Introduction
Scrolling through NYC-based Facebook groups will eventually lead users to 1NYCHA: a podcast highlighting everyday issues at New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) public housing developments. On the page, host and activist Saundrea Coleman advertises local events and interviews tenants ‘on site’ in their homes to discuss public housing issues. Her latest is with Teandria Washington, a pregnant mother of two living in Manhattan’s Vladeck Houses. She tells Saundrea:
“I don’t want to bring my baby into this apartment. My kids wake me up in the middle of the night to tell me there’s roaches crawling on them, no matter how much I clean it. I want to start over in a shelter” (1NYCHA interview, 2023).
Teandria has put in numerous requests for repairs, none of which have ever been completed. Having never missed a rent payment, she feels that NYCHA is breaching its obligation to keep her home and family safe.
What is perhaps even more appalling than Teandria’s conditions is the fact that this is not a unique experience. Rather, New Yorkers are familiar with NYCHA’s almost daily presence in the local news for its infamously poor infrastructure and responsiveness to tenant requests. While residents have historically used self-advocacy to maintain quality housing, recent policy shifts have resulted in a divestment of funding – and voice – from public housing residents like Teandria.
In this briefing, I will first examine how federal disinvestment from public housing has led to a decline in housing quality, and how the introduction of private actors undermines resident influence. I will then introduce NYCHA resident communities by showcasing how they have responded to challenge, through and outside of formal resident participation. Finally, I will present recommendations that aid communities to re-establish their influence through resident engagement, and explore potential for a resident-led method of management.
Positionality
Although my knowledge of NYC public housing is purely secondhand, being born and raised in NYC with formative years spent in Lower Manhattan, South Brooklyn, and the northwest Bronx has taught me that different neighborhoods across New York have highly distinct needs. At the same time, understanding underlying reasons for why issues persist is fundamental to creating effective, sustainable solutions that address the root of the issue rather than symptoms (Chaskin, 2016, p.374). As a student of Social Anthropology and Sustainable Development, I approach problems via their underlying social dynamics – informing my recommendations that target the root causes of NYCHA conditions, and maintain flexibility to suit the unique needs and characters of NYCHA developments across NYC.
Challenge
A history of divestment
In 1937, the US federal government established a programme of public housing across the nation, overseen by state public housing authorities (PHAs). These PHAs operate Section 9 public housing, which relies on federal funding to construct and maintain public housing units.
However, focus and funding toward Section 9 housing began to diminish in the late 20th century, as the US government approached economic growth through promotion of the private sector (Harvey, 2005; Abramovitz, 2014). In line with this, the “watershed” 1974 Housing and Community Development Act dramatically divested from PHA funding, and established Section 8 housing: privately owned and managed low-income housing, subsidised by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Vale and Freemark, 2012, p.387). Another resurgence in private sector-oriented policy toward the end of the 20th century resulted in further sweeping cuts to public housing, as the private sector increased its involvement (HRW, 2022, p.17).
Since 2000, the impact of these depleted federal resources has become painstakingly clear in NYCHA housing. Reports of broken boilers, mold infestations, collapsing ceilings, and a lack of heat and hot water during the winters are constant (NYCHA, 2023; Duddridge, 2022; CBS, 2018). With no sign of the federal government reinvesting in Section 9 housing, PHAs and HUD have turned to alternate sources of revenue to fund repairs: the private sector.
New solutions: Section 8 and RAD/PACT
With private management offering less regulation and the potential of more funding, NYCHA has favoured Section 8 conversion as its primary strategy. One method of conversion is the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) programme, which comprises of two forms of rental assistance: tenant-based assistance, through vouchers for tenants to spend on private housing; and project-based assistance, in which HUD enters long-term contracts with private housing owners to subsidise the gap between tenant and ‘market rate’ rent (HUD, 2023). While Section 9 housing has faced a steady decline in federal funding, the US government has continuously increased support for Section 8 and RAD since their inception. RAD was initially capped at 60,000 eligible homes – that number has expanded to 455,000, comprising 40% of all public housing in the US (NLIHC, 2021, p.33). NYCHA has accordingly participated in RAD via its Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) programme: NYCHA developments are leased to private developers for 99 years, and management is outsourced to private companies (NYCHA, 2023).
