Tool Test

Supplemental Information on Housing and Land Use Policy in NYC
Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing
“Affordable housing” developments are targeted to households with specific income levels. The area median income estimates a metropolitan region’s range of household incomes and represents the midpoint in this range –one-half of households fall below the median and one-half above the median.
To calculate the AMI for the New York City area, the federal government considers household incomes in all the five boroughs but also the wealthier suburban counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester – significantly increasing the median household income.
The official AMI for the New York City metropolitan region for 2012 is $80,200 for a family of four.
Affordable Housing
Income Levels
0-30% of AMI [up to $24,060]
30-50% of AMI [$23,050 – $40,100]
50-80% of AMI [$39,000 – $64,160]
AMI is $80,200
80-120% of AMI [$64,160 – $96,240]
120-250% [$96,240 – $200,500]
250% and up [$200,500 and up]

The Agencies
The Agencies
Brooklyn Borough Office:
16 Court St. 7th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11241-0103
Phone (718) 780-8280
Fax (718) 596-2609
Manhattan Borough Office:
22 Reade Street,
6th Fl. West
New York, NY 10007-1216
Phone (212) 720-3480
Fax (212) 720-3488
New York City Economic Development
Corporation
Attn: Intake
110 William Street
New York, NY 10038
Phone (212) 619-5000
633 Third Avenue – 31st Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone (212) 803-3130
Fax (212) 803-3131
New York Regional Office
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
Suite 3541
New York, NY 10278-0068
Phone (212) 264-8000
Fax (212) 264-0246
Albany Field Office
52 Corporate Circle
Albany, NY 12203-5121
Phone (518) 464-4200
Fax (518) 464-4300
New York State Dept. of Housing and Community Renewal
Albany
Hampton Plaza
38-40 State Street
Albany, NY 12207
Phone (518) 473-2526
New York City
25 Beaver Street
New York, New York 10004
Phone (212) 480-6700
110 William Street
New York, NY 10038
Phone (212) 227-5500
“Affordable Housing” at the proposed “New Domino” development
“Affordable Housing” at the proposed “New Domino” development:
When we consider local median income instead of the entire metropolitan region, the “affordable housing” at New Domino suddenly does not appear to be very affordable at all.
Only the 100 apartments designated for families at 30% AMI ($23,050) are actually affordable to a majority of households in Williamsburg-Greenpoint. And even these leave the bottom quarter of local households – who make less than $20,000 – out in the cold.
Public money for the “New Domino” would have likely included over $100 million combined in Federal Section 8 subsidies and low income housing tax credits, direct funding and low interest loans from New York City HPD/HDC, and 421a property tax breaks from New York City (see policy glossary below)
And of course, in return for shouldering the “burden” of providing these mostly unaffordable“660 affordable” units, the developer wins the government approval to construct 1,540 multi-million dollar luxury condominiums in waterfront towers up to 34 stories high.
Zoning
Zoning
To put it most simply, zoning is the law that controls the size and use of the structures that can be built on a piece of property. There are three broad categories of use: residential (houses and apartments), commercial (stores and restaurants), and industrial (factories, workshops, warehouses).
Zoning can have more specific and complex rules such as open space requirements, height limits, or can offer a “bonus” in the size of the building allowed if the developer provides a “public amenity” such as open space or some amount of “affordable housing”
Changing zoning laws – or rezoning – has been a primary tool of the Bloomberg administration in changing the fabric of New York City. Since 2001, Bloomberg’s Department of City Planning has rezoned over 100 neighborhoods.
In other neighborhoods like Harlem, Williamsburg, Downtown Brooklyn, or the Lower East Side, zoning changes have been much more drastic. Land formerly reserved for industry has been opened up for residential development, and entire corridors have been upzoned – allowing for much larger high-rise construction.

The Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP)
The Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP)
The numerous public hearings seen in The Domino Effect were all filmed as the New Domino project moved through the ULURP during the spring and summer of 2010.
The ULURP begins with an application to the City Planning Commission by the developer or city government agency seeking the change. The City Planning Commission certifies the application and sends it to the local Community Board. The Community Board then has 60 days to hold a public hearing on the proposal and adopt and vote on a written recommendation. The decision of the Community Board is considered “advisory” and has no legal authority.
After the Community Board, the application moves to the Borough President of the affected borough. The Borough President has 30 days to compose and submit a written recommendation to the City Planning Commission. The Borough President has the option to hold a public hearing but is not required to do so. Like the Community Board, the Borough President’s vote is considered advisory and has no legal authority.
After the Borough President, the application moves on to the City Planning Commission itself, which has 60 days to hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. The City Planning Commission’s decision is legally binding and if a project is disapproved at this stage, it dies.
Although it allows the opportunity for the public to testify at three or four different hearings, ULURP is often criticized for lacking true public participation. The Community Board’s vote on a project is only advisory and it regularly ignored by the City Planning Commission and City Council. The hearings allow members of the public to speak one at a time for 2 to 5 minutes with very little interaction or discussion. Hearings are almost always held during the workday, making it very difficult for regular citizens to attend.
It is also very clear that with many projects, “the fix is in” before the ULURP process even starts. Agreements are worked out in advance with local politicians and organizations, and the public hearings become a charade with the same testimonies delivered by the same professional supporters at every hearing. The process we witnessed for the New Domino illustrates this process perfectly. The Community Preservation Corporation did not initiate ULURP for the New Domino until nearly five years after purchasing the site and negotiating with local politicians and organizations for support. Regular citizens are rendered powerless by this kind of process.
Who is CPC?
Who is CPC?

