Mortgages have been offered by brokers to many americans in 2 ways. moreadministration reliable bor- termi- program. The General Accounting Office, for assisted). flow and also relieve the subsidized excessive rent nated it inloans. 1983, the loans program have loans with small interest, the so called Prime These are ahad small PUBLIC rowers couldPRIVATE CERTIFACATES example, estimates that public housing redeburdens. The program, destined for HOUSINGrisk to the DEVELOPMENTS AND VOUCHERS of interest / high risk more than 850,000 new or rehabilitated housbrokerscocktail but. Next to that,high they also give Subprime loans to less reliable borrowers Strengths Limitations veloped under HOPE VIand program brooker will cost properties funded through mortgage with much higherand interests. On interest/ this loans theylow could make a lot more profit and when bundled ing units. low risk 27% moreItthan vouchers over their 30-year is clear that vouchers provide a programs, covered the diftogether with the less risk-full Prime loans they would notsubsidy make such risk. Thiswas perfect Anyway, Section 8a NC/SR an expensive life cycle greater and housing financed with LIHTC de-gree of residential choice cocktail started being a low risk when the amount ofprogram. primeference loans overweighs the subprime. between 25% of tenant income Development and operating costs cost 15% more. than project-based subsidy programs The greedier the brokers became the more subprime loans (later they would offer meanwhile the increased to 30%) rent. A were often high. Developers, in and fact, the have Finally, we have to notice that the growth of high interest / high risk recipients do, enabling to liveofan a cocktail became unhealthy and a housing bubble was created. Thesimilar perfect cocktail became anew cocktail very program for developscant incentive to control costs as long asand fairlow the interest/ low program risk voucher over time has become a Comfiguratively Molotov cocktail that exploded in 2007. wider array of neighborhoods. location type also established by and Congress marketments rents was would cover debt service political liability. Inpublic 2004, rental voucher acpared to housing especially, a central city 61,4 46,9 45,3 in 1937: theforeclosed Section 8 New Construction costs and leave a margin The results are disastrous and the American nightmareoperating begins. The banks the bor-for profit. counted for 54% of HUD’s budget. much smaller percentage of voucher 19,2 32,8 33,8 suburb and Rehabilitation. Subprime Crisis Eventually, we have noticemarthat, unlike rowers who couldn’t pay off the rising interests on their loans. TheSubstantial prices on thetohousing nonmetropolitan area holders live in economically distressed 19,5 20,3 21,0 publictohousing, federal subsidies for all these ket that had been doubled in the last years suddenly started drop because of the oversupply 2008 For example, whileSubprime Strengths and Limitations neighborhoods. more Crisis median household income on the market. Big investors see an opportunity in the low prices of thefor lowonly valueahousing programs extend finite period of 2008 than half of the nation’s public housing Section program, designed market 6,9 and buy massively. The lion The share of properties, as a general less than $10,000 25,6 2,3 banks froze the other time; afterward the 8housing may be con-to units are in census tracts with a poverty $10,000-$20,000 43,1 29,9would decrease the 30,1 devaluation value of all loans they still had availability of avoid theThelimitations ofvacapital subsidies verted to open. market-rate occupancy. Therefore, Prime >Subprime Prime >Subprime rate ofPrime-Subprime 30% or more, this is true of just $20,000-$30,000 Prime-Subprime cancies shrinks so the market prizes rises again. The financial market speculates for the right 22,8 36,1 41,5 we have a key that challenge for described, this housingguaranteed concerns a $30,000 or more creating a Bubbleholders and 13% of 8,6 27,2 26,1 time and place to take action on their vacant land meanwhile combination a record amount of of homeless has 15% of all voucher theandeep its today preservation as assetrent for subsidies lowcreating a Bubble to be sheltered by the city. government. all rental units. poverty rate in 1989 and generous tax advan-tages. This made income households. Moreover, vouchers are far less housing market after 2008 the Section 8 program very attractive. less than 10% 7,5 27,4 27,5 expensive per unit compared to project38,9 50,7 57,8 10-30% When Reagan administration termi-nated housing market after 2008 30-40% based subsidy programs. The General 17,1 11,5 9,5 it in 1983, the program had subsidized foreclosure oversupply scarcety 36,5 10,4 5,3 40% or higher Accounting Office estimates that public + selling of properties more than 850,000 new or rehabilitated housing rede-veloped under HOPE hous-ing units. minority households VI program will cost 27% more than Section 8 NC/SR was an expensive scarcety foreclosure 44,3 oversupply less than 10% 21,4 42,2 vouchers over their 30-year life cycle program. Development and operating 16,5 22,1 of properties 23 10-30% + selling and housing financed with LIHTC cost 30-50% costs were often high. Developers, in 11,3 10,2 11,7 15% more. In 2004, rental voucher ac13,3 10,4 11,1 50-80% fact, have scant incentive to control costs big investors start 37,6 15,1 9,9 80% or higher counted for 54% of HUD’s budget. as long as fair market rents would cover investing in small properties

banks freezing property and wait till values rise

BLOOMBERG’S new Housing maRketplace plan three aims for a more affordable, pRoblematizing tHe new bloombeRg’s new Housing maRketplace viable and sustainable city Housing maRket-place plan plan Bloomberg’s administration has a goal built by 2014 a total of 165,000 viable, affordable tHRee aims FoRtoa moRe aFFoRdable, units. The plan isand divided in three categories: sustainable city 1. Improving Neighborhoods: Improving conditions of the neighborhoods by units. Bloomberg’s administration has the a goal to built by 2014 a total of 165,000 affordable physical-ly changing and financially aiding distressed properties to create stabilizing The plan is divided in three categories: communities.

pRoblematizing tHe new Housing maRketplace plan

 

1. Improving Neighborhoods: Improving the conditions of the neighborhoods by physically changing and financially aiding distressed properties to create stabilizing communities.

     

KEEP PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES

2. Expanding the supply for affordable and sustainable housing: The construction of 165,00 housing units for affordable housing. 60,000 new units, and 105,000 units to preserve.

educational strategy + council/assist/and educate the population against threat of The forclosure 60,000 105,000 2. Expanding the supply for affordable and the sustainable housing: construction of



  

165,00 housing units for affordable housing. 60,000 new units, and 105,000 units to pre-serve.

nEW

PRESERVE REnT LoCKED

   

3. Stabilizing Families: To goal is to keep people in their homes. With an educational strategy the city will counsel, assist and educate the population of the threats of foreclosure. It would also help vulnerable communities such as homeless and the shelter system.

105,000

60,000

 

    

KEEP PEoPLE PRESERVE RENT LOCKED In THEIR HoMES

NEW



 

3. Stabilizing Families: To goal is to keep people in their homes. With an educational strat-egy the city will counsel, assist and educate the population of the With this on mind, we need to analyze the consequences of this program. The following threats of foreclosure. would also help that vulnerable communities such as homeless diagramItshows some questions are important to have in mind whenever there is a new and the shelter system. housing plan. The big question in this analysis is: what is affordable and for whom are these units being built or preserve for?

X X

PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL AID

Rent control vs Permanent

X X

165,000 UnITS

    

For how long?



For whom

we need to analyze the consequences of this program. The shows some questions that are important to have in mind $ $$$ whenever there is a new housing plan. The big question in this analysis is: what is banks freezing and for whom are these units Size? affordable being built or preserve for?

    

bigWith investors thisstart on mind, investing in small following diagram properties

property and wait till values rise

Where?



Since 1979, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development has sold Cityowned buildings to Housing Development Fund Corporations (HDFCs) created through the ce 1979, the Department of Housing sold CityTenant Interim Lease (TIL) Preservation Program. Thisand is aDevelopment special type ofhas limited equity housing cooperative in New York State, incorporated under the New York State Housing Finance ned buildings to Housing Development Fund Corporations (HDFCs) created through the Law. Under law,Program. the city ofThis NewisYork is abletype to sell buildings directly to tenant or communant Interim Leasethis (TIL) a special of limited equity housing coopnity groups to incorporated provide low-income housing. According to Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, presitive in New York State, under the New York State Housing Finance Law. dent bothof601 W.York 136th co-opdirectly in Manhattan - asorwell as the volunteer, der this law, theofcity New is Street able to- an sellHDFC buildings to tenant commuHDFC Council, a group dedicated to helping tenants take charge y groups tono-for-profit provide low-income housing. According to Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, presi- of their own buildings and Street turn them thriving, cooperatives, over 1,000 HDFCs t of both 601 W. 136th - aninto HDFC co-opsuccessful in Manhattan - as well there as theare volunteer, in New York City. What is the potential behind this form of homeownership? for-profit HDFC Council, a group dedicated to helping tenants take charge of their own

coffee

THE LOFT

ldings and turn them into thriving, successful cooperatives, there are over 1,000 HDFCs New York City. What is the potential behind this form of homeownership?

coffee

neigHboRHood Neighborhood neigHboRHood speculation Speculation speculation

HomeowneRsHip, gentRiFication, GENTRIFICATION HomeowneRsHip, and Jobs AND JOBS gentRiFication, and Jobs

gentRiFication and sky Rocketing pRices SKYROCKET, PRICES gentRiFication and sky Rocketing LIVING SPACE As rental prices in neighborhoods go up SHRINKS everywhere, in certain neighborhoods they increase so dramatic that it would displace many of its residents in a short period of time. This process is pRices

organic

Loft living started among artists that were in need of an affordable space for both, working and living as they could reduce their costs. They found their space in the inner city warehouses where manufacturing was in decline. First these buildings were of mixed use. Soon when this kindliving of spacious became among middle class, market forces and Loft startedlofts among artistspopular that were in need of an affordable space got for involved both, working Loft living had its beginnings among artists were need ofthemanufacturing aninner affordable space started attracting only residential tenants meanwhile kicking out thein last small and living as they could reduce their costs. They who found theirin space city warehouses for both working and living as they could reduce their costs. Space in the inner citythis businesses where manufacturing was in decline. First these buildings were of mixed use. Soon when

warehouses where manufacturing was in decline became an ideal setting because of kind of spacious lofts became popular among middle class, market forces got involved and Ascalled rental prices in neighborhoods dramatically increase gentrification and the many actors involved can make aeverywhere, lot of profit. many of its established mixed use. This kindare ofthe spacious loft living became popular among the Most vulnerable for this gentrification neighborhoods metro stops that had the residents afford the and are This process is called attracting only residential tenants meanwhile kicking along out thethe last manufacturing small As rental prices incannot neighborhoods goincreases up everywhere, in displaced. certain neighborhoods they increase so started middle class. Then market forces got involved attracting only residential tenants while good connections to jobs in the City center. There is a large speculation upon vacant land in the gentrification andof some the actors involved can make a lot of profit.This Afterthat theitdecline manyofinner city neighborhoods due to suburbanization, a newprocess interestisfrom businesses dramatic would displace many of its residents in a short period of time. rejecting the last manufacturing small or businesses. hope one neighborhood will be upcoming gentrify. and upper class born among both, Youngsters were bored growing up in the calledmiddle gentrification and the was many actors involved can make awho lot of profit. Most vulnerable are the neighborhoods the stops that connect to jobs suburbs and an elder population who werealong seeking formetro a certain authenticity.

in the City center. Speculators in the area target vacant land in the hopes that a After the decline of many inner city neighborhoods due to suburbanization, a new interest from neighborhood will answered rise or gentrify. The market forces to the demand and even promoted this interest in this so called middle and upper class was born among both, Youngsters who were bored growing up in the authenticity like living in authentic brownhouses or lofts. suburbs and an elder population who were seeking for a certain authenticity.

After the decline of many inner city neighborhoods due to suburbanization, a new interest from the middle and upper classes is born among bored youngs adults, Thegrowing market forces to the and even promoted this interest in this so called up in answered the suburbs anddemand these seeking a certain authenticity, living in historic authenticity like living in authentic brownhouses or lofts. brownstones or renovated lofts.

Most vulnerable can for this gentrification are the along the metro stops had Gentrification be easily noticed in transformation theneighborhoods transformation of warehouses into thatlofts, Gentrification cantobejobs easily noticed in the of warehouses in to expensive good connections in the City center. There is a large speculation upon vacant land expensive lofts, new condos and upcoming new businesses like coffee shops and in the newly built condos, upcoming new businesses like coffee shops, organic and vintage stores that hope one neighborhood will bethat upcoming or gentrify. organic and vintage stores are clearly more expensive than what was once present are clearly more expensive than the existing shops. As rental prices rise also the prices of the in the area. The rising cost of rent, because of market speculation after the influx of daily needs rise. Gentrification can be easily noticed in the transformation of warehouses in to expensive lofts,

artists and young professionals, local businesses being replaced with more expensive

newly built condos, new of businesses coffee organic andtovintage stores stores, causes the upcoming displacement residentslike who can shops, no longer afford survive in that their surroundings. are clearly more expensive than the existing shops. As rental prices rise also the prices of the daily needs rise.

ortation

The first important displacement was suburbanization of housing and job opportunities from the inner city neighborhoods to the suburbs. For the larger differentiated communities in the inner cities it is harder to address their problems and needs to the local government and advocate for change, as there are many different problems and many different needs. Smaller communities like suburbs that have fewer problems and happen likely to be the same for

bor Asian countries like China. Manufactured goods are now imported and arrive in the New York/ New Jersey port. The job opportunities in the port are also difficult to access from the neighborhoods that lost there manufacturing industries. The service sector is not able to replace all lost jobs in those neighborhoods.

Displaced job opportunities from inner city neighborhoods

planned shrinkage

everybody, have it easier to address their problems to the local government.

displaced JoboppoRtunities FRom inneR city neigHboRHoods

Affordable housing is linked to income and thus we have to rethink how to create job opportunities in the inner city neighborhoods. Since the fifties mostly the manufacturing jobs have been displaced more and more out of the city. The first important displacement was suburbanization of housing and job opportunities from

Because affordable housing is linked to income, we have to rethink how to create job the inner city in neighborhoods to Since the suburbs. For the larger differentiated communities in the opportunities the inner city. the 1950s, manufacturing jobs have largely been inner cities it is harder to address their problems and needs to the local government and addisplaced from the city.

A good example is the access to jobs. While there is built a good network of highways to access both the central business district and the new sprawled industry from the suburbs. For the inner city residents, surely the ones without a car, it became difficult to access these jobs. They will spend a lot of time to transfer to these jobs. Neither new affordable housing was built in the suburbs. A second and more recently displacement of manufacturing jobs happened towards cheap labor Asian countries like China. Manufactured goods are now imported and arrive in the New York/ New Jersey port. The job opportunities in the port are also difficult to access from the neighborhoods that lost there manufacturing industries. The service sector is not able to replace all lost jobs in those neighborhoods.

The American dream of homeownership

vocate for change, as there are many different problems and many different needs. Smaller The first significant displacement theproblems suburbanization of likely housing and communities like suburbs that havewas fewer and happen to be thejob same for

opportunities to the suburbs, impacting differentiated in + the inner + everybody, have it easier to address their problems to+thecommunities local government. cities. For these residents it became difficult to access these jobs because they lack transpertation. The service sector is not able to replace all the lost jobs in those neighborhoods.

sportation

Prime loan

planned shrinkage

FRom ameRican dReam to ameRican nigHtmaRe The American dream of homeownership

To be protected from the sky rocking market prices and displacements as a consequence, probrooker moting homeownership can be a good option. Unfortunately this dream of many Americans has turned into a nightmare since the last crisis.

coffee

organic

The American dream of homeownership Prime loan

The American dream to own a house has been advanced + decade. + in the first half+of the last Mortgages have been offered by brokers to many americans in 2 ways. The more reliable borrowers could have loans with small interest, the so called Prime loans. These loans are a small interest / high risk to the brokerscocktail but. Next toof that,high they also give Subprime loansrisk to less reliable borrowers with much higherand interests. On this loans they could make a lot more bundled low interest/ low risk loan profit and when + perfect together with the less risk-full Prime loans they Prime would not make such a risk. This cocktail started being a low risk when the amount of prime loans overweighs the subprime. The greedier the brokers became the more subprime loans they would offer meanwhile the cocktail became unhealthy and a housing bubble was created. The perfect cocktail became a figuratively Molotov cocktail that exploded in 2007. From the American dream to an American nightmare.

Subprime loan

brooker

Subprime loan

DISINTEGRATION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM cocktail of high interest / high risk and low interest/ low risk

The American dream of homeownership

The results are disastrous and the American nightmare begins. The banks foreclosed the borcoffee organic To be protected from the sky rocking market prices and displacements as a consequence, pro+ Subprime Crisis rowers who couldn’t pay off the rising interests on their loans. The prices on the housing marbrooker moting homeownership can be a good option. Unfortunately this dream of many Americans ket that had been doubled in the last years suddenly started to drop because of the oversupply 2008 The to own your Eventually high risk housing purchasers began defaulting on their mortgage payments has American turned intodream a nightmare since theown last home crisis. takes money. If you cannot pay cash Subprime Crisis on the market. Big investors see an opportunity in the low prices of the low value housing Prime + Subprime loan were2008 for a dwelling, you have to borrow the money. Borrowing comes in the form of a and the housing bubble blewloan up in everyone’s face. The results disastrous for the market andand buythe massively. The banks frozecalled the other lion share ofyears properties, asup a general mortgage costtoofown the interest. thefirst to The American dream amortgage house hasisbeen advanced inInthe halfleading of the last decade. American and worldwide economies. Banks foreclosed on borrowers who could not devaluation would decrease the value of all loans they still had open. The availability va- afford their loans. The market was left with millions of mortgages in default. Buyers the housinghave bubble, were two basic interest rates: Prime, or low for of theborMortgages beenthere offered by brokers to many americans in 2 ways. Theinterest more reliable Prime>Subprime >Subprime Prime-Subprime Prime-Subprime cancies shrinks so the market prizes rises again. The financial market speculates for the right best, safest, borrowers, subprime, highest interest, for borrowers rowers couldlow-risk have loans with smalland interest, the soor called Prime loans. These loans are awith small abandoned the housing they could no longer afford. Banks and other lenders failed, creating a Bubble time and place to take action on their vacant land meanwhile a record amount of homeless has more risk not being able to make monthly payment orhigh not paying ogreliable the mortgages. cocktail interest /creating risk risk to theof brokers but. Next toof that,high they also give Subprime loans to less borrowers construction of new housing dried up. A glut of used housing entered the market at a Bubble Asbethe housingbybubble began to inflate, brokers found that they could enhance their greatly devalued prices. But there wasbrooker no money to be loaned to potential buyers. So to sheltered the city. government. with much higherand interests. On interest/ this loans theylow could make a lot more profit and when bundled low risk profits by selling packages or bundles of mortgages. Especially attractive to investors sales of new and used dwellings followed the value of housing down, down, down, housing market after 2008 together with the less risk-full Prime loans they would not make such a risk. This perfect were bundles of prime rates mortgages. But housing brokers made a market for those with thousands losing their homes and falling deeper into debt. The American dream cocktail started being a low risk when the amount of prime loans overweighs the subprime. mortages made to higher risk borrowers by putting the safest mortgages into cocktails became a nightmare. The higher greedierrisk themortgages brokers became the more subprime loans they would offer meanwhile the with and selling them to thirsty investors. foreclosure oversupply scarcety cocktail of high interest / high risk cocktail became unhealthy and a housing bubble was created. The perfect cocktail became a + selling of properties and low interest/ low risk figuratively Molotov cocktail that exploded in 2007.

Prime

housing market after 2008

Prime

scarcety

Subprime Crisis 2008

Prime>Subprime

Prime-Subprime creating a Bubble

housing market after 2008

foreclosure + selling of properties

oversupply

1. Improving Neighborhoods: Improving the conditions of the neighborhoods by physically changing and financially aiding distressed properties to create stabilizing communities.

INCLUSIVE HOUSING



 

bloombeRg’s new Housing maRketplace plan media

oF tHetHe RigHt to economics Housing Housing: mapping tHe cRisis “Everyone shares the right to a decent standard of living. Essential to the achievement of this standard and therefore to the fulfillment of human life beyond simple survival is access to adequate housing. Housing fulfills physical needs by providing security and tHRee aims FoR a moRe aFFoRdable, viable, shelter from weather and climate. It fulfills psychological needs by providing a sense “Everyone shares the to a decent standard of living. Essential atogathering the achievement and sustainable city of personal space andright privacy. It fulfills social needs by providing area and of this standard and therefore to theforfulfillment human beyond simple is access communal space forthe thesupply human family, theofbasic unitlife of society. In many societies, it of 2. Expanding affordable and sustainable housing: Thesurvival construction toalso adequate housing. Housing fulfills physical needs by providing security and shelter from fulfills economic needs by functioning as a center for commercial production.” 165,00 housing units for affordable housing. new units,ofand 105,000 units to units. preBloomberg’s administration has a goal to built60,000 by 2014 a total 165,000 affordable

weather and climate. It fulfills psychological needs by providing a sense of personal space serve. The plan is divided in three categories: -Human Rights Education Association and privacy. It fulfills social needs by providing a gathering area and communal space for the www.HREA.org human family, the basic unit of society. In many societies, it also fulfills economic needs by functioning as a center for commercial production.” 105,000 1. Improving60,000 Neighborhoods: Improving the conditions of the neighborhoods by and physicalobvious things, such as work status -Human Rights Education Association ly changing and financially aiding distressed properties education, to create stabilizing communities. occupation, the-ability and/ www.HREA.org “Everyone shares the right to a decent standard of living. Essential to the achievement of

 

pRice o  Family pRoblematizing tHe new Housing maRket-

 place plan Median Sale Pric

ues and state of given location. H sold for more tha  other half sold fo  

 

map 3: me pRice oF Homes, 2 

tHe RigHt HOUSING AS A to Housing HUMAN RIGHT or decision to purchase versus rent, and, this standard and therefore to the fulfillment of human life beyond simple survival is access

As median sale

maybe the most important in New York of a local real-es As fundamental food Housing and water, to adequate as housing. fulfills physical needs by providing security and shelter from City, ups and downs of thespace realing to see a corr   weather and climate. It fulfills psychological needs by the providing a sense ofPRESERVE personal access to housing is a human right, prices and com estate market.Affordability of housing and privacy. social needs space for the a necessity to liveItafulfills basic, safe, andby providing a gathering area and communal  REnT While lower sale  is, for the most part, dependent on basic human family, the basic unit of society. In many societies, it also fulfills economic needs by comfortable life. Recogniz-ing this, the LoCKED   lower rent prices functioning as a center for commercial production.” market forces supply and demand state of housing in thisnEW country, and in it might also refl -Human Rights Education Association which means rents continue to increase  Asthis fundamental as food water, access city especially, is and appalling. The to and instability i www.HREA.org as more and more people move to New wealthisdisparity disgusting, while easier for new p  housing a humanisright, a necessity to live  York City. These is market rate properties Access to housing the product of complex market. Similarly real-estate and rental pricing is largely a basic, safe, and comfortable life. Recogniz2. Expanding the supply for affordable andsocial sustainable housing: The construction of and processes are considered the ‘1st median sale price relationships, the determined by many unregu-lated, allowing landlords to  ing this, the state of housing in this country,  buyers or groups sector’ of the housing market. Publicly 165,00 housing units for affordable housing. 60,000 new units, and 105,000 units to pre3.whatever Stabilizing Families: Towithout goal is to keepobvious people in their homes. Withthings, an educational and less obvious such as stratcharge rent they  and in this city especially, is can appalling. The  alternative and n subsidized housing, through the policies  serve. work and occupation, education, the- It egy the assist thestatus population of the threats of foreclosure. any regard forcity who cancounsel, pay and whoand wealth disparity is will disgusting, while real-educate and mecha-nisms mentioned in this  As fundamental as foodthat, and water, access cannot.would This oftenhelp means when the to ability decision purchase versus also communities such asand/or homeless and thetoshelter system.  estate and rental pricingvulnerable is largely unregupubication, are recognized as the ‘2nd Brooklyn, Map Map 22 housingthose is a human a necessity live rent, time comes, who right, can no longertopay and, maybeis the most important in New  Access to housing the product of complex lated, allowing landlords to chargelife. whatever sector’ housing made affordable through Source: The Furman Center a basic, safe, and comfortable Recognizget displaced. Without any regulations, 60,000 York City,105,000 the ups and downs of the realsocial relationships, the determined by many ing this,without the state any of housing in this country, rent can regard for who public programs, often lasting a limited the they aspirations towards a sociaty with obviousmarket. and less obvious things, such as estate means that, in addition to being farther from tive, or non-market based. These community and in this cannot. city especially, is appalling. The amount of time then eventually be-ing can pay equal and who This means  actual opportunity, withoften any semwork status and occupation, education, theMarket wealth disparity is disgusting, while real- Affordability of housing is, for the most part, land trusts, limited equity or zero equity cothe opportunities available in the center of rate r the amount at which half the city’s  brought back into the free market, that, when the time comes, thosecontinues who can ability and/or decision to purchase versus the blance of decreasing disparity, found in the 1s estate and rental pricing is largely unregu- dependent onKEEP  basic market - supply operatives, Mapas2 having less access to these householdsand earnmutual more housing and half associations the city’s the city, as well 1st sector. Additionally, andforces much rent, and, maybe the most important in New less notolonger payallowing getand displaced. Without any movelated, farther farther tointo thewhatever the supply and landlords charge Source: Furman Center PEoPLE  and demand -are which means rents continue to are the bestearn opportunity for broad and guar- The houseolds less; in 2011 New York PRESERVE York City, the ups and downs of the realpreva-lent, permanently affordable New York City’s homeownership rate resources, lower income households are in aalso neighborho regulations, the aspirations towards a sociaty distance. These largely unregulated rent they can without any regard for who estate market. that, in addition to being farther from tive,to or non-market based.  These$51, community In THEIR City’s MHI was 270, as means determined as —the more and more people move anteed affordability. properties ‘3rdREnT sector’—usually refers percentage of total can pay also and who cannot.with This any oftensemmeans increase payingtoathe disproportionately highhousing amount of market forces allowed predatory with actual equal opportunity, Affordability ofHoMES housing is, market for the most part, land trusts,by limited or zero equity the opportunities available in theare center of occupied. In 2011 the equity US Census. Thisconumber is used based on ‘social ownership’ and York City. These rate properties units that owner when the time comes, those who can New LoCKED lending and the housing bubble, resulting  blance of that, decreasing disparity, continues to their income secure housing, creating a dependent on basic market forces supply operatives,to anddetermine mutual housing associations the city, as well as having less access was to to these nEW the official Poverty Line as no longer pay get displaced. Without any and managed to be non-speculative, or this number 32.6%, according to the processes are considered the ‘1st sector’ in thefarther foreclosure crisis,into which made and demand - which means rents continue to are the best opportunity for  broad and guarmove and farther the distance. greater financial burden for them. resources, lower income households are also regulations, the aspirations towards a sociaty well as household eligibility for public non-market based. These community US Census, which means more than twoof the housing market. Publicly accesssing housing evenmarket more forces difficult increase as more and more people movesubsidized to anteed affordability. These largely unregulated paying a disproportionately high amount of with actual equal opportunity, with anyalso semor low-income and  landYork trusts, limited zero  thirds of New Yorkers are renters. New City. These market rate or properties through theequity policies and equity mecha- housing assistance for many New triesto housing, blance of Yorkers. decreasing disparity, their income to secure housing, creating a allowed predatory lendingThis and section thecontinues housing af-fordable housing. co-operatives, and mutual housing and processes are considered ‘1strecognized sector’ to explain who is most at risk losing nisms mentioned earlier,theare as move farther intoofthe distance. greater financial burden for them. bubble, resulting in and thefarther foreclosure crisis, associations are thePublicly best opportunity for of the housing market. subsidized Map 2: housingThese in this cityunregulated and to visualize thisalso the largely market forces ‘2nd sector’ housing made affordable  Map 1: MHI 3. Stabilizing Families: To even goal ismore to keep housing, people in their homes. With anmechaeducational stratwhich made accesssing housing through the policies and broad and guar-anteed affordability.  allowed predatory lending and the housing through  in-stability through maps. Homeownership Rate public programs, often lasting a This map reflects the reality that poorer

Housing as a Human RigHt

deteRmining Housing aFFoRdability deteRmining Housing aFFoRdability

maRke Renta

OWNERSHIP

FRom ameRican dReam to ameRican nigHtmaRe

The results are disastrous and the American nightmare begins. The banks foreclosed the borforeclosure oversupply rowers who couldn’t pay off the rising interests on their loans. The prices on the housing mar+ selling of properties ket that had been doubled in the last years suddenly started to drop because of the oversupply on the market. Big investors see an opportunity in the low prices of the low value housing market and buy massively. The banks froze the other lion share of properties, as a general devaluation would decrease the value of all loans they still had open. The availability of va>Subprime Prime-Subprime cancies shrinks so the market prizes rises again. The financial market speculates for the right time and place to take action on their vacant land meanwhile a record amount of homeless has creating a Bubble to be sheltered by the city. government.

Bloomberg’s administration has a goal to built by 2014 a total of 165,000 affordable units. The plan is divided in three categories:

Housing as a Human RigHt

Subprime loan

From the American dream to an American nightmare.

tHe economics oF Housing: mapping MAPPING THE CRISIS tHe cRisis

oversupply

scarcety

Subprime Crisis 2008 big investors start

investing in small properties

banks freezing property and wait till values rise scarcety

median HouseHold median income HouseHold

HomeowneRsHip

nisms earlier, arethreats recognized as  the city willYorkers. counsel, assistsection and educate the mentioned population of the of foreclosure. It difficultegy for many New This bubble, resulting in the foreclosure crisis, New York City’s homeownershipmean rate refers of lower homeownership neighborhoods tend to beIncome located(MHI), at the or Areas limited timemade thenaffordable eventually be- The With this on accesssing mind, wehousing need toeven analyze the of this program. The following theconsequences ‘2nd amount sector’ - housing Median Household whichalso made more such as homeless and the shelter system. tries to would explain whohelp is most at riskcommunities of losing vulnerable   to the rates percentage of total housing units that higher of renters. Owning one’s through public programs, often lasting athere pe-riphery of the city’s(MFI), boroughs. Being ing brought back into the free market, the is 1sta new shows questions that to have in mind whenever for many New Yorkers. This section Median Family Income is the amount  housing diagram indifficult this city andsome to visualize this in-are important New York City’s homeownership rate refers limited amount of time then eventually be- The Median  are owner occupied. In 2011 this number home versus rent-ing guarantees a Household Income (MHI), or relega-tion to the exterior means that tries to explain who is most at risk of losing sector.is:Additionally, and much less prevawhat is affordable and for whom are at which half the city’s households to theearn percentage total housing units that more of certain stabilityhousing through plan. maps.The big question in this analysis ing brought back into the free market, the 1st Median Family Income (MFI), is the amount amountaccording of stability in theUS cost these commu-nities, that are already was 32.6%, to the Census, housing in this city and to visualize this in- lent, are permanently affordable properties are owner occupied. In 2011 this number these units being built or preserve for? sector. Additionally, and much less preva- at which half and city’s houseolds earn less; in ofwhich the half city’s the households earn more through in aCensus, place, least with respect also routinely Access stability to housing is maps. the product more at than two-thirds of New wasfarther 32.6%, according living to themeans US -lent, theare ‘3rd sector’ -affordable usually properties base on ‘social earning less, are permanently  and half the city’s houseolds earn less; in 2011 New York City’s MHI was $51,means 270, more as than to housing costs. While homeowners  from the services and jobs usually of complex social relationships, which two-thirds of New Yorkers are renters. -The the ‘3rd sector’ -managed usually base on Median Household Income (MHI), ownership’ and to be ‘social non-speculaKEEP 2011 New York City’sin MHI $51, as pay higher property taxes as their focused the central business dis-trict, Yorkers are renters. must  determined by many obvious and less determined bywas the US270, Census. This number ownership’ andFamily managedIncome to be non-speculaor Median (MFI), is determinedand by the US farther Census. This number PEoPLE neighborhoods thus from the opportunities For how Rent controlis used to determine the official Poverty Line map 2: improve, at the same time is used to determine the official Poverty Line Inlong? THEIR map 2: they reap the benefits as the community’s to improve their livingeligibility situation. vs well aseligibility household for public as well asas household for public HomeowneRsHip Rate HomeowneRsHip Rate infrastructure and ameni-ties improve, Something else worth considering is HoMES  Permanent housingorassistance and af- such as local schools, while the value housing assistance low-income or andlow-income afif we think about this MHI geography  Areas of lower homeownership higher Areas ofmean lower homeownership mean higher  fordable housing. fordable housing. ofone’s their property increases as well. New in relation to the sub-way lines, rateswe of renters. Owning versus rent 165,000 rates home of renters. Owning one’s home versus rentYork City is a city of renters, which  ing guarantees a certain amount of stability in can see a similar discrepancy between map 1: mHi  ing atguarantees a certain amount of stability in UnITS map 1: mHi the costto, of living in a place, least within respect can be seen Map 2, while the highest poorer neighborhoods and access For whom  the cost of living in ainplace, at leastare withseen respect This map or reflects the reality thatpublic poorer transport to housing costs. While homeowners must pay rates of ownership Brooklyn convenience of,  This map reality that poorer neighborhoods tend to bereflects located atthe the pehigher property taxesalong as theirthe neighborhoods to housing costs. While homeowners must periphery at the places with pay infra-structure as well. When we use big investors start improve, at thepesame time they reap the benefits riphery of the city’s boroughs.tend Beingto releganeighborhoods be located at the higher property taxes as their neighborhoods  the greatest MHI.Conversely, renters are the general rule of thumb thatas30% of investing in small the community’s infrastructure and ameniWith this on mind, we need to analyze the consequences of this program. The following tion to the exterior means that these commu$ $$$ improve, at the same time they reap the benefits properties susceptible to the whims of landlords as riphery of the city’s boroughs. Being relegaincome should go towards housing,  ties improve, such as local schools, while the that are already earning less, are also diagram shows some questions that are important to have in mind whenever there nities, is a new well as community’s market forces, which re-flect the as the infrastructure and amenireasonable rents for these households tion to the exterior means that these commuvalue of their property increases as well. New  farther from the services and jobs  banks freezing housing plan. The big question in this analysis is: what is affordable and for whomroutinely are Size? desireability of neighborhoods. These at theinperiphery wouldearning need to beCity York city of renters, which can be seen ties improve, such as local schools, while the nities, that are already less, areis aalso usually focused the central business disproperty and wait till in Map 2, while the highest rates of ownership these units being built or preserve for? market processes mean tenants have less quite low. The reality of the situation value of their property increases as well. New trict, and thus farther from the opportunities values rise routinely farther from the services and jobs in Brooklyn are seen along the periphery at therents are more likely Where? sta-bility as their means that, in addition to being farther  York City is a city of renters, which can be seen to improve their living situation. Something usually in the central business displaces greatesttoMHI. and at aofmore thefocused opportunities available inwith thethe else worthfrom considering is  if we think about inchange Map 2,tounexpectedly while the highest rates ownership renters are susceptible the whims trict, and farther from the Conversely, opportunities unsustainable rate. Homeownership is center ofinthus the city, well this MHI geography relation toasthe sub-as having in Brooklyn are seen along the periphery at the of landlords as well as market forces, which reFor how Rent control less lowest in the poorest neigh-borhoods, their living situation. Something access to these resources, lower way lines, to we improve can see a similar discrepancy flect the desireability ofplaces neighborhoods. These with the greatest MHI. long? vsbetween poorer those with MHI, and this income households paying a about mean neighborhoods andare access else worth considering isalso if we think market processes tenants havethe lesslowest sta Conversely, renters are susceptible to the whims Permanent relationship helps to express the to, or convenience of, public transport infradisproportionately high amount of their bility as their rents are more likely to change this MHI geography in relation to the sub of landlords as well unexpectedly more unsustainable rate. as market structure asincome well. When we use the general creating pre-cariousness offorces, those which New reto secure housing, a and at aincreased way lines, we can see a similarHomeownership discrepancyis lowest  flect the desireability of neighborhoods. These 165,000 in the poorest neighrule1of thumb that 30% of income should go Yorkers who rent. Brooklyn, Map greater financial burden for them. between poorer neighborhoods and access borhoods, those with the lowest MHI, and this  market processes mean tenants have less statowards housing, reasonable rents for these UnITS For whom relationshipinfrahelps to express the increased prehouseholds at the periphery would need to to, or convenience of, public transport bility as their rents are more likely to change  Map 1 cariousness of those New Yorkers who rent. The reality of theWhen situation Source: The Furman Center be quite low. structure as well. we use the general unexpectedly and at a more unsustainable rate. big investors start Homeownership is lowest in the poorest neighrule of thumb that 30% of income should go investing in small $ $$$ borhoods, those with the lowest MHI, and this properties towards housing, reasonable rents for these

