A New New York: TLDR; How the Would-be Mayors Stack up on Land Use

You may not have had the heart to read Scott Stringer’s 47-page land use platform, but we did. We dug deep into the candidates’ policies on planning and affordability from their websites, summarized them as clearly as we could, and offered our own view.

In order to save our breath, and your eyes, we’ve chosen to limit our analysis to the top five candidates from the NY1 poll on April 21 and including Kathryn Garcia based on her recent success in the polls. Candidates reviewed include: Kathryn Garcia, Andrew Yang, Scott Stringer, Eric Adams, Maya Wiley, and Ray McGuire. We came away with a better sense of their priorities and how they hope to make NYC the vibrant, liveable, maybe even affordable city it needs to be. If future polls add new candidates, or new rankings to the mix, we’ll try to add them in an update.

Each of the candidates we reviewed have committed to the guiding principles laid out by the multi-stakeholder United for Housing. These include funding a minimum of $4b/year for investments in affordable housing, NYCHA, rental assistance, and homeless housing.

The next NYC mayor has an opportunity — with falling rental prices and plenty of vacant housing space — to rethink, and set new expectations for, how the City approaches housing, affordability, and land use.

Master Planning. We’ve written about the ridiculous lack of master planning in NYC, which has made it nearly impossible to set, execute, and track long range citywide goals across administrations and agencies. This is a function that’s desperately needed, and there’s no person like a visionary new mayor to kick it off, with our climate, economic, health, and equality crises demanding holistic, interagency solutions.

Candidates’ Positions:

STRINGER: Stringer would create an independent Long-Term Planning Office to work with communities and drive affordability throughout the city. He also would amend the City Charter to establish a public review process for the City’s comprehensive plan, akin to the City’s existing ULURP process..

YANG: Yang is in favor of a 10-year master planning cycle with “substantial” community involvement. He would require experts from the Department of City Planning, or other city funded non-profits, to assist CBOs in this process. Yang also will allow CBOs and Community Boards to propose their own ideas for City owned land.

McGUIRE: McGuire would promote a one-time citywide rezoning to ”drive new residential construction and investment in parks, transit infrastructure, schools and childcare centers, affordable workspace, and other community needs”. The process will begin with community input, supported by Community Development Organizations, city planning staff, and other experts.

GARCIA: Ensure that homeless services and economic development and housing all report into the same deputy mayor, who will be held accountable to treating housing issues with one comprehensive approach. Enact a comprehensive rezoning for affordability across neighborhoods.

ADAMS: N/A

WILEY: N/A

Envelope Roundup:

Master planning needs to happen. Adams and Wiley get raspberries for not having a plan to have a plan. Stringer’s plan is the clearest, and conceptually, we like the idea of an independent agency running the process since this would be an interagency program. Yang wants an iterative 10-year process “with community input”. McGuire calls it a rezoning, presumably allowing him to use existing ULURP mechanisms, but doesn’t offer a plan for how to update or iterate as public needs change. Garcia would collapse the reporting structure of housing and economic development agencies to allow for more comprehensive planning, rezoning, and accountability around housing, but doesn’t specifically address other elements of city life. The devil will be in the details of creating a formal mechanism for the development, approval, tracking, and iteration of a master plan, while ensuring adequate, but not paralyzing, community participation.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

We would take the master planning opportunity to set ever-more-ambitious and measurable goals for a thriving, green, accessible, equitable, 15-minute city; with much-expanded park space; dramatically reduced congestion, pollution, and noise; increased light manufacturing and local sourcing for goods; ample and dense housing, and increased active and public transit.

Affordability. Cities around the world struggle with housing affordability, and we have decades of data and research to give us clues about what actually works and what doesn’t. We rely on guidelines from experts in housing policy: Brookings, McKinsey, and Furman Center on affordability. These generally agree that:

• The supply side (those creating and maintaining housing) should be relatively unconstrained, allowing the private sector to take the enormous risks associated with development, and have their fortunes rise and fall with the market. Government can do its part by streamlining approvals and permitting, lifting restrictions on density and size requirements, embracing and allowing for innovative construction materials and techniques, and calibrating size-bonuses to encourage more affordable housing in high-opportunity areas and relevant amenities, like grocery and public plazas, in struggling neighborhoods. Contrary to popular belief, adding market-rate housing in low-income neighborhoods doesn’t actually cause rent hikes in surrounding buildings. The laws of supply and demand remain intact. Anti-gouging regulations can — and should — be applied *universally* to keep rents reasonably priced and predictable for everyone.
• The demand side (those who rent or buy those units) should be robustly subsidized by the government, allowing all residents — from the homeless to the rent-stretched middle class to upper-middle income folks experiencing hardship — to choose homes that meet the needs of their families in neighborhoods that make the most sense for their circumstances. Mixed use, mixed income, diverse neighborhoods are the key to NYC’s success and promote the right balance of resiliency and opportunity. We embrace all forms of this melting pot: helping lower-income people move into (and buy homes in) higher-opportunity neighborhoods, and encouraging the development of market-rate housing in lower-income communities. Subsidies should be tailored to average rents *in those neighborhoods*, allowing flexibility to move into high-opportunity areas, switch homes as needed, and to build wealth through homeownership.

Some of the urgency around housing affordability in NYC should have waned in recent years, as supply now significantly outstrips demand, and prices have fallen accordingly. NYC’s population has declined by about 380k since its peak in 2017 even as new housing has been built. However, because of longer lease terms and underlying investor demands, real estate prices tend to lag the market by a year or more. We anticipate that less-wealthy, younger, more creative, and immigrant populations will soon flood back to NYC, attracted by lower rents, its academic and cultural institutions, its small business vibrancy, and its unique blend of opportunity and diversity. The new mayor should be planning ahead for ample housing to meet new demand over the next 3–5 years. There are four main levers s/he can use to provide adequate housing, including:

1. Expanding Supply

• Conversion of vacant or underutilized buildings
• Development of vacant lots
• Enabling density and more efficient use of existing spaces

2. Supporting Demand

• Assisting rent or mortgage-stretched residents with direct and ample financial and legal aid

3. Reducing costs and barriers to development

• Embracing innovation with construction materials and techniques
• Streamlining the permitting process, minimizing red tape

4. Regulating prices (not recommended, based on years of data)

• Expanding rent control + stabilization policies
• Expanding the number of units that are rent-regulated
• Enforcing rent laws to ensure landlord compliance

1. Expanding supply:

• Conversions of vacant or underutilized buildings. For the first time in decades, NYC has a serious crisis of demand for space across every use except industrial. By the end of 2020, NYC had an 8% vacancy rate for residential, a 25% vacancy rate for Manhattan retail, and a 70% vacancy rate for Manhattan hotels (although insiders say the true vacancy rate was more like 90% because the City used vacant hotel rooms to house the homeless). By Q1, 2021, Manhattan saw a 16% vacancy rate for office, with subleases on the rise, and a massive rethinking of in-office work among almost all existing tenants. We expect residential and *some* hotel to come roaring back in the next few years, given a leisure travel-hungry world and a more expansive Biden-administration immigration policy…but not office. Our next mayor therefore needs to focus on repurposing oodles of empty or underutilized commercial and hospitality buildings we’ve already created to build thriving, mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods. NYC did this successfully in downtown Manhattan post-9/11, we can do it again.

Candidates’ Positions:

McGUIRE: With the goal of creating mixed-use neighborhoods, McGuire would establish a framework to allow the conversion of some Class B and C office space into housing or other uses, including co-working and creative maker spaces. Additionally, McGuire would update building codes and reduce red tape to allow the conversion of up to 10% of the city’s hotels into affordable housing. This effort would focus on hotels that are already being used for temporary housing.

ADAMS: Adams is in favor of mixed-use communities and would allow some private offices and hotels to become housing through regulatory changes, particularly at hotels in the outer boroughs.

YANG: Yang would allow for the conversion of some buildings, mainly hotels and obsolete office buildings throughout the City. He would offer regulatory relief and forgivable grants to eligible hotel properties entering into agreements with NYC for long term residential uses at affordable rents, with larger grants to those who agree to convert buildings into supportive and deeply affordable housing.

STRINGER: Stringer would create a new program to allow qualified nonprofits to purchase vacant private hotels and commercial spaces for conversion into Safe Haven / Stabilization shelters, affordable and supportive housing. He would also aggressively take control of distressed buildings from absentee landlords and “slumlords”.

GARCIA: Garcia would have the city buy underutilized properties for conversion to supportive housing.

