In the West Brighton neighborhood on Staten Island, not long ago, NYCHA operated an occupied 360 unit development of single-family homes which, perhaps consistent with Staten Island’s Republican political views, had not been well maintained. (For an interesting survey of development issues on Staten Island check this 2005 essay by Rob Gurwitt ) There are a number of ways to tell the Markham Gardens story. Was it, as Pratt architects found, permanent, structurally sound housing in need of repairs? Or was it as NYCHA has consistently characterized it –a run-down WW II era temporary housing for shipyard workers for which demolition was the only future. (See NYCHA press releases here and here .)

Is it only in Civics class that we are surprised if the policy decisions of government are made only partly "on the merits" and are sometimes driven by electoral politics and the racial, ethnic and business interests which underlie politics? I believe such interests are at play here, but have not learned enough about them yet.

The punch line is that the Bloomberg plan for destroying Markham Gardens was, after a vigorous but strictly-local struggle, approved. (For example, when epetitions to oppose the tear-down were solicited, 29 people signed The two hundred or so families who stuck it out to the end were given NYCHA relocation or Section 8 vouchers and perhaps unlike the Palestinians, a “right of return.” NYCHA people tell me they expect very, very few to actually return.

NYCHA then sold the land to a NYC agency, HPD, which contracted with a private developer to build a mixture of “affordable” housing on twelve acres: 240 rental apartments and 25 two-family homes. 150 of those are reserved for Section 8 voucher-holders, 90 for those with incomes as high as $85,000. How much will the two-family “moderate” income homes sell for? (NYCHA has kept an acre on which it proposes to add 80 units of senior housing, when, if ever, it has the money). Unlike NYCHA projects which stay affordable, this developer can opt-out after 30 years.

Was this a good deal or a bad deal overall? Hundreds of units which rented at NYCHA rates (30% of income) were lost and replaced by what may well be much more expensive houses. Yes, yes, the new housing is all “affordable,” but affordable to a much more moneyed group. The Markham Gardens tenants struggled to save their homes. Those homes are gone. They got help from local electeds and from Pratt. Did they reach out to the union representing NYCHA workers? To other tenant groups? This was a very recent struggle and I had never heard about it until after the deal was done. Could a better deal have been struck if tenants all over NYC had united with the people of Markham Gardens?

Beyond Markham Gardens, it is clear that actually affordable housing is under attack all over Staten Island, just as it is in other parts of New York City. Building owners are dropping out of Section 8 housing and Mitchell-Lama in Staten Island as this excellent Staten Island Advance survey by Karen O’Shea of a few months ago reports. What I take away from this is that we face a NYC-wide problem which requires unity of tenants, unions and progressives. How can we get that unity and focus?

I put up two other posts about public housing about NYCHA fiscal pressures and about efforts to force NYCHA to sell assets.