New Yorkers who walk through Phoenix House’s doors aren’t looking for much: clean sheets, a warm shower, and a safe, supportive place to start their journey towards recovery. And when they’ve completed their time in its residential facilities, many go on to live in supportive housing —which is a game-changer.

We think about a former Phoenix House patient—now employee—who we’ll call Sarah, who transitioned into supportive housing on Long Island. At home, she has someone who checks in on her, connects her to social services, and encourages a substance-free lifestyle. She’s able to contribute towards rent with her salary, and visit her kids for the first time in years. She has something she had not previously felt stable enough for: independence.

New York should be prioritizing more developments like the one Sarah lives in. While countless organizations and recovery advocates work day and night to help New Yorkers suffering on the streets, they are often stretched too thin and those who need their help most fall through the cracks. They end up in a revolving door of hospitalization with limited evaluation and treatment just to be released back onto the street without adequate services or housing.

We must commit to a housing first model that focuses on workforce development and wraparound services. Why? Because we know it works and have for over a decade. 

As of December, there were over 100,000 homeless people in New York City. Of that population, homeless single adults have higher rates of serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and other severe health problems. This is a problem, and one that we can fix if we approach it with compassion. What these folks need is not the revolving door of the shelter system—they need long term care.

Just look at the data: of the 2,300+ homeless New Yorkers removed by sweeps in 2022, only 2 percent remained in shelter by January 2023 and only three individuals were connected to permanent housing. By contrast, between 70-90 percent of participants in NYC’s Housing First program remain stably housed two to three years after receiving services. 

If that’s not evidence enough, supportive housing continues to be the most cost effective solution for treating homeless individuals. According to the NYC Comptroller’s office, the average cost to keep someone in supportive housing for 30 days amounts to $2,040. But it’s $4,080 just to keep a New Yorker in a shelter and a whopping $108,270 to hospitalize them. 

New York City could take note from other cities. In Denver, homeless residents who were placed in supportive housing fared far better than individuals who simply received services on the street. Over the first year of a trial study, 86 percent of participants remained stably housed, while requiring 40 percent fewer emergency shelter stays, and 65 percent fewer detoxification services.

They also had much less interaction with law enforcement: participants saw a 34 percent reduction in police contacts, 40 percent reduction in arrests, and a 27 percent reduction in overall time spent in incarceration. This is a win-win for those who are suffering from substance use disorders and severe mental illness, those who care for them, and the communities who have burdened the negative externalities of our current failure to adequately address these crises.

Assemblymember Simone’s SUM NY report serves as a blueprint for where to start. While the report highlights that there is no single policy that will solve these crises, endorsing the housing first model was no mistake. It’s New York’s best shot. For decades, we’ve systematically failed to adequately invest in beds, services, and pay for providers—leaving thousands without lifesaving care.

But nothing is possible without a stable place to call home and services to start treating the root of a person’s substance use and mental illness challenges. While these crises have been simmering for a long time, the pot has simply boiled over in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. It is clear that housing must come first. It’s time for New York to put our money where our mouth is and invest in supportive housing to help our most vulnerable residents.

Budgets are moral documents. If we truly want to help those suffering on our streets and impacted communities across the state we must ensure that when Gov. Kathy Hochul signs our state budget in April, New York has allocated ample funding to build supportive housing and offer comprehensive wraparound services for residents in recovery.

Only then will we begin to adequately address residents’ mental health, substance use, and housing needs, and make a meaningful difference for all New Yorkers. 

Tony Simone represents the 75th Assembly District, covering Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen, Midtown and part of the Lincoln Center area in Manhattan. He was elected to the Assembly in 2022.

Ann-Marie Foster, FACHE is the CEO & President of Phoenix House of New York & Long Island, which offers clinical services, residential and outpatient treatment for people with substance use and co-occurring mental health disorders. She sits on the New York State Bar Association’s Taskforce on Opioid Addiction. 

The post Opinion: New York Must Commit to a Housing First Model appeared first on City Limits.

For the 90-year-old New York City Housing Authority, adequate funding is at the top of the list for getting apartments in good condition.

Since 2023, NYCHA has estimated a near $80 billion in capital needs over the next two decades. The tab manifests itself into daily frustrations for residents, such as leaks from aging pipes, broken lobby doors and long waiting periods for work orders to be resolved.

Along with outstanding capital needs, NYCHA grapples with financial constraints. Each year, the housing authority says it receives an estimated $700 million from Congress for repairs through the Section 9 public housing program, which is only a slice of the greater demand. And rent collection, which accounts for one-third of NYCHA’s operational funds, consistently falls below the amount the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires.