Protections at stake?
While NYCHA and HUD have stated that these programmes serve the interests of residents by improving housing quality, NYCHA residents have experienced challenges with their multi-managed structure. The involvement of numerous actors – NYCHA, HUD, private landlords, and management companies – has meant that responsibility for repairs and other concerns has become unclear. NYCHA residents in PACT-converted housing have shared stories of bringing complaints to certain authorities, only to be told their concerns are under the jurisdiction of others – and eventually never receiving help (HRW, 2022, p.43). This shift in oversight away from government has also meant that many NYCHA features are no longer applicable to tenants living in PACT-converted housing. For instance, PACT units are not held accountable by NYCHA’s federal monitor, who enforces fines for health and safety violations. Additionally, only HUD and NYCHA, not residents, have the right to enforce their contractual resident protections (HRW, 2022, pp.42-43).
Furthermore, the long-term implications of this shift have been a source of concern for many NYCHA residents. While tenants in Section 8 housing are technically still protected by federal tenant rights, much discretion is given to private landlords for rent pricing and evictions. With a study by the Human Rights Watch revealing that two out of the six developments converted to PACT in 2022 had higher than average eviction rates, residents fear that conversion may lead to displacement and homelessness in the future (HRW, 2022, p.).
Whether or not residents are open to RAD/PACT conversion, it is critical that these decisions are made by residents. This briefing will now introduce the residents themselves, examining how they have used their available mechanisms to influence decision-making.
Community
In public housing literature, NYCHA residents are generally characterised by their strong influence in policy (Hyra, 2009; Bloom, 2008). David Hyra, director of the Metropolitan Policy Center at American University, shared an anecdote from his research in Harlem in 2009: when Harlem was rapidly undergoing gentrification, many suggested that demolishing public housing would allow property values to further increase. However, elected officials stated that demolition was politically unfeasible: “the tenants would not tolerate it” (2009, p.101). Indeed, despite the rising influence of the private sector in recent years, communities across NYCHA developments have continued to advocate for themselves through various forms of resident participation.
Formal resident participation in NYCHA consists of three tiers: development Resident Councils (RCs); the Citywide Council of Presidents (CCOP), comprised of all the RC’s elected presidents; and the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), which includes the CCOP’s elected executive board. RCs share resident concerns with the CCOP and RAB, who are in direct contact with senior NYCHA and HUD management (NYCHA 2023).
RCs are open to all residents, but while some developments have engaged and robust Resident Councils, others do not. A lack of engagement in RCs limits the ability of the further tiers to adequately represent resident needs to NYCHA and HUD as per their charge. The following case studies of two NYCHA developments – Cooper Park Houses and Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses – demonstrate different ways that residents have faced challenges with the participation mechanisms available to them.
Cooper Park Houses
On a sunny day in August of 2023, laughter and music filled the air in North Brooklyn as residents of Cooper Park Houses celebrated their annual ‘Cooper Day.’ Events like these, with trays of home-cooked food and a memorial collage of departed loved ones, reflect the strength of the community that this development has fostered over 70 years.
Cooper Park Houses is regarded as a “model for tenant rights activism” by NYC newsroom The City. According to lifelong resident Elisha Fye, a tradition of regular community events and meetings organised by the Resident Council since the 1980s has sustained a sense of togetherness in addressing development-specific issues (Mahoney, 2023).
The strength of this community has yielded significant political power. In 2019, the RC shut down plans for a luxury development on the Cooper Park site, by proving that NYCHA failed to follow environmental review procedures and adequately engage residents during planning (Goldenberg, 2019). Most recently, in March 2023, the community won a three-year battle against National Grid, when the plant withdrew its plans to install toxic natural gas vaporizers on a site adjacent to Cooper Park (NoNBKPipeline, 2023).
