To me, the housing ballot proposals can be confounding

So, what about the three ballot proposals to speed the approvals of housing in the city?

An easy call? After all, it's indisputable that the city--though it would be better to focus on the region, given the recalcitrant suburbs--needs more housing, especially affordable housing, and some Council Districts have been far more welcoming than others.

It's easy to outsource conclusions to supporters (like the YES on Affordable Housing coalition, Errol Louis in NY Magazine, and the YIMBY group Abundance NY), opponents (like the City Council, Village Preservation, and TenantsPac). or to HellGate's more nuanced A Crash Course in the 3 Controversial Housing Ballot Proposals.

I tried to look at the actual language, and it was... confounding.

So here's Ballot Proposal 2, according to NYC Votes:

What you'll see on the ballot

Fast track publicly financed affordable housing. Fast track applications delivering affordable housing in the community districts that produce the least affordable housing, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review.

“Yes” fast tracks applications at the Board of Standards and Appeals or City Planning Commission.

“No” leaves affordable housing subject to longer review and final decision at City Council.

(Emphases added throughout) 

Sounds reasonable, right? But it's not a lot to go on.

 

More from NYC Votes: 

What this proposal means

Most housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process. This proposal would make two new processes for certain affordable housing projects.

The first process would allow the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) to approve publicly financed affordable housing projects, after a 60-day review by the local Community Board and a 30-day review by the BSA.

The second process would create a faster review for projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing. This process would allow the Community Board and local Borough President to review at the same time, followed by a 30- to 45-day review by the City Planning Commission (CPC). The CPC would have final approval instead of the City Council.

A “yes” vote makes two processes to fast-track affordable housing projects.

A “no” vote keeps the seven-month review process with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and Mayor.

Drilling down

 

What's "publicly financed affordable housing"? Is that housing that is 100% below-market, which can include middle-income units? Is it low-income housing? Or just housing that has some public financing mechanism, whether it be tax breaks, subsidies, or low-cost financing?

 

What, to quote the second sentence, are "applications delivering affordable housing"? What percentage affordable units, and what level of affordability is the minimum?

That leaves a lot of wiggle room for future administrations.

I went to the Charter Revision Commission FAQ page.

What does “affordable” mean for apartments included in the Charter proposals? 

Housing is considered “affordable” when a family spends 30% or less of their income to live there. Various government programs create affordable housing that is “income restricted” – that is, reserved for families that earn below a certain income level. 

Both Question 2 (“Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Affordable Housing Across the City”) and Question 4 (“Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough, and Citywide Representation”) create new processes for projects that create income-restricted rental and homeownership opportunities affordable to families at lower incomes. 

These questions would most frequently apply to applications that include Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (“MIH”), or more and/or deeper levels of affordability. MIH requires all new housing development to include a 20 to 30 percent setaside for permanently affordable housing at a range of incomes, generally between 40 and 80 percent of the Area Median Income (“AMI”). (AMI is the figure calculated by HUD to determine eligibility for affordable housing.) In concrete terms, 40 percent AMI for a family of three translates to a rent of about $1,450 for a 2-bedroom apartment, and 80% AMI translates to a rent of about $2,900 for that family.

Question 2 also includes a Fast Track Zoning Action before the Board of Standards and Appeals (“BSA”). This process is only available for publicly financed affordable housing projects. Question 4 could also apply to some land use actions that facilitate these affordable housing projects as well. These developments are generally 100% affordable and reach families at the lowest incomes, including housing for the formerly homeless. The goal of this new process is to enable public subsidy to create more affordable housing. 

The term "publicly financed" is not defined. The term "most frequently" leaves a lot of wiggle room. So does "generally 100% affordable."

 

Drilling further down 

So I went to Charter Commission's report:

First, the proposed amendment would create a new zoning action for publicly financed affordable housing at the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA). This new action would be available only to Housing Development Fund Companies (HDFCs), the legal vehicle for virtually all publicly financed 100-percent affordable housing projects in New York City. 

To receive zoning relief, an HDFC would need to demonstrate that an eligible project is consistent with neighborhood character and that relief will promote affordable housing development. This action builds upon, and expands, BSA’s existing authority to grant zoning waivers, including for affordable housing projects.

But if it would be available only to "100% affordable" HDFCs, why didn't they say so?