To help bring in immediate investment, NYCHA turned to the Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) program, a federal initiative that transfers New York City public housing units from the current Section 9 model over to Project-Based Section 8, which has twice as many federal funds. After conversion, properties can be privately managed by a third-party. 

To date, PACT has brought $7 billion worth of capital repairs, and is expected to bring a total of $13.2 billion should NYCHA reach its goal of converting 62,000 units by 2028. Still, there are questions around whether the program brings true, well-rounded investment to public housing, with concerns such as the quality and longevity of repairs persisting.

With New York City and state lawmakers in the throes of finalizing new budgets, residents and advocates alike are pushing for billions of dollars in additional funding that would address public housing needs without privatization efforts. With a new administration in Washington intent on slashing federal resources for housing programs like Section 9, the stakes are even higher.

“NYCHA is confronting serious challenges. Rental arrears are at record levels while federal funding is not keeping pace with the ever-increasing cost of repairing and maintaining decades-old buildings,” said Lisa Bova-Hiatt, NYCHA’s chief executive officer, during a City Council budget hearing earlier this week. 

“Yet, we know NYCHA is a federal institution serving a vital role in our city providing decent and affordable homes for hundreds and thousands of New Yorkers and so it must be strengthened and preserved.”

Vacant units, broken doors

Despite these challenges, NYCHA remains one of the more coveted housing resources for individuals and families, with close to 180,000 hopefuls on the waiting list for an apartment. Meanwhile, there are currently just over 8,000 vacant units throughout the system.

At the recent City Council hearing, NYCHA Chief Operating Officer Eva Trimble explained that close to 1,700 of those empty apartments are temporarily off the rent roll as they wait for modernization or rehabilitation; another 600 are already matched to a prospective tenant slated to move in, and about 5,700 are vacant and available.

NYCHA turns over approximately 430 units a month for a new tenant to re-occupy, Trimble testified. “One of our biggest challenges is that 60 percent of the vacancies go to transfers,”  she said. “We also have a significant number of emergency transfers and other transfer needs.”

When a tenant who transferred moves into a vacant unit, another vacant unit opens up, she explained.

Beyond vacancies, city lawmakers questioned NYCHA officials on the funding needed to address other issues at its complexes. Manhattan Councilmember Gale Brewer cited safety and security concerns, especially around broken lobby doors.

“You break them, you fix them, you break them,” Brewer said during the hearing. “It’s about $70 grand, so what are we gonna do about that?”

Councilmember Kristy Momorato shared similar concerns about NYCHA campuses in her Northeast Bronx district. “It’s constant,” she said. “At one building, the door was broken three times in one week.” 

The concern about broken lobby doors was one example around property maintenance that unlocked questions about whether funding alone can solve the underlying issues within the housing authority.

NYCHA had more than 623,000 open work orders as of February, according to the authority’s metrics. Among the needs to be addressed are elevators, lead, leaks mold and rodents.

Though NYCHA says it’s making improvements in critical areas, like remediating lead in 10,000 apartments, it still struggles to maintain a state of good repair. Housing authority staff members point to gaps in funding, including unpaid rent, that delays response times.

Federal funding makes up two-thirds of NYCHA’s operating revenue while rent collection makes up the other third, Bova-Hiatt said in her testimony. NYCHA expects to receive $1.29 billion in federal operating subsidy this year, she said. The estimated rent collection for 2025 is $1.05 billion—just about $110 million under what NYCHA should be getting.

Rental arrears have increased at NYCHA since the COVID-19 pandemic, when public housing tenants were excluded from early iterations of the state’s rent relief program. An estimated 67,000 NYCHA households still owe rent, making up roughly 46 percent of the population, according to NYCHA. This amounts to $545 million in total arrears, even after $150 million from statewide rent relief funding allocated in recent years.

“Considering the limited federal funding available, we are pursuing innovative programs that are bringing top to bottom renovations and repairs to a significant portion of our portfolio,” said Bova-Hiatt. “With the increased needs and continued rent arrears, an annual deficit is expected in the coming years.”

‘The best we can with the funding that we have’

City Councilmember Chris Banks, who chairs the Council’s Committee on Public Housing, questioned whether funding was the only component fueling substandard conditions. “Some of these issues are going back years and years, of NYCHA just not dealing with them,” Banks said.

“And not being historically funded,” Lescott-Martinez countered. “Historically, we have been underfunded by our federal partners, so we have tried to do the best we can with the funding that we have…we are doing the best we can with our $5.4 billion budget.”

The housing authority’s 2025-2029 Financial Plan shows $561 million in state capital funding for the current Fiscal Year 2025, which is leftover from a previous $1.25 billion allocation from the state. 

