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

Mother Jones illustration; Shutterstock

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

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.”

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight 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

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.