MSCC, John Mudd, July 13, 2026

The New York Times superficial framing of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Public Housing residents existential fight against Related Companies—a behemoth in the world of development having enough money to convince god that it is right to demolish 18 buildings with more than 2,000 homes—goes beyond passive participation. The paper’s disinterest in hunting for even a smidgeon of inculpatory evidence and willingness to ignore the battles raging in the courtroom makes them a partner in the malevolent plans and humanitarian crimes. 

And without further adieu, we leave you with the Chelsea community’s fair assessment of Mahir’s New York Times article.

It’s “The Broader Political, Economic, Environmental, And Human Consequences Of The Proposal”

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

Wolves Not Saviors

Mihir Zaveri’s New York Times article, Renovate or Replace: The Fight Over How To Fix N.Y.C Public Housing (published April 4, 2026), enraged Chelsea’s community and anyone  who is watching the dismantling of our society. But the worst of it was James Baron’s New York Times article that made Mihir’s, and his newspaper’s credibility worse—you can’t have a colleague interview you from and for the same paper and expect people to take you seriously as a reporter. 

As if they are the saviors, James Baron irredeemably asks, Can Developers Help Save Public Housing (article published on April 7, 2026); rather than face the truth that developers are wanting to see public housing’s demise. James leads into his supportive piece with borrowed lines from Mihir Zaveri’s article,

“A fight over four public housing developments in the trendy Chelsea neighborhood is escalating. It’s a high-stakes test of the city’s responsibility to its lowest-income residents”

that labels people trendy and poor, and minimizes the destruction of 18 buildings—homes for more than 3,000 people, and the theft of 14 acres, which include mini parks and playgrounds for the community. 

A narrative emerges from the corporate playbook on ‘How to Gentrify a Neighborhood’—not their exact title, but surely something similar—to falsely describe Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses as “too run-down.” 

As if it was a real interview, with an unbiased authority, Mihir shields Related Companies, the developer in question by never mentioning the enormous profits they will extract from the public’s coffers or from the bequeathed land mass. He blames the City for wanting “to demolish them all [the Fulton and Chelsea Elliott houses] and build replacements, a $1.2 billion project that would add nine new buildings with roughly 1,000 affordable apartments and 2,400 luxury units.” 

Most of us, who are struggling in an unaffordable city, with unaffordable rents, understand the word ‘affordable’ is an abused term for rental units that are controlled and marketed by the real estate industry. However, let us assume the ‘City’ is in charge, giving up approximately 8,000 desperately needed uninhabited NYCHA apartments to developers in exchange for 1,000 (here is that word again) ‘affordable’ apartments—yet to be built, and allowing luxury investments on public land, tells the public that governance is either stupid or sleeping with the enemy. And Mihir is a tad off the mark, it is a 2.4 billion wealth extractive project that will surely grow.

The abundance theory, shot to hell long ago as a means to bring affordable living, is sustained by this ludicrous one sided deal; furthermore, applying the ‘democratic socialist’ label to a Mayor who wants to address the city’s housing shortage by supporting Related’s demolition and gentrification plan further discredits the plot, article, and Mamdani.

Someone must be passing notes: the shameless ‘socialist’ claim was also co-opted by the Daily Dirt, the trade newsletter of The Real Deal, a publication devoted to the emotional needs of the real-estate industry, and if Zohran Mamdani supports the demolition project, then anyone opposing the project must be a “total lunatic.” This is not logic. This is the most panic-laden argument I have ever heard. —Layla Law-Gisiko

But the real lunatics are those who keep treading the same path, with the same sales pitch-build more luxury housing now and somehow affordability will eventually “trickle down” to everyone else. But many of my neighbors and all across Brooklyn have already lived through this experiment. Williamsburg, Bed-Stuy, Downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, Gowanus — now headed into E Flatbush, Crown Heights, Brownsville and more-all sold with promises of affordability and inclusion. Yet rents have exploded, speculation continues to surge out of control, longtime residents were and continue to be pushed out, and neighborhoods have become increasingly inaccessible to working-class families. The people who benefited most were large developers, real estate investors, and politically connected interests and yes, the “abundance” YIMBYS! —Sandy Reiburn, Chelsea Public Housing Coalition

“The backlash from some residents and neighborhood groups who question the involvement of the Related Companies, the creator of Hudson Yards”—another development failure—cannot be expressed vehemently enough; particularly when the articles exonerate and praises the developers, while they attempt to remove residents from their homes and deny them the right to due process.

