LETTERS to the EDITOR

What is a Crime?

I appreciate the civil character of your articles and the ability to express various opinions. In responding to Alec Pruchnicki’s Nov. 2024 article The Real Crime is Homelessness, I appreciate his position and conviction on the subject.

However, it is confusing to understand how the “real crime is homelessness,” since he doesn’t make the case for who is perpetrating the crime, and who is the victim of the crime. By implying that “NIMBY opponents of housing” are the criminals who cause the crime of homelessness, and that destroying an established necessity like Elizabeth Street Garden would solve the crime of homelessness, neither premise stands the smell test.

Destroying the beautiful garden space in exchange of a few more new housing units will not make the city better, it will only diminish it. There are far better ways to “solve” the homelessness crisis, starting with zoning changes to restore SRO units that were once plentiful in the city, and reduce parking requirements that now take up residential space. Of course, more full-time shelters and housing are needed to be built (not on park space) with community centers adjacent, to support a path to a resourceful life.

As the Ken Burns documentary National Parks; Our Country’s Best Idea reminds us, parks are places for renewal, healing, and community for all our citizens and visitors alike. We would be poorer without them, as testified by the many support letters from children and adults in the ESG area. Let’s hope the city makes a responsible decision.

­—Brian J Pape, AIA

NOISY NEIGHBORS

I am a resident of the West Village, Christopher Street, and am very frustrated by certain businesses in the neighborhood not addressing and/or taking responsibility for the behavior of their patrons.

My building is directly impacted by a very popular pizza spot whose customers line up in front of my building, blocking the entrance for residents, while also creating gridlock for pedestrians. Additionally, the street is regularly littered with pizza boxes and other trash left by their patrons. So much that neighboring businesses are receiving trash citations for that garbage.

Local residents have raised concerns to the restaurant directly which have been ignored for the most part. They put up a small sign asking people to be mindful, but do nothing to enforce it when the instructions are ultimately ignored. Signs put up by the building itself are ignored as well.

All of that said — I recognize the West Village is not the only place this occurs, and my building is not the only one facing this issue or similar issues. But the Village is very popular with influencers who are amplifying the issue by drawing significant crowds to the local businesses. Which in general is great — I love to see the neighborhood thriving. When I first moved to Christopher Street, many storefronts were empty, and they’re now almost 100% occupied. But the businesses need to play a part in positively contributing to the well being of the neighborhood.

I have seen examples of local businesses doing the right thing, including Apollo Bagels and Lil Sweet Treat who put up stantions and assigned a staff member to keep the very long line in order. I wish other businesses would take notice. Putting your Instagram followers ahead of your neighborhood supporters is not the way to go.

Thanks in advance for your attempt and consideration.

Sincerely, A West Village resident who loves NYC and the neighborhood and feels the need to speak up for myself and neighbors

“SEEING” OLDER WOMEN

Hats off to The Village View for running The Joy of Beginning to Know Who and What We Really Are. The “invisibility” of older women sadly extends into the worlds of journalism and publishing, so it was heartening to read Ms. Crawford’s wise and delightful article. More please!

—Jan Goldstein

COYHO — OH NO!

On December 5, our New York City Council will vote on a sweeping city-wide rezoning proposal named City of Yes for Housing Opportunity or COYHO. This proposal is 1,386 pages and rezones our entire city. An update of a 63 year-old zoning code is a good idea. It is being marketed innocuously as “a little more housing in every neighborhood”–but if you read it carefully, you are likely to be alarmed.

I live on Grand Street, where the Lower East Side meets Chinatown.  The reform calls this a “high density” neighborhood (like all of Manhattan, North Brooklyn, South Bronx, Long Island City, etc.). COYHO would be devastating for these areas. 

Removal of the Sliver Laws
The city’s sliver laws limit the height of a building narrower than 45 feet (most tenements or brownstones) to the width of its street.  In the Lower East Side and Chinatown, for instance, most streets are about 50 feet wide. So, the height limit for most buildings is about five stories. In the Upper East Side, where most streets are 60 feet wide and most avenues are 100 feet wide, the limits would be about 60 feet (six stories) and 100 feet (10 stories).

What might happen if COYHO passes and sliver laws are removed? My neighborhood, for example, is mostly zoned R7-2 and C6-1. The height limit would then be 85 feet (eight or nine stories). A developer who participates in the UAP program (more later) could build an 11 story building. If they buy air rights to a nearby landmark building, it could increase the height by another 20% without requiring any permit (“as of right”). In the C6-2 area bordered by Essex Street, Grand Street, Allen Street and East Broadway, height limits would triple from about 50 feet to respectively 115 feet, 145 feet and 174 feet. 

