Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

actualtext t1_j1zeq7v wrote

> Similarly, New York state lags badly behind California, Massachusetts, Florida, Illinois and even neighboring Connecticut and New Jersey when it comes to state level land use reforms. In these other states, local governments were barred from refusing new housing, or were issued housing creation goals that they needed to meet lest they face state intervention. Meanwhile, New York’s localities have no obligation to create housing. Often, the wealthiest and most exclusionary locales are the worst offenders in resisting building new homes, shifting the task to lower-income areas with less political power. Statewide and citywide goal setting, backed by the power to intervene in local decisions, mitigates this inequity.

I hope our legislature can pass some reform forcing local governments to approve new housing. Particularly, areas near public transit options like the MetroNorth or Long Island Railroad. Likewise, I hope the city can get away from this bullshit where local reps are single-handedly able to block a proposal for new development.

83

cramersCoke t1_j1zo9hb wrote

These local municipalities will fight tooth & nail to “preserve“ their property values cough cough I mean neighborhoods. Urban living has such a bad wrap in everywhere across this country that people are brainwashed to think that their detached SFH w/ a giant SUV is the best way to live.

37

TheSpaceBetweenUs__ t1_j20rr7p wrote

Politicians across the spectrum did a good job in the last 50 years getting voters to associate cities with black people and crime.

11

volkommm t1_j28sjzi wrote

Both of those are undeniable statistical facts lol. Independently there isn't even a question. Causation or correlation is a different statement.

0

actualtext t1_j204hsp wrote

I know that’s the thought process but if other states were able to pass such reforms then I feel like NY can possibly figure out how to get it done as well.

6

DJBabyB0kCh0y t1_j209dv6 wrote

It's yet another failure of capitalism. There aren't a lot of incentives out there to entice a developer to put up a highrise full of actually affordable units. Instead we have miles of skyscrapers going up around the city that remain half empty.

−3

jumbod666 t1_j210ru6 wrote

Every housing regulation drives up costs for building and maintaining. State and local governments have to look at regulations and see which can be removed.

10

DJBabyB0kCh0y t1_j211h3t wrote

I'm all for removing regulations that provide no utility besides a straight cash grab.

2

kiklion t1_j23ke27 wrote

But all regulations provide utility in some way.

It’s trivial to contrive a valid reason for some regulation. It has to be a cost-benefit analysis of if the regulation is worth the negative impact on housing.

1

12stTales t1_j21rebd wrote

A highrise of affordable units is literally illegal to build in almost all of NY state so I dont think "capitalism" is to blame.

5

SirMonkey687 t1_j23c4fh wrote 

   Genuinely curious - what are you specifically referring to here?
1

12stTales t1_j23txmi wrote

Zoning in suburbs and towns often restricts building size to single family detached houses. Even in NYC there are some areas like this. Whats left has other zoning restrictions that limit size, bulk, etc and deter housing production

1

--A3-- t1_j2c2gpt wrote

But why are these restrictions so widespread and fought for so strongly? It's because people who already own houses have a financial incentive to restrict the creation of new houses. If the supply of housing stays the same but demand increases, the value of what they own skyrockets.

The monetary incentive which leads to NIMBY zoning policies arises from the fact that housing is a commodity.

1

sutisuc t1_j21115p wrote

Kinda pathetic to be getting beat by Connecticut and NJ honestly, the ultimate suburban states in the country.

8