Although inline historically as marketing tools, it is always amazing how the mainstream media will risk their credibility to participate in the ruling class’s alternative reality. The insidious deconstruction of our domestic landscapes, not to be compared, but akin to the United States’s Middle East demolition strategy, is happening at the behest of the ruling class. 

The Related Companies, with their allies (NYCHA, HUD, Mayor, and elected officials) are stripping away the last bastion of truly affordable living that gave a lift to the white folks suffering poverty in the 1930s. Racing to take over the entire public housing stock, presumably, as they have in Chelsea, and under the guise of rehabilitation, Related will wage a campaign of terror until residents give up their homes to be demolished. —Terror is the right word, and not to be softened. The threats of eviction and annihilation of housing stability are prescient. 

The gentrification plan for Chelsea is a violent one, and the ability to craft language that avoids facts and rationalizes Related’s plan to drive people from their homes and market themselves as a source of news, while being a sort of bulletin board and public relations firm for the ruling class – the people who run things, is truly remarkable.

NYCHA is the dirtiest of landlords, and Related (Stephen M. Ross, Jeff Blau) are making plans to profit from demolishing people’s homes to steal the land beneath it, but despite their assurance that ‘it is a done deal,’ and having gone to great lengths to make it so, try as they will, for the moment, WE ARE WINNING! The courts have approved and upheld a TRO preventing NYCHA from doing anything in furtherance of their plan to privatize and demolish our homes. Don’t believe the naysayers who tell you it’s a done deal. The courts and the law are on our side.—John Low-Beer, Attorney

Amassing great wealth and power is dependent on pliable partners; the mainstream media, like most of our politicians, have misplaced their humanity to displace whole communities. However, no matter how heartless (think violent gentrification) and heinous (think genocide) the crimes, the people’s dignity, integrity, and humanity will never be lost, as long as we are in the fight. And like the past and present struggles, we will strive to leave an indelible mark, if not on the broader landscapes: the Nation, State, or City, it will be here in Chelsea. —John Mudd, MSCC, Midtown South Community Council

Rebutting The Nonsense

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)

The Facts

Let’s get the facts straight: 1st, Related Companies won the 2021 RFP to renovate—not demolish—the FEC buildings. Replacement is now estimated at $2.4 billion, nearly 5 times NYCHA’s first  renovation estimate. Mr. Mihiri does not report that the proposed demolition is a no bid contract. This blatant land grab is opposed by CB 4 and the majority of residents. Over 1,000 residents have signed a petition against demolition. Civic leaders and tenants from public housing across the city are coming together to oppose the demolition.   

2nd, Related has a track record as a bad actor misusing tax dollars and extracting wealth from public housing across NYC and the country. It is not hyperbolic to suggest that they are real estate oligarchs bulldozing through our democracy. Why would Mamdani support Related whose CEO was the major donor to the “Fix the City” super PAC to support Cuomo? 

Demolition is a racist Robert Moses urban renewal 2.0 move. What James Baldwin called Negro Removal. Public land will primarily serve corporate interests. The majority of new units would be market-rate housing (where 2-bdrm rents are upwards of $9K in new buildings). Public housing residents would be segregated into 3 buildings on each campus. Luxury housing would outnumber public housing on land originally set aside for working class New Yorkers. 

Finally, to characterize Section 8 as stable is misleading. Tenants in RAD/PACT developments have experienced eviction rates 3 times higher than the NYCHA average.   

This is destabilizing and displacing the NYC we know and love. —Caitlin Cahill, Professor, Pratt University

Lying By Omission

This reporter ignored the lived reality of tenants facing aggressive displacement tactics, presenting redevelopment as benign while erasing coercive conditions on the ground. By framing demolition as inevitable, it omits the documented pressure campaign against residents who refuse to leave—shielding both NYCHA and Related Companies from scrutiny. This absence is not incidental; it misleads readers about the human cost of the plan. Here are just some of the lies and omissions in the story:
The failure to report sustained pressure on tenants by NYCHA and its contractor HOU/Housing Opportunities Unlimited, including repeated calls and door-knocking tactics.

The omission of conditions amounting to constructive harassment—loss of services, halted maintenance, and restricted amenities during relocation efforts.

The absence of accounts that tenants were given extremely short relocation timelines, creating coercive pressure rather than voluntary moves.

The failure to disclose allegations that Related Companies is outsourcing these tactics through third-party contractors to force vacancies.

