Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Specific examples of RAD/PACT conversions (Linden Houses and Boulevard Houses)
2:13:00
ยท
3 min
Brian Honan provides specific examples of RAD/PACT conversions in Chair Banks' district, focusing on Linden Houses and Boulevard Houses. Chair Banks acknowledges the investments but continues to advocate for resident voting rights.
- Linden Houses and Boulevard Houses were state-funded projects abandoned by the state in 1998
- These developments were left without capital or operating funds, relying on federal money meant for other developments
- NYCHA argues that conversion was necessary to find funding for these properties
- Chair Banks acknowledges the need for investment but insists on a formal voting process for residents
- The discussion highlights the tension between addressing urgent capital needs and ensuring resident input in the conversion process
Brian Honan
2:13:00
Sure.
2:13:01
So council member, so in your district, there's two developments, Linden Houses and Boulevard Houses.
2:13:06
2 of probably some of the largest developments in your district, not the largest, the Cypress Hills that we talked a lot about
Chris Banks
2:13:13
It's the Pink Houses.
Brian Honan
2:13:13
Is is, you know, is huge, and and Brinken is huge as well.
2:13:18
Linden and Boulevard were both state funded projects.
2:13:21
They were built by the state of New York, and the state abandoned both of those developments in 1998.
2:13:27
So those those developments were left with no capital, no operating funds.
2:13:31
They were run solely on rent and money that we took federal money that we took from other developments like Cypress, like Beringen, which we know need a lot of funding as it is, and we funded it into Linden And Boulevard.
2:13:45
Only through conversion were we able to find the funding that they needed in order to bring those bring investment into those properties?
Chris Banks
2:13:57
Brian, I Brian, I get it.
2:14:00
I get that part.
2:14:01
And and and I think you you you do that so eloquently in laying out the need for capital investment.
2:14:08
I get that.
2:14:09
We get that.
2:14:10
Mhmm.
2:14:10
We're we're just saying that we want a formal voting process for the residents.
2:14:13
That's it.
2:14:14
And, I think we're not And, we're not gonna back away from that.
2:14:17
I'm not backing away from it.
2:14:20
We we we want you to understand the need, the importance of real community engagement is to allow residents to have a say.
2:14:30
And that's that's that's what it boils down to.
2:14:33
I don't know what the fight is or the resistance is from the the the authority to just say, well, let's explore that when it comes to rad pack converted developments.
2:14:46
Doing a survey, you know, those those things are important as well.
2:14:51
Having the community engagement meetings are important.
2:14:55
But first and foremost, there needs to be a formal voting process for these developments.
2:15:04
Don't see how could it hurt?
2:15:05
How could it hurt?
2:15:07
Know, part of the conversion is getting the residents to sign over to a section eight lease.
2:15:14
You want folks to be able to do that willingly, and and you want a decent percentage of the development to be in support of it.
2:15:24
You mentioned Boulevard And Lindenhouses.
2:15:26
I mean, Lindenhouses and Penrith Rutman House And Lindenhouses.
2:15:30
You know, we welcome the investments that were done through the program.
2:15:35
But if you ask those residents today if they had a choice or a decision on being converted, they'll say, no.
2:15:44
This program was a shove shove down our throats, and we had no say.
2:15:49
Yes.
2:15:49
There was some degree of community engagement that was that was that was done, and I I I sat through some of those meetings.
2:15:57
But if you speak to the residents, they would say they didn't have a say over it.
2:16:02
And they they did the weigh in that you purport was was not it it didn't give the residents the the final say.