Month: May 2019

Posted on

Cooper Square Community Land trust – Town Hall- May 6

In the May 6 town hall hosted by the cooper square community Land Trust, Community, politicians, and activists came together in hopes of informing and discussing the disinvestment of religious owned properties in regards to affordable housing. Many offices were present, and their representatives passionate, community leaders and urban scholars equally so, however, the Catholic church through its actions, or lack thereof, seems to be focused on financial gains than the communal. This Townhall seemed to be the precursor to greater communal activation and resistance. 
 
The gathering of not only community board 3 residents but concerned citizens from all parts of New York, Little Italy to East Harlem, represent the constant urban crises of maintaining affordability as a communal priority in the face of economic ‘growth’.  The meeting was focused on creating greater awareness of the duality of the historic responsibly of religious owned property and the lack of democratic say in the development of these neighborhood landmarks.
 
The town hall began with representatives from the Catholic worker bringing up the subject of, “what if religious houses were sold for luxury developments.”. Their cause for concerns was the ludicrous amount of religious properties around Manhatten that are now entering the economic market and in many ways negatively transforming/developing communities which they once held the responsibility to maintain. Of 135 religious properties in and around the East Village (community board 3), The Catholic worker is trying to create a greater understanding of the contemporary dangers for communities as historic landmarks and properties are converted to private capital projects without communal agreement or participation.
 
Representatives from the Catholic worker focused on the history of these religious properties integrating with the contemporary market rate or luxury housing and the social and financial ramifications to residing lower-income tenants. The guiding question and focus for the group was the historic use of many these sacred sites as ‘safe havens’ and the responsibly of communal partnership the organizations following through on their maxims. 
 
Professor Amato then took the stage and spoke of the Urban Democracy Lab as well as the greater conversation taking place at international levels and the subsequent global recognition the work in new york has been garnering in the discussion of communal land use. In their contention what the Catholic church Becky also brought up the importance of non-profits like the   Saint Joseph Cannon Law Consultants from Ohio, they had relied on in working with Catholic policy makers. This subject was met with great enthusiasm and would later gain an Italian connection for a Roman cannon non-profit form a cooperative activist in community board 2 (little Italy).
 
Having set the scene the meeting then turned to Steve Harrick, Executive Director of Cooper square committee who spoke on behalf of the CSC’s historic and effort in fighting off private speculators on local properties and their current measures in preventing buyouts. Calling attention to the various means in which landowners have been using to pressure and generally harass previous tenants. Actions like renovations lasting years and causing air pollutants to the ridiculousness of the majority of tenants laws expiring June 15. These points serve to highlight the dire and precarious nature of New York’s residential protections and the need for greater communal representation and participation in pressuring policy amelioration for permanent solutions. 
  Building off the momentum of Mr. Harrick’s push to Albany, Julien Lorenza of Goals NYU spoke of issues in the privatizing of affordable housing, as is the case with the NCCHA housing, and the potential for St Emmericks 300,000 Sq Ft.
     
A representative from Councilmen Riviera’s Office spoke of the importance of passing community opportunity purchase policy that allows community-based developers first right to develop land (to propose to develop the land) and would be intrinsic to the new CLTs they are hoping to form in new york. This policy would fund 1 million dollars to be spent on the creation and streamlining of new and existing CLTs in hopes of creating greater affordable consciousness within property ownership. 
 
Though countering this optimism, representatives for the little Italy neighbors association spoke of the gentrification issues they are facing with higher-end bars and restaurants seeking to gain a foothold in a historic area. The building of this pointed form a speaker form Harlem talking about how even ‘affordable housing’ according to market rates could be from 100% 180% inc comparison to existing units. completely skewing the areas AMi in favor of the market. This coupled with the fact that many of the Methodists churches in the area now being put on the market brought a far too similar case happening around the city. As such the discussion taking place in this town hall was of universal importance.        
 
In regards to solutions, an energetic Mr. Delgato spoke of selling air rights and potentials of not allowing the property to be constructed upon or remaining commercial values; however, as the town hall committee commented, the problem is that bonuses to affordability are innately voluntary and are bypassed more often than for greater profits.  The rep from Councilman Riveria in response also commented on the issue, he spoke of putting greater attention on issues of affordability in housing in existing buildings rather than focusing on new forms of development. His big issue is the definition of affordability in relation to surveys and AMI. Tha there is an innate survey bias that many people of lower income have been statistically proven to not partake in such surveys. 
 
