Group 2: CollectivesReceivership as a Tool to Take Tenants from Collective Action to Collective OwnershipAlaina Thomas, Rutgers Law School
The State of New Jersey was in a housing crisis long before the COVID-19 pandemic. With the immense affordable housing deficit, corporate landlords that see code enforcement fines as just the cost of doing business, and growing tenant blacklists; it is increasingly difficult for low-income tenants to secure safe, habitable housing. Although New Jersey has a rental unit registration requirement and many cities with pro-tenant municipal ordinances that attempt to deter substandard housing conditions, we must find new ways to hold slumlords accountable and permanently protect affordable housing. New Jersey’s Multifamily Housing Preservation and Receivership Act (“the Act'') offers tenants in substandard housing an opportunity for relief when they have exhausted all other remedies.
Receiverships are complicated and can backfire but present a unique opportunity that has yet to be explored. Once a receiver is appointed, slumlords can no longer accept rent from tenants, yet they must still pay the property’s mortgage and taxes. This often compels them to sell the property. Applied strategically, a tenant association could use the Act as a pathway to collective ownership and governance of their failing buildings.
In this article, I will examine current laws governing receiverships around the country compared to New Jersey’s receivership act, specifically comparing accessibility to pro se tenants, and models of communal ownership. I will also argue why organized New Jersey tenants should utilize the state’s receivership law strategically as a possible pathway to communal ownership of their buildings.
Transfer Opportunities for Radical CareKomal Vaidya, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Private childcare companies profit from the unpaid and paid labor of workers of color. The legal system values social reproduction of childcare by workers of color who look after affluent families while offering little support for labor provided for the workers’ own families and communities.
Long-term social transformation requires nonhierchical, collective childcare. Building off Premilla Nadasen’s work in “Care: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,” this article examines legal frameworks for radical care that foster mutuality and collectivity in place of dependency and individualism, and do not rely on devalued labor of women and people of color. Examples include worker cooperatives and multistakeholder cooperatives.
The law imposes barriers to transforming hierarchical models to collective ones. Existing legal structures largely defer to the discretion of individual actors and privilege those with access to capital. Currently, legal mechanisms supporting conversions to collectives are relatively limited and underutilized. While contested, they are more prevalent in housing than in the labor and business context. This article examines the utility of transfer mechanisms such as the right of first refusal, purchase opportunities, and contractual mechanisms in allowing organizers to build power and support radical care. It also draws from other areas of the law, such as business succession planning. Throughout, this Article is guided by the lessons from organizers who challenge the underlying normative implications of the care economy. The article ends by asking whether such frameworks could be used to promote conversions in other contexts outside the care economy.
Discussant and Moderator: Maritza Karmely, Suffolk University Law School