It is Time to Take Housing Justice Seriously: Assessing Our Options Following the Knights Inn Fire

The Knights Inn Fire put our homelessness crisis front and center. While there are many drivers of homelessness, this is a crisis rooted in systemic poverty and a rental market boom that has priced out too many financially insecure individuals and families.

Like all challenges rooted in injustice, this crisis demands two governmental actions: (1) policy reform and (2) reallocation of resources. While there are a whole suite of policy changes and budgetary reforms at the federal level that could help communities nationwide move closer to housing justice, there is little chance we’ll see anything of import contemplated by the Trump administration and his loyal Congress. If anything, the Trump administration has taken steps to exacerbate systemic poverty and housing insecurity.

What then can the city, county, and state do immediately and going forward to minimize the harms caused by our housing crisis?

As a policy wonk, I’m a radical pragmatist. That means advocating for reforms that make folks who protect the status quo really uncomfortable, but reforms that are possible. I don’t like bread crumb tinkering nor pollyannish pipedreams that the current laws don’t allow. I prefer to honestly uncover the entire horizon of possibilities and then pursue the most radical possibility that moves us closer to “liberty and justice for all.” That’s my lens for this brief commentary.

Here are some comments on policy ideas that have been circulating by different stakeholders and a couple more that should be on the list of considerations.

I fully support this idea. Not many, but some municipal or county executives or legislative bodies across the country have made this declaration in the last five years. It is a powerful way to communicate to the public the scope and urgency of the crisis. It is a reminder that housing is health and a declaration can establish an important framework for additional policy decisions.

Note, an emergency declaration does not provide a New York municipality with any additional or new powers.  But the declaration, if by legislation, could encourage or require more tangible and concrete actions from the executive and his departments. For instance, a City Council legislation declaring housing a public health emergency could include the following:

• Notifies the Mayor or The Agency that City Council is staunchly opposed to and will reject any PILOT for a housing project that does not provide at least some units for residents at 80% or lower AMI (though 60% AMI or lower would be far better)
• Proactively informs the administration that City Council will not authorize any future grant application or local housing production program unless it prioritizes, to some degree, the production of permanently and/or deeply affordable housing units
• Calls out and encourages the two anchor health institutions (Guthrie and UHS) and Binghamton University to commit annual contributions to Binghamton’s Housing Trust Fund
• Encourages all philanthropies that serve Broome County to evaluate their funding pillars and consider making more resources available to housing as a matter of improving public health
• Demands the administration to include in its 2027 Budget Proposal the resources necessary to efficiently and effectively implement the recently passed proactive rental inspection and licensing program to advance the goal of safe, healthy housing for all tenants
• Strongly encourages the Mayor to include a $1,000,000 Acquisition and/or Repair Fund in the 2027 Budget to purchase deteriorated private rental properties or fix health and safety violations at rental properties where the property owner refuses to comply

The above suggestions are merely that, and in no way represent the litany of provisions in a legislative declaration that could capture and reflect City Council’s (and hopefully the Mayor’s) commitment to tackle this housing crisis—and public health emergency—seriously.

I’m all for this, but it may not be possible simply because of the lack of supply, especially affordable and safe supply. And Broome County blew it when they had more than $30 million in flexible COVID recovery funds (ARPA) but chose to allocate less then 4% of the award to address the surging emergency housing crisis from 2021 through 2024. Broome County Executive Jason Garnar chose to allocate six times more of the pandemic recovery funds to redeveloping the privately-owned Oakdale Mall than on affordable housing.

Recognizing that the underlying drivers for much of the surge in homelessness is poverty and a red-hot rental market that has priced out many low-income individuals and families, the best and immediate preventative strategy is simply to give households more money to STAY housed. The state’s rental housing assistance for qualified low-income families hasn’t changed in nearly two decades, and the housing assistance for qualified low-income individuals hasn’t budged in nearly four decades. Legal Aid of New York and the Empire Justice Center filed a lawsuit this summer against the state to compel an increase in the public housing assistance, but prior lawsuits have failed.

