City of Yes Shows That New York Still Knows How to Get to ‘Yes’

City government seems to have learned that the only way to fill our housing shortage is to build more housing. Better late than never.

And, while the City Council scaled back some of the most ambitious proposals, this is hardly the end of the road. Zoning is not static. Proposals that didn’t make the final package will return through private applications and neighborhood rezonings. This is how zoning evolves in New York City — first through individual projects, then through neighborhood rezonings, and, finally, through citywide adoption.

It will now be up to policymakers, advocates, and the industry to make this work. The debate and ultimate adoption of City of Yes makes me cautiously optimistic.

The city now seems to understand that when it comes to housing, “no” is not an option. It is no secret that City of Yes was deeply unpopular with key voting blocs in the outer boroughs — including Speaker Adrienne Adams’s own Queens district. It is also no secret that tensions between the mayor and City Council are at an all-time high in the modern era. Yet, despite having every political incentive not to, the council advanced an ambitious pro-housing agenda.

And, while the council took issue with the one-size-fits-all elements of City of Yes, they still approved complex and controversial projects like the Port Authority replacement, Brooklyn Yards and 962-972 Franklin Avenue. Each project faced significant technical and financial issues, but final approval required the city to do something far more difficult: embrace new ways to get to “yes.”

At the same time, City of Yes is not a wonder drug. Most of the economic obstacles to new construction remain. For projects on the margins, a months-long delay, a small change in interest rates, or new tariffs on imported construction materials can put a project in the red. City of Yes adds new and significant administrative hurdles for developers big and small, but, more importantly, for the agencies themselves. Absent a conscious effort to reduce this burden, this will result in costly delays that will further threaten the viability of new housing development.

Back in April, the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) was given two new tax incentive programs to administer. As of this writing, the guidelines necessary to implement 485x and 467m have not been adopted. Even if those guidelines are in place by year’s end, projects relying on the Universal Affordability Preference will still need to wait for HPD to issue new guidelines before that program can be implemented.

Tucked into the new zoning text is a special vesting provision for affordable housing projects. This provision is designed to ensure that affordable projects in the pre-development pipeline do not have to start from scratch — if plans have already been filed at DOB, those plans are approved within one year, and they get final HPD approval in two years.

And for projects requiring HPD financing? The agency acknowledged that projects undergoing land use approvals today can expect to wait five-plus years to close on financing. Delays like this can kill good projects.

The final deal to adopt City of Yes reportedly includes funding for additional staffing at the Buildings Department and HPD. That’s a good start. New York must adopt a state of mind that is unburdened by how things were done and stays focused on how we get to “yes.” We cannot be the City of Maybe Later.

Getting City of Yes right has ramifications beyond housing. The challenge is clear, the solutions are known, and people are watching. With faith in government’s effectiveness at historic lows and investment flowing to other markets, successful implementation of these reforms isn’t just about building housing — it’s about showing New York can still deliver when it matters most.

David J. Rosenberg is counsel with Rosenberg & Estis P.C.’s Transactions Department and an expert on New York City land use law.