WILEY: N/A

Envelope Editorial:

Landlords across the city, but especially in the Central Business Districts (CBDs), are going to need regulatory relief, at a minimum, to be able to convert their underutilized buildings to alternative uses. Most of the candidates share our vision for the CBDs as thriving, mixed-use neighborhoods. McGuire, Adams and Yang would allow some office and hotel conversions, but all would limit eligibility. Yang would work to create permanently affordable housing, which isn’t great policy. Stringer does the same with an overly prescriptive and anti-market approach that is likely to distort both the market and the neighborhoods most impacted. Garcia doesn’t address the issue. Wiley ignores the issue — and most others related to housing — altogether.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

We’ve written about the conversion issue here. State and municipal zoning rules should be lifted entirely so that *any* vacant or distressed office building or hotel around the city could be converted to *any* residential or light manufacturing or park or any other more-relevant use. The City should make conversion as easy as possible, as of right, and focus regulation on any potential negative externality from new uses, rather than the use itself.

• Development of vacant lots. In order to reduce constraints on supply, LOTS of additional space for housing, or any relevant use, can be created in the nearly 3000 vacant City-owned lots, parking lots, and lots used for storage of materials. The City also could incentivize development on privately-owned vacant lots.

Candidates’ Positions:

McGUIRE: McGuire would change regulations to prioritize construction of housing on undeveloped and underdeveloped city-owned properties, including Health + Hospitals campuses that have untapped, developable space.

ADAMS: Adams would move some city offices to the boroughs, take advantage of more City workers working from home, and consolidate workers that will still be in-person to free up space. He would convert those vacant buildings into 100% affordable housing. He also would partner with Community Land Trusts (CLTs) to offer vacant City-owned properties to organizations that commit to building permanently affordable housing.

YANG: Yang would survey all City-owned “no-use” vacant land and parcels used for vehicle parking or construction material storage. He would support CLTs through a new office within HPD, allowing them to acquire vacant public lots for the use they deem relevant. Where applicable, he would have DDC or a non-profit build modular dwelling units for deeply affordable and supportive housing.

STRINGER: Stringer would survey all City-owned vacant, parking, and “no use” lots to create housing, built through not-for-profit mechanisms. 98% of new construction subsidies from the City would be set aside for low income housing or below. Rents would be set to 30% of income using HUD income levels based on family size.

GARCIA: Garcia would have the city buy privately-owned vacant land for conversion to supportive housing.

WILEY: N/A

Envelope’s Editorial:

McGuire leaves open the possibility of leasing or selling sites to the market, which we appreciate. Adams would give the land away to CLTs to do with as they will, which could work well to put the determination of use in the hands of locals, although he would focus on the creation of “permanently affordable housing” which doesn’t tend to work. We like Yang’s nod to modular and other forms of innovative construction, but his plan — like Stringer’s — focuses on the explicit creation of affordable housing, rather than more-effective market mechanisms noted above. Garcia’s plan is thin, but she mentions being willing to buy private vacant land for utilization. Stringer’s plan (as usual) is much more detailed and well-considered than the other candidates, but his far more-cumbersome, regulation-heavy, supply-side approach doesn’t inspire confidence in the results. Wiley (as usual) ignores the issue altogether.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

For all the obvious reasons — density, aesthetics, affordability, utility — we’re in favor of doing *something* on all vacant lots, immediately, although in addition to housing, we also want to see more parks and schools and cultural institutions in districts where they’re needed. City-owned vacant lots should be individually evaluated to assess their highest-and-best use long-term, in context, then either built as such, or leased or sold to the private market. Privately-owned vacant lots could be subject to a grace period, then an escalating vacancy tax unless the landlords develop and maintain it for a public use such as community gardens, public playground, public park, etc.

• Enabling density and more efficient use of existing space. About 15% of the City is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, making it illegal for a homeowner to add new units, create a basement unit, even add a backyard apartment. Throughout the city, inflexible minimum parking requirements prevent homeowners from converting a garage or a parking pad to an apartment. New housing could be created on existing properties by allowing more units on existing lots, reducing the requirements for parking, and allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), microunits, basement units, co-living, Single-Room-Occupancy (SRO), and more.

