How Hochul Housing Plan Can Pass

Gov. Hochul gets a surprising amount right in the proposal she calls the New York Housing Compact, which calls for an ambitious 800,000 new homes over 10 years. She’s right on a central point: New York has high housing costs because we build far less than even New Jersey, let alone Texas. And she acknowledges that the Empire State already has far more subsidized, rent-regulated and public housing than any other state; more of those is not the answer to high costs.

But in calling for localities — especially on Long Island — to relax single family zoning to permit more home building she makes an unforced error that threatens to sink the whole plan. In calling for a 3% increase in new homes for almost all towns and villages, she adds a big stick: a new state super zoning board that can overrule communities which deny permits to projects which include “affordability”, meaning income-restricted.

This is a recipe for backlash. Anyone who has ever attended a local planning board meeting knows that there is nothing neighbors care more about than what is going to be built next door. The idea that Albany will tell them that they must allow mid or high-rise developments that remind them of big city “projects” will produce an outcry.

Indeed, a similar “anti-snob zoning” law in Massachusetts, which Hochul has cited approvingly, has never stopped being a lightning rod for controversy 50 years after it was enacted — and has led to little housing.

Memo to Hochul: find a way to persuade local communities that it’s in their best interest to allow some new housing, and new types of housing, to be built.

The key phrase should not be “affordable housing” but, rather, what’s being called, in many parts of the country, “missing middle” housing.

Across the country, this is proving to be a potent and persuasive phrase. In some places, including suburban Milwaukee, a higher level of government offers incentives such as infrastructure aid to reduce costs for localities that permit new and denser “naturally affordable” housing types. (Washington County, Wisc. spread the word about this at the recent National Association of Counties conference in Washington, D.C.)

The missing middle includes two and three-family homes which young families can afford through rental income that helps pay the mortgage. It should include “accessory dwelling units” — the “granny flats” which allow older homeowners to move to a smaller place while staying in the town they know. It should include attached single-family row houses where teachers can afford to live.

The garages of raised ranch homes can become new apartments. The basements in Jackson Heights which have flooded need to be upgraded and legalized, so owners can sell them at a profit. There may be as many as 100,000 such units in Gotham, hidden from housing inspectors but providing needed shelter. They need to be brought out of the (literal) darkness through new building codes that make them safe but not too costly. (Uber-liberal Comptroller Brad Lander has long been an advocate.)

The more Hochul talks up “affordable housing” and threatens communities that don’t permit specific types, the more controversy will ensue and the less will be built. It will not be clear to suburbanites — or acceptable to many — that new apartments must be an “inclusionary” mix of income types. To be consistent, Hochul must accept the fact that any new construction will help slake demand and lower prices, especially in the metro area.

The politics of this should be clear to her. The communities her Compact specifically targets — Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and the rest of the Mid-Hudson Valley — will undoubtedly pressure their representatives in Albany to push back against a state zoning superboard. Already, one Massapequa legislator has charged Hochul with trying to turn Long Island into a “sixth borough” of New York City. Keep in mind that absent legislative approval, Hochul’s plan will die.

Hochul is not wrong to push for new, private housing construction. Indeed, that’s a welcome change from the progressive mantra for an array of public subsidies, which have led to the state’s debt burden. One would wish she’d call out the folly of rent regulation, which leads to too many New Yorkers staying put when they no longer need big apartments.

That would take more political courage than beating up on suburban planning and zoning boards. Taking on home rule will just not work as a political matter. It is clearly the case that, in a state with a falling population, more housing construction will lead to lower prices. Instead of carrying a big stick, Hochul needs to suggest and persuade.

That’s what leadership looks like.