War On Public Housing in Chelsea, Sept 9, 2026

Essence Development principal says he does not have “too much softness” before warning residents that refusing Section 8 leases could lead to market rent and eviction

The recording captures a stark contradiction: residents are repeatedly told that nobody is forcing them to sign, while at the same time, speakers describe eviction, loss of subsidy, market rent, administrative proceedings and efforts to find a legal means of forcing households from their apartments.

At approximately TC 25:22, Jamar Adams, founder and managing principal of Essence Development and, like HUD Secretary Scott Turner, a former NFL defensive back, dismisses the concerns being raised:

“All that really matters is close, get those families out, start building.”

Adams then describes plans for monthly meetings with residents who have already relocated and are “very frustrated with the remaining families,” because, in his words:

“You guys move out, we can start getting our new building built.”

Later, residents are told that on-site management will return with the “sole focus of getting those leases signed.” Adams states that only half of the required Section 8 leases have been signed and that the remaining signatures are needed for the project to close.

Adams then announces that he intends to speak without “softness”:

“People don’t want to talk straight, and I don’t really do this. I don’t really have too much, like, softness.”

He immediately explains what residents have been told will happen if they refuse to sign:

“You don’t want to sign a lease? When we close, I think there’s a 90-day window of time. So, when those 90 days are up, you owe the market rent—not your subsidy, not your tenant portion—you owe the full rent. And if you can’t pay for full rent, we’re going to start an eviction process on you.”

Minutes later, Miguel Acevedo, president of the Fulton Houses Tenant Association and an early supporter of the Related–Essence redevelopment plan, states that residents who refuse to sign will receive “a 90-day window for evictions,” before absurdly assuring the audience that nobody is “forcing you to sign.”

The recording also captures a discussion of a particular household:

“What’s happening with 20J is that Mr. Chen has reached out to legal to find a way to force them out.”

These statements raise profound questions about whether residents are being given an informed and genuinely voluntary choice, or if they are being coerced and compelled to sign leases they do not want to sign. A resident who is told that refusing to sign will result in the loss of a subsidy, liability for market rent and an eviction proceeding is not simply being offered a new lease.

Before this process continues, HUD should determine whether the information residents received was legally accurate and whether NYCHA and its development partners complied with every applicable relocation, due-process and anti-displacement protection.

The recording also raises questions about the legal basis for the asserted 90-day deadline. Eviction does not occur automatically at the end of 90 days. Residents remain entitled to legally sufficient grounds, required notices, an opportunity to contest the allegations and judicial process.

The meeting further connects long-standing housing conditions to the redevelopment closing. After residents raise concerns about existing conditions, a representative responds:

“The faster we can move to close, the faster this whole thing will be solved.”

NYCHA’s obligation to provide safe, habitable housing and maintain essential services continues regardless of whether a redevelopment transaction has closed.

Taken together, these statements describe a coordinated campaign to obtain residents’ signatures and remove the households standing in the project’s path, despite tenants demonstrated opposition. Residents are told that the redevelopment cannot proceed until they move, that refusing to sign may cost them their subsidy and expose them to market rent and eviction, and that legal avenues are being explored to force remaining households from their apartments.

These tactics are unacceptable and demonstrate once again the contempt that NYCHA and its development partners Related and Essence hold for tenants rights.

Source: War On Public Housing in Chelsea