Candidates’ Positions:

McGUIRE: McGuire would legalize ADUs, basement apartments and garage apartments, and expand no-interest loans to help property owners bring these units up to code. He would also change FAR restrictions so that homeowners can build additional units on their existing property. He would expand the inclusionary housing bonus for property owners building new condos or co-ops, allowing additional building height in exchange for making a % of those units affordable to first-time, middle-income homebuyers.

GARCIA: Garcia would allow duplexes and triplexes in single-family zones, and legalizing basement apartments, accessory dwelling units, and single-room occupancy (SRO) apartments.

ADAMS: Adams would legalize micro-units, ADUs, SROs and basement apartments.

YANG: Yang would allow ADUs, basement units, co-living, microunits, and SROs. He would amend City codes to increase the number of unrelated individuals who can share dwelling in a multi-family (3 or more units) from 3 to 6 and remove the requirements that they occupy as a “family.” He would support construction and rehabilitation of sites for artist enclaves, with unit set-asides for freelancers, creatives and performers.

STRINGER: Stringer would allow ADUs, basement units, co-living, microunits, and garage space conversion, and streamline the permitting process. He would make available pre-approved plans for ADUs in order to help lower the costs of design and construction. He also would develop a program that offers eligible homeowners financing assistance in return for an enforceable commitment that the units created will be affordable housing. Any owner that receives a subsidy would be subject to regulatory agreements and enforcement mortgages that ensure tenants can only be evicted for good cause. Further, Stringer would work with nonprofit providers to allow rent-regulated SRO units into office + hotel conversions.

WILEY: N/A

Envelope’s Editorial:

Did McGuire and Garcia just recommend upzoning the urban burbs, under the guise of an SRO/ADU allowance? And McGuire would eliminate parking requirements that prevent the conversion of garages? Swoon. All the candidates seem to be in favor of allowing all manner of smaller and more flexible and denser dwelling spaces, as they reflect the shifting nature of modern families, a new desire for communal living, and lifestyles that allow a more fluid blend of public and private spaces. We like McGuire’s proposal for no-interest loan provision for upgrades + renovations. We dislike Stringer’s supply-side subsidy to make more “permanently affordable” units in homes and in office buildings, and Yang’s set-asides for specific industries. Imagine city officials wasting time trying to prove if someone is actually a performer or an artist! Oh wait, we don’t need to imagine. Maya Wiley has no comment.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

We would immediately upzone all R1+R2 districts to R3+R4 (and maybe beyond), in order to accommodate additional dwelling units of any size, while ensuring that infrastructure development keeps up with new residents. We would look at upzoning other lower-density districts where increased density could improve walkability, vibrant commercial corridors, and thriving “15 minute neighborhoods” We would also implement parking *maximums* throughout the city in zoning to start to make a dent in the ever-increasing number of private car storage spaces that could otherwise be used to house more people. We, too, would relax the rules that prevent SROs and ADUs, microunits, garage apartments, and their ilk from being created. We would offer low-interest or no-interest financing to homeowners and building owners to encourage new development.

2. Supporting Demand:

• Assisting rent- and mortgage-stretched tenants with financial and legal support. Direct targeted subsidies to residents is how the City can most effectively bridge the gap between housing prices and tenants’ ability to pay. This approach can apply flexibly across the spectrum of tenants, from homeless to middle-income families, even to upper-middle income families experiencing a moment of hardship — helping people stay in their homes, move to more appropriate homes, or even buy their homes. The City can also expand access to legal support to ensure that residents have a way to fight evictions or bad-actor landlords.

Candidates’ Positions:

McGUIRE: McGuire would increase the value, breadth, and alignment of Federal Section 8 and City vouchers, expanding eligibility to the undocumented and residents making a higher % of AMI. He would create a set of financing mechanisms to help first-time and lower-income homebuyers with down payments and home repair/upgrade; and small landlords with foreclosure avoidance. McGuire would launch a partnership for employer-subsidized housing, which could include employee rental assistance or help with a down payment. He would prioritize permanent housing for seniors. Finally, he would streamline the bureaucracy that results in long wait times for New Yorkers trying to access rental assistance and landlords to receive payment from the city, and expand legal assistance for tenants who face eviction.

