Mixed Results in Albany’s Housing Deal — The Battle Continues

Late on Saturday, April 20, the housing deal in the state budget between Governor Hochul and the legislature was finalized and approved, containing a mixed bag of good news, bad news, and in between.

Here’s the rundown:

• The misleadingly named “Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act” was NOT included in the final deal. That bill as written would override landmarks protections for churches and other religious properties, allowing construction, alteration, and demolition on historic landmarked sites. This bill, being pushed by real estate front group Open NY, is not dead however. We are working to get state legislators who have sponsored it (including local State Senators Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Brian Kavanaugh) to amend the bill substantially to address these issues, or to drop their support. 
• The deal does remove the state’s existing 12 floor area ratio (FAR) limit on the allowable size of new residential development in NYC, enabling the City to rezone areas to significantly greater densities than previously allowed, with no absolute upper limit whatsoever. However, it does so with multiple limitations now added, including:
  • Areas within designated historic districts cannot be rezoned to above the previous limit of 12 FAR (this covers much but not all of Greenwich Village and NoHo, and a fraction of the East Village; it also means it will likely become even harder to gain landmark protections for new historic districts in our area, given this limitation).
  • The supersized structures allowed by the rule to exceed 12 FAR must include some “affordable” housing (current rules, which are subject to change, require about a quarter of units to be set aside for households with incomes slightly below average for NYC; we called for requiring these developments to be 100% or majority affordable).
  • The supersized structures the rule change allows cannot be built on lots that have “joint living-work quarters for artists,” of which there are many in our neighborhoods. 
  • These supersized structures cannot be built on lots with existing residential buildings UNLESS they get a “Certificate of No Harassment” demonstrating no tenants were harassed on the site (this will help to keep tenants safe and prevent many of the supersized structures from being built; however, this is a FAR from foolproof system, run by a notoriously inefficient and sometimes corrupt City bureaucracy about which tenants who have been harassed have raised multiple complaints).
  • These supersized structures cannot be built on lots with certain kinds of existing affordable housing. 

Village Preservation extends an enormous THANK YOU to the thousands of you who sent letters and called and wrote elected officials about this issue. Because of YOUR efforts, this outcome is infinitely less bad than it otherwise would have been, even if legislators did ultimately concede more than we would have liked.

Although we had fought to keep the very reasonable 12 FAR cap in place, and the limitations added by the State Legislature are far from ideal or sufficient to protect neighborhoods, this is nevertheless a far cry from what the Governor, Mayor, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, and local City Councilmembers Carlina Rivera and Erik Bottcher had called and lobbied for: a complete lifting of the cap by the state with no limitations or requirements attached to it WHATSOEVER. It’s also a significant improvement over what the State Senate had approved, which was lifting the cap with only the stipulation that some percentage of units in the new supersized structures be “affordable,” and historic districts be excluded. The State Assembly originally did not approve any change to the cap, but ultimately approved this “compromise” deal.

While not nearly as bad as what real estate forces and some elected officials had been calling for, this change in the state’s rules nevertheless significantly increases the chances of grossly out-of-scale development in our neighborhoods and of increased pressure for tenant displacement and loss of existing rent-regulated affordable housing. In order for any of the new supersized developments to be allowed, the City will need to rezone neighborhoods at this newly allowable, vastly increased density. We have no doubt that sometime in the not-too-distant future, we will see proposals by the City to rezone parts of our neighborhood at these new ultra-high densities, and we will be prepared to respond when they do.

If you want to help us continue the fight to preserve our neighborhoods and prevent wanton demolition and out-of-character new development, please consider making a donation today. 

DOWN TO THE WIRE — State Legislature Negotiating Final Details of Budget Deal Including Supersized Development and Overriding Landmarks Protections for Religious Sites — WRITE NOW!

Late yesterday, Governor Hochul announced a “conceptual framework” had been reached with the State Legislature on the budget and a variety of unrelated issues being considered alongside it, which includes proposals to remove all state limits on the allowable size of residential development in NYC (allowing the City to rezone any neighborhood to as dense as it likes) and to override landmarks protections to allow construction on the site of landmarked churches and other religious properties. However, the final details of that deal have NOT yet been worked out, particularly around these issues of grave concern to us. So it’s critical that state legislators hear from you NOW that you OPPOSE the State removing all limits on the allowable size of new residential development in NYC and overriding landmarks protections for churches and other religious properties.

TO HELP:

Background: Governor Hochul, Mayor Adams, Borough President Levine, and local elected officials including City Councilmembers Carlina Rivera and Erik Bottcher have called for the state to entirely remove the 65-year-old, post–Robert Moses limit on the allowable size of residential development in New York City (a “limit” so generous it has allowed the construction of both the world’s tallest residential building and the country’s largest). This would let the City rezone any residential neighborhood or area to as great of density as it likes, with no limits whatsoever. Mayor Adams has already made clear he would take advantage of such allowances, and no doubt neighborhoods like ours would be in his sights and those of other future Mayors, over whom real estate interests hold enormous sway. Village Preservation has called for keeping the limit in place except to allow residential conversions of office buildings, and if it is lifted, to protect historic districts and moderately scaled residential neighborhoods, and limit its use to entirely or largely affordable developments and/or to areas that already allow large-scale commercial development like Midtown, the Financial District, and Hudson Yards. Read more here and here.

Scores of State legislators have sponsored a bill that would override local landmarks protections to allow construction on the site of churches, synagogues, and any other religious institutions. A campaign supporting the bill is being led by a real estate front group called “Open NY” that advocates for dismantling landmarks and neighborhood zoning protections. Village Preservation and our allies have been calling upon State legislators to jettison these provisions from the bill or drop their support. While some have committed to work toward doing so, the bill remains alive and unaltered with a well-funded effort to see it passed as quickly as possible. Read more here. 

Village Preservation works every day to protect the special character of our neighborhoods from harmful and inappropriate development, including waging battles at the city and state level. We’re only able to do so with YOUR SUPPORT.

Down to the Wire on State Allowing Supersized Residential Construction and Sidestepping Church Landmarks Protections

TO HELP:

There has also still been no official change in the recently introduced legislation that would allow construction, alteration, and even demolition on landmarked church and other religious property sites, overriding existing landmarks protections. These buildings are among our city’s oldest and most historically significant, and include sites of national importance. But the bill being pushed by a real estate front group called “Open NY” would ensure that landmarks protections can’t save them from demolition or alteration. While we have been told the bill will be changed to address these concerns, no such changes have yet been made, and the active campaign for its passage in its current form continues.

TO HELP:

Tell State Lawmakers Not to Give City Hall the Power to Allow Supersized Development in Residential Neighborhoods — WRITE NOW!

In the week ahead, lawmakers in Albany are expected to decide whether or not to approve Governor Hochul’s plan to gut a long-standing rule that prevents NYC from upzoning residential neighborhoods, to allow oversized development EVEN BIGGER than the gigantic towers current rules allow.

Mayor Adams, real estate interests, and even some local elected officials have joined with real estate front group Open New York to lobby furiously to get the legislature to remove the cap, which would allow NYC to change the zoning for any residential neighborhood to allow new development as large as it likes.

WE MUST ENSURE THEY DON’T GUT THIS CRITICAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION!

TO HELP:

Why is this important?
If the state lifts the residential floor area ratio (FAR) cap as proposed, it would allow NYC to rezone any residential neighborhood to as great a density as it wants — the sky would literally be the limit.

Isn’t the cap preventing NYC from building more housing?
With the cap in place and under current zoning rules, NYC can add about 2 billion sq. ft. of new residential development, enough to house 4 million additional New Yorkers. The cap is not preventing housing from being built, or creating a housing shortage. In the almost 65 years the cap has been in place, literally hundreds of thousands of housing units have been built in NYC.

Is the cap the reason why we get the tall skinny towers of Billionaire’s Row?
Some have tried to twist logic and claim this is true. If the cap had not existed, the towers of Billionaire’s Row would have actually been even taller and even skinnier.

Is the cap preventing obsolete office towers from being converted to residences?
No. There are already exceptions that allow office buildings to be converted to residential use regardless of their size, and we and other opponents of lifting the cap have urged that broader exceptions be made to allow more office to residential conversions.