The broader omission of how established communities and social networks are being destabilized to clear the way for redevelopment. — Sandy Reiburn

No One Voted For This But The Developers

There has never been a vote. It is a survey. Community Board 4 has a link to documents about the Chelsea NYCHA proposal:  Chelsea NYCHA Proposal Updates – CB4 Manhattan Community Board . April 2024  NYCHA Presentation on Survey Results to Chelsea Land Use Committee. The totals have been manipulated to give the appearance of consent. The total of authorized residents who could have participated in the survey is 3388 and using the 550 numbers, you get 16.23%. —Renee Keitt

Omitting Basic Facts To Deliver Profits To The Developer

Zaveri misses several important facts. First, rehabilitation is ALWAYS preferable to demolition as it avoids the environmental cost of all the construction waste and the carbon and energy footprint of the new steel and concrete. Demolition also disrupts existing communities that cannot be easily restored. NYCHA and Related argue that the cost of demolition exceeds the cost of new construction, but this argument is undermined by their own RFP submission in 2021, in which they give MUCH lower cost estimates for the rehabilitation. It is clear that these numbers were inflated to serve the recent proposal. It is claimed that the current residents will be relocated to new buildings, but we know that rarely happens because of the time taken for the project and the decimation of the community. It is claimed that the project will deliver new “affordable” housing, but we all know that “affordable” rarely means rent that local working people can afford. What the project as proposed WILL deliver is profits for the developers and a bad precedent for public housing everywhere. —David Burney | Visiting Professor, MS – Urban Placemaking and Management

Cooking Up Renovation Numbers

After claiming renovation would cost as much as replacement, NYCHA now says new buildings will cost over a billion more. That’s taxpayer dollars in the form of tax credits and government bonds—money that could go toward new affordable housing instead of replacement of structurally sound buildings that were built to stand indefinitely. The claim that renovation would cost as much as replacement was reported by the author in an earlier, linked Times piece. Too bad the Times didn’t explore what became of that fiction or how Related was trusted to cook up its own renovation numbers and make an epic land grab. The real story here is a scandal that still needs airing. —Sandy Reiburn

The Real Building Count And Estimated Cost Thus Far

18 apartment buildings (not 17), would be demolished and replaced. NYCHA’s current reconstruction estimate is $2.4 billion, over three times the cost of the ongoing renovation of NYCHA’s comparably sized Edenwald Houses.—David Holowka

Public Land For Public Good

Your article on the proposed redevelopment of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses underscores the urgent need to improve conditions for NYCHA residents. That urgency is real. But so are the long-term implications of the plan now before the city.

Mayor Mamdani has spoken passionately about protecting public housing residents and safeguarding public assets. For that reason, many Chelsea residents are surprised to see him support a proposal that would replace existing buildings while introducing roughly 2,400 new market-rate apartments and shifting residents from traditional Section 9 public housing into Section 8 under PACT.

This is not simply a construction decision; it is a structural one. The plan would commit public land to a 99-year redevelopment model dependent in part on private market performance. City officials have stated that demolition and reconstruction cost roughly the same as rehabilitation, yet no independent, publicly released analysis comparing full in-place renovation with demolition tied to large-scale market-rate development has been presented.

Chelsea has seen substantial high-end growth over the past decade. The question is whether preserving deeply affordable housing must depend on expanding it further.

NYCHA residents deserve safe, modern homes. They also deserve durable guarantees that public land will remain dedicated first and foremost to the public good.

As a Chelsea resident, I hope this pause allows for fuller transparency before an irreversible decision is made. —Susan Marshall

Is It Right To Oppose The Plan? 

It would rezone Chelsea to midtown-like density and shadow the High Line, Chelsea Park, and the historic south-facing grounds of the General Theological Seminary. It would eliminate an estimated 260 public-housing bedrooms. It would compact the residents of 18 public-housing buildings into only six new, much larger and taller ones that would be harder to monitor and secure. It would move older tenants from the safety of their all-senior building into one of these dangerously oversized new ones among tenants of all ages, a fate the seniors desperately fear. It would destroy 370 mature trees in what a federal report calls the city’s zone of least tree cover, least temperature reduction by trees, least pollution removal by trees, and least runoff avoided by trees—an affront to the very principle of environmental justice given the disproportionate impact on public-housing residents. 

