Hello Veron Family,
This morning we had the pleasure of being toured around
Harlem by Ron Moelis of L+M Development Partners as he showed us one of his
mixed income housing developments. We got an interesting perspective and learned
a great deal about rentals/affordable housing vs condos sold at market rate. He
also discussed how aware he was on how his work impacts the community. L+M
Development Partners' mission is not just about doing well, as far as profit
margin, but also good. It is more common for developers to take the city up on
its offer of tax exemptions and other perks only to produce 20% of affordable
housing while the rest are at market rate to meet their bottom line. Ron's
company was one of the first to take a balanced approach at 50/50. Affordable
housing is a major issue in New York City worth tackling but there is also money
to be made in the condo market. So with this double bottom line in mind, the
company takes on highly profitable ventures and projects that may not be as
profitable but have a great social impact. There are challenges that surface
with this approach but organizations do have their limitations. One example he
used was creating a number of affordable housing units on land provided by the
city and having to host a lottery due to the large number of applicants. In
cases like this, preference is often given to community residents to reduce the
social injustice of displacement but it occurs nonetheless. Additionally, the
community preference approach is being challenged as discriminatory by
community outsiders who believe the practice is denying others from living in a
community that already has an established demographic. Also, partnerships
seemed to be a reoccurring theme in the business of development to achieve the
goal of good work. Taking over NYCHA housing that was being poorly managed
proved to be an opportunity. Residents were worried at first about the
privatization of this project. However, realized the benefits after renovations
and the creation of senior and community centers. Also, the work the developers
do with local nonprofits (Street Squash).
I’m interested in what were your top three takeaways from
this morning’s session?
Also, many students at John Jay have goals of landing a
career in public service. More often than not it means a position in the
non-profit or government sector. I challenge you all, similar to Ron, to
explore for-profit companies and their missions. Which ones would you consider
working for? In what capacity? How could this role impact the social justice
issue you care about most?
Lastly, we all have spent a great deal of time at our
respected agencies. We have a pretty good idea of how they operate, where they
do a great job of performing and where they might need some improvement. Many
organizations face obstacles preventing them from achieving their mission as
effectively as they might want to. If you all were given the responsibility for
using the resources of a social impact bond to improve your agencies, how much
do you estimate it would take? Where would you allocate the money? Why?
Would you increase salaries to employees take their jobs
more seriously? Upgrade office technology? Provide clients with certain
resources? Start a new program within your agency? Etc
11 comments:
Hello everyone! I don't think anyone would disagree about the fact that this was (at the very least) an interesting trip for us. I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to see this point of view. So much of what Ron said was really eye opening for me, and some of it was very challenging as well. Because we attend an institution such as John Jay which is really social justice geared and especially given that we all participating in the Vera Fellowship program we tend to have a particular bias about favoring public programs and institutions. During this trip I became VERY aware of my own bias and then that of Ron, who represented the private sector. I had an additional bias given that I worked with NYCHA and Housing Conservation Coordinators to maintain affordable housing. My first takeaway was about the Limits of Charity, when Hilfiker stated that we do a little good and feel so much better about ourselves and start to think that we solve the problem. It was easy to spot how Ron felt this way - but it made me realize that I am just as guilty. My second takeaway was about running a business, can social equality and business really mingle? And third, I questioned the limits placed on this perceived CHARITY. When you call it charity what are the implications of it?
For the second part of the prompt - I would have a difficult time working for a for profit company only because I have spent so much time working in this sector and I am passionate about these issues. Even in internships I have attempted to work within the field and found that it is not a great fit for myself at this time in my life. I have yet to come across an agency that will mix the two goals of profit and social justice fluidly.
To answer the third part of your prompt if my agency were to be given a SIB it would on the service be truly beneficial but to be honest there are several issues with it. I am not sure how much money we exactly "make back" so that may not be the best option for us. Granted I am not sure about the technicality of it so to assume we could accept the money with the conditions of paying it back, I would improve the resources the clients have access to. I would create more workshops with smaller class sizes and more activities rather than being in one computer lab all day. I would also try to create a more holistic approach by adding programs such as cooking healthy, connecting with your kids, motivating your kids, etc because unemployment t is only one aspect of the problem.
