Public Comment

Progressives are immensely troubled by the Berkeley City Council's decision to approve an 18 story, high rental 274 unit residential building. Another 18 story residential building, called Harold Way, was approved by the previous City Council. Other pricey buildings are being constructed and more are being planned. However, the Council's record for developing an adequate supply of affordable housing and protecting the homeless from being harassed are very disappointing. In the last Council election, Berkeley voters replaced a conservative with a progressive majority. Understandably, many progressives are feeling betrayed.  

What happened? To stand a chance of beating the real estate interests is a major challenge. The business class obviously has enormous influence and power. Not least, they have an unlimited amount of money to spend. Only a massive direct action campaign similar to the courageous and persistent efforts of the 1930s labor movement and the civil rights movement could stand a chance of successfully resisting the manhattanizing of Berkeley as well as other East Bay cities and counties. 

There have been serious efforts in Berkeley to provide low income housing. But these programs can only accommodate a relatively small number of homeless and poor individuals and families. However, since the public housing program was inaugurated, millions of poor tenants have been paying affordable rents. Currently public housing serves about 2.6 million residents in 1.1 million units. Tenants pay 30 percent of their income for rent. The federal government via the Housing and Urban Development finance agency (HUD ) pay the rest. 

Yet despite the need for more public housing units, not only are they no longer being built. Instead, the number of public housing units are being substantially reduced. Due to deterioration as a result of long term underfunding, over 250,000 units have been demolished since the mid-nineties. Currently 10,000 to 15,000 are being demolished every year. And many who are evicted have no place to go but the streets. How ironic that the nation's public housing program, which was served to reduce homelessness, has been in recent years increasing homelessness. 

The barriers to providing affordable housing are especially difficult in California. In 1950 California voters approved the notorious Article 34 law. The article states that "no low rent housing project" can be constructed without the approval of a majority of the voters. Playing on the prejudices and fears of racial minorities and the poor, Article 34 was approved by a majority of voters. Although it was challenged, the Supreme Court disagreed that article 34 was unconstitutional. Although there have been some modifications in how the law is applied, Article 34 still plays a major role preventing the construction of any low cost housing, public or private. 

Another major source of affordable housing is Section 8, which houses several million tenants. Since 1974, a limited number of eligible low income tenants can receive a voucher which entitles them to find an interested landlord to provide a room or apartment. The typical arrangement is that tenants pay 30 percent of their income and the remainder is paid to the property owner by the federal government. 

For property owners, rental subsidies from the federal government is certainly very appealing. For low income tenants, living in a privately owned apartment can be very attractive . But Section 8 has some very serious drawbacks. Section 8 provides a tool on behalf of the private market, to reduce the supply of public housing. So far over 60,000 public housing units have been sold and converted to Section 8. Moreover, HUD is allowed to privatize 185,000 public housing units for the purpose of replacing these units with Section 8 housing.  

Also, government subsidies to private landlords reduces the supply of vacancies in many neighborhoods. As a result rents in these vicinities tend to rise. Landlords understand this principle. In response to pressure from the real estate industry, the government has been compelled to balance every increase in public housing units by removing from the private market the same number of units of private housing. President Nixon abolished this practice. But the decision was irrelevant because Section 8 housing was being substituted for building new public housing. 

Also, with regard to Section 8 tenants, their rents have been rising. That's because the very conservative Ben Carson, who Trump appointed to head HUD, has taken a hard line. He claimed publicly that the rent of some tenants should be tripled. Also, all tenants should pay at least 35 rather than 30 percent of their income for rent. His announcement precipitated a national outcry, which prompted many to believe he backed off. Nevertheless, what has not been widely publicized by HUD is that a growing number of Section 8 low income tenants are now paying 40 percent of their income for rents. And many landlords are demanding that their tenants contribute even more of their income to pay for utilities. These tenants, who are generally isolated from tenants in a similar situation. can do little or nothing about it. In short, Section 8 is a precarious route for low income tenants. 

With regard to public housing, despite its problems, it has been the most successful in providing affordable housing for millions of economically distressed Americans. In fact, it still does. To provide adequate housing, the public housing program must be revived and appreciably expanded. At the moment, it sounds unrealistic. However, it is immensely important to avoid being captured by a culture of low expectation. We need to learn from those who have been successful. Activists in both the labor movement and the civil right movement were aware of the immense obstacles but yet made major achievements. 

Whatever the progressive agenda is, a movement to succeed must first understand the important distinction between mobilizing and organizing. A common approach to addressing political issues is to mobilize. That is, an effort is made to bring out others to rallies and other important events. The problem, however, is that just mobilizing others is generally ineffective. It does not build power. Without building power, the chances of winning are very poor.  

Instead, progressives must develop democratic political organizations. This requires building organizations that are capable of carefully planning strategies and actively contacting other individuals and organizations to persuade them of the legitimacy and importance of what they are advocating. Unlike just mobilizing, which attract only those who are already convinced, an effective community organization by reaching out to others is able to involve far more people. In fact, a public housing movement, like the labor and civil rights movements, would attempt to reach out to activists in other states. By activists relating to each other, a movement attempts to develop effective strategies, including if necessary, engaging in non-violent disruptions. 

History has continually reminded us that when so called ordinary people take steps to build a powerful movement they can achieve major changes and victories. This will happen. But better, of course, sooner than later.