The Hunting of the Snark:
A Tale of “City of Yes” for Housing Opportunity
By Layla Law-Gisiko
ON JULY 10TH, the City Planning Commission embarked on a marathon hearing to discuss the controversial “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” (COYHO). Photo courtesy of City of Yes for Housing via http://www.nyc.gov
In an extraordinary display of public engagement on July 10th, the City Planning Commission embarked on a marathon hearing to discuss the controversial “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (COYHO)” proposal. This session, akin to the mythical Hunting for the Snark, shattered all duration records, stretching over 15 hours and concluding near 1:00 AM on July 11. Despite the grueling length, the commissioners remained remarkably focused and posed highly insightful questions throughout. Much like the elusive Snark in Lewis Carroll’s poem, affordable housing appears as a mirage that all the seekers strive to capture.
A Spirited Crew of Hunters
A diverse cross-section of New Yorkers, from renters and homeowners to public housing tenants and homeless individuals, gathered like the intrepid crew in search of the elusive Snark. The overwhelming sentiment was one of skepticism and concern. Community members lined up to voice their fears that the COYHO proposal, as currently drafted, would fail to address the city’s housing affordability crisis and might even exacerbate it.
“Standing from early morning until the evening shadows deepened, I witnessed the unwavering dedication of New Yorkers committed to shaping their city’s future,” said one participant. Among the voices was Pamela Wolff, a Chelsea resident and community activist who spoke after midnight and was greeted by City Planning Commission Chair Garodnick with a cheerful “Good Morning.”
The Speculative Snark: Council Member Marte’s Insight
Council Member Christopher Marte of CD1 eloquently disputed one of the assertions, warning that in his district, speculation would leverage the text to maximize profits. “As for my recommendations,” Marte said, “they follow a simple rubric: who is it for, and what are we getting in return? When we convert office buildings to residential, they’re not going to be affordable. When we lose beautiful public buildings to luxury condos, our community suffers, when we fill NYCHA with new development, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers on the waitlist have to keep on waiting. When we build micro-apartments, our families will have to look elsewhere. Our yards will shrink, our air and light will be taken away and our rents will continue to rise. This is not a plan for New Yorkers. This is a plan for people who profit off New York. We cannot wait for affordability to trickle down. We need it now. And we need to mandate it.”
Trade organizations, lobbyists, and special interest groups, like a parade of cheerleaders, rallied merrily in favor of the proposal. They sang praises, their voices echoing with delight for the text’s grand and fanciful ambitions, as if it were a splendidly peculiar treasure chest they’d all longed to discover. It was a curious sight though to find REBNY, the powerful real estate lobby, expressing some reservations about their propensity to build affordable housing under the next text, a similar analysis made by civic groups, although REBNY reached a radically and diametrically different conclusion. It seemed a paradox, but upon closer inspection, it was chillingly illuminating. REBNY contended that the text would not offer a generous enough incentive for developers to build affordable housing.
The City Club of New York, of which I am the president, stood resolute against the proposal as currently drafted, and reminded the Commission that the intricacies of housing economics defy simplistic solutions. “Mere supply,” we cautioned, “does not mend the rift of affordability.” Our ‘no’ was not born of hostility but of civic duty, a call to refine a consequential proposal fraught with many shortcomings.
At 12:50 AM on July 11, Chair Garodnick brought the hearing to a close, but not without a final flourish: he extended warm birthday wishes to John Mangin, the architect behind COYHO and director of housing at the Department of City Planning.
The Final Chapter: Call to Action
As the COYHO proposal advances towards a series of votes, it has yet to win the confidence of New Yorkers. The diverse and passionate engagement at the hearing highlighted the importance of continued public involvement in shaping the final outcome. The City Planning Commission will vote in late August and the City Council will take its vote in the fall. Now is the time for New Yorkers to submit written comments and contact their council members to ensure their voices are heard in this crucial debate. The next steps are pivotal, and the collective input will be instrumental in refining a proposal that truly addresses the city’s housing needs.
The Quirks of the Quest
• Lack of Mandatory Affordable Housing Provisions: Critics argued that without such mandates, affluent neighborhoods are unlikely to see significant affordable housing development, exacerbating economic segregation and limiting housing options for low- and middle-income residents.
• Reduced Housing Quality Standards: The proposal allows for smaller windows, reduced setbacks, and no minimum unit sizes. “New Yorkers fought hard for housing quality, and a degradation of our standards is wrong,” proclaimed one opponent during the hearing.
• Discretionary Certifications for ULURP Actions: Converting these actions could reduce the power of elected council members, expediting development at the expense of local input and control.
Tales of Yesteryear: Lessons from the Past
Several historical case studies highlight the pitfalls of similar measures:
• Ladies’ Mile Historic District (2005): Rezoning led to thousands of new dwelling units but failed to produce affordable housing. Instead, it resulted in a 500% increase in average rents and a 150% increase in the cost per square foot, stimulating demand and driving up prices.
• MIH and ZQA (2015): Fresh off the gates after MIH, the ink barely dry on the new affordable housing zoning policy, the Adorama building in Manhattan came up for review. However, the project failed to yield any affordable housing units because the Department of City Planning sided with the developer, effectively negating the community’s advocacy efforts.
• Hudson Yards (2008): Hudson Yards endured a lengthy rezoning process, yet it now grapples with high residential vacancy rates with 38-50% of units unsold. Prices remain high and rents show no signs of decreasing. Sixteen years after the project’s approval, Hudson Yards Phase 2 has yet to begin. Promised affordable housing units, a school, and a park have not materialized. Instead, developers are now pursuing new zoning permits for a casino, which threatens to further diminish the already scarce affordable housing units.
Layla Law-Gisiko is the Chelsea District Leader.
