The Aug. 3 editorial “On Cabrini, a deal best not made” is degrading to tenants who seek an opportunity to be partners with a private developer in the redevelopment of their homes. Further, it brings back memories. It was only a short time ago when developers were looking for minorities to be joint partners, particularly in government financed projects, so they could gain an advantage when bidding on government jobs. It’s all about the money.
The underlying theme in your article, as well as you may try to camouflage it behind abstractions such as principles, is that you feel that the residents should neither have the right nor the opportunity to participate in making this money already earmarked for privileged contractors, such as The Habitat Co. .
At a time when we are looking for new and creative solutions to save the inner city for as many residents as possible–and that includes affordable housing and economic security–you are advocating a continuation of the divide-and-conquer philosophy of the past, a philosophy that helped to put us in our present position.
It is senseless for even the Tribune to argue that the concept of resident-owned business is wrong, for the rights and protocol for resident-owned businesses have been legislated by the U.S. Congress. The concept is accepted and practiced when tenants want to go into the janitorial business or landscaping business, efforts that the Tribune would doubtless see as highly appropriate for tenants of public housing.
But when they start talking about big money, and about joint ownership in a joint venture as a developer in the construction business–even when that business directly affects their own lives and communities–then there is consternation in the media.
