Can NYC Build a Million Homes? Zellnor Myrie Says "Yes In My Backyard"
The mayoral candidate talks about NYC’s housing crisis and his vision for a more affordable city
Last week, I sat down with Zellnor Myrie, a New York State Senator who calls himself the “only true YIMBY candidate in the NYC Mayoral Race.” Myrie made waves with “Rebuild NYC,” a plan to preserve or build 1 million new homes. Announced just after the passage of the “City of Yes” zoning reforms, it was the first serious proposal to match the scale of New York’s housing crisis. We discussed the urgency of the housing crisis, land use reform, historic preservation, rent stabilization, economic opportunity—and the vision he’s offering for New York’s future.
Ryan Puzycki: New York has been in a housing emergency for 50 years. You've got a detailed proposal for building or preserving 1 million homes, which is the first proposal to come along, possibly ever, that recognizes the scale of the emergency. Why has it taken so long for leaders to recognize this? And how are you going to make it happen?
Zellnor Myrie: Part of the urgency of this moment has existed for at least half a century. But the numbers have been acute over the past couple of years, and if you look at what the vacancy rates were prior to the pandemic and what they are now, there has been a significant shift in the wrong direction, and we have housing scarcity at a level that we have not seen in many, many years, and probably in my lifetime.
What is so frustrating about the lack of vision and the lack of a solution that meets the scale of the problem being presented to New Yorkers is that we used to do big things here. We used to build a lot of units a year. We used to build close to 70,000 units a year. We did this in the 1920s, in the 1930s we built the Empire State Building in 13 months; close to a century ago, we built out our subway infrastructure into a massive scale within the first five years of the existence of that system. I believe it's close to 30 subway stations that we did in five years. And it is remarkable that there has been a lack of courage and political will to think in that framework for the scale of the problem today.
There are a couple reasons for this, some well-intentioned, some not so well-intentioned. There were some excesses in the Robert Moses era that had disproportionate impacts on certain communities in the city. He took both the metaphorical and literal bulldozer to communities that ended up pushing a lot of working class New Yorkers out of the city, that ended up robbing a lot of people of opportunity to stay in the city with affordable housing, and there were also adverse environmental impacts that were the result of that approach. And to correct for that, there was a well-intentioned effort to have more community involvement. When we look at the changes that were instituted in our zoning system, by way of charter revision, at the time, there were not too many council members that looked like the communities that they represented, and so some of these changes to help protect the environment, to help have more community input, were done in response to some really bad excesses of the past.
But times are different now. The majority of the City Council is represented by black and brown members, the housing crisis is at acute levels, and instead of having a posture where we are going to encourage the development of housing, now the default posture is that we resist that at every point in the system. And that has not been good and has not accrued to the benefit of New Yorkers, and it's part of the reason why we have not had this type of plan be put forward. I'm someone that's born and raised in New York City. I grew up in a rent-regulated apartment. My story is not possible without that predictability for my parents to allow for me to focus on going to school and eventually becoming a lawyer, then senator.
So when I got to Albany back in 2019 and there had been loopholes in [the rent-stabilization] law, that was the need of the day. And now we are at a different time where the need of the day is we need to increase the supply of housing, and we need to do it rapidly. We need to do it everywhere, and we’ve got to do it now. And that is why I've centered my campaign on this issue, because to me, it strikes at the heart of affordability.
Ryan Puzycki: You talked about the excesses of the Moses era. One response is today's ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure),1 which is supposed to take seven months but in reality can end up taking years—which adds uncertainty, limits the supply of housing, and drives up costs. Do you think the current system of discretionary approvals and environmental reviews is working, or does it need to be overhauled?
Zellnor Myrie: There is a Charter Revision Commission2 that is currently examining the ULURP process. They are soliciting input from the public experts, from community members. I'm really looking forward to seeing what recommendations that Commission produces and puts to the voters on ULURP—and of course, we’ll abide by what the people ultimately decide.