DETermining affordability

income MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME= $51,270

HomeowneRsHip

“tHe eRal Reo like eRtie caus nontHem

tHe mayoRal campaign. we aRe looking to pusH Habitat FoR Humanity: diFFeRent mayoRal canadvocacy FoR aFFoRdable didates to Really come FORECLOSURES: Housing median sale lowest Median Family Income, and New York out City: witH a compReHensi- the median sale WHO, and pRice oF single those with theWHAT highest median family Federal Legislative Priorities: income, have the lowest rates of subble Housing plan wHicH pRiceHomeS oF single WHERE Family the lowest Median Family the Income, and sidized housing, affecting former deals witH tHe Full con-thepopulation  median sale lowest Family Income, Map 5:Median Notices Of Fore-Closure those with highest median family inthe a much more severeand way Family Homes Median Sale Price reflects the property median sale with the highest median than the latter. income, have the lowest ratesfamily of subtinuum oF Housing need”.those Rate, 2010. val-ues and state of thesingle real-estate pRice oF Median Sale Price reflects the property valincome, have the lowest rates of subsidized housing, affecting the former market in a given location. Half of the pRice oF single Map 5 shows the rate of foreclosures - mattHew dunbaR,sidized ues and stateYork ofHomes theCity real-estate housing, affecting thesevere formerway apopulation homes in New sold formarket more in a in a much more Family at the community district level. They given Half of thethe homes in half the area population in a much more severe way Family Habitat nyc than the location. median Homes price and other than the latter. are most heavily focused in the poorest FoReclosuRes: sold for more than the median price and the

coming to anMayoral end, Habitat-NYC and Community Relations Manager, Habitatplan- is an essential and central public housing and the economic activity and › SHOP (Self-Help Call for 2013 Candidates remains of the Homeownership organization. Looking at advocacy low-income and working families critical Humanity International seeks to leverage U. for a comprehensive plan that emphasizes the policy issue as a key solution to city’s job creation that home building generates. Opportunity Program): for Humanity New York. Since its foundingis pushing to produce affordable S. government programs and resources to Habitat-NYC helps to shapemore economic and social benefits building clearly define affordability and unit sizes, will be low enough to maintain - Invest in stabilizing communities and affiliates with resources to Programs such as affordability the Low Income Housing Provides Habitat priorities in of 1984, Habitat-NYC has provided housing crisis. — Habitatimportance ofplans homeownership, andthe include housing  that address full affordable revitalize low-income neighborhoods and prioritizing need over numbers so that amidst increasing and maintenance  of current city, state and equity, significantly improving educational maintain federal resources that support the and understanding infrastructure needed Trustenergy Fund (HTF), the Affordable Housing acquire the land the than 260 homes. They counted: it wouldother key housing issues such as homeless NYC works on getting elected officials distribution of housing opportunities reaches costs. Habitat-NYC advocates(AHC), for renewal housing continuum. Now that mayoral achievement, communities. To support hard-hit byfortheaffordable housing and Corporation andof New York to rebuild communities workto of create Habitatresilient for Humanity nationwide. federal take policies fostering ofgreater Habitat for Humanity more than 5,500and supportive housing solutions, public support the vital importance affordablecivic very low-income residents while addressing this importantState legislation alongside measures election approaches and the Bloomberg HOME provide essential housing foreclosure crisis; this initiative, the federal government must In support of the federal Neighborhood why it’s important to keep them. participation, inspiring pride and a sense years to meet the current housing deficit.  the continued challenges of creating and that strengthen, protect, andopportunities expand NYC’s development that contribute › Section 4 Capacity Building: housing and rental tenant homeownership and affordable home Revitalization administration’s Newpreservation, Housing Marketplace maintain and enhance the following funding Initiative, Habitat for preserving workforce housing. affordable housing stock. That’s why the advocacy work is at the core building. Affordable homeownership of accomplishment and improving gives physical to New York’s economic growth and the Provides resources to support the staffing plan is coming to an end, Habitat-NYC protection, foreclosure prevention, and The report of the NYC comptroller shows the unequal distribution of income. We talked to Matthew Dunbar, Advocacy - Ensure that affordable homeownership International seeks to leverage U. streams: to rebuild communities stabilization of struggling neighborhoods. and skills needed of the organization. Looking at advocacy low-income and working families critical Humanity Main advocacy Habitat-NYC programs: health. Building affordable homeownership USA today has one of the MOST UNEQUAL income distribution in the industrialized world. is pushing for a plan that much emphasizes the spent How and Community Relations Manager, Habitat - Call for 2013 Mayoral Candidates remains an essential and central public  for their house? Plan people should S. government programs and resources to The state should also identify a flexible, with high foreclosure rates; priorities of Habitat-NYC helps to shapeneighborhood stabilization. › Corporation economic and social benefits — building The purpose of the NYC comptroller report is to look at how income distribution in New York units are powerful economic engines that homeowners for National and Community for Humanity New York. Since its founding to produce comprehensive affordable policy issue as a key solution to city’s 7.5 Million of American dedicated revenue stream for affordable › Preservation Programs: the understanding of current city, state and importance of homeownership, and include equity, significantly improving revitalize low-income neighborhoods and educational communities and Service (AmeriCorps and VISTA): City compares to that of the nation as a whole, and how it has been changing in recent years.  in 1984, Habitat-NYC has provided more housing plans that address the full affordable housing crisis. Habitat- - Invest in stabilizing new taxtheir revenue other key housing issues such as homeless quickly create jobs, generate housing that is not subject to annual Provide affordable rental homes for lowspend Half of Income in Housing Cost to create resilient communities. To support maintain federal resources that support the National income tax data show definitively that the nation’s income distribution has been getfederal policies for affordable housing and achievement, fostering greater civic than 260 homes. They counted: it would Provides Habitat affiliates with the capacity income families and individuals through appropriations. and supportive housing solutions, public and stabilize families and communities. housing continuum. Now that mayoral NYC works on getting elected officials work of Habitat for Humanity nationwide. ting more unequal for at least the past three with the top 1 percent capturing more of the federal government must take Habitat for Humanity more than 5,500 support the vital importance of affordable it’s important todecades, keep them. participation, inspiring pride and a sense this initiative, Housing Choice - Renew J-51 tax abatements for public housing, Section 8 why to engage tens of thousands of volunteers in election approaches and the Bloomberg housing the federal Neighborhood the national income and the rest, and especially the bottom 50 percent, less. There seems and to be rental preservation, tenant  maintain and enhance the following funding years to meet the current housing deficit. homeownership and affordable home In support ofcooperative 38% American Homeowners have mortgage (19mil) of accomplishment and improving physical Vouchers and Section 202 housing for the and condominium ownership administration’s New Housing Marketplace efforts to arebuild struggling neighborhoods; Initiative, Habitat for a similar long-term trend in New York City. protection, foreclosure prevention, and  (US Census Bureau) That’s why the advocacy work is at the core building. Affordable homeownership gives Revitalization opportunities. streams: The J-51 tax abatement is elderly. plan is coming to an end, Habitat-NYC Main advocacy Habitat-NYC programs: health. Building affordable homeownership seeks to leverage U.  › National Housing Trust Fund and Capital neighborhood stabilization. Plan should of the organization. Looking at advocacy low-income and working families critical Humanity International an important mechanism for Habitat-NYC is pushing for a plan that emphasizes the units are powerful economic engines that › Corporation for National and Community programs and resources to priorities of Habitat-NYC helps to shape economic and social benefits — building S. governmenthomeowners; Increase New York State’s capital Magnet Fund: it ensures that for the life of a Source document: Habitat for Humanity, 2013 importance of homeownership, and include neighborhoods and  quickly create jobs, generate new tax revenue Service (AmeriCorps and VISTA): the understanding of current city, state and equity, significantly improving educational revitalize low-income Habitat family’s mortgage, their tax burden Housing Covenant, www.habitatnyc.org/advo   other key housing issues such as homeless   investment in affordable housing. HabitatProvides Provides Habitatproduction affiliates withresources the capacityfor new communities. To support federal policies for and stabilize families and communities.   Median Price reflects theaffordable propertyhousing val- and and supportive housing solutions, public achievement, fostering greater civic to create resilient than the latter. sold forSale less. this initiative, the federal government must and peripheral communities. These NYC is urging Governor Cuomo to increase construction and rehabilitation of vacant RISK FORECLOSURE to engage tens of thousands of volunteers in why it’sreflects important keep them.valparticipation, inspiring pride and a sense Median halfPrice sold for less.thetoproperty  housing and rental preservation, tenant ues other andSale state of the real-estate market in a  the following funding help to better National income tax data show definitively that the nation’s income distribution has of accomplishment and improving physical maintain andaenhance high rates of foreclosure clearly define affordability and protection, unit sizes, foreclosure will be low enough to maintain affordability efforts to rebuild struggling neighborhoods; the state’s capital investment in affordable properties;   prevention, and ues andlocation. state of Half theadvocacy real-estate market inarea a   Map 3: Median Price Of given ofSale the homes inneed the Main Habitat-NYC programs: health. Building affordable homeownership streams: a understand the relationship be-tween prioritizing over numbers so that amidst increasing energy and maintenance been getting more unequal for at least the past three decades, with the top 1 percent › National Housing(Self-Help Trust Fund and Capital housing and the economic activity and › SHOP Homeownership neighborhood stabilization. Plan should  › Corporation for National and Community given location. Half the ofHomes, the homesprice in the area are ofpowerful economic engines that distribution ofand housing renewal sold for more than median theopportunities reaches costs. Habitat-NYC advocates forunits Single Family 2011 capturing more of the national income and the rest, and especially the bottom 50 Increase New York State’s capital Magnet Fund: neighborhood wealth and how at risk job that home building generates. Opportunity Program): Eric Bederman, a spokesman for thecreation Department of Housing   quickly create jobs, generate new tax revenue Service (AmeriCorps and VISTA): very low-income residents while addressing this important legislation alongside measures sold for more than the price and the map 3: median sale other half sold for less.median investment in affordable housing. HabitatProvides production for new percent, less. There seems to be a similar long-term trend in NewPreservation York City.and Development: Provides Habitat affiliates withof thelosing capacitytheir residents are home or As median sale prices reflect the challenges of creating and that strengthen, protect, and expand and stabilize Programs such as the Low Income Housing Provides Habitat resources affiliates with resources to the continued NYC’s families and communities. map 5: notices oF FoReotherpRice half sold for less.single Family to engage tens losing of thousands ofrental volunteers in oF NYC is urging Governor Cuomo to increase construction and rehabilitation of vacant   preserving workforce housing. affordable housing stock. their tenancy without strength of a local real-estate market, Trust Fund (HTF), the Affordable Housing acquire the land and infrastructure needed Centre for responsible lending report: closuRe Rate, 2010. efforts to rebuild struggling neighborhoods; The report of the NYC comptroller shows the unequal distribution of income. the state’snot capital investment in affordable properties; - Ensure that affordable homeownership "2/3 of Low-Income household qualified for and 2011 York City: notice. AtFund the same time, though, it isHomes, unsurpris-ing to see a correlation Corporation (AHC), New York to rebuild communities hard-hit by the › National Housing Trust and Capital New York State: How much people spend for their housing USA today has one of the MOST UNEQUAL income distribution in the industrialized world. How much people spent for their house?   housing and thethan economic and › SHOP (Self-Help Homeownership for 2013 Mayoral Candidates remains an essential and central public public housing or subsidies PAID more 30%essential ofactivity housing these foreclosure also reflectdistribution the Magnet Fund: - Increase New York State’s The capital Federal Legislative Priorities: between lowersale saleprices prices and purpose of the NYC comptroller report israte to rates look atforeclosures how income in New York State HOME provide foreclosure crisis; policy issue as a key solution to city’s As median reflect the strength Map 5 shows the of at the creation that home building generates. Opportunity Program): oduce comprehensive affordable Provides resources for investment their Income to rent". job - Invest in stabilizing communities and in affordable housing. HabitatCity compares to that production of the nation as a whole,places and new howfor it has been changing in recent years. most opportune beginning 11% 7% 8% Building: 4.5% affordable communities withfull lower MHI.itWhile development opportunities that17% contribute › Section 4 Capacity ng plans that the ofaddress a local real-estate market, is housing unsurpris- crisis. Habitat- maintain federal resources that support community district level. They aredistribution most Programs such as the Low Income Housing Provides Habitat affiliates with resources to construction and rehabilitation of vacant NYC is urging Governor Cuomo to increase the National income tax data show definitively that the nation’s income has been getNYC works on getting elected officials  alternative models of acquisition and lower sale prices might also relatelower sale ng continuum. Now that to New growth and the Provides to support the staffing properties; the state’s capital investment in affordable Trust FundYork’s (HTF),economic the Affordable Housing acquire the landresources and infrastructure needed ing to see amayoral correlation between the poorest and ting more unequal for atheavily least the focused past threein decades, with the topperipheral 1 percent capturing more of support the vital importance of affordable work of Habitat for Humanity nationwide. tenure because ofthe the owners’ liability of n approaches and the Bloomberg to lower rent prices, with regards to › SHOP (Self-Help Homeownership housing and the economic activity and In support of the federal Neighborhood stabilization of struggling neighborhoods. and skills needed to rebuild communities the national income and the rest, and especially bottom 50 percent, less. There seems to be Corporation (AHC), and New York to rebuild communities hard-hit by the homeownership prices and communities with lower and MHI.affordable home communities. These high rates of foreclosure stration’s New Housing As median Marketplace sale prices reflect the strength 5 shows the rateand of unsold foreclosures at the Opportunity Program): job creation having abandoned properties Revitalization Initiative, Habitat for that home building generates. a similar long-term trendMap in  New York City. ownership, it might also reflect a higher building. Affordable homeownership gives The state should also identify a flexible, with high foreclosure rates; State HOME provide essential housing foreclosure crisis; sale prices might relate to help5 to betterwith understand the relationship becoming As to median anWhile end, lower Habitat-NYC sale prices reflect the also strength Map shows the rate of foreclosures at the resources to Humanity International seeks to Programs leverage U.such as the Low Income Housing Provides Habitat on affiliates their books. Today these are often of a that local real-estate market, it is in unsurprislow-income and community district level. They are most rate of turnover andwith instability a working families critical The opportunities that for contribute › Section 4 Capacity Building: dedicated revenue stream affordable › Preservation Programs:  hing for aofplan    development  image revealed by data, reports andFund everyday news from newspapers is thatacquire New York  loweremphasizes rent prices,the regards to ownership, tween neighborhood wealth and how at risk the land and infrastructure needed Trust (HTF), the Affordable Housing S. government programs and resources to a local real-estate market, it is unsurpriscommunity district level. They are most economic and banks, focused who want to get rid of ing to see aand correlation between salebenefits — building city heavily in the poorest andtoxic peripheral neighborhood as it is easier for lower newsocial to New York’s economic growth and the Provides resources to support staffingfor lowance of homeownership, include housing that is not subject to annual Provide affordable rentalthehomes in particular, but the whole nation also, is following the trend toward the hugest disparity to rebuild communities hard-hit by the Corporation (AHC), and New York revitalize low-income neighborhoods and might also reflect between a equity, higher significantly rate of turnover residents are of losing their and home or losing  ingissues toit see a correlation lower saleimproving educational heavily focused the poorest peripheral key housing such as homeless assets whichinThese hurt their profits. stabilization of struggling neighborhoods. and skills needed to rebuild communities property to enter the market. State provide essential prices andowners communities with lower MHI. communities. high  rates of foreclosure to create resilient communities. To support and income inequality in the world. TheHOME effects can be even worst inhousing the  future:foreclosure evictions, crisis; Latinoappropriations. income families and individuals through achievement, fostering greater civic  Africanand instability in a with neighborhood as it is their rental tenancy without At the Latino White White  upportive prices housing solutions, public and communities lower MHI. These high rates ofnotice. foreclosure Section 4communities. Capacity Building: development that contribute African this initiative,poverty the federal government The state should alsotax identify a flexible, with high foreclosure rates; Similarly, neighborhoods with lower are embracing a must growingopportunities number of people. The lack of ›affordable participation, inspiring pride and a sense homelesness, While lower sale prices might also relate to help to better understand the relationship beAmerican Renew J-51 abatements for public housing, Section 8 Housing Choice the Provides resources g and rental preservation, tenant easier forsale new property owners to enter same time, though, foreclosure berates to support the these staffing toof funding New York’s iseconomic growth and maintaininand themoment following While lower prices might also relate toandtheimproving physical housing to better understand the relationship Homeowners who had lost revenue stream for affordable › Preservation Programs:  of accomplishment Map 33  dedicated  thisenhance particular difficulties making even worst the new yorkers situ-help median sale prices easier Brooklyn, Map lower rent prices, with regards to ownership, tween neighborhood wealth and how at risk ion, foreclosure prevention, andrepresent  cooperative and condominium ownership Vouchers and Section 202 housing for the   to rebuild communities stabilization of struggling neighborhoods. and skills needed streams: market. Similarly, neighborhoods with lower homeownership ations. also reflect the settlement most opportune places for their house or atfor risk lowhealth. Building affordable housing that is not subject toCompleted annual foreclosure Provide affordable rental homes Source: The of Furman lower rentfor prices, withorregards toof ownership, neighborhood wealth and how at the risk the diagrams and the following data are giving an overview the actual Center situation. tween  “The new with   orhood stabilization. Plan should buyers groups buyers with high foreclosure rates; The state should also identify a flexible, › Corporation for National and Community itaccess might also reflect a higher rate of turnover residents are of losing their home or losing opportunities. The J-51 tax abatement is elderly. units are powerful economic engines that   median sale prices represent access for beginning models of acquisition it trying might also reflect higher rate easier of turnover residents are alternative of losing their home or losing  income families and individuals through 7.5 Million of American appropriations. homeowners Preservation Programs: dedicated revenue stream for affordable › to work inaaalternative a spokesman for the Department of Housing Attorney General is trying to the  quickly and createnonjobs,itgenerate tax revenue Service (AmeriCorps and VISTA):  and buyers instability in neighborhood as is in new their rentalbecause tenancy without notice. At  Eric Bederman,  important mechanism for Habitat-NYC or groups of buyers trying to work and tenure of the owners’ liability will increase as people’s desire to live -aninRenew J-51 tax abatements public housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Provide affordable rental homes for lowhousing that is not subject to annual Provides Habitat affiliates with the capacity Preservation and Development: As more units are rented at market rate, map 4: maRket Rate between for 2007_2009: and instability in a neighborhood as it is their rental tenancy without notice. At the spend Half of their Income Housing Cost and stabilize families and communities. market processes.  push the banks to give these... live in an area increases. The other side homeowners; it ensures that for the life of a Source easier for new and property owners to enter the same time, though, these foreclosure rates Habitat for for Humanity, 2013 income families and individuals through appropriations. cooperative and condominium ownership Vouchers anddocument: Section 202 housing the to engage tens ofother thousands of of volunteers in alternative non-market processes. of having abandoned and unsold properties in an area increases. The side  fewer units are subsidized and in Map effect3 same time, though, these foreclosure rates easier for new property owners to enter the Rental units as peR Map 3 of this data represents the amount of 2nd Housing Covenant, www.habitatnyc.org/advo public housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Renew J-51 tax abatements for Habitat family’s mortgage, their tax burden efforts to the rebuild struggling neighborhoods; properties to non-profits... but market. Similarly, neighborhoods with lower also reflect the most opportune places for opportunities. The J-51 tax abatement is elderly. on their books. Today these are often banks, Source: The Furman Center "2/3 of Low-Income household not qualified for this data represents amount of 2nd  made affordable. Higher rentsstock andVouchers un- also market. Similarly, neighborhoods with State: lower reflect 202 thehousing most opportune places for  38% American Homeowners have a mortgage (19mil) cent Housing and Section for the cooperative andoF condominium ownership › National in Housing Trust Fund and Capital New York Source: The Furman Center and 3rd sector housing a neighboran important mechanism for Habitat-NYC homes were foreclosed median sale prices represent easier access for beginning models ofwhich acquisition  it seems like they’re only giving (US Census Bureau) who wantalternative toalternative get rid of toxic assets hurt public housing or subsidies PAID more than 30% of and 3rd sector housing subsidized moreis precarielderly. beginning Therents J-51 are tax both abatement Magnet Fund: in a neighbor-opportunities. - easier Increase Newfor York State’s capital median sale prices represent access models of acquisition  hood. These 2nd and 3rd sector units are homeowners; it ensures that for the life of a Source document: Habitat for Humanity, 2013 buyers or groups of buyers trying toinwork in housing. and tenure because of the owners’ liability will increase as people’s desire units to live As more units income arefor rented marketatrate, anfor important mechanism Habitat-NYC profits. Provides production new affordable Habitattheir Income to rent". hood. These 2nd and 3rd sector away the terrible properties,   ous for lower andatalready buyers or groups of buyersinvestment trying to work in will andtheir tenure because of the owners’ liability increase asmanaged people’s to resources live arehomeowners;  Habitat or todesire be affordable  family’s mortgage, their tax burden Housing Covenant, www.habitatnyc.org/advo   it ensures that for the life of a construction and rehabilitation of vacant NYC is urging Governor Cuomo to increase Source document: Habitat for Humanity, 2013 alternative and non-market processes. of having abandoned and unsold properties insubsidized an area increases. The other side of fewer units are subsidized and in effect subsidized or managed to be affordable  risk tenants. Historically industrial parts which non-profits don’t even  alternative and non-marketthe processes. of having abandoned and unsold properties in and anin area increases. Theto, other side of Habitat family’s mortgage, their tax burden Housing Covenant, www.habitatnyc.org/advo properties; state’s capital investment affordable  less intimately tied or totally    their books. Today these are often banks, made Higher this data thetied amount 2nd  and lessrepresents intimately to, oroftotally of the affordable. city, which are oftenrents thoseand withun- on on want because theyareneed › SHOP (Self-Help Homeownership housing and the economic activity and their books. Today these oftenso banks,  this data represents the amount ofthe 2nd disconnected from, the effects of RISK FORECLOSURE  Market rate rental unitsjobarecreation those that found subsidized rents areFamily both more precariwho want to get rid of toxic assets which hurt and 3rd sector Opportunity housing a neighbordisconnected from, thein effects of the  the lowest Median Income, and who home building want to work get rid ofittoxic assets which hurt andreal-estate 3rdgenerates. sector housing in Program): a neighbormuch will cost the non market. Market rate and rental units are as those   Provides Habitat affiliates with resources to the Low hood. Income Housing in the 1st sector arePrograms tied to such the more units income are rented market ous for lower and at already at rate, risk their profits. These 2nd and 3rd sector units are AsAs those Family real-estate market. more with unitsthe arehighest rented Median at market rate,  profits. money to demolish and hood. These 2nd and 3rdthesector units are  their found the 1st of sector and profits acquire land and infrastructure needed Trust Fundare (HTF), Housing   Data Census Bureau supply andindemand real-estate intiedthetoAffordable fewer units arethe subsidized andofinsubeffect tenants. Historically industrial parts Income, have lowest rates Map 4: Market Rate Rental subsidized or managed to be affordable to rebuild communities hard-hit by the Corporation (AHC), and New York fewer units are subsidized and in effect Centre for Responsible lending subsidized or managed to be affordable the supply and demand ofprices real-estate  rebuild them.” a neighborhood, meaning the source: NYC comptroller report of theaffordable. city, which are often made Higher rents andwith unsidized housing, affecting thethose former and less intimately tied to, or totally made foreclosure crisis; State HOME provide essential housing Units As Percent Of Housing  affordable. Higher rents and unless intimately tied to, or totally in a neighborhood meaning desire the prices  centeRwill increase as-development people’s to and Ingrid Ellen, The Furman › Section 4 Capacity opportunities that contribute from, populationrents in a much moremore severe way subsidized are both precaridisconnected the effectsBuilding: of the subsidized Stock   the resources effects toofsupport the the staffing rents are both more precariMarket rate rental units Centre for responsible lending report: Provides to New are York’sthose economicdisconnected growth and thefrom, than the latter. Center ous for lower income and already at risk Market rate rental units are those real-estate market. and skills needed to rebuild communities of struggling neighborhoods. ous for lower income and already at risk market. found in the 1st sectorstabilization and are tied to real-estate      found in the 1st sector The and state are tied tenants. Historically industrial parts shouldtoalso identify a flexible, with high foreclosure rates; tenants. Historically industrial parts the supply and demand of real-estate 7.5 Million of American homeowners › Preservation Programs: dedicated revenue stream for affordable the supply and demand of real-estate of the city, which are often those with  17% 11% 7% 8% 4.5% city, which are often those with in a neighborhood meaning lowhousing the thatprices is not subject to annual Provide affordable rental homesofforthe spend Half of their Income in Housing Cost in a neighborhood - meaning the prices income families and individuals  through appropriations.   - Renew J-51 tax abatements for public housing, Section 8 Housing Choice  38% American Homeowners have a mortgage (19mil) for the cooperative and condominium ownership Vouchers and Section 202 housing  (US Census Bureau)   opportunities. The J-51 tax abatement is elderly.  Across the nation, income equality has soared to the highest levels since the Great   an important mechanism for Habitat-NYC    The image revealed by data, reports and everyday news from newspapers is that New York  The image revealed by data, reports and everyday news from newspapers is that New York Depression with the top 1% of earners taking 93% of all income gains. The top homeowners; it ensures that is forfollowing the life ofthea trend  Source document: Habitat for Humanity, 2013  city in particular, but the whole nation also, toward the hugest disparity   1% the but population the reports United States earns news more now newspapers than anythe time since theYork city in particular, the whole nation also, is everyday following the trend toward hugest disparity Covenant, www.habitatnyc.org/advo Habitat family’s mortgage, their tax burden Housing     The of image revealed byin data, and from is that New  and income inequality in the world. The effects can be even worst in the future: evictions, Latino AfricanLatino White White Roaring Twenties. As for NewThe Yorkeffects City, inequality grew overinfour times as fast and income the be even thethe future: African RISKin FORECLOSURE city ininequality particular, but theworld. whole nation also, is can following the worst trend toward hugestevictions, disparity homelesness, poverty are embracing a growing number of people. The lack of affordable  American  with 1% of city residents earning 35% of all income. In fact, New York City leads  Homeowners who had lost housing in this particular moment of difficulties is making even worst the new yorkers situ homelesness, poverty are embracing a growing number people. lack of affordable and income inequality in the world. The effects can beofeven worstThe in the future: evictions,    every major US city in the category of economic injustice such that if theCompleted borough foreclosure their house or at risk  ations. the diagrams and the following data are giving an overview of the actual situation.

nyc income data: compaRison Housing cost and Risk oF Homelesness witH national data

30%Federal Legislative Priorities:

INCOME DATA: COMPARING NYC WITH THE NATION “pRimaRy advocacy woRk

tHis yeaR will Focus New York State: cost and risk of onHousing making aFFoRdable homelesSness “pRimaRy advocacy woRk Housing a top pRioRity at wHo, wHat, tHis yeaR will anity: cost and Risk oF Focus New York State: nyc income data: compaRison Housing tHe mayoRal campaign. FoReclosuRes: and wHeRe FoRdable Homelesness witH national data FoReclosuRes: on making aFFoRdable wHo,wHat, wHat, “pRimaRy advocacy woRk we aRe looking to pusH wHo, Housing a top pRioRity at tHis yeaR will Focus and wHeRe diFFeRent mayoRal canand wHeRe tHe mayoRal campaign. map 3: median sale on making aFFoRdable map 5: notices oF FoRemap 3: median sale pRice oF single Family didates to Really come map 5: notices oF FoRewe aRe looking to pusH closuRe Rate, 2010. pRice oF single Family Housing a top pRioRity incomeat ineQualities aRe Ris- closuRe Homes, 2011 Rate, 2010. Homes, tHe 2011 out witH a compReHensimayoRal campaign. diFFeRent mayoRal caning in usa and woRst in nyc 30% we aRe looking to pusH ble Housing plan wHicH didates to Really come diFFeRent mayoRal canout witH compReHensideals witHatHe Full con   didates to Really come ble Housing plan need”. wHicH tinuum oF Housing out witH a compReHensideals witH tHe Full con-  ble Housing plan wHicH - mattHew dunbaR, cacy woRk tinuum oF Housing need”. deals witH tHe Full con-  Habitat nyc ill Focus tinuum oF Housing need”.

poveRty, ineQuality and RigHts

- mattHew dunbaR, Habitat nyc

maRket

 FFoRdable mattHew dunbaR, Rate Rental map4:4:maRket maRket Rate maRket Rate map Rate pRioRity at Rental units as peRHabitat nyc unitsMedian Rental units as peRRental units centoF oF Housing stock campaign. cent Housing stock ng to pusH Rate maRket Rate maRket oRal can- units Rental Rental ally comeunits mpReHensilan wHicH e Full con income ineQualities aRe Rissing need”. ing in usa and woRst in nyc w dunbaR, abitat nyc

poveRty, ineQuality poveRty, ineQuality and RigHts poveRty & ineQualitY and RigHts 30%

poveRty, ineQuality and RigHts

ty, ineQuality igHts 





   

 



ws from newspapers is that New York   g the trend toward the hugest disparity    e even worst in the future: evictions,  er of people. The lack of affordable king even worst the new yorkers situ   an overview of the actual situation.



11%

Completed foreclosure







4.5%



      Data Census Bureau Centre for Responsible lending   source: NYC comptroller report LatinoAfrican Latino White White African American   Homeowners who had lost  

 

17%





Map 5 Source: The Furman Center

Brooklyn, Map 5

 





Map Map 44 Source:The The Furman Center Source: Furman Center



   

their house or at risk



 between 2007_2009:



Brooklyn, Map 4  “tHe new settlement witH tHe attoRney gen  eRal is tRying to pusH tHe banks to give tHese Reo pRopeRties  to non-pRoFits... but it seems  like new tHey’Re only giving away tHeattoRney teRRible pRop“tHe witH tHe gen“tHe new settlement settlement witH tHe attoRney geneRties, wHicH to non-pRoFits don’t want be  eRal is to tHese eRal is tRying tRying to pusH pusH tHe tHe banks bankseven togive give tHese cause tHey need so mucH woRk it will cost tHe







 





homelesness, poverty are embracing a growing numbereven of people. The new lack yorkers of affordable housing inManhattan this particular of the difficulties is making situof  weremoment a country, income gap between the worst richestthe twenty percent  housing in this particular moment of difficulties is making even worst the new yorkers situations. the andtwenty the following data are overview oflike the actual situation.  anddiagrams the poorest percent would begiving on par an with countries Sierra Leone, between 2007_2009: ations. theand diagrams andItthe data are givingcity an overview of the actual state situation. Namibia Lesotho, is following now the most unequal in the most unequal in Centre for responsible lending report:  the most unequal developed country in the world.  2.5 million homes were foreclosed





Map 4  Source: The Furman Center





ies aRe Ris oRst in nyc  



incomeineQualities ineQualities aRe aRe RisingRisin income woRst nyc income ineQualities aRe Risingusa inand usa andinwoRst in nyc

  



ing in usa and woRst in nyc



2.5 million

 

2.5 million homes were foreclosed



Map Map 5 5  Source:   Source: The Furman Center The Furman Center





source: NYC comptroller report





Data Census Bureau Centre for Responsible lending





law, RigHts, Rent FRaud



  





Class 2: All other property that is not in Class 1 and is primarily residential (rentals, cooperatives and condominiums). Class 2 includes: → Sub-Class 2a (4 – 6 unit rental building) → Sub-Class 2b (7 – 10 unit rental building) → Sub-Class 2c (2 – 10 unit co-op or condominium) → Class 2  (11 units or more)

As with most metropolises of the world, New York City’s most stable and consistent form of revenue is its property tax. In 1975, a descision for the state Supreme Court brought up the issue of   inequitable property assessments and taxations, and Albany was faced with the Class 3: Most utility property. bringing this up to fix. S7000A, a New York City law, was the response, and Class 4: All commercial and industrial it made New  York City create a quadproperties, such as office, retail, factory class property tax system in order to fix buildings and all other properties not the disparities between homeowners  included in tax classes 1, 2 or 3. and commercial/large structure owners.  While it protected the small property  owners and ensured that their taxation The Mayor and City Council annually set each class’s tax rate; and, this tax rate wouldn’t be overburdened, it would have   is placed upon the assessed value of the the inadvertent impact on impacting property in order to determine the tax how rental systems and  costs would be that is owed. Assessed value is calculatpegged.   ed as the product of the market value by the level of assessment of the property.  While this seems simple, it is far from  it. These tax assessments can vary from  year to year, and exemptions make the   formulas even more complicated.  According to current trends in New Class 1: Most residential property of up York City’s taxation, the property tax to three units (family homes and small has been in a consistent upward move – stores or offices with one or two aparteven including the economic downturns. ments attached), and most condominiMoreover, the S7000A has not made a ums that are not more than three stories.

Quad-Class Property Tax System

   







New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)

   

  



In New York City, rent stabilized apartments are generally those apartments in   buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974. Tenants in buildings built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971  are also covered by rent stabilization. A third category of rent stabilized apartments  covers buildings subject to regulation by virtue of various governmental supervision  or tax benefit programs.   

