1. Last week, and today, Philadelphia students walked-out of school to protest harsh budget cuts that would totally gut the public school system, which is already suffering from austerity. Of note to New Yorkers: the plan, which initially included the closure of over 40 public schools, was prepared with the help of the Boston Consulting Group. If that name doesn’t ring a bell: its the same neoliberalizing global business entity hired – to the tune of $10 million – to study NYCHA.
2. Legal Services is on strike. In the past year, Legal Services attorneys have represented tenants in at least 15 of the buildings we organize, and the work they do is invaluable to low income New Yorkers. Support them in their fight.
3. We’re basically just waiting to see when Anthony Weiner will announce he’s running for mayor. In the meantime, check out this piece by Michael Mckee of the Metropolitan Council on Housing: “Why No Tenant Should Vote for Anthony Weiner.” In a city chock full of tenants that’s a bold claim — but his record in the City Council calls for it.

Map by National Fair Housing Alliance

Last month marked the 45^th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). To celebrate, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) published a report entitled, “Modernizing the Fair Housing Act for the 21^st Century.” The paper works to elucidate the current discriminatory obstacles faced by renters and homeowners, and to offer suggestions to fill in current loopholes. Since FHA’s inception, two amendments have been made to protect against sex (1974) and disability (1988) discrimination. Despite the bill’s progress and evolution, it has yet to include protections against sexual orientation, gender-identity, and marital status discrimination.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Between 2009 and 2011, hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased from 17.8 percent to 20.8 percent, and this type of discrimination has manifested itself in the housing sector. In a study conducted in Michigan, 27 percent of same-sex couples were treated differently based on sexual orientation, including asking their references to clarify their sexual orientation. The research also illustrates that “the largest evidence of sexual orientation discrimination was in rental tests (33 percent), followed by sales tests (25 percent) and close behind were mortgage tests (20 percent).” Today, 21 states as well as the District of Columbia have enacted laws that protect against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. New York is not one of them.

Gender Identity Discrimination

The NFHA study reports that discrimination based on gender identity is also prominent in housing. In a different study conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality, it is reported that of 6,450 transgender and gender non-conforming participants, 19 percent had been denied a home or an apartment, 11 percent had been evicted, and 19 percent of folks became homeless. Of the participants that tried to access homeless shelters, 1/3 were turned away and 42 percent were segregated to a facility intended for folks that identify with a different gender identity. 55 percent of participants that did access the shelter system experienced harassment; 25 percent experienced physical assault; and 22 percent experienced sexual assault.

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey also showed that transgender folks of color experience much higher levels of discrimination. The survey illustrated the following:

• 38 percent of African-American transgender folks were refused housing; 31 percent were evicted due to discrimination; and 41 percent experienced homelessness (5 times the national rate).
• 29 percent of Latino/a transgender folks were refused housing; 15 percent experienced eviction due to discrimination; 26 percent experienced homelessness (4 times the national average).
• 21 percent of Asian American, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander transgender folks were refused housing; 7 percent were evicted due to discrimination; 14 percent experienced homelessness (2 times the national average).

Today, 16 states as well as the District of Columbia have enacted laws that protect against discrimination based on gender identity. New York is one of them. *

Marital Status Discrimination

Non-married couples have been experiencing significant discrimination in the housing market as well. According to the Fair Housing Center in Nebraska-Iowa, investigations regarding income discrimination found that 38 percent of cases were rooted in discrimination based on marital status. The investigation found that many landlords made statements such as “’I don’t believe that people should live in sin.’”

Today, 22 states including the District of Columbia have enacted laws that protect against marital status discrimination. In this case, New York is one of them.

The information compiled by the NFHA illuminates an undeniable need to amend the Fair Housing Act. Within the past few years, LGBT and unmarried folks have gained tremendous visibility and greater rights. However, with acceptance also comes animosity. As the paradigm shifts, the male/female binary and hetero-normativity is called into question and somewhat dismantled. To protect the inevitable backlash during such transition, it is imperative that legislative protections be implemented and enforced at this time.

*A previous version of this blog post mistakenly stated that New York did not have laws preventing housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, NY Exec Law § 296(2)(a) does provide this protection. 