According to residents, strong relationships within the resident and wider neighborhood community allow them to effectively mobilise when challenges arise. Importantly, underlying these relationships is the joy and compassion fostered by mutual care and trust – according to resident Karen Leader, a sense of looking after one another is what inspires residents to fight for their community in the first place (Mahoney, 2023).
Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses
Two months after Cooper Park’s victory against National Grid, NYCHA announced plans to demolish the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses development in Chelsea, Manhattan. In its place would be a new RAD/PACT development, containing upgraded Section 8 units as well as over 2000 market-rate apartments. NYCHA has claimed that the decision was resident-led, based on an election in which over 50% of residents voted for demolition (NYCHA, 2023).
However, residents have contested this claim. They argue that rather than an official vote, they were given a survey that did not at all mention demolition or the construction of market-rate units (Turner, 2023).
Despite this, the developments’ Resident Council presidents have pledged their support for the demolition. As such, residents against demolition like Jackie Lara must find alternative ways to make their concerns known. Lara has been advocating to maintain Section 9 at Fulton Houses since 2019, and says of the RC presidents’ claims that residents support demolition:
“I don’t know what residents are those. They do talk to the residents, but they don’t listen to us. We’re telling them we don’t want demolition, and we don’t want RAD either” (PIX11 News, 2023).
The differences in these case studies highlight that while formal resident participation methods can serve community interests, they do not in themselves grant residents the decision-making power that has diminished in recent decades. Rather, resident engagement itself is vital – and thus, is the focus of the following recommendations.
Recommendation
Rubin (2009)’s empirical analysis of NYCHA resident participation illustrates that influence in decision-making is linked to community engagement, revealing that the major barriers to resident participation are a lack of information and trust between residents (p.74). Wider community development literature corroborates that social cohesion is fundamental to community empowerment (Forrest and Kearns, 1999; Somerville, 2011; Clampet-Lundquist, 2010).
As such, these recommendations aim to increase transparency and trust in communities, in order to strengthen NYCHA residents’ participation and influence in decision-making. With 528,105 residents currently living in NYCHA, the size and diversity of this population renders recommendations to the entire community inefficient (NYCHA, 2023). As such, these recommendations are targeted to developments, and can be adapted to communities’ specific capacities and needs.
- Accessible communication: platforms for residents to stay informed and speak up about development and NYCHA updates
The first step to support resident involvement in decision-making is adequate information (Rubin, 2009, p.83; Dokeniya, 2014). NYCHA communications are usually delivered through official briefings, which can be inaccessible to residents for their length, complex wording, and language barriers (Rubin, 2009, p.88). This leaves many residents uninformed until major decisions are already made – as evident in the case of Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea.
In a survey by NYC nonprofit Communty Voices Heard, an overwhelming number of residents shared that they do not participate in resident action because of a lack of information (Rubin, 2009, p.83). As such, a widely accessible communication platform at each development, made by and for residents, could encourage resident participation. Whether it be clear explanations of proposed policy updates via email, or video conversations with residents on Facebook, information would become available to residents in more transparent and accessible ways. From there, a NYCHA-wide platform (such as 1NYCHA) could be used to gather and further publicise information from each development to other NYCHA residents, or broadcast resident concerns directly to NYCHA – supporting the power of residents to make their voices heard.
The success of 1NYCHA – a resident-hosted platform, providing updated information with a down-to-earth attitude – is evidence of the positive effects of accessible communication. With thousands of views and dozens of comments from energized residents, the engagement with this platform indicates that residents are emboldened to exert influence when given clear, accessible information.
- External partnerships: forming lasting connections with external community groups
New York City is home to thousands of community groups, from local community centers to wider activist organisations. Partnerships with these groups would benefit community building and organising power within developments, empowering residents in self-advocacy.
First, with access to health, food, and employment resources, as well as relationships with local elected officials, community groups have much to offer to the wellbeing of a development’s residents. With this added support, residents can feel more embedded in their neighborhood’s social network, with a sense that their community provides for their wellbeing. As such, they are more likely to want to engage with and advocate for their community (Rubin, 2009, p.20). This is evident at Cooper Park Houses, whose robust schedule of community events are all made possible by the external groups and elected officials with whom Cooper Park has established long-standing relationships.