 

Effects of S7000A: Four Property Classes



  market data unlike Class II and IV more equitable landscape in terms of  that are taxed by income stream. This how taxation is pulled from properties:  causes problems with apartment/condo even in the city, apartment buildings  buildings and complexes by having to are still overburdened compared to the keep up with income streams; therefore, heavily protected residential homes. This creating a system of progressively becomes just one more reason why rents  increasing rents/maintenance mechanics. keep rising in Manhattan and surround If a more equitable means was founded ing areas. This notion has been noted  between Class I and II, apartment rentals in various academic studies as a reason might be better to control in terms of why the system should be reformed. cost. This issue is not symptomatic   in Manhattan considering that due to   surrounding environs, properties will  usually be taxed at the higher rates; while, the outer boroughs will have  properties’  taxes will be impacted by vacancy – therefore creating a failsafe for ensuring long-term speculation/  investment. ‘Vacant spaces’ can be held empty and In another twist, the condominium taxed at the Class I rate as long as they  was not a popular form of property have a sole tenant; therefore, ensuring tenure when the tax revision was passed; that it fulfills the class specification. therefore, its definition within the tax This technicality allows for a five-story/ code is still rather tenuous and thorny. multifamily building to be classified as a   Considering the newer laws about the Class I property as long as only the one  condo and their growing presence in the person/family is there. This clearly is an  real  estate market, the tax abatement inherent ability to allow for speculation  system was created as a means to by allowing developers to take over a prevent units sometimes getting assessed building, keep an occupant, get the right even higher than the buildings they were tax class, and  then wait for it to accrue inside of. As it attempted to rectify this value over time. This is a noticeable growing problem, it was only a Bandtrend in districts like Bushwick, where Aid as it did little to fight inequalities the first floor will be occupied, but the  in assessments due to which buildings top floors are not. can even qualify for an abatement in the  Another impropriety lies in the fact that first place. Class I properties are taxed on sales/

Warehousing from a Property Tax Perspective

 



Who ARE the homeless? Homeless people are generally viewed in a couple of ways. One being that they are solely responsible for their plight and have failed at sustaining themselves, hence failures of society. Another view in line with advocacy efforts for basic human rights, disputes the fact that homeless people are solely to be blamed for this and takes into account the many factors that contribute to homelessness and the lack of a system put in place to reverse and counter homelessness.

Simply, anyone without a home!

WHAT IS HOMELESSNESS There are many definitions of homelessness, but according to the Stewart B. McKinney Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11301, et seq. (1994), a person is considered homeless who “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence; and... has a primary night time residency that is: (A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations... (B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or (C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.” The term “homeless individual” does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of Congress or a state law.” 42 U.S.C. § 11302(c)1

How Many are homeless IN NYC? “Since the first annual street survey in 2005, the number of homeless individuals living in public places has decreased by 26% from 4,395 to 3,262. That’s more than 1,133 fewer New Yorkers sleeping on streets, in parks and in subways.” To quantify the issue of homelessness and gain a better understanding of the situation, the city of New York developed an annual census program, called the HOPE survey, to dedicate a night on which thousands of volunteers go out, count and record the amount of homeless people they see on the streets- those not in shelters. The Homeless Outreach Population Estimate (HOPE).

According to the HOPE Program: “New York City’s methodology for counting the homeless is considered the gold standard by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City’s streets, parks, and subway stations are divided into approximately 7,000 HOPE Areas, each about the size of a few square blocks. In the months before HOPE DHS uses information from outreach providers and past HOPE results to divide the City into high density areas, where we expect to find unsheltered individuals, and low density areas, where we may not. On HOPE night, teams of volunteers survey a sample of the areas, collectively walking over a thousand miles through New York City’s streets, parks, and subway stations. To maintain the survey’s integrity volunteers do not know if they are assigned to a high density or low density area. “ Questioning its accuracy, the program discloses, “To ensure accuracy the HOPE count has employed a quality assurance component every year since beginning its citywide count in 2005: decoys. The Hunter College School of Social Work, an independent research organization, plants decoy homeless individuals on some of the streets, parks, and subways that volunteers will survey. Decoys ensure that volunteers cover every part of their assigned areas, and that they interview everyone they see. Hunter’s researchers report how many decoys were surveyed, and the City adjusts its estimate based on the percentage missed. New York is the only U.S. city that ensures the accuracy of its count through this plantcapture technique, providing an additional measure of accuracy to our methodology.” Even though the city is making an effort to maintain accuracy in its census, organisatins such as Coalition for the Homeless feel it is still unrepresentative of the actual data of homeless -on-the-streets individuals. According to Coalition for the Homeless, “Research shows that the primary cause of homelessness, particularly among families, is lack of affordable housing. The U.S. Bureau of the Census has recorded a steady decline in the number of affordable rental apartments in New York City, at the same time that wages for low-income New Yorkers have stagnated or fallen -- thus creating a widening affordability gap.”

a serious ISSUE Recently homelessness has reached the highest level it’s ever been since the Great Depression, according to the Coalition for the Homeless.

1000

Amount of Street

800

Homeless per Borough

600 400 200 0 SUBWAYS



1200

STATEN ISLAND



1400

QUEENS

According to the New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), landlords owning rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments can increase rent 2% to 4.5% for one-year leases, and 4% to 8.5% for a two-year leases. The only way to raise the rent above these numbers is when an apartment becomes deregulated. The legal rent can increase up to 20% and even more. Additionally, an apartment may become deregulated at the end of a tenant’s last lease commencing during the period of the tax abatement (if it was stabilized as part of a tax benefits program); when a building is converted to a co-op under an eviction plan; upon vacancy; and if the rent is $2,500 or earned more, and the household $200 000  or more in the two prior consecutive years. Research on illegal rent increases and the loss of affordable housing in the city was recently undertaken by Make the Road New York (2011). In 200 randomly selected apartments across NYC the researchers found excessive rent increases with no explanation; landlords failing to register rents of their stabilized apartments; and evidence of inflated rents when vacancies occur (over the 20%), upon renewal, or after major repair work in the buildings. Rent overcharges have put tenants in difficult situations. In the worst cases, they don’t have any option but to move. The research also uncovered many of the difficulties tenants in preventing eviction, such as tenants lack of knowledge on their rights and rent-regulations; language barriers when they want to interact with the authorities; inadequacy in DHCR’s complaint-driven  enforcement process; and a long backlog of rent overcharge complaints stretching in some cases to over two years. In New York City, rent control apartments generally applies to residential buildings  constructed before February, 1947 in municipalities for which an end to the postwar rental housing emergency has not been declared. For an apartment to be under rent control, the tenant must generally have been living there continuously since before July 1, 1971 or for less time as a successor to a rent controlled tenant. Once the unit becomes vacant, it leaves the rent control program and is not eligible for rent stabilization. New York’s current rent control program is the longest-running in the United States.

1600

BROOKLYN

 

1800

BRONX



THE FACE OF THE HOMELESS

HOPE RESULTS IN 2012 PER NYC BOROUGH & SUBWAY

MANHATTAN



 

AMOUNT OF STREET HOMELESS

LAWS, Rights and rent fraud



BOROUGHS

HOPE RESULTS FROM 2005 TO 2012 5000 4500 AMOUNT OF STREET HOMELESS

population and Housing

4395

4000

3843

3755

3500

3306

3262

3111 3000 2648 2500

2328

Amount

2000

of Street Homeless

1500

per year

1000 500 0 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

YEARS

Total number of homeless people in municipal shelters per night:

48,694

Out of this number

11,678 were homeless families 20,383 were homeless children DID YOU KNOW: Families comprise nearly three-quarters of the homeless shelter population! 3/4 of the shelter population are families

More than 1 in 4 children in NYC live in poverty and are likely to be homeless. A typical homeless child is under 5 years old. Number of homeless adults in families:

17,843

Number of homeless single adults:

10,476

Youth population 5-10% LGBT

Homeless Youth population 20-40% LGBT

Number of homeless single men:

7,728

Number of homeless single women:

2,740

SOME CONTRIBUTING FACTORS • Loss of home • Loss of Job • Unemployment • Disability • Illness/Mental Illness • Sexual orientation (Homosexuality) • Incarceration record • Lack of affordable housing • Low income

can-American female (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2004).”

SOME DEMOGRAPHICS CONTRIBUTING OF HOMELESSNESS FACTORS in nyc

• Loss of home 53% African-American • Loss of Job 32% Latino • Unemployment 6% • Caucasian Disability 1% Native American • Illness/Mental Illness 1% Asian • Sexual orientation African-American and Latino New (Homosexuality) Yorkers are•disproportionately affected by Incarceration record homelessness. Approximately 53 percent • Lack of affordable of New York City homeless shelter housing residents are African-American, 32 percent are Latino, 6 percent are white, • Low income

INTERVIEW ON (as you said) SHELTER goes through a lot of NYC different avenues, a maze if you will. It SYSTEM AND can go into those dormitory style where bunkbeds exist, single room occupancy HOMELESSNESS hotels, even scatter site apartments—so it’s complicated. There are shelters with Interviewee: Rob Robinson dormitory style beds so maybe 6 or 7 Interviewer: Shirley Bucknor people a room or single rooms... Shirley:to What are your views on homelessness?

Rob: I’d like to give you a picture of NYC’s homeless system and then the homeless sys around the country. So to it’s credit, NYC has a robust system in place and that system, (as you said) goes through a lot of different avenues, a “Homelessness maze if you will. It canisgonot into about those dormitory style where It bunkbeds room housing. neverexist, hassingle been. Itoccuis pancy hotels, even scatter side apartmentsso about poverty!” it’s complicated. There are shelters with dormiAlthough the so city of New has tory style beds maybe 6 or 7York people to made a room substantial efforts to provide an ample or single rooms...

RATE OF SHELTER RECIVIDISM

amount of shelters, it does not address nor solve some of the key components surrounding the issue of homelessness such as skillset, mental illness and rehabilitation. More than often the system of shelters can become a trap for many “Homelessness is not about families below the poverty line. housing. never has According toItan article in the been. New It is about poverty!” York Nonprofit Press, about 40% of all families who seek temporary shelter has Although the city of New York has made subhad at least one prior shelter stay. stantial efforts to provide an ample amount of Take the case study shown in Fig. 1 shelters, it does not address nor solve some of above. This was a case where a tenant in the key components surrounding the issue of the shelter system asked to pay marhomelessness such was as skillset, mental illness ket rate to live in the shelter system. She and rehabilitation. More than often the system brought thecan request of of shelters becometoa the trapattention for many families below the poverty line. the decision was the media and luckily revoked by city officials. Unofrtunately, According an articletakes in theplace New on York this kind oftopractice a Nonprofit Press, about 40% of all families who daily bases for the unaware. This sameseek temporary shelter has had at least one prior practice is transferred to the goveernshelter stay. ment organisations such as the Department services who1 above. have This Take of theHomeless case study shown in Fig. been reported to be paying an underestiwas a case where a tenant in the shelter sysmated amount ofpay betwen perthe tem was asked to market$150-$250 rate to live in head persystem. day for individuals shelter Shehomeless brought the request to the attention the media and luckily the decision within theofshelters. was revoked by city$750 officials. Unofrtunately, this An estimated billion in funding kindbeen of practice takesfor place on a daily bases has allocated homelessness andfor the unaware. ThisYork sameCity, practice transferred shelters in New butisare these to the goveernment organisations such as the funds being properly allocated? Department of Homeless services who have Why is the government continuing been reported to be paying an underestimated toamount spendofsuch high amount shelter betwen $150 - $250 to perthe head per day system, why not put the funds towards for homeless individuals within the shelters. helping people gain better permanent and housing? An affordable estimated $750 Billion in funding has been allocated for homelessness and shelters, In August 2010, Coalition for thebut are these funds being properly allocated? Homelss released a document discussing the flaws behind the then Advantage Why is the government continuing to spend Program. Realising the glaring problem such high amount to the shelter system, why not of the assistance time limit placed on put the funds towards helping people gain better the service by officials, Coalition for the ways been this consistent. According to a re- permanent and affordable housing? Homeless sought to acquire data on the port by the National Coalition for the Homeof shelter In August 2010, recividism. Coalition for the Homelss reless, “homelessness emerged as a national state

1 percent are Asian-American, 1 percent to Coalition for race/ the Homeless, areAccording Native American or other “Research that the primary cause of ethnicity, andshows 9 percent are of unknown homelessness, particularly among families, is race/ ethnicity. lack of affordable housing. The U.S. Bureau of Studies show the large majority the Census has recorded a steady decline in of street homeless New Yorkers are the number of affordable rental apartments in individuals with illness New Yorkliving City, at the mental same time that or wages other severe health problems. Four out of for low-income New Yorkers have stagnated fiveorstreet fallenhomeless -- thus creating a widening affordNew Yorkers ability gap.” are men. This disproportionate correlation between minoty groups and homelessness has not always been this consistent. According to a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless, “homelessness emerged as a national issue in the1870’s (Kusmer, 2002). At that time in American history, African-Americans made up 53% African-American less than 10% of the population and 32%there Latino although were no national figures documenting the demography of the 6% Caucasian homeless population, some sources 1% Native American suggest that African-Americans 1% Asian represented a very small segment of the homeless population. As a matter of African-American Latino Yorkers fact, in the 1950s andand 1960s, theNew typical are disproportionately affected by homelessperson experiencing homelessness was ness.male, Approximately percent of New York white, and in his5350s (Kusmer, City homeless shelter residents are African2002). American, 32 percent are Latino, 6 percent Since that time, however, the scope are white, 1 percent are Asian-American, 1 andpercent demographic makeup of the are Native American or problem other race/ have changed dramatically. Not only race/ ethnicity, and 9 percent are of unknown do ethnicity. families with children now comprise 41% of the homeless population Out of this, studies showHomelessness, the large majority (National Alliance to End of street New Yorkers areisindividu2006), but homeless 42% of the population als living with mental or otherofsevere African American. The illness composition health problems. Four out of five homethe average homeless family is astreet single less New Yorkers are men parent household headed by an AfricanAmerican female (U.S. Conference This disproportionate correlation of between Mayors, 2004).” minoty groups and homelessness has not al-

RATE OF SHELTER RECIVIDISM

DEMOGRAPHICS OF HOMELESSNESS

INTERVIEW ON issue inSHELTER the1870’s (Kusmer, 2002). At that NYC time in American history, African-AmeriSYSTEM AND cans made up less than 10% of the population and although there were no national HOMELESSNESS figures documenting the demography of the

leased a document discussing the flaws behind They Accquired following: the then Advantagethe Program. Realising the glaring problem of the assistance limit placed “From a document entitled,time “Reapplicaon the officials, for the tions of service familiesbywith priorCoalition Advantage Homeless to acquire on the state of exits,” thesought Department of data Homeless shelter recividism. homeless population, some sources suggest Services data show that between April

Interviewee: Rob Robinson Interviewer: that African-Americans represented a very Shirley smallBucknor segment of the homeless population. As a matter the 1950s and 1960s, Shirley: What of arefact, yourinviews on the the homeless typical person experiencing homelessNYC system? ness white, male, anda in his 50sof (Kusmer, Rob: I’dwas like to give you picture 2002). NYC’s homeless system and then the homeless system. To it’s credit, NYC has Since that time, however, the scope and dea robust system in place and that system,

2007 and April 2010, 1,137 different They Accquired the following: families have re-applied for shelter after receiving Advantage. By April 2010, of “From a document entitled, “Reapplications just 3,746 families had started receivfamilies with prior Advantage exits,” the Departing the two or data moreshow years ment of subsidy Homeless Services thatago, between meaning the recidivism rate could April 2007that and April 2010, 1,137 different families have for shelter afterNearly receiving Advanbe as re-applied high as one in three. half of these re-applications were in the last six

$1700 / Month

room with no bathroom or kitchen

asked to pay over 50% structured as follows: of her • Tier I Emergency Shelters would look income $1099 / Month like the current system of services for

HOMELESSNESS CONTINUUM

months, showing a continued increase Auburn in the number of families family returning to shelter as more families shelter time off. Indeed, in March 2010, 172 applications were families who enter the filed at the family intake center, PATH-Prevention Assistance and Temporary nearly six a day!” Housing (PATH) Office. During an makeup of the problem have The Advantage program no longer initial 30-day stay, assessmentsmographic would be FIG.1 CASE STUDY ON SHELTER SYSTEM AND exists due to its inefficiency at helping conducted to 1) identify those changed families dramatically. Not only do famiDISCREPANCIES families get back on their feet and did unable to quickly find and retain liespermawith children now comprise 41% of the not improve the numbers of families in nent housing, 2) determine their specific population (National Alliance to homeless tage. By April 2010, just 3,746 families had started receiving the subsidy more years ago, meaning shelters. service needs,two andor3) develop a future 2006), but 42% of the that the recidivism rate could be as high as one in three. Nearly half of these re-applicationsEnd were inHomelessness, the plan of service. A New Path: An Immediate Plan to population is African American. The comlast six months, showing a continued increase in the number families returning to shelter as more • Tier IIofTransitional Shelters would Reduce Family Homelessness proposfamilies time off. Indeed, in March 2010, 172 applications were filed at the family intake center, PATH-position serve those families whose need can be of the average homeless family is a es using family shelter as a tool nearly six athe day!” addressed during shelter stays of be- parent household headed by an Afrisingle for parents with limited education and tween 2 and 12 months. These programs can-American female (U.S. Conference of work experience, as well as forexists victims The Advantage program no longer due to its inefficiency at helping families get back on their would look similar to the current Tier II feetdomestic and did not improve the of families in shelters. of violence, andnumbers those with Mayors, 2004).” shelter model but would be targeted for mental health and substance abuse households whereusing the the parent some A New Path: Immediate to Reduce Family Homelessness proposes familyhas shelter as a issues, andAn a history in Plan the child welfare education and work history and requires tool for parents with limited education and work experience, as well as for victims of domestic violence, system. Realising this pattern, hundreds and those with mental health and substance abuse issues, a history the child system.and onlyand some helpinfrom casewelfare managers of advocates and providers from across housing specialists in finding new or betthe nation including the Institute for Realising this pattern, hundreds of advocates and providers from across the nation includingmarket the Inter employment and low-income Children, Poverty Poverty and Homelessness stitute for Children, and Homelessness (ICPH) are proposing a restructuring NYC’s family housing. (ICPH) are proposing a restructuring shelter system into three separate components, based on assessments of a family’s situations or needs. • Tier III Specialized Shelter Programs NYC’s family system intohalf three The report stressesshelter that approximately of all families placed in a shelter leave within 30 days and – a new programmatic proposal – would separate components, on assessnever return. It is the otherbased half, those who cycle in and out of the shelter system, which requires more serve families more extensive – andsituations in some cases stays in the shelter system –whodemonstrate to prevent recidivism. Under ments ofservices a family’s orlonger needs. complex needs and have higher barriers the ICPH proposal, thethat shelter system would be structured as follows: The report stresses approximately to maintaining permanent housing. Thehalf of all families placed in a shelter seTier III ofshelters—also known as Com•leave Tierwithin I Emergency Shelters would look like the current system services for families who enter the Interviewee: Rob Robinson 30 days and never return. It Prevention Assistance and Temporary Housing (PATH) Office.Residential During an initial 30-dayCenters stay, assessmunity Resource is the other half, those who cycle in and Shirley Bucknor ments would be conducted to 1) identify those families quickly find and retain Interviewer: permanent -- unable wouldtooffer on-site employmentopout of the shelter system, which requires housing, 2) determine their specific service needs, and portunities 3) develop a future plan of service. for shelter residentsShirley: starting What are your views on homelessness? more extensive services – and in some Rob: I’d like to give you a picture of NYC’s at minimum wage; job search, readiness, cases stays inShelters the shelter • Tierlonger II Transitional would system serve those families whose need can be addressed during shelter andretention training; and GED classes. homeless system and then the homeless sys – to prevent recidivism. Under the ICPH

SOME CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Take Martha, 49, Lives with 19 Year Old Son

works

Security Guard

Lives in one room with no bathroom or kitchen

INTERVIEW ON NYC SHELTER SYSTEM AND HOMELESSNESS

Auburn family shelter

$1099 / Month

earns

$1700 / Month asked to pay over 50% of her income

• Loss of home • Loss of Job FIG.1 CASE STUDY ON SHELTER SYSTEM AND • Unemployment and resources to revitalize low-income DISCREPANCIES habitat for New York NYC: • Disability neighborhoods and to create resilient To support this initiative, stays of between 2 and months. These programs would lookIllness similar to the current Tier II shelter humanity: tage. By April communities. State: • 12system Illness/Mental Call for 2013 Mayoral Candidates to 2010, just 3,746 families had started receiving the subsidy two or more years ago, meaning the federal government must maintain proposal, the shelter would be model but would be targeted for households where the parent has some education and work around history andthe country. So to it’s credit, NYC has a requires only some help from case managersorientation and housing specialists in finding new or better employadvocacy and enhance the following rate could be as highfunding as one in three.Increase Nearly half these re-applications were produce in the comprehensive affordable • Sexual robust system in place and that system, (as you that the recidivism Newof York State’s capital housing plans that address the full ment and low-income market housing. streams: showing a continued increase in the number of families returning to shelter ashousing more continuum. Habitat-NYC is investment in affordable housing. said) goes through a lot for of different avenues, a last six months, (Homosexuality) Habitat-NYC is urging Governor Indeed, infor March 2010, applications were filed at the family intake center, PATH-maze who if you will. It can go into those dormitory families time off. › Corporation National and172 Compushing for a plan that emphasizes the • Tier III Specialized Shelter Programs – a new programmatic proposal – would serve families affordable Cuomo to increase the state’s capital demonstrate more complex needs and have higher barriers torecord maintaining permanent housing. These munity Service (AmeriCorps and importance of homeownership, homeless nearly six a day!” • Incarceration style where bunkbeds exist, single room occuinvestment in affordable housing and Tier III shelters—also known as Community Residential Resource Centers -- would offer on-site emVISTA):Provides Habitat affiliates with and supportive housing solutions, public housing pancy hotels, even scatter side apartmentsso the economic activity and job creation ployment opportunities shelter residents at minimum wage; job search, readiness, and • forLack of starting affordable the capacity to engage tens of thousands program no longer exists due to its inefficiency at helping families get back onhousing their and rental preservation, tenant it’s complicated. There are shelters with dormi- The Advantage retention training; and GED classes. that home building generates. Programs of volunteers in efforts to rebuild strugprotection, foreclosure prevention, and to Matthew Dunbar,feet Advocacy housing and did not improve the numbers of families in shelters. such as the Low Income Housing tory style beds so maybe We 6 ortalked 7 people to a room gling neighborhoods; neighborhood stabilization. and Community Relations Manager, Trust Fund (HTF), the Affordable or single rooms... Any plan should clearly define Habitat for Humanity New York. Since • Low income › National Housing Trust Fund and Housing Corporation (AHC), New shelter affordability and unit sizes, prioritizing A New Path: An Immediate Plan to Reduce Family Homelessness proposes using theand family as a According to Coalition for the Homeless, “Research shows that the primary cause of homelessness, particularly among families, is lack of affordable housing. The U.S. Bureau of the Census has recorded a steady decline in the number of affordable rental apartments in New York City, at the same time that wages for low-income New Yorkers have stagnated or fallen -- thus creating a widening affordability gap.”

DEMOGRAPHICS OF HOMELESSNESS

its founding in 1984, Habitat-NYC Capital Magnet Fund:Provides producYork State HOME provide essential need over numbers so that distribution tool for parents with limitedfor education and work experience, as well as for victims of domestic violence, has provided more than 260 homes. tion resources new construction and housing development opportunities that of housing opportunities reaches very At that rate it would take Habitat andfor those withrehabilitation mental health and substance and a history the child welfare system. of vacant properties;abuse issues, contribute to New in York’s economic low-income residents while addressing Humanity more than 5,500 years to meet growth and the stabilization of struggling the continued challenges of creating and › SHOP (Self-Help Homeownership the current housing deficit. That’s why neighborhoods. The the statenation should including also Realising this Opportunity pattern, hundreds of advocates and providers from across the Inpreserving workforce housing. Program):Provides Habitat the advocacy work is at the core of the identify a flexible, dedicated revenue Ensure that affordable homeownership stitute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness (ICPH) are proposing a restructuring NYC’s family affiliates with resources to acquire the organization. stream for affordable housing that is not remains an essential and central public infrastructure needed to rebuild intoand three separate components, based on assessments of a family’s situations or needs. “Homelessness is not about shelter systemland subject to annual appropriations. policy issue as a key solution to city’s communities hard-hit by thehalf foreclosure The report stresses that approximately of all families placed in a tax shelter leave within and Renew J-51 abatements for co- 30 days housing. It never has been. affordable housing crisis. Affordable never return. crisis; It is the other half, those who cycle in andoperative out of the system, ownership which requireshomeownership more andshelter condominium gives low-income and It is about poverty!” The– J-51 tax abatement is › Section Capacity Building:Provides extensive services – and4 in some cases longer stays in theopportunities. shelter system to prevent recidivism. Under working families critical economic an important mechanism for low-income resources to support the staffing and and social benefits — building equity, the ICPH proposal, the shelter system would be structured as follows: and working class homeowners; ensuring significantly improving educational skills needed to rebuild communities Although the city of New York has made subthat for the life of a family’s mortgage, with high foreclosure rates; achievement, fostering greater civic stantial efforts to provide an ample amount of • Tier Invest in stabilizing communities and I Emergency Shelters would look like the current system of services the their tax burden will befor lowfamilies enough who to enter participation, inspiring pride and a shelters, it does not address nor federal solve some of thatPrevention maintain resources sup› Preservation af- (PATH)maintain Assistance and Programs:Provide Temporary Housing Office. affordability During an amidst initial increasing 30-day stay, assesssense of accomplishment and improving port the workthe of Habitat rental homes for low-income the key components surrounding issue offor Humanity andtomaintenance ments would fordable be conducted to 1) identify those familiesenergy unable quickly findcosts. andHabiretain permanent physical health. Building affordable nationwide. In support of the federal families and individuals through public tat-NYC renewal of this homelessness such as skillset, mental illness housing, 2) determine their specific service needs, and 3) developadvocates a futurefor plan of service. homeownership units are powerful Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, housing, Section 8 Housing Choice important legislation alongside measures and rehabilitation. MoreHabitat than often the system economic engines that quickly create for Humanity International seeks Vouchers and Section 202 housing for that strengthen, protect, and expand jobs, generate new tax revenue and of shelters can become atotrap for many families leverage U.S. government programs the elderly.Shelters would serve those families • Tier II Transitional whose need can be addressed NYC’s affordable housing stock. during shelter stabilize families and communities.

RATE OF SHELTER RECIVIDISM

Federal Legislative Priorities:

below the poverty line.

stays of between 2 and 12 months. These programs would look similar to the current Tier II shelter model but would be targeted for households where the parent has some education and work history and 43 Shelters for singles - men, women, or both 53% African-American According to an article in the New York Non-torequires 37 Welfare hotels only some help from case managers and housing specialists in finding new or better will employ- focus According Habitat: “Primary advocacy work this year Soup kitchen profit Press, about 40% of all families who seek ment and low-income market housing. 32% Latino on making affordable housing a top priority at the mayoral campaign. temporary shelter has had at least one prior We are looking to push different mayoral candidates to really come FIG.1 MAP 6% OF SHELTERS AND AID SERVICES, Caucasian shelter stay. • Tier III Specialized Shelter Programs – a new programmatic proposal – would serve families who >50 Mixed Collection of Shelters 51 Shelters for Families

NOT INCLUDING APARTMENT SHELTERS

1% Native American 1% Asian

African-American and Latino New Yorkers are disproportionately affected by homeless-

out with a comprehensible housing plan which deals with the full demonstrate more complex needs and have higher barriers to maintaining permanent housing. These continuum housing need.” Take the case study shown in Fig. 1 above. Thisof Tier III shelters—also known as Community Residential Resource Centers -- would offer on-site emwas a case where a tenant in the shelter system was asked to pay market rate to live in the shelter system. She brought the request to the attention of the media and luckily the decision was revoked by city officials. Unofrtunately, this

ployment opportunities for shelter residents starting at minimum wage; job search, readiness, and

retention training; and GED classes.

HOMELESSNESS, SHELTERS AND HURRICANE SANDY Every night, thousands of homeless people sleep outside in New York City. What happens when there is a snowstorm or hurricane? When Hurricane Sandy was about to hit, a storm that was called “life-threatening,” the mayor repeatedly asked homeless and vulnerable people to go to the safety of the extra storm shelters in the evacuation zones. Surprisingly, though, a number of homeless individuals opted out of the shelters, and chose to take their chances riding out the storm on the streets.

What is vacancy? After surveying multiple methods of counting “vacancy” across the city, there is apparently no uniform, recognized definition for vacancy. A project titled “No Vacancy” stated “Whether in decline, temporarily unfit for use, difficult to use or awaiting a specified future development, vacant spaces are spaces in states of limbo between prior and future uses.” Vacant spaces whether lots or buildings represent the in-between transient spaces withheld from the public. How, then, can this data become public knowledge? And, more importantly, how can it be used to house the homeless?

“The shelter is like jail, I’ve been there.” In an interview by the Huffington Post, a homeless man named Michael explained why he planned to avoid a nearby shelter in Harlem: “Those people, they have AIDS, they’re always drinking, so I don’t want to stay inside today.” Michael sometimes works as a handyman, and lived in an apartment in Brooklyn until he fell behind on rent and was evicted. He planned to ride out the storm walking the streets of the Upper West Side. “I’ll be better off outside than in there,” he says. He is trying to get back on his feet, and explains, “The things they do in there make me lose focus.” Another homeless man, Carol, remarked

of a nearby shelter on the East Side, “The shelter is like jail, I’ve been there.” The most concerning thing about these accounts before the storm, is that various homeless stated that they did not even hear about the extra shelters that had opened up, let alone their locations. The city had said that they were taking efforts to do outreach on the streets, but was it enough? Finally, the death toll after the storm that was greatly publicized by various news sources never mentioned a single homeless person; all included on the list of dead were found in or around their home or car. Two people were killed in a park but their neighborhood was listed as well. Did every single homeless person in the city remain unscathed after the deadly storm? Or did the city not tell us something?

THE DOE FUND: Ready, Willing & Able “TO SOLVE HOMELESSNESS FOR A NIGHT, YOU NEED SHELTER. TO SOLVE IT FOR GOOD, YOU NEED WORK.” That is the idea behind the Doe Fund’s Ready, Willing & Able Program, which provides paid transitional work and individualized services to homeless men so that they may join or re-join the workforce and get out of a cycle of homelessness, crime or addiction. The organization’s success rate is good, and

the backstory of the founders is worthy of a movie. The Ready, Willing & Able Program recruits their men from various homeless shelters in New York City. According to Victor, who works in administration at the Doe Fund’s East Williamsburg location on Porter Avenue, when an individual at a shelter shows interest in the program, a case worker there will call the Doe Fund, and a representative will come to the shelter and give an interview. The Doe Fund does a fair amount of outreach, but the program is not allowed to pick people up off the street. They can only admit individuals who are living in a shelter and specifically show interest in the program, Victor says. Every day, the Doe Fund sends out

their vans to pick up interested people and bring them back to the “opportunity centers” for recruitment and sometimes interviews. If the individual shows that they are serious about getting their life back on track and are accepting of help, the orientation sessions and case management begins.

COULD THIS WORK FOR BUSHWICK? The Ready, Willing & Able Program is set up in four phases, all which last between nine and twelve months. Graduates from the program leave with full-time jobs, housing, sobriety, and reestablished relationships with their family. Each graduate also receives life-long career counseling, job placement assistance and further training and education opportunities. Throughout their stay at the Doe Fund, the trainees receive housing and three meals a day. The facilities and housing are clean and very well run, with a supportive and caring staff. The trainees all work for one of the Doe Fund’s social enterprises for minimum wage. These enterprises include a community improvement project,

OF VACANCY BUSHWICK VACANCY IN DYNAMICS NEW YORK CITY OF VACANCY WHAT IS VACANT UNITS BUSHWICK DYNAMICS VACANCY? IN BROOKLYN OF VACANCY BUSHWICK

knew a lon climax wit afterwards waste or as though the illustrate m Bushwick is one of the neighborhood of the dyna vacant properties, which includes va New York condos. This high level of vacancies a different impact on the main compo the former industries near Williamsb knew a long decline when both indus 1830 - BLUE COLLAR climax with the pillaging and burnin NEIgHBORHOOD afterwards is still reflected today in t waste or as car parking lots. Howeve Bushwick grew together with the industries though the influx of artists in the neig of the nearby Brooklyn waterfront. The illustrate many aspects that created th shipyards, warehouses, distilleries, sugar one of the neighborhoods Brooklyn withinone of is issuing a $10 billion settlement to resolve Bushwick claims ofis foreclosure byin14 ofabuses the dynamics ofmajor vacancy Bushw refineries, and manufacturing plants attracted vacant properties, which includes vacant lots, houses, industrial New York City. lenders earlier this the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued new many German andyear later and Italian immigrant condos. This high level of vacancies comes from a long history workers. banking regulations to help prevent a similara crisis inimpact the future. However, it is oftoo different on the main components thislate community d the former Williamsburg and the for many families, and it is unclear exactly how manyindustries people near became homeless as ashopping strip knew a long decline when both industries and people abandoned result -ofBLOCKBUSTINg the crash in 2008. 1960 1830 - BLUEdirect COLLAR Though the amount of foreclosures climax with the pillaging and burning around Broadway in 1977 enthnici NEIgHBORHOOD (Furman has gone down since 2010, when New afterwards is still reflected today in the many vacant lots in Cente thes In the 60’s real-estate speculators tried to “It is a scandal that there is housing that could easily be available for integrate waste or as car parking lots. However, property speculation is h frighten white residents to sell their homes York City reached its peak of Bushwick foreclosed grew together with the industries 5% great though the influx of artists in the neighborhood. But these ‘before it was too late’. They bought the occupancy and it is held empty only for speculative purposes, while homes, this is still an issue. What of the nearby Brooklyn waterfront. The houses at cheap prices and sold them through illustrate many aspects that created the different kinds of vacanc shipyards, warehouses, distilleries, sugar are in desperate need of housing that they can afford.” majority whole families happened exactly to make foreclosures origins fraudulent practices to poor blacks and Puerto- of the dynamics of vacancy in Bushwhick illustrates the 49% refineries, and manufacturing plants attracted so abundant? The volume of high-cost, New York City. -Peter Marcuse Ricans at prices they could not afford. many German and later Italian immigrant subprime mortgages issued toworkers. lenders mixed-m 46% starting in 2003 fueled a booming

real estate industry, whichCOLLAR then blew - BLOCKBUSTINg 1972 - ABANDONMENT 1830 - BLUE 1960 up and collapsed. A foreclosure crisis NEIgHBORHOOD Many could In the 60’s real-estate speculators tried not to pay the bad loans and ensued, leading to the Great Recession their homes, which caused a frighten white residents toabandoned sell their homes Bushwick grew together with the industries of the 21st century. Effects are clearly further decrease ‘before itThe was too late’. They bought the of local property values. of the Brooklyn waterfront. still being feltnearby today, and with each at cheap prices andOther houses also emptied because of the houses sold them through shipyards, warehouses, distilleries, sugar plummeting of the housing prices and buyers foreclosure comes the displacement of fraudulent practices to poor blacks and Puertorefineries, and manufacturing plants attracted Bushwick. Ricans at prices they couldavoided not afford. residentsmany andGerman the possible and laterhomelessness Italian immigrant workers. of families. The federal governement

1972 - DEINDUSTRIALISA1960 - BLOCKBUSTINg 1972 - ABANDONMENT TION In the 60’s real-estate speculators tried to Many could not pay the bad loans and frighten white residents to sell their homes abandoned their homes, which caused a base of Bushwick was at the The industrial ‘before it was too late’. They bought the of local property further decrease values. same time also in drastic decline. The once houses at cheap prices and Other sold them through houses also emptiednumerous because ofknitting the mills were also rapidly fraudulent practices to poorplummeting blacks and Puertoof the housingdecreasing prices andinbuyers number and all the remaining Ricans at prices they couldavoided not afford. Bushwick. beer breweries were either closing or drastically reducing staff.

vacant m majority hispanic neighborho 55 49%

vacant lo mixed-minority neighborhoo 182 46% enthnicity

ethnicity b vacancy in bushwick

(Furman Center for Real-Estate and Urban Policythe 2011) (Picture Homeless 2011)

(Furman Center fo

integrated neighborhood vacant residential buildings 5% 147

AGENTS OF VACANCY EXAMPLES DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION

vacant manufecturing units 55

mixed-minority neighborhood vacant lots 46% 182

vacant residential buildings 147

932 807 811

vacant lots 182

636

- structura arsons - suspicious industrial

Departmen (NYC arson strike force 1986; NYC(NYC department of cit 1969; NY daily news 1977)

ofaever The industrial base of Bushwick wasthe at blackout the During of JulyBecause 13, 1977 mas-rising housing prices artist areout priced outmain of their homes. This created a same time also in drastic decline. The once sive ‘blackout looting’ broke on the of artist numerous knitting mills were also rapidly shopping street Broadway.migration Many shops were from Greenwich Village in the 1950s Bushwick since the 2000s. The decreasing in number and all the remaining pillaged and set on fire. Whole blockstowere L-train seems to be the carrier of this artist-led beer breweries were either closing or drastiabandoned and the citystarted knocking down gentrification. cally reducing staff. vacant homes clearing even more buildings.

