A key city planning board on Wednesday approved Mayor Eric Adams’ signature zoning proposal, a sweeping housing policy overhaul dubbed “City of Yes.” The vote positions the embattled mayor for another showdown in the City Council.
The City Planning Commission passed the plan by a 10-3 vote, but it faces tighter odds in the City Council. The City of Yes plan — intended to increase the city’s housing supply and bring costs down — has already ignited a political firestorm in several New York communities, and Council members for months have been facing pressure from constituents to halt several aspects of the proposal.
A familiar complaint rests on the plan’s proposed elimination of parking mandates. Current city rules require new construction to include specific amounts of off-street parking, and some New Yorkers, especially outer-borough residents in areas poorly connected to public transit, worry that Adams’ proposal to lift those requirements would leave them with few options.
Others have staked out their opposition on their desire to preserve the character of a neighborhood; some have voiced skepticism around affordability.
“I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing this proposal, and I am still torn,” said Gail Benjamin, a commissioner who Adams appointed early in his mayoralty. She ultimately voted to move the plan forward.
Over years of experience, Benjamin has found that “most communities have wanted more parking, not less parking,” she continued. “I understand this will not prohibit a developer from building parking, but I think in a number of instances, it will limit the parking that is built.”
Adams will now have to navigate an unusual dynamic on the Council, where some of his more reliable allies in the body — Republicans and centrist Democrats who align with the mayor on issues like public safety — are among the plan’s most vocal critics. He’ll likely have to rely on progressives who have felt antagonized by the mayor — and are now key to the plan’s survival.
In a statement following the commission’s vote, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams did not weigh in on any of the plan’s specifics — but called on the public to continue to speak up.
“As the Council thoroughly reviews the administration’s proposed zoning changes, we will prioritize solutions to the full range of housing challenges facing New Yorkers,” Speaker Adams said.
She agreed with the mayor that the city was in “a major housing crisis,” and invited constituents to provide their thoughts on how the city should respond. The mayor was more prescriptive in his backing of what may be his mayoralty’s defining housing proposal.
“The only way to solve this crisis is to build more,” Mayor Adams said in a statement after the vote. “Now, it is time for the City Council to meet the moment.”
Supporters have urged skeptics to embrace what they deem as the plan’s potential to bolster overall affordability. Under city rules, developers would be forced to set aside a certain percentage of new units for lower-income tenants — and guarantee who gets them by imposing income caps for eligible renters. The plan’s backers have also pointed to research showing that increasing housing supply has broad-scale implications, like potentially slowing rent increases.
“When there aren’t enough homes to go around, New Yorkers suffer: from high rents, displacement and gentrification pressure and homelessness, while homeownership becomes increasingly unattainable,” City Planning Commission Chair Dan Garodnick said before casting his emphatic “yes” vote. “We don’t have to live this way.”
A few commissioners still dissented to the proposal — and pushed back on what they see as unfair criticism of their skepticism. The mayor has at times gone on the offensive to defend his push to build more housing, including a recent instance in which he likened opposition to new housing likely to benefit “single Black men” to “Jim Crowism.”
Leah Goodridge, who voted against the plan, said that some supporters have implied that City of Yes naysayers are “only white homeowners in Staten Island and Queens who are so called NIMBYs, and that’s it, and so this project is for Black and brown [New Yorkers].”
“I really reject that narrative,” said Goodridge, who was appointed by Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. “There were lots of Black and brown New Yorkers who came and testified against this project, she added. “Precisely the wording and the framing that they used are, ‘Why are we giving away the city to private developers? What are we getting in return?’”