CPH Coalition, Sandy Reiburn, July 13, 2026

My reaction to The New York Times’ coverage of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses redevelopment was rather intense, so as it seems, were others! Many of us believe the reporting then and ongoing failure to confront the full scope of what is at stake is reprehensible.

Across the comments that follow—from tenant leaders, architects, planners, professors, attorneys, community advocates, and longtime residents—there’s a common theme- the Times has largely framed the controversy as a technical dispute over whether aging buildings should be renovated or replaced. Commenters argue that this framing excludes the broader political, economic, environmental, and human consequences of the proposal.

Obviously the central question is not whether public housing residents deserve safe and modern homes! The real question is why demolition, privatization, and large-scale luxury development are being presented as the primary or inevitable solution. But let’s be clear- key issues have been minimized, omitted, or treated as secondary: the transfer of public land into long-term private control; the conversion of residents from traditional Section 9 public housing into Section 8 programs; the introduction of thousands of market-rate apartments on land originally dedicated to public housing; the environmental costs of demolition; the displacement risks facing residents; and the billions of dollars in public subsidies required to make the project financially viable.

The sense by many of us, is that the NYT and sadly, much of the media, too often accept official narratives at face value while giving insufficient scrutiny to the financial interests driving the proposal. The developers stand to gain access to some of the most valuable publicly owned land in Manhattan, while taxpayers assume much of the risk…does anyone believe that the NYT made this clear? The debate is not simply about housing policy-nor should it be! It is about whether public assets accumulated over generations will remain dedicated to public purposes or become vehicles for private wealth extraction.

The coverage has understated the lived experience of residents confronting years of uncertainty, relocation pressures, and the prospect of losing communities built over decades. When stories emphasize deteriorating buildings, redevelopment opportunities, and new construction and fail to address the social networks, neighborhood stability, public open space, mature trees, and collective history that stand to be disrupted or destroyed, the NYT does its readers a disservice.—Sandy Reiburn

The comments are not identical, “some focus on environmental impacts. Others focus on public finance, housing policy, civil rights, democratic process, land-use planning, or tenant protections. Yet taken together they present a consistent challenge to the prevailing narrative: that demolition and redevelopment are the only realistic path forward.”

“Whether one agrees with these perspectives or not, they raise questions that deserve serious public examination. If journalism is meant to illuminate the full dimensions of a public controversy, then these voices suggest that a significant part of the story remains untold. What follows is an attempt to place those omitted facts, concerns, and perspectives into the public record.” —Sandy Reiburn, Community Activist and Long Time Super Hero