Meet the Rising New Housing Movement That Wants to Create Homes for All

Ya' Cousin Cleon

OG COUCH CORNER HUSTLA
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
24,285
Reputation
-1,595
Daps
81,968
Reppin
Harvey World to Dallas, TX
:mjgrin:who needs Bernie when you have the power of the people

From rent regulation to social housing, activists are pushing for serious solutions to the affordable-housing crisis.

Crossing the Frederick Douglass–Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge on a brisk spring morning in Rochester, New York, the first thing one sees is a small tent city scattered about the banks of the Genesee River. It’s a sprawl of black tarps, folding chairs, and a charcoal grill, all set up on private land. The property’s owner, a cable company called Spectrum, has attempted for some time to tear it down, urging local officials to clear the encampment. In an effort to forestall the destruction of their fragile shelters, the homeless people who live there have hung a banner at the edge of a nearby highway that reads, simply, “Forgive us our trespasses.”

Continuing on toward the city’s southwest side, one finds a 48-unit building on Thurston Road. It’s a horseshoe-shaped structure of crimson brick; its facade is pleasing and clean. Inside, however, the mostly low-income tenants of color are subjected to bursting pipes, peeling paint, broken windows, and skittering mice—and the absentee landlord doesn’t seem to care much about correcting the problems. “See?” says resident Marianne Caleo, a chatty white woman who relies on Section 8 housing subsidies, as she points to a caved-in bathroom ceiling, its rubble sprinkled about like a noxious spice. “They haven’t done anything!”

Meanwhile, across town on the east side sits the modest two-story home of Liz McGriff. A resolute black woman in her 50s, she bought the place before the 2008 financial collapse. But when Wall Street went under, McGriff lost her job and, with it, her ability to pay the mortgage. Soon after, the foreclosure notice arrived, sparking a decade-long battle with the police, the courts, and the bank, and turning her into an insecure tenant in her own home. At least, McGriff says, “I am still there.”

These places, these people, and so many others like them represent the face of today’s housing crisis—a crisis so pervasive and enduring that it has become this country’s status quo. In Rochester, a midsize postindustrial city on Lake Ontario’s southern shore, evidence of the crisis is everywhere. During the 2016–17 school year, the city school district reported that 8.8 percent of its students—roughly 2,500 children—were homeless at some point. Last year, some 3,510 eviction warrants were issued. More than 50 percent of tenants in the city are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. And while Rochester stands out as the fifth-poorest city in the country, it is no anomaly.

The national numbers are scandalous. On any given night, more than half a million homeless men, women, and children sleep on the streets or in shelters. In 2016 alone, according to research by the scholar Matthew Desmond, roughly 900,000 households were subject to eviction judgments. The same year, more than 11 million households spent at least 50 percent of their income, and another 9.8 million spent more than 30 percent, on rent. Nearly half of the nation’s 43 million renting households, then, live with the crushing weight of excessive housing costs.

None of this happened overnight. As Bryce Covert explores in “Give Us Shelter,” the roots of the current crisis extend back to the Nixon era. But it has intensified in recent decades, growing and spreading as the federal government engaged in a slow-drip campaign against public and other deeply affordable housing programs, all while stoking a relentlessly market-driven system.

At the same time, this country has suffered from the relative absence of a powerful national movement capable of agitating for transformative solutions. While progressives have pushed forcefully for immigrants’ rights, universal health care, fossil-fuel abolition, and a living wage in recent years, they have given short shrift to human shelter. There is no equivalent of the Fight for $15 when it comes to housing—and prominent political leaders speak far too little of rising rents, eviction rates, and homelessness. During the last presidential election, the issue was almost entirely missing from the public debate.

But change, at last, seems imminent. Right now, from coast to costly coast, fed-up renters and their allies are creating some of the most compelling tenant-rights campaigns to emerge in a generation. In places like California, New York, Denver, Chicago, and beyond, residents and organizers are pushing for a slew of interventions like rent control and “just cause” eviction protections that will offer immediate relief to tenants. Such policies, they say, will alter the power balance between landlords and renters and offer tenants stronger tools to build their movement. In fighting for them, they hope to haul the housing crisis to the very top of the national political agenda.

This organizing, though, goes well beyond rent regulation—it aspires to the truly radical. Movement leaders and thinkers are strategizing for a future in which the private market is diminished and noncommercial, community-controlled housing plays a central role in American life. In this alternative reality, public housing is massively expanded and cooperatives, mutual-housing associations, and other nonmarket ownership models take root in cities large and small. Social housing, in all its varieties, thrives.