This policy is not only the right thing to do morally, but also financially sound. Broome can either pay a few hundred more a month to keep a family securely housed or pay a couple thousand a month after they are homeless to shelter in a motel. It’s a no-brainer.

Fortunately, New York State offers the Public Assistance Shelter Supplemental (PASS) Program. PASS was authorized by the State more than 15 years ago, before Garnar was elected in 2016, and allows any county to “opt-in.” What’s the catch? Nothing. Simply by applying and opting-in, counties will receive from the State additional public housing assistance to offer eligible families and recipients struggling with local high rents. It’s a significant boost, allowing public housing assistance to cover up to 85% of the area’s fair market rents.

The program has been underutilized for years, but more counties are opting-in in recent years due to the growing reliance on hotels. The fact that the Garner administration has never bothered to apply and bring in more resources to help vulnerable households stay housed is either willful negligence or gross incompetence.

I understand that Garnar acknowledged the County’s intention to (finally) apply to PASS at a recent community meeting. Better late than never, because there are 750 or more households in Broome that would be eligible and benefit tremendously from more rental assistance. But because PASS does limit eligibility, the County should design a local pilot program that “fills the gap” to ensure all low-income households in Broome facing eviction or homelessness are served.

Broome County Executive Jason Garnar should introduce a draft 2027 Budget that includes at least $1 million for a Broome Housing Voucher Pilot Program that can cover those not eligible for additional PASS funding. This would give DSS discretionary funds to ensure all households eligible for the basic public housing assistance have the funds to compete for safer, healthier private rental units. Providing a family on the verge of homelessness a $400 monthly voucher will be MUCH cheaper than the County paying $2,000 a month for emergency housing at a motel for that same family. Way better investment than the new millions gifted to Sheriff Akshar in Garnar’s last budget to expand the Sheriff’s partnership with ICE.

New York State has a law that specifies if and how a municipality can pass a local rent control law. Binghamton has not done the required housing market analysis to determine whether it can pass a local rent control law, and based on numerous reputable real estate data sources, I don’t think we would be eligible (our residential vacancy rate is too high). Thus, a “rent freeze” declared outside of this state statute would be illegal and immediately challenged by landlords, realtors, or other groups. The City would lose 100%.

I understand the passion and intent behind this demand. I also know that all resistance and justice campaigns in this country eventually confronted and overturned unjust laws. But expanding rent stabilization laws statewide beyond NYC was a long-fought and huge legislative win in 2019. The fight can continue for sure, but my point is that this isn’t currently on the horizon of possibilities and it distracts from an honest policy discussion.

The good news is that Binghamton City Council has already passed the next best possible option: Good Cause Eviction Law. Is it the same thing? Of course not, and it has real limitations. But it’s one of the more radical pragmatic steps toward managing (somewhat) the harmful decisions made by landlords in the “free market.”

Again, I love the intent here, but this is also an impractical policy solution. Municipalities in New York State do not have the authority to issue an eviction moratorium. This would be immediately challenged, incur tens of thousands of tax dollars in legal fees, and the City would lose for sure. 100%.

A creative alternative, however, has been implemented by select cities (but growing) across the country. A few cities that implement proactive rental inspection and licensing (or permitting) programs have included in their local ordinance that landlords not in compliance with the program are unable to bring eviction cases.

Legislation introduced by Binghamton Councilwoman Rebecca Rathmell and unanimously passed by City Council this summer establishing a more comprehensive Proactive Rental Inspection and Licensing Program includes this smart provision: landlords that want to use the Binghamton courts to evict tenants will need to certify, in writing, to the court that they are in compliance with the City’s rental inspection program. If they are not, the Binghamton judges can deny their eviction hearing. Since no municipality in New York State can implement a valid, blanket-wide eviction moratorium, this is currently the next best possibility (says the radical pragmatist).