Second, these community groups could become allies to residents in activism. External partnerships have been fundamental to some recent major success stories for NYCHA residents. In 2019, residents of Holmes and Isaacs Houses sued NYCHA to prevent the construction of a luxury high-rise on their site, made possible with aid from the legal support organisation TakeRoot Justice (TakeRoot Justice, 2019). Similarly, Cooper Park’s victory against the National Grid expansion was aided by a coalition of 24 community organisations, whose combined resources and influence brought them to success (Mahoney, 2023). These examples highlight that NYCHA residents have more leverage in decision-making with external support. In the words of TakeRoot Justice attorney Michaela Warnsley, “the entire community is standing together with NYCHA residents.”
- Joint events: strategy workshops and community events bridging communities across NYCHA developments
While these recommendations are designed for individual developments, collaboration between developments could build an expanded resident community, while still allowing individual developments to benefit by sharing strategies and resources with other communities.
The first component of these joint events is strategy workshops, in which residents from different developments share ideas for addressing common concerns. At these meetings, residents can exchange advice for repairs, share professional development opportunities from local community groups, and other opportunities for support that may be unknown to residents in other developments. Group meetings such as these have historically generated productive results. In 2019, the organisation Fight for NYCHA hosted a joint meeting that created the People’s Budget: a legislative plan for financing Section 9 public housing. Its participating members have stayed involved in the organisation ever since (Fight For NYCHA, 2023).
In order to earn communities’ trust in these workshops, it is important that their intention was made very clear. Residents in Rubin (2009)’s study shared that a lack of clarity in the purpose of Resident Council meetings generated mistrust, and thus reluctance to participate (p.92). Advertisements and workshop organisers should make clear that while outcomes may be escalated to NYCHA, the workshops are intended to stay for and within communities. This eliminates overlap with RCs, and can even bolster RC participation: by involving residents in planning that is entirely by and for themselves, they can build trust with one another and feel more motivated to make change through their RC.
Another way that these joint events can build communities’ trust is through its second component: casual, fun community events. From movie nights to health fairs, these events could build solidarity and offer some levity to residents’ busy lives, as well as a chance to socialise with new people with whom they may share similar interests and backgrounds. As with external partnerships, these joint events would more deeply integrate residents into a wider network, encouraging a sense of deeper care for – and thus engagement in – their community.
Synergies
These recommendations can be selected and implemented independently of one another based on the capacities and needs of each development. However, it is important to note that they are synergistic – meaning that fulfilling one will support the success of the others. Improved, active platforms of communication within and across NYCHA developments would aid in organizing events and meetings between developments and with external partners. External partnerships could support the development of effective communication methods, and act as a common bridge between communities in different developments. Joint events could inspire new ideas for improving communication, and grant a group ‘strength in numbers’ as it seeks partnership from an external community group.
A new direction: resident management corporations
If these recommendations are implemented successfully, residents will be part of communities that are well-informed, well-connected, and characterised by trust and engagement. Regardless of their choices for the future of their developments, these recommendations ensure that choices are informed and influential in decision-making. However, if residents are seeking alternate forms of housing policy, these recommendations also create conditions for the successful implementation of a new kind of public housing management: resident management corporations.
Resident management corporations (RMCs) are a legal pathway for public housing residents to adopt full or partial responsibilities for their building management. To operate an RMC, residents form a nonprofit organisation that enters into a contract with their PHA to take charge of one or more management responsibilities. These can include collecting rent, performing maintenance, and hiring management and maintenance staff. RMCs are also a source of employment, as residents can fill paid roles as staff in their development (HUD, 2023).