Such a future, of course, feels like a distant dream—but in places like Rochester, people are already reaching for it.

The revolt began last january, when residents at the horseshoe-shaped apartment complex in Rochester united to resist the slum conditions in which they were living. They began deliberately, strategically, knocking on neighbors’ doors and cultivating a sense of camaraderie. Before long, they had formed a tenants’ union and were filing official complaints with housing inspectors, speaking out at City Council meetings, and lobbying the local media to cover their struggle. By March 1, they had decided to take combative action: They stopped paying their landlord. They went on a rent strike.

“We knew that that was the best thing—to withhold that rent money, get ‘em where it really hurts,” says Mary Brown, a warm and stylish black woman in her 60s who serves as the union’s leader. She says the residents will withhold their rent until adequate repairs are made or the city exercises its legal authority of receivership and takes control of the property. “We just want to live well, and we should be able to live well,” Brown says. “Everybody should.”

The Rochester strike is a radical break from the recent past. Organizers there say it’s the first such strike in decades. And it didn’t happen in a vacuum; it is intimately tied to a national movement for renters’ rights that is sweeping the country like a summer storm.

earlier this year. “People didn’t think it was possible.”

Now the possibilities are plentiful. In at least a half-dozen California cities and counties, including San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Pasadena, housing organizers are working to put rent-control initiatives on the local ballot this year. And across the state, a network of political organizations is advocating a ballot initiative that would repeal the state’s Costa-Hawkins Act, a law that prohibits rent control in buildings constructed after February 1995.

But the rent-control ferment isn’t confined to the far side of the Sierra Nevada. Organizing drives are also bubbling up in cities like Chicago, where a coalition called Lift the Ban is pushing to repeal Illinois’s longtime prohibition on rent control, as well as in Seattle, Minneapolis, Providence, Nashville, and other places where tenants sense the political ripeness of the moment.
 

Ya' Cousin Cleon

OG COUCH CORNER HUSTLA
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
24,285
Reputation
-1,595
Daps
81,968
Reppin
Harvey World to Dallas, TX
Many of the new renters’ groups are affiliated with a national housing-justice campaign called Homes for All. Launched in 2013 by the Right to the City Alliance, a network of progressive political organizations, the campaign is assembling a federation of tenant activists across the country to press their demands at the local, state, and federal levels.

The housing agitation in Rochester offers a fitting example of the movement’s aims and methods. Last winter, organizers there launched a citywide tenants’ union that includes a half-dozen unions in private developments, including Mary Brown’s building, as well as a homeless union and a union of senior citizens in subsidized housing. The group grew out of militant anti-eviction organizing in the aftermath of the financial crisis, when Rochester activists regularly erected foreclosure blockades to prevent homeowners like Liz McGriff from being forced onto the street.

Nearly half of the nation’s 43 million renting households live with the crushing weight of excessive housing costs.

One of the union’s meeting places is a mural-covered Catholic Worker house known as St. Joe’s. During the day, organizers decamp from the house to recruit new tenants to their cause, knocking on doors and teaching renters about their rights. At night, the crew hits the streets to conduct outreach at Rochester’s homeless encampments.

Ryan David Acuff, a bearded white activist in big winter boots and a beanie, is a St. Joe’s resident and an organizer with the citywide tenants’ union. Armed with a sharp anti-
capitalist analysis of the housing sector, Acuff can tick off details about local building codes, eviction statistics, and the legislation that the citywide tenants’ union is advocating in Albany.

“There are two major stages to this movement,” the 35-year-old says over coffee and eggs at a humble neighborhood cafe. “The first is building a mass movement and consolidating our forces around some of these really immediate anti-displacement needs, including the need for universal rent control and [just]-cause eviction protections.”

To that end, the citywide tenants’ union recently joined a new formation of New York community groups called the Upstate Downstate Housing Alliance. Sensing an opportunity in this year’s Democratic gubernatorial primary fight, the alliance is pressing Governor Andrew Cuomo to take progressive action on housing issues. Among other things, they want Cuomo to establish just-cause eviction protections for all New York tenants—a cause his challenger, Cynthia Nixon, has already endorsed. They’re also gearing up to push for the expansion of New York City’s rent-regulation system to the entire state in 2019.

