Image from Mayoral Photography Office
As New York City faces an urgent housing crisis and record levels of homelessness, Mayor Eric Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan has taken a significant step forward. The ambitious zoning reform proposal, designed to increase housing across the city, has garnered both support and controversy as it moves closer to a decisive vote in the City Council. However, this critical moment comes at a challenging time for the Adams administration, which is dealing with federal investigations and recent allegations. The mayor himself recently indicted on corruption charges, although he has denied such allegations.
Despite the controversy, City Hall last week refuted any suggestion that the legal scrutiny might undermine the success of the mayor’s housing initiative, which aims to overhaul restrictive zoning regulations that have hindered our city’s growth and contributed to the soaring cost of living. “We have a housing crisis, and we have to address that,” Mayor Adams emphasized in a press briefing on Tuesday, just one day before news of his indictment. He expressed his expectation that council members would vote conscientiously on the matter.
Billed by the administration as a strategy to address the housing crisis by building more houses in every neighborhood, the plan is extremely long, even with the draft having over 1,300 pages. It has undergone review by all five borough presidents, four of whom endorsed it, and most of the city’s 59 community boards, where it has faced substantial criticism, particularly in many outer borough neighborhoods. The “City of Yes for Housing” includes several key elements designed to simplify the building process. These include facilitating the construction of accessory dwelling units, shared housing models, and conversions of offices to residential spaces. The plan also proposes to allow the building of homes above commercial premises in low-density areas and supports constructing larger buildings, ranging from three to five stories, near subway stations and other transit hubs. Additionally, the proposal aims to abolish minimum parking requirements for new developments—a point of contention that critics argue complicates and increases construction costs. It also offers a 20 percent density bonus for developers who build in certain areas, provided the additional units are income-restricted.
Dan Garodnick, Chair of the City Planning Commission, mentioned the dire statistics that caused the crisis: a 1.4 percent rental vacancy rate, with half of the city’s renters spending a third of their income on housing, and affordable housing lotteries attracting thousands of applicants. When there aren’t enough homes available, New Yorkers suffer from high rents, displacement, gentrification, whihc pretty much makes it impossible for the average New Yorker to own a house. The approved version of the City of Yes included certain modifications, notably excluding NYCHA from the infill proposal intended to simplify housing construction on zoning lots with existing buildings, such as those owned by educational or religious institutions. Additionally, public housing, governed by federal land use rules, is already engaging in specific development projects under those regulations. DCP also revised a condition within the 20 percent density bonus provision, which initially allowed developers to construct additional affordable housing off-site but imposed a 10-year limit. This sunset period was removed for projects in high-density R-10 districts, reflecting the city’s highest residential zones.
The City of Yes plan received approval from the commissioners with a 10-3 vote. Among those opposed was Commissioner Leah Goodridge, a former tenant attorney, who expressed concerns about the plan’s affordability provisions, calling them inadequate for addressing the needs of low-income residents. She criticized the 20 percent density bonus, which requires developers to allocate units to households earning 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). Because of her 11 years of experience as a tenant rights attorney, she emphasizes her experience with the struggles of low-income New Yorkers, such as Uber drivers and home health care workers, who face eviction or struggle to find affordable housing.
Other commissioners raised concerns about various parts of the plan, such as the removal of parking mandates, which they argued could disproportionately affect residents in outer boroughs with fewer transit options. However, others mentioned that developers could still opt to build parking, albeit without the obligation. Some commissioners who supported the proposal nevertheless encouraged the City Council to consider their own modifications. As the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan advances toward its final stages, the diverse perspectives among commissioners shows the importance of balancing the need for reform with concerns about equity and practicality. The City Council needs to ensure that the proposal has addressed the proper needs of New Yorkers.
Thank you for any other informative website. The place else could I get that kind of info written in such an ideal manner? I’ve a undertaking that I’m simply now operating on, and I’ve been at the look out for such info.
There are other articles on this website if you would like to check them out!
It’s wild that half of NYC renters are spending a third of their income on housing. This crisis isn’t sustainable
If four out of five borough presidents support this plan, why is there so much resistance from community boards
The removal of parking mandates is a great step forward. NYC needs housing more than it needs more parking lots
Maybe in Manhattan, but outer boroughs rely on cars. This plan ignores people who live far from subways
Dan Garodnick is right because when there aren’t enough homes, regular New Yorkers suffer the most. We can’t keep pushing this problem away because WE are suffering
Exactly. A 20% density bonus sounds nice, but if it’s only for people making 60% of AMI, that still leaves out a huge chunk of low-income New Yorkers.
Meanwhile, the outer boroughs keep getting ignored. If you don’t live near a subway, you’re screwed.
developers can still build parking, they’re just not forced to. Why make housing more expensive just to mandate empty parking spots?
Because some of us don’t have the luxury of living near the subway. Not everyone can bike to work.
Leah Goodridge is one of the few people actually looking out for working-class New Yorkers because 60% of AMI is not affordable for Uber drivers
he plan sounds promising, but the 20% density bonus should require deeper affordability, not just 60% AMI
It’s concerning that low-income New Yorkers, the ones most impacted by this crisis, aren’t at the center of this conversation.
The 1,300-page proposal is ridiculous. how are regular people supposed to understand what’s in it
I’m confused by this too because why do we need 1,300 pages to for this
Every neighborhood in NYC fights any change. They need to explain everything to get past the opposition and have the info clearly shown
yeah but 1,300 is a lotttt like imagine how long it took them to make it
he City of Yes could be a game-changer but only if done right. It needs stronger protections for low-income tenants
That’s my concern too. If this just accelerates gentrification, it’s not a real solution
To sum it up, we need more housing and stronger rent protections. Without both, landlords will just keep rising up prices no matter how many houses get built.
The City Council has a huge responsibility here. If they get this wrong, we’ll be stuck with even higher rents
🙁 Let’s hope it works
I have a feeling it will work out. It has to
Accessory dwelling units and office-to-residential conversions are great ideas. We need creative solutions to this crisis
OOO that is pretty smart by using offices that aren’t being used
Uber drivers, home health care workers, teachers—these are the people struggling the most. This plan should be focused on them
homeless and low-income people in general. We shouldn’t just limit it to three job occupations
Leah Goodridge is right to push back. Developers shouldn’t get bonuses unless they commit to real affordability.
Agreed. We don’t need more ‘affordable’ housing that only middle-class or rich families can afford
How are we still relying on housing lotteries? Thousands of people apply for a handful of spots which is simply not sustainable. Why is basic necessities a game of luck bruh