Put Homeless in Vacant NYC Luxury Apts

Written by Zachary Shahan
Published on May 21st, 2010

in Action & Activism, Community


Homeless advocates are trying to get New York City to take over long-vacant luxury apartments to help house the homeless. Leaders in the real estate market are saying ‘no way’, but this is generating some movement forward.

A coalition of community organizations in NYC, Right to the City Coalition, has found that 264 luxury residential developments are sitting vacant around the city. Rather than wasting useful space, the coalition is advocating that these places be taken over by the city and used for housing the homeless.

“It just seems very logical that if these buildings are vacant and they are warehousing them, while we have families living in shelters, living in SROs, these apartments should be taken over by the city through tax foreclosure, like any other building,” said Cerita Parker, a leader with Mothers on The Move, an activist community organization in the South Bronx. “These are homes and we have homeless people.”


more
http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/05/21/put-homeless-in-vacant-nyc-luxury-apts-advocates-say/

Time to get what we've been paying for.

humans for survival in the 21st century, not tribes of selfish interests. Reminds me of restaurants that throw out good food and manufactures that destroy good products to keep them off the market to drive up prices/markets for newer products.

... of a crucial commodity ( i.e. NYC housing) and it just goes to waste? I thought a market economy is supposed to force the supply side to *lower* the selling price. Hence removing the oversupply and making housing more affordable for more people.

Granted, economics is not my area. What am I missing? When are those asking prices going to come down?

the lost revenue on the vacant units offsets other profitable ventures. A market economy used to work until the systems, including the stock market, became rigged/gamed. Unless you are a big-monied player in these areas, you are in the dark. The ideal environment for greed to grow like mold unchecked...

Of course these are just poor corporations, just another Joe on the street, our supreme court has told us that... huge corporations and just another Joe struggling to make/buy political candidates via political contributions. USA, Inc.

This sort of thing has been going on in capitalist economies since the beginning of capitalism. It is one of the major criticisms of capitalism brought up by Marx, Engels, and others. There is no real way to prevent such cycles, however serious regulations, like we had during the post WWII era mitigates the damage quite a bit.

This is not Capitalism. It is bizzare mixture of Fascism and Communism.

Adam Smith would punch someone at the idea of a bailout.

This is the same type of capitalism that was ravaging societies on both sides of the Atlantic during the 1800's. After all, they don't call this current period the Second Gilded Age for nothing.

Wait for it, we're going to be bringing back child labor soon enough.

Loathed them, hated the idea of government issued charters from Kings.

There is a shit load of stuff in Adam Smith's writings. As much as the right wing embraces his name, like Jesus, when you read what he wrote he was kind of a lefty.

already doing that (I think) indirectly by outsourcing manufacturing, for example, to the lowest labor countries. Gradually all of the underpinnings that made this country great are being disassembled, the pilings that held it up are rotting.

I never thought I would see this crumbling going on in my lifetime, having been a product of the FDR era. What I find more disturbing is generational inheritance of a corrupt system. Many kids today probably don't even know the difference and hence our failed systems will possibly be accepted and reinforced as just a way of life and survival in the NEW America.

there is nothing communistic about it.

This type of thing is inevitable in capitalism, as much as those who perpetuate it would like to pretend otherwise.

As Madhound mentions above, I would recommend reading Marx's writings*** on the capitalist 'Crisis' - basically what we are seeing now. This ain't the first, it won't be the last, but they are an inevitable part of the result of capitalist theory - and something few capitalist or libertarian theorists address. And the icing on the cake is that they'll get worse every time, as capital continues to concentrate and every bust effects more and more of the world. This isn't some unforeseen surprise, as much as it needs to be portrayed that way for this farce to continue. This is not an exception. This is inevitable.

*** I know, I know, crusty dead russian. But honestly he wrote so much stuff that pertains to today - I'm not talking about revolutionary socialist Marxism or anything, just the basic economic stuff. He looked at the reality around him and understood capitalist theory and pointed out all of it's flaws and lies and false assumptions. In a sense, he predicted where we are now - insofar as the accumulation of capital and it's concentration, and how that may effect the material conditions in which people live. And the tenuous situation that allows this anti-people economic system to even exist at this point.

Sorry, as you may guess I have had similar conversations about criticisms of capitalism more than once in some form or another (often including russian writers) and 'crusty old dead russians' is often the first hurdle in talking about it. Haven't had much coffee yet this morning.

Anyway, do you have any response to what I was actually talking about?

He has valid criticism, his answers...not so much.

Though Karl was always light on answers. Lenin tried to fill in the blanks and forgot about human nature and Stalin.

Does it apply today? Are we experiencing capitalism or not? Is the situation we are in an inevitable result of the theory on which we base our economy?

I'm not trying to talk about 'answers' - Marxist or otherwise. I'm trying to talk about capitalism. You said this isn't capitalism. I disagree.

The end result of every human implemented system is corruption, decline, and eventual systematic failure.

Capitalism, Communism, Mercantilism, the Roman economic system, the Mayans, Aztecs, you name it.

On a long enough time-line the survival rate for any being or system is zero.

high or something. It never opened because the zoning people came after it. There are about 200 empty rooms with furniture just sitting there. I used to work for a homeless advocacy org. The community has spent years trying to get them to open it as a homeless living facility to no avail. It has been sitting there empty for about 10 years. Totally absurd.

available to the public service workers like teachers, city workers, public defenders, ADAs, firemen who either can't afford to live in the city where they work or pay half their salary on a studio. I think these underpaid workers who do the business of the city might appreciate getting a break on the over priced NYC housing.

This is not a good idea. It wouldd be totally unfair to people who work hard and can barely pay their rent as it is. Talk about making a bad situation worse.

We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the universe, so how come we have so many citizens without homes? Is THAT fair? At least the people you claim such a move would be unfair to have homes.

Let the homeless move into their previous houses.

Then we can reward the under paid work done by the most important people in the city.

anyone about anything. These are not mutually exclusive issues. Of course homelessness is a problem.

<<At least the people you claim such a move would be unfair to have homes.>> I don't even know what this means.

You seem to be implying that I don't care about homeless people because I think it might be a good idea to give some rewards to some of our underpaid and overworked public servants.

A 650 sq ft one bedroom. The "20s" in the building pay around $400. Total fucking BS because I bust my ass using real skills to pay that rent and live there.

foreclosed and sold at a loss. We do not reappropriate property. I guess I could house more people in my 3500 sq. ft. , but I would not want the govt telling me I had to share my space. I do think we
need to find some reasonable housing for families in need.

It may sound logical to you, but not to those that have spent a lot of money on neighboring properties whose values would be affected by this suggestion. Cries of socialism would be ringing
in streets.

1,200 military housing units saying they were substandard. They were good enough until the post closed so why couldn't they be provided to homeless people? They weren't tenements. The State did transfer the senior officer and NCO housing (brick, built in the 30s)to a contractor who sold them for up to $400K each.

They've also been talking about emptying public housing by giving the residents "vouchers"--to live where? Give the homeless the public housing, and the low-income public-housing residents the empty luxury apartments. If people are unable or unwilling to pay the luxury price for them, they aren't luxury apartments anyway. It's the developers' fault for building more housing than anyone could afford--LET them "pay" the consequences!

:headbang:
rocktivity

Of these "used to be" luxury apartments?

What an idiotic idea.

Even if they are vacant they still likely belong to someone. You can't just trash them.

This has to be one of the most obnoxious things I've ever read on DU

Way to go!

You know how it is :shrug:

Cleaning up shit and piss was a part of it.

And a big reason why the program was dropped.

There are only so many mornings you can expect someone to clean "Fuck You" finger-painted in shit off a mirror.

I won't make this long and drawn out, but a huge portion of the homeless in NYC are drug addicts, alcoholics, schizophrenics and other assorted mentally ill people, who, for lack of funding or their own choices are dumped into the streets. Many don't take their meds or can't afford them. Some are violent. And yes, they shit and piss and barf wherever.

It is obvious that some people with these simplistic solutions have never been smacked in the face with reality isn't it?

Yeah..let's put the homeless in vacant luxury apartments.

Without the consent of the owner I'm guessing?

Have they lost their fkn mind?

Well...of course it's not their walls that will have shit smeared on them. They are volunteering someone else's home! How convenient!

"Without the consent of the owner I'm guessing?"

from the OP.... Rather than wasting useful space, the coalition is advocating that these places be taken over by the city and used for housing the homeless.

The city will just seize it because they aren't being used the 'right' way, and do it. The old owners don't have jack to say on the matter..

Then again, they may leave ownership in the original hands, just dictate what must be done there.. can't loose the revenue from the property tax, ya know. :smoke:

This is Calcutta, Bohemia is dead.

due to lack of funding in the end.

The people are heavily screened, and they only take the most presentable, people who still have chance to get back on their feet, families, etc. I think these places are also well-guarded, round-the-clock, and they have strict rules.

Drug addicts, hardened street people, etc... wouldn't get anywhere near the place.