In Defense of Housing

Summary, part 3

Housing Movements of New York

Using the geographic case study of New York, the authors use this section to demonstrate that at their core, “housing movements are popular struggles by those for whom housing means home, not real estate” (p. 146). They argue that the state of the housing movement in New York is ever-evolving, but that their anti-commodification stance and intersectional nature have remained constant.

The authors emphasize how urbanization shaped much of the early radical tenant movement because it led to growing numbers of working-class, immigrant renters “skilled in industrial organizing with backgrounds in European revolutionary politics” (p. 153). European Jewish garment workers led the first documented organized tenant protest in New York in 1904, and the second wave of these strikes in 1907 became more socialist-led (anti-communist sentiment created easy support for court-ordered eviction of these protesters). The largest tenant mobilization of this period occurred from 1917 to 1920, an event that saw labor leader Baruch Charney Vladeck call for a citywide rent strike, an action that was met with police violence and expulsions. Schisms within the communist party led to the dwindling of more radical approaches until the Great Depression. These protests were markedly more diverse, with communist activist Richard B. Moore’s leadership birthing the Harlem Tenants League. Protests during this period spread throughout the city, and although these actions were ultimately not successful at creating a housing revolution, they were the catalyst for the modern system of housing rights and laws that include public housing and rent control.

The housing movements of the postwar metropolis saw increased state action in housing (such as through the New Deal) and housing movements characterized by resistance to urban renewal’s destruction of working-class communities. Prominent groups at the time like the New York City Housing Authority suffered from “anti-radical” suspicion. The postwar period also saw the creation of the broad, intersectional alliance known as the Metropolitan Council on Housing, which, through legal, protest, and media activism, maintained its connection to the Old Left roots of the movement. Prominent activist, Jessee Gray, organized Black tenants in Harlem through the Community Council on Housing. This coalition, like many others, was successful through drawing heavy support and influence from the Civil Rights and the Black Power Movements. The deeply intersectional protests of the 60s and 70s represent the largest housing mobilizations since World War II, but the measures they pushed for failed to have lasting effects.

In the 1970s and the following decades, a period characterized by cutbacks and privatization, housing activists faced two main issues: abandonment of buildings by landlords (an issue which was exacerbated by the AIDS crisis) and the displacement of low-income residents through gentrification. Two key events during this period, the Tompkins Square Park Riot of 1988 and the East Harlem Justice in El Barrio movement of the early 2000s saw radical housing activists clashing with police and property companies to resist gentrification. In the 2010s, a faction of the Occupy Wall Street movement called Occupy Our Homes helped mount a response to Hurricane Sandy for low-income homes. Ultimately, many view the progress made by modern activists as minimal compared to the immense growth of luxury housing, as modern activists have had less opportunity to push for alternative structural changes in a neoliberal housing system that is already so well-established.

However, much can be learned from the housing movements of New York. Despite the diverse range of identities, interests, and priorities that activists and coalitions have brought to the housing movement throughout history, their commitment to defending housing reflects that activism for housing justice “must necessarily take different forms as the nature of the city’s housing, politics, and economy changes” (p. 187-188).

For a Radical Right to Housing

Taking the analysis illustrated by the various case studies examined throughout the text, the authors conclude that one of the most important guiding principles in the fight for housing justice is the affirmation of a universal right to housing. The declaration of universal rights often conflicts with the systemic and social reality of inequality left as a legacy of colonialism and imperialism. The mere affirmation of housing rights by itself is not a solution; however, acting to claim a legal AND socio-political right to housing “can illustrate the limits of the system and point towards ways to change it” (p. 195). 

What does centering a radical right to housing—a right that counters the multidimensional ways that the current housing system oppresses people—look like in practice? Upholding the radical right to housing as the ultimate goal of the housing struggle compels activists to pursue transformative remedies that improve present conditions towards the end of building better systems over affirmative remedies that prioritize liberal reforms. The authors offer numerous examples of potential directions and strategies to further the transformation of housing. Note: these directions are not meant to serve as a strict set of instructions or blueprints, rather they are broad demands that ought to be specifically tailored based on specific conditions.

Potential Directions

1. Reversing/preventing housing from being treated as a commodity → Bolstering policies like rent control, public land ownership, limiting speculation, etc.; taxing things like land value, luxury housing, and foreclosures; “Housing First” policies in major cities; governments halting deregulation and privatization

2. Invest in better public housing systems → Breaking monopoly of private developers by forming a robust, public, nonprofit alternative; offering a private homeowners a “right to sell” as an alternative to foreclosure; drawing inspiration from successful historical public housing programs

3. Prioritize and protect the rights of inhabitants over the property of landlords/owners → Instituting immediate eviction moratoria; extending tenancies; instituting tenant protections; anti-displacement measures like “first right of refusal;” ultimately ending private landlordism

4. Supporting projects that test alternative methods of housing → Creating new forms of tenure (e.g. cooperative, mutual, communal); community land trusts; connecting housing experiments to larger-scale efforts, marginalized groups, and public housing authorities

5. Create more democratic and community-based housing systems → Granting resident associations, tenant unions, community organizations, and private tenants decision-making authority

6. Broaden the scope of the housing justice movement to include related issues → Collaborate and form alliances with other social movements by uniting behind common interests

7. Expand the process of decision-making on housing to broader democratic input → Make information about housing policy and spending accessible and transparent; help people get involved in community planning; reject euphemisms in favor of accurately describing the reality of the crisis

8. Expanding housing movements to a global scale → Foster transnational relationships with other activists and groups in order to keep track of the global state of disposession/displacement, identify opportunities, share ideas, and garner wide support

9. Center the purpose of housing as home, not real estate → Confront the realities of the current housing system in favor of creating a more humane reality of housing