How Can Mayor Adams Win More Votes for City of Yes?

What transportation access, affordable housing production, and density tell us about who’s most likely to vote for City of Yes

By Marshall Strawbridge and Lucy Friedman-Bell

Mayor Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (CYHO) started as one of the most ambitious zoning reforms aimed at increasing housing production New York City has ever seen. In April 2024, Adams unveiled this unprecedented proposal to enable the creation of “a little more housing in every neighborhood” and rallied with supporters as he embarked on what was expected to be a highly contentious Universal Land Use Review Process (ULURP). While the proposal received praise and support from numerous agencies, elected officials, and community leaders, it was met with vitriol from many communities. Queens residents shut down a local street to protest the initiative; nearly 100 New Yorkers gathered in front of city hall to object to the proposed changes; and stakeholders and elected officials from Staten Island to the Bronx to Queens came out against the plan.

New York City’s community boards began to issue their recommendations. Almost half of them were unfavorable. Community Boards were worried that an increase in high-density housing would change the nature of their communities: Bronx Community Board 11 cited concerns around the impact of rapid development on issues they already face in their community, including crime, school overcrowding, and inadequate infrastructure; Queens Community Board 5 argued that the increase in larger buildings would irrepressibly change the character of their community and strain local infrastructure; and Brooklyn Community Board 9 asserted that the production of multi-unit housing on small lots in their district would affect light and air quality for neighboring residents. Many Community Boards, including Bronx Community Board 8 and Brooklyn Community Board 17, argued the proposal did not go far enough to commit to concrete affordable housing requirements for New York City’s poorest residents and that the zoning changes would lead to gentrification. And the removal of parking mandates was a nonstarter for many Boards across the city, from Brooklyn Community Board 10 to Staten Island Community Board 3 to Queens Community Board 3 (and many, many more).

While these Community Board votes are only advisory, they provide insight into more localized sentiments on the proposal. Investigating indicators based on public transit access, affordable housing production, and zoning sheds light on how a policy aimed at increasing affordable and accessible housing received so much opposition. Mapping these indicators across Community Boards that voted for CYHO, and those that voted against it, sheds light on the policy changes Mayor Adams could make in order to gain support for housing reform and address New York City’s pressing affordability crisis.

Who voted “Yes” on City of Yes?

Of the 59 community boards in New York City:

28 Boards voted “Unfavorable”

7 Boards voted “Unfavorable with Conditions”

2 Boards voted “Favorable”

16 Boards voted “Favorable with Conditions”

1 Board voted “Proposal-by-Proposal”

1 Board abstained

3 Boards have not listed their vote

Mapping these votes makes it clear that boards that voted unfavorably tend towards the outer boroughs.

But which particular qualities of these districts serve as strong indicators of whether they are more or less likely to vote for City of Yes?

Access to Public Transit

The removal of mandates was perhaps one of the most contentious aspects of CYHO. New York City currently mandates off-street parking along with new housing even where it’s not needed, which leads to fewer housing units produced with higher rents for residents (check out this example for an in-depth explanation). CYHO would lift parking mandates for new housing — something that many cities across the country have already successfully done. Importantly, this would not prevent developers from adding parking where it would be necessary for residents but would mean that developers would no longer be forced to build parking where it is unnecessary.

In looking more deeply into Community Boards explanations for their votes, access to transit came up multiple times amongst Community Boards that voted against removing parking mandates: Brooklyn Community Board 17 stated that there is a need for significant transit improvements before removing parking mandates; Queens Community Board 7 contended that their district is a car-dependent community that does not use public transit; and Brooklyn Community Board 10 argued that the transit network is not sufficient in their community and the removal of parking mandates it not being done in conjunction with a substantial increase the quality and quantity of public transportation options. Many districts that voted “Conditionally Favorable” voted against the removal of parking mandates. Several districts that voted “Conditional Favorable” also mentioned transit improvements — Bronx Community Board 3 stated, “bus service has to be improved dramatically to encourage people to go without cars,” while Bronx Community Board 4 also implored the administration to make significant upgrades in transit service.

