New York’s Environmental Review Reform Isn’t the Threat Critics Claim

The ongoing housing crisis is not an abstract concept for the families and individuals struggling to make ends meet across our city and state.  

It is causing real pain that is measured in record rents, overcrowded apartments and the inability of working people to seize opportunities and get ahead. Against this backdrop, it is critical that we remove the barriers that are delaying — and, in some cases, scuttling altogether — the development of desperately needed affordable units.  

The targeted reforms to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) included in Gov. Kathy Hochul’s recently released executive budget proposal to help unlock housing production are a recognition of a simple truth: Process delays contribute significantly to the affordability problem.  

Striking a balance between housing development and environmental protections is not only possible, it is also necessary if the state is to have any hope of building its way out of this crisis, as the governor has repeatedly said she wants to do.  

Opponents who want to preserve the status quo have suggested that the proposed reforms could lead to more housing on contaminated land, particularly in communities already burdened by pollution. That claim may sound alarming, but it misunderstands both SEQRA and how housing development works. In practical terms, it’s a red herring.  

SEQRA is a disclosure and decision-making framework, not a site investigation tool. Applicants complete an Environmental Assessment Form — a standardized state document that describes the project, site conditions and potential environmental impacts so reviewing agencies can assess the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment.  

To answer questions about a property’s environmental history, applicants typically use an online mapping tool provided by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that compiles existing information on documented spills, remediation sites, wetlands, flood zones and properties with institutional controls or deed restrictions.  

In other words, SEQRA  largely reflects information already known to regulators, rather than revealing new contamination.   

Developers do not learn for the first time during SEQRA that a site may be contaminated. Environmental risks are identified much earlier through due diligence that lenders, investors and insurers require before a project can move forward.  

Under state and federal law, property owners and operators can be held jointly liable for contamination. No responsible developer voluntarily assumes that risk blindly. If due diligence identifies potential contamination, developers either turn to the DEC’s Brownfield Cleanup Program to secure liability protections and proper remediation, or they walk away. The idea that SEQRA reforms would incentivize reckless development on polluted land assumes a development culture that simply does not exist.  

What the governor’s reforms do address is something very real: expensive and time-consuming red tape.  

In affordable housing, time is money in the most literal sense. Extended review timelines drive up interest carry, consultant costs, legal fees and construction pricing exposure. Public funding doesn’t go as far as private investment. Projects that were feasible at application often become infeasible by closing. Every month of delay erodes affordability.  

Importantly, these reforms do not eliminate environmental review or local input. Communities will still have a voice, and agencies will still evaluate impacts. What changes is the recognition that duplicative studies, prolonged procedural loops and uncertainty disproportionately harm affordable housing — the very projects meant to deliver public benefit.   

Critics have also suggested that any SEQRA reforms should extract additional affordability or community benefits in exchange for streamlining. But affordable housing developments already operate under layers of regulatory agreements, income restrictions, design standards and long-term compliance obligations. SEQRA was never designed as a housing policy lever. Stretching it into one only makes the system less predictable and more litigious.  

New York can protect environmental integrity and address a historic housing shortage at the same time. These goals are not diametrically opposed. The governor’s SEQRA proposal reflects that balance. It maintains safeguards, preserves local participation and removes unnecessary friction that stalls desperately needed new homes.  

The state should focus on building housing responsibly — not on hypothetical risks that existing environmental laws, liability frameworks and due diligence practices already address. The cost of inaction is not abstract. It’s paid every month in real dollars and heartache by New Yorkers who simply cannot find a place they can afford to live. 

Carlina Rivera is president and CEO of the New York State Association for Affordable Housing and a former member of the New York City Council from Manhattan.