Initiating and leading change in nonprofit, philanthropic and government settings.

Latest Columns

To Boost the City’s Recovery, Get ‘Learning Leaders’ Back in School

March 29, 2022

For State’s Future, The Governor Must Say No Sometimes

January 26, 2022

A better deal for retirees and NYC: But the city made two mistakes with its Medicare Advantage Plus plan

October 25, 2021

Who Decides How Public Money Is Spent?

October 15, 2021

The lame duck and the hatchling: How to run the transition between Bill de Blasio and his successor

July 5, 2021

Mayoral Candidates Flunk First Budget Test

March 5, 2021

Upending East Midtown’s progress: Gov. Cuomo’s new plans are threatening the office district’s growth

February 16, 2021

A Trumpian Push to Overturn the Will of New York City Voters

December 30, 2020

‘Hanging On’ is Not a Management Strategy

December 2, 2020

Letter to the Editor: The Assembly Member’s Bad Bank Note

September 28, 2020

Mayor Must Bridge Budget Gap Without Borrowing or Mass Layoffs

August 26, 2020

Now More Than Ever, New York City Needs Leaders to Welcome Jobs

August 11, 2020

Learning the Right Health-Care Lessons from the Covid Crisis

June 18, 2020

Keep Subways Closed Overnight to Expedite System Modernization

May 26, 2020

How to Craft the Bare Bones State Budget New York Needs

March 30, 2020

Lessons from 9/11: A Needed Piece of the Coronavirus Recovery Plan

March 26, 2020

The Governor’s Dilemma: Gimmicks or Gumption

March 9, 2020

Ruling Endangers Better Planning for City’s Future

March 9, 2020

Worrisome City Budget Update Buried by Holiday and State Woes

March 9, 2020

A Well-Meaning But Misguided Housing Proposal

March 9, 2020

Counting Votes So They Really Count

March 9, 2020

Attorney General Disrupts Progress on Taxi Loan Crisis

February 28, 2020

The Mayor’s Savings Mirage

February 4, 2020

Racing to the Scene of the Wrong Emergency

September 30, 2019

The Mayor’s Missing Pen

September 12, 2019

The Small Business ‘Crisis’ That Isn’t

August 22, 2019

A Chore We Must Do: Over-Hauling Private Waste Management in New York City

August 1, 2019

A French Lesson in Fare Evasion

July 16, 2019

Governor Gets What He Wants at the MTA; Now It’s Time to Deliver

June 25, 2019

The Fading Promise of Property Tax Reform

June 12, 2019

Taxi Medallion Exposé Drives Home Key Budget Lesson

May 29, 2019

‘Blow Up the MTA’? Not Yet

May 17, 2019

A Lion of City Government Issues a Warning

May 1, 2019

City Council Fire Department Proposals Don’t Match Need for Reform

April 17, 2019

Doing Good Things Badly: Congestion Pricing and MTA Reforms

April 3, 2019

Charter Revision Commission Needs a Hippocratic Oath

March 18, 2019

Ending The School Aid Charade

March 4, 2019

Latest Columns

Categories

Subscribe!

A Well-Meaning But Misguided Housing Proposal

By Carol Kellermann | March 9, 2020

A year ago, a homeless woman confronted Mayor de Blasio during his gym workout in Park Slope to ask why the city doesn’t set aside more apartments for homeless people. The incident and a video of it in which the mayor refused to talk with the woman, Nathylin Flowers Adesegun, were widely reported. A few weeks later, City Council Member Rafael Salamanca of the Bronx introduced legislation that would require any rental housing project receiving taxpayer subsidies such as tax abatements, loans, tax credits or reduced-cost land to set aside 15% of its units for people living in the city’s shelters. 

The mayor’s comments about the proposed legislation were on target. He said:

“I think that the [current] affordable housing plan works for the people of the city because it is for everyone. It is meant to reach working-class people, middle-class people, low-income people,” and, “I don’t want to send a message that the only folks who can get affordable housing are folks who end up in shelter. I think that’s wrong for everyone.” 

