The Trump Files: The Brief Life of the “Trump Chateau for the Indigent”

Mother Jones illustration; Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In 1981, Donald Trump was facing a dilemma. He had purchased a series of elegant but old buildings overlooking Central Park in New York, hoping to quickly demolish them and erect new, glitzy replacements where he could charge sky-high rent. But one of them, 100 Central Park South, was filled with tenants who had no interest in giving up their rent-controlled apartments, and Trump was having a hard time convincing them to leave.

The problem was of his own making. “I didn’t fully understand until much later…that it’s almost impossible to legally vacate a building filled with rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments,” he noted in his 1987 bestseller, The Art of the Deal. But that didn’t mean he didn’t try. He sent eviction notices and cut off heat, hot water, and other services, according to lawsuits filed against him. None of that worked, so he tested another solution.

“By the summer of 1982—about a year after I took over the building—the problem of the homeless in New York was beginning to get a lot of attention,” he recalled in the book. “One morning, after passing several homeless people sleeping on benches in Central Park, I got an idea. I had more than a dozen vacant apartments at 100 Central Park South. Because I still planned to demolish the building, I had no intention of filling the apartments with permanent tenants. Why not, I thought, offer them to the city for use by the homeless, on a temporary basis?”

It was a generous, selfless offer, according to Trump—and it didn’t hurt that the scheme allowed him to stick it to the intransigent tenants, whom he dismissed as “multimillionaires living in rent-controlled apartments.” As he put it, “I’m not going to pretend that it bothered me to imagine the very wealthy tenants of 100 Central Park South having to live alongside people less fortunate than themselves for a while.” But many of the tenants weren’t wealthy. A large chunk of the residents were “people living on fixed incomes, such as Social Security checks, who have made their homes there for 20 years or more,” as the New York Times’s Sydney Schanberg reported.

The city rejected Trump’s offer to turn the building into what Schanberg jokingly called the “Trump Chateau for the Indigent.” “I’m left with an uncomfortable feeling and therefore am not pursuing it,” said Robert Trobe, then a deputy administrator at the city’s Human Resources Administration.

Trump’s offer didn’t extend to others in need. When Polish refugees came calling in desperate need of housing in 1983, Trump refused to let them take the same empty units. “We were talking about people who live in America now—not refugees,” his secretary told Schanberg. “I don’t think this is something he would consider.”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate