New York State, along with states around the country, is suffering from a housing crisis. When most people hear this, they immediately think of the high housing costs in New York City and the surrounding areas, where rents are well over $3,000 per month, home ownership is out of reach for many, and recent reports indicate roughly half of residents can not comfortably afford their current living arrangements. But this should not overshadow the very real housing crises experienced across Upstate New York as well. Highly restrictive zoning policies have segregated our communities, both racially and economically. High levels of abandoned properties and disinvestment have left large portions of our housing stock in poor conditions, increasing the demand and costs for the quality housing that remains. These are issues that must be addressed and we must admit that our current land use and zoning structures have failed to do so. This is why I support Governor Hochul’s Housing Compact, which was regrettably removed from the State’s 2023-2024 budget.
Before we jump into why I believe the Compact is needed, and what we might do to improve upon it, I think its important to first run through what it is.
The aim of the Housing Compact is to build at least 800,000 housing units over the next ten years. This is in response to the State creating over 1.2 million jobs this past decade, but only building 400,000 units of housing. As we all learn in high school economics classes, when demand rises but the supply does not meet that demand, prices go up. Simply put, all localities would be required to build a certain amount of housing every three years - 1 percent growth Upstate and 3 percent growth Downstate. So if you’re in a small village with only 300 units of housing currently, you would need to allow for at least 3 housing units to be built. For the City of Syracuse, the target would be roughly 680 units.
If a municipality does not meet their targets, they can get credit for updating their zoning to allow denser housing development. If a municipality continues to miss their targets, or does not put in effort to make it easier to build, the State would be allowed to override the local zoning and approve projects.
Additionally, the State would emphasize transit oriented development (TOD) near all train stations operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). TOD would allow for more residents to live car free with easy access to high quality transit in our State’s primary economic center. While this doesn’t apply Upstate, cities and regions should be taking similar approaches around stations with frequent service.
As you can imagine, and as you have probably heard, many people are not happy with the idea of the State overriding their local zoning laws. They’ll bring up discussions of “community character,” “local control,” or “concerns of overcrowded schools.” What it truly boils down to is concerns over home values and who lives in their community.
Elected leaders in the State legislature proposed utilizing incentives to encourage housing construction instead of penalizing localities. On its face, this seems like a fair compromise, but it would only lead to further segregation. Wealthy communities do not need financial incentives and will decide against adding housing, while cash strapped municipalities, primarily cities and older inner ring suburbs, will forge ahead with housing plans. While the financial incentives will help those communities, the wealthy communities will continue to shrug off their responsibilities to their regions.
Overall, the Compact would go a long way towards addressing the housing crises impacting our communities. Creating more housing where it is desperately needed. Providing housing opportunities in all communities to allow for greater access to resources. Improving our rapidly deteriorating housing stock Upstate. But I believe there are a few things we can do to improve upon it.
Starting Downstate, and really anywhere that touches MTA infrastructure. Currently large parking lots and garages surround many of the suburban MetroNorth and Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) stations. This is land that is owned by the State and its time for the State to get back into the business of building housing in a big way. Each of these lots is a prime opportunity for affordable housing and related public services. Providing subsidized parking to commuters should not come at the expense of pushing housing further away from quality transit.
These policies can and should be emulated across the State as other transit agencies introduce bus rapid transit (BRT) or have rail infrastructure of their own. Publicly owned lots and garages should be targeted for housing construction whenever possible.
Moving to statewide policies, we should follow the lead of California and band single family zoning statewide. California’s Senate Bill 9 allows for up to four units of housing to be built on every residential lot across the state. While I believe we should follow this same policy, even allowing two-family homes on every lot would mark a dramatic improvement. This goes far beyond just allowing for auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs), essentially a granny flat, on properties. While building ADUs should be allowed, building multi-family housing is far less expensive per unit and more flexible than a single family homes with an ADU. This can be simplified in even further by following creating a set of housing designs that are universally approved across the State, allowing for builders to streamline their approval processes. Spokane, Washington has moved forward with a similar set of policies hoping to encourage faster adoption of denser housing models and cut down on bureaucratic costs, both in time and money.
Additionally, the State should look for ways to promote flexibility in zoning. Storefronts in residential neighborhoods, corner shops, neighborhood bars and restaurants, all used to be common features of residential neighborhoods - even those primarily made up of single family homes. Creating a statewide policy that allows certain commercial or office uses to develop in these neighborhoods would help provide local amenities, reduce car trips, and reduce the barrier of entry for entrepreneurs.
Related to each of these points, the State must promote infill development over further expansion. There is a fear that pushing municipalities to provide more housing will push encourage the redevelopment of rural land into subdivisions, or see the removal of our precious forested lands. These are areas we must preserve. One option is dictating that large portions of the development in metropolitan regions must occur in urbanized areas, as defined by the US Census Bureau, until certain density thresholds are met. By emphasizing infill development and increasing density, transit, walkability and safe cycling infrastructure can be invested in. Once a density threshold is met, new boundaries can be discussed based on the next three year housing target. This would function similarly to Portland, Oregon’s urban growth boundary, but with defined triggers to when the boundary is allowed to grow. I’ve already explored where housing in the Syracuse area should be targeted in my Growth in CNY series.
These policy ideas will not address all of the issues facing us, but they can go a long way towards increasing our housing stock, improving the living conditions across the State, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through denser development, and promoting more integrated communities through removing local barriers. I know communities do not like losing power, but these same communities have chosen to build barriers over the last 70 years instead of bridges. New York State is struggling to stay competitive and its single biggest obstacle is providing affordable, quality housing. Its time we make this a priority and ensure every community is doing its part.