 

The report also says:

The proposed amendment would also establish a new public review procedure for applications that deliver affordable housing in the community districts that permit the least affordable housing. Building on the City Council’s Fair Housing Framework, which was written into the Charter in 2023, the proposed amendment is intended to increase the production of affordable housing across the city and help ensure that every neighborhood contributes to the need for affordable housing.100 

Every five years, beginning in October 2026, the City will release a report on the rate of affordable housing permitting in each of the 59 Community Districts over the past 5 years. In the 12 Community Districts that permitted the least affordable housing, rezoning applications that are required to deliver affordable housing under the City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program would have access to a new land use procedure: the Affordable Housing Fast Track. This procedure would include the same 60-day opportunity for Community Board review as exists under ULURP today. To speed review, the Borough President’s advisory review period would run concurrent with the Community Board. Following the Community Board and Borough President, the City Planning Commission would have 30 days to review an eligible application and hold a final vote.101 From start to finish, this process would cut in half the amount of time that covered applications spend in public review. 

So, would the second part of Ballot Measure 2 only apply to applications that deliver affordable housing under MIH, or "most frequently" MIH, or, as the ballot measure language suggests, any "affordable housing"?

In other words, does the more general language in the ballot measures get modified by the specifics in the report? If so, shouldn't they have told us?

 

Ballot Proposal 3, from NYC Votes:

What you'll see on the ballot

Simplify review of modest amounts of additional housing and minor infrastructure projects, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review, with final decision by the City Planning Commission.

“Yes” simplifies review for limited land-use changes, including modest housing and minor infrastructure projects.

“No” leaves these changes subject to longer review, with final decision by City Council.

What this proposal says

This proposal would create a faster review process for certain land use projects, such as smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. For most of these projects, the proposed process would remove final review by the City Council.

What this proposal means

Currently, most land use projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month public review process. This proposal would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. This process would include a 60-day review period for the local Community Board and local Borough President, followed by a 30-day review and final decision by the City Planning Commission (CPC).

A “yes” vote creates a faster process for smaller zoning changes and other land use actions. It also removes the City Council’s review for most projects.

A “no” vote keeps the seven-month public review process with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and Mayor.

My observation

  

What does "modest" mean? It's not defined, but the Charter Review Commission Report says "Modest housing proposals that increase residential capacity by no more than 30% or allow housing with a standard height no taller than 45 feet."

 

Is 30% "modest"? What does that mean in various neighborhoods? 

 

Ballot Proposal 4, from NYC Votes:

 What you'll see on the ballot

Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with the Council Speaker, local Borough President, and Mayor to review Council actions that reject or change applications creating affordable housing.

“Yes” creates the three-member Affordable Housing Appeals Board to reflect Council, borough, and citywide perspectives.

“No” leaves affordable housing subject to the Mayor’s veto and final decision by City Council.

What this proposal says

This proposal would change the current land use review process when the City Council rejects or changes an affordable housing project. The proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, made up of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor. The proposal would allow the Appeals Board to reverse the City Council’s decision with a two-to-one vote.

What this proposal means

Currently, most affordable housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process that ends in a final City Council vote. The mayor has the power to veto this decision, and the City Council can overturn the veto.

This proposal would apply to affordable housing projects the City Council rejects or changes. This proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board that would have the power to reverse the City Council’s decision. The Appeals Board would include the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor. Projects would pass if two of the three members agree.

A “yes” vote creates the Affordable Housing Appeals Board, which would be able to reverse City Council decisions on affordable housing projects with a two-to-one vote. The Appeals Board would consist of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor.

A “no” vote keeps the current review process for affordable housing projects, which includes a final decision by the City Council.

According to the CRC report:

This change would elevate the role of the Borough President in the land use process, as a democratically accountable official who occupies a middle point between hyperlocal and citywide perspectives. It would empower the Speaker as an official who can channel local interests as well as citywide needs, given that a Speaker is both elected by one council district and selected by, and accountable to, the Council as a whole. And while removing the Mayor’s veto power in ULURP, it would give the citywide perspective of the Mayor a concrete, but qualified, role. 

My observation

 

This ballot measure has strong arguments, pro and con. So-called "member deference" has allowed some Council Members to block development. Writes Louis:

Individual council members often waste years letting noisy, not-in-my-backyard activists control the outcome of even trivially small and obviously worthy housing projects, like the rezoning of Bruckner Boulevard.... 

Then again, the Council can also point to its track record. From the Council press release:

Through their democratically elected City Council, New Yorkers currently have the power to secure more affordable housing, neighborhood investments, and good union jobs, but that is at risk to Mayor Adams’ misleading Ballot Proposals 2, 3, and 4,” said Speaker Adrienne Adams.

That, by the way, includes the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan.