NY Times (Comment), Leonel Lima Ponce, July 14, 2026

As residents and tenant leaders have testified, there are risks to preservation of truly affordable public housing inherent in this flawed proposal – for FEC residents and the city.

Mischaracterizations in the article, comments, and public opinion need to be clearly articulated and honestly discussed:

1. “Residents “voted” for the proposal.” Untrue. There was a poorly framed survey that did not include the option to rehabilitate. Only 30-35% of eligible residents submitted, and it was not framed as a vote.

2. “Rehabilitation is more costly than demolition and rebuild.” This is debatable, and studies by the developers (who stand to make millions) are not public.

3. “The buildings are in disrepair, and must be torn down for structural, environmental, and health reasons.” Unlikely. Buildings were built at different times, are maintained differently. Any demo would release more contaminants as renovation, and excavate contaminated soil. More buildings = more construction. Tree removal = more heat + pollution.

4. “The residents, and city, would benefit from new “affordable” units.” Public housing IS affordable. Vacant lots and apartments should be developed first. Build build build is a real estate lobby land grab.

5. “Residents will come back.” This is a risk w/bad precedent. Going from Section 9 to 8 removes protections – to the benefit of Related, who will be funded by NYCHA and HUD.

Who benefits from the demo, besides developers?”

Leonel Lima Ponce, RA, WEDG, Academic Director, MS in Sustainable Environmental Systems (SES)