There’s currently no additional state funding earmarked in the Financial Plan from 2026 forward, though it is expected to see an infusion of $1 billion that Gov. Kathy Hochul pledged to provide for NYCHA repairs as part of the City Council’s negotiations over the mayor’s City of Yes for Housing plan.

Annika Lescott-Martinez, NYCHA’s chief financial officer and executive vice president of finance, testified that the housing authority is seeking $500 million from the state to rehabilitate NYCHA properties. The state budget is due April 1. 

“We really do believe that an additional $500 million from the state could help us make meaningful progress,” she said.

To combat the financial strain, NYCHA continues to look to the PACT program to raise revenue; it now has more than 38,000 units in its portfolio. 

But there is a demand among many NYCHA tenants across the city to keep public housing public, and to fund properties without conversion.

Earlier this month, public housing tenants across the state joined organizations including Citizen Action of New York, Community Voices Heard and Community Service Society* and boarded buses and vans to Albany to demand more state dollars.

“A large portion of New York City’s funding comes from the federal government, year after year we would go up to Albany or even the City Council advocating for more funding for NYCHA,” said Jesse Koklas, the New York City regional director at the Citizen Action of New York. 

“Now, especially since that’s less guaranteed than it was before from the federal government, it’s more important now than ever that the state prioritize public housing in their budget and protect it and preserve the public housing that exists,” Koklas added.

Among their demands is a push for a commitment of $5 billion over the next five years for public housing authorities across New York, with $4 billion going to NYCHA. The funds would be used to repair and preserve 15,000 public housing units in the city and 25,000 upstate, according to a document prepared by Iziah Thompson, a senior policy analyst with the Community Service Society. 

Sandra Anthony, a resident at the Polo Grounds Towers in Harlem and a member of the organization Community Voices Heard, said it was her first time participating in “lobby day.”

“To some people that might sound like a lot of money,” Anthony said of the groups’ funding requests. “But if you see the pictures of some of the apartments that some of the residents are living in where there’s literal holes in ceilings that a grown man could crawl through…that’s not a lot.”

The role of private management in public housing

NYCHA isn’t alone in turning to the private sector to fill funding gaps. PACT is New York’s local version of  the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), implemented in 2011 under the Obama administration. 

Under RAD, public housing authorities funded through the Section 9 program convert to another federally funded program with twice as many federal dollars called Project-Based Section 8. After conversion, a third-party management company can take over the operations of the properties.

In New York City, the RAD program was introduced in 2016, and is now known as PACT.

The program has drawn skepticism since its inception nearly a decade ago, with questions around the performance of the private management companies that take over, longevity of repairs and the level of tenant involvement during the selection process.

“What we hear a lot is that people wish that they had a say in it,” said Koklas. “There are some developments that have had a vote but the process is very opaque in terms of why some developments get a vote and why some don’t, and we just want a little more clarity, a little more transparency in this process and for residents to really have a genuine say in it.”

In her testimony at the recent Council budget hearing, Anna Luft, a project director of the public housing justice project at the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), emphasized that the well-being of NYCHA is tethered to the rest of New York.

She pressed the City Council to increase NYCHA capital funding to $1.5 billion annually, up from $779 million in the previous year’s budget, according to Luft, and to “ensure an equitable distribution of funds” between Section 9 and PACT developments. 

“With the Trump administration’s policies and priorities, and its slashing federal spending, it is unlikely that the federal government is going to fund public housing meaningfully,” Luft testified. 

“We also strongly urge the City Council to ensure specifically that NYCHA Section 9 developments are funded and not rely on privatization through PACT to save the future of public housing in New York City.”

*Community Service Society is among City Limits’ funders.

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post In City & State Budget Talks, Advocates Look to Fortify NYCHA Amid Federal Uncertainty  appeared first on City Limits.

Welcome to “What Happened in NYC Housing This Week?” where we compile the latest local news about housing, land use and homelessness. Know of a story we should include in next week’s roundup? Email us.

ICYMI, from City Limits:

• The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce, including at local field offices for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, will leave New York tenants and landlords in the lurch, a group of area representatives warn.
• Legislation introduced in the City Council this week would toughen penalties against landlords and brokers who refuse to rent to tenants using rental subsidies—a practice known as Source of Income discrimination, which is illegal but still pervasive. 
• The city opened a centralized mailroom for migrants living in the shelter system, following complaints about missing correspondence at shelters that could jeopardize people’s immigration cases and work authorization efforts.
• A recent report critical of the city’s rental voucher program is misguided, former and current CityFHEPS recipients argue in an oped. “The increased spending on CityFHEPS is a symptom of the housing crisis. It is one of many needed tools to help end homelessness.”

ICYMI, from other local newsrooms:

• Curbed spoke to some of the only tenants living in the largely empty luxury skyscraper dubbed Brooklyn Tower. 
• Gothamist reports on the rising prevalence of in-unit washers and dryers in New York apartments and asks, is it worth the extra rent?
• The City Council approved Mets owner Steve Cohen’s plan to build a casino and other amenities around Citi Field, the Queens Daily Eagle reports.
• Manhattan rents hit a new record, according to Bloomberg News.
• New York City saw a record number of homes built last year, BK Reader reports, though the volume of new construction permits declined slightly.

The post What Happened This Week in NYC Housing? March 14, 2025 appeared first on City Limits.

A recent report released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed that homelessness grew by an alarming 18 percent over the past year, and ought to have us all hanging our heads in shame.

A record three quarters of a million homeless individuals across the country doesn’t happen by accident. It is the result of decades of policy choices at the local, state, and federal levels—including choices that have empowered self-interested not-in-my-backyard voices to block the creation of supportive housing that is critical to preventing homelessness.

In New York, the news is worse. State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli followed up on the HUD report with a report of his own showing that in the Empire State, homelessness grew by 53.1 percent from January 2023 to January 2024, more than four times the rest of the nation. From 2022 to 2024, the number of homeless children grew by more than 30,000 to 50,773, the DiNapoli report said. Now, nearly one of every three of New York’s homeless are children, one of highest shares in the nation. 

Affordable supportive housing—a proven model that pairs permanent, affordable homes with services like job training, mental health counseling, and addiction treatment—has been a game-changer for addressing chronic homelessness. Studies have shown that supportive housing reduces homelessness, saves taxpayer dollars by cutting reliance on emergency services, and improves quality of life for some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

But despite its success, the creation of supportive housing has fallen far short of the need—in large part because of fierce resistance by local residents.

NIMBYism isn’t new and not specific to supportive housing. The “not in my backyard” mentality has been an obstacle to the creation of housing of all types. But when it comes to affordable supportive housing, the pushback is especially intense. Projects meant to serve formerly homeless individuals or those with mental health conditions, substance use disorders, or histories of incarceration often face intense opposition from residents who express fears about things like safety, property values, and neighborhood character.

These fears are often based on misconceptions rather than reality. For example, a recent study by Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy at NYU found that supporting housing development does not hurt property values in the long term. 

However, this pushback carries weight with local officials who are wary of political backlash. As a result, supportive housing projects are routinely delayed, downsized, or scrapped altogether, perpetuating cycles of homelessness that harm individuals and burden communities.

If homelessness is to be addressed at scale, we need a coordinated effort to break down the barriers to supportive housing development. Part of that is changing the narrative about the people supportive housing serves and how it benefits not just the individuals who move in, but neighborhoods and our society.

It’s easy to view homelessness as a byproduct of drivers like job loss and mental illness, but the reality is more complex: a lack of stable housing also makes it more difficult to find employment and exacerbates mental health and substance use challenges. This maintains a cycle that is very difficult to break.

Supportive housing is an upstream investment that helps stabilize the lives of its residents, reducing the need for expensive emergency interventions like hospitalizations, shelter stays, and incarcerations that strain public resources. Further, it is permanent housing that is designed to integrate seamlessly into neighborhoods. Most supportive housing developments are indistinguishable from other residential buildings, blending into the fabric of the community while providing residents with a safe, dignified, stable place to live.

Overcoming these challenges will also require leadership from elected officials. Mayor Eric Adams’ City of Yes plan removed some of the barriers that give veto power to anti-housing voices. But we must build on that progress by further streamlining approval processes, creating financial incentives for communities that welcome supportive housing, and launching public education campaigns to dispel myths and build broader understanding of the issue.

This means calling out the hypocrisy of saying we want to solve homelessness while refusing to create the very solutions that will make a meaningful difference, and standing up to NIMBY resistance when supportive housing developments do still require public approval.

It’s time to stop viewing supportive housing as something to resist and start seeing it for what it truly is: a solution that saves lives, strengthens communities, and gives everyone a chance to thrive. The path forward requires courage, compassion, and a willingness to put facts above fear. 

Sherry Tucker is the CEO of WellLife Network, which provides supportive housing services in New York City and Long Island. 

The post Opinion: Standing Up for Supportive Housing appeared first on City Limits.

A few years ago, Jasmine Smith says she was living in a domestic violence shelter in Brooklyn when she received a City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement voucher, also known as CityFHEPS.

The city-run program provides rental assistance for low-income New Yorkers experiencing or at risk of homelessness; in most cases, voucher holders pay around 30 percent of their income towards rent, and the subsidy covers the rest.

“I thought the hard part was over,” Smith, a leader with the housing advocacy group Neighbors Together, said during a rally outside of City Hall Wednesday. But finding a unit where she could use her voucher wasn’t so easy.

“I was ghosted, degraded, and told my voucher wasn’t accepted, leaving me and my children in the shelter for 11 months before I was able to find an apartment willing to accept my voucher,” Smith told the crowd.

Source of income discrimination, as the practice is known, has been illegal in New York City since 2008, meaning building owners aren’t allowed to reject a tenant just because they use a rental subsidy. But it still happens: the city’s Commission on Human Rights counts it as among the most common types of housing discrimination it sees.

Legislation introduced in the City Council this week seeks to change that by, among other things, toughening penalties against landlords and brokers who refuse to rent to voucher holders.

“We know the stories too well of tenants who are turned away from apartments because they are on a voucher, because they have Section 8, because they have a public benefit,” said Councilmember Shekar Krishnan, a former housing lawyer who represents Jackson Heights, Elmhurst and Woodside who sponsored the package of six bills.

One proposal would add source of income discrimination to the list of bad behaviors covered by the Certificate of No Harassment program, which allows the city to deny building and construction permits to building owners with a history of harassing tenants.

Another bill would increase the maximum civil penalty for someone who fails to comply with an order from Commission on Human Rights, while another would base fines for landlords who commit source of income discrimination on the size of their real estate portfolio—the more properties they own, the steeper the penalty.

The latter is aimed at large corporate landlords, which a 2024 report identified as the most common culprits for source of income complaints. “So that landlords stop discriminating as a cost of doing business,” Krishnan said. “If you do it, you will be held accountable.”

The lawmaker’s other proposals include banning credit history requirements for voucher holders, requiring that apartment applicants be notified if they’re turned down for a unit based on a tenant screening report, and publicly disclosing the building owners that are found guilty of source of income discrimination.

“Our civil rights laws, they’re not going to be worth more than the paper they’re written on unless they are enforced in reality, unless we have teeth and enforcement behind them,” Krishnan said.

In a city of ever-increasing rents, rental vouchers can be a key tool in helping households move from the shelter system to permanent housing. As of December, nearly 52,000 households were using CityFHEPS, officials testified at a Council hearing earlier this year.

The program has also been criticized for late payments to property owners and having too many regulatory requirements, which landlords say discourage its use. Officials also point to the city’s current historic housing shortage as one of the reasons vouchers are so difficult to use, saying there just aren’t enough affordable apartments to go around.

At Wednesday’s rally in support of the new bills, Smith said she was eventually able to find an apartment in the Bronx to take her CityFHEPS subsidy, and has been there for the last three years.

“It wasn’t easy. Brokers and landlords told me my voucher wasn’t enough, that I would still be required to make 40 times the rent to qualify for whatever apartment I was looking for,” she said. “Brokers need to stop using this tactic as a way to not rent to someone, because this is how New York City ended up with over 40,000 children staying in shelters.”

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post ‘I Was Ghosted, Degraded’: Bills Seek to Combat Discrimination Against Rental Vouchers appeared first on City Limits.

When Cole, a sixth-grade student in Brooklyn, received his third suspension notice last fall, it marked a missed opportunity for New York City’s school system to protect its most vulnerable students.

Like thousands of other students with disabilities in our public schools, Cole faced repeated removals from his classroom without proper consideration of his special education needs. Due to the effects of trauma suffered throughout his childhood, Cole struggles to control his anger, gets triggered easily, and experiences outbursts in class.

But unfortunately, rather than try to understand Cole’s emotional needs or how the school could support Cole in the future to avoid outbursts, his school only focused on punishment for Cole, suspending him three times and disrupting his education for over two months. 

New York City schools’ punitive approach to addressing behavior issues of students with disabilities not only violates the law but is derailing the lives of students most at risk, and misses the opportunity to address the behaviors that would greatly benefit the school community including teachers and fellow students.

If the city really cares about the mental health of New Yorkers as the mayor mentioned in his State of the City address, it starts with schools, which can and must do more to give students with disabilities the same educational opportunities as their peers. 

After a long and shameful history of schools using suspensions and discipline to segregate students with disabilities, Congress and the New York State legislature passed laws to ensure that these students were met with support rather than exclusion.

The law requires school districts to conduct a “Manifestation Determination Review” (MDR) before long-term removals of students with disabilities from their classrooms. This critical meeting seeks to answer two questions: whether the behavior that led to the suspension stemmed from the student’s disability, and whether the student was not receiving his or her mandated special education services.

If either answer is yes, the student must return to class immediately, and the school must then determine the root causes of the behavior and the steps necessary to help the student avoid engaging in the behavior again. The goal is to ensure that students with disabilities are not punished for their disability. But the numbers tell a much different story.

New York City public schools issued over 14,000 disciplinary removals of students with disabilities last school year–nearly 40 percent of total suspensions, despite these students comprising only 22 percent of the student population. 

Each suspension represents more than lost classroom time; it often means the denial of crucial special education services and the first step toward more serious academic and behavioral struggles, school disengagement, and eventual school dropout.

Independent MDR monitor reports in New York City public schools from 2015-2018 found that only 45-55 percent of the time was there “effective discussion” of the student’s disability at the MDR meeting, a stat backed up by what many legal advocates are finding in those meetings. Further, and not surprisingly, data showed that schools were more likely to find that the behavior was related to a student’s disability for white students than their Black and Latinx peers.  

When MDR’s are not conducted properly, schools miss an important opportunity to avoid disruptions for all students by getting to the root of students’ behavior issues. Experts and state and local departments of education have found again and again that punishment of students with disabilities actually works against the desired outcome of decreasing disruptive behavior, leaving students with shame and distrust. 

Rather, schools should develop responsive discipline policies that are inclusionary, rely on relationships, and implement strategies to support the student and community moving forward. Conducting an effective MDR is the first step.

Cole faced three separate suspensions, each preceded by an MDR where his mother was denied meaningful participation. It wasn’t until she secured legal representation through Legal Services NYC that Cole finally received proper consideration of his needs and a new evaluation to ensure appropriate support. He hasn’t been suspended since. 

Families need access to advocates who can help them navigate the complex special education and discipline systems and protect their child’s right to a meaningful education. Every time a student with disabilities may be removed from the classroom for an extended period, New York City should both inform families that they have a legal right to an advocate during an MDR and help connect them to one. 

A disciplinary removal represents a critical turning point in a student’s education, especially for those with disabilities. With proper advocacy, this moment can become an opportunity to reinvest in our most at-risk students rather than a step toward disengagement and dropout. 

As city leaders push for new laws to address the youth mental health crisis, we must include MDR reforms in these efforts. By providing families with advocates during disciplinary proceedings, we can create lasting relationships between education advocates and families, ensuring students with disabilities receive the support they need as they move through their educational journey. Not only that, but reducing disruptive behavior benefits all students, and their teachers as well.

Our students deserve a system that protects their right to learn and, what’s more, the law requires it.  

Councilmember Rita Joseph represents District 40 in Brooklyn and serves as chair of the Education Committee. Michaela Shuchman is a Skadden Fellow at Legal Services NYC in the Bronx, fighting to reform exclusionary discipline practices in NYC schools.

The post Opinion: Students with Disabilities Deserve Fair Treatment, Not Suspensions appeared first on City Limits.

The post New York Approved a Major Gas Pipeline Expansion. What Does it Mean for its Climate Goals? appeared first on City Limits.

As people who currently have and used to have CityFHEPS vouchers, we were troubled by the Citizens Budget Commission’s recent report on CityFHEPS. The report’s hyperfocus on the cost of CityFHEPS without meaningfully addressing the underlying reasons for that increase in cost is an incomplete framing that misses the point. The increased spending on CityFHEPS is a symptom of the housing crisis. It is one of many needed tools to help end homelessness.

It is easy to look at data and numbers and overlook the “why” or the “who.” Of course voucher spending has gone up: the cost of rent has gone up, inflation is high, and before the Good Cause Eviction Law was enacted in April of last year, 11,252 eviction filings were filed, which was the highest number since the pandemic began.

For decades, the city has prioritized building housing that working class and low income families can’t afford, while allowing the private market to inflate the prices of rent unchecked. The “who” is staggering: 85,000 people living in NYC Department of Homeless Services shelter, 32,000 of whom are children. These numbers don’t include the thousands of homeless youth and families staying in shelters for survivors of domestic violence.

Let’s not forget that the cost of vouchers represents people—people who can’t afford rent despite working full-time, people who without the voucher will become or remain homeless. People who are someone’s mother, sister, brother, aunt, cousin, son. They deserve the same level of care as a beloved family member, because they are someone’s family.

Yes, the City Council passed legislation in 2021 that “made each voucher more costly,” as the CBC report points out. However, that increase brought the voucher payment standard up to fair market rent, prior to which, families were languishing in shelters because their voucher was hundreds of dollars below market rate rent. Raising CityFHEPS to fair market rent helped thousands of New Yorkers exit shelter.

When administered correctly, and when voucher holders are able to locate apartments with reasonable rents and overcome source of income discrimination, CityFHEPS works like it is supposed to; it helps families move out of shelter and into permanent housing. That stability gives people the opportunity to pursue their goals of career advancement or furthering their education, and providing a safe home for their children. 