Will lifting the cap create more affordable housing?
No. The Governor’s proposal, which the Mayor and others are pushing for, has absolutely no affordable housing requirement attached to it. The State Senate has come out with an alternative version of the plan that would require about 25% of the new, extra-large developments allowed by lifting the cap to conform to modest affordability requirements. We have said that if the cap were lifted, it should only be to allow developments that are entirely or mostly affordable.

If the cap is lifted, won’t it just allow big buildings in areas that already have big buildings?
No. The proposal would allow the City to rezone to permit these extra-large buildings in any neighborhood it wants, and the Mayor has already made clear that’s exactly what he plans to do if given that power. The State Senate has come out with an alternative proposal that would not allow the extra-dense zoning in historic districts, which cover about 3.5% of NYC. We have argued that if the cap were lifted, it should be limited to areas that already allow large commercial buildings to be built anyway (like Midtown, Hudson Yards, the Financial District, and Downtown Brooklyn). But this is not what the Governor or these City officials are proposing.

Legislature Splits on Allowing Supersized Development in Residential Neighborhoods, Decision Due April 1 — WRITE TODAY!

The State Senate and Assembly this week responded to Governor Hochul’s proposal to lift the 60-year-old limit on the maximum allowable size of residential developments in New York City as part of this year’s budget agreement. It was a split decision.

The Assembly opted not to include the Governor’s proposal in their draft budget, as they have for the last several years. The Senate, by contrast, included the Governor’s proposal in their draft budget, albeit with two caveats attached: that historic districts be excluded from the allowance, and any residential developments that exceed the current allowable size limit make approximately 25% of its units affordable for those with below-average incomes for the NYC area. While such requirements are better than the unconditional removal of the limitation proposed by the Governor, they fall well short of ensuring an appropriate outcome, and don’t justify lifting the already incredibly generous limit. Much of our neighborhoods (including many of the most vulnerable areas), and 96% of New York City, lie outside of historic districts. And the “affordability” requirements would still allow these massively larger buildings to be approximately 75% superluxury, with the “affordable” units requiring incomes higher than those of a large portion of the least well-off New Yorkers, even in relatively affluent neighborhoods like ours, thus making our city and neighborhoods richer and more expensive.

A final budget agreement is due April 1. The two houses and the Governor will be spending much of the next several weeks negotiating an agreement on this and many other issues, and the final outcome is very much to be determined.

TO HELP:

Hochul at It Again — Governor Pitches Abolishing State Density Limits for Residential Development in NYC

In her State of the State address Tuesday, Governor Hochul once again called for fulfillment of a longtime goal of the city’s real estate lobby — to eliminate the 60-year-old state law that caps how big and how dense residential development can be in our city. While that exceedingly generous cap has allowed both the world’s tallest and the country’s largest residential buildings to be constructed in recent years in New York City, that’s not enough according to Hochul, Mayor Adams, and real estate interests. The Governor is proposing to gut the rule all together, and simply let City Hall decide when and where supertall, supersized developments should be allowed in residential neighborhoods in our city.

We’ve fought this battle before, stopping this and prior Governors (as well as this and prior Mayors), from stripping away these very reasonable and necessary protections. It should be noted that while this proposal has been wrapped in flowery promises about addressing housing affordability, it comes with no stipulations or requirements whatsoever — not for including affordable housing, not for limiting where oversized development can go, and not for limiting how big these developments may be. All those decisions will be left up to the wisdom and vagaries of the Mayor and the City Council.

It’s almost inevitable that if this state cap is lifted, it will prompt the city to seek to rezone parts of our neighborhoods to these newly allowable ultra-high densities. We need to fight to ensure that does not happen.

TO HELP:

Victory: In Spite of Intense Pressure, Albany Keeps Residential Density Cap in Place, Doesn’t Allow Supersized Development

The state legislature’s session ended last week, and in spite of intense pressure by the Governor, Mayor, Manhattan Borough President, real estate industry, and pro-upzoning groups, the legislature did not accede to demands to remove the long-standing cap on the allowable size of residential developments in NYC, which would have allowed the city to rezone any residential neighborhood for supersized development. In fact, the two houses of the State Legislature came to an agreement on their plan for addressing New York’s housing and affordability challenges (the purported reason for lifting the cap), and we’re pleased to report that their varied and multipronged plan wisely did NOT include lifting the cap on the maximum allowable size of new residential developments. The Governor, however, refused to agree to this plan, and thus no action was taken on addressing the state’s housing issues.

