A 15-35 losing record sounds pretty bad, but as far as Community Board support for pro-housing initiatives goes, it’s practically a win.
That’s the current status of Mayor Adams’ City of Yes housing proposal, which would among other things allow larger housing developments that include affordable housing, eliminate parking requirements, and take other common-sense steps to build out more housing in a parched NYC. Four borough presidents are now also on board, but the actual determinative vote will come later this year with a vote by the City Council.
This is as good a test as any in recent memory for how New York’s progressive legislators respond to a real and concrete opportunity to carry out their ideals. Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom in some circles has long been that additional housing construction gentrifies neighborhoods by bringing new people and pushing local residents out. Decades out from that perception, there are piles of evidence showing the opposite is true.
In areas of high demand, as all of New York City essentially is, building more housing across income strata — from affordable through luxury, with the right mix dependent on the surrounding neighborhood — lets people find new places to live instead of competing for the artificially low supply. Plenty of economic dynamics are more complicated than the base supply-and-demand model that everyone learns in grade school, but there’s a reason that this is the default observation of markets.
The areas that seem most opposed to the new construction are those that already have low density, meaning they are asserting their right to not do their part in keeping the city as a whole affordable. As much as some of these residents will claim that these proposals hurt longtime New Yorkers, it is they that would see low income and middle class New Yorkers pushed out, just as long as they get to keep their own slice intact.
To that, we say: if you want to live in the suburbs, there are plenty of them east, west and north of here. If the “quality of life” you’re seeking is low density, quiet neighborhoods, then the hinterlands await, though of course that’ll mean fewer of the amenities of living in a large and cosmopolitan city like NYC. Perhaps you can’t actually have it both ways, getting the benefits but making no compromises.
Beyond being selfish, it’s a fool’s errand; the demand will come for your neighborhood, too, and the rents will rise when there’s not enough housing stock to keep up. Rather than saddle some neighborhoods with the bulk of the housing production, isn’t the most sane thing to do to spread this task out to all communities, not only helping bring down rents for everyone but bringing economic activity and improving the living conditions of New Yorkers?
So even as the Community Board naysayers pile up, it’s good to see most of the borough presidents get on board in a big way (we don’t have very high expectations for Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, whose borough often seems to try to pretend it’s not in NYC at all). Next up is the Council, who should ignore all the NIMBY carping and take this chance to make a real difference for the future of the city they cumulatively represent.