CityFHEPS allows recipients to increase their income until they make enough money to pay rent on their own (80 percent of the area median income), unlike many vouchers which have a built-in income cliff, forcing voucher holders to choose between a roof over their heads or a job that pays decently.  

The CBC report also discusses the lack of cost savings by continuing use of CityFHEPS vouchers. Some costs aren’t quantifiable; protecting children and adults from the trauma of homelessness, opening pathways for career and education advancement, providing stability that helps reunify families, protecting people from the dangers of living unsheltered on the street, to name a few.

No one wants to be homeless. It’s not a life choice someone aspires for. It happens as a direct result of circumstance, some of which are problems that a person did not create and are unavoidable, like the cost of getting an apartment, and the challenge of finding a landlord and/or property manager who will rent to you.

Being homeless is a stressful, depressing, humiliating and painful experience. Only a person who has never been in the shelter system and doesn’t know anyone who has been in the shelter system would suggest cost savings by keeping people in shelter instead of giving them a voucher. The human factor has to be considered when looking at these numbers.  

The report zeros in on CityFHEPS as if it is the end all be all of the city budget. Framing CityFHEPS costs as unsustainable ignores the fact that the city’s budget is over $112 billion, making CityFHEPS 1 percent of the city’s budget. It ignores the fact that significantly more of the budget is being spent on things other than vouchers; the NYPD Fiscal Year 2025 budget was over $5.7 billion. Budgets are moral documents—they highlight values through the services in which dollars are invested. 

If the administration wants to truly address the housing crisis, then it must do more and invest more in both long term and more immediate solutions. It must invest in permanently affordable housing that is removed from market speculation. It must put its weight behind advocating for the Housing Access Voucher to be included in this year’s New York State budget, and it must make deeper investments in eviction prevention, to name a few.

It is past time for Gov. Kathy Hochul to come to the table and fund the Housing Access Voucher Program, a state level voucher program, similar to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. But, putting a lifesaving program like CityFHEPS in the crosshairs, without fighting for these other solutions with the same passion used to criticize the voucher, is both disingenuous and dangerous. 

Jasmine Smith is a leader with Neighbors Together and a CityFHEPS voucher holder. Michael Bell is a leader with Neighbors Together leader and a former CityFHEPS voucher holder.

The post Opinion: The Problem Isn’t CityFHEPS appeared first on City Limits.

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 11 de marzo. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

El centro de correo centralizado para inmigrantes que residen en el sistema de albergues de la ciudad, anunciado por el alcalde Eric Adams a finales del año pasado, abrió sus puertas la semana pasada en el recién inaugurado albergue en el bulevar Bruckner, en el Bronx, según ha confirmado City Limits.

Si bien los inmigrantes y los solicitantes de asilo pueden recibir correo en los refugios de la ciudad, muchos se han quejado, especialmente a raíz de los plazos emitidos por la ciudad que requieren que los migrantes vuelvan a solicitar refugio cada 30 o 60 días, como City Limits informó en julio. En noviembre, el alcalde Eric Adams anunció la puesta en marcha de un centro de correo centralizado.

En los últimos meses, la ciudad ha cerrado muchos de sus grandes refugios para inmigrantes dado el descenso en el número de recién llegados. Sin embargo, a finales de febrero se abrió un nuevo centro de acogida para hombres en el Bronx, como informó The Bronx Times, para alojar a quienes salían de otros refugios cerrados.

La semana pasada, unas 50 personas hacían fila con sus pertenencias a la entrada del nuevo refugio. Los que hablaron con City Limits dijeron que venían de otros albergues clausurados. Mientras esperaban haciendo fila, algunos se sentaron en los escalones del edificio, pero los guardias de seguridad les pedían de vez en cuando que se levantaran.

Algunos, como Carlos, tuvieron que ir al Centro de remisión de pasajes para inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo (Reticketing Center) en el East Village antes de ser remitido al refugio en Bruckner, en el Bronx. El colombiano de 48 años, así como todos los inmigrantes con los que habló City Limits, pidieron que sus apellidos no se revelaran por temor a ser blanco de deportación bajo la administración Trump.

Carlos arrastraba una maleta mediana de color morado y venía de un refugio para inmigrantes que funcionaba en el centro psiquiátrico de Creedmoor, en Queens, que la ciudad tiene previsto cerrar este mes. Otros dijeron que fueron trasladados directamente del anterior refugio en el que habían estado viviendo.

“Nos dieron la dirección [del refugio de Bruckner] en un trozo de papel”, dijo Siddig, sudanés de 27 años, mientras él y sus amigos descargaban varias maletas, bolsas negras y mochilas de un coche. Los cuatro venían del refugio de Hall Street, en Clinton Hill (Brooklyn), que se prevé que cierre en junio.