YANG: Yang, too, would make the city’s rental assistance program equivalent to Section 8, and expand eligibility to undocumented immigrants. Uniquely, Yang would take any property tax decrease due to a decline in values from COVID-19, spread it out over a number of years to prevent a hit to the City’s budget. He would then provide incentives for landlords to share the savings with struggling tenants, tying additional tax relief to small landlords who forgive unpaid rent from the COVID-19 covered period. Yang would streamline the provision of city services by creating one-stop-shop field offices. Finally, he would expand legal assistance for tenants who face eviction to undocumented immigrants, and prevent eviction by encouraging efficient alternatives to housing court.

GARCIA: Garcia would expand the program that provides tenants facing eviction with a lawyer. She would increase the value of City FHEPS vouchers to match Section 8 vouchers, and bring action against landlords who discriminate against prospective tenants with vouchers. Garcia would redesign rental assistance programs to catch those at-risk, streamlining the process of application and partnering with the State and Federal government to target and deliver relief to prevent evictions. Finally, she would offer property tax forgiveness to landlords who forgive rent owed by tenants and commit to not pursue eviction.

STRINGER: Stringer, too, would increase the value, breadth, and alignment of Federal Section 8 and City vouchers; and the City’s enforcement of violations. He would expand funding and eligibility for low-interest financing for first-time homebuyers and homeowners to make home repairs. He would also invest $125 million a year in a new subsidy program targeted to assist families most in-need. Uniquely, Stringer would give tenants a legal right to buy their buildings when they go up for sale, and subsidize them to do so by restricting the resale of the building with the intent of maintaining affordability in perpetuity. Finally, Stringer would increase funding and eligibility for legal services. He does not mention accommodating undocumented immigrants.

WILEY: Maya Wiley would create a Citywide back-rent and tax relief program for small and nonprofit landlords using federal COVID stimulus money. She would also advocate for a host of fee-waivers and security deposit relief by the State, offering property tax forgiveness for landlords who voluntarily waive these expenses, additional property tax deferment to small and nonprofit landlords in exchange for giving tenants the right to renew their lease with limited rent increases for five years. She would provide case management and home-matching services for evicted families, and partner with area law schools and pro-bono legal partners to provide building-level legal counsel in cases where a significant number of tenants are facing eviction.

ADAMS: Adams, too, would increase the value of the City’s housing vouchers to reflect current rents. He would streamline the process of rent relief by creating a common application and tracking system for those in need.

Envelope’s Editorial:

Demand-side subsidies are far more efficient and effective in the long term than rent regulation. Given this, we appreciate the candidates’ efforts to ensure that public subsidies bridge the gap between prices and residents’ ability to pay. We like McGuire’s broad-based and large demand subsidy (and his support for small landlords and the undocumented), his ladder to home ownership, and the flexibility to move people out of NYCHA and into their own homes — although we question his policy encouraging rent freezes for seniors; we’d rather see no-gouging laws and subsidies to bridge the market-rate gap, so seniors can continue to build wealth to accommodate expensive end-of-life care. We like Yang’s creativity in spreading tax benefits across landlords and tenants over several years, and one-stop-shops for receiving services. We like Garcia’s dual focus on relief for tenants at-risk and landlords who help them. We like Stringer’s proposal to allow tenants to buy their buildings, but dislike that they’d be required to remain permanently affordable, since that obviates much of the wealth-building goal of homeownership. Adams’ proposals are fine, but barely scratch the surface. Wiley’s measures are fine for the immediate crisis, but she has no systemic proposal for the future.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

We would ensure the City’s housing budget was largely focused on the robust, targeted, and highly-tailored allocation of tenant subsidies, while encouraging as much mixed-income market development as possible so that supply stays ahead of demand. We would push the State to lift rent regulations and implement a reasonable, universal, anti-gouging law for all rentals. We would be agnostic as to whether home assistance was used for rent or mortgage payments, and support programs proposed by several candidates to offer loans for down payments and home maintenance and upgrades. We would want all home assistance to be tailored-to-the-individual’s needs, quickly responsive to changes in income, and reliably available. We’d want to explore creative mechanisms for making the administration and user experience of means-testing as efficient and easy as possible, and ensuring that demand subsidies are supported by rainy day funds, to avoid boom-and-bust cycles in the city’s budget.

