Page 8 - NY Cooperator October Expo 2019

8 THE COOPERATOR — OCTOBER 2019 COOPERATOR.COM CONT... • • • • • • 875 Third Avenue · 8th Floor · New York, NY 10022 t: (212) 808-0700 · f: (212) 808-0844 · e: info@norris-law.com Attorney Advertising www.norrismclaughlin.com many cases was code for the wiping out of existing neighborhoods to be replaced by ‘neighborhoods of the future.’ Th e social upheaval caused by this approach came to a head in the 1960s when journalist-activist Jane Jacobs, an advocate for preserving the existing urban fabric, battled urban plan- ning titan Robert Moses over the construc- tion of an expressway that would have wiped out large segments of Manhattan’s Green- wich Village. Ultimately, Jacobs’ vision won out and the grand (some might say grandi- ose) projects so oft en associated with Robert Moses lost favor. Aft er New York City’s fi nancial default in the mid-1970s, and the convulsions the city faced as a result of shift ing populations and trends, the approach to de- veloping aff ord- able housing for both the work- ing and middle classes changed. Rather than the publicly directed and funded proj- ects of the past, the private sec- tor was provided the opportunity to supply hous- ing at all levels, with govern- ment assistance coming through tax policy. Public bonds for construction were replaced with various tax incentives to promote all levels of hous- ing construction. Whether or not that ap- proach – which is still in favor today – has in fact produced the desired result of more housing being attainable by more people is debatable. Either way, growing populations, changing economics, and other complex issues raise the question of how New York City will navigate its seemingly perpetual housing struggles going forward. Private Sector, Public Support Th e premise underlying the current ap- proach to aff ordable housing development is the idea that the market is more effi cient than the public sector, and will do a better job at providing what’s needed at all levels with indirect public support. Th at support comes in the form of tax incentive programs like 421-A (which encourages development of underused/underutilized land) and J-51 (which is granted for buildings planning renovations). In return, the private sec- tor implicitly agrees to provide a certain percentage of aff ordable units in mixed developments through the use of manda- tory inclusionary housing (MIH). Perhaps the most easily recognizable manifestation A MORE AFFORDABLE continued from page 1 of MIH to most New Yorkers is the ‘80/20’ building, meaning a newly built property where 80% of the units are rented or sold at market rate, and the remaining 20% are subsidized, rented or sold for a discounted price to residents who meet certain income and asset restrictions to qualify. Th e upside of this approach has been that those who could otherwise never aff ord it can now access new, quality housing. Th e downside is that according to just about everyone who watches these trends, the number of units provided has been wholly insuffi cient in relation to the need – and the mixed-income model has resulted in such socially awkward phenomena as sepa- rate building entrances for lower-income residents, sometimes referred to as ‘poor doors.’ Th ese projects are usually paired with ‘up-zoning’ – rezoning areas to provide for denser construc- tion – which almost inevitably leads to the displacement of long-time residents who fi nd themselves priced out of the neighborhoods they may have lived in for generations. Matthew Las- ner is an associate professor of urban planning at Hunter College in Manhat- tan. His recom- mendation for the future is to continue the present system of MIH, but to expand and build on it. “I would recommend an expansion of MIH, but universally, rather than in just up-zoned areas. Universal MIH would specify that in any new building over a specifi ed size or number of units – for mid-rise buildings and up – \\\[developers\\\] would be required to include a certain percentage of below-mar- ket units.” Lasner says this would apply to both rental and for-sale construction. “Th e reason we need this is because aff ordable housing is the responsibility of everyone. Th e best way to ensure that we all share that burden is through public spending – but the states, and in particular the federal gov- ernment, have not shown any interest in providing aff ordable housing for decades through tax-and-spend type programs. We can approximate that better than we are do- ing now by requiring that every building in every neighborhood include MIH, without the displacement sideshow caused by up- zoning.” Lasner is also in favor of a voucher pro- gram to augment MIH. “A more vibrant city or state voucher program could be used. It’s out of favor right now, but is being discussed in California. Th is program would balance the production of new units while allow- “You have to begin with a plan that builds in aff ordability as a priority, not as a side benefi t of development, that’s the challenge.” — Robert Snyder See us at Booth 531