“Hay varios pisos para la gente”, dijo otro hombre llamado César, de 30 años, que había llegado al refugio de Bruckner hacía tres días, “con filas y filas de camillas, una tras otra”.

Cuando City Limits visitó el refugio la semana pasada, la gente hacía fila fuera del edificio mientras el personal de Garner Environmental Services comprobaba datos. Esta empresa con ánimo de lucro se hizo cargo de los servicios en los albergues de inmigrantes después de que la ciudad terminara su contrato con un polémico proveedor anterior llamado DocGo.

Un servicio de correo fiable ha sido un reto constante para los inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo en los refugios de la ciudad, muchos de ellos tienen casos de inmigración activos y dependen del correo para recibir actualizaciones o documentos importantes. La pérdida de correspondencia puede hacer descarrilar o retrasar una solicitud de asilo o de autorización de trabajo, según explicaron abogados de inmigración a City Limits.

La oficina del alcalde no dio detalles sobre cómo funcionará el nuevo centro de correo en Bruckner. Sin embargo, una carta entregada a un inmigrante y vista por City Limits dice que, a partir del 4 de marzo, quienes se alojen en determinados refugios temporales podrán acudir a Bruckner con sus documentos de identidad para recoger el correo los martes, jueves y viernes de 10 a.m. a 6 p.m., o los miércoles y sábados de 1 a.m. a 9 p.m.

El correo se guardará por tres meses. “Cualquier correo que no sea entregado después de 90 días será entregado al remitente”, dice la carta en español.

En el centro de Manhattan, dentro de las instalaciones de la Cruz Roja Americana, la ciudad abrió el Centro de navegación de recursos para solicitantes de asilo que sirvió como oficina de correos para los albergues, sin embargo ya cerró, dijo la alcaldía, sin proporcionar detalles.

La ciudad dijo que se pondrá en contacto con las personas que tengan correo importante antes de que sea devuelto al remitente, y que los residentes del refugio serán notificados si tienen correo cuando se registren con sus tarjetas de identificación en sus refugios asignados.

La carta también pide a la gente a cambiar su dirección postal a la ubicación Bruckner e incluye un código QR para que puedan cambiar su dirección con el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos.

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org.

The post Centro de correo centralizado abre dentro de nuevo refugio para inmigrantes en el Bronx appeared first on City Limits.

The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce, including at local field offices for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), will leave New York tenants and landlords in the lurch, a group of area representatives warn.

More than a dozen Democratic members of Congress who represent New York sent a letter to HUD Secretary Scott Turner Sunday decrying what they described as “staff purges” at the agency’s local offices, including one in lower Manhattan that reportedly has just one “Field Policy and Management employee” left.

“We have been informed that our constituents seeking help in person at local field offices will likely be turned away because reduced staff cannot adequately serve all those who need it,” reads the joint letter, which was signed by several lawmakers representing New York City, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dan Goldman and Ritchie Torres.

The staffing cuts, the representatives wrote, would disrupt the operation of housing initiatives that benefit hundreds of thousands of New York residents, including tenants at NYCHA as well as voucher holders enrolled in the nation’s largest Section 8 rental assistance program.

HUD field offices are also charged with making sure building owners comply with Fair Housing Act rules, and investigating discrimination complaints lodged by tenants.

“As Congressional representatives, our staff is in constant communication with our Region II field offices, asking for and receiving answers to questions about critical program status such as Section 8 waitlists, HUD building inspection results, landlord regulation compliance, and more,” the letter reads. “This is a matter of public health and safety for our nation’s most vulnerable residents.”

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has set his sights on slashing the federal workforce in the name of “governmental efficiency,” an effort primarily being led by billionaire Elon Musk. Last month, Trump’s budget office ordered federal agencies to “initiate large-scale reductions in force.”

It’s not clear how many HUD employees have been targeted for layoffs, or will be. A HUD spokesperson declined to share those details, saying the agency doesn’t comment on “individual personnel matters.” But reporting by NPR in February said the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, plans to reduce HUD staffing levels by about half.

Trump’s appointed HUD Secretary Scott Turner said in a statement last month that he was assembling his own DOGE Task Force, “composed of HUD employees who will examine how to best maximize the agency’s budget and ensure all programs.”

HUD operates three regional field offices throughout New York State: one in Buffalo, another in Albany and a third at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in lower Manhattan, which officials say alone services nearly 1 million HUD beneficiaries.

In their letter to Turner, the New York elected officials urged him against any layoffs. “This irresponsible attempt to handicap HUD’s field offices will necessarily undermine HUD’s stated mission,” the group wrote.

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post ‘Staff Purges’ at NY HUD Offices Will Disrupt Housing Programs, Local Lawmakers Warn appeared first on City Limits.