Are communities with better access to the subway more likely to vote for City of Yes? Yes, although it’s not always clearly correlated. The Community Boards that voted positively on CYHO (“Favorable” or “Conditionally Favorable”) have an average of 2.9 subway stops per square mile in their districts. The Community Boards that voted negatively (“Unfavorable” or “Conditionally Unfavorable”) have an average of 2.3 subway stops per square mile in their districts. This means that on average, communities that voted for CYHO have 26% more subway stops per square mile in their districts than communities that voted against it. 28% of favorable districts have more than five subway stops per square mile in their district, while only 14% of unfavorable districts have five or more subway stops per square mile.

Yet while communities that voted “Conditionally Favorable” for City of Yes have the highest average subway stops per mile in their district, communities that voted “Favorable” have the lowest.

While better access to transit is associated with a higher likelihood of voting positively on CYHO, it is not as strongly correlated as other indicators such as affordable housing production and land use.

Affordable Housing Production

Mayor Adam’s CYHO proposal aimed not just to increase housing, but to increase affordable housing. His proposal included the “Universal Affordability Preference,” which would allow developers to add at least 20% more housing to projects if the additional homes are affordable to households earning 60% of the Area Median Income. The goal of this was to provide new affordable housing in high-cost neighborhoods across the city.

If we look at affordable housing production since Mayor Adams took office, community districts that had higher levels of affordable housing production were more likely to vote positively on CYHO than those that had lower levels. On average, community districts that voted negatively saw 1,117 units of affordable housing produced in the three years that Mayor Adams has been in office. Community districts that voted positively saw almost twice that — 2,333 units — produced in the same time.

Out of the five districts that saw the highest levels of affordable housing production — Brooklyn Community Boards 1, 2, 6, and 17 and Bronx Community Boards 4 — only one of them voted negatively (Brooklyn Community Board 17). Community Districts that voted positively on CYHO, on average, have higher productions of affordable housing since Mayor Adams took office than those that voted negatively.

Some community districts that voted negatively, and against the “Universal Affordability Preference” in particular, cited fears regarding overdevelopment. This includes Brooklyn Community Board 16, which stated they already see too many developments and large buildings in their district. However, many community districts that voted negatively argued that the proposal did not go far enough to ensure affordable housing. This included Bronx Community Board 11, who stated their concern with the proposal’s definition of rental rates and lack of supportive services necessary to foster tenant success, as well as the plan’s deficiency of opportunities to support affordable homeownership. Brooklyn Community Board 10 and 11 said that setting the price for affordable housing at 60% AMI was too high. Queens Community Board 3 asserted truly affordable housing was not ensured in the proposal, and Brooklyn Community Board 17 slammed the proposal for its “lack of genuine affordability measures.” Many community boards pointed out that because affordable housing is guaranteed based on AMI, there is no assurance that truly affordable housing will be permanently provided under the proposal. Even Community Districts that voted “Conditional Favorable” requested to lower the affordability metric to 50% AMI (Brooklyn Community Board 4).

Data suggests that districts that already have higher levels of affordable housing production are more likely to vote for CYHO. Many districts that voted against CYHO pushed the administration to go farther to ensure affordable housing for New Yorkers, suggesting that an even more aggressive stance on affordable housing production could have benefitted the proposal.

Zoning and Density

Mayor Adam’s tagline for CYHO was “a little more housing in every neighborhood.” His argument was that if every neighborhood contributed and worked together, across the city, there would be a huge impact, without unduly burdening any one community. No one community would see vast, sweeping increases in density and housing in their neighborhoods.

However, low density communities overwhelmingly shot down the CYHO proposal. Communities with higher percentages of lots zoned for one and two family houses — as opposed to more high-density options, such as multifamily residential buildings — were significantly more likely to vote negatively on the proposal.

Community districts that voted negatively have an average of 33% of their lots zoned for one and two family houses, while community districts that voted positively have just 10% of their lots zoned for one and two family homes.