3. Reducing costs and barriers to development

• Embracing innovation with construction materials and techniques. NYC construction costs tend to be higher than those in other cities, largely because of construction union pensions and health care costs, but in part because of outdated (counterproductive) regulatory requirements — such as parking minimums — that add cost and risk to building. NYC also has been fairly slow to embrace new building techniques, like modular construction, which could have all mechanicals and code compliance pre-approved; and more innovative construction materials, like mass timber, which has cost, aesthetic, and climate benefits. Our next mayor will need to focus on innovation and ways to reduce the cost of construction so that landlords can make housing more affordable.

Candidates’ Positions:

McGUIRE: McGuire would modernize building codes to allow for the use of innovative materials and make increased use of prefabricated and modular construction projects.

ADAMS: Adams would cut costs by using drones to perform inspections.

YANG: Yang mentions modular construction a couple of times in his land use platform, but leaves it at that.

WILEY: N/A

GARCIA: N/A

STRINGER: Stringer’s plan would likely *add* costs to development through ensuring that capital subsidies are used to promote a wage and benefit standard for construction workers commensurate with the City’s cost of living. Capital subsidies would be provided to developers who commit to workers’ rights to organize. He would also require a racial impact assessment in environmental impact statements, which would take additional time, increase cost, and attempt to measure nearly immeasurable potential outcomes.

Envelope’s Editorial:

Only McGuire is explicit here. He makes clear that he’d innovate and reduce outdated restrictions on construction as a way to reduce costs. None of the other candidates offers a credible plan for embracing new technology and materials to reduce costs. Stringer’s proposals would substantially increase them. Color us generally disappointed, as this is an area where forward-looking policies can encourage better, faster, and cheaper development.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

The world is awash with real estate, energy, and construction innovation, from software-designed housing; to on-site modular assembly, to geothermal and solar-driven heating + cooling, to digital energy monitoring and reporting; to drone inspections and AI for construction sites and ongoing inspections; to mass timber for cheaper, greener building. Envelope would have a proactive and robust pilot program for proptech and construction entrepreneurs, with an eye to scaling the successful ones across the city. We also would work to ensure that regulators were looking ahead to embrace and accommodate future innovations.

• Streamlining the permitting process and minimizing red tape. Time is one of the most expensive burdens placed on developers. Every hour spent waiting for approvals and permits and materials can cost thousands of dollars. NYC has a many-month permitting process for even the simplest development or renovation, and a multi-year process for ULURP — the discretionary approvals mechanism for a variance or rezoning. Permitting is also so complex as to require expediters, often adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to construction. The next mayor will need to coordinate the multiple government agencies involved with housing permits, develop a dramatically simplified process so that expediters aren’t required, and be open to a more flexible permitting mechanism that allows design and construction to proceed pending approval.

Candidates’ Positions:

GARCIA: Garcia would focus on process efficiency: streamlining all aspects of building new housing, from accelerating approvals, to ULURP, to environmental review, to permit applications and inspections at the Department of Buildings and other relevant agencies.

McGUIRE: reduce the cost of construction by up to 20% by streamlining approvals; reducing bureaucracy that can delay the leasing of new affordable units or increase administrative costs

STRINGER: We couldn’t find this mentioned in Stringer’s written plans, so we’re deducting points, but at the mayoral debate on 5/13, he DID call for a general overhaul of the DoB to separate its permitting and enforcement divisions and streamline its process in order to eliminate the need for expediters. We couldn’t agree more.

YANG: Yang would ensure better agency coordination, i.e. having DHS report to the same Deputy Mayor as housing agencies, such as HPD. Through data-driven metrics, coordinated partnerships and accountability standards, make housing stability the primary mission of DHS.

ADAMS: N/A

WILEY: N/A

Envelope’s Editorial:

Of all the candidates, Garcia is the most credible here, as she has the clearest insight into the problems of NYC bureaucracy and an obvious desire to break through the logjams. McGuire has a clear % goal for cost-reduction through efficiency, which we like. We also like Yang’s proposal for coordinating agency reporting, and a data-driven management approach. We couldn’t find any developer-side efficiency-focused proposals from the other candidates, other than making ADUs as-of-right, per above.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

We, too, would organize housing-related agencies under a common reporting structure, so that goals laid out in our master plan were properly tracked for accountability and continuous improvement. We would deploy 2021-era technology to ensure that any interaction with any branch of NYC government for businesses and private citizens avoids redundant information submission across agencies. Where the City already has access to relevant records, from tax filings to permit applications, they should be pulled directly from those City agencies, rather than having to request them again from the applicant. Every builder application for any permit or service should be pre-filled with all information that the city already has about the applicant. Standard approvals — especially the box-checking ones, like “Certificate of No Effect” for LPC — could be granted via self-attestation (with robust audits and significant penalties for fraud), or provisional approval so that development can proceed while in the queue.

