New York Has a YIMBY Governor

[hauntedheadnc]

New York Has a YIMBY Governor: Kathy Hochul’s modest housing plan practically counts as radical for America’s most exclusionary suburbs.

You could hear the hints of a radical idea in New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s State of the State Address on Tuesday. Introducing her efforts to fight the state’s high cost of living, she zeroed in on housing—“everyone’s largest expense.”

One person’s cost is another person’s value, and efforts to lower housing costs often fail once voters realize such policies inevitably amount to officials saying, “We want to decrease the value of your home.” Nevertheless, it was refreshing to hear the governor describing housing like someone who needs it, rather than someone who has it. (In reality, she owns a pair of waterfront condos in Buffalo and a house in Virginia.)

Hochul was introducing what she calls the New York Housing Compact, a suite of proposed laws that put local zoning rules in the crosshairs. That New York has created only a third as many homes as jobs over the past decade, Hochul said, can be blamed on “local land-use policies that are the most restrictive in the nation.” The Empire State is late to this party, though it’s not Hochul’s fault. New York has done virtually nothing to address its housing shortage over the past decade, even as California, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts—four other high-cost states—experiment with various ideas to override onerous local rules that restrict the supply of new homes. Not coincidentally, New York’s population has gone into decline. “People want to live here,” Hochul continued, “but local decisions to limit growth mean they cannot. Local governments can and should make different choices.”

That about sums up the character of the Housing Compact, which urges local governments to do better with the same trust and good faith you might bring to counseling a wayward but sorry teenager. In reality, though, Hochul is dealing with a band of recalcitrant, remorseless ne’er-do-wells. “Her goal is to turn Brookhaven into the Bronx,” wrote State Assemblyman-elect Edward Flood, from Long Island, on Twitter. “Hard pass!”

***

Hochul is right that when it comes to building places for people to live, New York City’s suburbs are the worst in the nation. The fair-housing drama of Show Me a Hero is not ancient history; it took Westchester more than a decade to comply with a federal affordable housing settlement reached in 2009, during which time the county executive attacked the obligation to build affordable housing as “social engineering.” New York suburbs build less housing per capita than their peers around Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.—and it’s not particularly close. Nassau County, the Long Island proto-suburb where Levittown is located, is one of the slowest-growing suburbs in the country.

***

Nor is New York City doing a particularly good job. Despite being one of the most expensive places to live in the world, during the 2010s the city permitted “40 percent fewer units per capita than San Francisco, half as many as Boston, and nearly two-thirds less than Washington, D.C.,” according to an analysis by the Citizens Budget Commission, a local watchdog. The supertalls are a red herring; between 2010 and 2017, New York’s housing stock grew at a lower rate than Detroit’s.

***

The first big idea is to require all jurisdictions in the New York metro area to grow their housing stock by 3 percent every three years. It’s a goal so modest that Westchester and New York City are close to meeting it already, though it would prompt a more significant shift in the toniest small towns, as well as on Long Island. (Nassau County would have to increase permits threefold, though would still be building little in absolute terms.)

The second obliges communities with Metropolitan Transportation Authority train stations to rezone for greater density within a half-mile of the stop. Her policy book does not specify what that means, though according to the Real Deal, the threshold is 25 homes per acre—equivalent to three-story apartment buildings or clusters of single-family homes, but still recognizably suburban, with lots of green space.

Other ideas from Hochul include:

• renewing a property tax abatement for new construction within New York City, which has existed in one form or another for decades before lapsing a few years ago;

• lifting a cap on the size of apartment buildings in New York City;

• somehow making it easier to convert offices into housing;

• relaxing some environmental restrictions around housing creation;

• legalizing basement apartments; and

• offering $250 million in grants for infrastructure like sewers or sidewalks that supports new housing density.

[chris08876]

NJ has somewhat filled the void or aided with the demand because there have been sizable developments near rail corridors on the NJ side, along with Hudson County, Essex County... but yes, the LI suburbs do need higher growth. Kathy is right, people do want to live here and the NIMBYS in those suburbs in LI have stifled growth.

If they build, folks will come and the state needs to take a heavy handed approach to force this. For long term prosperity. Reinstating the 421A tax abatement, upzoning for the core city, and forcing higher density within a radius around transit stations is key. Cutting down on environmental regulation is a plus, and Kathy gets this. Mitigating the red tape...

[Innsertnamehere]

It seems like most suburban growth in the NYC metro of the last several decades has been in New Jersey, honestly.

These seem like quite small, modest steps, to be honest. Only a 3% increase a year? That's small potatoes, especially if you are starting from basically 0 already. Build 30 units a year because you are some super NIMBY suburb? Congrats, in a decade, they will have to build 40! wow!