It would squander a staggering amount of embodied carbon on needless replacement of structurally sound buildings during a climate crisis. It would dedicate public land to more luxury than public-housing apartments. Its gentrification would increase Chelsea’s average rent. It would turn an area totaling more than three city blocks into a construction zone for at least 16 years, subjecting homes and schools to noise, disruption, fine particulate, and toxins released by disturbance of highly contaminated soil—contamination we know of, thanks to Layla’s research. 

Perhaps least excusably, the project would use government funding to build new segregated housing. 

Its entire design hinges on replacing the public-housing buildings before beginning the mixed-income ones, locking in segregation that would obviously profit NYCHA’s private-sector development partner, the Related Companies. To support the project but not its segregation, as Erik Bottcher has claimed to, is hypocrisy, like supporting the Confederacy but not slavery.   

The plan would never have gotten off the ground but for the lie that renovating the NYCHA buildings would cost as much as replacing them. The agency now admits that this claim didn’t include the cost of demolition and new-building design. Documents obtained by Layla through Freedom of Information Law show the project cost has ballooned to $2.4 billion, about twice NYCHA’s renovation estimate. Only late in the game did the agency announce that revenue from the mixed-income units would go into its general fund for use throughout the city rather than improving Chelsea’s public housing as originally promised—in other words, that the plan was really about making Chelsea its cash cow.  

When NYCHA and Related entered into a Master Development Agreement formalizing the plan, Layla characteristically put it under a microscope. She found that Related’s required capital investment in the project and financial penalty for withdrawing from it were inconsequential amounts. The developer would have no real skin in the project’s success or failure. If things went south, it could impose new demands for keeping the plan alive, effectively holding it hostage. That would be in line with what it did after winning the 2021 Request for Proposals to renovate, and specifically not demolish, Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea. Once Related had a lock on that project, it announced that its own conditions assessment had found the buildings in poorer condition than NYCHA had previously determined. Without ever sharing that estimate or providing a shred of evidence that renovation couldn’t proceed according to the original plan, Related blew the project scope up into a vast no-bid public contract for full demolition and replacement plus 3,500 mixed-income units. 

Which brings us to a critical point about Layla’s unique opposition to demolition. Imagine the leverage Related would have if any buildings were removed and the project was stalled with gaping holes in the ground and relocated tenants marooned in temporary apartments. 

Alongside many of the tenants, Layla supports saving Section 9, which she rightly calls “the only true public housing.” The other City Council candidates have thrown in the towel on Section 9, noting that its federal funding couldn’t be secured even when Democrats were in power. Layla argues that it’s not a law of nature that prevents funding but a lack of political will. She plans to use land-use authority, budget negotiations, and oversight authority—tools with which she is singularly familiar—to work with city, state, and federal partners. —David  Holowka

The Real Plan Is To Control The Land

Under this plan, public land will effectively be removed from full public control for 99 years. Tenants will be moved from traditional Section 9 protection into Section 8, which ultimately provides significantly less protection. Long-term public accountability will be diluted, if not erased. Billions in public subsidy would be redirected into private balance sheets. 

The Related Companies has a history of breaching their agreements with us in West Chelsea/Hudson Yards. They have engaged in delays and bait-and-switch tactics with both the current NYCHA project, which was required to be a renovation project NOT a demolition project, as well as the development of the Western Hudson Yards project (which was not only changed completely from the original agreement, but where former Mayor Eric Adams acquiesced to Related’s demand that the City pay the $2 billion for the “platform,” which should have been paid for by Related).

So what happens if Related breaches their agreement on this project, too? What if Related walks away without completing it? If they do, their financial liability amounts to virtually nothing. The taxpayer would be left holding the bag! And Chelsea might end up with a giant hole in the ground (and contaminated ground at that!) for decades. Think the Atlantic Yards Development: 14 years after the completion of the Barclay Center, a giant empty space remains where the required affordable housing has never been built.—Michelle Spinner

Chelsea Deserves Rehabilitation—Not Privatization by Demolition

The proposal by NYCHA and the Related Company to demolish public housing in Chelsea is being sold as necessary reinvestment. It is neither. It is a troubling convergence of flawed public policy, environmental harm, and the privatization of public land and public housing.

Rehabilitation should be the starting point. Demolition generates enormous waste, requires carbon-intensive new construction, and erases one of Chelsea’s most valuable assets: its mature trees and open spaces. These are not empty lots—they absorb stormwater, clean the air, and preserve access to light and sky in a dense neighborhood increasingly starved of all three. Once lost, they are gone for good.

