Want Housing? Vote for City Charter Revisions.
By Alec Pruchnicki
This election day there will be five proposals that affect the building of new housing in New York City. The first is a technical adjustment that improves city mapping records. The fifth suggests moving election day in NYC to correspond to presidential elections. But proposals two to four change housing protocols and are designed to increase the amount and speed of new housing. The goal is to address the need for new housing that virtually everyone agrees we need.
Presently, new housing is usually decided by the City Council, with the mayor signing on (or being over-ridden by the Council). Zoning changes are reviewed by a ULURP committee (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) which includes input from the City Planning Commission, local Community Board, Borough President, City Council, and Mayor. One tradition is that a City Council member from the district where the building is proposed almost always has veto power over the construction. This is not written into law, only the Council as a whole can vote to approve or disapprove the project. Over the years Council members find it much easier to veto a project, satisfy NIMBY opponents who don’t want it for a variety of reasons, and get backed up by the Council. This has been repeatedly cited as one of the major stumbling blocks to new construction throughout the city. The charter revisions proposals are aimed at changing this tradition.
Proposal 2 attempts to speed up the approval process and, presumably, give more power to the City Planning Commission and less to ULURP, with further review by the City Council if needed. It also attempts to speed up approvals for construction in districts that have done little building in the past. But the mayor appoints seven of the 13 members of the City Planning Commission and this might significantly increase the mayor’s power.
Proposal 3 fast tracks smaller projects and infrastructure changes also with eventual referral to the City Council.
Proposal 4 establishes a panel composed of the Mayor, Borough President of the effected borough, and City Council Speaker which can override disagreements, possibly from the opposing City Council member or even the Council itself. I’m not completely sure about the details of this or who has the absolute final say.
The details about these proposals are still being publicized but a few objections have already surfaced. Since the mayor appoints the majority of members of the City Planning Commission might this be too much mayoral power? I’m not sure if this is because there is opposition to Mayor Adams already or if it applies to any mayor. Would the appointees from a Mayor Mamdani be more acceptable to the public than from Mayor Adams? But I think that politicians in New York are a lot more diverse and argumentative, even if appointed by the same mayor, than the Republican invertebrates who populate Congress. And as any politician knows, today’s supporter or protégé can be tomorrow’s primary opponent if the opportunity is right.
Another objection is that the review panel of the Mayor, Borough President, and City Council Speaker might have too much power. But these individuals are elected officials and could, if the issue is controversial enough, be subject to voter complaints. The City Council Speaker is elected by council members and if too many council recommendations are rejected that could imperil re-election as speaker. Also, these three office holders might be aiming for higher office and too much rejection of popular opinion could come back to haunt them in future runs for another office.
I don’t know all the details of these three proposals, but I do know that they are designed to speed up and approve more housing for New York City. There will probably be readjustments of power and possibly some unintended consequences no matter how carefully the proposals are vetted. But to reject these proposals means that we will be continuing the same city policies that have led to the present crises in which we find ourselves.
Notice that I used the word “crisis” and not “problem.” I’m not an expert on the ins and outs of zoning, real estate construction, historic preservation, or any of the usual complications in this area, but I am somewhat of an expert on the people who go into that housing. Before I retired in March, I had a primary care geriatrics practice in a Medicaid supported, non-profit, community-run assisted living facility in Manhattan. The people I cared for were old, mostly poor, and somewhat debilitated or sick, who were looking forward to spending their last years in a comfortable or at least tolerable environment. Many came to us because the housing market in NYC failed them. If they improved and didn’t need the services we provided, they would sometimes look to move out of our facility back into the community. Often, they just couldn’t. The availability of affordable, decent, age friendly housing was so poor in Manhattan that it would usually take years on waiting lists before something appeared. It was heartbreaking.
How do you move from this situation to more appropriate housing? The public needs to realize that to build something new you need to accept at least a little bit of change. Sometimes in population density in a neighborhood, sometimes density in the schools, temporary construction inconvenience, demographic changes as rich neighborhoods get more diverse and poor neighborhoods get more gentrified, infringement or undermining of historic preservation, or something unforeseen. Something changes. Even when everyone is on the same page it is difficult to build adequate housing in densely populated New York City, but when we continue to fight among ourselves it becomes almost impossible. Vote for change. Vote for housing. Vote for the Charter revisions.
By all means – vote yes to the atrocious charter revisions if you want the Dapolito rec center torn down and a 600 ft ultra luxury tower in Gansevoort Market. Great article – let’s just destroy the whole neighborhood.