[chimpskibot]

In all honesty, NY state has the same problem the UK has; A southern region that finances the rest of the state with an overall declining northern population/economy. The problem is the housing costs in the southern region are stifling growth and pushing out low and middle income workers to Connecticut, NJ and Pennsylvania. I also think the loss of densification in working class neighborhoods in favor of wealthier/higher educated residents will financially come back to bite the city in the coming decades. At this point the downstate region has to keep attracting residents for the rest of the state to survive.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ape-stagnation

[jd3189]

Yeah. The good thing about the NY metro though is that it is the most commuter rail-covered metro in the nation. If density was allowed to increase around stations in Metro North, Long Island Railroad, and NJ Transit, that would take some pressure from the Five Boroughs.

NYC needs to embrace public transportation and car-lite infrastructure even more than ever before. It’s already a shitty experience to drive through Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. Queens isn’t all that different.

If most of the streets and avenues were replaced with bus only lanes and connected bike lanes, that could paradoxically improve car traffic. Most of the cars that should be on the road should be taxis, Ubers, Lyfts, etc. Private vehicles are a pain to find parking for and all the fees and tolls should encourage folks to just take the subway into the city as well as other means ( bus, taxi, paratransit, etc.) If people still need a private car, rentals can be available for use. But the goal should be to develop larger footprints of walkable areas in NYC. No other place in the US has this much potential.

Edit: to add, NYC may need another Robert Moses type personality to lead this out. But instead of being car centric, this person would usher in a revival of the city beautiful movement.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

These seem like quite small, modest steps, to be honest. Only a 3% increase a year? That's small potatoes, especially if you are starting from basically 0 already. Build 30 units a year because you are some super NIMBY suburb? Congrats, in a decade, they will have to build 40! wow!

A minimum 3% increase is huge. These are wealthy, ultra-NIMBY suburbs with the same population today as in 1960. If you could get 3% housing growth every three years, it would be amazing.

And these communities don't currently build net 30 units a year. Many have net-negative housing units, due to mini-mansions replacing multiple smaller homes. Any housing growth would be nice.

A good example is Garden City, LI. Population around 23k. Population was higher in 1960 than today. Housing stock is actually declining every year, as modest homes get demolished.

Garden City has a bit fewer than 8k housing units. The new regulation requires a minimum of 240 net new units per 3 years, which hasn't happened in Garden City since the 1950's. There zero vacant land, so this will almost certainly be multifamily infill, in existing business districts, near rail stations.

And Garden City is perfect for infill. It's 100% walkable, all sidewalks, multiple rail stations. You could live without a car, and walk to almost everything. But the community is ultra-NIMBY, so won't change unless the state mandates change.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It seems like most suburban growth in the NYC metro of the last several decades has been in New Jersey, honestly.

Sorta, but that's an incomplete picture.

NJ, overall, has traditionally been a bit less NIMBY than NY and CT, and a bit less built-out, so there was a bit more sprawl in the postwar decades. And there's existing state law in NJ that mandates communities build housing, which NY now seeks to emulate. CT recently changed state law to also mandate new housing.

But apples-apples, I'm not sure the three states are that different. A rich NJ town will be about as NIMBY as a rich Westchester town or a rich CT town. A progressive, rail-oriented town in NJ won't be distinct from a progressive rail-oriented town on LI.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And Garden City is perfect for infill. It's 100% walkable, all sidewalks, multiple rail stations. You could live without a car, and walk to almost everything. But the community is ultra-NIMBY, so won't change unless the state mandates change.

Looked in Google Maps and the first thing I saw was...a vacant double lot, directly adjacent to a rail station.

Seems to have been empty since at least 2009 as well. Shocking to me that nothing has been built there - not even just a pair of houses.

[Innsertnamehere]

Is it 3% new housing stock annually (ie a town with 10,000 units has to build 300 units a year) or a 3% annual increase in annual housing production (ie a town with 100 units completed every year has to build 103 next year, 106 the year after, etc)?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Looked in Google Maps and the first thing I saw was...a vacant double lot, directly adjacent to a rail station.

Seems to have been empty since at least 2009 as well. Shocking to me that nothing has been built there - not even just a pair of houses.

LOL, I stand corrected.

Probably used to have some small, old houses, and got demolished, and landowner is in litigation to get something McMansiony built. 15 years sounds about right.

There's some gorgeous historic school in Garden City, and the existing village leadership is so opposed to multifamily that they would rather demolish the school than convert it to housing. And this would be luxury housing. The people are nuts, and there needs to be some state oversight.

