Cea Weaver

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?”

So yes we all basically agree, but I do think it’s a nascent convo about the future of social housing, what our relationship to the state is, etc - and we don’t all agree on that! So I’m (optimistically) filing under: “left wing social movement growing pains.”

feel like it's not all that nascent (like has been taking place over decades, and some parts of it--i.e., public vs. community control--since the inception of public housing?) But agree that it's an important one and needs to center actual residents (present and future!)

True! Centuries even! But the left has arguably more political power than its had in a long time, so the stakes are higher(ish) than they have been in a while!

If the left has more power than ever before, why shouldn’t we push for the best, non-market solution—actually expanding direct funding for public housing?