But as I mentioned, the current process was in response to the lack of community input and the lack of attention to the environmental impacts, and there has to be a balance that we strike. The representatives of the community and our environment must play a role in how we do development, but it cannot come at the expense of not meeting the moment on affordability. And it cannot be something that is used solely as an impediment to us providing more housing supply. So I'm hoping that this Charter Revision Commission puts forward recommendations that strike that balance, and that allow for us to get to the work that the people expect us to do, and that is provide them with a place to stay in the city.
Ryan Puzycki: Right now, any project over three units has to go through environmental review, which makes it easier to sprawl than to build densely where it makes sense. What do you think of New York State Senate Bill 3492, which would exempt some affordable housing projects from environmental review?
Zellnor Myrie: On this senate bill—I’m not familiar with the details of the bill, so I'm reluctant to express support for that, absent reading it—but I'd be supportive of an approach that does not use a blanket policy, where we could be much more surgical in determining what requires review and what does not. It is true: density is better for our environment. And we know that there are already in place local laws that will be holding developers accountable for the type of buildings that are built and curbing what we know to be the greatest source of emissions in the city, our older buildings. We can hold two of these things together at the same time, which to me is the nuance that is often lost, not just in the housing space, but throughout a lot of urban policy—that we can do what's good for the environment while encouraging more housing.
Ryan Puzycki: You've also proposed a “Mega Midtown,” a plan to allow more residential towers in Manhattan. During the “City of Yes” approval process, there was a lot of pushback from suburban neighborhoods in Queens and Staten Island. How much density is appropriate for neighborhoods outside Manhattan—and what role should they play in solving the emergency?
Zellnor Myrie: All of us have to play a role. All of us. Often when I talk about Rebuild NYC, and our plan to deliver a million homes, people often ask me, am I prepared to have entire neighborhoods hate me? This is something I have a little bit of experience with in my own senate district that I represent right now. I have supported development in neighborhoods in my district that have historically not had this type of development, and I have been on the receiving end of some really colorful exchanges from my constituents who are upset because of that support. But I grew up on the side of my district where we've seen a lot of development happen over the past decade, and it is fundamentally unfair that certain neighborhoods have to bear the burden of development while other neighborhoods are exempt.
That, to me, has led to levels of segregation in the city that currently exceed Birmingham, Alabama, because certain neighborhoods have been exempt from this type of development. So all of us have to share that burden, and development is not going to look the same everywhere.
Part of our plan is to make it easier to build six stories and below in this city. That is incredibly cumbersome, as things currently stand, because of the bureaucracy and red tape, but also lack of access to capital, and that should change. We have to be building more two- and three-bedroom units, so that you can have a place to raise a family, and that we don't only encourage the studio and one-bedroom type of development.
That upholds the same values that many New Yorkers share about having a place where you can raise a family, about having a place that is affordable, where you can have good schools nearby, have parks, have transportation. All New Yorkers want to be able to live in that type of walkable and livable neighborhood, and sharing in the development is going to get us there.
Ryan Puzycki: A lot of NIMBYism seems visceral or entrenched, but you're speaking about universal human needs. Is this a messaging problem, or is it the long legacy of urban renewal—or something else that makes change so hard?
Zellnor Myrie: It's a mix of both. It's important for us, when we're talking NIMBY/YIMBY, that the allegations on both sides of this conversation about people's motives not lose the humanity in this. For those who are often resistant to change, sometimes that is built in legitimate fears from the past, that they have been pushed out of their neighborhood, that they have seen developments go up, and those developments have not been affordable for people that look like them. That is not unfounded. That is a real fear that people have, and it's important that those of us who say, if we have more development, and if we share that everywhere, that it'll actually bring down the cost and make these places more accessible, for us to approach this conversation from that angle and not simply an accusation that this person is stuck in their ways. Now, does some of that exist? Of course. And then people are often resistant to change, not just in the housing space, but writ large.