4. Regulating prices

• Expanding rent control + stabilization policies. Housing experts condemn rent controls and overly-restrictive rent stabilization policies because of their unintended market consequences. San Francisco, NYC, and other high-cost housing markets have pushed the failure of labor markets and social safety nets into the private sector, capping prices the landlords are allowed to charge, capping escalations, and preventing them from passing along any costs of renovation. These markets have demonstrated that stringent rent regulations on private units ultimately result in far less housing supply, much higher costs for non-regulated units, misallocation of units, AND poorer housing stock. Lose-lose-lose-lose.

“But the city can build and maintain social housing like we did post-WWII!” say advocates. Not really. 1940s + 1950s NYC was far, far less regulated. For better and and often very much for worse, “power brokers” like Robert Moses could build what they wanted with limited public constraint or governance oversight. Today, the City is awash in labor and insurance and process rules, and has lost much of its competence to be a builder-owner-operator. Its lengthy lowest-bidder procurement process and extensive public hearings, poor accountability standards, and high-cost union prevent speedy and effective development and management. Maybe the pandemic will bring much-needed change?

Either way — managing prices via rent control or providing artificially-low-cost supply — the market will be distorted, and the outcomes will tend to be poorer for residents, the market, and the city overall.

GARCIA: N/A

ADAMS: N/A

WILEY: N/A

McGUIRE: McGuire takes a surprisingly aggressive supply-side approach to creating more deeply-affordable and homeless housing. He would more than double current capital investments in and incentivize its development. He would focus on supportive housing for seniors, and develop incentives for the construction or conversion of housing to low-income senior housing. He’d also sell or transfer the air rights on city-owned buildings, such as schools, rail yards and NYCHA developments, to build more affordable housing in surrounding neighborhoods. He would work with community-based organizations to help fund the conversion of distressed rental properties, including those subject to an impending lien sale, to limited equity tenant-owned properties as a way to increase the city’s permanently-affordable housing stock.

YANG: Yang doubles down on rent regulations. He would support existing rent stabilization laws, create a new task force to investigate compliance, and revoke 421a tax exemptions from top offenders. He would also go after landlords who refuse to accept vouchers. He would provide incentives for landlords to voluntarily put units back into rent regulation, and work to increase the capacity of affordable housing developers to develop larger, 100% affordable, projects. His administration would ensure that the City’s capital funding targets and subsidizes projects with deep affordability.

STRINGER: Stringer goes all in on rent regulations. He would fight to maintain rent regs in Albany and mandate strict enforcement measures and severe penalties for noncompliance. He would require every big development in every neighborhood to set aside 25% of its units for permanent, low-income housing, without sunset clauses. Subsidies and tax exemptions would be used to increase the amount of a building dedicated to very- or extremely low income affordable housing. He would require any vacancy in subsidized buildings to be targeted to very low-income or less, and have a 15% homeless set-aside. He would ensure that all tax incentives and capital subsidies have a prevailing wage standard for building service, maintenance, and construction workers where appropriate. Stringer would work with HDFCs, Mitchell Lama, and other limited equity coops to strengthen their finances and ensure they remain permanently affordable. Stringer would end 421a (the tax incentive for developers to create housing), and direct funds on a discretionary basis to large projects that would create a large amount of permanently affordable housing.

Envelope’s Editorial:

Garcia, Adams, and Wiley don’t mention rent controls, which is the best thing they could say about them. McGuire doesn’t mention his stance toward the State’s private rent regulation, but has the city investing heavily in the creation of new supply for very-low-income housing, with a focus on seniors, and extracting additional value from public air rights. While creating artificially-priced supply isn’t the optimal solution, it’s far preferable to setting price caps on the private sector. We’d like to see McGuire put all that money into funding people to live in market-rate units that make sense for their household. Yang goes all in on rent regs — promising to support and vigorously defend them. Stringer goes so much farther. He would set up entirely new agencies to enforce the rules, and wants to fund a massive amount of permanently rent controlled and affordable housing. This flies in the face of all research and all well-regarded housing policy from the last 50 years, and is likely to have a host of unintended consequences for the city, not least of which would be a dramatic drop in property taxes — the primary funder of the city’s coffers.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

