Good morning. It's Wednesday. Today we'll find out about plans to address the housing crisis, not just in New York City but statewide.
Democrats in the State Senate proposed a $250 million package of ideas to address one of New York's most pressing crises, the lack of affordable housing. Some of the ideas were new. Some were very, very old. One is being called Mitchell-Lama 2.0 because it draws on a housing program from the 1950s. The Senate's proposals, along with those from the Assembly and Gov. Kathy Hochul, were the first salvos in this year's budget battle in Albany. Hochul and the leaders in the two chambers have an April 1 deadline to come to terms on a state spending plan. Hochul, a centrist from Buffalo, will be forced to find common ground with an increasingly progressive Legislature. I asked Grace Ashford, who covers Albany, to zero in on the housing proposals. How often have you heard the phrase "back to the future" in connection with "Mitchell-Lama 2.0?" Because isn't that what it's about? There's a lot of nostalgia associated with the Mitchell-Lama program. People see it as a solid way that government was able to produce good housing that allowed middle-class New Yorkers to rent and buy affordable homes. That gives it a special spot in the political psyche. That said, this new proposal will be different in a couple of key ways. How so? The Senate proposal is aimed at incentivizing development on state-owned land, which means the state could reduce or eliminate property taxes. Senate leaders hope that would give developers an inducement to build affordably. The original Mitchell-Lama program did not involve construction on state land. It provided not only tax incentives but also lower mortgage terms for developers. The plan for Mitchell-Lama 2.0 is to include rentals and co-ops, just like the original Mitchell-Lama program. But this is not a done deal, is it? No. The Assembly would also need to embrace Mitchell-Lama 2.0 to get it done, as would the governor. How many apartments would actually go up? We don't know that, and the lawmakers don't know, either. It depends on what kind of a deal the State Senate might be able to make with the Assembly and the governor. It also depends on the way developers respond to the prompts being offered. If developers decide the incentives aren't good enough, they might not build as many units as the Senate leaders are hoping for. It's worth noting that Mitchell-Lama 2.0 is just one of a raft of different ideas that the Senate included in their "One House" budget proposal. They are also offering to create a replacement for the 421a tax break for developers who build a certain percentage of "affordable" units and to make changes to rent stabilization laws that would let landlords increase the rent based on improvements they make.
But Senate leaders say they're not willing to make any kind of deal without one key provision, which is the tenant protection known as good cause. The legislation in its current form would make it harder for landlords to evict tenants. Landlords, who would also have to justify rent increases, are by and large opposed. They feel it's an overreach that could affect their ability to take care of their properties. State Senate leaders obviously hope that by incorporating ideas that are prized by tenant groups and unions — like Mitchell-Lama — along with ideas that would appeal to big developers, they can work out a compromise and break the logjam on housing. Why has it been so difficult to bring all those groups together? The progressives are very enthusiastic about the good cause proposal. Whether it can gain broad support remains to be seen. We've seen that there'll be opposition in the Assembly, and the governor has been opposed in the past. The Senate leaders say they want to put forth the "core principles" of good cause, which probably means they'd accept some sort of a deal.
The Assembly has its own ideas, including $500 million to support existing Mitchell-Lama housing and $125 million for individuals struggling with incarceration and homelessness. They say they also support tenant protections, but unlike their colleagues in the Senate, they did not specify a good cause proposal. Can everyone involved — the State Senate, the Assembly and the governor — work out a budget package in only three weeks? That's the big question. One big calendar thing is that Easter falls on March 31 this year, the day before the deadline, which would suggest the budget may well be a little late. WEATHER Expect a partly sunny day with temperatures reaching the low 60s. At night, the temperature will drop to the high 40s with a partially cloudy sky.
ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKING In effect until March 24 (Purim). The latest New York news
We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times. Why are children selling candy in the subway?
A story by my colleague Andy Newman is haunting because he tried to answer questions that have occurred to many New Yorkers: Why are children selling candy in the subway? Isn't that child labor? Isn't it illegal? Shouldn't someone be doing something to help? Families are desperate. Selling food is one of their main sources of income when the adults cannot work legally. Letting children do that during school hours breaks several laws and rules. But a series of city and state agencies said it was not their place to stop it.
METROPOLITAN DIARY Going to Canal Street
Dear Diary: It was a spring day, and I was walking toward the train station on my way to buy groceries on my lunch break when I saw an older woman with a cane waving and smiling at me. She asked me where the Q train was. "Right behind you," I said. "Where are you going?" "Canal Street," she replied. She told me she had gotten lost and couldn't remember how she had ended up in my Brooklyn neighborhood. I watched her descend the stairs into the station carefully. She did it backward. She said it was easier on her hips. I was worried about her, so I offered to ride with her to Canal Street. She agreed. During our ride, she told me her life story: how she had grown up in Beijing in the 1940s, how her son had died from leukemia and how she had then moved to New York alone to study music. When we got to Canal Street, I insisted on giving her my number. I haven't seen her in my neighborhood since then, but we do get breakfast every so often at a Chinese bakery near Canal Street. It's her favorite spot. — Cathy Zhang Illustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here. Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B. P.S. Here's today's Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here. Francis Mateo and Ed Shanahan contributed to New York Today. You can reach the team at nytoday@nytimes.com. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
N.Y. Today: Could ‘Mitchell-Lama 2.0’ help New York’s housing crisis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment