A recent article in CITYLAB features a pundit with a narrow vision of New York City’s public housing problems: he feels there’s just not enough churning.
Churning? It’s a rental housing industry term. A lot of churning? Lots of people moving in and out of rental accommodation. This is, of course, music to the ears of real estate agents who receive commission on every turnover of a rental unit.
Not enough churning, however is clearly . . . bad? Too many people quite happy to stay in their public housing units year after year — not prepared to give way to youth who flock to increasingly unaffordable New York City. Those young newcomers apparently are just as worthy (maybe more worthy) of occupying public housing compared to those who are already in residence.
A pundit’s recommendation to other communities not yet ensnared in NYC’s low-churning trap? Make sure you don’t make the same mistake.
Like . . . how? Housing lotteries on steroids? Win a place in public housing for a year, then spin the wheel again? Or . . . age limit public housing? Turf all the grannies and grandpas out into the snow where they can gracefully take one for the community, freezing to death as a selfless sacrifice to youth.
Hmm.
Instead of all this public housing reinvention, what about going back to first principles instead? American public housing was not built as a warehouse for a community’s most vulnerable, least employable citizens, which is largely its current role.
The original vision of public housing was a mix of low income working folks as well as those unable to work living on disability or social assistance.
After initial government capitalization of public housing structures, the rents paid by low income working occupants would cover the necessary management and upkeep of the housing. Many of the occupants would eventually save enough to move upwards on the housing ladder, either private renting, or even owning. In other words, they would “churn their way out of Dodge1.”
Two birds with one stone. Not only would turnover in public housing provide opportunities for incoming youth, but there would be no “32 billion dollar deficit” headlines like these: NYC And HUD Spar Over Affordable Housing Time Bomb — Decaying Public Housing
What actually happened to public housing? Steady political pressure was placed upon it to bounce tenants out the door as soon as they found a job, for fear unambitious layabouts would take advantage of society.
The result? Gradually, public housing became filled with people who were unemployed and unemployable, who could pay only “symbolic” rent from, say, their social security or disability allowance. Symbolic rent, paid year after year and decade after decade, is not enough to manage or maintain effectively.
As for churning? Oh, sure! Was there ever a group of poverty-stricken people purposely gathered together via public policy who are less able to churn?
So, what to do? Carry on blaming the failure of public housing on bad tenants? Allow the buildings to fall into disrepair? Tear them down? Wring hands? Point to disadvantaged incoming youth?
Or rethink public housing in a more constructive framework, then build much more of it designed, not to sink under its own weight, but to sustain. Maybe even churn!
For more on NYC’s churning problem see CITYLAB: How Low Turnover Fuels New York City’s Affordable Housing Crisis
Footnotes
- Try this post for more on defects in housing policy that shackled public housing and prevented maintenance: How Adjusting HUD’s New Raise-The-Rent Proposal For The Very Poorest Could Work