“Rent control is a major, major thing,” Acuff says between bites of breakfast. “Not only does it stop displacement, but it means housing is no longer completely governed by the market.” But, Acuff adds, even the rent-control fight “is sort of making preparations for a more transformative struggle. That’s the second stage of the movement: to move toward universal social housing.”

Indeed, nearly all of the activists and organizers interviewed for this story acknowledged that reforms like rent control and just-cause protections will not be enough to strike at the root of the housing crisis. To truly eradicate housing insecurity, to put an end to displacement, segregation, eviction, and homelessness—these goals demand radical solutions, the kind that don’t merely chip crumbs of affordability from the market-rate mega-developments sprouting up in our cities. These solutions have to be bold. They have to push back against a national housing policy that benefits monied homeowners while leaving most low-income renters to fend for themselves. Above all, they have to begin to promote models that exist outside the market.

Needless to say, that won’t be easy. But scratch the surface of US history, and you will find that this country is filled with ideals on which activists can build—and, in many places, already are.

Politicians of both parties have spent decades denigrating the egalitarian American institution that we call “public housing.” Relying on heavily racist tropes, they have portrayed it variously as a failed socialist experiment, a den of iniquity, and an ugly architectural blight—a place of squalor and violence that residents seek to escape as soon as possible.

Yet the actual story of public housing tells a far more nuanced tale—one of hopeful promise despite government defunding, and stubborn resilience despite serious structural flaws. “The United States has gone out of its way to undermine public housing,” says David Madden, a housing expert at the London School of Economics. “But at its core, public housing is a crucial lifeline for people structurally excluded from private-housing markets, as well as a living demonstration that alternative residential arrangements are possible.”

This vital role is evident in public housing’s enduring popularity—in spite of imperfections and popular misconceptions. In Washington, DC, the housing authority closed its waiting list, which contains 70,000 names, back in 2013. The New York City Housing Authority has a 1 percent vacancy rate and a waiting list of hundreds of thousands. Indeed, most of the roughly 3,000 housing authorities across the country have waiting lists.

“We’re in an incredibly urgent moment that requires a movement response. Housing is the biggest tent issue there is.” —Tara Raghuveer, People’s Action

That’s because many people appreciate their public-housing communities. They are places where residents spend 30 percent of their income on rent, making them consistently affordable. They often boast deep networks of mutual aid, where neighbors look after one another, have barbecues, and take care of the kids. And they aren’t necessarily stepping-stones to a “better” neighborhood or a house in the suburbs, because for many, they arehome. That’s why public-housing residents so often come to the defense of their buildings when bureaucrats attempt to destroy them.

This is precisely the story that has been playing out at Barry Farm, a neighborhood of beige row houses and sloping green lawns in Washington, not far from the Anacostia River. After years of neglect and insufficient funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and DC’s local housing authority, the latter now wants to follow the neoliberal recipe du jour by demolishing all 432 units of Barry Farm and replacing them with a mixed-income complex that will be controlled in part by a private developer. The new development will provide 100 fewer public-housing units on the site.

Already, the local authority has removed hundreds of tenants as it prepares for the demolition, but some refuse to leave. They want to remain in their community, with its extremely low rents and lawns perfectly suited for family picnics, and they fear that the new development will exclude some current residents, forcing them to scramble for shelter in the nation’s overpriced capital.

“For them to want to kick us out like we are trash and bring in people from other places—I have a problem with that,” says Paulette Matthews, a slim black woman standing on the walkway of her home. “It’s inhumane.”

And so Matthews, along with a small but vocal group of other tenants, formed the Barry Farm Tenant and Allies Association and brought a lawsuitto block the destruction of the property. In late April, the highest court in the city sided with the tenants, halting the proposed demolition and sending the plan back to the zoning commission for reconsideration.

It was a small but crucial victory, helping to temporarily stem the hemorrhage of publicly owned units. Even so, public-housing advocates are itching to break out of the reactive mode in which they’ve been able to do little else besides beat back the constant attempts to privatize places like Barry Farm. “We’ve been in a defensive posture so long that we’ve just let the capitalist tide roll over us,” says Tara Raghuveer, housing-campaign director at People’s Action, a grassroots coalition that includes many housing-justice groups. “People are hungry for something more. We need to reinvest in public housing.”