2005OF - gENTRIFICATION 1977 - BUSHWICK 2000 - MIgRATION BURNINg CREATIVE DISTRICTS The influx of artists in neighborhoods attracts

a creative industry and attracts other investors, During the blackout of JulyBecause 13, 1977ofa ever mas-rising housing prices artist which makes prices rise. Bushwick has known sive ‘blackout looting’ brokeare out on the main priced out of their homes. This created a a rapid increase in rents since the 2000s, but shopping street Broadway. Many shops migration ofwere artist from Greenwich Village in also many new condo’s have been constructed pillaged and set on fire. Whole blockstowere the 1950s Bushwick since the 2000s. The that now stand vacant. abandoned and the citystarted knocking L-train seems down to be the carrier of this artist-led vacant homes clearing evengentrification. more buildings.

Landlords holding vacant and underutilized properties are not penalized, thus these sites continue unoccupied or underdeveloped. A number of City Council Bills have proposed a registration and annual city wide count of vacant and underutilized properties to end the practice of holding properties out of service. A fifth property class for vacant and underutilized sites has been also proposed allowing for a higher tax on these properties.

(NYC 2012) arson str (Parsons 1969; NY daily

(Picture the Homeless 2011)

2000 - MIgRATION OF 1972 - DEINDUSTRIALISA1977 - BUSHWICK CREATIVE DISTRICTS TION BURNINg

PROPERTY TAX

arsons -b vacancy

vacancy in bushwick

Many could not pay the bad loans and abandoned their homes, which a base of Bushwick Duringwas theatblackout of July 13, 1977 a masThe caused industrial the further decrease of local property values. sive ‘blackout looting’ broke out on the main same time also in drastic decline. The once Other houses also emptied numerous because ofknitting the shopping street Broadway. Many shops were mills were also rapidly plummeting of the housingdecreasing prices and in buyers and set on fire. Whole blocks were number andpillaged all the remaining avoided Bushwick. and the citystarted knocking down beeror breweries were eitherabandoned closing or drastithousands of buildings empty vacant homes clearing even more buildings. cally reducing staff.

The industrial base of the city declined leaving underutilized. In central areas many of those experienced adaptive reuse, whereas some others keep vacant in peripheral urban areas.

Graduates from the DOE FUND program leave with full time jobs, SOBRIETY AND housing. The Doe Fund has offices, supportive housing, and “opportunity centers” scattered all over the city. Although the organization aims to rehabilitate new parolees, addicts, and homeless men alike, Victor from Administration says that the vast amount of trainees he has are homeless men. He says that previously, the Fund was opened to men and women, but because each gender has such drastically different facility needs, the Doe Fund was closed to women years ago. This is unfortunate given that women and children lead the homeless demographic.

vacant r integrated neighborhood 147 5%

majority hispanic neighborhood vacant manufecturing units 49% 55

1977 - BUSHWICK 1972 - ABANDONMENT 1972 - DEINDUSTRIALISABURNINg TION

a pest control service, an administrative assistance office, and a green enterprise called “Resource Recovery” which provides restaurants with free waste cooking oil pick ups to be recycled into premium grade biodiesel.

vacancy one and t

enthnicity

(Picture the2011 Ho Departmen (Furman Center for Real-Estate and (NYC Urban Policy

2013 - VACANT LOTS

2000 - MIgRATION OF 2005 - gENTRIFICATION FIRES AND ARSON PROPERTY CREATIVE DISTRICTS Despite this attracts ongoing gentrification, Bushwick The influx of artists in neighborhoods WAREHOUSING Properties affected by the fireaepidemic is stillother covered by vacant lots and buildings of creative industry and attracts investors,

932

1968

807

142 1976

811

206 149 1985

636

commerci

arsons - suspicious - structural fires (NYC arson strike force 1986; NYC department of city planning 1969; NY daily news 1977)

932 807

(NYC Departmen

vacant condos 1968

(Right to the City Alliance 2010)

completely vacant 142 1976

811 partially vacant 206

149 1977 30

construction 149 1985 636

FORECLOSURES ANDL-train sto HIGH-PRICES

Because of ever rising housing prices artist vacant condos of the 1970s and 1980s keep vacant which many attract pose health iswhich prices Bushwick hasacquired knowncrime Properties are byand real estate Stagnating wages are priced out of their homes. Thismakes created a rise. (Right to the City Alliance 2010) and rising housing costs suesthe to their environment. These vacancies are since some may suffer from structural a rapid increase in rents since 2000s, but migration of artist from Greenwich Village in speculators, mainly shell corporations completely vacant 20 are a threat for households. Families are especially located in the areas that were most have been constructed damage the and1950s highto cost of rehabilitation. Bushwick sincealso themany 2000s.new Thecondo’s and LLCs, and keep them unoccupied loosing their homes due to foreclosures hit by the fires of the 70s. thatof now vacant. partially vacant 30 seems the to bedestruction the carrier thisstand artist-led In someL-train occasions or while waiting for the rise of their value to and evictions leaving properties vacant gentrification. damaging of the properties has been sell or rent out the units. construction The bottle line and in hands of40banks. At the same time intentional to collect insurance money, to is making greater profit. In the meantime un affordable condos are being erected 2005 - gENTRIFICATION 2013or- to VACANT LOTS get public assistance for relocation buildings are stored, kept out from with public subsidies and tax incentives,vacant co (Right to the City get rid ofThedrug dealing abuse taking influx of artistsand in neighborhoods Despite thisattracts ongoingfamilies gentrification, Bushwick in need of housing. many times the units sit empty side by creative industry and attracts other investors, is still covered by vacant lots and buildings of place in aabandoned buildings. side foreclosed properties. vacant condos which makes prices rise. Bushwick has known which many attract crime and pose health is(Right to the City Alliance 2010) a rapid increase in rents since but suesthe to2000s, their environment. Thesecompletely vacancies are vacant 20 also many new condo’s haveespecially been constructed located in the areas that were most that now stand vacant. hit by the fires of the 70s. partially vacant 30 construction

2013 - VACANT LOTS

vacant lot

cs, a pattern does emerge omparing the different on maps: there are clear rations of vacancy in eighborhoods: Harlem, the lage, but especially East The fact that owners of newly built rk, Bedford-Stuyvesant condos do not lower their prices, but to wait and “store” their property hwickprefer out as ofdark as itstand were, is an example “property warehousing.” In general the term refers stainstoon the maps. Still, speculators who wait for the rise of values to sell or rentis out their these property concentrations houses, the property waits empty for different inorcharacter. future use development. These units are not abandoned, they are usually all theprivately Bedford-Stuyvesant owned and the tax is correctly paid. hwick border gathers There are other variations of this, as partial is much acant such lots. Thevacancy, highwhich level harder to recognize. For example, nt lotsinisHarlem a remnant of and Bedford-Stuyvesant there are many active storefronts, but ging the and burning that apartments on top are left vacant while the owners profit off the ground ed during the blackout of floor commercial space. The owner

VACANCY AND HOMELESSNESS

accomodates low rent tenants until he can raise a higher rent or develop the property in another profitable way. The problem of tracing and recognizing vacant property remains. Much of warehoused vacant property can be labeled as “shadow real estate owned.” These are often repossessed homes across the city that banks or investors purposely keep off the market. Because of the fear that flooding the market with vacant and foreclosed homes would present a danger to the housing market as a whole, these houses are not advertised for sale. These buildings and lots lie vacant and unused for purely speculative reasons, but on top of this some of these vacant houses became crack dens, garbage-filled and weed-ridden. Many are now labeled by signs of firms that take care of pest control. These spaces form potential health hazards but could, if rehabilitated, really enhance the quality of life of some of these neighborhoods.

the homeless shelters and the vacant houses? Why not use these vacancies to house homeless people? From the data we were able to collect it seems as if the shelters in Brooklyn are situated more or less in and around Bedford-Stuyvesant, which corresponds with the orange cloud of vacancies. In Manhattan and the Bronx the shelters seem to be more evenly distributed.

VACANCIES IN NYC New York City becomes an orange nebula when putting an orange dot for each vacant lot or building in the city. A history of speculation, demolitions, redlining, etc, has left clear scars of abandonment on some districts of NYC where the dark orange clouds gather. But this image also immediately poses the question: How come these vacancies continue when there are so many people in immediate need of housing? Making an accurate forecast of the nebula and its densities becomes crucial

to expose this vast empty housing stock. However, each map of vacancy becomes erratic the moment it is made because of the great turbulences in the property market of the city. Since the city has, apart from its data on vacant lots, no accurate information on the state of vacant property, many organizations have tried to locate particular kinds of vacant property. As mentioned earlier, Picture the Homeless did a block-toblock count of vacant properties in fall 2010 in the areas with highest expected vacancies. They found a total of 3,551 vacant buildings and 2,489 vacant lots. Similar to this count the Right To The City Alliance did a survey of vacant condos in select New York City neighborhoods in 2010. They found 264 completely constructed condos with an estimated 4,092 vacant units. Even though the accuracy of these counts is hard to verify and the housing market has great dynamics, a pattern does emerge when comparing the different counts on maps: there are clear concentrations of vacancy in some neighborhoods: Harlem, the East

max was preceded g run-up of housing nment and arson. The ng’ policies of financial CORRELATION VACANCY ons discriminated the poor AND SHELTERS s of these neighborhoods (?) ied them meaningful ge access and insurance e. The houses were down first by the owners ves to collect the fire ce money, then by gangs to er to the valuable fixtures per wiring and finally RELATION tenants set fire to their VACANCY AND because they were paid SHELTERS s relocation costs if fires Picture Homeless have already d them. Athevast demolition pointed out that there is a correlation m of the fireneighborhood department between vacancy and homelessness: The community districts icallyfrom cleared burntwhich mostthe homeless people came are the same ones where assesfind ofthethe houses. Byyou can highest rates of vacancy. It a directmost link between of theshows 1970s of property the warehousing and homelessness. Many of s cleared in this these families have way lost theirand homes at and end up in the homeless shelter system, ppliedsometimes a safer environment in their own neighborhoods. When wespace overlap allon the maps – ple parking these the vacant lots where houses were demolished, (warehoused) vacant ots. Many ofthethese cleared buildings and the locations of the l remain today homeless shelters and – furtheroften questions of their interrelation arise: Why not connect e the same use.

Village, but especially East New York, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Bushwick stand out as dark orange stains on the maps. Still, each of these concentrations is slightly different in character. First of all the Bedford-Stuyvesant and Bushwick border gathers many vacant lots. The high level of vacant lots is a remnant of the pillaging and burning that happened during the blackout of 1977. This climax was preceded by a long run-up of housing abandonment and arson. The ‘redlining’ policies of financial institutions violated the poor residents of these neighborhoods and denied them meaningful mortgage access and insurance coverage. In some cases the houses were torched by the owners themselves to collect the fire insurance money, then by gangs to get at the valuable fixtures and copper wiring. A vast municipal demolition program then radically cleared the burntout carcasses of the houses. By the end of the 1970s most of the land was cleared in this way, resultin gin vast numbers of vacant lots. Many of these cleared sites still remain today.

What is being done about Vacancy? Organizations such as 596 Acres have implemented an interactive website to locate different classifications of publicly owned vacant spaces and to identify the agencies that possess each site. However, 596 Acres is only one organization that has hypothesized and advocated for the potential of vacant spaces. In 1987, the Architectural League conducted a study titled “The Vacant Lots” program in which various sites across the city were provided by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development for students to envision the potential for what each site could become from an architectural perspective.

“This is not a vacant lot” “This is not a vacant lot” as part of Design Philadelphia provokes to question what does it mean to have a vacant space in their neighborhood and what vacancy represents. Approaches to tackling vacancy are coming from governmental legislation as well. Land banks are emerging as an alternative method of accounting for vacant land at multiple scales. In November 2011, Governor Cuomo passed a bill instituting the call for the

new york city Vacancy and shelter correlation

first ten land banks in New York State, as yet unrealized New York City. Land banks are emerging programs that provide for an additional method for taking control of the vacant land for productive use.

What is a Land Bank? A land bank is the combination of at least two tax districts, or foreclosed governmental units (FGUs), that obtain property from various sources such as donation or purchase, manage those properties, and then distribute that land once again for productive use for parks, affordable housing, etc. Land banks are more transparent in their processes due to their requirement to make their database of vacant lots and buildings accessible for public knowledge. This

program has yet to be implemented within New York City, but with groups such as 596 Acres already advocating transparent processes and previous legislation for Urban Homesteading, land banks could provide a vehicle for strengthening both of these aims.

STRUCTURAL VACANCY FROM A TAX PERSPECTIVE As a whole, both the affordability of housing and the survivability of a newly revised and implemented urban homesteading program depend on a more equitable property tax system. While we need to find a better balance between homeowners and apartment complexes through a more transparent, clearer assessment process, there also comes the danger of policy-process to be influenced by developer-influenced government officials or policymakers. Moreover, a comprehensive study and property tax reform is needed as mere patches to the current system will not stop current inequalities, but exacerbate them, like the condo/apartment abatements. As for the idea of taxing or penalizing vacant property owners, the concept is simple: Create a disincentive for owners to sit on vacant properties. The same would apply to residential properties and abandoned houses with little maintenance and overgrown yards that are seen as a blight in neighborhoods. One proposalto triple the property tax on these properties—might provide the sort of stimulus that would allow for the acessing of otherwise inaccessible vacant and underutilized properties for the production of affordable housing.

URBAN HOMESTEADING: URBAN HOMEHomesteading URBAN HOMEHISTORY STEADING: History

ANALYSIS: MID 20TH CENTURY

gage financing for urban neighborhoods to ecological devastation that would culmiownership in one fell-swoop. with the whole process. (King) The process was straightforward: apply, of color, and though revised on the policy nate in the dust bowl of the 1920s and 30s, Fast-forward to the inner city of New York work the land into productivity over five level, continued de-facto in the private when enormous tracks of once prairie land Meanwhile, the easy comparison to tradiFinal guidelines for the federal program including single women, to participate in National housing policies were the main their people amounted to displacement and Homesteading had gained notable publicity viable, while manythe speculated in the late 1960s: think of the South Bronx, years, and thus earn the deed through market for decades. Top-down policies of turned into desert due to over farming. tional Homesteading during frontierthat initial wouldn’t arrive until 1978: well after critiEuropean single con-cerned ‘making large sections American citesfor seeming swoop. the easy comparison projectimmigrants, of independentincluding land for Urban Decaywhere in the first place. genocide, whilewith a zealous attitudeuse’ con- of the the democratic on of various local scales to solveMeanwhile, public interest wouldn’t necessarily resultthrough with the whole process. the Lower East Side, and catalyst large sections “sweat equity.” Scrutiny on behalf of theto participate in “Urban Renewal,” wherewere largethesections era catalyzed an unusual of romanofspeculated the program’s varying degrees of including women, National housingand policies main their people to displacement andparticipate Homesteading gained notabledegree publicity viable, whilecism many that initial women, to in single the democratic earth with lead‘making to ecological devastation that were demolished replaced with to tradi-tional Homesteading during the through Final guidelines for the federal ownership. The policy of “Red Lining” restricted mortcerned use’ of the earth leadamounted the issue of abandoned housing and home hadin large numbers willing to follow of Brooklyn. Seemingly, whole worlds Government Homesteading The political history Homesteading of American citesbecame were and ticizedlocal interest and cross-sectional support the democratic project of independent land support and specificity roseuntil to the surface catalyst for Urban Decaydemolished in the first place. genocide, whilehas zealous attitude con- was minimal, for seeming to solve degree public interest wouldn’t necessarily result gage financing for urban housing neighborhoods towould ecological devastation that would culmiownership in one fell-swoop. on various project of independent land ownership. culminate inof the dust bowl ofathe projects, po-litically frontier erascales catalyzed an process. unusual program wouldn’t arrive 1978: well with the whole (King) have come and gone in the meantime, but ownership. The policy of “Red Lining” restricted mortcerned with ‘making use’ of the earth lead the issue of abandoned housing and home in large numbers willing to follow through was often abused, and its intended users never been simple. The first Homestead Act replaced with housing projects, became po(Chandler, 38). The chance to transfer (Chandler, 41). In 1975, the same year a straightforward: apply, of color, and though revised on the policy nate in the dust30s, bowlwhen of the 1920s and 30s, 1920s and enormous tracksThe of process Thewas process was straightforward: unpopular during the 1960s as the public of roman-ticized interest and crossafter criticism of the program’s varying gage financing for urban neighborhoods to ecological devastation that would culmias these neighborhoods declined, a new ownership in one fell-swoop. with the whole process. (King) Fast-forward to the inner city of New York were not always the ones homesteading: was in tracks 1862turned byonce thenprairie President unpopular during the the 1960s the of government-owned study concluded thatand Urban Homesteading work the apply, land intowork productivity overinto five productivity level, continued de-factobegan inlitically the private when enormous of land AbraMeanwhile, easyas comparison tomassive tradi- amounts Final guidelines for thetofederal program degrees oncesigned prairie land into desert due the land to refer to “slum clearance” sectional support. The chance transfer of support specificity The process was straightforward: apply, ofpolicies color, and though revised on the policy nate in the dust bowl of the 1920s and 30s, in the late 1960s: think of the South Bronx, “frontier” was “opening up” inside the years, and thus five earn the deed and through market for decades. Top-down of to turned intofarming. desertafter due The to farming. tional Homesteading during the frontier wouldn’t arrive untilwilling 1978: well after critito over political over years, thus deed as “Negro Removal.” The fail-ure of massive amounts of government-owned rose to the surface. In 1975, the same including freedmen and the earn mostthe poor. ham Lincoln, theover south had history secededof public began refer to “slum clearance” as abandoned property to those to in Baltimore, Wilmington and Philadelphia Fast-forward to the inner city of New to the inner city of New York work of thethe land into productivity over the fiveLower East Side, level, continued de-facto in the private when enormous tracks of once prairie land on behalf Meanwhile, easy comparison to tradiFinal guidelines for the federal program and largeFast-forward sections abandoned core1960s: of America’s largest cities.wherefederal equity.” Scrutiny “Urban Renewal,” large sections era catalyzed an unusual degree of roman-the cism ofbuildings thetoprogram’s varying degrees ofyear Homesteading been simple.“sweat through “sweat equity.” Scrutiny on mortgage programs resulted in abandoned property those willing to a study concluded that Urban York in the late think of the Humanitarian and ecological consequences from the Union, has and never southern Democrats “Negro Removal” (Chandler, 28). The fail‘make use’ of the seemed like “an had failed to provide a large-scale soluin worlds the late 1960s: think of the South Bronx, years, and thus earn the deed throughof Brooklyn. Seemingly, whole marketand for decades. Top-down policies of turned into to over farming. tionalsupport Homesteading during the frontier wouldn’t arrive until 1978: well after critiGovernment was of minimal, Homesteading The political history of Homesteading hasdesert due ofprograms American cites were demolished ticized interest and cross-sectional support and specificity rose tolike the surface The first Homestead Act was signed behalf the Government was minimal, massive foreclosure and, coinciding ‘make use’ of the buildings seemed Homesteading in Baltimore, Wilmington Dozens of city and federal would South Bronx, the Lower East Side, and the Lower East Side, and large sections proliferated. The policy would amended could no longer block legislation designed ure“Urban of federal mortgage resulted era catalyzed idea who’s time has come” (King). It cism was aof the program’s tion to housing, a New of York Times article “sweat equity.”be Scrutiny on behalf ofhave the come and gone in the meantime, Renewal,” whereprograms large sections an unusual degree of romanvarying degrees but was oftenHomesteading abused, and its intended users never been by simple. first Homestead Act replaced with housing projects, became po(Chandler, 38).tens The chance (Chandler, 41). come.” In 1975, the same year a and Philadelphia in 1862 thenThe President Abra-ham was often abused, and with abandonment, meant that of to transfer “an idea who’s time has It was had failed to provide large sections of Seemingly, be developed to Brooklyn. counteract this “downward of Brooklyn. Seemingly, whole worlds and expanded to encourage ranching in the to proliferate independent, “free” farmers in massive foreclosure and, coinciding with difficult logic to deny, and because Urban described the core issues: Government was minimal, Homesteading The political history of Homesteading has of American cites were demolished and ticized interest and cross-sectional support support and specificity rose to the surface as these neighborhoods declined, a new were not its always the onesusers homesteading: was signed in 1862the by then President Abralitically unpopular the 1960s asof theemptymassive amounts of government-owned studytoconcluded thatbecause Urban Homesteading Lincoln, after south had seceded intended were not always the properties were now a difficult logic deny, and a large-scale solu-tion to housing, a whole worlds come and gone in theduring have come gone in the meantime, but thousands spiral” parthave of theand “War on Poverty,” waspoor. often abused, its intended users never been simple.including The firstmountain Homestead Actthereserve replaced with housingthat projects, became po(Chandler, 38). The chance to transfer 41). In 1975, the same year a “frontier” was “opening up”asinside the west, portions ofand homeat the expense ofthewealthy slave-owning abandonment, meant tensproperty of thousands Homesteading initially faced little political freedmen and most ham Lincoln, after south had seceded public began to refer to “slum clearance” as abandoned to those willing to in Baltimore, Wilmington and(Chandler, Philadelphia from the Union, and southern Democrats ones homesteading: including freedmen owned by the government. By 1973, then Urban Homesteading initially faced little New York Times article described the meantime, but as these neighborhoods as these neighborhoods declined, a new Urbanlargest Homesteading was alone in its were not always the ones homesteading: was signedthis in 1862 by thensteads President Abraunpopular during the 1960s as the massive amounts of government-owned studysoluconcluded Urbanbut Homesteading abandoned core of but America’s cities. Afterthat a brisk limited beginning, the urban forecological planting forests, and subsistence planters. The west wouldlegislation be won; was of litically empty properties wereuse’ now owned by the opposition, the program was Humanitarian and consequences from the no Union, and southern Democrats “Negro Removal” (Chandler, 28). The fail- approved ‘make the buildings seemed like “an opposition, had first failedfederal to provide a large-scale could longer block and the most poor. Humanitarian and President Nixon a of moratorium political the first federal core issues: After a brisk but limited declined, a new “frontier” was “opening “frontier” was “opening up” inside the including freedmen and the most poor. ham Lincoln, after the south had seceded public began to refer to “slum clearance” as abandoned property to those willing to in Baltimore, Wilmington and Philadelphia Dozens of city and federal programs would rhetoric describing this exploited landscape proliferated. The policy would be amended could no longer block legislation designed ure of federal mortgage programs resulted idea who’s time has come” (King). It was a tion to housing, a New York Times article homesteading program is falling victim farming during the New Deal, but only a understood before any official homesteadgovernment. By 1973, Nixon approved a hastily enacted less than a year after it was designed to proliferate independent, ecological consequences proliferated. all federally subsi-dized program was hastily enacted less than a beginning, the urban homesteading to the up” inside the abandoned core of largest cities. to freeze abandoned core of America’s Humanitarian and ecological consequences fromfarmers the Union, and southern Democrats “Negro Removal” (Chandler, 28). The fail‘makeUrban use’ of the buildings seemed like “an had failed to provide a large-scale solube developed to counteract this “downward as a new frontier: ripe for the expansion of and expanded to encourage ranching in the to proliferate independent, “free” in massive foreclosure and, coinciding with difficult logic to deny, and because described the core issues: Before homesteading was urban, it was Before homesteading was urban, it Theofpolicy wouldproliferated. be ever amended and “free” farmers atthe theCivil expense wealthy programs. year it was first written. program is falling attitude victim of to excessive the common common American exfew these intentions materialized. ing began. Before War, of it was only moratorium to freeze all federally subsifirst after written (Chandler, 40). America’s Poverty,” largestofcities. of city andDozens federal programs wouldhousing The policy would be amended could no longer block legislation ure of federal mortgage programs resulted idea who’s time has come” (King). It was a tion to housing, a New York Times article spiral” as part of the “War on Dozens mountain west,designed reserve portions of homeatslave-owning the expense of wealthy slave-owning abandonment, meant that tens of thousands Homesteading initially faced little political entrepreneurial urbantopioneers. the mechanism used to manifest a rural a was the mechanism used to manifest expanded to encourage ranching in planters. The west would The original federal Urban There is little evidence, however, American attitude of excessive expectations and instant cynicism. Actually less be developed counteract this “downward unclear who would be theto winners. (Chandized housing programs (Chandler, 29). city and federal programs would be expanded to encourage ranchingbut in the proliferate “free” farmers massive and, coinciding with difficultwas logic to deny, because Urban beginning, described the core issues: Urban Homesteading was alone in its Afterand a brisk but limited the urban steads for planting forests,west, andand subsistence planters. The westwas would be won; thisbefore was independent, of empty properties wereHomesteading nowinowned by foreclosure theProgram opposition, the first federal program rural landscape from the ‘virgin the mountain reserve portions of be won; this understood any was included that Urban Homesteading was portrayed pectations and instant cynicism. Actually landscape from the ‘virgin land’ ofland’ the open spiral” as part of the “War on Poverty,” developed to counteract this “downward a program than an ad hoc effort to rehabilitate Making use of what is unused, areserve frontier dler, 37) There is little evidence, however, that mountain portions of homethe expense of wealthy abandonment, that tens of thousands Homesteading initially faced little political rhetoric describing this exploited landscape homesteading program is falling victim to the farmingslave-owning during the New Deal, but only awest, understood before any officialat homesteadgovernment. By 1973, Nixon approved a meant hastily enacted less than a year after it wasoptimistically, of the The openconversion west. Theofconversion of home-steads for steads planting forests,forests, and official homestead-ing began. Before the 1974 properties Housing andnow Community overly even at the outset less a program thanstock an ad hoc effort to but Urban Homesteading was alone in its inThe spiral” as part of the “War on Poverty,” west. ‘frontierwas wilderAfter a brisk abandoned but limited beginning, the urban for planting and subsistence planters. The west would be won; this was of empty were owned by the opposition, the first federal program was by selling buildmentality, the freedom of ownership earned original federal Urban Homesteading Urban Homesteading was portrayed overly as a new frontier: ripe for the expansion of Before homesteading urban, it was common American attitude of excessive ex-rehabilitatehousing intentions ever materialized. ing began. Before the Civil only War, itunclear was onlywhofew of these moratorium to freeze all Development federally subsi- Act. It first written (Chandler, 40). ‘frontier wilder-ness’ into ‘productive subsistence farming during the New the Civil War, it was allowed of federal programs. Most journalistic abandoned housing stock rhetoric describing this exploited landscape but Urban Homesteading was alone in homesteadingings program is falling victim to the who will restore during the New a understood before any official homesteadgovernment. By 1973, Nixon a ness’ into ‘productive land’used wastoinitialized hastily enacted lesspectations than a year after it was entrepreneurial urban pioneers. the mechanism manifest a rural for token sums to those with hard work andfarming the opportunity thatDeal, but only Northern politicians the JeffersoProgram was included in theapproved 1974 Housoptimistically, even atandthe outset of federal instant cynicism. Actually less unclear be thepromoted winners. (Chandized housing programs (Chandler, 29). land’ was initialized by granting federal Deal, but only a few of these intentions wouldwho be would the winners. homesteaders to own housing through descriptions included a disclaimer that by selling build-ings for token sums as a new frontier: ripe for the expansion of Before homesteading was urban, it was its rhetoric describing this exploited American attitude of excessive exfew of these intentions ever materialized. began. Before the Civiluse War, was is only to freeze all federally subsi- however, first that written (Chandler, 40). than an ad hoc effortcommon landscape from theto‘virgin land’ of the open by granting federal territory entreprea program to rehabilitate Making ofitwhat unused, a to frontier dler, 37) There is little evidence, live in them, this pioneering experiment homesteading offers the disenfranchised, nianNorthern ideal of the Yeomaning Farmer throughout ingmoratorium and Community Development Act. programs. Most journalistic descriptions territory to entrepre-neurial farmers the in mechanism used to manifest a rural ever materialized.Making use of what is politicians promoted sweat equity byprograms renovating derelict and homesteading would still require a large toand those who will restore urban pioneers. landscape entrepreneurial as a new frontier: ripe for pectations and instant cynicism. Actually less and live in unclear who would be the winners. (Chandized housing (Chandler, 29). west. The conversion of ‘frontier wilderneurial farmers in return for ‘making use’ abandoned housing stock by selling build- is now undergoing all the pains common to mentality, the freedom of ownership earned The original federal Urban Homesteading Urban Homesteading was portrayed overly were rhetorical legacies that continue into the 19th century, and by the time of the It allowed homesteaders to own housing included a disclaimer that homesteading return for ‘making use’ of the richness unused, a frontierMaking mentality, the freedom the Jeffersonian ideal of the37) Yeoman abandoned property. Because it relied on There investment of work and equity, and a program than them, experiment is landscape from the ‘virgin land’ of the open the expansion of entrepreneurial urban an adthis hoc pioneering effort to rehabilitate use of what is unused, a frontier is little evidence, however, that to those ness’ land’ was initialized ings for token sums who will restore work and the opportunity that Northern politicians promoteddler, the JeffersoProgram was included in the 1974 Housoptimistically, even at the outset of federal of the the continent, richness of into the ‘productive continent, starting in of starting in 160-acre bootstrap renewal. contemporary, urbanwith era.thehard Direct links to 1862 Homestead Act,the which allowed any-with hardthe through sweatof equity by renovating derelict Urban would still require ato large investment of of ownership earned work Farmer throughout 19th century, the gumption individual soon-to-be many cities choose demolish buildings now undergoing all the pains common west. The conversion of ‘frontier wilderpioneers. abandoned housing stock by selling buildmentality, freedom of ownership earned The original federal Urban Homesteading Homesteading was portrayed overly by granting federal territory to entrepreand live in them, this pioneering experiment homesteading offers to the disenfranchised, nian ideal of the Yeoman Farmer throughout ing and Community Development Act. programs. Most journalistic descriptions 160-acre plots. “Free Soil” the property plots. “Free Soil” was the was property of and the opportunity that homesteading and by the time of the 1862 Homestead homeowners, the program was seen as a they concluded would not be worth the to bootstrap renewal. The fact is that ness’ into ‘productive land’ was initialized The fact is that urban homesteading, a concept this history helped develop the program of one who had not “taken up arms” against and abandoned property. Because it relied work and equity, and many cities choose to National housing policies were the ings for token sums to those who will restore with hard work and the opportunity that Northern politicians promoted the JeffersoProgram was included in the 1974 Housoptimistically, even at the outset of federal neurial farmers in return for ‘making use’ is now undergoing all the pains common to were rhetorical legacies that continue into the 19th century, and by the time of the It allowed homesteaders to own housing included a disclaimer that homesteading Driven by a national destiny, Homesteading the freefree farmer, the American Farmer, offers to the disenfranchised, were Act, which allowed anyone who bottom-up answer to the centralized proeffort and money required to renovate urban homesteading, a concept of goodno of the farmer, the American Farmer, by granting federal territory to entrepreHomesteading policy marched main catalyst for Urban Decay in the and live in them, this pioneering experiment homesteading offers to the disenfranchised, nian ideal of the Yeoman Farmer throughout ing and Community Development Act. programs. Most journalistic descriptions of good sense and humanity, still provides Urban Homesteading, and similar trouble the United States to homestead, they had on the gumption of individual soon-to-be demolish buildings they concluded would of the richness of the continent, starting in bootstrap renewal. the contemporary, urban era. Direct links to 1862 Homestead Act, which allowed anythrough sweat equity by renovating derelict would still require a large investment of policy marched settlers westward with or little who wrests from the rhetorical legacies that continue into the had not “taken up arms” against the grams of the preceding decades. Before them. A critique developed that Urban sense and humanity, still provides no neurial farmers in return for ‘making use’ settlers westward with little respect first place. The policy of “Red Lining” who independently independently wrests from the land is now undergoing all the pains common to were rhetorical legacies that continue into the 19th century, and by the time of the It allowed homesteaders to own housing included a disclaimer that homesteading 160-acre plots. “Free Soil” was the property free lunch. After that initial “dollar” purchases between reality a particular population in mind –the act this history homeowners, seen a cities choose not betoworthThe thefact effort and money requireda concept is that urban homesteading, helped intention develop theand program of linger through one who had not “taken up arms” against and abandoned property. Because it relied the program work andwas equity, andas many land the bounty of a growing nation. of the richness of the continent, starting in respect or understanding that this ‘unused contemporary, urban era. Direct links to United States to homestead, they had the federal program was signed into law, Homesteading lacked the productive free lunch. After that initial “dollar” Driven by a national destiny, Homesteading understanding that this ‘unused space’ restricted mortgage financing for urban bootstrap renewal. the contemporary, urban era. Direct links to 1862 Homestead Act, which allowed anythrough sweat equity by renovating derelict would still require a large investment of the bounty ofofathe growing nation. According free farmer, the American Farmer, of goodAsense and humanity, still that provides noprice, the work to be done is neither easy nor the United States to homestead,ofthey hadslaves.Urban Homesteading, on the gumption of individual soon-to-be the decades.and similar trouble demolish buildings they included the participation freed bottom-up answer to the centralized pro-concludedtowould renovate them. critique developed According towho theindependently American Government, 160-acre plots. “Free Soil” was property this history helped develop the program a particular population one in mind—the Urban Homesteading had gained notable work element which madecities rural Homesteading purchases price, thea concept work to be done is settlers westward withThe little was inpolicy fact long inhabited land.land. The space’ was inmarched factthe long inhabited The fact is that urban homesteading, this history helped develop the program of who had not “taken up arms” against neighborhoods of color, and though the program and abandoned property. Because it relied and equity, and many choose to “dollar” wrests from the land to the American Government, the national free lunch. After that initial purchases between intention and reality linger through a particular population in mind –the act homeowners, was seen as a not be worth the effort and money required cheap. “Sweat equity” has“Sweat to be matched by it seemed, was anofanswer for grams ofon thevarious preceding decades. Before the Urban while Homesteading lacked thethat productive Driven by a nationalHomesteading, destiny, Homesteading of the free farmer, the American Farmer, the national the frontier belonged to those of Urban Homesteading, and similar act included the participation freed publicity local scales for viable, many speculated initial neither easy nor cheap. equity” respect or understanding that this ‘unused steady erosion of First Nation lands and of good sense and humanity, still provides no Urban Homesteading, and similar trouble the United States to homestead, they had on the gumption of individual soon-to-be demolish buildings they concluded would revised on the policy level, continued desteady erosion of First Nation lands and bounty of a growing According price, the work to be done is neither easy norfunds that are too frequently underestimated. the decades. included the participation of freed slaves. bottom-up answer to the centralized proto renovate them.law, A critique developed that which frontier belonged to those willing nation. to work it. policy marched settlers westward with little freed slaves and poor European immigrants, federal program was signed into Urban element made rural Homesteading who independently wrests from the land willing to work it. space’ was in fact longtoinhabited land. The trouble between between intention and reality slaves. Homesteading, aitparticular seemed,population was in mind seeming to solve issuewas of seen abandoned has that to be matched by funds that are too their people amounted displacement free lunch. After initial “dollar” purchases intention and reality linger through –the act homeowners, thethe program as a notpublic be worthinterest the effortwouldn’t and moneynecessarily required facto in the private market for decades.

