WANTED: Affordable Bedrooms in the City that Never Sleeps

By Aidan Klarman, US Policy Reporter

New York City’s housing crisis is a complex tapestry of challenges that affects every corner of the Metropolitan Area. While migration, bureaucratic hurdles, and slow construction are often cited as the primary culprits, the underlying issue lies in exclusionary zoning laws and local land use restrictions. These regulations have become the invisible architects of our neighborhoods, often with unintended consequences (Thomas 2023). For example, housing prices in the NY Metropolitan Area jumped 20% in 2021. At the same time, 70% of residential areas in small and big cities alike restricted or banned apartment construction in some way, illustrating how affordability decreases when availability doesn’t meet demand (Hanley 2023).

The New York urban-suburban landscape is one where minorities and low-to-moderate-income families struggle to find affordable housing, and urban development is not just inefficient but historically segregated. This reality calls for urgent action – a comprehensive state policy to reform zoning restrictions, streamline processes, and remove unnecessary obstacles to high-density, affordable housing (Gray 2022).

The Zoning Conundrum: A Developer’s Challenge

Developers and those looking for housing in New York face a triad of legal-political obstacles in local government that zoning policy experts call blunt tools, subtle tools, and arbitrary requirements (Harvard Law Review 2022). Blunt tools are zoning and land-use laws explicitly limiting or banning denser housing construction in certain municipalities. In contrast, subtle tools are procedural constraints that increase costs for developers, intentionally disincentivizing development projects. These include prolonged public and site-plan review processes and restrictive zoning around historic sites (Kazis 2022). The most challenging are arbitrary requirements – unreasonable mandatory criteria for land development set by local governments. These include compulsory parking spaces, minimum lot size requirements, height and density limits, and architectural guidelines that often serve no practical purpose beyond complicating the construction process.

The Ripple Effect: Beyond Housing

The impact of these zoning practices extends far beyond the housing market, reshaping New York’s economy and society:

1. Housing prices have escalated dramatically. As construction rates plummet, especially for affordable multifamily housing, demand outpaces production, turning the housing market into a high-stakes competition.
2. Economic productivity is suffering. New York’s financial power stems from its diverse mix of professionals and workers. However, as high-density development gives way to suburban sprawl, we’re witnessing a disruption of economic accumulation and diversification.
3. Wealth distribution is becoming increasingly skewed. Restrictive zoning often reinforces a racial or wealth-based status quo, relegating minorities and low-income workers to underdeveloped communities lacking resources and opportunities.
4. Environmental impact is significant. Bans on multifamily units and ADUs promote car-centric living, increasing carbon emissions and traffic. Urban sprawl, induced by a lack of housing density, is taking its toll on our environment.
5. Freedom of mobility is being constrained. With limited options, residents are forced to choose between unaffordable city apartments or impractically distant suburban houses (Kazis 2022).

A Call for Change: Reimagining New York’s Housing Landscape

The solution to the housing policy issue requires state intervention to level the playing field. Reforms are needed to restrain local authorities from arbitrarily restricting development, formalizing criteria for new projects, and ending the case-by-case review process that impedes construction. One promising approach is to emulate Massachusetts’ Chapter 40B law (Barret 2017). This would provide a streamlined approval and state appeals process for qualifying new projects in zones with under 10% affordable housing stock. Since its implementation in the 1970s, 40B has allowed for flexible urban development that meets the needs of Massachusetts residents without causing a decrease in existing property values, a prospect commonly used to argue for zoning restrictions, especially in wealthy communities. Reports on the effects of 40B since its inception show an increase in affordable housing construction and diversification of specialized developments, all while market incentives replaced large state subsidies. Thus, 40B has the potential to increase the housing stock and reduce taxpayer spending through guided regulation (CHPA 2003). 

