Cea Weaver

Within the debate it’s just more section 9 and/or direct operating subsidies that are not voucher-based

is anyone saying they don't want direct op subs or section 9 increases besides republicans in congress?

Many democrats in congress too

Right. And it’s also that - to the extent that section 9 is not very flexible and bars you from getting other types of subsidies - maybe it puts us in a politically stronger position if there is a way to stay public, but be funded through section 8.

It definitely does imo, if for no other reason than it would make public housing residents part of a broader constituency that both has more political and organizing power than public housing residents currently have and would have even more with their inclusion in the coalition.

Right. So the answer to Jenny’s original question is yes and no. YES, some people (besides just Dems and R’s in Congress, some socialists!) see Sec 9 as a liability to keeping NYCHA public. But also NO, no one I know or have seen is OPPOSED to more Sec 9 funding

Got it. Thanks for clearing up (spent the last week puzzling about it.) Filing under "people who mostly agree fighting each other instead of the state."

Lol well re: fighting the state, there’s another (interesting/valid) debate here re: “is it smart for leftists use an organizing strategy that relies on attacking an agency that the right would like to disappear entirely? And if no, what do we do re: resident distrust of NYCHA?”