Even more concerning is the displacement of long-standing communities. Residents are promised relocation and return, but experience tells us otherwise. Long timelines and upheaval scatter communities that took decades to build and cannot be easily restored.

The financial justification for demolition is also suspect. NYCHA and Related now claim it is more cost-effective than rehabilitation, yet their own earlier submissions projected far lower rehabilitation costs. The shift raises serious questions about whether the numbers are being used to rationalize a predetermined outcome.

Finally, the promise of new “affordable” housing should be viewed with caution. Too often, these units are priced beyond the reach of current residents. What is far more certain is that the plan will generate significant private profit while setting a dangerous precedent: the erosion of public housing through privatization.

Chelsea is not a blank slate. It is a living community with environmental assets and social networks that deserve investment—not erasure. We can—and must—choose rehabilitation over demolition, and public stewardship over private gain.—Ron Shiffman, FAICP, Hon.AIA, Professor Emeritus, Pratt Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment. Member,New York City Planning Commission 1990 to 1996.

No Friend To The Public

“When Mamdani brought in Maria Torres-Springer and people tied to past administrations, it was already clear where housing policy was heading. The transition team’s choices, Annemarie Gray from Open NY and Jed Walentas from REBNY were another warning sign. Even the way he handled the ballot propositions said a lot: acting like he had no opinion beforehand, then suddenly announcing support right after voting. That kind of evasiveness always shows up later in policy. 

NYCHA tenants were initially excluded from the rental ripoff hearings until public pressure forced a reversal. That alone says everything about how low a priority NYCHA residents are in this administration’s process. Keeping Leila Bozorg, one of the architects of RAD under Adams, was another signal that privatization-leaning approaches weren’t going anywhere. Then you have Cea Weaver, who dropped NYCHA the moment Good Cause Eviction became the focus. It paints a clear picture of who gets protected and who gets sidelined. 

What makes it worse is watching people who claim to support social housing line up behind demolition. That contradiction speaks volumes. The refusal to acknowledge what demolition means for public housing communities is not a small oversight; it’s a political choice. NYCHA residents deserve better than this pattern of neglect dressed up as “policy.” —Sandy Reiburn

Lazy Reporting

This is typical lazy NYT reporting.  Work-Bites does a much better job of explaining the proposed project and all the intricacies.  All the NYT needs to do is go on the CB4 website to their link regarding FEC to see all the reasons why this demolition plan doesn’t make sense.  The contradictions of this NYCHA/Related proposal are so plentiful that no entity other than the government would throw good money after bad.  Speaking of the government, nowhere does the NYT state that the NYCHA/Related plan would require around $2 billion in taxpayer subsidy, similar to Hudson Yards, in order to make the guaranteed 9% profit Related would get if this project were to move forward as planned.  The NYT also doesn’t mention Atlantic Yards and other large-scale urban renewal schemes that never deliver on their promises of “affordable” housing.—Tom Lunke

The Contradiction Is Calling The New York Times A Newspaper

To the Editor, The New York Times

Your article (Are These Crumbling New York City Housing Projects Worth Saving? Mihir Zaveri, NYTimes, April 4, 2026) casts glass towers and nearby public housing as a contradiction, though it’s unclear what, exactly, that is meant to imply.

That public housing, by virtue of its presence, mars the view? That its proximity to wealth is itself an anomaly to be corrected? The description risks implying that the true incongruity is not the city’s inequality, but the continued existence of low-income residents within sight of prosperity.

New York has never thrived on separation but on proximity between classes, industries, and lives, and the coexistence of public housing and private wealth is not a contradiction, but a democratic ideal, so long as public housing receives adequate funding.

To describe these buildings as “left to slowly deteriorate” is only partially accurate. Deterioration is not a natural condition. It is the result of decisions, years of deferred maintenance, chronic underinvestment, and a failure of stewardship. What was once a failure to maintain becomes, conveniently, a rationale to demolish.

We should be clear about the distinction.

No one disputes the need for safe, well-maintained homes. The question is why the only solution presented is replacement, rather than repair, and who ultimately benefits from that choice.

If there is a contradiction at 27th Street and 10th Avenue, it is not that public housing stands near wealth. It is that a city capable of building $25 billion in new development has, for decades, failed to adequately care for the housing it already owns.

That is not an architectural, an engineering or even a fiscal problem. It is a political one.—Layla Law-Gisiko, President The City Club of New York, District Leader AD75/A, Candidate City Council District 3 

THE End