Gov. Hochul pushes plan for 800K housing units to help spur NY’s post-pandemic economy
gothamist.comSubmitted by CactusBoyScout t3_zn2cjw in nyc
Comments
CactusBoyScout OP t1_j0gt2gk wrote
My guess is she will revive the shelved proposal to mandate more dense housing around train stations.
Long Island's lawmakers got it killed last time it was proposed. But they were Democrats then. Now they have all GOP lawmakers who won't be able to use internal party influence to block it.
New Jersey passed a similar law and it's been very successful. They now build more housing than any part of the tristate region.
AceContinuum t1_j0i869p wrote
What would really spur NY's economy is a return to expanding the subway system.
The lion's share of today's entire subway system was built between 1900-1930.
In 1900, it only took 4 years to build the first subway line all the way from City Hall to Harlem. That was back when literal animals were used to assist with hauling construction materials!
It is inexcusable that, over a century later, despite all of our technological advances, we are now taking almost 10 years to build a measly three stations. Yes, there's more underground infrastructure and cables to contend with. But technological advances also ought to help speed construction! Surely modern construction equipment ought to help things go faster than using animals to haul construction materials around?
With new subway building, there would automatically be a development boom like no other. Imagine a new subway tunnel linking FiDi to St. George - imagine the resulting development boom in tragicomically underdeveloped St. George, Tompkinsville, Stapleton, Clifton, where today huge abandoned lots sit right next to SIR stations. This would also dramatically drive down rents in lower Manhattan as far more people would find it practical and desirable to live in Staten Island.
Or imagine a bi-state project to build a new subway line between FiDi and Bayonne, NJ. Imagine the amount of pressure that would take off of rents in northern Brooklyn. As is, Bayonne is so close to Manhattan as the crow flies, but the commute is absolutely miserable (HBLR -> PATH -> subway).
InfernalTest t1_j0gmm73 wrote
im not trying to be a rainer on the parader or anything...
yes the city needs housing - but lets be realistic here- if this is 800K units at the current market rate that still doesnt help the people who cant afford the current market rate.
i havent had anyone really answer this question- if the average houshold income ( for a family of 4 ) is like 60 or 80K ? that means rent should be something like 1500 a month....thats nearly a 1000 dollars ( or more considering the market since covid ) less than the market rate.
so where has this ever happened to where housing has been built to the extent that the amount put on the market has crushed the average price so much ? by say 30% yet still have a profitable market ( which is what banks, property owners and govt base some of their budgets on IE mortgages , taxes, and investment )
if we are getting 800K units at a price that a avg income cant afford - then how is this a good thing??
CactusBoyScout OP t1_j0gmvss wrote
It doesn’t matter if they’re market rate or not. It still helps the overall housing market.
Even if you can’t personally afford a unit, as long as someone moves into it, that person is no longer competing with others for more affordable units.
Any increase in housing supply is positive.
InfernalTest t1_j0gr721 wrote
ok i dig that but firstly thats that theory -and secondly the price doesnt move there are plenty of new apts going on the market but they are for people who can "afford" to get into them - they dont need a lower price point.
so the issue isnt that there need to be more 2500 apts on the market
the issue is that there needs to be 1000 and 1500 apts on the market for those people who cant afford 2500 a month on rent -
so it still stands - how is increasing the amount of unaffordable apts some how going to get it to where those apts are "affordable" for the poeple that need 1000 to 1500 a month rent because their saleries can afford much more than that?? no one can really point a specific example of how having an increased supply of apts lowers the monthly rent unless of course its in a collapsing or collapsed market.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_j0gss9w wrote
They're not unaffordable to everyone. People are renting all those market-rate apartments that get built. The vacancy rate is extremely low.
I already explained how it helps. It preserves more affordable housing by preventing gentrification of existing housing units.
And presumably these new buildings will also increase the affordable housing supply because 25% of the units will have to be set aside for lower income people... that happens with most new developments in NYC. 1/3 of the new units added over the last few decades have been permanently affordable.
Rents are never going to go down until the rate of construction surpasses the rate of population growth... or there's a mass exodus like during COVID. Otherwise our shortage just gets worse every year. And NYC has been growing in population 5x faster than housing supply has grown for the past few decades at least. In that context, new construction can only slow rent increases.
honest86 t1_j0i3zh2 wrote
The city is full of apartments that could become affordable again if rich people stopped bidding up their rents. The entire lower east side is full of crappy walk-up apartments with outdated electrical systems and no ventilation, the problem is they are the only thing available in such a convenient location so rich people are paying stupid money to live there. Allowing new buildings can divert them from bidding up the rents of existing apartments when they become available allowing their rents to finally start to drop.
InfernalTest t1_j0jv89r wrote
and again - that doesnt mean the price drops - that just means those apts go on the market at the market rate - which just boils down to more $2500 studios that no one who is on a average salery can afford...certainly not a family of four
still beggers my original question which was please show an example where a mass of apts are dropped on the market and that results in a substantial ( like a $1000 bux ) drop in the average rental price.
No-Sell-9673 t1_j13u4u3 wrote
The thing is that the market rate is not static. It changes day to day depending on how many apartments are available and how many people are trying to rent them. During COVID it fell by as much as 50% in parts of the city because demand collapsed. Building more apartments helps relieve the supply side of the equation. 800k might not be enough to get vacancies up to where they need to be, but it’s a decent start if done quickly.
InfernalTest t1_j1454ho wrote
again it collapsed in some places in the city because the undesirable areas ( ( high crime and/or far away ) werent getting rented -
my point still hasnt been answered as to where its been the case that by building extra units its dropped the affordability by 30% or more ...( again if the avg income is 65K ) and it NOT be a steady mkt ( the opposite of a COVID event )
people who earn 65k ( or less) are the ones that need apts - it does no good to have more apts at over 2000/mo and pretty much if a builder builds apts they arent building for 2000/mo they are building for almost 3000. so again, 800K apts at 2500/mo only helps people earning way way WAY more than 65K - it does nothing for those who earn 65K
if it does - then ,y ask is to point out a real example where this added supply has resulted in a drop in price....because so far all people have offered is a theory that more market rate is somehow beneficial not proof of where its actually made apts "affordable" ....
there is an affordability crisis .....not just a supply crisis.
No-Sell-9673 t1_j146kch wrote
It wasn’t an issue of high crime or far away places during COVID, it was that the people who would normally live in those apartments simply left NYC entirely. We saw the biggest rent collapses in affluent Manhattan and Brooklyn neighborhoods where a large % of people are not physically tied to the city. Remote work and lockdowns made it easy for them to run off to the Hamptons, Hudson Valley, Miami, and elsewhere (which is part of why people are fighting return to office so aggressively). So landlords had to drop rents to attract the greatly reduced pool of potential tenants.
There are plenty of examples in other parts of the US where liberal housing supply policies have helped limit the rise of home prices - this is the Texas approach in a nutshell. We’ve only been able to see the impact of a demand shock in NYC because city housing policy has prevented dramatic supply expansion for decades. But, both lead to the same place. We want so many apartments available that landlords have to earn their tenants, instead of having a waiting list a mile long. As a side effect, increasing the housing supply might also break the broker system, which would be great for renters.
TeamMisha t1_j0gqtxn wrote
TLDR: No actual policy was announced, Hochul agrees we need more housing but we will need to wait for her State of the State on January 10th to see if any actual specific policies are proposed.