Letters to the Editor
September 2024
Housing Solutions Demand More than Status Quo Preservation: Embracing COYHO for a Dynamic Future
The lead story in the August Village View (A Tale of “City of Yes” for Housing Opportunity) was an opinion piece heavy on complaints and conjecture about the COYHO proposal, but lacking in solutions or ideas to actually increase housing units or improve affordability.
Affordable housing is more accurately referred to as “subsidized.” For example, a developer being allowed to construct a new apartment building on the condition that they offer some units at below market rents. By forcing developers to make part of a building affordable, all else equal, the other units must be built and priced in a way to make the project worth taking on – which means higher prices are required for the market rate units. The limited affordable units are disbursed through a lottery process or perhaps a very long wait list. This is a great outcome for the fortunate few, but no matter how many so-called affordable units are built, demand for housing priced artificially low will always exceed supply, leaving many others out in the proverbial cold. And the cries of not enough affordable housing will continue. Numerous studies have shown that rent control and affordability mandates do not improve the housing situation. If they did, why are the places with the strongest rent control policies and affordability restrictions, such as New York City and California, among the least affordable?
The way to make housing (or basically any resource that needs to be produced) more affordable is to create an abundance of supply. Unfortunately, our leaders have instead exacerbated shortages through zoning and land use restrictions, rent regulation, height restrictions and minimum unit and lot sizes – all of which restrict supply. Overzealous landmarking, parking requirements, and other red tape only frustrate development and increase costs commensurately. COYHO will loosen up unnecessary restrictions on housing supply through modest changes to the city’s zoning laws. It is not a silver bullet, but a step in the right direction.
Some residents, perhaps among them those who bought property years ago at significantly lower cost, have launched crusades against COYHO and other new developments in the name of preservation. They particularly dislike tall buildings (not in “character” with the neighborhood…a distinction only they can make), complain these will obstruct their views of other buildings they enjoy looking at, or their lives will be fundamentally altered by a new shadow occurring for about 20 minutes around sunset. Do they really believe there should be some arbitrary height restriction from now until kingdom come? The implication is that a given area should simply remain a certain way, for a specific use or purpose, despite the inherently dynamic nature of cities like New York. Imagine how much smaller — and more expensive — Manhattan would be if the Upper East Side had remained farmland, or zoned single family with minimum lot sizes. It is essential for our leaders and current homeowners to consider the needs of future generations, not just preserving the status quo.
—Bill Pullano
Dear Nada Hippy (They/ Them/Theirs)
Great to hear from you. And thank you for your comments.
Hippies was a term used by the mainstream to label our generation and box us into something they hated. None of us liked the name at all. It was an insult.
You seem to miss the point that a counterculture always exists. That is what the Village was and is even today. We need a strong counterculture to fight the mainstream. What does your counterculture support besides Ken and Barbie and cheap streaming?
This is what I wrote about and I quote: “The Village, once known as the epicenter of the counterculture has been swallowed by developers who gobble up history and create gentrified high rises of mediocrity. This has been going on since the Mayor Koch days. Let’s unite for housing controls and rent regulations for both residential and commercial real estate.”
I am advocating for rent controls. I also wrote about the Village artists: “We want our independent arts and artists back in the Village. The younger generation must demand their culture be rewired and respected. Artists must get paid a fair wage for their work. They must demand that their representatives fight for copyrights and artists’ rights.”
If you read my articles on streaming in the Village View, you would understand that streaming is not good for the independent artists. I would hope you would have more empathy for indie artists.. The only things they can sell are their CDs and DVDs. And yes, musicians can tour and play in bars and small clubs. Or filmmakers can do a one-night screening in a small theater if they are lucky. They don’t make much money doing any of that unfortunately.
There are some who believe that independent artists shouldn’t make money. It should all be free. And copyrights don’t matter. We who support artists need to push back and fight for the disenfranchised artists in our world. And the independent artists need to be paid a fair wage and they need to keep their copyrights and trademarks.
The streamers want more customers so the prices are really low. That is good for you apparently, but not good for the artists. Streamers have to adjust their prices to pay the indie artists properly. And not something like 50 bucks for every 500 streams. Can you imagine if the Real Estate business ran that way? It would give us really affordable housing.
BTW Barbie, the Movie, has plenty of theaters to play in around the word just like McDonald’s sells Big Macs all around the world. You don’t see Big Macs in the Village. By invading our arts theaters in the Village Barbie and other not real indie films have taken away the space of independent artists. Is it a sign of the future where there will be fewer art theaters? Or maybe no art theaters at all? To those art theaters who did not play Barbie in the Village, thank you.
My article was to advocate justice for artists and to try to bring young artists back to the Village by creating an Arts Center. In this and past articles I have used the example of how Manhattan Plaza subsidized housing in midtown has rejuvenated the Off Broadway and Broadway theater districts by renting subsidized apartments to young artists and seniors. Why can’t we do this in the Village?
Life does go on as you say. I too enjoy the ride especially when it is fair and just to all living people. The Village will get healthy in the future by bringing back the indie arts and artists. And giving them a place to live with a reasonable rent. Otherwise, the Village will be like Barbie land.
—Roger Paradiso
A Helpful Suggestion for the Republicans
So, RFK Jr. has suspended his campaign and is endorsing Trump. This might help our former president in the upcoming election, but here is a suggestion that might help him even more. Dump JD Vance from the ticket and replace him with RFK Jr.
There might be legal reasons that this can’t be done so late in the campaign but with the Supreme Court in Trump’s pocket I am sure they will find some legal excuse to accommodate the change. And we know they can act fast when they want to. Although Vance is weird enough for the Republican ticket, he is still an amateur when compared to RFK Jr. A joint Trump/RFK ticket will concentrate all the right-wing weirdness in one spot and it will be so much easier for MAGA voters to support them or sane voters to oppose them. If they take this advice, remember you heard it here first.
—Alec Pruchnicki
Congestion Pricing – We’re All Stuffed Up
As a New Yorker with friends and families in New Jersey, I took an interest in your August article Congestion Depression. Tracing the congestion problem back to the fleecing of Native Americans, along with the defecation impact of European immigrants and their horses is a unique perspective. I agree with the author — humans cause congestion and we’ve run out of places to put crap.
Let’s face it. New York is all stuffed up.
But seriously, what can we do about it? I’m not sure if the suggestions in the article were tongue in cheek. Clean energy monorails, light rails and trolley buses sound like great ideas. But free rides? Supported by ad sales? In the most competitive ad market in the world? Seriously. How would we pay the staggering cost of building and maintaining this infrastructure? And how many decades will it take to plan, fund, get approvals and construct it?
Bike lanes, green parks, walking malls are great. But subsidized housing if you don’t own a car? How would you monitor that? And why would you own a car if public transportation is free? Doubling trucker salaries for working the swing shift? How would that impact the cost of goods? And the questions go on.
Our streets are a mess. Crossing a street can be deadly. And as much as I’m an armchair engineer/traffic expert, I’m really just a regular New Yorker who wants to get across town without paying—or losing—an arm and a leg.
—Danny Novo