To that end, People’s Action helped create the #NoCuts Coalition, joining with more than 100 other community organizations from around the country last spring to resist the Trump administration’s proposed $7 billion in cuts to HUD’s budget. They lobbied on Capitol Hill, got arrested in front of a HUD office, and organized rallies across the country. Ultimately, they prevailed: Not a dime was slashed from the department’s budget this year.

But these activists want more. This spring, they put together a new policy platform that calls on Congress to invest $200 billion to rehabilitate the country’s more than 1 million existing public-housing units. At the same time, they’re calling for an immediate moratorium on the sale of public housing and public land to private interests. And they’re pressing for reparations, in the form of affordable loans and down-payment assistance grants, for black and brown communities that have been subject to decades of red-lining and other racist policies.

These aren’t small demands, but that’s the point. “We need to use what we already have, which is public housing, to beat back the totally insane right wing that wants to privatize everything,” Raghuveer says. “That feels like it needs to be the first order of business.”

Public housing, then, is a crucial base from which to fight for real and enduring affordable housing. It’s part of the solution, but it doesn’t stand alone. History points to other possibilities.

Meet the Rising New Housing Movement That Wants to Create Homes for All
 

Wild self

The Black Man will prosper!
Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
78,388
Reputation
10,808
Daps
210,250
It is a pressing issue. Back in the early 90s, people literally spent only 20% of their paychecks on bills. Now, they gotta get a second job to pay four-figure rent prices on a basic place.
 

BoBurnz

Superstar
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,499
Reputation
790
Daps
16,169
It is a pressing issue. Back in the early 90s, people literally spent only 20% of their paychecks on bills. Now, they gotta get a second job to pay four-figure rent prices on a basic place.
What needs to happen is zoning and housing need to be nationalized and removed from the homeowner. Nothing will change as long as we allow people with incentive to do nothing for monetary reasons to continue to do so. NIMBY shyt keeps urban density down and suburban sprawl continuing on. We need to remove that entirely but that, as of now, might as well be a fairy tail.
 

Wild self

The Black Man will prosper!
Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
78,388
Reputation
10,808
Daps
210,250
What needs to happen is zoning and housing need to be nationalized and removed from the homeowner. Nothing will change as long as we allow people with incentive to do nothing for monetary reasons to continue to do so. NIMBY shyt keeps urban density down and suburban sprawl continuing on. We need to remove that entirely but that, as of now, might as well be a fairy tail.

Greedy real estate owners have politicians at their back pockets.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
85,546
Reputation
3,536
Daps
150,972
Reppin
Brooklyn
this is a complex wage and tax issue, there isn't an easy fix

in lower cost areas and cities there's no reason public housing shouldn't be built however
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,735
Reputation
4,365
Daps
88,681
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
What needs to happen is zoning and housing need to be nationalized and removed from the homeowner. Nothing will change as long as we allow people with incentive to do nothing for monetary reasons to continue to do so. NIMBY shyt keeps urban density down and suburban sprawl continuing on. We need to remove that entirely but that, as of now, might as well be a fairy tail.
ElaWj94.png
 

BoBurnz

Superstar
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,499
Reputation
790
Daps
16,169
In urban areas with massive suburban sprawl and an abject refusal for people to allow zoning and development in major metro areas. I'm not saying "take peoples homes away" dummy, but in an urban area to keep housing prices affordable, constantly built, and readily available you need to enforce a national system instead of allowing individual home owners associations or state and municipal governments to decide it.

It works, even in massively capitalist countries.

digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=crpsp

Urban density needs to be addressed. The continuing sprawl can't continue.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,735
Reputation
4,365
Daps
88,681
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
In urban areas with massive suburban sprawl and an abject refusal for people to allow zoning and development in major metro areas. I'm not saying "take peoples homes away" dummy, but in an urban area to keep housing prices affordable, constantly built, and readily available you need to enforce a national system of allowing individual home owners associations or state and municipal governments to decide it.

It works, even in massively capitalist countries.

digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=crpsp

Urban density needs to be addressed. The continuing sprawl can't continue.
Huge flaw in your plan already.

I skimmed the report, Americans =/= Japanese...

I have no doubt it worked for homogeneous, minimalist, low-T society, but am under no illusion that it could be successfully applied to Americans.

