The Killer Flaws Of de Blasio's Housing Plan

Mayor de Blasio's affordable-housing plan has two big flaws. First, it uses bad data to describe the size of the problem. Worse, his solution is unlikely to put a dent in the number of "severely rent-burdened" New Yorkers.

"Housing New York," the mayor's bid to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing, says the city faces a special "crisis of affordability," with 600,000 households — more than 30 percent of the total — who pay over 50 percent of income in rent.

But to get that figure, the mayor's office ignored key forms of assistance to low-income households — even housing assistance.

More than 225,000 New Yorkers get federal housing vouchers, more than any other US city — aid that limits a poor household's share of rent to 30 percent of income. The mayor's count ignores that.

Nor does it take into account food stamps, a program that itself is more generous if a household faces high housing costs.

In other words, in his zeal to help low-income households, the mayor ignores a great deal of what's already being done.

In a new study for the Manhattan Institute, I find that the mayor's office overstates the count of severely rent-burdened people by some 40 percent.

The right number is closer to 350,000 — and that includes some 50,000 households likely relying on family help and not truly needy.

Yes, 300,000 is still significant. But de Blasio's favored fix — "inclusionary zoning," requiring 30 percent of units in market-rate new construction to be set aside for those of low and moderate income — is structured in a way unlikely to reduce the problem.

The mayor calls for units to be "permanently" affordable, with rents set based on 30 percent of HUD-determined income levels for the area, and remaining roughly constant.

Most important is that, while tenants must initially qualify as low- or moderate-income, that's it. You can literally win the Powerball and not be asked to move out of a "permanently affordable" unit.

In practice, many low-income NYC households do boost their incomes over time, such that they can live in market-rate units without being severely rent-burdened.

Nationally, 30 percent of adults who start in the bottom-fifth of household incomes wind up somewhere in the top three-fifths. It just doesn't make sense to base a lifetime entitlement on a snapshot when the picture is constantly changing.

On the other hand, new low-income households form over time, some of which will surely face severe rent burdens. But these people won't have access to the mayor's units, because the folks who got in first are unlikely to move out.

Indeed, housing turnover in New York generally — thanks to the abundance of public housing and rent-stabilized private units — is far lower than the national average.

By further discouraging turnover, de Blasio would have the city's housing policy chasing its own tail, while not reducing the actual number of severely rent-burdened residents.

Building new, affordable housing — subsidized by private developers and their market-rate tenants — is a complex, costly process already leading to controversy.

Around Brooklyn Bridge Park, residents worry that requiring more subsidized units in new construction will deprive the park of the revenue it's supposed to get from developers.

Then there's the "poor door" controversy — which reflects the simple fact that developers need to provide select incentives and amenities for those paying higher prices if inclusionary zoning is to work at all.

The big picture is this: The de Blasio plan is a costly diversion that will benefit only a fortunate few — and continue to help them even if they no longer need it.

Far better for New York to turn its attention to its real housing crisis: the wretched condition of its public housing, in dire need of billions in capital repairs and routine maintenance.

Reducing the number of new market-rate housing units (as "affordable" requirements do) will do nothing to fix that crisis, while depriving the city of new property-tax revenue that might help tackle it.

If we must require for-profit developers to do something for the poor, far better to have them to give to a public-housing endowment.

That's just one of many creative strategies that could help save the City Housing Authority, and so help many more poor New Yorkers — notably the 615,000 in public housing— than cutting ribbons on inclusionary zoning projects will ever do.

This piece originally appeared in New York Post

This piece originally appeared in New York Post