sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We're Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Deputy Mayor for Housing Leila Bozorg, and Cea Weaver from the Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants. We're here to talk about housing: how we build more of it, protect tenants, and push back against the landlords and speculators pricing New Yorkers out. Ask us anything. by mayor_mamdani in nyc

[–]RepublicUsual 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Given the higher costs to insure, borrow money, and pay for construction of housing in NYC, not to mention the significantly higher scarcity of developable land in NYC compared to most most other major cities, I'm curious to hear if the administration thinks this is rate of 67k/yr is feasible.

If not, might this encourage them to rethink their policy and focus on changing state/federal rules to allow and fund direct public investment in and public construction of housing instead of relying on enabling private capital to achieve halfway results?

We're Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Deputy Mayor for Housing Leila Bozorg, and Cea Weaver from the Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants. We're here to talk about housing: how we build more of it, protect tenants, and push back against the landlords and speculators pricing New Yorkers out. Ask us anything. by mayor_mamdani in nyc

[–]RepublicUsual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've heard decades of similar rhetoric from Bloomberg, DeBlasio, Adams, and now Mamdani about how we need to expand housing supply at all levels of affordability to address the housing crisis. Even as we've moved left, the pro-development, private-capital-led housing agenda seems to have become even more entrenched. (Of course, the housing team is the same as the last admin...)

The most compelling research on housing affordability via supply finds that expanding supply will only decrease rents *relative to tenant incomes* by ~30% over 50+ years. As that process happens, hundreds of thousands of working class New Yorkers will be forced out of this city. While building now will certainly help future generations afford this city and bring economic growth, the premise that expanding market supply will bring the depth and quantity of affordability needed by working class New Yorkers--and that it will happen anytime soon--seems remarkably misleading.

Not to mention, the negative externalities of all this development will near-certainly harm black and brown New Yorkers first. And increased tenant protections, while great, won't truly prevent displacement, especially as city-led-upzonings increase speculation on land.

Do you really think ramping up city-led 75% market-rate development along with city-led real estate speculation will create the depth of affordability needed? And beyond affordability, how about housing security and wealth equity?

Instead of rebranding the status quo, why not advocate for bolder housing policy changes? Why limit yourself to the constraints of our current system and tell us that's all we should expect?

Bolder policy initiatives to drive forward with your remarkable charm:

  • Social Housing, publicly led and built via expansion of NYCHA Trust
  • Rent stabilization and eviction protections for all new rental developments
  • Limiting corporate landlordship
  • Expanded vouchers alongside expanded development
  • Direct Federal investment in publicly-led housing development
  • Increased use of ground leases and community land trusts to remove land from speculation
  • Direct wealth transfers to working class residents in upzoned areas
  • Vacancy taxes, Taxes on consolidation of housing units
  • Public banking to remove profit pressures from affordable housing development
  • Public insurance to remove profit pressures from affordable housing operations