Mayor’s Housing New York plan

Mayor’s Housing New York plan
Name	Mayor’s Housing New York plan
Date initiated	2014
Jurisdiction	New York City
Architect	Bill de Blasio
Status	Implemented

Mayor’s Housing New York plan The Mayor’s Housing New York plan was a large-scale housing initiative launched by Bill de Blasio in 2014 to expand affordable housing in New York City. It set multi-decade targets, created new programs and partnerships with entities such as the New York City Housing Authority, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and private developers including Extell Development Company and Related Companies. The plan intersected with initiatives from the New York State executive branch, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and local advocacy groups like Housing Works and Urban Strategies Council.

Background and goals

Devised during the 2013 New York City mayoral election aftermath and announced in 2014, the plan responded to housing pressures evident in neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island. It aimed to produce and preserve units across income bands, drawing on precedents such as Mitchell-Lama Housing Program and the history of the New York City Housing Authority developments like Queensbridge Houses and Red Hook Houses. The plan’s explicit targets—commonly cited as 200,000 units over a decade—sought to address affordability challenges tied to phenomena associated with gentrification in Brooklyn, the growth of the tech sector in New York City, and changes in rental markets documented by the U.S. Census Bureau and New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal.

Policy components and programs

Key components included new construction incentives, preservation programs, zoning reforms, and tenant protections administered through agencies including the New York City Department of Finance and the New York City Planning Commission. Programs such as Mandatory Inclusionary Housing drew on statutory models like the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York and built on tools used in Inclusionary housing programs in cities referenced by policymakers, for example San Francisco, London, and Tokyo. Preservation efforts coordinated with nonprofit developers like The Community Preservation Corporation and Enterprise Community Partners, and capitalized on financing mechanisms used in projects modeled after Low-Income Housing Tax Credit-funded developments and Section 8 voucher structures.

The plan also established partnerships for supportive housing modeled on Project Renewal and collaborations with health-focused organizations such as Montefiore Health System and NYC Health + Hospitals to serve populations similar to those targeted by Pathways to Housing and Covenant House. Workforce and middle-income components referenced strategies from Battery Park City redevelopment and mixed-income models used by Mercy Housing and BRP Companies.

Funding and financing

Financing combined public subsidies, tax incentives, bond issuances, and private capital sourced from institutions like the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority and municipal bond markets involving underwriters such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The plan used tools akin to Tax Increment Financing and drew on federal credits administered by HUD, state tax credits from New York State Affordable Housing Corporation, and private equity from entities including BlackRock and Apollo Global Management in transactions resembling deals by Tishman Speyer and Silverstein Properties. Preservation relied on refinancing strategies used in Hudson Yards-era transactions and debt instruments similar to those employed by New York State Housing Finance Agency.

Implementation and timeline

Implementation occurred across multiple mayoral terms, interfacing with offices like the Mayor of New York City and city agencies such as the New York City Council and the New York City Rent Guidelines Board. Early milestones included rezonings—mirroring processes seen in Hudson Yards and Greenpoint-Williamsburg—and large-scale projects in neighborhoods including East Harlem, Inwood, South Bronx, and Flushing. Timelines aligned with capital plans from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority when transit-oriented development opportunities resembled those in Hudson Square. Progress reports were issued in frameworks similar to annual plans published by the Brooklyn Borough President and other borough offices.

Criticism and controversies

Critiques came from community groups, tenant associations, and elected officials including Letitia James and Cynthia Nixon who highlighted concerns about displacement reminiscent of debates over Columbia University expansion and controversies around Atlantic Yards. Critics argued the plan relied heavily on market-rate development with insufficient protections similar to disputes over rent stabilization and sought comparisons to contentious rezonings like Gowanus and Riverview Landing projects. Legal challenges invoked standards from New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and procedural disputes comparable to litigation involving Staten Island landfill and East Midtown rezoning.

Allegations of insufficient transparency, questioned projections, and disputes over affordability bands involved watchdogs such as Good Jobs New York and advocacy organizations like Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development and Met Council on Housing. Debates on the role of private developers referenced high-profile developers such as Fred Wilpon and Stephen Ross.

Impact and outcomes

Outcomes included the creation and preservation of tens of thousands of units, collaborative engagements with nonprofit developers like Phipps Houses and Common Ground, and projects that affected neighborhoods including Washington Heights and Coney Island. Evaluations by research bodies such as NYU Furman Center, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, and Rockefeller Institute of Government compared results to housing programs in municipalities like Los Angeles and Chicago. Metrics evaluated displacement, affordability, and neighborhood change using data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey.

Related legislation and city agencies

Related legislation and oversight involved interactions with the New York State Legislature, federal statutes enforced by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and city ordinances processed by the New York City Council. Agencies central to implementation included the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, New York City Housing Authority, New York City Planning Commission, Mayor's Office of Housing Recovery Operations, and the Office of Management and Budget (New York City). Coordination also involved state entities like the New York State Homes and Community Renewal and financial bodies such as the New York City Investment Fund.

Category:Housing in New York City