15 thoughts on “How Advocacy Has, and Hasn’t, Shaped De Blasio’s Housing Plan 2.0

  1. Downzonings are politically more popular than upzonings. NYC is dense enough and crowed enough as it is. deBlasio has to respect local communities zoning demands for their own neighborhoods. NYC doesn’t have the infrastructure to sustain much more growth.

  2. no one has yet to address the issue of what is the optimum size of the population for nyc. no thought of the relationship between population and economic growth. as i remember it, the bloomberg projection was 20 million for nyc in 2050. why?

    • No one in the deBlasio administration understands that all these new apartment towers, particularly in western Queens, are starting to max out the city’s water/sewer system. A very boring topic until a crisis hits.

  3. We fully support building more low cost housing. But please save the Elizabeth Street Garden Park. It is a rare gem that bring great peace and pleasure to lower East Side residents.

  4. Pingback: – Housing 2.0: ‘The Power of Advocacy’

  5. In an era of shrinking government housing subsidies, an economic rent cannot be achieved for a development without a larger portion of higher income units. The greater the number of lower income units (less than 60 percent AMI) reserved for a development, the greater the need for higher income units (60 percent AMI and above). It’s just a balance that must be played out in a era of declining subsidy. This, in turn, reduces the potential for lower income unit development, thus reducing housing opportunity for lower income households, and impacts the economic structure of lower income communities where, because of land costs and nimbyism, much affordable housing is built. In this way the development of affordable housing is itself a catalyst for area gentrification. Any thoughts?

    • That very topic came up today in the NY Times. Looks like in the real world higher income New Yorkers do not want to live in so-called mixed-income developments with troublesome lower income tenants.
      NYT – https://nyti.ms/2hIVB7o
      The higher income tenants rents were supposed to subsidize the lower income tenants rents. What now? Probably more subsidy money from taxpayers.

    • Yes, we think bigger and bolder. Use Community Land Trusts to move city-owned property (and others) into democratic, community-controlled, permanently affordable developments. Partner with Community Development Corporations and other not-for-profit developers that are not beholden to the same market forces to produce certain returns in a certain timeline (this makes funding much easier). We would still need to figure out funding this expansion of development, which we could (at least partially) do by stopping tax breaks to private developers for an affordable housing program that doesn’t provide nearly enough affordable housing, and actually makes things worse.

      If the issue is a shortage of affordable housing, building more market-rate housing isn’t meeting demand (not anytime soon), it’s just driving more people out of their homes and communities.

      Oh, and we should start lobbying Congress to allow cities to build more net new public housing.

  6. How about respecting the space of people already living here? The infrastructure cannot handle the additional population. NYC is no longer navigable – subways are surcharged, roads are congested 24/7. What next triple tandem buses?
    Someone really needs to say enough and that this growth has to stop.

  7. The waterfront portion of the CWG plan does not call for a downzoning. It calls for keeping the zoning the same in most of the area, upzoning low density property being used for storage to allow for high density housing AND MULTIPLE CONTROLS VIA THE ZONING TO ENSURE THAT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF HOUSING BUILT IN THIS VERY LUXURY MARKET ACTUALLY BENEFIT REGULAR NEW YORKERS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *