II. New Challenges: Evictions and the Escalera Decree

It was pretty easy for NYCHA to evict tenants it found undesirable between the Authority’s founding in 1934 and the late 1960s. 

During these years, NYCHA could evict tenants with only one month’s notice and without a hearing.  Although not paying rent was the most common reason for eviction, owning a dog was the second most frequent basis for eviction.  Scattered cases of eviction for “promiscuity” and even “sexual deviance” also appear in the records.

But this period of easy evictions would not survive the turbulent 1960s and the growing emphasis upon individual rights during that time.

The first sign that there would be strong legal challenge to easy evictions appeared not in an eviction case but rather an eligibility for admissions case.

The case against NYCHA was brought by the Mobilization For Youth (MFY), a community group in the Lower East Side.  MFY wanted to break down barriers to government benefits and services for the poor and thought that NYCHA’s eligibility standards unfairly discriminated against the poor.

In this1966 case of Gilda Manigo Vs. New York City Housing Authority, Ms. Manigo applied for admission to a NYCHA development but the Authority decided she was ineligible because her husband had been arrested seven times as an adult, and several more times as a minor – including once for assaulting Public Housing guards. 

Ms. Manigo claimed that NYCHA’s decision violated her right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the constitution because the standards for admission to NYCHA developments were “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unrelated to the declared purpose and public policy of the respondent.”