I thought I had reached a natural endpoint in this series with my last entry, as this was as conclusive as I assumed I could get:
"The simplest (and most likely) explanation for all of these threads and more is this: YIMBYs and their analogues are fundamentally committed to capitalism, and thus can only conceive of solutions to problems through the pathways that capitalism allows for (ie. the market). Whereas the left is committed to rights, to ideals, to people, and through much study and reflection has come to the conclusion that the only way to fully address the problems of capitalism is to transcend capitalism itself. [...] But if you really dig in and try to determine the root assumptions and the fundamental commitments of your opponents, you'll often find that these very different animating principles explain most of the contradictions between you and others who are seemingly fighting for the same outcomes."
But just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in. This time the impetus to post came from a series of skeets by a prominent YIMBY on the famous YIMBY website BlueSky:
In all, these takes appear to indicate a bizarre category error where Resnikoff seems to confuse a sober analysis of the structural power dynamics present within a program with some sort of imagined revolutionary idealism. I think this frankly absurd misread is a perfect example of the "contradictions" that arise from one's "animating principles," which renders my previous conclusion completely correct and insightful. But still, it might be useful to understand why that is the case using this example of a particularly belligerent pundit. So let's address some of Resnikoff's claims below.
"the existence of this imperfect but highly successful program is keeping the real revolution at bay"
On one hand, invoking a nebulous concept like "the real revolution" is completely irrelevant here. Despite it's name, Jacobin is not particularly revolutionary in its aims, and the article itself does not propose a specific policy fix, let alone a full remaking of the social order. In short, a plain reading of this comment does not square at all with the topic nor the article in question. On the other hand, if we attempt to square this incongruity with the potential that Resnikoff is not offering his critique in particularly good faith, we can instead read this as a cartoonish interpretation of a real sentiment shared in the article:
"We are not here to solve poverty. We aren’t here to fix the affordable housing problem,” Ana Rausch, CFTH’s vice president, told the New York Times in 2022. CFTH has no control over the laws, the courts, or, for that matter, labor laws and the minimum wage. But this siloing of responsibilities is by design, permitting the housing market and policing systems to proceed apace while CFTH tends to the externalities."
Actually reading and comprehending the article allows us to understand how Resnikoff's idealistic interpretation ignores the very real structural contradiction revealed through its analysis. Viewed through this lens, Resnikoff's complaint reads less as a legitimate critique and more of a statement of ideology—one that is largely disconnected from any sort of earnest analysis of the outcomes of the program in question.
"scurrilous plot to sap public support for socialism"
This is similar in tone and in content to the line from above, but I wanted to use it to point out another irony inherent to Resnikoff's argument. The article's primary framing is around the struggle of local tenants to form an organization (SETIO) to collectively pursue their goals. In the process of pursuing these goals, it becomes to clear to the tenants that the best they can hope for under Housing First policies is temporary relief. The article goes on to describe the eventual dissolution of the tenants group and follows up with one former beneficiary who is now homeless, whose primary takeaway is "none of this ever stops because nobody ever does anything about it." If the failure of half-measures like Houston's housing policy causes people to organize against and/or personally reject the status quo, perhaps the half-measure is actually doing the work of building public support for the alternative to landlordism. Making the "scurrilous plot" reading not just wrong, but literally the opposite of the article's implication.
"policy victories that benefit marginalized people"
It's very clear that there are indeed some victories that Houston's housing policy can claim. But by presupposing this to be the case, Resnikoff misses the whole point of the article. The author never claims there are no victories, but rather that the victories are fleeting and limited:
"With cities across the country turning to Houston for answers to “solve” their respective homelessness crises, it’s worth bringing to the fore how Houston’s crisis perpetuates itself on several fronts. Just give people housing has become an inescapable slogan among housing justice advocates. It’s undeniable in its simplicity — everyone deserves housing, after all — and this is where Houston’s program often excels. But how and where people get housing, and for how long, are equally important questions without the same consensus, and are facing escalating attacks from the Right."
And given how the article explicitly lists the failures associated with the program, including:
"One tenant told Jacobin he lived with broken plumbing for two years, with mold blooming on the walls; he didn’t report it for fear of retaliation — that is, until he was hospitalized, at which point his home was officially deemed “uninhabitable.”"
"they also faced a slew of illegal eviction tactics, including repeated electricity and water shutoffs."
"one Houston landlord admitted to using his dogs to forcibly evict his low-income tenants"
...then it's very odd to frame the program as an unqualified "policy victory." Again, it seems that Resnikoff is making an idealistic and/or ideological argument while simultaneously ascribing such an approach to an author that very explicitly did not do that.
"enthusiastic market rate landlord participation as evidence of the program's sinister intent"
Much like Resnikoff's other arguments, the "sinister intent" mentioned here fundamentally misrepresents the author's argument. Specifically, the usage of "sinister" suggests a moralizing tone that the author seems to purposefully avoid. Sure, the article contains words like "profit-hungry," but those turns of phrases are generally (always?) used as reasonable, matter-of-fact descriptors of specific behavior. And the author goes so far as to paint the staff of the program as "well-meaning," ascribing little to no blame for tenants' plight on the program itself:
"CFTH does not have any control over the private housing market. It is, fundamentally, at the whim of landlords. With the backing of CFTH, “problem” tenants in effect have a guarantor, someone who picks up the bill if the tenant falls through, but CFTH also acts as the mediator: an entity tenants and landlords look to for support in times of conflict. From this managerial role, whose side would you choose: the isolated tenant, or the so-called housing provider who maintains the power to reject all future applicants, making your job that much harder?"
"the primary goal of ending homelessness"
In short, it seems odd for Resnikoff to state this as the primary goal of the program, given the approach and the contents of the article he shared. Per the previous paragraph, the program did not and can not end homelessness because it is not empowered to do so! As such, something as ambitious as "ending homelessness" cannot be its primary goal! In fact, the article itself explicitly states this:
"CFTH and other similar programs nationwide attempt to combine antithetical views on housing. As bipartisan “common sense” dissolves and more punitive policies take hold, what remains of Housing First is a buffer against more holistic measures aimed at freezing the violent churn of the housing market. SETIO’s story is instructive not only for tenants in Houston, or for others in the South who likely also lack the nominally stronger tenant protections held in New York or Los Angeles, but for those across the country who see Housing First policies as a catchall for combating displacement. With homelessness policy hinging on what the Supreme Court decides this summer, the future may look something like Houston, which blurs the feel-good guise of the technocrat with the unyielding presence of the police. Combined, these two forces continually disperse Houston’s homeless population, a shell game with tenants moving from place to place, courtroom to courtroom, and few chances for long-lasting relief."
What this illustrates for our larger topic of General YIMBY Studies is that not only are the "animating principles" wildly different between folks like Resnikoff and the tenant organizers described in the article, but so are their approaches. Resnikoff seems content to offer high-minded rhetoric that overlooks the details, while tenant organizers have no choice but to engage with the reality on the ground. In this way the "fundamental commitments" of the two groups are not just materially different, but are also directly derived from those material differences. Put another way, there are no YIMBYs in a foxhole.
No comments:
Post a Comment