We would take this once-in-a-lifetime crisis as an opportunity to fund and implement the recommendations of the experts, whole hog. This takes a cue from the UBI / stimulus / demand-side approach to bridging the gap between market rate units and low-income or even homeless residents. There are a few things that would need to be considered, the trickiest of which are efficient, regular means-testing; rebalancing subsidies regularly to accommodate rising and falling incomes of recipients; allowing recipients to choose their preferred neighborhood (including affluent neighborhoods) and to plan their housing for the long-term; and ensuring that the subsidies remain fully-funded and available across political and economic cycles. Adams and McGuire come closest to our vision. Creating opportunities for the development of housing — especially supportive and very-low income housing — is a reasonable City ask, although we’re still in favor of demand side subsidies into tenant-selected market-rate housing. We’d be agnostic to rent vs buy, which would provide higher-quality homes and clearer ladders to opportunity and wealth-building. To put some of the economics in perspective, you’d need 30,000–40,000 units to permanently house the current NYC homeless population. If the city were to subsidize at 100% an existing market-rate apartment of the person’s choosing worth on average, say, $500,000 (without interest), taxpayers would spend $2b/year over 10 years — which is less than ⅔ of what they currently spend — on a far more permanent and safe solution that enhances everyone’s outcomes.

Who will occupy City Hall come 2022? (photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Hall)

Conclusion. All the candidates have a unique perspective on housing policy, some much-better considered and much-more detailed than others, and some much more scattershot. Here’s our force-rank.

Garcia is somewhat thin on the details, but her approach — encouraging and making it easy for the private sector to build more housing while focusing on the demand-side for subsidies, and not singling out specific categories for extra support (artists, seniors, etc.)— is the best one, and the most aligned with decades of housing policy research. She also has the experience to know how to fix the roadblocks set up by the bureaucracy.

McGuire has a balanced and economically rational housing policy, with a clear understanding of the needs of industry and residents. Of these candidates, he’s most consistently aligned with best practices, although he does plow lots of cash into creating new permanently affordable housing.

Yang seems to understand the value of aligning private actors with public needs, although we don’t love that he continues to push on rent regulations. He doesn’t really go big on demand-side subsidies, which is surprising, as the country’s primary UBI salesman. We also think he’s fighting hard against the tide — and what’s ultimately best for equity, the environment, health, and our quality of life — by working so hard to encourage workers to commute to the CBDs five days/week. Instead, he should take the opportunity to reimagine Manhattan for the 21st century.

Adams Adams’ policy is thin in most areas, and he spills a surprising amount of policy-ink on pets (we love our pets, we do, but there are other fish to fry here, so to speak). He also doesn’t seem to have much of a vision for how the city’s real estate profile should develop over the next 50 years — no master plan, no big goals. We want more coherence.

Stringer The thing about Stringer is that he knows better than anyone how real estate economics work, how dependent city revenues are on property taxes, the high costs and time-overruns of the city’s agencies, and what needs to happen in order to encourage supply. His massively regulatory top-down approach to housing would be too slow and cumbersome for residents, lethal to the private real estate market, AND it would kill the City’s budget — and he knows that. Shame.

Wiley Wiley doesn’t have a policy proposal for housing, other than one that’s focused on short-term evictions. Worse only than having a bad policy is not having one at all.

If Envelope Were Mayor:

Master planning and housing affordability are HIGHLY complex topics that we’re addressing here with very broad strokes to stimulate a more nuanced discussion than the ones we’ve been hearing in the political realm. Reasonable people can disagree on the best way to achieve housing affordability in a massive city like NYC. There’s even some disagreement among the very reasonable people at Envelope itself. If Envelope were mayor, we’d have a raft of policy experts advising us more deeply, we’d be listening carefully to them, we’d be focused on the facts and the data, and we’d avoid politicizing the topic as much as possible. We would be applying solutions that are cognizant of the economics of real estate, that have the goal of building opportunity and wealth for people with lower incomes; that provide them with relevant housing for their needs; that bolster the City’s coffers through revenue rather than austerity; and that attempt to engage public and private actors in generating as much high-quality housing supply as possible to meet — and even exceed — demand.