Similarly to Jasmine, I also found the trip to be really interesting. I thought that we all benefited from being exposed to two very different perspectives and understandings over the past two weeks. In addition, going on the tour and hearing Mr. Moelis talk about his work in the private sector challenged me to become more open-minded. I thought that Mr. Moelis made pretty strong arguments with regards to the benefits of working in the private sector.
The first aspect that really intrigued with was the idea of “social impact investing”. I found it really interesting when he discussed the idea of working for profit with a social justice approach. He went on to describe how his company invests in mixed income housing that are composed of 50% market units and 50% affordable housing. He even noted that one of these buildings does not have separate entrances. If I heard correctly, I think Mr. Moelis stated that the reason why many buildings have separate entrances is because of the fact that it is not completely illegal to have affordable and market housing together in the same building. Mr. Moelis also stated that his company often takes high profit jobs and not as profitable jobs, which eventually balance out. Overall, I was pretty inspired by how uses his position in the private sector to assist low-income individuals.
My second takeaway from the trip was our visit to Street Squash, which is a community center for at-risk youth. I thought it was excellent that Mr. Moelis and his company are supporting this organization. In fact, it is a criminological theory (and also the foundation of the CJA) that individuals with strong community ties are less likely to engage in criminal behavior or recidivate and end up back in the system. As a result, having a center with afterschool programs, sports, and activities will be beneficial for these children, who might be spending too much time on the streets with no supervision. It will also be beneficial for their growth and will help them receive the support that they need from staff and fellow students.
My last takeaway from the trip was the issues that arise from permanent affordability/ affordable housing. Mr. Moelis noted that many of these buildings deteriorate, as the non-profit organizations that run these units often neglect to take care of them. As a result, living conditions in these buildings worsen. I guess the benefit of mix-income housing run by for-profit companies is that these companies would usually have the resources to take care of these buildings.
If I were to go into the private sector, I think I would work as corporate lawyer. I have considered the possibility of going into law and have thought about the benefits of being in public interest and corporate. Although I feel that public interest law would be a much better fit for me, I also think about the benefits of working in the corporate sector. For example, I have thought about the idea that I could use my connections in the corporate sector to get financial supporters for nonprofit organizations. In addition, I could always begin a career as a corporate lawyer and then go into public interest law (always have to think about loans for law school too). The possibilities are innumerable and I look forward to what the future entails.
If I were given the financial resources to make improvements at CJA, I would put that money into improving conditions for interviewees. Rather than interview defendants in cells (which is completely dehumanizing), I would implement individual booths (like they have at Brooklyn), where individuals are interviewed in these booths and given more privacy. Although I have no idea how much this would cost, I think that it would significantly improve the interviewing process and that defendants would respond better in these conditions.
The meeting/tour with Ron was very interesting to say the least. I found that he was a bit tense because of his position/duties as a leader of a for-profit company. Being that we are all affiliated with non-profits, it is always important to see the other side of things. However, I could definitely sense some “culture of poverty” stereotypes when discussing homelessness and its impact on mental health. I’m sure some of my colleagues feel the same way. Although Ron’s mindset is to make money, I did appreciate how he reflected on social impact within the for-profit realm. It was refreshing to hear that contemporary business students are thinking more about social impact than in previous years (hopefully this will play out well). On the other hand, asserting that race, gender and class are irrelevant to the business model is just masking the issue at hand, and turns people into numbers. Unfortunately, that’s how business works. In terms of working for for-profit companies I would consider working for organizations that deal with green energy. It may sound a bit sketchy, even I cringe at the idea. However, working within the dynamic and mission of social impact will encourage ore people to take better care of the earth. To get our community involved we must set an example for our peers, green energy is expensive, but we need the support of everyone so that way we can live a healthier life. Being that most of our clients at Safe Horizon are going through tough times financially, it would be wrong of us to condone for-profit activities. The process could even re-traumatize them. However, if we were given a large sum of money, that money would be allocated for housing, transportation and food (all things that are scarce for our clients). In my opinion, increasing the salaries of our social work division will reduce turnover. My co-workers are often overworked and underpaid. In addition, language and technology are two issues that our clients have. Creating an ESL program as well as conducting computer classes are ideal to help our clients get back on their feet.
Hi Gabby, I have a quick question: in your sentence "it would be wrong of us to condone for-profit activities" did you intend to write "condone" or "condemn"?