I say free up the market a bit... or a lot.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: IVS

dora_da_destroyer

Master Baker
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,367
Reputation
15,022
Daps
258,014
Reppin
Oakland
the issue is much bigger than rent control and eviction protections. we have some of the most protected tenants in the country, to the point that landlords, especially small landlords (duplex/triplex owners) lose so much money when trying to get rid of tenants for actual cause (non payment, property destruction, over crowding, etc.).

the bigger issues are employers and where they locate, out here, for some reason all these employers act like they just have to be in SF/peninsula...they say "that's where the talent is"...no, people are only jammed over there because living anywhere else creates a 2-3 hour commute. if employers were to spread out again, do more satellite offices instead of massive HQ's and embrace telecommuting because the honest to god truth is that technology makes remote work easier and a viable option, you'd ease housing pressure

the other issue, especially in places like NY, LA, the Bay is the cost of construction and the fact that new projects are subject to so much community review. some costs are fixed, but the cost of acquiring land is something the government can help ease, the crazy regulations, permits, and zoning rules are something government could streamline and cheapen, not letting random objections block development, easing up on small landlords who would like to rent their basement/ADU/room etc but can't because of how hard it would be to get rid of a person who doesnt work out, and of course builders needing to realize every project doesn't need to be a "luxury" building...

Urban density needs to be addressed. The continuing sprawl can't continue.
i disagrees, the more density you add, the more people who keep wanting to live in the center of the city, the higher prices for those units will go, there is only so much density before you reach a point of unlivability and stress on your infrastructure.

like i said above, the bay area is huge, but the job centers are all pretty much sf-san jose, and a bit in oakland and pleasanton...this is dumb. breaking up where employment is located creates more options for where people live, disperses the demand across a wider supply allows costs to come down as well as people to have a higher QOL by cutting commutes, spending less on housing, being able to live in the type of housing they want, etc
 

Wild self

The Black Man will prosper!
Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
78,388
Reputation
10,808
Daps
210,250
the issue is much bigger than rent control and eviction protections. we have some of the most protected tenants in the country, to the point that landlords, especially small landlords (duplex/triplex owners) lose so much money when trying to get rid of tenants for actual cause (non payment, property destruction, over crowding, etc.).

the bigger issues are employers and where they locate, out here, for some reason all these employers act like they just have to be in SF/peninsula...they say "that's where the talent is"...no, people are only jammed over there because living anywhere else creates a 2-3 hour commute. if employers were to spread out again, do more satellite offices instead of massive HQ's and embrace telecommuting because the honest to god truth is that technology makes remote work easier and a viable option, you'd ease housing pressure

the other issue, especially in places like NY, LA, the Bay is the cost of construction and the fact that new projects are subject to so much community review. some costs are fixed, but the cost of acquiring land is something the government can help ease, the crazy regulations, permits, and zoning rules are something government could streamline and cheapen, not letting random objections block development, easing up on small landlords who would like to rent their basement/ADU/room etc but can't because of how hard it would be to get rid of a person who doesnt work out, and of course builders needing to realize every project doesn't need to be a "luxury" building...

i disagrees, the more density you add, the more people who keep wanting to live in the center of the city, the higher prices for those units will go, there is only so much density before you reach a point of unlivability and stress on your infrastructure.

like i said above, the bay area is huge, but the job centers are all pretty much sf-san jose, and a bit in oakland and pleasanton...this is dumb. breaking up where employment is located creates more options for where people live, disperses the demand across a wider supply allows costs to come down as well as people to have a higher QOL by cutting commutes, spending less on housing, being able to live in the type of housing they want, etc

I always said that high paying jobs need to be located in suburbs where there is free parking and low density to ease stress from traffic congestion.
 

BillBanneker

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
8,649
Reputation
655
Daps
19,528
Reppin
NULL
In urban areas with massive suburban sprawl and an abject refusal for people to allow zoning and development in major metro areas. I'm not saying "take peoples homes away" dummy, but in an urban area to keep housing prices affordable, constantly built, and readily available you need to enforce a national system instead of allowing individual home owners associations or state and municipal governments to decide it.

It works, even in massively capitalist countries.

digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=crpsp

Urban density needs to be addressed. The continuing sprawl can't continue.


Yeah, zoning and building restrictions lobbied by nimbys and real estate oligarchs unnecessarily limits what types of housing construction goes on. But problems with urban housing issues is a loaded topic in general.

Cities/areas like San fran and Manhattan are always going to have issues though due to land area, if demand persists there.


I always said that high paying jobs need to be located in suburbs where there is free parking and low density to ease stress from traffic congestion.

What?:dwillhuh:
 
Top