Now, almost exactly a year later, Salamanca has re-introduced the same bill but the mayor’s response has been quite different — he says he is sure he can reach a deal with Council Speaker Corey Johnson.

The mayor was right a year ago and there is no reason to change positions now. His apparent disinterest in or distaste for conflict with the Council cannot be allowed to lead to bad policy that will impede what has been a successful program to build and preserve affordable housing for needy New Yorkers at a variety of income levels.

In 2014 the de Blasio administration issued Housing NY, a ten-year plan to build and preserve a total of 200,000 units of housing in the five boroughs. An important principle of the plan was that the apartments developed would be affordable to families at an array of income levels, from those of extremely low-income, defined as below $25,000 a year for a family of four, to those of middle-income, families of four earning $100,000-138,000 a year, and others in between. The plan projected the distribution of units developed at 20% (40,000) for extremely low- and very low-income households, 58% (116,000) for low-income households, and 22% for moderate- and middle-income households (44,000).

In 2017 Housing NY 2.0 modified the administration’s already-ambitious goals by accelerating its plan, extending it two years, and adding an additional 100,000 units to be preserved or created by 2026. The new targets increased the number of extremely low- and low-income households to be housed to 25% of the total.

Providing affordable housing to New Yorkers at all low- to middle-income levels is important to maintaining a thriving economy and a diverse, vibrant city. As a recent report from the Department of City Planning shows, the city’s supply of jobs far exceeds its supply of housing and we need to generate more places for workers to live.

It is very expensive to build and maintain units for extremely low-income households (approximately $150,000- $200,000 in city capital subsidy per unit for construction, plus ongoing rental assistance) so the rents at higher income levels are necessary to make developments economically viable.  The situation is not helped by the fact that the City Council keeps piling on requirements — like the just-added prevailing wage requirement — that are not only costly, but deter developers (both for- and non-profit) from wanting to even do deals with the city. It also must be acknowledged that many families in the shelter system need a variety of on-site services in addition to housing, services that private-sector buildings do not provide.   

Reasonable people can debate the shortcomings and details of Housing NY,  for example, the inclusion of thousands of units in Stuyvesant Town as “preserved” but there is no denying that it has been an ambitious effort that has thus far leveraged over $14 billion in city capital commitments and generated 135,000 units of urgently needed housing.

City officials need the flexibility to design each project based on its overall size, location, and cost; they should not be constrained by arbitrary apartment allocation requirements to particular income levels or types of tenants. 

Mayor de Blasio needs no prodding to devote priority and resources to homeless individuals and families. His annual budget provides more than $3 billion a year for shelters, rent assistance, legal assistance, and other homelessness prevention programs, re-housing efforts, and related social services.

So far, about 11% of the units generated by Housing NY have gone to homeless households. Moreover, in 2016 NYCHA started giving preference to homeless families and over the past three years, nearly half of all tenants placed in NYCHA units — 6,400 — have been formerly homeless. Another 4,400 homeless families have received Section 8 rental assistance through NYCHA in the same time period.

The City Council should not create a one-size-fits-all set-aside that would tie the hands of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor for Housing, and other city officials who are trying to spur as much housing construction as possible and who are already motivated to create units for homeless families without compulsion.

If the 15% homeless requirement is in addition to the 25% proportion of units Housing NY 2.0 already requires for extremely low-income units, it will make some projects so costly that they will not be built. If the homeless allocation is instead made part of the total number of project units allocated to low-income families, it will take much-needed units out of the pool available to the thousands of other families earning less than $25,000 a year who also need decent and affordable places to live in New York City. Neither is acceptable.

The Council’s focus should be on streamlining the process for project approval and creating more new affordable housing across the income spectrum, not counterproductive requirements and virtue posturing.

***