The example of churches being sold off today is one of private interest, trumping communal values. Overall, I was blown away by the amount of community representation and the optimism in the fight for sustainable, perpetual, affordable housing. I truly believe if a change is to take place it is by going to placing like Albany en masse and championing individual rights over developers interests. However, the fact that the church didn’t send any representatives was rather disappointing and perhaps is just another example of money trumping morality. 
Posted on

Thomas Paine, John Locke, and a New Take on Private Property

Thomas Paine’s fifteen-page pamphlet “Agrarian Justice” (1795), put forth the first realistic proposition to put an end to systemic poverty. Paine’s solution manifested in a universal social insurance system consisting of pensions for the elderly, support for the handicapped/disabled, and a lump sum one-time payment to all members of society upon reaching the age of twenty-one. This insurance system would be funded by the “National Fund”, financed by the 10% inheritance tax focused on land. Yet, while this system may sound fanciful and unpractical, Paine goes to great lengths to demonstrate, with calculations based on census, living expense, and property data, that his social insurance/stakeholder plan could end most poverty in England.

Foundational to Paine’s pamphlet was the firmly held belief that poverty can be prevented. Even further, individuals are entitled to not only a relief from poverty, but a right against even being impoverished in and of itself.

“Agrarian Justice” holds relevance to our class in that Paine puts forth an interesting and unique understanding of private property. The English philosopher defended the private property system, while also asserting that universal entitlements must be put in place to limit poverty caused by property-holding inequality.

Paine begins his reasoning with premises that parallel many of the theorists we’ve read this semester: that in the state of nature or anarchy, before positive laws are instituted, everyone is free and equal, no one is subject to anyone else’s authority, and the earth is held in common by everyone. He then goes on to articulate that people will unite in a legal regime only if it promotes their interests more than the state of nature alone. Similar to John Locke, Paine claimed that in the state of nature, every man has a property right to whatsoever he removes from nature through the mixing with his own labor. This act not only establishes the man as its just owner, but also excludes the common right of other men. Both agree that as much land/property can be acquired in this manner, as long as they left “enough and as good” for others, and nothing rotted or went to waste.

Paine deviates from Locke in disputing his claim that the private property regime left everyone with a higher standard of living than what people enjoyed before. In “Of Property”, Locke compares a hundred acres of uncultivated land with ten acres of cultivated, fertile land, concluding, “[Man’s] labour now supplies him with provisions out of ten acres that would have needed a hundred ·uncultivated· acres lying in common. I have here greatly understated the productivity of improved land, setting it at ten to one when really it is much nearer a hundred to one”. Paine stands in stark opposition, deeming that in the original state of nature, no one was poor. Poverty arises only upon the institution of private property in land, which creates two unequal classes, the rich propertied class and the poor working class. Since the poor were worse off under the current system of property laws than people were in the state of nature, they had a just complaint against those laws.

Despite the above, Paine was no enemy of private property. By his examination, the problem lied not in the existence of private property, but rather that the existing property regime repealed a rightful property claim in the state of nature. Those who toiled the land were entitled only to the marginal value added by their labor, not to the land itself. As a result, land had been unjustly taken from everyone else. The solution was not communism, nor was it possible to return the land to its original state in nature, as the population had grown too large compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Instead, Paine proposed to compensate all those excluded from privately appropriated land. Landowners would pay a tax to society (10% of total worth), and this subsequently developed “National Fund” would be the harbinger of the end of poverty. As such, the balance would be restored, and land-less individuals would be once again “better off than in the state of nature”.

At the time, the pamphlet largely fell on deaf ears, considered both overly idealistic and foolishly impractical. Yet today, several developed countries like France and the Netherlands have managed to reduce the number of elderly in poverty to negligible rates due to their comprehensive social insurance system. Perhaps the principles put forth in Thomas Paine’s “Agrarian Justice” could alleviate some of the modern injustices/imbalances that plague private property ownership?