STEADING: 1. HISTORICAL HISTORY ANALYSIS: HISTORY 19TH CENTURY

2. HISTORICAL HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: 2. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: MID MID 20TH CENTURY 20THANALYSIS: CENTURY MID 20TH CENTURY

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: 19TH CENTURY 1. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: 1. HISTORICAL 19TH CENTURY ANALYSIS: 19TH CENTURY

to the American Government, the national

Homesteading, it seemed, was an answer for freedinhabited slaves and poor European immigrants, space’ was in fact long land. The Homesteading, it seemed, was an answer for steady erosion of First Nation lands and freed slaves and poor European immigrants,

or understanding that this ‘unused the bounty According Driven byfrontier a national destiny, steadynation. erosion of First Nationrespect lands and through the an answer for freed slaves andthe poor and genocide, while a zealous attitude thedecades. decades. included participation oflinger freed slaves. belonged to thosethe willing to workof it.a growing to the American Government, the national frontier belonged to those willing to work it.

grams of the preceding decades. Before the

Urban Homesteading lacked the productive

cheap. “Sweat equity” has to be matched by

housing and home ownership in one result in large numbers willing frequently price, the work to be done underestimated. is neither easy nor bottom-up answer to the centralized pro- fell- to renovate them. Afunds critique thatto follow Top-down policies of “Urban that developed are too frequently underestimated. federalRenewal,” program was signed into law, Urban element which made rural Homesteading grams of the preceding decades. Before the federal program was signed into law, Urban

Urban Homesteading lacked the productive element which made rural Homesteading

cheap. “Sweat equity” has to be matched by

funds that are too frequently underestimated.

Assistance Board, UHAB. Despite localized success, spokesman for these groups Federal management of the program was began in 1983 and continue today. was not prolific enough to be deemed still noted delays, citing “our necessity to carried out through the department of But this formal history neglects the a successful program in the “War on Housing and Urban Development. HUD popular movement to use sweat equity Poverty.” Despite it’s boot-strap ethic, offices, via Local Urban Homesteading to earn housing for the disenfranchised. struggled through the borrow money from the citythe program to accomplish Agencies, were responsible for the The maze of programs and funding 80s and early 90s under con-servative cumbersome task of choosing federal sources was provoked by a people’s who perceived programs rehabilitation” asforthe main administrations obstacle. properties, accepting and reviewing movement that began, New York designed to assist the(Hatch) urban poor as

owned property from 1976 onward. In 1981, New York City began a formal local Urban HISTORICAL Homesteading program. The program, ran 3. HISTORICAL 3. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: ANALYSIS: by HPD, wasANALYSIS: coupled CURRENT ERA with funding from CURRENT ERA CURRENT ERA storm housing crisis. A new ecology of formal end to Urban Homesteading Home The Improvement which inout of private fundingbegan has developed could not suffocate the conceptLoans, of the burgeoning non-profit and social sweat equity initiatives to earn housing. sectors. Crowd funding Nor was it the last time the boot1983 and continue today. entrepreneurial provides an intriguing model for strap rhetoric around entrepreneurial

HISTORICAL Thespecial poor and the underprivileged need special The poor and the underprivileged need It wasn’t enough. Though Urban Homenew ecology of private funding has teurtheir builders beating theenough. odds to Though earn their It wasn’t Urban HomeA new ecology of private funding A has teur builders beating the odds to earn help and to do what the middle class provided help and guidance to do what the middle classguidance Urban Homesteading steading worked for some, it was not housing captured the popular Urban Homesteading program, steading workedimagination. for some, it was not housingprogram, captured provided the popular imagination. ANALYSIS: MID hasout. the trainingfederal and resources to buy carryHUD out. properties has the training and resources to carry social entrepreneurial sectors. Crowd federal buy HUD properties backoften combined Rehabilitation efforts were often combined and social entrepreneurial sectors.and Crowd funds to backfunds to Rehabilitation efforts were 20TH CENTURY And a few restored houses do not turn neighAnd a few restored houses do not turn a neighfunding thethe government, and section 312 ofsolar the water withheatcommunity gardens, solar“War water program in the onheatPoverty.” program Despite in the “War on Poverty.” Despite funding provides an intriguing model for provides an intriguing model for from the government, aand section from 312 of with community gardens, borhood, around. (unknown author) borhood, or a city, around. (unknown author) or a city, it’s boot-strap ethic, the program struggled 1964 loans Housing ers, Act and opened loans ers, and turbines for power it’s boot-strap ethic, the genprogram struggled 1964 Housing Act opened low-interest evenlow-interest wind turbines for power gen-even wind (CONTINUED) The formal end to Urban Homesteading The formal applied to sweat equity initiatives. New through the 80s and early 90s under con- end to Urban Homesteading for the rehabilitation of dilapidated housing. eration. Homesteading legitimized ongoing

applied to sweat equity initiatives. New through the 80s and early 90s under confor the rehabilitation of dilapidated housing. eration. Homesteading legitimized ongoing the concept of sweat could not suffocate the concept ofcould sweatnot suffocate Yet, the authorAgoes to defend Urbanfunding came Yet, the author goes on to defend Urban organizations around housing advocacy and servative administrations who perceived A main sourcesquatting of federalefforts funding came from squatting while itadministrations capitulated them, organizations around housing advocacy and servative who perceived mainonsource of federal from while it capitulated them, efforts The poor and the underprivileged applications, andcynicism, matching property with City, in Harlem following the 1967 riots. failures that were wasting government initiatives to earn housing. Nor was it as the equitypoor initiatives to earn housing. equity Nor was it HomesteadingCommunity against suchDevelopment Homesteading against such cynicism, direct action have proliferated as the need programs Community Development Block Grants, the homesteading process builttocommudirect action have proliferated need programs designed assist the urban poor designed to assist the urban Block Grants, and the homesteading process builtand communeed special help and guidance to do Homesteaders. Section 810 of the 1974 From here, the radical idea of tenants money. A general narrative developed last time the the last time the boot-strap rhetoricthe around arguingonthat well managed group efforts arguing that well managed group efforts for equitable housing grows. as failures that were wasting government could alsowith be used by housing the nity along withaslivable housing stock. forboot-strap equitable rhetoric housingaround grows. failures that were wasting government CDBGs, which could also on be usedCDBGs, by the whichnity along livable stock. what the middle class has the training the localHousing and Community Development taking housing into their own hands that Urban Homesteading was not entrepreneurial homesteaders would be entrepreneurial homesteaders would be were overcoming obstacles the local scale were overcoming obstacles scale locality money. locality money. to run the administration of their to run the administration of their and resources to carry out. And a few and succeeding Act, which authorized the first federal was further developed by the Episcopal scalable, and only applied to a small housing projects, which may would be evoked. Overhas therediscovered evoked. the next twenty years, thefinancing evoked. Over thehomesteaders next twenty years, the Over in their mission to Home- Agency. and succeeding in their mission to Homehas rediscovered its proLocal Urban Homesteading Agency.willing to seeWith urban pioneers willing to see projects Homesteading itsHomesteading proLocal Urban Homesteading With urban pioneers projects restored houses do not turn a neighUrban Homesteading program, provided Church and UHAB, while the story of population that was willing and capable be applied to sweat equity initiatives. next twenty years, the housing ecology housing ecology in New York would change housing ecology in New York would change stead. stead. In New York, the proliferation of In New York, the proliferation of general narrative developed that Urban ductive roots, now transplanted byductive Urban roots, now transplanted by Urban A general narrative developed thatAUrban borhood, or aHomesteading city, around. federalwas funds to buy as HUD amaprograms teur builders beating the oddsand to technical of providing sweat equity. Therewas was New organizations around housing York would change dramatically, dramatically, but the legacy ofinto Urban butin theNew legacy of Urban early properties as in New was spearheaded asHomesteading early as assistance propHomesteading into the city. The term is Homesteading not scalable,dramatically, and only Local sweat equity in New York acquired, and technical assistance acquired, propHomesteading the city. The term is Homesteading was not scalable, and only Localspearheaded sweat equity programs York Yet, the author goes on to defend back from the government, and section earn their housing captured the popular truth in this assessment, and many advocacy and direct action have Homesteading lives on. but the legacy of Urban Homesteading Homesteading lives on. 1973 by the Episcopal Church of St. John 1973 by the Episcopal Church of St. John administered by organizations such as that applied most commonly associated with urban to a small population that was willhad offered low-interest loans toby anyone erly administered organizationserly such as most commonly associated with urban applied to a small population was willhad offered low-interest loans to anyone

Available sources of funding for Urban Homesteading were complicated. Federal But this formal history neglects the 312 of the 1964 Housing Act opened imagination. Rehabilitation efforts homesteaders even burnt out; never proliferated as thepopular need for equitable lives on. Sweat equity based programs, low-interest loans for the rehabilitation were often combined with community finishing their projects. Just as in frontier housing grows.Homesteading has such as Habi-tat for Humanity, have management ofheaters, the and program was carried out of dilapidated housing. A main source of gardens, solar water even homesteading, the reality of Urban rediscovered its pro-ductive roots, now since beento widely successful. Technical movement use sweat equity to earn housfederal funding came from Community wind turbines for power generation. Homesteading never quite matched transplanted by Urban Homesteading assistance organiza-tions such as Development Block Grants, CDBGs, Homesteading legitimized ongoing the rhetoric that described it. The same into the city. The term is most commonly continued on: fur-ther through the department of Housing and Uring forUHAB thehave disenfranchised. The maze which could also be used by the locality squatting efforts while it capitulated cynicism for top-down government associated with urban of farming and developing models to allow a transition to run the administration of their Local them, and the homesteading process built housing initiatives that helped launch self-sifficiency: in the classic rhetorical into ownership models. After Hurricane Urban Homesteading Agency. community along with livable housing Urban Homesteading eventually tradition of Homesteading. Katrina and devastated New Orleans insources programs funding was proLocal sweat equity programs in stock. With urban pioneers willing to consumed the program. Despite The elements of Urban Homesteading: 2005, then President Bush proposed a New York had offered low-interest projects through, when sufficient continued interest from prospective willing ubrna pioneers, financing program to aide recovery Urbansee Homesteading Agencies, were voked homesteading by a people’s movement began, loans to anyone willing to purchase funding could be acquired, and technical homesteaders, in 1991 Urban models, that and technical assistance, are all in affected areas. The plan, touted by and rehabilitate city owned property assistance properly administered Homesteading formally ended. alive and well. Taking lessons from its republicans for its self-help style, was from 1976 onward. In 1981, Newresponsible by organizations as UHAB, history into consid-eration, the program derailed by democrats who noted that, forsuchthe cumbersome task of for New York City, in Harlem following the York City began a formal local Urban homesteading worked. could awaken from its dormancy—so like previous homesteading programs, Homesteading program. The program, It wasn’t enough. Though Urban long as new properties can be accessed. the initia-tive would be too limited choosing federal properties, accepting ran by HPD, was coupled with funding Home-steading worked for some, it to have any real impacthere, on the post-the radical idea of 1967 riots. From from Home Improvement Loans, which and reviewing applications, and matching tenants taking housing into their own hands property with Homesteaders. Section 810 of was further developed by the Episcopal the 1974 Housing and Community DevelopChurch and UHAB, while the story of ama-

Urban Homesteading against such the Divine, andwilling its Urban Homesteading the Divine, and its Urban Homesteading willing andhomesteading rehabilitate city UHAB, worked. to purchase and rehabilitate city to purchase cynicism, arguing that wellUHAB. managed Board, UHAB. Despite Assistance Board, DespiteAssistance localowned property from 1976 onward. In 1981, owned property fromlocal1976 onward. In 1981, group effortsized on success, the local scale were success, spokesman for these groups spokesman for theseized groups New York City began a formal local Urban New York City began a formal local Urban overcoming still obstacles and succeeding still noted citing “our necessity to program, noted delays, citing “our necessity to delays, Homesteading program. The program, ran Homesteading program. The ran in their mission to money Home-stead. In New borrow moneyby from thewas city coupled to accomplish borrow from the city to accomplish byfrom HPD, was coupled with funding from HPD, with funding York, the proliferation rehabilitation” as the Improvement main obstacle.Loans, (Hatch) rehabilitation”ofasHomesteading the main obstacle. (Hatch) Loans, which began in Home whichHome beganImprovement in was spearheaded as early as 1973 by 1983 and continue today. 1983 and continue today. the EpiscopalAvailable Churchsources of St.ofJohn thefor Urban Available sources of funding for Urban funding Divine, and its Urban Homesteading were complicated. Federal Homesteading were complicated. Homesteading Federal But this formal history neglects the popular But this formal history neglects the popular Assistance Board, UHAB. management the program wassweat carried out to earn management of theDespite program was carried out ofmovement movement to use equity hous- to use sweat equity to earn houslocal-ized success, spokesman thesethrough Housing and Ur-The maze through the departmentfor of Housing and Ur-the department ing for ing for theofdisenfranchised. of the disenfranchised. The maze of groups still noted delays, citing “our and funding sources was proprograms and funding sources wasprograms pronecessity to Urban borrow money from the city Urban Homesteading Agencies, were Homesteading Agencies, were voked by a people’s movement that began, voked by a people’s movement that began, to accomplish rehabilitation” as the main responsible forfor theNew cumbersome of responsible for the cumbersome task of for New York City,task in Harlem following theYork City, in Harlem following the obstacle. choosing federal properties, accepting choosing federal properties, accepting riots. From here, the radical idea of 1967 riots. From here, the radical 1967 idea of and reviewing tenants applications, matching Availableand sources of funding forand matching reviewing applications, tenants taking housing into their own hands takingand housing into their own hands property Section by 810the ofEpiscopal Urban Homesteading were complicated. property with Homesteaders. Section 810 ofwith Homesteaders. was further developed by the Episcopal was further developed 1974 Housing and and Community Developthe 1974 Housing and Communitythe DevelopChurch and UHAB, while the story of amaChurch UHAB, while the story of ama-

NEIGHBOUHOOD ENTREPREUNERS NEIGHBOUHOOD ENTREPREUNERS PROGRAM (NEP) HPD PROGRAM (NEP) HPD enables neighborhood-based private NEP enables neighborhood-based NEP private development companies to purchase and development companies to purchase and manage clusters of occupied and vacant manage clusters of occupied and vacant City-owned buildings. Buildings selected for NEP City-owned buildings. Buildings selected for NEP are sold to the Neighborhood Partnership are sold to the Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Corporation Housing Development Fund Corporation (NPHDFC), a subsidiary of the Enterprise (NPHDFC), a subsidiary of the Enterprise Foundation, Foundation, for $1 each and then leased to the for $1 each and then leased to the entrepreneurs. The properties are eligible for entrepreneurs. The properties are eligible for Federal(LIHTC), Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits real property tax abatements and other local real property tax abatements local and other financial support. HPD provides permanent financial support. HPD provides permanent financing financing through a mix of City Capital and through a mix of City Capital and Federal HOME funds at a cost of approximately Federal HOME funds at a cost of approximately per- unit. This program ran from 1994 $120,000 per unit. This program ran$120,000 from 1994 2007 2007 and saw hundreds of buildings andand saw hundreds of buildings and thousands of units rehabilitated into affordable thousands of units rehabilitated into affordable housing by private entities. housing by private entities.

UHAB, homesteading worked.of providing sweating and capable of providing sweat equity. ing and capable equity. Sweat equity based programs, such HabiSweat as Habirhetorical tradition of Homesteading. andequity based programs, such rhetorical tradition ofas Homesteading. There was truth in this assessment,There and was truth in this assessment, tat for Humanity, have since been widely tat for Humanity, have since been widely many homesteaders even burnt out; never many homesteaders even burnt out; never successful. Technical assistance organizasuccessful. Technical assistance organizations tions such as UHAB have continued on:such fur- as UHAB have continued on: furthe reality of Urban Homehomesteading, the reality of Urbanhomesteading, Homether developing models to allow a transition ther developing models to allow a transition steading never quite matched the rhetoric steading never quite matched the rhetoric into ownership models. into ownership models. that described it. The same cynicism for that described it. The same cynicism for

top-down government housing initiatives top-down government housing initiatives After After Hurricane Katrina devastated NewHurricane Katrina devastated New that helped launch Urban Homesteading that helped launch Urban Homesteading Orleans in 2005, then President Bush Orleans consumed the program. De- in 2005, then President Bush eventually consumed the program.eventually Deproposed a homesteading programproposed to aide a homesteading program to aide spite continued interest from prospective spite continued interest from prospective recovery areas. The plan, touted recovery in affected areas. The plan, toutedin affected The elements of Urban Homesteading: willhomesteaders, in 1991 Urban Homesteading The elements of Urban Homesteading: willhomesteaders, in 1991 Urban Homesteading by republicans for its self-help style, was by republicans for its self-help style, was formally ended. formally ended. derailed noted that, derailed by democrats who noted that, likeby democrats technical technicalwho assistance, are like all alive and well. assistance, are all alive and well. programs, the previous homesteading programs, previous the initia-homesteading Taking lessons from its history into considTaking lessons from its initiahistory into considtive real would be too limited have any realawakeneration, tive would be too limited to have any eration, the to program could from itsthe program could awaken from its housing impact on the post-storm housing impact crisis. on the post-storm dormancy dormancy --so long crisis. as new properties can --so long as new properties can be accessed.

be accessed.

MODEL

goiverning and operating themselves. UHAB has since been the Ed Koch, effective Oct. 1, 1991. key Technical Assistance Providor for Urban in NYC. Currently, there areHomesteading some 1500

3. Propose “Homesteading areas” tead Board nominated 4. Establish local Community Boards It eventually transfit Philidelphia Hous1. THE ORIGINAL Vacancy Identification Process: orporation (PHDC). LOW - INCOME1. City owned vacant housing HOUSING 2. Fast tracked foreclosed buildings to: 2. Water Meter workers identify abanPROGRAM t property doned properties and the Homestead In the late 1970’s there was an estamated moderate-income families, 2. Sufficient ure proceedings on buildings in Philadelphia. board inspects and builds a list of poten31,000 vacant time to facilitate homesteads, 3. Financial assistance for rehabilitation, 4. Production the goal of supporting affordable tial homesteads roperty toWith speeded

Philadelphia PHILADELPHIA model MODEL of urban 1.homesteading THE ORIGINAL 1. THE ORIGINAL

housing for low income people the Asso- quotas dependent on city size, administraciation of Community Organizations for tive capacity, and level of abandonment, Reform Now (ACORN), lead a sophisti- and 5. aggressive solicitation of houses cated squatters movement throughtout the through acceleration of tax foreclosure. In the lateIt 1970’s there was an estamated Sufficient time to facilitate homesteads, city. spawned a model of Homesteading 31,000 vacant buildings in Philadelphia. Financial assistance for rehabilitation, designed as a “housing program” rather 3. Administration: With the goal of supporting affordable 4. Production quotas dependent on than a “property rehabilitation program”. The program was first administered by an housing for low income people Associty size, administra-tive capacity, moderate-income families, 2. Sufficient In the late 1970’s therethe was an estamated Independent Homestead Board ciation of Community Organizations and level abandonment, and3.nominated 5. time tooffacilitate homesteads, Financial 31,000 vacant buildings in Philadelphia. In 1973,Now the Philadelphia City by the City solicitation Council. It eventually transfor Reform (ACORN), lead Council a affordableaggressive of houses through assistance for rehabilitation, 4. Production With the goal of supporting fered to the non-profit Philidelphia Houspassed Ordinance 543, establishing a sophisti-catedhousing squatters movement acceleration of tax foreclosure. for low income people the Assoquotas dependent on city size, administraingAdministration:The Development Corporation (PHDC). municipal program that wouldaOrganizations serve throughtout the city.ofItCommunity spawned modelas for was tive capacity, and levelprogram of abandonment, ciation of Homesteading designed as center a “housing first administered bysolicitation an Independent Reform Now (ACORN), lead sophistiand 5. aggressive of houses a comprehensive resource forathe cated movement through acceleration program” rather than a “property Homestead Board nominated by the rehabilitation ofsquatters vacant propertiesthroughtout by Itthe had the authority to: of tax foreclosure. city. It spawned a model of Homesteading rehabilitation program.” City Council. It eventually transhomesteaders. The Philadelphia home1. Identify and select property as a “housing program” rather In 1973, thedesigned Philadelphia City Council feredAdministration: to the non-profit Philidelphia steading model incorporated: 1. Restric- 2. Institute foreclosure proceedings on than a543, “property rehabilitation The program was first administered passed Ordinance establishing a program”. Hous-ing Development Corporationby an tion of eligibility to low income and vacant or blighted propertyBoard to speeded Independent Homestead nominated municipal program that would serve (PHDC).It had the authority to:1. In 1973, the Philadelphia City Council by the City Council. It eventually transas a comprehensive resource center for Identify and select property 2. Institute passed Ordinance 543, establishing a fered to the non-profit Philidelphia the rehabilitation of vacant properties foreclosure proceedings on vacant Housor municipal program that would serve as ing Development (PHDC).to by homesteaders. The Philadelphia blighted property toCorporation speeded transfer resource center home-steadinga comprehensive model incorporated: 1. for the Homesteader. 3. Propose “Homesteading rehabilitation of vacant properties It had the authority to: Community Restric-tion of eligibility to low income by areas” 4. Establish local 1. Identify and select property homesteaders. The Philadelphia homeand moderate-income families, 2. Boards.

LOW - INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM LOW - INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM

equity.” In exchange for labor performed by prospective residents, theEQUITY city offered percent tenants willing to HDFCs inhabit and in NYC.” SWEAT + onetosimultaneously Homesteading Requirments: renovate vacant Since its creation UHAB has asURBAN HOMESTEADING interest rates on 30-year mortsisted the preservation of over city-owned buildings. Participants URBAN ASSISTANCE BOARD (UHAB) 1. Proof of trades skills + financing 1700 buildings and created homefor the program throughMorales a gages for the gut rehabilitation of - Frank 2. 5 year occupancy requirement HOMESTEADING IN qualified ownership opportunities for over In 1973 UHAB was launched in Request For Proposal process. Afcity-owned abandoned buildings. 30,000 households. Harlem to offer assistance to bui3. No retake policy ter renovation, HPD sold the buildNYC lidngs interested in cooperatively ings to the residents HDFC for $250 per 4. Community approval of Homesteader Unfortunately, despite positive COOPERATIVES: goiverning and operating themapartment with the stipulation thatsince been the selves. UHAB has support President Jimmy “From 1976from to 1980then the New York $250 Development Fund Corthe per building operate as astipulation Housing apartment with the key Housing Technical Assistance Providor Sweat City “Sweat Equity Program,” rethat thefrom building operate as a Housing Development Fund Corporation for Urban Homesteading in NYC. is a special type Carter, along with financing poration or HDFC equity acting to callsand for the rehabilitation Development FundArticle Corporation (HDFC) (HDFC) under XI laws, to tenants willing to inhabit and SWEAThomesteading EQUITY + buildings four major New York by under Article XI laws, which included of abandoned and the banks, which included limited on equity housing cooperaof equity limited simultaneously renovate vacant limited equity on resale profits. The growing demand for low-income resale profits. The classification as city-owned buildings. Participants URBANin 1980 the program was defunct. NYC classification as an HDFC ensured tive in New York City which is inhousing, sought to facilitate qualifiedtransfor the program through a an HDFC ensured building affordbuilding afford-ability for 40 years. In HOMESTEADING IN fer of ownership of city owned Request For Proposal process. Afability 40 Homesteading years. corporated In 1991, the under Article XI of the “From 1976 to 1980 the New York City 1991, the for Urban Program ter renovation, HPD sold the buildhousing to low and moderate NYC “Sweat Urban Homesteading Program was Equity Program,” reacting to by order of then Mayor Ed But it wasn’t defunct forwas long! transfer to Homesteader. ings the residents forrepealed $250 In per New York State Housing Finance income by way of to“sweat repealed by order thenCurrently, Mayor calls for thepeople rehabilitation of abandoned Koch, effective Oct. 1,of 1991. apartment with the stipulation that 3. Propose “Homesteading areas” equity.” In exchange for labor and the growing forCity there 1980 the New York DepartEd effective Oct. 1,NYC.” 1991. are some 1500 HDFCs in “From 1976buildings to 1980 the New York demand Law. Under this law, the city of the building operate as aKoch, Housing 4. Establish local Community Boards low-income housing, sought to facilitate performed by prospective resi-Frank Morales. Currently, there are some 1500 City “Sweat Equity Program,” reDevelopment Fund Corporation ment ofcity Housing Preservation and transfer ofthe ownership of cityone owned dents, offered percent acting to calls for the rehabilitation HDFCs in NYC.” New York is able to sell buildings (HDFC) under Article XI laws, Homesteading Requirments: Vacancy Identification Process: housing to low and moderate income interest on 30-year mortof abandonedDevelopment buildingsrates and the which included limited equity (HPD) initiated anon HDFC 1. Proof of trades skills + financing 1. City owned vacant housing directly to tenant or community people bylow-income waythe of “sweat equity.” growing demand for gages for gut rehabilitation of resale profits. The classification as Frank Morales 2. 5 year occupancy requirement 2. Fast tracked foreclosed buildings In exchange for labor performed by COOPERATIVES housing, sought to facilitate transUrban Homesteading Program as an buildings. HDFC ensured building affordcity-owned abandoned groups to provide low-income 3. No retake policy 2. Water Meter workers identify abanprospective residents, the city offered fer of ownership of city owned ability for 40 years.HDFC In 1991,COOPERATIVES: the 4. Community approval of Homesteader Unfortunately, despite positive doned properties and the Homestead Housing Development Fund asupport response toPresident residents illegally one percent interest rates on 30-year housing to low and moderate housing. Many HDFCs were creUrban Homesteading Program was board toinspects and builds a list of potenfrom then Jimmy Corporation or HDFC is a special Housing Development Fund type Cortransfer Homesteader. mortgages for the gut rehabilitation income people by way of “sweat repealed by order of then Mayor tial homesteads moderate-income families, 2. Sufficient equity.” In exchange vacant buildings (squatVacancy Identification Process: Homesteading Requirments: Carter, along with financing from ofporation limited equity housing coopera-tive 3. Propose “Homesteading areas” ofinhabiting city owned abandoned buildings. through a process of co-op or HDFC isated a special type for labor Ed Koch, effective Oct. 1, 1991. 1.Establish City owned vacant housing 1. Proof of trades skills + financing in New York City which is incorporated 4. local Community Boards four major New York banks, by Unfortunately, despite positive support performed byting) prospective resilimited Currently, there are of some 1500 equity housing cooperain poor and red-lined neigh2. 5 year occupancy requirement 2. Fast tracked foreclosed buildings conversion of a foreclosed, cityunder Article of theCity New York is infrom thenthe President Jimmy Carter, 1980 program wasHDFCs defunct. dents, the city offered one percent time to facilitate homesteads, 3. Financial tive in NewXIYork which in NYC.” Requirments: Vacancy Process: 3. No retake policy 3. WaterIdentification Meter workers identify aban- Homesteading State Housing Finance Law. Under along with financing from four major interest rates borhoods. on 30-year mort- At the time, thecorporated program under Article XI of the trades skills + approval financing of Homesteader 1. City owned vacantand housing doned properties the Homestead 1. Proof4.of Community this law, the city of New owned York is able property. As of 2008, over New York banks, by 1980 the program gages for the gut rehabilitation of Frank Morales FUNDS: Future Urban Ho But it wasn’t defunct for long! In 2. 5 year occupancy requirement 2. Fast tracked foreclosed buildings New York State Housing Finance board inspects and builds afor list of rehabilitation, 4. Production assistance to sell buildings directly 1,000 to tenant orHDFC cooperatives have granted to $10,000 per unit defunct.buildings. Butup it wasn’t defunct city-owned was abandoned 3. No retake policy 2. Water Meter workers identify aban1980 the New York City DepartLaw. Under thistolaw, thelowcity of potential homesteads. community groups provide trative + rehabilitation fun for despite long! Inpositive 1980 the New York City 4. Community approval of Homesteader Unfortunately, doned properties and the Homestead HDFC COOPERATIVES: ment of Housing Preservation and New York is able to sell buildings income housing. Many HDFCs were board inspects and builds a list of potenbeen developed in the city. Depart-ment of Housing Preservation support from then President Jimmy Housing Development Fund Corquotas dependent on city size, administraDevelopment (HPD)initiated initiated an once supplied. tial homesteads totype tenant or community through a process of co-op Carter, along with financing from and Development (HPD) porationanor HDFCcreated isdirectly a special

In the late 1970’s there was an estamated 31,000 vacant buildings in Philadelphia. With the goal of supporting affordable housing for low income people the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), lead a sophisticated squatters movement throughtout the city. It spawned a model of Homesteading designed as a “housing program” rather than a “property rehabilitation program”. steading model incorporated: 1. Restriction of eligibility to low income and

2. Institute foreclosure proceedings on vacant or blighted property to speeded

In 1973, the Philadelphia City Council passed Ordinance 543, establishing a municipal program that would serve as a comprehensive resource center for the 1. RECOMENDATION rehabilitation of vacant properties by 1. RECOMENDATION homesteaders. The Philadelphia homesteading model incorporated: 1. Restriction of eligibility to low income and

HOMESTEADING HOMESTEADINGNEW NYC YORK CITY

RECOMENDATI

Urban Homesteading Program four major New York banks, by Program Urban Homesteading as a as

conversion a foreclosed, city-owned groups toofprovide low-income

of limited equity housing cooperaproperty. AsisMany ofin-2008, over 1,000 HDFC a response to residents illegally was tive capacity, and level of abandonment,1980 the program response todefunct. residents illegally inhabiting housing. HDFCs were cretive in New York City which cooperatives have been developed in vacant buildings (squat-ting) in poor and inhabiting vacant buildings (squatcorporated under Article XI of the a process of co-op OWNERSHIP: Alternative ated through RECOMENDATIONS the city.Finance But it wasn’tred-lined defunct for long! In red-lined neighborhoods. At the York time, New State Housing ting) in poor and neighconversion of a foreclosed, cityand 5. aggressive solicitation of houses 1980 the Newtheborhoods. In 1973 UHAB was launched in Since its creation UHAB has faced assisted by ho York Citygranted Departthe challenges program to $10,000 per this law, the city of Law. At theuptime, the Under program owned property. As of 2008, over Harlem to offer assistance to builidngs the preservation of over 1,700 ment of Housing andto inhabit FUNDS: Future Urban Homesteading programs need stronger adminisunit toPreservation tenants and New sell buildings URBAN granted upwilling to $10,000 perYork unit is able to 1,000 HDFC cooperatives have interested cooperatively goiverning and created home-ownership and eventual sale of Development (HPD) initiated an simultaneously renovate vacant citydirectly to tenant or community trative + inrehabilitation funding sourcesbuildings than Section 810 and Section 312units. through acceleration of tax foreclosure. Urban Homesteading HOMESTEADING and operating themselves. UHAB has opportunities for over 30,000 been developed in the city. ProgramParticipants as owned buildings. qualified groups to provide low-income

once supplied.

since been the key Technical Assistance households. a response to illegally housing.For Many HDFCs were creforresidents the program through a Request ASSISTANCE Providor for Urban Homesteading in inhabiting vacant buildings ated through Proposal process.(squatAfter renovation, HPDa process of co-op OWNERSHIP: Alternative models of ownership are necessary to address BOARD NYC. ting) in poorsold andthe red-lined neighconversion citybuildings to the residents for of a foreclosed, the challenges faced by homesteaders seeking the accumulation of assets borhoods. At the time, the program owned property. As of 2008, over FUNDS: Future Urban Homesteading need stronger adminisand eventualprograms sale of units. granted up to $10,000 per unit 1,000 HDFC cooperatives have trative + rehabilitation funding sources than Section 810 and Section 312 been developed in the city. once supplied.

Administration: The program was first administered by an Independent Homestead Board nominated by the City Council. It eventually transfered to the non-profit Philidelphia Housing Development Corporation (PHDC). It had the authority to: 1. Identify and select property 2. Institute foreclosure proceedings on vacant or blighted property to speeded

RECOMENDATIONS

3. STOCK: New sources o particular private and bank

transfer to Homesteader. 3. STOCK: New sources of housing stock4. need to be made available. InMODE LOW INCOME particular private and bank owned stock. OWNERSHIP: Alternative models of ownership are necessary to address challenges faced by homesteaders seeking the accumulation of assets 3. Propose “Homesteading theareas” and eventual sale of units.4. LOW INCOME MODELS: New low-income models FUTURE RESEA 4. Establish local Community Boards 3. STOCK: New sources of housing stock need to be made available. In FUTURE RESEARCH

particular private and bank owned stock.

