{"id":401604,"date":"2019-03-28T04:39:57","date_gmt":"2019-03-28T03:39:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/residents-an-afterthought-in-public-housing-privatization-coverage\/"},"modified":"2019-03-28T04:39:57","modified_gmt":"2019-03-28T03:39:57","slug":"residents-an-afterthought-in-public-housing-privatization-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/residents-an-afterthought-in-public-housing-privatization-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"Residents an Afterthought in Public Housing Privatization Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Daily<\/p>\n

Privatization of New York City’s public housing got a warm reception in much of the local press (Daily News<\/strong>, 11\/21\/18<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

When governments propose multi-billion-dollar programs, one would hope media coverage would center first and foremost the human beings most directly affected by them\u2014especially when those programs affect the lives of some of the most marginalized people in society. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio\u2019s proposal to fill the $31.8 billion<\/a> five-year funding gap for repairs and replacements of thousands of deteriorating public housing apartments in the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the US\u2019s largest provider of public housing, is a perfect test case.<\/p>\n

The 10-year plan called NYCHA 2.0<\/a> will pay for 75 percent of NYCHA\u2019s renovations by handing over the management of 62,000 of NYCHA\u2019s 175,000+ apartments (more than a third of the stock) to private developers; selling NYCHA air rights to private developers; and facilitating \u201cinfills<\/a>,\u201d mostly huge apartment buildings with 70 percent market-rate apartments, to be built on open space in housing developments by\u2014you guessed it\u2014private developers.<\/p>\n

Several alarm bells should have rung when this was announced last November. After all, converting<\/a> public housing apartments into quasi-private Section 8 housing, selling air rights and inserting private developments into public housing projects sounds a lot like privatization\u2014a direct attack on the public nature of public housing.<\/p>\n

Media have been very clear that thousands of NYCHA residents, mostly black and brown persons, are suffering from lead poisoning (Gothamist<\/b>, 8\/31\/18<\/a>), mold (New York Daily News<\/b>, 7\/5\/18<\/a>), no heat (New York Times<\/b>, 12\/19\/18<\/a>), broken elevators (New York<\/b>, 2\/12\/19<\/a>) or other dangerous, unfulfilled maintenance requests across 326 developments.<\/p>\n

And few skip the opportunity to describe NYCHA and its units as \u201ctroubled\u201d (Wall Street Journal<\/b>, 1\/31\/19<\/a>), \u201cembattled\u201d (New York Post<\/b>, 3\/7\/19<\/a>) or \u201cdilapidated\u201d (NY1<\/b>, 11\/19\/18<\/a>). Many are ripe to blame NYCHA\u2019s crises on \u201cyears of disinvestment\u201d (Curbed<\/b>, 2\/21\/19<\/a>).<\/p>\n

So surely when journalists heard that there would be no additional city funding (cursed disinvestment!) for NYC public housing, but rather a whole host of privatization initiatives, their first thought was: What do the residents think? Right?<\/p>\n

Wrong. A Nexis search of English-language news articles (excluding TV news write-ups) that include \u201cNYCHA 2.0,\u201d or mention \u201cNYCHA\u201d and words like \u201cprivate\u201d and \u201cprivatize\u201d in reference to the proposed public\/private partnerships, turned up 42 reports over a four-month period (11\/15\/18\u20133\/15\/19). Public housing residents represented only 9 percent of the 105 total sources quoted in these stories.<\/p>\n

Government officials, largely pro\u2013NYCHA 2.0, made up 63 percent of sources, followed by nonprofit advocates (14 percent). \u00a0These advocates often come from orgs funded by the real estate, construction and development industries, like the Citizen Budget Commission<\/a> and the New York Housing Conference<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Corporate sources, some of whom were former government officials, were also 9 percent of sources. Evidently real estate\/development industry voices are just as elucidating as the people whose actual homes are at stake under NYCHA 2.0. But then, this wouldn\u2019t be the first time that voices with the most at stake were pushed to the margins of their own story by corporate media (FAIR.org<\/b>, 7\/1\/14<\/a>, 7\/17\/18<\/a>, 6\/21\/18<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Outlets\u2019 reliance on largely pro\u2013NYCHA 2.0 government quotes, and developers themselves, has mostly left substantive critiques of NYCHA 2.0 unexpressed. If not lending explicit editorial endorsement (New York Daily News<\/b>, 11\/21\/18<\/a>; New York Post<\/b>, 1\/31\/19<\/a>; Crain\u2019s New York<\/b>, 11\/27\/18<\/a>; Real Estate Weekly<\/b>, 12\/18\/18<\/a>), the media inadequately questioned the plan\u2019s dangers for residents, or just outright ignored them.<\/p>\n

