“Build and protect affordable housing” 
    That was the call emerging from the Five Borough Institute’s Housing Roundtable held on May 29.  Before an audience of 60-plus activists from across the City, ten experts laid out the scale of the housing crisis facing the City and a clear prescription of what must be done to resolve it.
     With 264,000 physically poor rental units, 100,000 illegal dwellings, 100,000 illegal double-ups in public housing, 150,000 doubled-up private households and 33,000 homeless people in New York City, nearly a quarter of all rental housing in New York City is in serious trouble.  The panelists agreed that a combination of inadequate levels of construction, an accelerating loss of affordable mixed-income housing units through rent decontrol and gentrification, along with rising rents, all contribute to the housing crisis. 
    As one panelist after another spoke, the emphasis on the lack of construction, or the loss of existing affordable housing, shifted dramatically.  George Locker of the Five Borough Institute pushed for recognition that the construction shortage was the overwhelming problem; others, like Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless agreed that shortage is a problem, but pressed for closer attention to the relation between the cost of housing and the limited income of many New York City residents.  Michael Stone of Univ. of Mass/Boston and author of Shelter Poverty: New Ideas on Housing Affordability suggested that construction of large amounts of affordable housing was unlikely in the near future and urged the group to focus on preservation and improvement in the existing housing stock that is accessible to working families.
     Some panelists argued for the construction of mixed-income housing on undeveloped land across the boroughs.  Others believed that a solution would be to take a substantial part of the City’s housing stock out of the private market and put it into some type of publicly-regulated status. Public subsidy and capital expansion policies, similar to those implemented throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, such as Mayor Koch’s Ten Year Capital Housing Plan, were suggested as productive ways to combat the current crisis. 
    Joe Weisbord of Housing First! was one of  a number of panelists to suggest a program designed to preserve current housing while expanding new construction.  Michael Stone suggested that, as land becomes available, it should become permanently public.  Brad Lander of the Fifth Avenue Committee, as well as Joshua Freeman of Queens College, suggested that the public sector must be more deeply involved in addressing the City’s housing problems, including more funds for public housing.  Freeman especially pointed out that the national emphasis on privatized, individually-owned housing does not serve New York well, and that we need to restore the idea of public high-density housing, which has worked well for New York in the past.
     Reliance on the private sector to produce mixed-income housing was not embraced by Joshua Muss and Scott Metzner, both private developers.  Nor were the solutions which implied building on free land.  It was Joshua Muss who spoke about the interest of the developers most eloquently.  Muss, who employs only union workers, explained that the cost of an apartment is about $200 per square foot, not counting the services and the infrastructure (parks, utilities, roads).  At this cost ($200,000 selling price, or $15,000 annual rent, for a modest 1000 square foot apartment), this would be unaffordable to many working families. Areas where mixed-income housing can be built, almost exclusively undeveloped land, will need the most infrastructure. Thus, mixed-income housing is a risky and unprofitable business for private developers, and government support – in the form of infrastructure development and subsidized financing – is essential to lower the cost. The private sector can build housing, but only the public sector can provide the construction funds that will make it affordable and enforce the regulations that will maintain its affordability.
    Martin Gallent, a former City Planning Commissioner, proffered that most undeveloped land is physically inadequate for development, citing unsuitable terrain and poor location.  Michael Sorkin of City College countered that, if one focused not on “housing” but on “communities”, one could make almost any area into one that would constitute desirable living space.
     The unwillingness of private developers to risk losses in building mixed-income housing highlighted the importance of government subsidies and of public sector involvement.  Scott Metzner’s comment that “immigrants don’t come to New York for the housing” also highlighted the potential indifference that private developers may have for this city’s homeless and housing-challenged.
     After emphatically advocating government adoption of reformed land and housing policies, Michael Stone referred to the multi-million dollar housing trust fund recently set up by the City of Los Angeles.  “Shouldn’t we have something like this in New York City?” he asked.
What It Will Take
    The focus of the Roundtable then shifted to the activists in the audience, who address the question of what it would take to get the government involved in a massive construction and housing preservation program.  It was clear that housing affordability is an important issue for union members in many sectors, and for residents of every community in the City. Rents are rising but incomes are not. Older residents see their children unable to afford to live in the City.  And yet, as several people pointed out, those who already have a place to live are fighting other issues, for better schools, infrastructure, while those who live with the housing crisis every day in their overcrowded and inadequate housing are too busy working and making ends meet to carry the political struggle forward. 
    Several participants asserted it wouldn’t happen until the unions -- not only the construction unions but also the public sector unions, the service unions, and others -- with their political muscle, became involved; others said it would need a broad coalition of forces, and it will require new energy, since, as several participants said, there is no movement for housing production at the present time, nor are their elected officials who are yet taking on this issue.
    It is not just housing policy that has been off the national agenda, but all social policy, for the past 20 years.  Housing has been marginalized as the purview of the special interests, be they the real estate and home building industry, the community groups, or the tenants. Somehow there is the perception that these are self-interested parties that want to feed from the public trough.
      As Letitia James of Assemblyman Roger Green’s office said, “The very people who are impacted the most by the housing crisis are not at the table.  As we move forward and seek solutions, we need to seek an understanding of the community of interest between those who need housing, the unions, and others throughout the neighborhoods of this City.”
     If we are to keep people – even middle income people – and the jobs that follow them, in the City, then we must lead the way in keeping, and adding to, our stock of affordable housing.
Summary prepared by Joshua Rahtz and Leonard Rodberg

View a printer-friendly version of this article.

Send us your responses. We may print them in an upcoming forum.