1. Consolidate key challen mendations from all homesteading reports (Homesteading DemonstraHomesteading Requirments: Vacancy Identification Process: mendations from all home tion, Multifamily Demonstration, Local Property Demonstration, + FUTURE RESEARCH others. tion, Multifamily Demons 1. Proof of trades skills + financing 1. City owned vacant housing 1. Consolidate key challenges of past homesteading programs + recomothers. mendations from all homesteading (Homesteading 2. Create reports a clear profile of theDemonstraremaining Urban Homesteaded 2. 5 year occupancy requirement 4. LOW INCOME MODELS: New low-income models of past homesteading programs + recom1. Consolidate key challenges

2. Fast tracked foreclosed buildings tion, Multifamily Demonstration, Local Property Demonstration, + others. in NYC. include financial status, ownership model, 3. This Noshould retake policy 2. Water Meter workers identify aban- buildings 2. Create a clear profile of buyout process, demographics, challenges + recommendations. 2. Create a clear profile of the remaining Urban Homesteaded 4. Community approval of Homest doned properties and the Homestead buildings in NYC. This should include financialof status, ownership model, 3. UHAB diagnosis current housing ecology buildings in NYC. This sh buyout process, demographics, challenges + recommendations. board inspects and builds a list of poten4. Additional interviewee recomendations. buyout process, demograp 3. UHAB diagnosis of current housing ecology tial homesteads 4. Additional interviewee recomendations.

3. UHAB diagnosis of cur

4. Additional interviewee r

MY LIFE AS AN URBAN HOMESTEADER By Frank Morales Although I’ve been a NYC squatter since about 1980, I have also been involved with the “official” urban homesteading movement. When I speak of urban homesteading I am speaking of two distinct but interrelated aspects. One is the legal, official, permitted, somewhat bureaucratic urban homesteading program initiated by the federal government in the mid-1970s and implemented in various municipalities around the country. The other involves the un-permitted, extra-legal, “walk-in urban homesteading” called squatting that also occurred in various parts of the country. Seeming opposites, they are actually quite related and I’ve been part of both. In 1980, I was living in the South Bronx in a neighborhood overwhelmingly Puerto Rican and Afro-American. Portrayed in mainstream media as the symbol of urban poverty in America, having suffered decades of politically motivated policies of forced displacement and calculated disinvestment, my neighborhood was the prime time destination of touring popes, presidents and buses full of gawkers gazing at the barely living testament to society’s disdain for its poor citizens. As for me, I was finishing up my church assignment at Saint Ann’s Episcopal Church where I’d been functioning as an associate priest. Wanting to remain in the neighborhood and needing a place to live, I decided with others to move into two abandoned, city owned buildings sitting along Saint Ann’s Avenue. Motivated by need as well as desire to do something creative with all the devastation, and not all that mindful of the illegality of the situation (seems like all the empty houses with all the homeless is the real crime), I was excited to work with others on such a project. The buildings, 281-283 Saint Ann’s off 139th Street had, like so much of the neighborhood and borough, been slated for demolition. Sitting adjacent to a giant corner vacant lot, the buildings were about to be destroyed. So with a bit of fanfare, an Easter liturgical action to “remove the stone” from the front door, we moved in: Me and Stevie Montalvo, Frenchie and Capon, Brunie and DooWop, Catherine and Tim, Juanito, Robero, Jorge and Kaz, and some members of the Young Lords, a Puerto Rican Liberation organization that had deep roots in the neighborhood and People’s Park on 142nd Street, who some years earlier in 1970 had participated in “Operation Move-In”

squatter actions in East Harlem and various parts of the city. Neglected for years, the buildings were a wreck so we organized workdays, cleaned out the debris, gutted out all the rot, and utilizing local skills and very little money, but with a ton of spirit, we made homes for ourselves, including me. With Brother Roger and the local Franciscan religious community, including Mary Kay and Sharon women religious, we organized a narcotics and alcohol abuse counseling and detox center in our storefront that also provided meals. Orlando, a long time resident of the neighborhood stripped the motor out of a washing machine left for dead in the lot across the street, installed it in the remnant of the rusty boiler in our basement and we had hot pipes, hot water and heat all winter. We raised funds to purchase building materials by throwing hip hop shows at Saint Ann’s gym where - if my memory serves me well - the Orange Crush and troops from the Zulu Nation (up on Cypress Ave) scratched and danced, along with others during those days when rap was being born. Jane Dickson, Charlie and John Ahearn, Kiki Smith, Tom Otterness and artists from COLAB also contributed to the cause, part of a wonderfully engaged art movement centered around Stefan Eins and Fashion Moda up on 147th street - if my memory serves me well. So there we were, dug deep in the epicenter of urban poverty in America in the era of Reaganism, engaged in a direct action, self-help, DIY operation when one day, six months into our residency and a lot of hard work, a few guys in suits from HPD (Housing, Preservation and Development) show up and proceed to inform us that, “according to our records you are illegally occupying city property.” In fact, we were. Nonetheless, recognizing that we were not about to leave, they eventually saw fit to invite us down to their offices at their “alternative management division” at 75 Maiden Lane to discuss the matter. About a dozen of us from the hood went to negotiate with the man. Well, lo and behold! While we were chastised as “squatters” in the beginning of the meeting, by meetings end, we were accorded legal “urban homesteader” status. That’s right! In fact, they even offered “urban homesteading” leases to each of us on the spot! All across the country, publicly assisted efforts that engaged low-income people in self-help renovation of vacant housing were in operation. Spurred on by mid-70s federal legislation that allowed

for, financed and studied local urban homesteading “demonstration projects,” in truth, the government was attempting to contain urban grass root squatter movements that were breaking out all over America and incorporate them into more acceptable channels. Attempting to come to grips with the crisis in the cities, the consequence of massive “planned shrinkage” and the resulting endemic vacancy and crumbling of inner city neighborhoods, these projects, though limited, were also creating opportunities for poor and working people to utilize their “sweat equity” in exchange for an opportunity to acquire a home, or maybe even own a home. Now, to be precise, the design of these official efforts sought to incorporate willing and eligible “urban homesteaders” in strictly weekend work projects in vacant and dilapidated buildings in poor neighborhoods. They were never intended nor did they allow for outright, full-time occupation, but only a closely monitored type of workfare over the course of what often amounted to years of weekend labor! And you weren’t always assured that you would even acquire the property in the end! In our case though, we’d made it clear that despite our newly acquired legal status, we would never leave our homes, and that if need be, we would fight for our right to rebuild our community! Fortunately, with people like Bruce Dale and others in the “alternative management” office in our corner we were able to remain and live in our buildings full-time as legal urban homesteaders. Practically, what that entailed was our providing regular reports to our HPD contact, Simon Keifer about the work that we were doing, how much cash we had in the bank, producing copies of receipts and records and being available for occasional inspections, all situated within the context of the usual administrative paternalism familiar to poor people. As it turned out, when things seemed pretty secure with our buildings, having spent about four years there, including collaborating with hundreds of neighbors in building a park on the vacant corner of 139th Street called Children’s Park (still there), I decided to hand my very first squatted apartment over to friends, leave the South Bronx and the urban homesteader status and head back down to the Lower East Side where I was born and raised. That was 1985 and again, in need of a place to live, I discovered a neighborhood that had similarly suffered the epidemic of abandonment and vacancy. With boarded up and cinderblocked buildings all over, the Catholic Church’s local Joint Planning Council had organized a number of HPD sanctioned urban homesteads in the neighborhood that were in various stages of accomplishment, all aiming to occupy and eventually own their homesteader apartments as low-income coops legally as Housing Development Fund Corporations (HDFCs). Myself though, having become acclimated to a more immediate, direct action approach, and having an immediate need to create a place to

live, and quite possibly feeling some sort of entitlement (“I was born here”), and simply loving the thrill of working in vacated and “abandoned” spaces, I was fortunate to meet and connect with dozens of neighborhood people all committed to the same end: un-permitted squatting of the vacant property on the Lower East Side with the aim of creating housing, centers of art, culture and politics, and whatever creative hearts and minds could come up with. At the same time, it was announced that there would be no more official urban homesteading slots in the pipeline, at least not in the soon to become very fashionable and profitable “East Village.” In fact, by the mid-1980s the legal option for “sweat equity” minded folks —the Urban Homesteading Program— was dead in NYC. I remember speaking with HPDs Urban Homesteading Program director at the time who told me that they had put forward an “RFP” or “request for proposals” for those willing and able (if not desperate) to enroll in the Program. According to the director, they received some 12,000 applications to urban homestead. That’s 12,000 separate addresses, 12,000 separate groups of desirous homesteaders who wanted to homestead vacant spaces, 12,000 plus citizens of NYC who really wanted a shot at renovating a vacant space in order to build a home they could afford … and guess what? The city accepted TWO of those 12,000 applications and SHUT DOWN the Urban Homesteading Program! And further still, many of those official homesteads on the Lower East Side, like the Eleanor Bumpers Homestead on 8th Street (B and C), who had worked for years, lost them and were swindled out of their buildings which are condos today. Consequently, my only option at the time (1985), and the option left open to those of us who sought to act on our belief in the human right to a home, who are drawn to the intrinsic goodness of creative and collective work, who bask in the joy of mutual aid and meeting the needs of those who suffer the violence of homelessness; our only option was to squat, which we did, enacting, not without resistance from the forces of speculation and greed, a form of “walkin homesteading” which eventually lead to the occupation of some thirty buildings on the Lowe East Side, with eleven remaining today, one within which I still reside.. In conclusion, I’d like to point out that that two aspects of urban homesteading to which I have referred; namely the permitted and the un-permitted, are part of my history and the history of the urban homesteading movement as a whole. With this in mind, I would suggest that overcoming the tyranny of speculation on housing will require the bridging of both legal and otherwise un-permitted means to achieve our ends; that merging these two strategies will continue to prove its relevancy in opening up space for negotiation and insuring progress in our non-violent struggle for homes for all and the practical realization of our right and opportunity to rebuild our city in the vacated and warehoused urban spaces all around us.

INCLUSIVE HOUSING PROGRAMS

AT THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM EXAMPLES OF INCLUSIVE PROGRAMS TO REASSESS THE CONCEPT OF URBAN HOMESTEADING

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING HOMESTEADER There’s a story of Homesteading movement in USA. It’s a story of important achievements in urban renewal and redevelopment. It’s a story in which homesteading programs, issued in many cities in the States, have been at the same time a chance for low income families to achieve their right to dwelling, and on the other to restore tax productivity in those neighborhood affected by decline and abandonment.

Beneath this story, many others, though. These are made by fights and struggles, mostly without a happy end. Different stories, where the protagonists are the urgency and even the desperation of poor people in need for a home. Urgency, because housing issues involve more than economic aspects of daily life; it deals with the security and stability required so that individuals can move beyond focusing on basic daily survival needs. Desperation, because this story doesn’t come without tragedy. The problem of affordable housing speaks mainly about real people, not economical financial abstractions. Squatting, homelessness, vacancy shouldn’t be seen as the diseases urban homesteading is meant to solve, but rather as symtomps of a broader problem unfolding the whole history of United States.

HOUSING IS NOT ONLY A MATTER OF MONEY More can be done in assessing more inclusive and comprehensive goals to each of the actors involved in such programs. How can we improve homesteading? Is

5 4

there something we can learn from different experiences for affordable housing? Looking to different strategies in different contexts doesn’t pretend to find solutions ready-touse, because it comes with its limitations in number of examples, incompleteness of argumentation and estrangement from U.S. context. Looking trough these experiences throughout the world tries to give the chance to point back the spotlight onto the core of the problem. Housing problem can not restrict itself to a matter of economies, but as well of sustenance and quality of life. Surely a building can be monetized; a dwelling can’t, because it embodies a primary basic need for people’s daily sustenance.

Land value, tax income or financial models aren’t enough to circumscribe the topic. Themes like sustainable models of building, social mix, health and social services have to implemented. In this way this short collection of case studies - awarded by independent housing research foundations - gives an overview of several topics, often underestimated (or completely forgotten) by the debate concerning inclusive housing models.

HOUSING FIRST, DWELLING THEN

Another aim of this research is to show how housing issue can not be delegated. Communitarian models and social aggregation should be the actual engine for solving the problem. The most affecting and successful experiences are those which push for a collective dimension among the individuals involved in the program. At this point, if a new input has to be given to Urban Homesteading movement, several milestones are identified. The core message is that homesteading model has not to become a real estate model, and that the first step to be accomplished is self-organization and aggregation of the people who needs housing, as the community can bear challenges that an individual couldn’t.

7 6

CASE STUDIES | North America 1 | Sunflower Way

| New York City (NY)

2 | Programme de Vivienda

| Xalapa (Mexico)

3 | Walker Landing

| Hayward (CA)

4 | 990 Polk street

| San Francisco (CA)

5 | Street to Homes

| Toronto (Canada)

Europe 6 | Poetic Freedom 8

| Rotterdam (NL)

7 | Building partnership to Eradicate Poverty | Poland (PL) 8 | Lighthouse Wien

| Wien (A)

1. SUNFLOWER WAY INTENTION CONTEXT

USA 4. 990 POLK STREET USA ENERGY EFFICIENT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INTENTION HOUSING + SERVICES FOR LOW-INCOME ELDERLY WITH HEALTH AND MENTAL PROBLEMS POP.: 1.400.000 BRONX NEW YORK CONTEXT TENDERLOIN SAN FRANCISCO POP.: 750.000 Sharp decline in population, livable housing, and the quality of

6. KLUS-HOUSES INTENTION

life in since the 1970’s.

CONTEXT

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION Sunflower Way is a project that is designed to be social and environmental sustainable, and provides first-time homeowners a long term benefit that goes beyond a subsidized purchase. IT DEMONSTRATES HOW ENERGY-EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES CAN BE APPLIED WITH MINIMAL FINANCES TROUGH HIGH PERFORMANCE DESIGN INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. The project is financed trough the New York City Housing Partnership and NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s New Homes Program. Nos Quedamos was the community sponsor – providing an opportunity for a local communitybased organization to be involved in the planning and marketing of the project. Low mortgage rates have meant that families with low incomes can afford to buy one of these houses. One of the innovative aspect of this project is the incorporation of three apartments together, two for rent as well as the owner’s apartment wich provides the owner monthly rent, what is the base of financial sustainability. The owner can use this rental income to secure mortgage, enabling the lower income to be a first-time home-owner. More than half of the available houses included in this project, were guarenteed to neighborhood residents. An important aspect to prevent exclusion of neighborhood residents that have lived in the area for decades.

2. PROGRAMA DE VIVIENDA POPULAR MEXICO INTENTION MODERN URBAN HOUSING USING COMMUNITY SAVINGS

CONTEXT

XALAPA VELACRUZ POP.: 6.000.000 45% live in the main urban zones, has a high poverty level, and the housing stock is of very poor quality.

District with highest crime and poverty rate + many low income with physical and/or mental health needs.

THE SUBSIDY FOR THSIS PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT IF HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE HOUSED, THEY WILL REQUIRE FEWER HEALTH AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES, AND THE SAVINGS DERIVED THERE, CAN BE USED TO SUBSIDIZE THE RENTS. The task of this program was to put in place an inclusive process involving the most neglected and vulnerable social strata within the daily social life, avoiding overcrowding specific structures, such as hospitals and rehabbing community, divorced from the social context. The inclusivity of the urban context becomes in this manner the actual core of the intervention. Implementation of retail spaces for small-scale economic activities moreover gives an ulterior help to promote a more sustainable and inclusive quality of life. The success of the project led to starts other 12 similar experiences, becoming a pilot-project assessing broader scales than local.

5. STREET TO HOMES CANADA INTENTION PERMANENT HOUSING + SUPPORT CONTEXT

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION Community based organization UCISV-VER, developed an incremental housing program that combines resources from participating families with traditional joint saving schemes and micro-credit, to help families who have no access to formal credit, to build new houses or improve their existing accommodation. The families are involved in the design process of their homes and training is provided in self-help construction methods. Development of the saving capacity is an important element of the program.

TO SOLVE HOMELESSNES ISSUE

TORONTO POP.: 2.500.000 5.000 homeless every night, of wich 800 are sleeping on the streets.

REFURBISHMENT OF DELIPATED HOUSING,

BASED ON COMMUNITY BUILDING EFFORT TO INCREASE HOME-OWNERSHIP. SPANGEN ROTTERDAM POP.: 1.000.000 One of the most poorest urban neighorhoods in the Netherlands. It become the city’s drug dealing center and was recognized as a ‘no-go’ area a high percentage low income residents.

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION It is difficult for low income to fund their basic needs such as housing, food and medication. The Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) dedicates their buildings to the vulnerable , included disables, mentally ill and HIV positive residents. Their program inludes services, supporting activities and amenities targeted to meet their specific needs, making urban space and social life more accessible and affordable.

THE NETHERLANDS

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

In order to address the severe social and economic problems in the neighborhood the municipality decided to give an old, dilapidated apartment block away for free, on condition that the new the new owners met the cost of renovation of the architecturally valuable building and continued to live in their renovated home for at least two years. The apartment block houses 40 participating households. THE BUYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TOGETHER FOR THE IMPROVEMENT TO THE LEVEL SET BY AN INVESTIGATION AND ALSO IN AN APPROACH OF COLLECTIVE CONTRACTING. The base is the casco of the building is upgraded to a new building level throughout the contribution of all households. This collective approach reduces building costs. After having reached this level, all households are allowed to design their house their own way with the help of the architect. These ensure that the user want cheap or expensive. THE PROJECT IS AN EXAMPLE OF SO CALLED COLLECTIVE PRIVATE ASSIGNMENT. The collaborative working method developed by the residents and architects in the project demonstrated that it is possible to renovate a dilapidated block without the intervention of a housing company. This project shows that a relatively small project can make a big difference in how an area is perceived and the wider population’s attitude towards it.

FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

CONTEXT

HAYWARD CALIFORNIA

POP.: 144.200 Low number of homeowners, because a lack of affordable housing for low income families and overcrowded rental units.

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

A not-for-profit housing provider, called Eden housing, setled in california, provides high quality affordable homes for vurnerable households and helps to improve the life opportunities of low income residents, by organizing a ‘resident services pogram’. The Walker Landing project provides 78 affordable dwellings, estabilished on a former pickle plant. This land was provided for a for-profit developer that was required to provide affordable housing according to inclusionary housing policies. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICIES REQUIRE MARKET RATE HOMEBUILDERS TO SET ASIDE A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF UNITS IN A NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Taking into account a context affected by scarcity of public funds, the Walker Landing project is a successful case study for affordable houses to low-income families. As well it achieves important results in terms of environmental issues, for one of its main purposes is the converting of a polluted soil into a pleasant and vibrant neighborhood and propose a sustainable housing typology. Neighbor social activities are implemented and encouraged, in a way to promote the quality of life, in terms of children education, crime preservation and social support.

THOSE WHO HAVE A STEADY INCOME PAY RENT; THOSE WHO DO NOT EARN AN INCOME CONTRIBUTE THEIR LABOR.

8. LIGHTHOUSE WIEN AUSTRIA INTENTION REFURBHISMENT OF BUILDINGS BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLE PRINCIPLES TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR VURNERABLE.

CONTEXT

WIEN

POP.: 1.600.000

City with a high rate of homeless inhabitants with health and mental issues.

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION The Lighthouse Wien project has made use of a 19th century building what was I a very bad state, to provide permanent housing for homeless persons living with drug addiction problems, HIV and AIDS and/or mental health problems. The building was leased at no charge by the owner, who did not have the finances to renovate the building. The funds for the project came from different sources. A subsidy from the Cityof Vienna paid for sound insulation, adaptations for disabled accessibility and connection to the district heating scheme, amounting to 28 per cent of the total. The rest was financed by Lighthouse Wien, loans and the owner of the building. The refurbishment includes the installation of new windows, heat and sound insulation, refurbishment of the street façade, use of passive and active solar systems and water- and energysaving systems. Through thoughtful design and the help of volunteers during the renovation, costs were kept significantly low.

Usually, the substantial problems are the main cause of drug addiction. These problems must first be solved, in order to start a stable life. The project provides solutions by giving them housing, training opportunities, social and medical support. The beauty of the residence, trough well designed plans, encourages the clients to stabilize more likely and take care of it. The energy sufficient and personal approach of the project, led to social and environmental sustainability.

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION The Street to Homes (S2H) program gives the client to choice to choose the most fitting house for his preferences and needs. A GREAT EFFORT PUT INTO ENSURING THAT FOLLOW-UP SUPPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE CLIENT AND LANDLORD SO THAT ANY PROBLEM EXPERIENCED ARE ADDRESSED IN THE EARLY STAGES.

MICROCREDIT IS THE EXTENSION OF VERY SMALL LOANS TO IMPOVERISHED BORROWERS WHO TYPICALLY LACK COLLAT ERAL, STEADY EMPLOYMENT AND A VERIFIABLE CREDIT HISTORY.

3. WALKER LANDING USA INTENTION AFFECTIVE HOUSING POSSIBILITIES

The result of the provided trainings programs is the self sufficiency of each community. The income to run the house comes from economic activities is carried out by the residents themselves.

WITH A FOCUS ON THE PRESERVATION OF HEALTH THROUGH SUBSTITUTION AND HIV THERAPY, THE PROJECT PROVIDES RESIDENTS A WIDE RANGE OF MEDICAL AND SOCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES AS WELL AS TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.

IT IS CALLED MONEY POOLING. COMMUNITY BASED COLLECTIVE SAVING. The program is operates in two parts: the first part is organizing the payment for the land using savings of several families and the second part for the incremental housing construction. During the saving period each family designs his/her house in collaboration with an architect through several community workshops. During these workshops they learn the basics of construction and self-help. The program sustained emphasis on neighborhood improvement and social production of modern urban housing using traditional communal savings. Construction trainings skills and providing micro loans enabled some of the population to earn an improved living in the construction trade what generates economical sustainability and social sustainability within the community.

THE FOUNDATION PROVIDES SEVERAL WORKSHOPS WHICH PROVIDE GENERAL EDUCATION AS WELL AS SKILL TRAINING, THAT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT AND SERVE TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND INCREASE BIODIVERSITY.

S2H has is most innovative feature in being a versatile, custom and tailored-on-clients program. The process is set up in 7 steps: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

S2H staff itself takes the initiative to contact the eligible candidate. In so doing the Institution has an active important role in recruiting the clients, in a way to solve immediately the first issue, that is housing the homeless. However the decision of joining the program is up to the candidate. Only when the client decide to apply bureaucracy starts. Demographics information are gathered and contact with S2H staff is given. S2H staff develop housing options for the client. S2H staff help the client take care of outstanding issues, such as her/his income support arrangement and outstanding work orders on the housing unit S2H staff accompany the client to see housing units. Once an appropriate housing unit is found that the client likes, the lease is signed. Finally, a joint meeting takes place involving the client, the “street outreach counsellor” who has been working with the client thus far and the new “follow-up support worker” who will be providing follow-up support to the client.

Despite of the most of policies and programs that stop their goal in easing and restraining the issues, Toronto aims high, focusing on finding solutions to rather than dealing with systematic problems. Homelessness is seen as an issue that doesn’t affect the mere individual living, but concerns the whole urban society. The mind-set of tax-productivity first approach is upset. Some community groups throughout Toronto now feel that there is an adequate response to the homeless issues impacting them and business groups are increasingly supportive of the approach as they witness concrete results.

7. BUILDING PARTNERSHIP TO ERADICATE POVERTY POLAND INTENTION HOUSE, SUPPORT AND TRAIN, DESTITUE AND SOCIALLY MARGINALIZED PEOPLE.

CONTEXT

NATIONWIDE.

After the fall of the communist system, many individuals were unable to cope with the independent form of living required, what led to alcoholism, extreme poverty and acute social vulnerability. The collapse of the collective system caused neglected and bankrupt farms, land and appartment blocks.

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION The Barka foundation, established in 1990 after the collapse of the communist system in Poland tries to revitalize neglected and bankrupt former state farms and apartment blocks, creating places to live and work for socially excluded persons. The foundation has a broad network that is involved in the development of new projects. This network consists of private businesses, educational institutions, housing companies, local authority representatives, social partners and churches and ensures a financial stable and sustainable foundation and gives them the chance to revitalize the available properties.

REFERENCES Chaffee Paul David (1975), Urban Homesteading Programs in the United States, B.S., Kansas State University Community Development Department Neighborhood Services Division Housing Section, Lakeland City One Year Action Plan, April 4, 2011 Comptroller General of U.S. Senate (1979), Urban homesteading, a good program needing improvement, report to the Congress by United States Falvo Nick (2009), Homelessness, Program Responses, and an Assessment of Toronto’s Streets to Homes Program, CPRN Research Report, February 2009 Foscarinis Maria, Tars Eric, Housing rights and wrongs: The United States and the right of housing, Harper David (2007), Community Land Trusts: Protecting the Land Commons, in Green Revolution, A School of living Publication, vol. 64 (3) 2007 Joann Gonchar (2007), A Room of One’s Own: In the heart of San Francisco’s skid row, once-homeless adults find shelter in a showplace of green design, in GreenSource Magazine, July 2007, AIA Stull William J. (1997), Urban Homesteading and the Abandonment Problem, in Challenge, Vol. 20 (1), M.E. Sharpe, Inc., pp. 59-61 Tainio Hannele, Fredriksson Peter (2009), The Finnish Homelessness Strategy: From a ‘Staircase’ Model to a ‘Housing First’ Approach to Tackling Long-Term Homelessness, Diaconia University of Applied Sciences and Ministry of the Environment World Habitat Awards Building and Social Housing Foundation, Homelessness; Housing Affordability and Financing, reports from online database of World Habitat Awards winners and finalists

1840

BreWerIeS

DYNAMICS OF VACANCY BUSHWICK

Bushwick is one of the neighborhoods in Brooklyn with one of the highest concentrations of vacant properties, which includes vacant lots, houses, industrial buildings and even newly built condos. This high level of vacancies comes from a long history of real-estate speculation that had a different impact on the main components of this community district: the large residential areas, the former industries near Williamsburg and the shopping strip of Broadway. The neighborhood knew a long decline when both industries and people abandoned their property, which had a climax with the pillaging and burning around Broadway in 1977. The clearing that happened afterwards is still reflected today in the many vacant lots in these areas, now often used to dump waste or as car parking lots. However, property speculation is happening again as prices rise though the influx of artists in the neighborhood. But these great dynamics and sequence of events illustrate many aspects that created the different kinds of vacancies throughout the city. The case of the dynamics of vacancy in Bushwhick illustrates the origins of vacancy in a specific area of New York City.

1930

Started as a German community.

1960 After the decline of the manufactering industries and the disappearance of the breweries of Bushwick that did not overcome Prohibition, the Depression and long worker’s strikes, the demographics changed rapidly in Bushwick. AfricanAmericans migrated to the north, the greatest concentration happened in neighbouring Bedford-Stuyvesant. African-Americans expanded rapidly to adjacent districts, including Bushwick. Next to this group, Puerto Ricans were a rapidly growing minority in Bushwick.

On top of the epidemic of fires, blockbusting and redlining pushed even more residents out of Bushwick. In the 60’s real-estate speculators tried to frighten white residents to sell their homes ‘before it was too late’. They bought the houses at cheap prices and sold them through fraudulent practices to poor blacks and Puerto-Ricans at prices they could not afford. Many of the new homeowners held their houses only for 10-15 years, losing them as their income declined and foreclosure set in. These houses were eventually boarded up and abandoned for years, becomming extra targets for arson.

1960 White non-hispanic 89% African-American 7% Hispanic 5% 1970 White non-hispanic 38% African-American 30% Hispanic 27% (NYC Department of City Planning)

1980

During the blackout of July 13, 1977 a massive ‘blackout looting’ broke out on the main shopping street Broadway. Many shops were pillaged and set on fire. Whole blocks were abandoned and the citystarted knocking down vacant homes clearing even more buildings. Some fires were indicated as suspicious fires since residents would torch vacant property to clear those areas from crime and drugs. Fires destroyed 20% of Bushwick’s housing stock, causing long-term residents to move. A portion of the cleared spaces still remain and are vacant lots today.

BlOCKBUStINg / reDlININg / PlANNeD SHrINKAge

(Brooklyn’s Bushwick, Brian Merlis & Riccardo Gomes)

In the 1930’s the industries around Bushwick attracted many Italian American families. By 1950 Bushwick had the greatest concentration of Italians in Brooklyn.

BUSHWICK BUrNINg

Bushwick grew together with the industries of the nearby Brooklyn waterfront. The shipyards, warehouses, distilleries, sugar refineries, and manufacturing plants attracted many German and later Italian immigrant workers.

2000 (brooklynhistory.org)

(NYC arson strike force 1986; NYC department of city planning 1969; NY daily news 1977)

932

1968

807

142 1976

811

206 149 1977

636

149 1985

The remaining population after the decline of Bushwick in the 1960’s and 1970’s were mostly AfricanAmericans and Puerto Ricans, later on Mexicans as well as other hispanic communities joined the Puerto Ricans. 2000 White non-hispanic 2.9% African-American 23.8% Hispanic 67.2%

arsons suspicious structural

(US Census Bureau)

Along with the changing demographics of the neighbourhood, the construction of condominium houing has increased in the district over the last decade.

2005

Because of ever rising housing prices artist are priced out of their homes. This created a migration of artist from Greenwich Village in the 1950s to Bushwick since the 2000s. The L-train seems to be the carrier of this artist-led gentrification. The influx of artists in neighborhoods attracts a creative industry and attracts other investors, which makes prices rise. Bushwick has known a rapid increase in rents since the 2000s, but also many new condo’s have been constructed that now stand vacant.

CONDO

MIgrAtION OF CreAtIVe DIStrICtS

Hispanic 65%

Since 2005 Bushwick is gradually attracting again new people, introducing again also a new young white non-hispanic minority. 2010 White non-hispanic 8.5% African-American 20.1% Hispanic 65.4% (US Cencus Bureau)

Percentage of white non-hispanic population of Bushwick (10%) Percentage of hispanic population of Bushwick (10%) Percentage of African-American population of Bushwick (10%)

FACIlItIeS

DeMOgrAPHICS

ING

SH FLU

N AVE

COMPOSIte MAP OF All FACIlItIeS IN BUSHWICK

reSIDeNtS SPeAKINg SPANISH At HOMe

The map of the facilities was constructed using information provided by the city which was checked and extended by looking at the individual facilities. For some layers, such as the daycare centers and after-school programs, not all the information is compiled and readily available, this map is in that respect more an indication and not complete. The colors were assigned using the lot of a facility, however the actual facility will usually be smaller.

The most striking maps of the demographics reveal a sharp Spanish speaking community in Bushwick flowing into neighboring Ridgewood in Queens. This is both clear in the map ‘residents speaking Spanish at home’ and ‘Hispanic’. It is particularly interesting how sharp the contrast is with neighboring Bedford-Stuyvesant, which has a predominantly black population and the border of Broadway is clearly the boundary between the two populations. The young White population is entering Bushwick from the side of Williamsburg that has a white and Spanish population at this boundary.

ING

FLU

N AVE

The map shows a more or less equal distribution of facilities of which the educational institutions take up most space.

EN MYRTLE AV

YC KO F

FA VE

OA D

WA Y

EDUCATION

AFTER SCHOOL

DAYCARE

based on 2005-2010 data source: http://www.city-data.com/ neighborhood/Bushwick-Brooklyn-NY. html#boxMAPborder

OA D

WA Y

CARE

eDUCAtION

GOVERNMENT BUILDING

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

HeAltH CAre Schools in Bushwick seem to be equally spread thoughout the neighbourhood and are usually quite large in size. The afterschool programs are located near or in the schools.

BlACK

WHIte

ASIAN

Health care facilities in Bushwick: - 25 health care facilities - 7 hospitals - 1 residential health care facility - 3 diagnostic and treatment center - 6 hospital extension clinics - 8 mental health care

- 39 schools - 8 high schools - 17 elementary schools - 4 private schools - 4 parochial schools - 10 middle schools - 11 out-of-school programs

education out-of-school

HISPANIC

care

100%

DAYCAre AND CAre FOr elDerlY

gOVerNMeNt BUIlDINgS Institutions providing care are mainly located along the commercial avenues such as Broadway and Myrtle Avenue. But also as part of housing corporations, such as the Bushwick United Housing Develoment Fund Corporation.

100%

POPUlAtION DeNSItY (PeOPle/SQUAre MIle)

MeDIAN reSIDeNt Age

MeDIAN HOUSeHOlD INCOMe

UNeMPlOYMeNt

310,000

$70,000

100%

Police and fire department in Bushwick: - Knickerbrocker Avenue NYC Police Station - Wilson Avenue NYPD Facility - Central Avenue NYCHA Police Svc Area - 4 NYC Fire Houses

- 44 daycare - 40 child care - 4 senior care

daycare

government building

20,000

$12,000

VACANCY COUNt

VEN GA

IN SH FLU

G HIN

N AVE

S FLU

ENUE

MYRTLE AV

ENUE

MYRTLE AV

YC KO F

FA VE

YC KO F

FA VE

OA D

WA Y

vacant lot

1-2 stories

3-4 stories

OA D

WA Y

5-6 stories

structurally vacant

vacant

partially vacant

VACANt lOtS AND SIze OF VACANt BUIlDINgS

tYPe OF VACANCY SUrVeYeD VACANCIeS

OWNerSHIP OF tHe VACANCY

VACANCY SUrVeY AND MAPPINg The maps are the result of a block to block count of vacant property in Bushwick by students of the Urban Ecologies program of the New School in March 2013. The count was conducted using a survey sheet to qualify if property was vacant and its current condition. Afterwards these addresses were mapped using GIS software, the ownership was tracked if possible and the land use was checked.

lAND USe VACANt PrOPertY

PrOPertY CONDItION

This count reveals both a large number of vacant lots and a very high amount of vacant buildings throughout the neighbourhood. However, it seems as if the area near Williamsburg and above Myrtle Avenue has fewer vacant properties. One explanation for this might be that this area follows the rising popularity of that neighbourhood and is targetted by development companies. Regarding the ownership that was found for the lots the majority seems to be privately owned, however, because of the large number of unknown property ownerships this might present a false image. vacancy

private owner city owned

bank owned no data

mixed use commercial

residential industrial

abandoned dilapidated

habitable no data

no data

ENGAGING LOTS DIVERTING THE CAUSES OF DISPLACEMENT

the housing stock of the neighborhood that may not be viewed as favorable to the local residents, of which not all newcomers are aware. DISPLACED PEOPLE

government support $

rent controlled

market conform

resident owned

vacant lot

first newcomers move on followed by more affluent newcomers

RENTS

RISE

new large developments for affluent newcomers residents move out

NEWCOMERS

residents move out

house renovated house deregulated landowner stops upkeep of rent-controlled house

newcomers

O N SI

15% rents

seed capital $ DEVELOPERS

FLOW

A strategic and supportive system of spaces is introduced here, starting with both spaces of engagement and spaces of production. These physical spaces both enable the community to reinforce and come together on vacant lots, and to support and create jobs for the people in need of a stable income.

income $ people at risk

community members divert rent $

reinvestment $

INSIDE

RETURN DISPLACED PEOPLE

SPACES OF ENGAGEMENT/ SPACES OF PRODUCTION

SHELTER

lease (a) job income (b) a. lot owner b. displaced people c. community corporation

MONEY FLOW OUT OF COMMUNITY

CURRENT SITUATION The interplay between newcomers and developers causes higher rents. The longterm residents consequently are displaced and move into shelters. This gives the opportunity to developers and homeowners to start renovating and the rents rise accordingly. Spaces of habitation are needed for the current temporary residents, to prevent them from being displaced. The great number of vacant lots forms a potential to start this.

rent +20%/yr

lease (a) job income (b) rent (c) a. lot owner b. displaced people c. newcomers community corporation

SPACES OF TRANSITION

lease (a) job income (b) rent (c) a. lot owner b. displaced people c. newcomers community corporation

CONTINUING SPACES OF HABITATION

Here, spaces are introduced for temporary residents, providing a money flow that financially supports the founding of spaces of habitation for people at risk of loosing their homes and already displaced people through a CLT. These spaces can absorb the pressure – created by the newcomers – on the permanent housing stock, to at least slow down the increase of rents that cause displacement.

divert newcomers

investment capital: income out of rent $

s nt e re ris

lease (a) organisation asssets (b) a. residents (people at risk) b. CLT (owner building/land)

With financial support from the CLT, current long-term residents that are at risk of loosing their apartment, spaces of habitation are created to prevent them from being displaced of their (foreclosed) homes. The CLT and the residents together buy the property. Eventually, residents become coowner and the CLT owns the land.