Politico <\/b>(11\/15\/19<\/a>) was first to report on NYCHA 2.0\u2019s whispers. Aside from a quick \u201cthe proposals\u2026will likely spark concerns from residents and elected officials\u201d tacked onto the end of the article, the piece\u2019s description of the plan\u2019s key features reads like an investment sales pitch:<\/p>\n

\n

The vouchers are more appealing to private developers who are given partial control over the sites and are responsible for managing the buildings, generally leading to faster repairs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Crain\u2019s <\/b>(11\/16\/18<\/a>) similarly acknowledges that infills \u201cmight rankle affordable housing advocates,\u201d without subsequently consulting a single housing advocate or resident. Instead, they quote a special advisor<\/a> to the Jonathan Rose Companies development firm, passively identified as \u201ca former NYCHA executive who helped draft the plan.\u201d Other reports (e.g., Real Estate Weekly, <\/b>12\/5\/18<\/a>; QNS<\/b>, 12\/20\/18<\/a>) raised no concerns at all. Metro New York <\/b>(11\/19\/18<\/a>) took De Blasio\u2019s statement, \u201cThese [public\/private] partnerships are one of our best-proven tools to deliver critical repairs,\u201d as a matter of fact.<\/p>\n

\"NYT:<\/p>\n

New York Times<\/strong> (11\/15\/18<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The New York Times<\/b> (11\/15\/18<\/a>) cited public housing committee chair Alicka Ampry-Samuel\u2019s reluctant support for NYCHA 2.0, but followed her qualms with two resident sources (the only residents in the article), who praised the Ocean Bay Apartments\u2019 2017 conversion to a program called RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration), under which private developers lease public housing and take on the role of landlord. The author waited until near the end of the piece to question the dangers of infills:<\/p>\n

\n

Constructing private residential developments on NYCHA land has long been a contentious issue among residents, who fear it fuels gentrification and opens a path to the future privatization of public housing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Expanding no further on what gentrification or privatization might entail for neighborhood residents, the Times <\/b>seems to think that the main issue is hypocrisy\u2014that the plan might \u201calso conflict with the mayor\u2019s stated commitment to build affordable housing.\u201d But breaking promises also has real-life implications worth describing, as Michelle Chen did in In These Times <\/b>(8\/22\/13<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

As the white-hot real estate industry invades neighborhoods of the poor, immigrants and people of color, gentrification is displacing working-class families and undermines the communities that, while economically marginalized, have historically anchored the city’s culture.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Just three days after the November 15 piece, the Times <\/b>(11\/18\/19<\/a>) reported on NYCHA\u2019s appalling practice of disputing lead tests in public housing apartments, but oddly notes in its subhead, \u201cPrivate landlords almost never do this.\u201d Funny how this point reaches subhead-level significance in a 3,000-word article that touched on private landlord practices just twice; it noted that accepting positive lead results \u201cwas a lesson private landlords learned years ago,\u201d and that<\/p>\n

\n

private landlords almost never contest a finding of lead; they did so in only 4 percent of the 5,000 orders they received over the same period, records show.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Perish the thought that the Times<\/b> cite one of its own pieces (5\/20\/18<\/a>) that revealed NYC private landlords\u2019 systematic neglect and exploitation of tenants across the city, particularly those in black and brown working-class neighborhoods. It\u2019s almost as if the Times<\/b> is trying to make private landlords look…preferable.<\/p>\n

\"Gothamist:<\/p>\n

Gothamist<\/strong>‘s report (1\/31\/19<\/a>) was the only article in the survey that focused on critics of the city’s privatization efforts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Gothamist<\/b>\u2019s \u201cNYCHA Residents Excoriate the Agency\u2019s \u2018Desperate\u2019 Pitch for Privatization\u201d (1\/31\/19<\/a>) was the only article in the survey that centered opponents to the city\u2019s privatization efforts. Even that article quoted just one public housing resident, who expressed opposition to the pending 50-story mixed-income infill by Fetner Properties in her community on East 92nd Street:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cYou are putting a monstrosity there,\u201d said Lakeesha Taylor, a mother who grew up in the Holmes Tower. \u201cIt\u2019s not what we want. It\u2019s not about our future. It\u2019s about your future, and your pockets.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Real Deal<\/b>\u2019s February 1 report<\/a> quoted four public housing residents, the most of any article in the survey, about NYCHA elevators\u2019 chronic malfunction. But in the ending section that dealt with NYCHA 2.0\u2019s public\/private solutions, headed \u201cPrivate answers?\u201d the authors only sourced Susan Camerata, the CFO of Wavecrest management, and a former \u201cmechanic\u2019s helper with NYCHA.\u201d To their credit, they mention that \u201cthe companies already tapped to take over [NYCHA] properties have drawn criticism for their maintenance of elevators,\u201d but the last word on alleged malpractice comes from Camerata:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis was a tragic situation,\u201d said Wavecrest CFO Susan Camerata. \u201cThis was not something that was caused by Wavecrest Management.\u201d The DOB said that the official cause of the accident was that the elevator was overloaded at the time.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Followed by:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI think [the privatization program] is one of the only avenues that NYCHA has,\u201d Camerata said. \u201cThe deferred maintenance [in public housing] is horrific.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Other media, like National Real Estate Investor, <\/b>didn\u2019t even attempt to hide their giddiness. In \u201cA Look at NYCHA\u2019s Plans to Improve Public Housing\u201d (2\/12\/19<\/a>), the trade publication painted NYCHA 2.0 as a \u201cbold\u201d proposal that \u201cfrees NYCHA from the constant threat that Congress will underfund the public housing program.\u201d The developer savior complex in full gear, NREI<\/b> only lamented that the initiative will leave more than 100,000 apartments \u201cstill dependent on federal funding.\u201d<\/p>\n

