California and New York both have serious housing shortages. But their responses offer a surprising study in contrasts. In New York, the progressive state Legislature pursues punitive rent regulations and public subsidies to solve the Big Apple’s housing problems — misguided policies that will only increase shortages.
Local control of land-use policy remains sacrosanct, no matter how dysfunctional the outcome. Communities’ right to exclude all but the most affluent residents remains unchallenged.
By contrast, California has conducted a robust debate and taken some sensible steps. Serious challenges remain to boosting the Golden State’s supply. Senate Bill 50, a pro-housing bill, failed to advance, and lawmakers recently passed a statewide rent-increase cap, albeit one less onerous than New York’s recent law.
But California legislators have also vigorously advocated accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, additional units within existing homes and in backyards built on lots exclusively zoned for single-family detached properties. Beginning in 2017, the legislature enacted bills requiring communities to make building such units easier. Such laws have had a positive impact on cities’ housing supply.
Responding to local governments that hinder adding such units, the Golden State’s most recent round of legislation limits burdensome regulations like minimum lot sizes and setback requirements and allows up to two ADUs on every single-family lot. Senate Bill 13, meantime, prohibits owner-occupancy requirements and limits impact fees, which also constrain supply.
According to the pro-housing California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, these laws ensure “that single-family exclusive zoning will be effectively abolished statewide … Given the prevalence of single-family zoning in California, these changes will represent a massive increase in the state’s capacity for housing development with a stroke of the governor’s pen.”
California’s housing progress contrasts with the Empire State’s stasis. Albany hasn’t acted on or even debated overcoming restrictive local zoning to meet metro New York’s growing housing needs. Municipal control over land use is considered beyond reproach, despite its persistent shortages. In 2018, New York City granted permits for 20,910 new housing units, an inadequate number for a city of more than 8 million people.
The suburbs fared even worse, with Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties permitting just 3,658 new units — comparable with the smaller, poorer Bronx — for a combined population of 3.8 million. Meanwhile, the state’s Department of Labor confirmed New York City, Nassau and Suffolk counties and Westchester continue to add new jobs in the private economy — that is to say, more workers in need of housing.
But over time, an ADU law could make a difference. About 15 percent of New York City’s residential land is zoned only for single-family homes, particularly in eastern Queens and Staten Island.
Those areas are usually close to neighborhoods where two-unit homes are permitted; often, single-family neighborhoods have larger lots and bigger yards. In the suburbs, single-family zoning, along with large required lot sizes, exists almost everywhere.
These zoning restrictions are based on the idea that protecting neighborhood character should be the sole criteria for determining permissible change. Indeed, most neighborhoods have outstanding quality of life. Many New Yorkers would like to move into these neighborhoods — but few can.
All around them, businesses continue to create new jobs; the labor force is drawn from far away, but employment requires arduous commutes. An ADU law would provide cheaper housing because the units are smaller.
Single-family neighborhoods in New York City and its suburbs are, or could be, served by local bus transit and, in some cases, subways and commuter rail. ADUs could even support more frequent service. New York’s Legislature, like California’s, should consider ADUs as an innovative, low-impact solution that respects a neighborhood’s scale while expanding rental housing availability to young adults, seniors and service workers.
This piece originally appeared at the New York Post
______________________
Eric Kober is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a retired New York City planner. This piece was adapted from City Journal.
This piece originally appeared in New York Post