Another potential solution is SB162, proposed by NYS Senator Brad Holyman-Segal (Holyman-Segal 2024). This bill aims to eliminate parking requirements, modify mandatory minimum lot sizes, and legalize dense, affordable housing by limiting municipal authority to impose questionable restrictions. By removing arbitrary requirements like minimum parking spaces or minimum lot sizes, SB162 would make affordable housing projects easier to approve and faster to construct. Additionally, the bill would appropriate funds for the construction of duplexes and fourplexes to promote housing density. Even still, more comprehensive reforms are necessary. These would include liberalizing ADU regulations, eliminating single-family zoning, and removing off-site parking requirements. It is time to increase density in our suburbs, invest in public transportation, and create a New York that is accessible to all its residents.

The Stakes: More Than Just Housing

The implications of these zoning practices are far-reaching. When implemented incorrectly, they can perpetuate racial and income segregation, create inefficient suburban layouts that waste space and energy, and impact public health and economic productivity leading to even more housing scarcity. For example, immigrants make up 44.3% of the New York City labor force and add hundreds of billions in economic value, yet they also make up a staggering 18.6% of the city’s homeless population (DiNapoli 2024). Similarly, redlining and exclusionary zoning policies (among broader systemic inequities) have led African Americans to represent over 50% of NYC’s homeless, despite only being 24% of the population and 23.1% of the labor force (Wasow-Park 2024). Migrants, minorities, and low-income workers are essential labor in the service, food, public, and entertainment sectors. Diversity is one of New York’s economic strengths therefore unequal housing outcomes are not only unethical but counterintuitive to New York’s economic-demographic balance. When housing scarcity and the stresses of poverty take their toll, the delicate balance is disrupted, threatening the very essence of New York’s economic ecosystem.

While some may view zoning reform as government overreach, they fail to consider the need for oversight in local governance. It is the duty of the government to correct systemic imbalances that disrupt socio-economic growth and stability. If providing affordable and livable housing is among these duties, then overruling unjust local obstructions is paramount to fostering healthier, more equitable, and productive communities.

The Path Forward: A Blueprint for Change

As it stands, the need for comprehensive reform is clear; a policy that addresses all aspects of the issue is paramount. Drawing inspiration from Massachusetts’ Chapter 40B, streamlining the review process, and mandating affordable housing quotas would be a significant step forward. Likewise, the passage of SB162 would eliminate arbitrary requirements that unnecessarily complicate construction. Furthermore, it is crucial to deregulate ADUs, permit renovations to increase housing density and phase out single-family zoning. Combined with renewed investment in public transportation, these measures can reduce sprawl and pollution while consolidating population density.

The blueprint for a New York with sustainable, efficient, and affordable housing exists, and with the right reforms, it is well within reach. Now is the time for action – time to construct a future where housing is not merely a dream, but instead a reality for all New Yorkers.

References

Featured Image: Justin Brown, flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/justininsd/8650903114

Edsall, Thomas B. 2022. “Why Aren’t You Voting in Your Financial Self-Interest?” The New York times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/opinion/elites-populists-political-beliefs.html (November 24, 2024).

Hanley, Allison. 2023. “Rethinking Zoning to Increase Affordable Housing.” The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). https://www.nahro.org/journal_article/rethinking-zoning-to-increase-affordable-housing/ (November 24, 2024).

Heudorfer, Bonnie. 2003. The Record on 40B: The Effectiveness of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Zoning Law. https://www.chapa.org/sites/default/files/qwert_3.pdf (November 24, 2024).

Kazis, Noah. 1/2022. “The Case Against Restrictive Zoning.” NYU Furman Center. https://furmancenter.org/research/publication/the-case-against-restrictive-land-use-and-zoning (November 24, 2024).

Nolan Gray, M. 2022. “Cancel Zoning.” Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass.: 1993). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/zoning-housing-affordability-nimby-parking-houston/661289/ (November 24, 2024).

“NY State Senate Bill 2023-S162.” NY Senate. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S162 (November 24, 2024).

Park, Molly Wasow, and Joslyn Carter. 2023. Focus On Equity. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/operations/downloads/pdf/pmmr2024/dhs.pdf (November 24, 2024).