1. DHCR should approve an automatic rent reduction for tenants whose homes enter the alternative enforcement program.
   DHCR, the NYS Department of Housing and Community Renewal, administers rent regulations and has the power to provide tenants with legal rent reductions when negligent landlords refuse to make necessary repairs in their homes. If a building enters the Alternative Enforcement Program, it is clearly one of the most physically distressed buildings in New York City, and tenants have likely been paying rent without receiving anything in return for a very long time. In order to decrease the burden of bad housing on working families as well as increase the pressure on property owners to make repairs, DHCR should grant automatic rent reductions to any tenant who lives in a building that enters the Alternative Enforcement Program.
2. Remove AEP buildings from the lien sale list.
   Each year, the NYC Department of Finance sells off uncollected tax, water, and emergency repair liens to raise money. This process gives a third party (usually a bank or a trust) the right to foreclose on these debts. Buildings in AEP are often included in the lien sale list: it stands to reason that landlords who are negligent about repairs may also be negligent about paying their bills, and these buildings are often candidates for emergency repairs done and billed by the city.When a building is in severe physical distress, it does not make sense to bring in a speculative actor whose only interest is in sucking more money out of the property. It does make sense, however, for the city to hang onto these liens: they are secured debt, and can be used by the tenants and the city as leverage to fight for a deal that preserves the building’s affordability. AEP buildings should be automatically removed from the city’s lien sale list in order save the city’s most vulnerable housing stock.
3. Hold the bank accountable when a building is in foreclosure.
   As we’ve discussed on this blog before, the Alternative Enforcement Program is not nearly as effective as it could be when a building is in foreclosure. The heart of the program is that it puts financial pressure on building owners to make necessary repairs. But what if the owner is legally forbidden from intervening in building management, as is the case in most multifamily foreclosures? The AEP program has no way to hold receivers responsible for making repairs. Moreover, the fines levied while the building is in the program (unpaid during foreclosure) are not enough to deter a predatory buyer, but they are enough to throw off a non-profit landlord or a tenant group who is looking to reclaim the building in a cost effective manner.

   As foreclosure proves to be a persistent problem in New York City, we need a program that ensures tenants living in multifamily buildings receive decent housing. A foreclosure can last for up to five years, and that is FAR TOO LONG for tenants to live in AEP conditions. In the landmark Milbank case, courts have ruled that when buildings are in foreclosure, banks have a responsibility to maintain the asset: i.e., pay for repairs. In foreclosure cases, the AEP program must demand accountability from lenders as well.

Tenants living in 6 buildings in Ridgewood, Queens are caught in the middle of a complicated foreclosure and bankruptcy case which will determine the future of their homes. While the courts continue to drag out the 5-year-and-counting foreclosure, tenants suffer from horrible living conditions with no one to turn to.  Check out Friday’s video from Channel 11 News demonstrating the unsafe living conditions tenants face on a daily basis. 

Here are tenants allies and adversaries in the fight for affordable housing preservation:

Steven Kates, Landlord: Mr. Kates is fighting the foreclosure in bankruptcy court. However, he never could be trusted: he lied about the number of units in the 6 buildings to take out an unreasonably large mortgage! Tenants are fighting to make sure that he does not get to keep these buildings. 

Stabilis Capital: The original lender, Washington Mutual, collapsed in the 2008 financial crisis.  Chase, who took over the failed bank, sold the debt to Stabilis — a private equity company we’ve seen lend on other severely distressed properties. We hope that Stabilis will come to the table to meet with residents and advocates to work out a deal that will benefit tenants and NYC’s affordable housing stock.

CATCH: Tenants have asked CATCH, a nonprofit preservation developer to purchase their buildings, rehab them, and rent them at affordable levels. Tenants want to have a voice in the way their buildings are managed, and CATCH runs buildings they own through “mutual housing,” which ensures resident-input. However, in order for CATCH to buy the buildings, they will have to purchase the note at a discount and wind their way through bankruptcy court.

Elected Officials: Tenants have found a great deal of support from their elected officials, including Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and City Councilwoman Diana Reyna. They hope that through political pressure, Stabilis will discount the mortgage on these six properties (which they likely bought for a discount from Chase) and sell them to CATCH. With the help of Councilwoman Diana Reyna, tenants are asking HPD to remove these buildings from the lien sale list. The liens are a crucial tool that will give the tenants some serious leverage in the bankruptcy case.

Queens Legal Services: Tenants are represented by Queens Legal Services to help make sure that immediate repair needs are met. While the bankruptcy case has made legal matters a little confusing, attorneys are strategizing to get repairs done as soon as possible.

Stay tuned on this exciting fight to preserve affordable housing in Ridegwood, Queens!

To understand more about the case, we’ve broken it down for you.

The players:

Steven Kates, landlord: Fighting the foreclosure in bankrupcy court. Never could be trusted- he lied about the number of units in the 6 buildings to take out an unreasonably large mortgage!

Stabilis Capital: The original lender, WAMU, sold the debt to Stabilis- a private equity company we’ve seen lend on other severely distressed properties. We hope that Stabilis will come to the table to meet with tenants and advocates to work out a deal that will benefit tenants and NYC’s affordable housing stock.

The Elected Officials: Tenants have found a great deal of support from their elected officials! They hope that through political pressure, Stabilis will sell the buildings’ note  to a preservation developer.

Preservation Developer: Tenants have chosen a nonprofit group to purchase their buildings, rehab them, and get them into good condition!  Tenants want to have a voice in the way their buildings are run, and expect that with this development group, they will participate in managing the buildings.

Queens Legal Services: Tenants are represented by Queens Legal Services to help make sure that immediate repair needs are met. While the bankruptcy case has made legal matters a little confusing, attorneys are strategizing to get repairs done as soon as possible.

Stay tuned on this exciting fight to preserve affordable housing in Ridegwood, Queens!

A good apartment is hard to find. As two recent stories documented, even those supposedly “affordable” units included in large developments are out of reach for the average New Yorker.

 Uptown a bit, The Daily News found that the promised “affordable” apartments in the Hudson Yards development have not materialized in the promised quantities, and those that have been built are tiny. They write:

Many of those units are tiny studios and one-bedrooms of 400 to 600 square feet — often far smaller than similar market-rate units in the same buildings. At one site, the twin 60-story SilverTowers on W. 42nd St. and 11th Ave., developer Larry Silverstein erected a separate 88-unit ‘affordable’ building at the back of his complex.

The towers boast spacious and luxurious lobbies and the biggest indoor pool in the city. The affordable building has a dark, tiny lobby that faces the back of an MTA bus depot and the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel.

Posted on Central Foothill Mommies

When most people call 911 seeking protection from an abusive partner, they do not expect to receive an eviction notice from their landlord. Unfortunately, a “disorderly behavior” ordinance has changed that expectation. This week, Atlantic Cities wrote an article exposing this issue.

For many years, municipal laws in Pennsylvania mandated that a landlord evict tenants for calling the police three times within a four month period if the call is in regards to disorderly behavior. According to Pennsylvania municipalities, domestic violence is a form of disorderly behavior and, in turn, survivors were penalized by this law. After the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened to bring a lawsuit disputing the law’s constitutionality, municipalities repealed the ”three strike” ordinance. However, another very similar law was enacted in Norristown (a city in Pennsylvania). The new law fines landlords when tenants call the police for disorderly behavior. Such laws inadvertently encourage landlords to evict tenants that are experiencing domestic violence.

Sandra Park of the ACLU blogged about the injustices behind and implications of these laws. She writes:

These laws violate tenants’ First Amendment right to petition their government, which includes the right to contact law enforcement. They also violate the federal Violence Against Women Act, which protects many domestic violence victims from eviction based on crimes committed against them, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and was enacted 45 years ago this month… Such evictions are often motivated by gender stereotypes that hold victims responsible for the abuse they experience.

Not only do these ordinances perpetuate stereotypes, they also deny survivors safety. Such laws insist that domestic disputes are personal matters and, as a result, police should not intervene (even when a partner experiences physical or emotional abuse).  As survivors are painted as instigators and as law enforcement refuses to intervene, domestic violence becomes trivialized.

While certain housing protections for domestic violence survivors exist in New York City, there are many loopholes in the law. According to New Destiny Housing, a tenant residing in a rent stabilized unit cannot be evicted if they temporarily flee their apartment due to a domestic violence dispute.  Similarly, a tenant living in Section 8 and NYCHA public housing cannot solely be evicted on grounds of domestic violence. Such laws address the need to provide safety to survivors, but they do not contain a clause granting protections when the dispute disturbs other tenants. Without that clause, domestic violence survivors are still subject to eviction.  As these ordinances spread to other parts of the country, we hope that their unjust nature is exposed, dismantled, and eliminated.

This issue reminds us of a similar situation with Secure Communities.  In this controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement program, local police information is shared with ICE, and undocumented immigrants can be deported for any contact with police. Rather than created real safety in our communities, this program discourages those experiencing domestic violence from calling the police for fear of deportation.  This program must be ended, like the laws around eviction must be changed, in order to provide real safety for our communities and a working relationship with law enforcement.

