Crisis in Housing

Mayor John Lindsay was probably thinking about riot and arson when he stated, in response to a television interviewer, that he did not believe in law and order without justice. Himself a parent, he could have been more discreet, remembering that snappy remarks are too often overheard and understood by delicate ears for which they were not intended. The notion that citizens may freely choose to ignore the laws which appear to them unjust has been picked up by others than the low-income residents of slum areas who vent their sense of injustice by occasional breaches of the peace. The mayor’s philosophy has been welcomed by residents of government-financed and government-owned housing in Mr. Lindsay’s very own jurisdiction. Some of these tenants or tenant-cooperators—or the Board of Directors representing the latter group —have discovered that the Lindsay doctrine provides a comfortable platform to stand on while withholding rent, refusing to pay taxes, or holding back interest or amortization payments on the government’s mortgage. The residents, naturally, do not suggest that they prefer to spend their money on something other than rent. They claim that they are merely serving justice, protesting against unreasonably high real estate taxes, against the failure of the government to provide enough policemen or guards at public expense, and against the inflationary spiral of mortgage interest and operating costs. Whatever the motives of the housing residents, their rent and tax strikes pose an interesting political problem to a government pledged to reduce human hardship.

Many New York officials have been able to ignore (in public, at least) the complaints of candy and liquor store proprietors whose possessions have been burned to propitiate the sense of injustice of rioters. After all, shopkeepers are representatives of the “power structure” and should be able to afford an occasional catastrophe.

RS

About the Author

Roger Starr

Featured Tags

Mayor John Lindsay was probably thinking about riot and arson when he stated, in response to a television interviewer, that he did not believe in law and order without justice. Himself a parent, he could have been more discreet, remembering that snappy remarks are too often overheard and understood by delicate ears for which they were not intended. The notion that citizens may freely choose to ignore the laws which appear to them unjust has been picked up by others than the low-income residents of slum areas who vent their sense of injustice by occasional breaches of the peace. The mayor’s philosophy has been welcomed by residents of government-financed and government-owned housing in Mr. Lindsay’s very own jurisdiction. Some of these tenants or tenant-cooperators—or the Board of Directors representing the latter group —have discovered that the Lindsay doctrine provides a comfortable platform to stand on while withholding rent, refusing to pay taxes, or holding back interest or amortization payments on the government’s mortgage. The residents, naturally, do not suggest that they prefer to spend their money on something other than rent. They claim that they are merely serving justice, protesting against unreasonably high real estate taxes, against the failure of the government to provide enough policemen or guards at public expense, and against the inflationary spiral of mortgage interest and operating costs. Whatever the motives of the housing residents, their rent and tax strikes pose an interesting political problem to a government pledged to reduce human hardship.

Many New York officials have been able to ignore (in public, at least) the complaints of candy and liquor store proprietors whose possessions have been burned to propitiate the sense of injustice of rioters. After all, shopkeepers are representatives of the “power structure” and should be able to afford an occasional catastrophe.