Cea Weaver

Over 90% of NY capital project financing comes through public authorities selling bonds. Bonds/debt aren’t inherently bad. Like all tools, it depends on how they’re used. Without bonds large scale public projects are literally impossible.

I think the question of democratic & tenant control over how those bonds are sold & how that leveraged capital is used is, as far as the blueprint goes, really in question!

That’s a conversation to be had, but the dsa sentiment I’m seeing seems to equate the use of bonds issued through public authorities to be the same as privatization or a fundamentally bad thing and that’s just not the case!

From my perspective the best way to understand why RAD and the Blueprint for NYCHA should be opposed is the track record of the head of NYCHA, Gregory Russ, and the experience at Ocean Hill Houses and other places RAD has been implemented in NYC.

This is a really strange arg to me and logically inconsistent. First, rad ≠ BP. Second, the Trust diffuses the NYCHA ceo power. So: I hate Russ, let’s work to keep the status quo of the NYCHA CEO (Russ) in charge? It’s strange.

There are lots of reasons to distrust NYCHA! Like every single repair that is needed. This particular argument just doesn’t make sense to me bc it’s endpoint is a plan that consolidates the power of the NYCHA ceo and opposing a plan that expands RMCs.

Id be interested in hearing how the Blueprint for NYCHA will reduce the power of Russ considering how the site for it talks about it as his idea (based on collaboration with residents). What is the relationship between RAD and the Blueprint for NYCHA?

Oof. The NYCHA Preservation Trust (shorthand = blueprint) creates a public trust that can own and manage 25,000 units of currently NYCHA owned properties. That Trust (if created) would have capacities that NYCHA currently doesn't have. 1/3