If you or someone you know is being evicted or experiencing other housing challenges as a result of domestic violence, call the New Destiny Housing Helpline at (646) 472-0262, Ext. 15.

________________

Don’t Forget Shelters’ Role in the Homelessness Crisis        by Hannah Biskind

On April 10th, former Department of Homeless Services (DHS) Commissioner Robert V. Hess published an article in City Limits calling on New York City’s next mayor to address the City’s growing homelessness crisis. In his piece, Mr. Hess touts the work of his former organization, DHS, and argues that the next mayor must utilize multiple city agencies to provide better access to shelters and an exit strategy out of the cycle of homelessness.

He asks a good question.  What is the next mayor going to do about homelessness? He asks the same question ringing in my head. As a Legal Advocate at the Urban Justice Center’s Safety Net Project, I work with homeless families every day and I worry about what this next mayoral election means for my clients. I have yet to hear or read anything from mayoral candidates regarding this issue, yet over 50,000 of their constituents are in emergency shelter.  And even more families who should qualify for emergency shelter are thrown back out on the streets every day by DHS.

I agree with Mr. Hess’s statement that homelessness needs to be a campaign issue.  But let’s address the ways that DHS can make the needs of homeless families a priority, as well.  Homelessness is the result of multiple failures in the system, such as the lack of affordable housing and living wage jobs.  But that does not let DHS off the hook and negate DHS’s responsibility in this current crisis.

I agree that the solution to homelessness lies in a citywide, multi-agency effort.  I agree that affordable housing and the creation of a new city housing subsidy program should be of top priority.  I agree that we need more living-wage jobs. Yet, while DHS does not control affordable housing and living-wage jobs, it does contribute to the number of street homeless families that are left out of DHS’s shelter census every night.

I work with families everyday as they apply and try to enter the emergency shelter system.  While the initial reasons my clients have nowhere to go does not directly implicate DHS, the reasons my clients must apply for shelter time and time again does.  These families seek out my help because, after providing what documentation they have of their required one- to two-year housing history, DHS has denied them emergency shelter.  While Mr. Hess is somehow able to compare the shelter system to both the Marriott and the hospital emergency room, I have sat next to my clients time and time again as DHS tells them that no, they will not get the help they need from the shelter system.  New York City’s right to shelter for its homeless population dates back to the 1980’s but homeless families must prove that they must have nowhere else to go.  I listen to DHS tell my clients over and over again that they do have somewhere to go, that they are not really homeless despite compiled evidence to the contrary.

DHS does not meet its legal and moral obligation to house every single individual and family that is truly homeless.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  And if we are going to address homelessness in New York City and do our best to transition our homeless population into stable, permanent housing, then DHS must uphold its moral and legal obligation to provide shelter to homeless families who have the legal right to emergency shelter.

Stable shelter is the first step for our already homeless New Yorkers and providing that is DHS’s responsibility.  I agree with Mr. Hess that the next mayor needs to address the issue of homelessness in New York. But in doing so, the next mayor must understand how existing DHS policies are actually contributing to our city’s crisis of homelessness.

Reforming these policies, in addition to expanding affordable housing and living wage job opportunities, is an imperative if our city is to truly deliver on its constitutional promise of shelter for all.

To read the article on City Limit’s website, click here.

This week, UHAB organizer, Elise Goldin, published an article, ”Orthodox Slumlords and Their Tenants” in the Jewish Daily Forward. The article explores her experiences as a Jewish person who often finds herself organizing tenants living in horrible conditions against religious Jewish landlords.  Because the landlords are often the only visibly Jewish people tenants know, it is not uncommon to hear tenants express anti-Semetic statements:

Tenants complain to me that Jews don’t work on Saturdays, so it’s difficult to get in touch with their landlords. One time, when an Orthodox Jew bought a building in the Bronx, the tenants were convinced that he worked for the same company as the previous owner, also an Orthodox Jew. They had a difficult time trusting him.

These comments puts Jewish tenant organizers (and trust us- there are many) in a interesting position.  Organizers must think about how and when it is useful to address anti-Semitism while on the job. Elise reflects: 

So what’s the solution to ending this brewing anti-Semitism in New York City’s worst buildings? The obvious answer is ending bad landlord practices in Orthodox Jewish communities. But of course that’s way beyond my control. What is within my control is when or how I can “out” myself as Jewish to the tenants I work with. Often, I let tenants know as soon as possible, particularly when working in a building that has had many Jewish landlords. The tenants and I end up chatting about holidays, kashrut or other tidbits of Judaism.

To read the full article, click here.