Analyses by HUD and external scholars have shown that overall, residents managed by RMCs have a higher level of satisfaction with their housing. According to a 1992 HUD evaluation, RMCs outperformed PHAs in work order processing, effectiveness in maintenance staffing, move-out rates, and resident satisfaction and quality of life (p.5). Chandler (1991)’s review of RMC literature concluded that other academic analyses have supported these claims:
“RMCs manage as well as conventional managers, they produce greater degrees of resident satisfaction and more employment opportunities, they reduce the incidence of social problems, they allow for a higher degree of resident involvement.” (p.141)
Still, RMCs require a five-year process of application, training, and approval, and exceptionally high levels of resident and community engagement: effective RMCs have had established relationships to external institutions and good community organisation (Monti, 1989; HUD, 2023). However, if residents feel that they are equipped and determined to make change for themselves, RMCs exist as a legitimate pathway to do so. No RMCs currently exist within NYCHA, but for interested residents, the Committee for Independent Community Action and Justice For All Coalition are NYC-based organisations advocating for RMCs as a potential path forward.
Conclusion
The recent introduction of private actors into the storm of NYCHA operations means that it is more important than ever for residents to regain influence in management. Regardless of whether residents choose to access Section 8 funding, retain Section 9 status, or form an RMC, it is critical that power stays in the hands of NYCHA residents to determine their own futures.
The continuing history of successful NYCHA resident advocacy provides a beacon of hope. It indicates that residents, NYCHA, and the City of New York are receptive to change when communication is clear and convincing. While NYC and NYCHA must be held responsible for providing for its tenants, residents are not and have not been powerless to make decisions for themselves. Chatterton (2019), speaking of “unlocking sustainable cities,” argues:
“Localised projects will need a[n]… enabling state in order to flourish, as well as active social movements, pushing the boundaries of what is possible.” (p. 117)
New York City has always been a city of change, and it remains to be seen if the current administration will uphold this tradition. However, through establishing foundations of social engagement, residents can become a powerful, influential, and sustained force for present and future generations.
Reference List
Abramowitz, M. (2014) ‘Economic crises, neoliberalism, and the US welfare state: trends, outcomes, and political struggle’, in Noble, H., Strauss, H. and Littlechild, B. (eds.) Global social work: Crossing borders, blurring boundaries. Sydney: Syndey University Press.
Bloom, N.D. (2008) Public Housing That Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brachfeld, B. (2023) ‘NYCHA set to tear down, rebuild Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses in historic Manhattan public housing deal’, AMNY, June 21. Available at: https://www.amny.com/new-york/manhattan/neighborhoods/chelsea/nycha-tear-down-rebuild-fulton-elliott-chelsea-houses/ (Accessed: October 15, 2023).
CBS New York (2018) 2 hurt when bedroom ceiling collapses in Crown Heights NYCHA apartment. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/crown-heights-nycha-ceiling-collapse/ (Accessed: October 15, 2023).
Carson-Holt, E. (2023) ‘NYCHA residents in Chelsea resist demolition plan that could displace them’, The Indypendent, August 7. Available at: https://indypendent.org/2023/08/nycha-residents-in-chelsea-resist-demolition-plan-that-could-displace-them/ (Accessed: October 15, 2023).
Chandler, M.O. (1991) ‘What Have We Learned from Public Housing Resident Management?’ Journal of Planning Literature, 6 (2), pp. 136-143.
Chaskin, R.J. (2016) ‘Between the Idea and the Reality: Public Housing Reform and the Further Marginalization of the Poor.’ City & Community, 15 (4), pp. 372-375.
Chatterton, P. (2019) Unlocking Sustainable Cities: A Manifesto for Real Change. London: Pluto Press.
Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2010) ‘”Everyone Had Your Back”: Social Ties, Perceived Safety, and Public Housing Relocation.’ City & Community, 9 (1), pp. 87-108.
Dokeniya, A. (2014) ‘The Right to Information as a Tool for Community Empowerment’, in Cissé, H., Menon, N.R.M., Segger, M.C., and Nmehielle, V.O. (eds.) The World Bank Legal Review Volume 5: Fostering Development through Opportunity, Inclusion, and Equity.