All five of the Community Districts with the highest percentages of lots zoned for one and two-family houses voted “Unfavorable” on CYHO: Queens Community Boards 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Community districts that voted negatively, particularly those with high percentages of land zoned for one and two-family homes, stated their concern that CYHO would change the “character” of their communities. Queens Community Board 7 stated that Transit-Oriented Development would “destroy all single-family homes within this gorgeous area, and be completely obliterate the area within years.” Brooklyn Community Board 15 was also wary of the Transit-Oriented Development proposal and argued that the construction of apartment buildings in certain areas “would starkly contrast with the existing community character.” Queens Community Board 10 cited “community character” as one of its top concerns with the proposal, while Staten Island Community Board 3 decried narrow buildings allowed under the plan as “out of character with existing structures” in their district and stated the changes to Town-Center Zoning would result in a “breakdown of the neighborhood character.”

Out of all three indicators, zoning for one and two family homes showed the strongest correlation to CYHO vote. Community districts with more low-density neighborhoods that have more one and two family homes were far more likely to vote negatively on the proposal, due to concerns that more housing in their community would change its character.

City of Yes Today

As we researched this article, the New York City Council Zoning and Land Use Committees debated and reviewed the CYHO. On November 21st, the committees reached a deal on a significantly modified version of the proposal that is expected to pass when voted on by the full chamber. While maintaining the spirit of the proposal to enact zoning reforms to significantly increase housing production in the city, the proposal’s amendments reduced the estimated 109,000 homes to be created under the proposal down to only 80,000 units, according to estimates backed by City Hall and the City Council.

While this deal disappointed many pro-housing advocates in the city, several of whom already thought the proposal didn’t go far enough, this analysis offers insight into how the altered proposal helped improve its viability for becoming law. The production of affordable housing and zoning indicators strongly correlate with Boards’ position on the proposal. This means that low-density communities and communities with low numbers of affordable housing production are the least likely to vote for CYHO. These communities reject the CYHO on principle: they do not want more housing in their communities. They see the CYHO as an existential threat to the fabric of their neighborhoods. Mayor Adams is unlikely to win any of them over while also achieving his goal of increasing housing in all neighborhoods across the city.

Regarding transit access, this analysis showed that communities with better access to transit are more likely to vote for CYHO. Some communities voted negatively, such as Bronx Community Districts 5 and 6 and Brooklyn Community District 5, which are high-density and have high rates of affordable housing but have poor access to transit. They rely on cars for mobility and are opposed to removing parking mandates. Our analysis suggests that these districts could be more likely to vote positively on CYHO if parking mandates are maintained OR they if they have better access to non-car transit.

This points to one policy change Mayor Adams can make to advance his plans to increase housing: provide better non-car transportation options. By providing better access to faster, more reliable transportation options, the Mayor can work to decrease car dependency and the perceived need for parking. As communities switch to alternate transportation options, they will rely on cars less. Communities will need less parking, reducing their attachment to parking mandates; fewer parking mandates means more space for housing, no matter what neighborhood you’re in.

Mayor Adams can invest in several short- and long-term initiatives to garner more support for his marquee housing plan:

Short Term:

1. Reducing car dependence by providing faster, more reliable access to public transit by expanding bus priority projects across the city
2. Improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists by investing in New York City’s Vision Zero program and upgrading the city’s sidewalk network
3. Add bike facilities and expand the city’s bike share and scooter share programs
4. Upgrade the city’s subway system to improve accessibility, including adding elevators

Long Term:

1. Invest in the expansion of the city’s subway system, including the 2nd Avenue Subway proposal
2. Move the proposed Inter-borough Express project forward
3. Increase affordability and accessibility of the LIRR and MetroNorth railroads, options that reach outer boroughs including The Bronx and Queens

Mayor Adams is unlikely to win over communities that are rejecting CYHO because it will increase density and affordable housing in their communities. However, he may have more luck with communities who are not opposed to increasing housing in their communities, but want to retain mobility — and currently see maintaining parking as the only way to do so. By increasing quality non-car transportation options, he can advance his ambitious goals for dramatically increasing housing across New York City.

Data & Sources:

• Community District Shapefile
• Affordable Housing: Affordable Housing Production by Building
• Subway stops: Open Data Subway Stops
• Percentage of 1 & 2 Family Homes, Community District Area by Square Mile: Community District Profiles (link for dataset here)
• R Script
• GQIS Instructions