Whoops, spelling error. I meant condone in the sense that doing things for profit and not out of the "kindness of our hearts", an accepted belief amongst the non-profit realm
Looking at the affordable housing was well different for me. I am used to seeing section 8 housing in Staten Island and low income housing in East New York and in both it was very difficult to live in because of the constant maintenance problems that go unfixed, the smell of marijuana and urine in the buildings, and police specifically targeting people that live in the area. Ron’s building was surprisingly clean unlike any low income housing I have seen before (the last one we saw because the first one we walked into was I believe not mixed housing and the condo’s were mixed but they were not rentals).
My top three takeaways were:
1. I was really interested in how people who fall into the low income category are even able to qualify for housing. For one person to qualify (on the low end and reach the bare minimum) they would have to make $2,750 a month. If they work full time, 40 hours a week they would need to make almost $18 an hour. How does someone getting paid minimum wage earn that amount? How does someone with formal education earn that amount? I mean I work a no skills needed job with a former SUNY professor, two CUNY graduates (Hunter), and a NYU soon to be graduate and none of them can get a job. Ron was talking about how prices just went up in the area and to me it’s because of gentrification and people coming in and building new fancy buildings. I mean the ugly building that was pointed out looks just fine to me, especially when you consider the amount of people that are homeless or dislocated because they can’t afford living in the city. It’s crazy.
2. Like Gabby, I also was surprised at the way Ron discussed the homeless, and instead of saying there are real problems (like Unaffordable housing) that leads to their homelessness, he defaulted to “oh they probably have mental health issues”. I also was a little unnerved when he mentioned doing background checks on people with histories of mental health.
3. I was really interested in the way that Ron was able to give his company a social justice spin to it. I really admire businesses that give back to the community and I guess Ron does that with the 50/50 housing.
There are lots of for-profit companies that have positive missions, a lot of common ones that come to my mind are like Toms which give a pair of shoes for every pair purchased or Warby Parker that donates a pair of prescription glasses for every pair purchased. I also have seen a lot of green, environmentally centered construction companies that are based in Texas. If anything, I would consider working for one of those. My friend currently works as an accountant for one and he is super environmentally friendly and socially conscious, so I know the company he works for is legitimately doing good since he boasts about it constantly.
To the last question, it is that time at Vera when they are starting to get approved (or denied) for grants. I am actually really happy that one of the grants I was hoping would get approved did. I don’t know how much is needed to find a research project, but perhaps enough money to hire an additional researcher and to pay the current ones to conduct research on the needs of Muslim immigrant communities. They have done a lot of working looking at Muslim Communities + Police, but not Muslim immigrants + their needs as much as they have focused on other communities.
The Harlem visit to the housing complexes was a different experience than I was expecting. I admit I took in a lot of information from the session but only certain aspects interested me. One for certain was the street squash program. I love how the project incorporates academics and athletes to the youth within the community. It is a great way to build a rapport, create a better community and work towards growth. Another takeaway from the trip is how different the complexes are. Seeing the architecture and knowing he stories behind them were eye opening. The integration of culture in the buildings were fascinating. Lastly the decisions of the types commercial developments to be placed in the neighborhoods and the response the community gave was interesting. Hearing how the project developer was let go after building a Popeyes within the ground floor was great piece of information.
I haven’t really considered working for a for-profit organization before. I had to do research to distinguish for-profit and non-profit organizations. After thoroughly checking things out I find myself siding more with non-profit places. Being that I am exploring the other option I can see myself working for a for-profit conservation society of some sort. Trying to bridge my interests to one I feel a for-profit company can succeed in taking part in.
If my site received a social impact bond and i was responsible I feel as though it would take several hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions to improve things. I would allocate the money to the sections I have realized are not allowing the program to run as efficiently as it could. I.e hiring more experienced individuals, working on the integration of the coursework into the lives of the participants, the other parties involved in helping the individuals reach success but also put the money towards extracurricular, bridging with outside programs to keep the students interested and motivated. I would focus on these areas because I feel like they hold more influence on the program and the individuals. Raising the workers wages is definitely something I would look into ( by position), enhancing technology I feel wouldn’t be a priority as the facility I am in does have an up to date atmosphere. I would expand my locations and the buildings because they do need more space and the newly opened area would create a more inviting environment.