But who cares if NYCHA gets fixed through private or federal funding? NYCHA just needs fixing, period. Right?<\/p>\n

\"Indypendent:<\/p>\n

Rico Cleffi (Indypendent<\/strong>, 2\/1\/19<\/a>) provided a perspective rarely heard in corporate media coverage of public housing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Not quite. As Rico Cleffi reported in an Indypendent <\/b>article (2\/1\/19<\/a>) that wasn\u2019t in the Nexis sample, developers aren\u2019t invested in affordable housing because they sincerely care about the poor, cold, lead-infected residents. Rather:<\/p>\n

\n

Affordable housing is now a multibillion-dollar growth industry, replete with publicly traded firms, lobbyists, trade associations, journals and conferences. The potential for profit has led to a dynamic where the same developers that created the conditions of displacement in New York City can be awarded lucrative contracts for public housing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps their incentive is more pecuniary than charitable, though the distinction between capitalist and philanthropist<\/a> is increasingly blurred. Particularly after Hurricane Sandy devastated<\/a> NYCHA properties, these vulturesque developers practice what Naomi Klein calls the \u201cshock doctrine.<\/a>\u201d The real estate sector helped gut public housing, but they\u2019re here to save the day yet again!<\/p>\n

On RAD conversions, Cleffi points out that \u201cit is also unlikely that a private developer would be more responsive to tenants than the government,\u201d because the real money is made in the renovation\/rebuilding stages, near the beginning of the management lease. There\u2019s little long-term gain for private managers to be responsible landlords, and it\u2019s unclear that the city will put in concrete safeguards for residents against abuse.<\/p>\n

Brett Yates underlined in a Red Hook Star-Revue <\/b>op-ed (2\/1\/19<\/a>) that \u201cdevelopers often ignore [RAD] regulations\u201d meant to prevent tenant evictions, and have tried to quash resident organization. Quoting the National Housing Law Project (NHLP<\/a>), Yates reported:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cRAD tenants are routinely re-screened at the time of conversion for income, criminal history, credit and other requirements,\u201d which \u201chas resulted in evictions and monetary buy-out packages that force tenants to move from the property\u201d after RAD conversion. NHLP also reports that owners of RAD properties have in many instances \u201cexplicitly impeded or prohibited tenant organizing efforts\u201d (which are protected by federal law) by preventing the distribution of leaflets, disrupting meetings and elections, threatening \u201cto have non-tenant tenant organizers arrested for organizing tenants,\u201d and refusing to distribute mandated funding to tenants associations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But you wouldn\u2019t know any of that from the vast majority of \u00a0NYCHA 2.0\u2019s media coverage.<\/p>\n

In the already rare occasion that we hear from tenants in the news, we almost never hear from those who are fighting to be considered. More often than not, news reports portray residents as passive victims, who lack the agency to change their own lives\u2014but thank God the real estate sector has stepped up to the plate!<\/p>\n

Residents deserve more, not less control in the fate of their housing, and their fears about the privatization of their homes and neighborhoods deserve real attention from the press. When NYCHA coverage marginalizes tenants\u2019 opinions and neglects opponents of privatization, stories about mold in bathrooms, lead chips around cribs, or elevator nightmares come across more like investment catalogues for real estate bottom-feeders than sincere attempts to listen to the people most affected.<\/p>\n

\n

Featured image: Depiction of East Williamsburg’s Cooper Houses (photo: Erin Sheridan)<\/em><\/p>\n

This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News<\/a> with permission from FAIR<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Privatization of New York City’s public housing got a warm reception in much of the local press (Daily News, 11\/21\/18). When governments propose multi-billion-dollar programs, one would hope media coverage would center first and foremost the human beings most directly affected by them\u2014especially when those programs affect the lives of some of the most marginalized […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2521,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[519],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-401604","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-newswire"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2521"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=401604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=401604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=401604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=401604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}