YES! New York State laws are very favorable here. Municipalities can cite owners, and if the owners refuse to remedy the violation, municipalities can fix the violation and then bill the owner. And even better: if the owner doesn’t pay the bill, state law allows municipalities to place that “debt” on the property as a “code lien” and collect and enforce it like delinquent property taxes.

The City has been doing this for decades when it comes to mowings, garbage clean-ups, and board-ups. And because of the agreement Mayor Matt Ryan signed with the County back in 2006 to consolidate tax collection and enforcement services at the county, any ‘code lien’ that is shifted to the tax bill MUST BE PAID IN FULL by the County to the City within a year.

Let me emphasize that last line. Every single tax dollar the City expends to address nuisance violations on privately-owned properties will be repaid 100%—either by the property owner that calendar year or by Broome County the following calendar year.

Could the City expand its approach beyond mowings, clean-ups, and board-ups? That is, could the City fix exterior or interior health and safety code violations, and then bill the landlord, and place it on the tax bill if unpaid, and get paid in full by the County? YES!

Garnar would hate it, but New York State case law is solid here: counties that have agreed to collect delinquent property taxes for municipalities MUST reimburse those municipalities for all other liens, like water liens and code liens. Which is why I’ve been saying for years that the City should build-out a more robust program to hold irresponsible property owners accountable and fix the violations themselves if the owner refuses to respond to violation notices. Turn it into a summer youth jobs program for crying out loud.

Fortunately, this IS being discussed by Councilmembers as part of implementing the Proactive Rental Inspection and Licensing Program, effective 2027. But given Binghamton is a mayoral-strong type of government, Mayor Kraham is the only person who can actually implement this in the coming years.

For context, Syracuse did this exact thing, but in a somewhat limited fashion. They created a “Blight Buster Fund” and was one of the only municipalities in NY that I know that used the ‘code lien foreclosure’ approach for structural and safety repairs. Interestingly, once they repaired a few private rentals and published it in the news, many landlords started to comply with violation notices, figuring they could probably fix it cheaper than the City would. 

All in all, this is a good demand that is already being discussed in the context of the proactive rental inspection and licensing program. Just remember: whether the policy is ever implemented—and effectively—is entirely up to whoever sits in the Mayor’s Office.

I agree with this 100%. The County should avoid lengthy litigation and negotiate reasonable payouts to those traumatized by the tragic incident. One option could be to simply pay for housing costs for a set timeframe, like one year, making the solution (housing security) directly related to the trauma (homelessness). Surviving relatives and loved ones of those who were killed in the hotel fire should receive more.

Broome County just paid a speculative New Jersey LLC $650,000 for the abandoned, worthless nursing home in Vestal—even though they could have acquired it for pennies on the dollar through delinquent property tax enforcement or code enforcement (partnering with the Town of Vestal). Any County official who voted or pushed this reckless, inexcusable expenditure has no credibility or standing to suggest that reasonable, humane payouts to victims of the Knights Inn fire would be “fiscally irresponsible.” None.

As a reminder, here are those County officials that supported wasting $650,000 in public dollars for the acquisition of the abandoned, demo-ready Vestal nursing home:

• County Executive Jaron Garnar
• Republican Legislators Chairman Daniel Reynolds, Louis Augostini, Scott Baker, Greg Baldwin, Stephen Flagg, Matthew Hilderbrandt, and Matthew Pasquale
• Democratic Legislator, and the final swing vote, Kim Myers

Yes, yes, yes. While massive investments in expanding safe, healthy public housing should come from the federal government, we have to be real: that ain’t happening any time soon. And it’s not just because of Trump. Establishment Democrats over the last few decades have also shown no appetite to defend or expand investments in public housing.

Public housing was deemed a critical investment in the late 1930s and 1940s when white families were the targeted beneficiaries under FDR’s robust New Deal program. Construction of segregated public housing units continued through the 1950s and 1960s. The passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 ended segregated, race-based public housing, and not surprisingly, as the primary beneficiaries started to shift from white to Black households, the federal government started a slow, steady withdrawal from investing in public housing. That trend culminated in 1998, when President Clinton signed the Faircloth Amendment, a draconian GOP bill that prohibited the federal government from building any more public housing units than the amount that existed in 1999 (after massive demolition campaigns throughout the 1990s slashed the number of public housing units by tens of thousands).

With the federal government woefully and willfully absent on the matter of public housing, more states and counties (and even municipalities) are stepping up to explore how to fill this critical need. Some have already created “social housing” agencies or programs. (If you’re asking, “What’s social housing?,” it’s just public housing rebranded, following the success of governments around the world to play a more active role in a free market approach to housing to ensure nobody is left out.) Montgomery County in Maryland launched their effort in 2021, and already has 2,945 social housing units completed or in the pipeline.

Did you know one out of every four Parisian lives in public housing? In Singapore, that number is over 80%. Look, this isn’t even a radical idea. Just like private health insurance will never meet the needs of low-income and extremely low-income individuals and families, any rational human being knows a fully commodified housing market that prioritizes profit will never house our most vulnerable community members. The math doesn’t math. Thus, government must invest our collective resources to fill this need. The construction and maintenance of more social/public housing is an essential public policy if we ever want to realize housing justice for all.

A half-step toward social housing is to continue working with affordable housing nonprofits in the area. While there are a few reputable, experienced organizations in our area, led by First Ward Action Council and Greater Opportunities, one fledgling nonprofit deserves extra support and attention: the Southern Door Community Land Trust (SDCLT). Launched in the COVID era after years of planning by a coalition of housing and racial justice advocates, SDCLT is Black-led and the ONLY affordable housing nonprofit that seeks to produce deeply and permanently affordable housing. While the County and City have provided some resources to the organization, both the Kraham and Garnar administrations have done more to sabotage and undermine the organization than support it (a whole story, y’all, and article coming in September).

Acquiring and transforming vacant, abandoned, and deteriorated (VAD) properties must be part of any community’s approach to expanding the supply of healthy, safe, affordable housing. And after serving 12 years with the Center for Community Progress, the nation’s leading resource for communities searching for policy and practice solutions to vacancy, I could write a comprehensive Action Plan for our community. I intend to share some best practices in an article next month, but for now, I will caution housing advocates against setting unrealistic expectations when it comes to transforming vacant properties to safe, affordable housing. This work requires extensive resources, public leaders willing to exercise their legal tools effectively, deep collaboration, and patience. Stay tuned for more…

This is the one demand that, in my opinion, has been oddly missing from the local discussion. No two senior executives in Garnar’s administration have been more responsible—over years—for the oversight and management of human services and homelessness services. Both have presided over a failed response to a housing crisis that has been present for a decade and has been surging since 2022.  And the Department of Social Services has been racked with vacancies, low morale, and budget cuts—so bad that a collective of anonymous DSS employees released a manifesto in July documenting their challenges and demands.

Where has the advocacy and innovation been from Williams and Wagner over the last decade? They seem to be uncreative guardians of the status quo, as if they’re just passing time until they reach the magic number in the state’s system for a lucrative retirement. Or, if I have it wrong, and they’ve quietly been pleading with Jason Garnar for more resources only to be rejected every year as Jason prioritizes other budget allocations that help his “Republican Light” political brand, then they should state that publicly, hold him accountable, and resign.

This is not a cheap shot following a tragedy. It is a warning: if the County is going to spend $200,000 for another study by a private consultant, these are not the individuals to be trusted with implementing reform and driving innovation. Why would we entrust reform and change to the same senior leaders who oversaw the problem for years and did more to downplay the problem than directly address it?

Tarik Abdelazim is a local advocate for housing justice, racial justice, and good governance. For 12 years, Abdelazim honed his policy expertise helping urban and rural communities across the country tackle vacancy and disinvestment as a senior leader with the Center for Community Progress. Prior to his national work, Abdelazim served in Binghamton’s City Hall from 2006 through 2013 as the Deputy Mayor and then the former Director of Planning, Housing, and Community Development.