As you all may assume, this trip was truly relevant for me considering how I am a Harlem native. I definitely know that gentrification is an issue going on within Harlem and personally I believe the rhetoric that Ron was using throughout our session was very political and is the same language that is being used by housing developers such as NYCHA. The language that these institutions use in addition to their approach is critical when determining intentions. The likelihood of an organization explicitly stating or acting opposed to minority’s agenda is slim to none. Therefore, we have an obligation as the public to read in between the lines and remain vigilant critical thinkers. From my perspective Ron may mean well but what he is implicitly promoting is gentrification. Ron mentioned that he wanted to provide healthy alternatives for the community such as better dietary options besides “Popeye’s”, and sporting events. One thing that he failed to mention was ensuring affordable healthy options. The reason why there typically are unhealthy choices within under-privileged communities is because that is what individuals can afford and not the alternate healthier/pricier option. Placing a café on 116th reaches out to a different demographic rather than the predominant residents of that section in Harlem. From my trajectory this is an approach that is geared to inviting a specific group of people into the community, that group of people not necessarily being non-blacks, but actually non-poor.
Harlem is becoming extremely financially infeasible and is pushing out the people that have been long standing residents due to private developers financial interests. As we heard from Thomas Giovanni last week, we have to weigh the outcomes of the short and long-term gains. Possibly when thinking short-term it is appealing to have mixed-income developments considering the innovations it can provide. However, when thinking long-term this jeopardizes the living situation for many residents who rely on affordable housing. Additionally, when factoring in the sporting events that are being implemented within the community (squash and golf) I also think this has good intentions. By introducing an absent demographic to the sports of squash and golf, students have the opportunity to deconstruct the elitist games of squash and golf. However, this approach might not be as effective if they implemented a different sport or a greater variety of them, in attempt to appeal to a much more diverse audience of students and parents.
I also started to analyze the locations L+P development are working in, places such as Harlem, New Orleans, and the lower east-side all which happens to be areas that are faced with the culture of poverty. The pattern that I see is that mixed-income developments only up-rise in poor communities and not the affluent ones. A theory that comes to mind for me that explains why that is, is that individuals in power believe that imposing a different culture within a community can ultimately change the entire culture of a community. Changing the culture can lead to less crime, an increase in local small businesses, and the displacement of a population who do not fit the newly found culture.
In terms of a for-profit company, a company that I would consider working for is a major banking firm such as Goldman Sachs. I say this because having this experience can help me make an impact on the non-profit organizations that receive money from this agency. Furthermore, it can help me gain further knowledge in how to fund the endeavors of my interests and what organizations support that interest.
To the third part of the prompt, I believe it will take about $10,000,000 in order to produce the change that I want to see in Common Justice. I want to see Common Justice expand the work that it does to locations outside of NYC and even places within NYC such as Manhattan and/or the Bronx. I actually would provide employees with better wages considering how I believe that social work is a field that is completely under resourced and by providing workers with a monetary incentive to continue their vital work will help in continuing/ensuring the quality of their work.
Very thoughtful responses Verons! Incisive critique of our recent field trip Nancy! Interesting to understand if social justice endeavors can link with private industry and maintain their mission.
I apologize for responding so late Verons. Great prompt Monnero, I really missed out on the discussion, as Thursday's visit was DEFFINITLY one to remember.
Looking over my notes from that day, I was very uncomfortable. My top 3 takeaways are probably more cynical than most.. nonetheless. They were:
1. The "African American Driven" Kalahari hotel design was interesting. I began questioning how many African American people actually enjoyed this hotel in which its culture was idolized. I see this as a backhanded compliment really..
2. The representative from Street Squash's language was offensive. I'm interested to know who he was referring to when he repetitively said "street kids". He didn't have to use that language to make his point of only accepting kids enrolled in their charted school partners.
3. Ron made a few comments about people being unhappy and complaining about the basketball courts, the look of one of the apartment buildings, and having a fast food restaurant a part of the apartment building structure. What people?
To your last question, Marcus gave a great example of what I would support--The law practices that protect non for profit agencies. These services are obviously needed and valued in order to keep non profit organizations functional. He mad a great point.
Because "Many organizations face obstacles preventing them to complete their mission" I support not only these law practices, but even grant writers who non for profit agencies hire to develop proposals for receiving grants that will help these organizations thrive. Money is often times the biggest obstacle for non profit agencies and I am sympathetic to services that help non for profits achieve their desired goal.
Post a Comment