Above, Community Preservation Corporation representatives testify at the City Council meeting in June 2010 at the final public hearing of the ULURP process for the New Domino
2005 Rezoning of Williamsburg-Greenpoint
2005 Rezoning of Williamsburg-Greenpoint

Because of the 2005 rezoning, on the East River waterfront, developers are now allowed to build roughly 25 stories without providing any “affordable housing” but can built up to 40 stories if they designate 20% of the development’s units for “affordable housing.” This bonus is called inclusionary zoning. Two large developments have been built on the waterfront since the 2005 rezoning – “The Edge” and “Northside Piers” both of which started construction in 2007 and took advantage of the inclusionary zoning bonus and took advantage of the inclusionary zoning bonus. Both waterfront developments have received tens of millions in public money from federal, state, and local sources, illustrating the tangled web of policies involved in achieving even a modest amount of “affordable housing.

Although many of the condominium projects developed from 2005-2008 are still vacant or abandoned at various stages of construction due to the recession, the increased density of the rezoning has also placed tremendous pressure on neighborhood infrastructure, schools, subways and buses, and parkland. The affordable housing, parks, and funding for community organizations promised by the City to help with the impact of the rezoning have been subject to delay and denial.
The 2005 rezoning has profoundly changed the neighborhoods of Williamsburg and Greenpoint. Thousands of new wealthy residents have accompanied hundreds of new luxury buildings, placing tremendous pressure on lower-income and rent-regulated tenants, industrial businesses, and older retail shops to vacate for higherpaying residents and businesses.
Getting Technical: Glossary of Specific Policies & Subsidies
Getting Technical: Glossary of Specific Policies & Subsidies
*To put this cost in context, the entire budget of New York City’s Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) agency is less than $200 million a year.
*J-51 is now costing New York City over $250 million each year in tax break expenditures. J-51 is up for renewal in 2012 and must be extended by the State Legislature in Albany – or could be significantly altered or eliminated to shift this money to providing true affordable housing.
*To put this cost in context, the entire budget of New York City’s Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) agency is less than $200 million a year.
J-51 is a NYC property tax break that allows residential building owners to recover 75% of the cost of building renovations on average. J-51 allows owners who renovate their apartments to be exempt from increases in property tax for up to 34 years. J-51 was established in 1955 to encourage landlords to upgrade their tenement buildings to hot water plumbing. But over 600,000 apartments are still receiving the subsidy today and it costs the City hundreds of millions in revenue
each year. A recent court ruling made it illegal for building owners to receive the J-51 while converting rent-regulated apartments to market rate, making it less of an overt gentrification subsidy.
*J-51 is now costing New York City over $250 million each year in tax break expenditures. J-51 is up for renewal in 2012 and must be extended by the State Legislature in Albany – or could be significantly altered or eliminated to shift this money to providing true affordable housing.
Already more than 300,000 once-affordable apartments have been lost in New York City. Some investors build their entire profit-making strategy around “flipping” rentregulated apartments by removing existing tenants.
Many other cities like Chicago and St. Louis have demolished their public housing but New York’s remains – for now. When thinking about public housing, it’s important to remember that nothing requires public housing to be built in “towers in the park” architecture or to be home to only very low-income families. Yet to consider the construction of new public housing on different models is considered out of the question, contemporary “affordable housing” policies always requires a middle-man in the form of a non-profit or private developer.
The federal government evaluates each bank’s performance in lending to low and moderate income neighborhoods and issues a rating and written report. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) intended to counter the practice of “redlining” by which banks refused to offer credit to low-income neighborhoods, usually with large minority populations. In New York City, the CRA spurred the creation of the Community Preservation Corporation in 1977 to help area banks meet the requirements and lower their risk by pooling resources on investments. While the CRA has helped funnel billion in investment to the neighborhoods most adversely affected by the 1970’s—1980’s urban crisis, it has some serious problems. One way in which banks have learned play the CRA is to invest in market-rate luxury projects in gentrifying areas that are still classified as “low-income” but are quickly changing.
It has also been argued that the CRA helped fuel the growth of risky lending to minorities during the 1990’s and create the real estate bubble market that burst in 2008.
A Neighborhood Changing
A Neighborhood Changing

Further Reading

Further reading:
Susan Fainstein. The City Builders. 2001
Jason Hackworth. The Neoliberal City. 2007
Alyssa Katz. Our Lot: How Real Estate Came to Own Us. 2009
Kim Moody. From Welfare State to Real Estate. 2007
Brian Paul. “Affordable Housing Policies May Spur Gentrification, Segregation.” Gotham Gazette. 2011
Suleiman Osman. The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn. 2011
William Sites. Remaking New York. 2003
Laura Wolf-Powers. “Upzoning New York City’s Mixed Use Neighborhoods: Property-Led Economic Development and the Anatomy of a Planning Dilemma.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 2005
Sharon Zukin. Naked City. 2011