In the Upper East Side, which is mostly zoned R8-B or C1-9, the height limit would become 75 feet in the streets and 185 feet in the avenues. By participating in the UAP program, the developer could build a building 105 feet high in the streets and 235 feet high in the avenues. Buying air rights to a nearby landmark building could increase the height by another 20% “as of right.”

This would destroy the character and joy of New York’s neighborhoods. It would also transform most of these buildings into “soft sites” where developers are tempted to pay a lot of money to redevelop them, displacing the families living in modest, rent stabilized buildings and businesses on their ground story.

Universal Affordability Preference (UAP)
COYHO proposes to provide developers the right to make their building bigger than what zoning normally allows, if the additional space is made permanently affordable at 60% of the AMI.  (Developers will also, thanks to 485X, be completely exempt from property taxes for 35 years.)  “Bigger” ranges between 20%-77% bigger. In my neighborhood, mostly zoned R7-2 and C6-1, bigger means 45%. In the Upper East Side, it ranges 27%-40%.

Secondly, the affordability proposed is inadequate. It would provide apartments which are more expensive than the current median rent of an occupied NYC apartment. According to NYC Housing and Vacancy Survey, this is $1,641 in 2023. (60% of AMI currently translates into: studio at $1,630; 1BR at $1,747; 2BR at $2,097; 3BR at $2,422.) Note that there is nothing stopping the city to require every development to include affordable units without allowing the development to be larger.

Landmark Air Rights Transfers
The proposed reform would allow landmarks to sell air rights to developers on eight surrounding blocks, allowing the building to be up to 20% larger–without any commitment for affordability.  This will create opportunities for more “soft sites” ripe for redevelopment and more displacement. (This can be cumulated with both the removal of sliver laws and the UAP program.)

Campus Infill
The rezoning proposes to double or triple apartment units on “towers in the park” campuses, such as NYCHA (technically private section 8) and places like Stuyvesant Town.  This is grossly excessive. While there are talks of exempting NYCHA from this development, privately owned campuses could still be redeveloped in this radical way.  The height limit for the additional towers is deemed “contextual” at approximately 20 stories.

Conversion from Commercial to Residential
COYHO would make it easier to convert commercial or office buildings into residential buildings.  But in Chinatown, lifting the special protection guaranteed by its C6-1G and C6-2G zoning (which requires community input before conversions), could prove fatal for economic activities in that neighborhood. None of these redevelopments require any commitment for affordability or rent stabilization.

Premise of COYHO:  NYC needs more housing units.  Does it ?
I would be remiss if I did not address the premise of COYHO:  New York City’s so called “housing shortage.” According to the US Census American Community Survey, since 2006, New York City’s population has increased by 121,000 while housing units have increased by 368,000. There is one housing unit for every 2.27 New Yorkers, the highest rate ever.

Instead of lowering prices, these new units, which are typically more expensive than those previously on the market, have contributed to making housing less affordable. It’s worth noting that in New York City, more than 300,000 units (10% of the housing units) are not used as a primary residence by an owner or a tenant. They are not officially considered “vacant” because they are neither for rent nor for sale.

Sounder policies to make it more affordable for New Yorkers to lodge themselves
According to the NYC Housing and Vacancy Survey, in 2023, among the 1,174,000 units which cost less than $1,650 per month, 13% are public housing units, 49% are rent stabilized, 33% are market rental and 4% are rent controlled or other. Note that 87% of units priced at less than $1,650 are not subsidized.  

Instead of subsidizing developers:

  • Better enforce rent stabilization laws for traditional rent stabilized units and for units created by 421-a and 485x incentives.
  • Expend the universe of rent stabilization.
  • Encourage and protect naturally occurring market rate affordable units.  For instance, the city could provide property taxes abatements to landlords offering units priced below the median rent (currently $1,641).  
  • Keep parts of COYHO facilitating the creation of single room occupancy (SRO) units or accessory dwelling units (ADU).  
  • Entertain NYS Assembly Member Emily Gallagher’s proposal to create a NYS Social Housing Development Authority which would finance the creation of truly affordable, non-for-profit habitations. 
  • Join Seattle, Albuquerque, Arizona, North Carolina and others in lawsuits against RealPage over its “YieldStar.” Their revenue management software enables property managers to share rental pricing data and collude in price fixing. 
  • Tax empty homes, making it less attractive to use real estate as an investment and using the proceeds to lower property taxes, hence directly reducing the cost of housing.   The policy of giving money and other giveaways to developers has not worked and should be retired. The COYHO proposal would be hurtful rather than helpful for New Yorkers and for New York City.
    As it is written today, I think the COYHO proposal would be, for all the reasons above, hurtful rather than helpful for New Yorkers and for New York City.

—Laure Travers, a Housing Researcher in the Lower East Side of Manhattan