Also, Garden City has 100-year-old apartment buildings that are very desirable. It isn't like multifamily isn't part of the existing context. It was more or less built out by the early 1950's, and has multiple, high quality commercial districts.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Is it 3% new housing stock annually (ie a town with 10,000 units has to build 300 units a year) or a 3% annual increase in annual housing production (ie a town with 100 units completed every year has to build 103 next year, 106 the year after, etc)?

It's 3% increase in housing stock every three years, so basically mandating a minimum 1% increase in housing stock for all communities. In your example, minimum 100 units per year.

It sounds modest, but for the targeted communities, essentially nothing has been built for decades besides teardowns (which don't count). The rule would mean maybe 2 new apartment buildings per year, which would be crazy for a Garden City.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LOL, I stand corrected.

Probably used to have some small, old houses, and got demolished, and landowner is in litigation to get something McMansiony built. 15 years sounds about right.

There's some gorgeous historic school in Garden City, and the existing village leadership is so opposed to multifamily that they would rather demolish the school than convert it to housing. And this would be luxury housing. The people are nuts, and there needs to be some state oversight.

Also, Garden City has 100-year-old apartment buildings that are very desirable. It isn't like multifamily isn't part of the existing context. It was more or less built out by the early 1950's, and has multiple, high quality commercial districts.

Garden City seems much more Republican/Trumpier than most of the surrounding areas. What are the local demographics?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Garden City seems much more Republican/Trumpier than most of the surrounding areas. What are the local demographics?

VERY Catholic. Essentially no Jews. Historically WASP. Has a very impressive Episcopal Cathedral.

I assume mostly upper middle class Italian-Irish-German Catholics. Probably a WASP remnant in the posh parts. And yes, very Republican, and even moreso under Trumpism.

On surface level, you'd think Garden City would shift Dem like in its equivalents in suburban Philly, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, etc., but nope. There's something about the white ethnic vote in this area, even in highly educated, affluent-leaning areas. See George Santos.

[ardecila]

The one guy I knew from Garden City in college was Greek Orthodox.

It's not like Garden City doesn't have space for more housing. Their downtown is masterplanned with walkable buildings lining 7th St and Franklin, and massive parking lots behind. It's like those sham New Urbanist communities that want the aesthetic of trad urbanism but everyone still drives everywhere. But in the 1920s when Garden City was built, it was still possible to build real trad urbanism!

There are also some scruffy industrial areas that will likely be the focus of redevelopment, which is a shame since it means the loss of some good jobs.

Or, if they don't want to see a bunch of new multifam buildings go up, they can legalize ADUs and let individual homeowners build coach houses, pool houses, in-law suites and the like. No aesthetic changes. That won't get them 3% growth, they'd have to permit 80 ADUs per year. But it's a start.

[Crawford]

Yeah, I suspect Garden City will meet the requirements by redeveloping a few scruffy blocks on the border with working class Hempstead, just to the south. There are already newer multifamily developments in Hempstead, near the Garden City border, that try and market themselves as Garden City location.

Also, Mineola, the denser, more middle-middle class town to the immediate north, has a number of TOD developments near the rail hub, with many more planned. They could probably squeeze some housing on the Mineola border, which appears mostly nonresidential.

But any of this will be after a bunch of kicking and screaming. Suburban NIMBYs are a tough bunch.

[eschaton]

So going back to the OP - when Hochul said 3% additional housing growth, she didn't mean everywhere right?

I mean, there's zero reason for additional units of housing in the vast majority of Upstate NY, outside of the major metros.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

So going back to the OP - when Hochul said 3% additional housing growth, she didn't mean everywhere right?

I mean, there's zero reason for additional units of housing in the vast majority of Upstate NY, outside of the major metros.

Right, the 3% regulation is just Downstate. Basically nowhere beyond suburban rail coverage, so probably not much past Poughkeepsie or thereabouts.

Outside of Ithaca, Saratoga, and a few other college or vacation towns, there's no housing shortage Upstate.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's something about the white ethnic vote in this area, even in highly educated, affluent-leaning areas. See George Santos.

And clearly that's working out great for them.

[chris08876]

Data source: the NYC Department of Buildings. Data aggregation and graphics credit: Vitali Ogorodnikov via NYY;

66+ million square feet worth of filings in 2022.

[chris08876]

Via NYGuy today (thought it would be good for this thread). Highlights the pipeline. NY is still a very strong office market.

Originally Posted by NYguy

From the Real Deal, a look at the future office pipeline. Some of these projects are mixed-use (with hotel or residential). So the numbers only show office and retail ammounts.