This is the fourth year we have successfully helped fight off efforts by the real estate industry, upzoning advocates, and some government leaders to completely remove this cap, allowing zoning changes in which the sky could be the limit for new residential developments. The current 60-year-old cap, which opponents claim is overly restrictive, has already allowed in our city and would continue to allow buildings as tall as 1,550 ft (the tallest residential building in the world) and close to 1,500 units (the largest residential building in the United States). Proponents argue allowing even larger buildings would have beneficial “trickle down” effects on the housing market and affordability, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

We wish to again thank some of our most vocal allies in government in opposing this measure — Assemblymembers Deborah Glick and Grace Lee, and City Councilmember Christopher Marte. 

Last-Minute Push to Lift Residential Density Cap and Allow Supersized Developments Now Underway in Albany — WRITE NOW!

With the legislative session coming to a close in Albany, some members of the legislature and leaders in the real estate industry are making a last-minute push to remove the cap on the maximum allowable size of new residential development in NYC, an effort that has already failed several times in the State budget process. It’s crucial that we tell state legislators not to do so. Read Village Preservation and Landmark West’s letter to key state legislators laying out the reasons why they shouldn’t lift the cap now that the budget process is over HERE.

Removing the cap wouldn’t address affordability issues, and would likely harm them. The push to remove the cap is based upon specious and false arguments about limitations on housing construction and the city’s population, and ignores that the huge upzonings of residential neighborhoods which would accompany lifting the cap would encourage the destruction of existing affordable rent-regulated housing and displace longtime older and less well-off residents. It diverts energy and attention from real efforts to address our city’s affordability crisis, and would result in rampant overdevelopment of neighborhoods.

TO HELP:

Plans for Lifting Residential Density Cap Failed in Budget, but Not Dead in Albany; Tell State Legislators to Reject It

Now that the campaign to remove the cap on the maximum allowable size of new residential development in NYC has failed in the State budget process, proponents are seeking to have the measure approved by the Legislature separately before the legislative session ends this summer. It’s critical that we tell state legislators not to do so. Read Village Preservation and Landmark West’s letter to key state legislators laying out the reasons why they shouldn’t lift the cap now that the budget process is over HERE.

Removing the cap wouldn’t address affordability issues, and would likely harm them. The push to remove the cap is based upon specious and false arguments about limitations on housing construction and the city’s population, and ignores that the huge upzonings of residential neighborhoods which would accompany lifting the cap would encourage the destruction of existing affordable rent-regulated housing and displace longtime older and less well-off residents. It diverts energy and attention from real efforts to address our city’s affordability crisis, and would result in rampant overdevelopment of neighborhoods.

TO HELP:

Victory! Budget Agreement Excludes Supersized Residential Development Proposal

The budget agreement with state legislative leaders announced last night by Governor Hochul EXCLUDES her proposal to lift the long-standing cap on the allowable size of residential development in NYC, which would have allowed the City to rezone any residential neighborhood to permit new development with the sky as the limit. This was in fact a very real danger, as many city leaders and powerful forces in real estate have said that if they could, they would like to upzone city neighborhoods to well above the already incredibly generous limit that currently exists, which has allowed buildings 1,550 feet tall and of nearly 1,500 units. 

This is the third time Village Preservation has helped lead successful efforts to block the lifting of the residential FAR or density cap. In response to proposals to remove the long-standing safeguard via the State budget process, this year and last Village Preservation’s campaign to oppose the measure generated more than 130,000 letters to legislators across the state urging that the measure be rejected. A special thanks goes to State Assemblymembers Deborah Glick and Grace Lee, and State Senator Liz Krueger, for helping to lead and organize opposition to this measure in the legislature. 

