A home for us
Following months of public conversations, Mayor Adams Thursday released the draft of one of the three planks of his City of Yes plan, dealing with housing opportunity. Among other proposals, the draft would allow buildings to increase their size by 20% over their typical allowance if they make the additional housing permanently affordable, legalize accessory dwelling units and get rid of unnecessary parking. Excellent.
The almost 800-page length of the plan seems intimidating, and there certainly is a lot of technical detail here, but the bottom line is more, more and more housing, which is what New York needs in all of its neighborhoods.
But the city’s tools are limited. The real power to boost housing lies with property tax breaks which must be approved in Albany, where despite Gov. Hochul’s well-meaning effort for years, the Democratic politicians in the state Senate and the Assembly dither and dicker, making the state budget run later and later without adding a single unit of housing.
There is talk now of some kind of a deal having been reached, but the details are uncertain and it may not be finalized. With such unreliable partners in government, Adams was right not to wait and proceed as best he could.
Adams understands that we can’t let overly restrictive zoning prevent the construction of housing, and we can’t let this construction take place without considering the need for various bands of affordable and market-rate housing.
Building affordable housing must be accomplished through a variety of carrots and sticks, including something like allowing larger developments if they preserve permanent affordability, which is what the Adams plan has.
The city must ensure that some of it is truly affordable even to the lowest-income New Yorkers; and space for dynamic small businesses is crucial to the economic health of the city.
Some advocates contend that the proposals remain too business-friendly, or doesn’t hit the right level of affordability. Others will argue it’s too aggressive or misguided as a concept. That’s a natural part of the process for a plan that could significantly impact the city we all love, and which is to some extent envisioned as a way of ensuring its long-term viability. There will continue to be some push and pull in the next few weeks.
However, what should be dismissed offhand is anything that too heavily emphasizes “neighborhood character,” property values, or fretting over increased density. These tedious arguments excel at missing the point, which is that a lack of housing stock threatens affordability and quality of life in all of New York, and there’s no way to dodge this by holding firm against development.
The bucolic character of any particular neighborhood is going to matter little as the current residents are priced out. For those who desperately want to live in a suburb, we’ll remind you that there are several in the immediate vicinity of the five boroughs. This is New York City.
Other concerns, around the exact formulas to ensure that the poor, the working class and the middle class all have a place in the city or ensuring that services can still be delivered to denser neighborhoods, are worth hashing out.
But the mayor has put forward a good start, without waiting for Albany.