N IO

E IV

DEVELOPERS

resident owned

127 houses

displaced people

rent +4%/yr

DEVELOPERS MONEY FLOW OUT OF COMMUNITY

vacant house

85% rents

SHELTER

NEWCOMERS

market conform

residents move out

MONEY

DISPLACED PEOPLE

shelter

408 lots

overcrowding

rent $

DISPLACED PEOPLE

NEWCOMERS

TOWARDS SPACES OF HABITATION

tenants generated income investment capital: income out of rent $

R2 C2

R3 R7

R9 R1

When we look at a map with the new developments in Bushwick it is clear that they follow a general direction from EastWilliamsburg into West-Bushwick, but have not yet crossed Myrtle Avenue where the M-train line is currently being renovated.

Together these effects instigated by the newcomers together with the speculative developers that followed them, form a powerful change within the community of Bushwick, displacing local residents in the process. We believe that a strongly engaged local community can counteract this process, welcoming the changes and new residents on the one hand, but preventing the displacement on the other hand. The strong engagement of local residents can separate the speculation that is happening from the wave of newcomers that is moving in and create a double diversion: First to divert the short-term newcomers away from

competing with the permanent housing stock and engage them and secondly to divert speculative development. Under the heading of “prevention is better than cure”, our aim is to first prevent the displacement of long-term residents out of their (rentcontrolled/rent-stabilized/foreclosed) apartments. Secondly by using the money flow of the newcomers, instead of letting it flow out of the community through speculative development, we aim to bring back the displaced people, intertwining both groups in the process. 1. Spaces of habitation: Rather than just providing new houses for already displaced residents, we want to tackle the problem at the root; increasing home-ownership in Bushwick for the long-term residents to counteract the volatile market fluctuations. To transform the home-ownership and turn these dwellings into permanent housing -

spaces of habitation – we need a strategic and supportive system of other spaces. These are the spaces of meaning that both expose and sustain a new housing strategy for Bushwick. The spaces we identified are: 2. Spaces of engagement: providing informational support. It can be a space for the education of tenants in their legal rights but it is also a physical space to come together and find communal support. 3. Spaces of production: providing job support, creating work- and learning places for people at risk to eventually become more self-sustainable. 4. Spaces of transition: providing financial support, generated on vacant lots from temporary housing for temporary residents. These spaces can absorb the pressure, created by the newcomers, on the permanent housing stock, to at least slow down the increase of rents, causing displacement. They could in future become permanent.

lease (a) job income (b) rent (c) a. lot owner b. displaced people c. newcomers community corporation

sweat equity & lease (a) organisation assets (b) a. residents (displaced people) b. CLT (owner building/land)

SHELTER

displaced people lease (a) job income (b) rent (c) a. lot owner b. displaced people c. co-owners / CLT

co-owners CLT

market conform resident owned

co-op

shelter

market conform

co-op

Following the same strategy, displaced people, temporarily housed in shelters, are supported to become a co-owner of a renovated vacant house. Sweat equity learned through skill training - and their income, supplemented by the CLT’s assets is used to buy the property. Eventually, residents become co-owner and the CLT owns the land.

SPACES OF HABITATION

SHELTER

co-op

NEW SPACES OF HABITATION

resident owned

The people at risk of the first street have become secure homeowners through the coop, the displaced homeless people from the shelter have found a new permanent home in one of the former vacant houses. Once the spaces of transition have supported the creation of spaces of habitation, it can itself transform into a space of habitation.

BUSHWICK GOES VIRAL Starting with grounds for agreement, vacant lots will be transformed into spaces of engagement or spaces of production. Subsequently, spaces of transition will be established on these lots, creating a money flow that enables us to transform houses from people at risk and vacant houses into spaces of habitation for long-term residents. spaces of engegement/production ground for agreement spaces of transition spaces of habitation

PHASE 1: diScovEring PlAcE

PHASE 2: EngAgEmEnt ProcESS

PHASE 3: groundS of AgrEEmEnt

SPAtiAl AnAlySiS

idEntify nEEdS

mAkE contAct

What happens in the neighbourhood? What facilities, public spaces and public services exist? Who lives here? What skills and jobs exist? What are the development patterns? What are the zoning policies? How many vacant lots and buildings exist?

Identify the needs of the key players and representatives of community

• Identify a potential owner • Direct conversation with lot owners • Possible development discussion (Proposal) • Agreement types Define lease terms and development of vision of permanent structure with lot owner

lotS Where are these lots located? Who are the owners? What types of lots are these (Benevolent or Speculative)? Identify condition of lots- paved, plumbing infrastructure, unpaved, abandoned, parking lot etc.

PEoPlE Identify the people that can help Identify the organizations from the neighbourhood Identify local authorities Identify potential lot owners Continue dialogue with potential players Pilot: Identified groups: The church, school, local shelters and neighbours

Pilot: The following needs have been identified: community •Education •Skill dEvEloPmEnt rESourcES •community cEntrE

cHurcH •Parking •SPacE for EvEntS i.E. BiBlE StudiES, gAtHEringS

form committEE Identify specific roles within committee • Vacant lot & research group • Administrative group • Grant writing & treasurer Look for funding through the following: • Crowdfunding • Grants • Sponsorship • Investments • Development & design group Look for potential partners to build.

•...

mEEting SPAcE If possible find a space to gather = “A space of engagement”

PHASE 4: dESign ProcESS dESign Collaborate with the design committee to co-design the shared vision of the community. In the pilot, the following space functions have been determined: -Spaces of engagement -Spaces of production -Spaces of transition -Spaces of habitation

Pilot: Lot will be leased through a 99 year agreement with the owner

mEtHod Design - Assembly - Deliberation Redesign - Assembly - Deliberation... Consensus - Approved project

lEgAl rEgiStrAtion Create an organization or company to be recognized as a legal entity. Define whether it is a nonprofit, forprofit organization or an LLC with a social context, for example a B-Corp model, under a Co-op or / and a Community Land Trust (CLT).

limitEd Equity cooPErAtivE orgAnizAtion ownS

Buy SHArES

rESidEntS

SHArEHoldErS

tHE rESidEntS BEcomE SHArEHoldErS And ArE EntitlEd to A long tErm lEASE And A votE in tHE govErnAncE of tHE co-oP. tHEy BEcomE BotH tHE ‘tEnAntS’ BEcAuSE of tHEir lEASE And ‘ownErS’ BEcAuSE tHEy HAvE Stock ownErSHiP Fig. 2

• Invite the lot owner to meet • Make a presentation Pilot: This space has been identified as the bigger lot owned by the church on Stanhope Street. (See image 2)

mEtHodS

PAR (Participatory Action Research methods) Conduct Fieldwork & ethnography • Surveys & interviews Identify secondary sources: • Look-up archived information via internet, libraries Mapping: • Retrieve archived maps

• Sociogram/ fluxograms to understand power relationships, problems and networks in the community • Spiral method to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the committee and the community as a whole • Focus groups • Programs - Park activities - Sidewalk bus (Metro World Child) - Other activities...

ProPErty cArd Pilot SitE 78- 82 Stanhope St. Brooklyn, 11221 Owner: Iglesia Cristiana Sinai Margie Santiago 718-443-0289/718-443-1757 Price: 992,000 Zoning: R6 Lot #: 31-29 Block #: 3265 Lot area: 9447sq. ft. Front: 79 ft Depth: 360.09 ft

PHASE 7: SPAcE of trAnSition

The spaces of engagement will seek to provide information and enhance community support. For example, these spaces can serve as platforms for the education of residents in knowing their legal rights and how to avoid unwarranted evictions or foreclosures. Inherently, these spaces will serve as physical locations to come together to find communal support and build solidarity.

The aim behind the spaces of production is to provide training, jobs, and skill development for people at risk of displacement either from work or home to eventually become more self-sustaining. Here, a community kitchen will serve as the place of production to develop cooking skills and serve as a profitable component while creating jobs.

The goal of these spaces of transition is to provide housing to the short term residents likely to stay for less than 3 years. Function of space: • Housing for short term residents

PHASE 8: SPAcE of HABitAtion The spaces of habition is the proposal’s aim. These spaces will serve to house permanent local residents at risk of losing their homes and those who have been displaced. These residents can eventually become owners by the purchasing the units under a cooperative model governed by the CLT.

for SALE

To define the physical component of the proposed space, a first and strategic space of meaning could be a gathering room. This room can be used to strengthen the ties between people as they organize to meet. Function of space • Construction Workshops • Education • Meetings • Assemblies • Events For whom is this space for? • Open to the public

OR Function of space: • Community Kitchen • Events The spaces are always spaces of production in the phase of construction. Construction skills can be developed and shared between the novice and expert groups.

Why is this important? It is a strategy to maintain the flow of money within the community Income out the rent charged will remain within the community to support and invest in people at risk of displacement as well as aid those already displaced.

possible partners

Who is going to construct this space? Actors • Social architecture organizations • Local construction companies • Community members (novice & experts) • Members from the local shelter

not for profit income LEc

income

not for profit

34.5% PrivAtE individuAlS 8% city 5.5% gArdEnS 4.5% cHurcHES 0.5% non-Profit 47% corPorAtionS

LEc

vacant house

income

cLt

LEc

cLt income

truSt

LEc

foreclosure

income CORPORATIONS

NON-PROFIT

PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

CITY

COMMUNITY GARDENS

for profit

committees

LEc

CHURCHES

production

Map of Vacant Lots in Bushwick - Image 1

possible partners

profit

vacant lot

engagement

B-corp transition

lotS 18.5% BEnEvolEnt 81.5% SPEculAtivE

Chart of Lot Ownership - Fig. 1

Pilot SitE

PHASE 6: SPAcE of Production

Follow-up with any revisions or updates until a general consensus has been attained within a reasonable time frame. This design should reflect the needs the community.

In talking with the church, we discussed the need to establish a working partnership with Bushwick Leaders’ Highschool to negotiate use of the school’s parking lot

Pilot: Start with a Non-profit and then form a Limited Equity Cooperative (Fig. 2) in hopes of establishing a CLT in the future.

PHASE 5: SPAcE of EngAgEmEnt

Pilot Site - Image 2

possible partners

CITYSTEADING IN BUSHWICK: A WAY FORWARD.

These numerous organizations, like churches, co-ops and even the new art organizations who seek lower rents, along with much of the Bushwick population, may have no interest in land speculation, but their life and work will be affected by its toll anyway. They all have the incentive to create a stable and equitable Bushwick: self-determined by the people who live there, as such a civil society would imply. This whole civil society is already oriented toward the process of what we call “Citysteading” in which the people inhabiting an urban space make the city with each other through shared resources and dialog. If Homesteading was a means to access the Right to a Home, then Citysteading is how we gain access to the Right to the City. Rather than just bottom-up housing, Citysteading is the process for steadily creating and maintaining a city by and for communities.

CITYSTEADING: THE STEADY MAKING OF LIFE AS A CITY OR COMMUNITY THROUGH THE CREATION OF SHARED ASSETS AND DIALOG. affordable in perpetuity. This realization was latent in the Urban Homesteading initiatives that began in the 1970s: where they did succeed, homesteading initiatives were coupled with other activities, like community gardens, and became a rallying point for larger community organizing. “...a network of “mutual aid” – community gardening, sharing vehicles, tools, technology, child care, senior care, cultural events, even schooling, etc.” –Tom Angotti, referring to what is needed to accompany the housing movement today. ‘I THINK THE HOMESTEADING INITIATIVE SUCCEEDED ULTIMATELY BECAUSE THEY WERE LINKED OTHER INITIATIVES THAT WERE RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME, SUCH AS THE COMMUNITY GARDENS. IN OTHER WORDS THIS BECAME A CENTRAL POINT WITH EVERYTHING RADIATING OUTWARD FROM THAT, IT BECAME AN ORGANIZING TOOL.’ – MALV VAN HASSEL Today, New York is a very different place with the opposite set of problems. Nowhere exemplifies this more than in Bushwick, Brooklyn, where displacement follows the front lines of “Gentrification” and vacancy is more indicative of land speculation than abandonment. Homesteading as it was before is no longer so simple if the housing stock is not abandoned, but extremely desirable, and often in private rather than city ownership. But the bottom-up energy and organizing around the creation of urban space that Homesteading provided are more valuable than ever in the context of displacement. Unlike the “emptied out” city of the 1970s, Bushwick is an incredibly full place: with strong local cultures, community organizing, music, food, socially active churches, and growing co-ops. Rising rents, the displacement of the existing population, and destructive development schemes nonetheless threaten all the organizations that make up the rich civil society now active in Bushwick.

The Right to a Home means little if that home is in a neighborhood without an affordable grocery store; in a place that is polluted and without access to services; or in a neighborhood too far from equitable employment. Furthermore, a home placed in private ownership will end back on the speculative market and once again become unaffordable, even if earned through sweat equity. In order to be successful in securing the Right to a Home we also must advocate for the Right to the City as a whole, in which the right to housing is embedded. We also must keep the ownership in community hands, where it can remain

CITYSTEADING CITYSTEADING W

EA TI

“

Parsons Bushwick Survey 2013 ©

“

"A process of displacement is what i call "accumulation by dispossession' lie at the core of urbanization under capitalism." David Harvey - RIght to the City, pg 6 "As gentrification process consolidates... Sweat-Equity gentrifiers are replaced by small builders who turn over their properties in a gentrification style. When the neighbourhood is fully "established", large developers might get involved, involving a routinisation of the aesthetic aspects of the process. Cultural Capital in the form of gentrification aesthetic gets absorbed into the overall 'price' of the property and the neighbourhood in which it is located." - Bridge, As Quoted in City Shaped.

"A process of displacement is what i call "accumulation by dispossession' lie at the core of urbanization under capitalism." David Harvey - RIght to the City, pg 6

MIXED USE

"As gentrification process consolidates... Sweat-Equity gentrifiers are replaced by small builders who turn over their properties in a gentrification style. When the neighbourhood is fully "established", large developers might get involved, involving a routinisation of the aesthetic aspects of the process. Cultural Capital in the form of gentrification aesthetic gets absorbed into the overall 'price' of the property and the neighbourhood in which it is located." - Bridge, As Quoted in City Shaped.

art/culture org.

DISPLACEMENT

art/culture org.

community advocacy org.

THE RIGHT TO A HOME

co-op

Actors

B A N K keeps people and organizations on a precarious

MAKET ISOLATION footing: vunerable to speculation and crisis LEGACY OF HOMESTEADING

‘yeoman farmer’ consequences of exploitative ethic on large scale: genocide of first nations, ecocide resulting in “dust bowl”

Banking

URBAN HOMESTEADING: WHAT WORKED

linked other initiatives that were running at the same time, such as the community gardens. In other words this became a central point with

community involvement

bottom-up housing

“

ground involved, and when it is not a top down initiatives, something started in the community done by the community, for the community.

Malve Van Hassel

NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Squatting movement takes empty homes

“

We could put the call out, and hundreds would show up to defend the squat. (paraphrased) Frank Morales, on social solidarity to protect housing

“

We could put the call out, and hundreds would show up to defend the squat. (paraphrased) Frank Morales, on social solidarity to protect housing

Homesteading works as an organizing tool, integrated with wholistic activity.

“

"People in circumstances should be the leaders of their own movement. There could be a help from outside, but residents themselves, people in circumstances, need to be the leaders of this movement." Brenda Stokely, Urban Homesteading Discussion, April 2013

“

"People in circumstances should be the leaders of their own movement. There could be a help from outside, but residents themselves, people in circumstances, need to be the leaders of this movement." Stokely, Urban "WeBrenda need these [gentrifying] people to know what we Homesteading Discussion, 2013 are doing, what is goingApril on, how they can help us.

“

They come for a couple of months and then they leave. Help us, pass the word and we can be living together." Bushwick panel discussion, Gladys Puglla. April, 2013

Homesteading to a New Ecology of Housing Roundtable

“ “

Homesteading to a New Ecology of Housing Roundtable

“

It is in this context that the revival of a rhetoric and theory of the commons takes A transfer of assets into a The creation of a social on an added significance. If state-supplied specific legal entity relationship through public goods either decline or become a guaranteed to be dialog and mutual aid mere vehicle for private accumulation (as is attract maintained in perpetuity, around shared assets happening to education), and if the for state the community. and political participation. pursue withdraws from their provision, then there is Beginning with only one possible response, which is for populations to selforganize to provide their own commons... David Harvey, Rebel Cities, p.87

art/culture org.

Tim ng i r Sp 4

community bank

A transfer of assets into a The creation of a social specific legal entity relationship through guaranteed to be dialog and mutual aid maintained in perpetuity, around shared assets for the community. and political participation. Beginning with

Story Bank Time Bank Materials Ex. INITIAL ASSETS Community Community Asset Bank Trust Space Bank Energy Trust Food NEW ASSETS

INITIAL ASSETS

Community

Asset Trust Gandhi and Martin Luther King were two of NEW ASSETS “Move your money”

Gandhi and Martin Luther King were two of their moral touchstones. But there were other influences, as well. People now working with local CLTs or joining ICE were more likely to have ties to the Catholic Worker or to faith- based organizations like community churches, religious orders, and ministerial alliances. Many more of them had experience as community organizers. CLT Technical Manual, Edited by

art/culture org.

ing iy ak Ct M e th ily Social Mobilization ad ing e 4 t k S Ma BUSHWICK ily Mobilization d a COMMUNITY COMMONS: Su Ste THE COMMON DENOMINATOR 2 ESTABLISHMENT BUSHWICK Shared Resources - Shared Discourse Members COMMUNITY COMMONS: Su Story Bank Time Bank Materials Ex. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR a embers CLT Shared Resources - Shared Discourse 2 ESTABLISHMENT M Bo rd CET Food Bank Space Bank rent strike

...a network of “mutual aid” – community gardening, sharing vehicles, tools, technology, child care, senior care, cultural events, even schooling, etc. Tom Angotti, Ten Points: From Urban

It is in this context that the revival of a rhetoric and theory of the commons takes on an added significance. If state-supplied public goods either decline or become a "We need these [gentrifying] people to(as know we mere vehicle for private accumulation is what attract are doing, to what is going on, they can help us. happening education), andhow if the state They come for their a couple of months then pursue withdraws from provision, thenand there is they leave. us, pass the word and is wefor can be living only oneHelp possible response, which together." to selforganize to provide their populations Bushwick panel discussion, own commons... David Harvey, Rebel Gladysp.87 Puglla. April, 2013 Cities,

“

CIVIL SOCIETY

rent strike

“

their moral touchstones. But there were other A People’s Bank asset influences, as well. People now working with fund that new members canwere movemore theirlikely money local CLTs or joining ICE to into, creating a kind of revolving have ties to the Catholic Workerloan or tofund to buy, renovate and convert into community ownership. faith- based organizations likeassets community churches, religious orders, and ministerial a participatory process to determine how alliances. Many more Join of them had experience and what these funds are used for, how new as community organizers. fundsManual, are attracted. CLT Technical Edited by Kirby White

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS

Kirby White

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS

“Move your money” A People’s Bank asset fund that new members can move their money into, creating a kind of revolving loan fund to buy, renovate and convert assets into community ownership.

(A) acquires parcels of land, held in perpetuity. (B) transfers ownership of any structural improvements located on such leased parcels to the lessees. (C) retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price (A) acquires of land, process held in perpetuity. ``(A) acquires parcels of land,that heldisin Joinparcels a participatory to determine how determined by formula designed to (B) transfers any structural perpetuity. and ownership what theseoffunds are used for, how new ensure that the improvement remains improvements located on such leased parcels ``(B) transfers ownership of any structural funds are attracted. affordable to low- and moderate-income to the lessees. improvements located on such leased parcels families in perpetuity. (C) retains a preemptive option to purchase to the lessees. any such structural improvement at a price ``(C) retains a preemptive option to purchase determined by formula that is designed to any such structural improvement at a price ensure that the improvement remains determined by formula that is designed to affordable to low- and moderate-income ensure that the improvement remains families in perpetuity. affordable to low- and moderate-income families in perpetuity.

Community Energy Trust

Community Land Trust

Community CLT Land Trust

ACTION SCHEME

a 3 Bo rd CET CT Story Bank

Community ``(A) acquires parcels of land, held in Land Trust Community Trust perpetuity. ``(B) transfers ownership of any structural Organizes a improvements located on such leased parcels participatory process to the lessees. ``(C) retains a preemptive option to purchase Maintains in any such structural improvement at a price perpetuity determined by formula that is designed to ensure that the improvement remains affordable to low- and moderate-income families in perpetuity.

Story Bank

Time Bank

ACTION SCHEME

Community Land Trust

Community Energy Trust

Community Trust

Community Energy Trust

Organizes a participatory process Maintains in perpetuity

Time Bank

Space Bank

Diversity of New and Long term Residents

Space BankCross-Sectional Assets

Diversity of New and Long term Residents

Materials Exchange

Cross-Sectional Assets

Materials Exchange

the

social solidarity bottom-up It doesn’t help to just do the sweat equity, it needs be an all around initiative this right I think the homesteading initiative succeeded ultimately because they were at all the elements of what housing that looks it means to make housing for people. community held assets, linked other initiatives that were running at the same time, such as the agency in the city.you get people on the It provided role-models for what can happen when community gardens. In other words this became a central point with bottom-up ownership model is key something ground involved, and when it is not a top down initiatives, everything radiating outward from that, it became an organizing tool. CITY started in the community done by the community, for the community. It doesn’t help to just do the sweat equity, it needs be an all around initiative Malve Van Hassel that looks at all the elements of what it means to make housing for people. Homesteading works as an organizing tool, integrated with wholistic activity. It provided role-models for what can happen when you get people on the

“

CIVIL SOCIETY

church

‘boot-strapers’ consequences of work ethic: often excluded those without skills, ability or time to renovate their own housing: and so, not large scale.

this right community held assets, agency in the city. bottom-up ownership model key ...aisnetwork of “mutual aid” – community CITY gardening, sharing vehicles, tools, technology, child care, senior care, cultural events, even schooling, etc. Tom Angotti, Ten Points: From Urban

co-op

g e nin Tim g rin Sp

io Vis

er or t pp

“CITYSTEADING” as a means to access

URBAN HOMESTEADING: WHAT WORKED everything radiating outward from that, it became an organizing tool.

Social

“CITYSTEADING” as a means to access

social solidarity THE RIGHT TO THE CITY I think the homesteading initiative succeeded ultimately because they were STABILITY

community involvement

“

ability or time to renovate their own housing: and so, not large scale.

THE RIGHT TO THE CITY

Store owner: Kevin - "Half the buildings on this block are for sale"

ing

i Vis

er or t pp

mprove c can i ond ‘boot-strapers’ consequences of work iti oethic: often excluded those without skills, ns f

“lemon”

STABILITY

Store owner: Kevin - "Half the buildings on this block are for sale"

WAREHOUSE

SPECULATIVE CAPITAL, CITY FORAlternatives PROFIT, EXPLOITATION

mprove c can i ond iti on s

SPECULATIVE CAPITAL, FOR city” PROFIT, EXPLOITATION 1970-80s “SavingCITY the inner

1970-80s “Saving the inner city”

Coalition? Shared campaign, organizational goals. Expectation of specific action. Too disruptive for most organizations.

bureaucratically managed Federal property sweat equity Funds, State Funds, City Funds, Technical 1800s “Make use of the west” Assistance ‘yeoman farmer’ consequences of exploitative ethic on large scale: genocide of first nations, ecocide resulting in “dust bowl” Housing

“lemon”

B A N K

WAREHOUSE

TWO-STOREY

CITY IN DECLINE LEGACY OF HOMESTEADING Top-Down Funding and Legislation for Low-Income Housing

CITY IN DECLINE Top-Down Funding and Legislation for Low-Income

TWO-STOREY

TYPOLOGIES

ownership model isand keyorganizations on a precarious keeps people MAKET property sweat equity affordable in perpetuity footing: vunerable to speculation and crisis ISOLATION 1800s “Make use of the west” collectively held

ownership model is key affordable in perpetuity collectively held

MULTI-STOREY

CIVIL SOCIETY

MULTI-STOREY

Bushwick is a full place, with strong local cultures, community organizing, socially active churches and co-ops. Rising rents, the displacement of the existing population, and destructive development schemes Bushwick is a full place, with strong local cultures, nonetheless threaten all the organizations that make up community organizing, socially active churchesthe andrich civil society now active in Bushwick. co-ops. Rising rents, the displacement of the existing population, and destructive development schemes nonetheless threaten all the organizations that make up Coalition? Social Mobilization. the rich civil society now active in Bushwick. Shared campaign, organizational goals. Shared Assets, organizational network. Expectation of specific action. Expectation of general cooperation. community Too disruptive for most organizations. Potential to stabilize most organizations. advocacy org. Social Mobilization. Shared Assets, organizational network. Banking Expectation of general cooperation. co-op church community Alternatives Potential to stabilize most organizations. advocacy org.

MULTI-STOREY

TYPOLOGIES

INDUSTRIAL

TWO-STOREY

CIVIL SOCIETY

MULTI-STOREY

Lease, power company, mega-store, et cetera

homes for people not profit

HOMESTEADING is a means to access this right

bureaucratically managed Federal Funds, State Funds, City Funds, Technical Assistance

community advocacy org.

TWO-STOREY

INDUSTRIAL

Alienated Actors

co-op

Lease, power company, mega-store, et cetera

HOMESTEADING is a means to access this right

a tive cl ss rea sc se ha

MIXED USE

a tive cl ss rea sc se DISPLACEMENT ha

THE RIGHT TO A HOME Alienated

homes for people not profit

VACANCY

DE HA VE of surveyed people said housing Lhigher TT 88% O affected them or those theyPEknow. Acosts RS 2013 © N Parsons Bushwick Survey

88% of surveyed people said higher housing costs affected them or those they know.

“

LO P

78% of surveyed people pay more than 30% of their income in housing.

RG 78% of surveyed people pay more than 30% of E their income in housing.

“

AT TA N

ca pi ta l

BUSHWICK 2013

“

DISPLACEMENT DE

AS S

ca pi ta l

VACANCY

AN DISPLACEMENT H

BUSHWICK 2013

CITYSTEADING: THE STEADY MAKING OF LIFE AS A CITY OR COMMUNITY THROUGH THE CREATION OF SHARED ASSETS AND DIALOG.

DISPLACEMENT

AS S

Communities appreciate different forms of value than do private markets. Through the creation of a Story Bank, we can begin to pool and share the value of local knowledge, while forming connections necessary to create a commons. Participatory “trans-media” projects, like Sandy Storyline, have shown a way for people to gather and tell their stories in order to create a shared, bottom-up discourse of their situation. Hidden throughout Bushwick are stories about the resources and civil society this community shares, as well as tales of the crisis and growing threat of displacement.

RESEARCH & ANALYSIS ACTION SCHEME 1 RESEARCH & ANALYSIS ACTION SCHEME

DISPLACEMENT

EA TI

CITYSTEADING IS THE VISION OF A STABLE, EQUITABLE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITY THAT MANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAKE UP THIS CIVIL SOCIETY SHARE AND ENGAGE IN ALREADY.

IF HOMESTEADING WAS A MEANS TO ACCESS THE RIGHT TO A HOME, THEN CITYSTEADING IS HOW WE GAIN ACCESS TO THE RIGHT TO THE CITY. RATHER THAN JUST BOTTOM-UP HOUSING, CITYSTEADING IS THE PROCESS FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING A BOTTOM-UP CITY.

Netw or k

THE RIGHT TO A HOME MEANS LITTLE IF THAT HOME IS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT AN AFFORDABLE GROCERY STORE; IN A PLACE THAT IS POLLUTED AND WITHOUT ACCESS TO SERVICES; OR IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TOO FAR FROM EQUITABLE EMPLOYMENT.

Not every organization is willing to share a single mission, but all of these organizations and people have resources they might share, and benefit from mutually. They may share and amplify a common discourse, while beginning a process of pooling stability-creating assets, like housing and local finance, off the profit-driven market. Citysteading is the vision of a stable, equitable and healthy community that many of the organizations that make up this civil society share and engage in already. In order to work toward this vision in the conditions of urgent change in Bushwick, they will need to pool and share resources in a way that stabilizes and supports the work they are already doing. It is in this context that the revival of a rhetoric and theory of the commons takes on an added significance. If state-supplied public goods either decline or become a mere vehicle for private accumulation (as is happening to education), and if the state withdraws from their provision, then there is only one possible response, which is for populations to selforganize to provide their own commons. (Harvey, Rebel Cities. p.87)

Netw or k

Proposing alternative models to assess the issue of affordable and sustainable housing, as a strategic stimulus to more inclusive urban practise, needs two main factors have to be kept in mind: on one hand the destruction wrought by top-down programs, like Urban Renewal and Red Lining; on the other the creative potential visible in bottom-up organizing, like the squatting movement and “self-help” rhetoric, lead to the embrace of the first programs for sweat equity ownership of urban homes across the United States, called Urban Homesteading. Sweat equity in the form of Urban Homesteading was a way for people to access the Right to a Home through their own hard work, even if they couldn’t afford housing. In the era of Urban Homesteading, beginning in the 1970s, the inner city was “emptied out”: creating a “new frontier” for the ambitious homesteader. But the coupling of bottom-up energy and top-down management never quite congealed, and the program faltered after it was determined to have done too little to improve the larger urban situation, and subsequent tax base.

IF HOMESTEADING WAS A MEANS TO ACCESS THE RIGHT TO A HOME, THEN CITYSTEADING IS HOW WE GAIN ACCESS TO THE RIGHT TO THE CITY.

The entity that can accommodate the needs of shifting the situation of Bushwick can be thought of as the Bushwick Commons, which may include a Community Land Trust, People’s Bank, Energy Trust, Food Co-ops and local economies under its umbrella: many of which exist or are developing. To confront displacement, land and homes ultimately need to be shifted off the market and into community forms of ownership, but so do resources like food and energy, which are encompassed by the Right to the City and provide varied means for residents of Bushwick get involved in Citysteading and have access to a common life. We can begin with the assets and resources we already have. According to recent suveys in Bushwick the rental units are between 37 and 44 percent of the whole housing stock. During our brief survey on the site, we found 78% of the population pay more than 30% of their income for housing, and 88% say that higher housing costs affected them or someone they know. There was little difference in these numbers between long-term residents and those who had just arrived. This is to say that very few of the residents of Bushwick have a form of ownership over their housing assets, but almost all intimately know the situation of personal crisis occurring around this housing. Where do we begin shifting these housing assets into a Bushwick Common? With such a behemoth task, with so little resources, where do we start? Perhaps we may begin with the type of asset all the residents of Bushwick hold around these spaces: stories and knowledge of their situation.

HPD LEAD PHASE HPD LEAD PHASE

FROM THE STORY BANK TO THE BUSHWICK COMMONS

HPD HPD

START START IDENTIFY IDENTIFY PROPERTY PROPERTY CLUSTER CLUSTER

BUSHWICK BUSHWICK COMMONS (BC) (BC) COMMONS

REQUEST FOR FOR QUALIFICATIONS QUALIFICATIONS REQUEST

(SOCIAL ENTERPRISE) (SOCIAL ENTERPRISE)

AFFORDABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSIING HOUSIING OPENED OPENED

COLLECTING STORIES FOR REFLECTION AND ACTION

2. 2.GATHER GATHER

3. 3.BUILD BUILD

STORIES STORIES

PROJECT PROJECT TEAM TEAM

The STORY BANK Project will bebe catalized The STORY BANK Project will catalizedbybya acore core team ofoflong-term community members, team long-term community members,new newlocal local creative professionals and local arts and creative professionals and local arts andculture culture organizations committed toto anti-displacement organizations committed anti-displacement community organizing. AsAs the project develops community organizing. the project developsother other partners join inin and contribute. partners join and contribute.

The Thestory storyassets assetswill willbe becollected collectedwithin withinan anonline online STORY STORYBANK, BANK,where wherepeople peoplecan canwatch watchstories, stories,and and add addnew newones. ones.All Allstories storieswill willbe belocated locatedon onaamap, map, allowing allowingfor foraaspatialized spatializedanalysis analysisof ofthe thestories. stories.But But this thisisisnot notall. all.The TheSTORY STORYBANK BANKisisnot notjust justaadatabase. database.ItIt will willbe beused usedas asaagenerative generativepedagogical pedagogicaland andorganorganzing zing tool. tool.

Our Ourteam teamofoflocal localyouth youthwill willpan panout outinto intoSouth South Bushwick Bushwickvisiting visitingsignificant significantsites, sites,meeting meetingwith with residents and gathering stories about residents and gathering stories aboutthree threemeta meta themes: themes: 1.1.Gentrification Gentrificationand anddisplacement displacement 2.2.Community Communitycontroled controledassets assets 3.3.Spaces Spacesofofopportunity opportunity

Bushwick BushwickCollective Collective will will create create aa series series of of murals murals inspired inspiredby by the the STORY STORY BANK BANK meta meta themes themes and real stories storiesof ofcommunity community members. members.

The Theteams teamswill willwork workwith withresidents residentstotoproduce producedigital digital stories. stories.

STORY STORY BANK BANK

SPRING SPRING

PLEDGESDEFINITION DEFINITION PLEDGES SPATIALIZATION SPATIALIZATION

SUMMER SUMMER

FALL FALL

SPRING SPRING

WINTER WINTER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

00 00

THE SEASONAL PHASING OF THE CITY-STEADING SPRING SPRING

PERF.DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PERF.

SUMMER SUMMER

FALL FALL

WINTER WINTER

If we intend to begin sharing the bebank taken by all00 the organizations, storybank 00 ENVISIONING THEwish COMMUNITY resources of our neighborhood, we storyresidents and businesses that to ENVISIONING THE COMMUNITY must first get to know our neighbors. do so, and who have been involved in Gathering local knowledge into a Story sharing their knowledge. During this Bank over the course of the summer celebration, the Story Bank is the first with local youth, from resident, as well set of assets to be symbolically placed as active organizations who may want into the Bushwick Common. to participate in sharing resources, This is a declaration: even the value should happen in parallel as we lay the of the people’s stories is greater groundwork for expanding a Bushwick than the profit value to be made in Common to include many community dispossessing this community. This is assets. Creating a Story Bank, as a a performance: the Bushwick Common first set of collective assets, means we already holds greater assets than the have something to show for the shared for-profit market in Bushwick. This discourse and civil society that already what we mean to share a discourse: we takes place here: the potential latent in make it all our own. the process of Citysteading. Over the winter, the steady legal As summer concludes into fall, there work of establishing a way to hold is a time for collecting, presenting common assets will be undertaken. and celebrating the stories that have Churches and co-ops with property been shared. At this time, the decision may join to establish the initial stock to form the Bushwick Commons can

FALL FALL

SPRING SPRING

WINTER WINTER

SUMMER

FALL FALL

SPRING SPRING

WINTER WINTER

PLEDGES PLEDGES STATEMENT STATEMENT NEW NEW KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE ASSETS ASSETS SHARING SHARING

SUMMER SUMMER

FALL FALL

SPRING SPRING

WINTER WINTER

STOCKTAKING STOCKTAKING

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING FALL FALL INSTITUTIONALIZATION INSTITUTIONALIZATION SPRING WINTER SPRING WINTER

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING SUMMER SUMMER SPRING SPRING ALLOCATION ALLOCATION

SUMMER SUMMER

STOCKTAKING STOCKTAKING

HABITABILITY HABITABILITY

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ALLOCATION ALLOCATION

01 01

SUMMER SUMMER

FALL FALL

SPRING SPRING

WINTER WINTER

FALL FALL

03 03

ACHIEVING ACHIEVINGNEW NEWSTOCK STOCK

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

04 04

03 03

ACHIEVING ACHIEVING NEW NEW STOCK STOCK

SUMM SUM

HABITABILITY HABITABILITY

WINTER WINTER

02 02

ESTABLISHING ESTABLISHINGCOMMONS COMMONSBUSHWICK BUSHWICK

02 02

SOCIAL SOCIALENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ISSUESDRAMATIZATION DRAMATIZATION ISSUES

SPRING SPRING

PERF.DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PERF.

SUMMER SUMMER

for a CLT, and the process of creating it can begin. People can pledge their time into a Time Bank that can be shared with organizations that need help with organizing, or shared energy production can be developed that becomes a common resource. Home and business owners, who may not wish to put their property into a CLT at the outset, or renters who are unable to, may nonetheless be willing to have a portion of their energy bill covered by an energy commons, or could offer some of their time to the civil society. By the end of the first year, next spring, it’s time to take stock of the institutional solidification that was accomplished over the winter months. At the very least the Bushwick Common, a membership organization open to all residents, can be created, and organizational structures, like

SUMMER SUMMER story bank bank story

FALL FALL

WINTER WINTER

SPRING SPRING

FALL FALL

SUMMER SUMMER

co-ops and a CLT, to exist within the framework ofCOMMONS Bushwick Common, can ESTABLISHING BUSHWICK be moving forward. Spring is also a time for visioning and planning for what may come in the next year. After all, summer is coming. This seasonal Citysteading strategy: summer for gaining assets, fall for celebrating and collecting them, winter for solidifying gains, and spring for taking stock and setting goals, is a loose method to proceed steadily into the future. After Citysteading is established, the following year can be a time to look at creating a center for organizations participating in the Bushwick Common out of an abandoned building. In our project, we will explain in detail at what this first and second year may look like, and what the creation of a Bushwick Common would mean. 01 01 ESTABLISHING COMMONS BUSHWICK

SPRING SPRING

WINTER WINTER

SPRING SPRING

01 01

PERF. PERF. DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

ALLOCATION ALLOCATION

HABITABILITY HABITABILITY

SUMMER SUMMER OCCUPATION OCCUPATION SHELTERING SHELTERING

FALL FALL

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ISSUES DRAMATIZATION DEVELOPMENT ISSUES DRAMATIZATION PERF. PERF. DEVELOPMENT

HABITABILITY HABITABILITY

SUMMER SUMMER

FALL FALL

WINTER WINTER

SPRING SPRING

SUMMER SUMMER

02 02

ESTABLISHING ESTABLISHING COMMONS COMMONSBUSHWICK BUSHWICK

ENVISIONING THE COMMUNITY

WINTER WINTER

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ISSUES ISSUESDRAMATIZATION DRAMATIZATION PERF. PERF.DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

STOCKTAKING STOCKTAKING PERF. PERF. DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

00 00 ENVISIONING THE COMMUNITY

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ISSUES DRAMATIZATION ISSUES DRAMATIZATION

ALLOCATION ALLOCATION

INSTITUTIONALIZATION INSTITUTIONALIZATION STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ISSUES ISSUES DRAMATIZATION DRAMATIZATION

FALL FALL

INSTITUTIONALIZATION INSTITUTIONALIZATION

STOCKTAKING STOCKTAKING

ASSETS SHARING ASSETS SHARING

PLEDGES STATEMENT STATEMENT PLEDGES NEW KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE NEW

SPATIALIZATION SPATIALIZATION PERF. DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PERF.

SPRING SPRING

ENVISIONINGTHE THECOMMUNITY COMMUNITY ENVISIONING

ASSETSSHARING SHARING ASSETS

NEW STOCK STOCK NEW

GATHERING STORIES STORIES GATHERING GATHERING MEMBERS MEMBERS GATHERING PLEDGES DEFINITION DEFINITION PLEDGES

PLEDGESSTATEMENT STATEMENT PLEDGES NEWKNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE NEW

BUSHWICK BUSHWICK COMMONS COMMONS

ENVISIONING THE COMMUNITY

GATHERING TEAM TEAM GATHERING

PLEDGESDEFINITION DEFINITION PLEDGES SPATIALIZATION SPATIALIZATION

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING SUMMER

SUMMER SUMMER

GATHERING MEMBERS GATHERING STORIES

GATHERING MEMBERS MEMBERS GATHERING GATHERING STORIES GATHERING STORIES

GATHERINGSTORIES STORIES GATHERING GATHERINGMEMBERS MEMBERS GATHERING

TECH ASSISTANCE TECH ASSISTANCE STRUCTURAL RENO. STRUCTURAL RENO.

STOCK NEW STOCK

SUMMER

ESTABLISHING COMMONS COMMONS BUSHWICK BUSHWICK ESTABLISHING

BUILDING BUILDING REHABILITATION REHABILITATION FUNDING: 1,5,7* FUNDING: 1,5,7*

COMMUNITY TRUST TRUST COMMUNITY

STRATEGIZING INSTITUTIONALIZATION

01 01

GATHERINGTEAM TEAM GATHERING

STORY BANK

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING

PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE

BUILDING BUILDING INSPECTION INSPECTION

THIS IS A DECLARATION: EVEN THE VALUE OF THE PEOPLE’S STORIES IS GREATER THAN THE PROFIT VALUE TO BE MADE IN DISPOSSESSING THIS COMMUNITY.

TheProcession Processionwill willcoalesce coalesceininaaPledge PledgeCeremony, Ceremony, The whereindividuals, individuals,organizaitons, organizaitons,and andpublic publicofficials officials where willpledge pledgeaacontribution contributiontowards towardsthe thecreation creationofofaa will CommunityTrust. Trust.Contributions Contributionscould couldbe beasassimple simpleasas Community volunteerhours hoursor orin-kind in-kindlegal legalservices. services.Large Large volunteer organizationscould couldpledge pledgestaff staffpower, power,ororeven even organizations pledgeto totheir theirproperties propertiesfor forthe thefuture futureLand LandTrust. Trust. pledge

of walking walking tours, tours, street street parties partiesand andprotest protestin inBushwick. Bushwick. There is a strong history of Displacement build build off off this this tradition. tradition.Through Throughthe thelive livetelling tellingof of The Procession Against Displacement projections on on buildings, buildings, street street theatre theatreand andmusic, music,the theevent eventwill will stories, multimedia projections publically honor stories of of stuggle, stuggle, celebrate celebrate collectively collectivelycontroled controledassets, assets,and andidentify identify including viable viable vacant vacant buildings. buildings. sites of opportunity including

PLEDGES STATEMENT NEW KNOWLEDGE PERFORMANCE ASSETS SHARING

FALL FALL WINTER WINTER

TEMPPROPERTY PROPERTYCONVEYANCE CONVEYANCE TEMP TOBUSHWICK BUSHWICKCOMMONS COMMONSSE. SE. INC TO INC

LOCAL LOCAL CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS

UHAB UHAB

NEIGHBOURHOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP HOUSING PARTNERSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION. CORPORATION.

NPHDFC NPHDFC

CEREMONY CEREMONY

COMMUNITY TRUST

PLEDGES DEFINITION DEFINITION PLEDGES SUMMER SUMMER SPATIALIZATION SPATIALIZATION

LOCAL LOCAL RESIDENTS RESIDENTS

TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TRANSFER OWNERSHIP

6. PLEDGE PLEDGE 6.

The TheSTORY STORYBANK BANK project project team team will will work work with with the the Story StoryAssets Assetsto to develop develop aa performative performative event event that presents presentsthe thestories stories back back to to the the community community in the form formof ofaaProcession Procession Against Against Displacement. Displacement. The Thegroup groupwill will define define aa route, route, write write aa script, script, produce multimedia multimediainstallations, installations, and and invite invite other other local local organizations to contribute. organizations to contribute.

PURCHASE PURCHASE PROPERTIES PROPERTIES

PRIVATE PRIVATE OWNERS OWNERS

NEGOTIATE PURCHASE NEGOTIATE PURCHASE

SWEAT EQUITY SWEAT EQUITY

OWNERSHIPTRANSFERED TRANSFERED OWNERSHIP TOBUSHWICK BUSHWICKCOMMONS COMMONS TO

PROCESSION PROCESSION

PUBLIC PUBLIC PRESENTATION PRESENTATION

LANDDONATED DONATEDTO TO LAND BUSHWICKCOMMONS COMMONS BUSHWICK

BUSHWICK BUSHWICK COMMONS COMMONS

5. ANTI ANTI -- DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT

4. 4. CO-CREATE CO-CREATE

STORY STORY BANK BANK

FUNDING: 1,5,7* FUNDING: 1,5,7*

DEVELOP FULL FINANCIAL DEVELOP FULL FINANCIAL PACKAGE: PURCHASE, REHAB, PACKAGE: PURCHASE, REHAB, TECH SUPPORT, LOW INCOME, TECH SUPPORT, LOW INCOME, RENTALSUPPORT SUPPORT RENTAL

HPD HPD

NOT FOR FOR PROFIT PROFIT NOT

DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT/ /COMMUNITY COMMUNITYCONTROLED CONTROLEDASSETS ASSETS/ /SPACES SPACESOF OFOPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY

1.1.GATHER GATHER

HPD ACCEPTANCE HPD ACCEPTANCE

BUSHWICK BUSHWICK COMMONS COMMONS

STORY STORYBANK BANK COLLECTING STORIES FOR REFLECTION AND ACTION PROCESS PROCESS

HPD HPD (NOP) (NOP)

UHAB UHAB

BC BC

03 03 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

ACHIEVING ACHIEVINGNEW NEWSTOCK STOCK

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

STRATEGIZING STRATEGIZING ISSUES ISSUESDRAMATIZATION DRAMATIZATION PERF. PERF.DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

WINTER WINTER

SPRING SPRING

SUMMER SUMMER

HOUSING

DWELLING

HOUSING

STRUCTURAL 02 02 INTERVENTION STRUCTURAL INTERVENTION ACHIEVING ENVISIONING ACHIEVING NEW NEW STOCK STOCK

DWELLING

03 03 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

ENVISIONING

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

FALL

SUMMER

SPRING

WINTER

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING SUMMER

WINTER

SPRING

WINTER

FALL

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

SPRING

WINTER

SUMMER

FALL

SPRING

WINTER

FALL

SUMMER

SPRING

WINTER

INVESTMENT CAMPAIGN

FALL

INVESTMENT CAMPAIGN TEMPORARY HOSTING START-UP

ENHANCEMENT INVESTMENT CAMPAIGN

INVESTMENT CAMPAIGN TEMPORARY HOSTING START-UP

ENHANCEMENT

WORKSHOPS START-UP RENEWAL

WORKSHOPS START-UP

PHASE_01

PHASE_02

PHASE_03

PHASE_01

PHASE_02

PHASE_03

ESTABLISHING ACTIVITIES

RENEWAL

CONSOLIDATING SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

ESTABLISHING ACTIVITIES

CONSOLIDATING SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

PHASE_00

RESTRUCTURING AND CONSOLIDATING

PHASE_00

RESTRUCTURING AND CONSOLIDATING

OCCUPATION

HOUSING

SHELTERING

DWELLING

RENEWAL

STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ENVISIONING

OCCUPATION SHELTERING

ENHANCEMENT

WORKSHOPS START-UP

FALL

SPRING

SUMMER

HOUSING

FALL

MARKETING

WINTER

RENEWAL

STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ENVISIONING

RESTRUCTURING AND CONSOLIDATING

FALL

WINTER

RESTRUCTURING AND CONSOLIDATING

SPRING

SUMMER

DWELLING

FALL

WINTER

ENHANCEMENT

WORKSHOPS START-UP

TEMPORARY HOSTING START-UP

INVESTEMENT CAMPAIGN

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

ESTABLISHING ACTIVITIES FALL

ESTABLISHING ACTIVITIES

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

TEMPORARY HOSTING START-UP

INVESTEMENT CAMPAIGN

SUMMER

MARKETING

CONSOLIDATING FALL SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT WINTER

CONSOLIDATING SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

SPRING

SUMMER

SPRIN SP

WHAT COULD THIS NEW ECOLOGY OF HOUSING LOOK LIKE?

BUSHWICK INCLUSIVE

3rd

2nd

Floo

r: S

hor

t Te

Ren te

rs -

Floo

r: Lo

rm R ente

rs - 4

Ground Lev el: Existing Families

TOWARDS INCLUSIVITY & NONDISPLACEMENT There is a chronic housing crisis in New York City that is founded in limited access, unaffordability, a speculative real estate market, and the precariousness of tenure for both renters and owners. The effects from this crisis reverberate throughout the wider community and influence health, economic vitality, educational opportunities, and other social capacities. The Brooklyn community of Bushwick represents both acute and extreme cases of these conditions and therefore provides a fertile opportunity to co-design innovative solutions that drive social change. Our framework is based on the belief that if a more inclusive community of stakeholders have access to socially innovative tools, resources, and networks that take into account their skills while engaging their participation, community projects will have a greater impact - leading to overall systematic change instead of just local interventions. This project’s end goal is to create an innovative and sustainable social impact venture to build affordable housing alternatives. These alternatives will be fundamental in generating a variety of transformative and developmental experiences to spur economic development, educational growth, and community engagement. We believe our model supports a healthy and positive balance by bringing together existing and new residents of Bushwick to enjoy simple, comfortable, and affordable living in both the short and long term. Additionally, the proposal’s flexibility means the model can extend beyond housing to generate opportunities throughout the community, improving the overall quality of life for ALL. Instead of the sorting out and separation of different people that has characteried New York City’s evolution over the last few generations, our work aims to (re)establish a more integrated city, made up of healthier, more diverse, and inclusive neighborhoods. This proposal begins with affordable housing, but naturally extends to the other systems that make up the city.

WHO’S LIVING IN BUSHWICK Bushwick is a melting pot with a population of over 112,000. The existing neighborhood’s residents are nearly 66% Hispanic and 20% African American. This is interesting because the majority of Bushwick’s residents are a minority in the city at large, because the city’s largest population of Hispanic/Latinos lives here. When looking at homeownership, as of 2007, 17% of Latino residents have owned their home in relationship to the 31% of African Americans and 10% of Whites. However, the percentage of renters in Bushwick is evenly spread in which 82% of both White and Latino populations rent in Bushwick. This neighborhood has seen a history of redlining and other neighborhood challenges, however, have also been seeing waves of growth most recently. Part of this growth is due to the moving in of young professionals and other members of the creative class. This pattern has also taken place in the bordering neighborhood of Williamsburg. The 2010 Census shows us that the white population of Bushwick has increased over 200%, including an increase of the population of whites over 18 by 270% (since 2000). This represents that the rate at which these new residents are moving in is increasing dramatically. One concern with these new residents is that with or without knowing, their short-term residency in an area such as Bushwick causes a quick turn over of increased rents. This turn over then causes those that have roots in the neighborhood to move due to unaffordability. According to a survey conducted by the Design and Urban Ecologies program at Parsons, residents in Bushwick that had a longer tenure of over 20 years still rented, including those born in the neighborhood. This population of people is being

pressured to leave due to increasing rents. While this influx of new short-term residents creates an increase in the local revenue (by opening bars, restaurants, creating community gardens, and galleries), these new residents (new graduates/young professionals and artists) remain in a similar precarious economic situation as the local long term residents, and may not even know it; hence their reasoning for moving to a more affordable community. Long term or new, 85.1% of the people in Bushwick are renters, and 58% of those people pay more than 30% of their income toward rent. Housing must be inclusive of all people based on this commonality

nits

ng Te

Units

- 2 Units

PROJECTED FINANCIAL MODEL Currently: 8

buildings

45 Traditional Housing Units

$3,667,300 Total Market Value!

38,678 sq. ft.

What Could Be: 8

buildings

Innovative Housing Units

Projected Costs Projecting renovations cost $200/sq. ft. x 38,678 sq. ft. = $11,402,900 (with an investor return of 4.5% over 20 years) = $11,916,030

You would pay $585/month This is the rent/unit/month w/20 year ROI

Projecting renovations cost $75/sq. ft.. x 38,678 sq. ft. = $6,568,150 (with an investor return of 4.5% over 20 years) = $6,863,716

HOW DO YOU BUILD THAT AWARENESS BETWEEN NEW PEOPLE AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD-- AND HOUSE SOME KIND OF UNITY BETWEEN PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES? LAURA GOTTESDINER, FREELANCE JOURNALIST

You would pay $336/month This is the rent/unit/month w/20 year ROI

WHY 85 Units? Because building alternative living spaces that respond more appropriately to the changing demographic and changing demand, i.e. with options for shared amenities and smaller units, we are creating system that can support a more diverse community without the resultant displacement.

385 Woodbine Street, NY 11237 3

Floors

$421,300 Total Market Value!

Traditional Housing Units

What Could Be: 3

Floors

Innovative Housing Units

4,905 sq. ft.

Projected Costs Projecting renovations cost $200/sq. ft. x 4,905 sq. ft. = $1,240,000 (with an investor return of 4.5% over 20 years) = $1,295,800 Projecting renovations cost $75/sq. ft.. x 4,905 sq. ft. = $728,125 (with an investor return of 4.5% over 20 years) = $760,890

You would pay $450/month This is the rent/unit/month w/20 year ROI

You would pay $265/month This is the rent/unit/month w/20 year ROI

THE HYBRID IMPACT MODEL “While there is nothing wrong with people moving, in our feeling is that it is wrong if it displaces the long term residence”. Sister Kathleen Maire director Bushwick Housing Independence Project “What the city is calling affordable is ridiculous. Working people, people on fixed income people unemployed, public assistance; they are out of the picture”. Howard Brandstein Sixth Street Community Center

“There is more people exactly like me who said: "Oh this is a better place I could live".. and there is a fast subway to and from the city, so they thought exactly like I did and they moved here and more and more and more, and now, as you can see, it's filled with white people. It is terrible, but it is true”. Anonymous Bushwickian Barowner in Bushwick

IDENTIFY INVOLVEMENT

After completing the strategic analysis, our goal is to expand the scope of potential stakeholders. Here we identify collaborative partners and form Collective Action Agreements, aka CAAs, that define the terms and condition of the partnerships. Further, a CAA outlines the B-Corp’s intention of fostering initiatives that encourage community, educational, and economic impact. In addition, the agreement allows community stakeholders to be part of the process of developing their community, as well as ensuring the activities of the B- Corp align with the community agreement. One parnership our B-Corp model looks at is with academic institutions, expanding their potential to become community anchors. Students, faculty, and university staff need housing and are already spending on this need, while the university costs of acquiring and maintaining dedicated student housing are quickly becoming unsustainable. A partnership and CAA between the B-Corp and The New School or other academic institution would:

“More and more white people are coming too, they pay higher rents, and this is affecting us, and I don't like this”. Anonymous Bushwickian English Student at Make the Road New York

“You are passing by and leaving the rest behind and leaving the problem behind. Why don't you be part of it while you staying here, and help us." Gladys Puglia, member of Make the Road New York

• Establish a pre-identified source of income to support the return on investment, aka ROI, schedule, which acts as an incentive for social impact investors to invest; • Create research opportunities on the effectiveness of academic institutions becoming a community anchor through collective agreements in and with communities; • Generate opportunities for student and faculty demographics to extend skill sets and knowledge into the community in exchange for affordable housing, student debt forgiverness, funding opportunities, etc. Instead of the dominant narrative of university development models accelerating gentrification and displacement, this agreement transforms the inescapable student housing process into a vehicle for social impact, inclusion, and neighborhood stability, making the university part of the solution towards a new ecology of housing.

VALUES

SOCIAL INVESTMENT SOCIAL INVESTMENT COMMUNITYCOMMUNITY LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS NON-PROFITNON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS CORPORATIONS

GRANTS GRANTS PHILANTHROPIC

ORGANIZATIONS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FUNDS SOCIAL INVESTMENT GREEN GREEN FUNDING FUNDING COMMUNITY RESOURCES RESOURCES LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS RESIDENTS

GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS INITIATIVES INITIATIVES AFFORDABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING TAX CREDITS TAX CREDITS NEW YORK NEWSTATE YORK STATE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY & RE-INVESTMENT & RE-INVESTMENT INITIATIVE INITIATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL

PHILANTHROPIC GRANTS

COMMUNITY TENANT TENANTSELECTION SELECTION & & DEVELOPMENT FUNDS PLACEMENT PLACEMENT GREEN FUNDING RESOURCES

GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TAX CREDITS

NEW YORK STATE COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY & RE-INVESTMENT INITIATIVE

GOVERNMENT TENANT TENANT INTERIMINTERIM LEASE LEASE INITIATIVES PROGRAM PROGRAM (TIL) (TIL) REHABILITATE

SKILLSHARE IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENT HOUSING HOUSING APPLICATION APPLICATION PROCESS PROCESS APPRENTICESHIP

APPRENTICESHIP APPRENTICESHIP SWEAT SWEATEQUITY EQUITY

ACCOUNTING VACANCY ACCOUNTING LAND VACANCY BANK 7A PROCEEDING LAND BANK OFFICE OFFICE

FORM A RESIDENT COUNCIL

TAX CLASS REFORM

VACANCY ACCOUNTING OFFICE

LONG TERM RENTALS COMMUNITY LAND COMMUNITY LANDRESIDENTS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS LEASE TO PURCHASE TRUST TRUST

PURCHASE PURCHASE

COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

PURCHASE

KITCHEN KITCHEN WORKSHOP WORKSHOP

FEDERAL TAX DEDUCTION FOR RENTERS- GIVE THEM SIMILAR TREATMENT TO HOMEOWNERS

COMMUNAL LIVING

LEASE LEASE TO PURCHASE TO PURCHASE

COMMUNAL AMENITIES

LEGALLEGAL WORKSHOP WORKSHOP

MIXED USE

LONG TERM LONG LEASE TERM BATTLE LEASE BATTLE LONG TERM LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPECULATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPECULATION KITCHEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TENANTS/OWNERS TENANTS/OWNERS TENANTS/OWNERS DECOUPLE DECOUPLE WORKSHOP PROPERTY VALUES PROPERTY VALUES LEGAL WORKSHOP REJECT GENTRIFICATION/ REJECT GENTRIFICATION/ DISPLACEMENTDISPLACEMENT

KITCHENKITCHEN COMMUNITY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE SPACES SPACES SPACES INNOVATION LABS LABS INNOVATION CREATIVE TRADESTRADES CREATIVE CARE SPACES CARE SPACES REVENUE REVENUE FROM B-CORP FROM B-CORP OPERATIONS OPERATIONS

FEDERAL TAX DEDUCTION FEDERAL TAX DEDUCTION SLIDING SCALE OF SLIDING SCALE SLIDING SCALE OF NATIONAL STABILIZATION FOR OF RENTERS- GIVE THEM FOR RENTERSGIVE THEM PENALTIES ONPENALTIES TAXES ON TAXES ON TAXES SIMILAR TREATMENT TO PENALTIES SIMILAR TREATMENT TO TRUST FOR VACANCYFOR VACANCY FOR VACANCY HOMEOWNERS HOMEOWNERS

7A PROCEEDING 7A PROCEEDING LAND BANK

COMMUNAL LIVING COMMUNAL IMPACT HOUSING IMPACT HOUSINGTENANT SELECTION & LIVING IMPACT HOUSING TIERS TIERS PLACEMENT TIERS LONG TERM LONGRENTALS TERM RENTALS

MIXED USE USE MIXED

POLICY

To address the structural vacancy and speculative purchasing trends happening in Bushwick, there should be property tax and other financial penalties for keeping spaces permanently unoccupied. An example is charging property owners a higher Class 4 tax rate if they own a vacant Class 1 or 2 property, responding to an inherent problem with the City tax code. Another penalty could be created for vacancies existing for more than six months. Additionally, if these regulations are not followed, legislation can be proposed for the city to acquire these warehoused properties for entrance into a land bank and eventual community land trust. In tandem with these first policies, New York City should create a formal land bank that can acquire vacant building or lots for the purpose of developing affordable housing. This land bank should be held in the stewardship of qualified housing advocates and community representatives, acting as a check against the incursions of speculative developers. Finally, we can pursue the creation of a State-Appointed investigation committee to look into the current problems with the NYC Housing Court. From previous conversations with housing advocates working in the city, major interventions by landlords and developers in the housing court system give them unfair representation and friendliness. This makes it incredibly difficult for renters to voice their complaints or situations in a system that was originally meant to allow them the opportunity to try their cases.

TENANT INTERIM LEASE PROGRAM (TIL) HOUSING COURT HOUSING COURT ASSESSMENT &ASSESSMENT & HOUSING ASSESSMENT TAX CLASSCOURT REFORM TAX CLASS REFORM& INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION TRANSPARENCY TRANSPARENCY INVESTIGATION TRANSPARENCY

IMPLEMENT HOUSING APPLICATION PROCESS

SWEAT EQUITY FORM FORM A RESIDENT A RESIDENT COUNCIL COUNCIL

COMMUNAL COMMUNAL AMENITIES AMENITIES

After on the ground analysis, strategic partnering, and securing funding, the development process begins. Having identified and acquired properties through donation, government subsidies, and individual or bundled purchases, we can start to design living spaces. This process will question standard housing design, working with community members to ensure appropriate living spaces. Considering both the long-term and newly arriving Bushwick residents, innovative possibilities for shared amenities and spaces, as well as considerations of different housing needs, create an entirely new housing model - a model responding to the reality of the neighborhood. Once designed, the build-out process will include local residents, organizations, and volunteers, while utilizing sweat equity, local unions, and other local tradesmen. These partnerships will help reduce the project costs while also forging new relationships and cultivating the seeds for a healthier, stronger community. The rehabilitations must take advantage of sustainability and building efficiency resources to further cut their build-out costs as well as residents long term operating costs. This process will also engage residents to take more agency in their infrastructure and housing ecology. Residents will enter into a CommunitySteading Agreement which commits them to acting as engaged members of the community. By providing skillsets and and expertise to the neighborhood, the model promotes daily interactions among diverse residents, strengthening the social fabric and community network. Examples of this CommunitySteading could be working in a local grocery, supporting a childcare cooperative, starting a local clinic, working in a community kitchen, providing tenants’ rights or public defender services, or collecting community organic waste for the community garden

POLICY

REHABILITATE REHABILITATE

CROWDFUNDING SKILLSHARE SKILLSHARE

ENVIRONMENTAL

GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES INITIATIVES

POLICY

SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT

ACQUIRE NATIONAL NATIONAL STABILIZATION STABILIZATION BUNDLE BUNDLE PURCHASE PURCHASE BUNDLE PURCHASE TRUSTTRUST PROPERTY/PROPERTIES

COMMUNITY STEADING AGREEMENT

VALUES

PHILANTHROPIC PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS ORGANIZATIONS

SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS

STRATEGIC DESIGN MODEL

GOVERNMENT SOCIALSOCIAL IMPACTIMPACTAGENCIES INCORPORATION LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL INVESTMENT INVESTMENT STATE STATE STATE GOALS & TACTICS GOALS & TACTICS GOALS & TACTICS FEDERAL FEDERAL CROWDFUNDING CROWDFUNDING FEDERAL CERTIFY BENEFIT CORPORATION B-LAB CONSTRUCTED CONSTRUCTED ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS ACADEMIC CONSTRUCTED INSTITUTIONS ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS IRIS PHILANTHROPIC PHILANTHROPIC ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTG I I R S ENVIRONMENT

SOCIAL CAPITAL

COMMUNITY STEADING AGREEMENT

RESIDENTS

SOCIALSOCIAL IMPACTIMPACT BONDS BONDS

STRATEGIC DESIGN MODEL

SOCIOSOCIOSOCIODRAFT CORPORATE CHARTER DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS BY-LAWS, ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AGENCIES

STRATEGIC DESIGN MODEL

SOCIAL SOCIAL IMPACT IMPACT COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS CAPITAL CAPITAL

ACQUIRE ACQUIRE PROPERTY/PROPERTIES IMPACT PROPERTY/PROPERTIES

INCLUSIVE DESIGN MODEL & COMMUNITYSTEADING

LAND DONATION

LAND DONATION LAND DONATION

POLICY

COLLECTIVE ACTION AGREEMENTS

RESOURCES IDENTIFY INVOLVEMENT

LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS

RESOURCES

IDENTIFY INVOLVEMENT COMMUNITY ANALYSIS

IDENTIFY INVOLVEMENT

CERTIFY BENEFIT CORPORATION CERTIFY BENEFIT CORPORATION B-LAB B-LAB IRIS IRIS GIIRS GIIRS

CHALLENGES CHALLENGES CHALLENGES COMMUNITYCOMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDERS STATE CORPORATE MISSION

COMMUNITY ANALYSIS

DRAFT CORPORATE CHARTER DRAFT CORPORATE CHARTER BY-LAWS, ARTICLES OF BY-LAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION INCORPORATION

The strategic analysis component of our model promotes an informed design process. In this phase, we engage into understanding the socio-demographics, challenges, goals, values, as well as the constructed environment of the targeted community. Further, we encourage a participatory process by working closely with community members to facilitate an informed analytical lens that seeks to promote inclusive strategies. Using census and other demographic survey data, we can understand who lives in the neighborhood and what kind of changes are going on there as an initial introduction before speaking and working with local residents. Additionally, we are able to visualize the public amenities and services in Bushwick to get a better understanding of the neighborhood’s infrastructure and resources, or lack thereof, and the opportunities that might be possible to improve them through this proposal. In addition, using spatial analyses we identified vacant property clusters that serve as possible areas to begin the acquisition and occupation processes. These clusters are made up of smaller residential buildings, single to four story, whose proximity to one another creates better opportunities to share resources among and create services for residents. They also recognize the possibility for efficiencies that come with undertaking multiple projects within a certain distance from each other, such as bundled property buying, coordinated volunteer labor, or shared decentralized power generation.

COLLECTIVE COLLECTIVE FORM ACTIONACTION B-CORPORATION AGREEMENTS AGREEMENTS

FORM FORM B-CORPORATION B-CORPORATION

In addition to standard affordable housing incentives - Affordable Housing Tax Credits, 80/20 New Construction Housing program, 421A Residential Property Tax Breaks, Inclusionary Zoning, etc - what makes this development model unique is the B-Corp’s opportunities to access private and for-profit sources of capital with a focus on social & environmental impact, including Social Impact Investors, Development Impact Bonds, and Crowdfunding. Social Impact Investments, aka SIIs, are intended to create positive impacts beyond standard financial returns. They provide capital, with the expectation of some financial returns, to businesses dedicated to creating positive social and/or environmental impact. These investments typically take risks that traditional investors and or lenders are not willing to take, specifically into innovative models that deliver these social impacts.Examples of Social Impact Investor Platforms: Mission Markets RSF, Investors Circle J.P. Morgan. Development Impact Bonds, aka SIBs, raise private investment capital to fund prevention and early intervention programs that reduce the need for expensive crisis responses and safety-net services. The government repays investors only if the intervention successfully improves social outcomes, such as reducing homelessness or the number of repeat offenders in the criminal justice system. SIBs are also called Pay for Success or Social Benefit Bonds Crowdfunding can replace certain specialized grant applications and traditional fundraising techniques with that of a more grassroots approach based on crowd participation and many smaller investments pooled to achieve a larger outcome. The internet has provided new streamlined approaches to quickly implementing crowdfunding for small-scale and/or sudden needs (ie. disaster relief, travel expenses, legal fees, etc.). Although popularized by

RESOURCES

The Benefit and B-Corp structures legally allow for-profit businesses to include social impact goals in their corporate charter and by-laws, allowing the corporation to pursue these social and environmental bottom lines in addition to the standard bottom line of increasing share holder value. Additionally, third party evaluators certify and rate the B-Corp’s performance. This allows potential social impact investors to view and compare the company’s report card and ratings relative to their social mission. Finally, B- Corps allow for more innovative and unrestrictive financial modeling, which can be tailored to meet specific community needs, or creatively supprt models which might not otherwise be supported. Prominent New York City development models that already exist are Community Development Corporations, aka CDCs, the New York City Housing Association, aka NYCHA, and private developers. CDCs are not-for profit corporations created for the benefit of local governments for economic development or other public purposes. They are exempt from laws that guide governments’ operations and financial transactions, which tends to increase the risk of waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer dollars and assets. NYCHA is a public authority with an enormous operating shortfall ($60 million / year) and disappearing housing subsidies, in addition to fraught relationships with their residents. Private developers focus on maximizing profit and luxury housing, taking advantage of less-savvy clients and building with less robust materials. Taking these things into account, the B-Corp offers more flexibility, transparency, community involvement in the processes, and access to more diverse financing sources and a wide community of social change agents.

STATE CORPORATE MISSION STATE CORPORATE MISSION

RESOURCES

STRATEGIC ANALYSIS

STRUCTURE: FORM THE B-CORP

fundraising for smaller social, personal, and cultural endeavors, structures are being created to further formalize and legitimize the tool for investors with different strategies.

PAY INVESTORS BACK (ROI) PAY INVESTORS BACK (ROI) REVENUE RETURN ON INVESTMENT RETURN ON INVESTMENT FROM B-CORP COVERS OPERATIONAL COVERS OPERATIONAL COSTS COSTS OPERATIONS

COMMUNITY KITCHEN INNOVATION LABS CREATIVE TRADES CARE SPACES PAY INVESTORS BACK (ROI) RETURN ON INVESTMENT COVERS OPERATIONAL COSTS

BATTLE SPECULATION DECOUPLE PROPERTY VALUES REJECT GENTRIFICATION/ DISPLACEMENT

JUST AS QUICKLY AS YOU READ THIS...YOU ARE NOW INVOLVED DESIGN AND URBAN ECOLOGIES SPRING ’13 STUDIO

in the city