💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dave-lawrence-squatter-stronghold-faces-eviction.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:12:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Squatter Stronghold Faces Eviction Author: Dave Lawrence Date: 1995 Language: en Topics: Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, squatters Source: 1995 Jan/Feb issue of L&R. Retrieved on 2016-06-13 from https://web.archive.org/web/20160613072520/http://loveandrage.org/?q=node/60
Five squatted buildings on Manhattan’s Lower East Side are being
targeted by New York City as the site of a supposedly low-income housing
project. The city council voted on June 29 to approve a plan, submitted
by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), for
Lower East Side Coalition Housing Development (LESCHD, a corrupt
non-profit housing organization) to develop the site. The five squats,
numbers 535, 537, 539, 541, and 545 East 13^(th) Street, are occupied by
a diverse group of ove r 100 people, some of whom have resided in their
squats for over 10 years. (A sixth squatted building across the street
is not included in the development plan.) The squatter community on
13^(th) Street was founded over 10 years ago by people who had origina
lly sought to be accepted into the city’s now-defunct homesteader
program, but took a do-it-yourself approach and became squatters from
the onset. They were soon joined by many more people, and expanded to
include more buildings.
The city’s plan was uncovered by a squatter from another block who heard
rumors of the development project. Freedom of Information requests were
filed, but no responses were received. After many more rumors and some
anonymous tips, a New York Times rep orter confirmed that there was in
fact a plan for the 13^(th) Street squats. Subsequent requests for
information turned up the plan sent to the city council. It was a
reincarnation of a plan defeated by squatters four years ago, but this
time around was subm itted as an Urban Development Action Project (UDAP)
to bypass the usual review procedures and deny squatters any
opportunities to oppose it at public hearings. The so-called low-income
housing proposed for 13^(th) St. has a minimum income requirement for a
s tudio apartment of $13,800, well above what most squatters and other
neighborhood residents take home.
Due to factional disputes within Eviction Watch, a network of 21 Lower
East Side Squats, much of the defense tactics were conceived and
implemented by the Legal/Research and Outreach subcommittees, along with
many squatters from the targeted buildings and former members of
Squatter Activist Council. Attempts to hold Eviction Watch meetings were
disrupted by residents of 535 and self-proclaimed communists from a
group called the Class War Organizer (CWO). Squatters and supporters
arriving at one meeting were driven off by residents from 535.
The first defense tactic used by squatters was what worked four years
ago—going after the funders of the project. This included unannounced
visits to the offices of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC,
corporate scum who finance poverty pimps b y selling tax exemptions),
and Enterprise Foundation (a group that collects grants from corporate
scum). Actions were also carried out in Philadelphia and other cities
against funders. In Baltimore, parodies of eviction notices were pasted
to the residenc es of Enterprise board members and employees. Mass
mailings were sent out to funders, politicians, and housing groups of
all types, to publicize the fact that this project would displace over
100 people. Letters of support were solicited and included in m ass
mailings.
The second tactic was to raise awareness in the community and build up
local support. A plan to march to the Community Board was approved at
one of the early Eviction Watch meetings, before the complete breakdown
between rival factions. The Community B oard tactic had been used by
squatters in previous struggles. Most recently in June of 1993, when
over 100 squatters shut down a meeting to delay a vote on the
development of Glass House. (The development plan passed at a later
meeting, but was never impl emented; Glass House fell to an
opportunistic police force, compounded by internal disarray, in Feb.
1994.) The Community Board (#3) was only voting as a formality on this
issue. The streamlined UDAP process didn’t require its participation.
However, it w as an opportunity for squatters to voice their outrage.
The first action was against a sub-committee. Fifty squatters packed the
room and prevented the board from convening a meeting.
An important part of the overall strategy to defend the buildings is on
the legal front. Recent court rulings over the evictions of squats in
the Bronx set favorable precedent for due process to be recognized for
squatters. 535 E. 13^(th) decided, undemoc ratically, in the opinion of
many squatters, to drop out of the legal action. Two residents of 535,
including a member of the CWO, showed up in court and asked that their
building be removed from the case. They also discussed a deal offered by
the city to accept relocation to city-owned apartments in exchange for
their dropping any and all claims to their building. Many squatters
active in this struggle consider any negotiations to vacate a building
to be a “sell out,” and feel the divisiveness weakens th e squatters
movement. CWO distributed hundreds of leaflets filled with lies and
misleading information, which created much confusion for people trying
to keep up with the complexities of the situation.
Knowing that legal tactics alone cannot bring victory, squatters
continue to put up posters and do outreach in the Lower East Side.
Squatters also developed good contacts in the mainstream media. Two
major daily newspapers have run sympathetic articles covering the
dispute between squatters and the city.
This plan to evict five buildings is the most serious threat the
squatters of the Lower East Side have faced. Squatters realize that if
these buildings go the remainder will be weakened and picked off over
the next couple of years. Since the mid-‘80s t here have been 15–20
buildings occupied by organized squatters in this neighborhood, existing
in a gray area of semi-autonomy as government administrations have come
and gone. The survival of squatting as a continuing movement rests
heavily on whether thi s fight is won or lost. If the squats lose in
court, squatters may have already won a political victory in the eyes of
the public. If the squats were to win title to the buildings, they would
no longer be squats, but could inspire others to carry on the s truggle.
A favorable court ruling on due process alone could put squatting right
back where it was—in legal limbo.