Village Preservation had argued vociferously against lifting the cap, noting that it allows an additional 2.7 billion sq. ft. of new residential development — the equivalent of 1,200 Empire State Buildings, and enough to house an additional 5 million residents — thus belying proponents of removing the cap’s claim that it’s needed to allow sufficient housing production in NYC. Allowing for vastly larger-sized developments encourages the demotion of existing affordable rent-regulated housing, which disproportionately houses less-well-off and older city residents. And while new, much larger or taller buildings may contain more space, given the demand for enormously sized super-luxury apartments, frequently they actually contain fewer units of housing than the smaller buildings they replace, to say nothing of containing vastly more expensive housing. The proposed lifting of the residential FAR cap would not have required the production of a single unit of affordable housing.

In response to the agreement, Village Preservation released a statement which said in part: “The state legislature did the right thing in rejecting this unnecessary and damaging proposal. It would have only resulted in more supertall, superluxury buildings for the super rich, encouraged the demolition of existing affordable rent-regulated housing, and promoted gentrification, overdevelopment, and displacement on steroids in New York City. This measure not only wouldn’t have helped, it would have added to our city’s affordability crisis. It’s time for the Governor and other state leaders to look at real measures for preserving and growing our stock of affordable housing, rather than promoting giant giveaways to the real estate industry that primarily produce huge amounts of very expensive market-rate housing in the hope that the benefits will ‘trickle down’ to average New Yorkers and those most in need.” 

This victory is NOT permanent. Governor Hochul has indicated she may take up this and other measures not adopted in the budget separately during the remainder of the legislative session, which ends July 1. And without a doubt, the forces aligned to seek to remove thus responsible guardrail around development in NYC will be back to seek its removal again and again, so we MUST continue this fight. 

More information can be found here and here. 

TO HELP:

Proposal to Allow Supersized Development in NYC Appears to Be Off the Table in Budget Negotiations, but Not Dead

According to multiple reports as well as insiders with whom we have spoken, it appears that the proposal to lift the cap on the allowable size of residential development in NYC is no longer under consideration as part of the still-overdue state budget being negotiated. Of course nothing is truly over until it’s over, but virtually everyone expects that this item will not make it into the final budget agreement, whenever that is reached.

While that’s good news for our efforts to prevent supersized development from being allowed in residential neighborhoods in NYC, it’s far from the end of the story. This proposal, as well as other housing-related matters, may be taken up later this session in Albany as separate legislative items after the budget is over, rather than trying to cram them into the “Big Ugly” of the budget negotiations. Should that happen, we will need to continue the fight to ensure the cap is not lifted and ludicrously oversized development is not allowed across the city.

We’ll let you know as more news on this item becomes available. But in the meantime, we want to thank EVERYONE who wrote letters and spread the word about this issue, and joined us in fighting off yet another attempt to eviscerate this longstanding safeguard against overdevelopment.

Lifting Residential Density Cap to Allow Supersized Developments Now at Center of State Budget Negotiations — WRITE NOW!

Published reports indicate that with issues around bail reform settled, Governor Hochul’s housing proposals are at the center of final negotiations between the Legislature and the Executive on the State budget, and the proposal to lift the cap on the allowable size of new residential developments in NYC is at the center of that debate. Reports show the Mayor and pro–real estate groups are lobbying furiously to have the legislature drop its opposition to the measure, which would allow the city to rezone any neighborhood for new developments as large as they wish, and in the rush of pressure campaigns and wheeling and dealing, anything is possible. The current 60-year-old state-imposed limit allows buildings of 1,550 ft. tall or higher and 1,500 units or more, and existing limits would allow 2.7 billion sq. ft. or 1,200 Empire State Buildings’ worth of housing, enough for over 5 million more residents, to be built in NYC, but advocates for this plan say that’s not enough. They also falsely claim lifting the cap will make housing in NYC more affordable — a ludicrous assertion.

Village Preservation and other advocates do NOT oppose allowing larger office buildings to be converted to residential use, as is currently allowed in the Financial District. The State can make those allowances without removing the overall cap, which serves as a guardrail to prevent even more obscene overdevelopment in our city and neighborhoods.

Final decisions on this item and the budget may come as soon as the next few days. It’s critical that state legislators and leaders hear from you NOW that you oppose lifting the residential density cap.

TO HELP: