Erect buildings, not obstacles

As-of-right development — meaning the freedom to build without any special land-use permission — has been critical to New York City’s success. Developers, contractors, architects and financiers involved in any project rely on the time-tested process. They know that the zoning rules with which they must comply have been developed through a detailed environmental analysis, exhaustive scrutiny from city planners and thorough political vetting that requires the review and signoff of several layers of government.

There are a lot of hoops to jump through. But the confidence instilled by as-of-right development has helped New York City receive record levels of investment that has allowed us to address our seemingly insatiable need to house a growing population and employment base.

Every year, new development creates thousands of good paying jobs and generates billions of dollars in tax revenue that supports vital services and infrastructure improvements on which all New Yorkers rely.

It is becoming clearer and clearer, however, that as-of-right development is at risk — under assault by small but vocal groups of Not-in-My-Backyard neighborhood activists who want a shout-down veto over projects that they deem too big, or out of place, or for some other reason dislike. As they are emboldened, the reputation of our city as a safe place to invest in development is at stake.

The latest example is a proceeding before New York City’s Board of Standards and Appeals. BSA is mulling whether to reverse a decision by the New York City Department of Buildings to reaffirm a construction permit for an as-of-right residential project at 200 Amsterdam Ave. What sounds like a bureaucratic dispute could have dramatic repercussions for New York City’s business climate, extending far beyond the issue of whether the construction of one building in Manhattan is allowed to proceed.

The building at 200 Amsterdam, which is already under construction, was approved as-of-right, with the site having been acquired by the developers fully assembled by previous ownership decades ago.

If the BSA reverses the DOB’s decision, it would contradict DOB’s application of the city’s zoning laws, based on an interpretation it has consistently applied over the last 40 years. In fact, the DOB has stated that it was reasonable for the developers of 200 Amsterdam to rely on decades of DOB interpretation and actions, and that revoking the building permit for 200 Amsterdam would be “arbitrary and capricious,” and contrary to its mandate to apply zoning rules in a consistent manner. We agree. An abrupt reversal would shake the confidence of our local real estate industry, as well as global real estate investors and lenders. This matters because capital is borderless. It is free to move to cities or countries with more stable regulatory environments, where investors can be sure rules won’t change retroactively and without prior warning.

The problem has always existed, but it’s getting worse. A growing number of well-funded, anti-development groups are now seeking to stonewall legal development over mythical concerns about shadows or to preserve their unobstructed waterfront views. Even important cultural institutions like the American Museum of Natural History have been subject to such anti-development neighborhood challenges.

These crusades are bogging down our agencies, undermining the very protocols that enable them to operate efficiently, in accordance with the law, and constraining our city’s ability to build enough housing for our growing population.

The experts say we’re not building fast enough to keep pace with the needs of our growing city. A recent report by NYU’s Furman Center found that though the city’s housing stock grew by nearly 8% between 2000 and the end of 2016, the adult population has increased by almost 11%. The analysis highlights an increase in the demand for housing at every income level.

But the supply isn’t meeting those demands.

If NIMBYism prevails in this arcane case and if the interpretation of our laws becomes subject to political whim or subjective criteria, New York City will be worse off for it. Development will be costlier, as capital will demand a premium to compensate for unknown regulatory risk, and the city will become less affordable than it is today.

Simply put, creating an uncertain climate for investment to pacify an exclusionary vocal minority is terrible public policy.