Duddridge, N. (2022) ‘Exclusive: Tenants fume as broken boiler creates various issues at NYCHA building in Manhattan’, CBS New York, December 20. Available at https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/tenants-fume-as-broken-boiler-creates-various-issues-at-nycha-building-in-manhattan/ (Accessed: October 10, 2023).
Fight for NYCHA (2019) People’s Budget. Available at: https://fightfornycha.org/peoples-budget/ (Accessed: October 14, 2023).
Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (1999) Joined-up places? Social cohesion and neighbourhood regeneration. York: York Publishing Services.
Goldenberg, S. (2019) ‘City quietly pauses plans for private development at Brooklyn NYCHA site’, Politico, May 6. Available at: https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/05/06/city-quietly-pauses-plans-for-private-development-at-brooklyn-nycha-site-1007308 (Accessed: October 12, 2023).
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HUD (2023) Guide 8: Resident management corporations. Available at: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/public-housing/resident-toolkit/public-housing-resident-organizing-and-participation-guides/resident-management-corporations/ (Accessed: October 19, 2023).
HUD (2023) Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD). Available at: https://www.hud.gov/RAD (Accessed: October 10, 2023).
HUD (1992) Evaluation of Resident Management in Public Housing.
Human Rights Watch (2022) “The Tenant Never Wins:” Private Takeover of Public Housing Puts Rights at Risk in New York City.
Hyra, D. S. (2008) The new urban renewal: the economic transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mahoney, A. (2023) ‘How These NYC Public Housing Residents Became Models for Tenant Rights Activism’, The City, January 11. Available at: https://www.thecity.nyc/2023/01/11/nyc-public-housing-models-for-tenant-rights-activism/ (Accessed: October 10, 2023)
Monti, D.J. (1989) ‘The Organisational Strengths and Weaknesses of Resident-Managed Public Housing Sites in the United States’, Journal of Urban Affairs, 11 (1), pp. 39-52.
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) (2021) Advocates’ Guide 2021.
NoNBKPipeline (2023) 2023 Updates. Available at: https://www.nonbkpipeline.org/ (Accessed: October 15, 2023)
NYCHA (2023) Resident Engagement. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nycha/residents/getting-involved-as-a-resident.page (Accessed: October 20, 2023).
NYCHA Office of Mold Assessment and Remediation (2023) Report on NYCHA’s Mold and Leak Response Efforts: Progress, Challenges and Next Steps.
NYCHA (2023) Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT). Available at:
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/pact.page (Accessed: October 13, 2023).
NYCHA (2023) NYCHA 2023 Fact Sheet.
NYCHA (2023) Residents and NYCHA Announce Plans for Complete Rebuilding of Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses. Available at: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/press/pr-2023/pr-20230621.page (Accessed: October 13, 2023).
PIX11 News (2023) NYCHA tenants rally against plan to demolish, rebuild housing complexes in Chelsea. 7 July. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnAKHq_k6gU&t=395s (Accessed: October 10, 2023).
TakeRoot Justice (2019) Responding to infill development on and privatization of NYC housing authority campuses. Available at: https://takerootjustice.org/resources/resisting-infill-development-on-nyc-housing-authority-campuses/ (Accessed: October 17, 2023).
Turner, T. (2023) ‘Questions arise about voting process in NYCHA demo plan, as public housing’s repair bill climbs to $78 billion’, City Limits, July 12. Available at: https://citylimits.org/2023/07/12/questions-arise-about-voting-process-in-nycha-demo-plan-as-public-housings-repair-bill-climbs-to-78-billion/ (Accessed: October 15, 2023).
Rubin, L. (2009) A New Voice for NYCHA: Structural Dysfunction in the New York City Public Housing Resident Participation System. Bachelor of Arts with Departmental Honors in Sociology. Wesleyan University.
Somerville, P. (2011) Understanding community: politics, policy and practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Vale, L.J. and Freemark, Y. (2012) ‘From Public Housing to Public-Private Housing: 75 Years of American Social Experimentation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 78 (4), pp. 379-402.