Here’s why New York needs a ‘builder’s remedy’ to solve its dearth of affordable housing

BY JAMES LLOYD

To kick off the current legislative season, Gov. Kathy Hochul laid out the solution New York needs to solve its housing crisis: the New York Housing Compact. It would be the first statewide housing/land-use policy in our history and our most ambitious housing endeavor since the Urban Development Corp.

New Yorkers should wholeheartedly support the compact because we need to build an enormous amount of housing to escape our crisis. Consider a recently published analysis from the Regional Plan Association showing that New York needs to build 817,000 homes during the next decade.

The compact can help us get there, and we cannot afford to delay.

The way the plan handles the suburbs is particularly compelling. Many of New York City’s suburbs are considered high-opportunity areas—which means they have great schools, a healthy environment and connections to transit. In other words, they’re places where families thrive. The suburbs are ideal communities for affordable housing, but restrictive zoning and exclusionary politics have turned them into havens of single-family homes.

Denser affordable housing in those neighborhoods clearly would benefit those in need of an affordable home, but the plan also makes economic sense. It is much more cost-effective to allow duplexes, townhomes and moderate-density housing near Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road stations than it is to focus entirely on the five boroughs.

New York City banned woodframe construction in the 19th century due to concerns about fires; it is still forbidden today. Sprinklered wood-frame construction, however, is the most common form of multifamily development in the U.S. in low-rise areas, and for good reason: It’s much less expensive than steel-and-concrete construction.

Inside New York City, affordable housing construction costs run about $400 per square foot. Outside the city, where you can build sprinklered wood-frame apartments, costs drop to about $250 per square foot. For a 750-squarefoot, one-bedroom apartment, that’s a $150,000 cost difference. When facing an 800,000plus home shortage, every dollar counts, so there is clearly an economic advantage to building more suburban multifamily housing.

Every community needs to do its part, which is why the compact includes a strong “builder’s remedy.” The process allows affordable housing projects to apply for permits notwithstanding local zoning in communities that have failed to adequately allow such housing.

The proposal is controversial, but there are precedents in other states. Massachusetts has an appeals board for areas with inadequate affordable housing, though it also has an eight-month local process before an appeal is allowed.

In California, lawmakers institut- ed a much more direct builder’s remedy. When a municipality’s housing plan is out of compliance with state law, anyone can apply to build a mixed-income or affordable project. Such applications vest if submitted during a period of noncompliance, meaning they can proceed regardless of what a municipality does later. Projects, however, still must undergo an environmental review, which often is used to delay projects.

With those examples in mind, New York’s builder’s remedy should have the following elements: the ability to “vest” by submitting applications during periods of noncompliance, a streamlined environmental review and an expeditious process.

We have an amazing opportunity to build our way out of the housing crisis with cost-effective construction in high-opportunity communities. Let’s not miss it. ■