I'm someone born and raised in the city, who went to elementary school in Central Brooklyn, and I can't afford a home in Central Brooklyn right now. Anyone who tells me that I am simply trying to be a tool of displacement ignores my entire life and my entire history, and there are a lot of people that are similarly situated. But you have to be able to speak from a place of credibility, and that's something that we have that is unique to our campaign. We have fought for homeowners. We have fought for tenants, and we are also putting forward a really bold housing plan that requires us to increase the housing supply. We can do all of the above, and that is what my message has been, and I'm hoping that it has changed the conversation around housing, and how we have the conversation between these different factions of the movement.
Ryan Puzycki: You mentioned that everybody has to share in solving the housing crisis. About 27% of Manhattan is covered by historic districts3—some of the highest opportunity neighborhoods in the city, and yet you basically can't build in them. Is this the right way to approach preservation? How do we balance preserving buildings versus freezing entire neighborhoods?
Zellnor Myrie: This is a challenge. We have to figure out what the balance is between actual preservation and what can at times be just a roadblock to development. I like to look at this from a slightly different angle. Sometimes preservation isn't just the protection of a facade from seventy years ago. Preservation ultimately is about preserving the culture and the meaning and the history of what that neighborhood is, so we should change our posture a bit on the preservation side.
I'm hoping to have conversations with the [Landmarks Preservation] Commission once we are in, to say that it shouldn't just be that we're looking to keep things looking the exact same as they always have. That to me is not the heart of what preservation is. The heart of it is preserving what it meant to the people and what it means to the people currently living there. And there are some other ways for us to encourage and to do that that might not pose the same hindrances to any sort of development going forward.
Ryan Puzycki: Are you thinking of economic tools? Rent stabilization, things like that?
Zellnor Myrie: Some of this looks like what we do around our businesses and institutions there. There are certain institutions that I do think merit this type of preservation. Where, if you are someone who is visiting or someone who has recently moved in, you should be able to appreciate what this looked like and what it has been for a long time. But sometimes on the residential side, it does not always serve the purpose of communicating what the culture meant at the time. So there is an ability for us to lean into some of our businesses and institutions, and perhaps find some more flexibility on the residential side.
Ryan Puzycki: I want to ask about the 2019 Housing Stability & Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), which you cosponsored. Advocates praise the increased tenant protections, but critics argue that vacancy control is taking rent-stabilized units offline. How do you assess how the law is working—and what changes, if any, should be made going forward?
Zellnor Myrie: What we had prior to the HSTPA was a system that unduly allowed for the pushing out of tenants, not on the merits, not because they were delinquent, but because there was too high an incentive on the other side of an eviction, for there to be any real working relationship between the tenant and the property owner. What we saw after the HSTPA was a significant reduction in evictions, and a balancing of the equilibrium between the tenant and the property owner. I thought at the time that it was incredibly necessary for us to have that rebalancing, and to ensure that tenants were being protected and not unfairly pushed out.
Now we're five years later and we have seen the market respond. There are certain situations where property owners are doing all of the right things. They're trying to keep their buildings in repair and in good standing, but cannot pencil out what it would mean to bring in a new tenant after a tenant has left. So it's why I have proposed a number of things to continue what I believe are important tenant protections, and in that regard extending our right to counsel program, fully funding it, ensuring that people have counsel when they are facing eviction, but also allowing for property owners who are doing the right thing, and who have vacant units, to utilize a voucher tenant that may be above the legal rent, but that allows for them to pencil out the renting out of that unit.4 And this is something that is not foreign to our housing statutes. We do this in other government-subsidized buildings. It is something that would allow for property owners to potentially be able to make some of the money back that they need at this moment.
Look, that has upset a certain segment of the housing movement, and I think that I have always been—whether it was for the HSTPA, or as the next mayor—solutions-oriented. We should be doing the things that work, and if we get the data that indicates that it's not working, a good leader is not going to dig in and say, let's keep doing the wrong thing. He is going to say, let's figure out how we can adjust so that we can have people continue to benefit from the system on both ends. It doesn't make sense to me to have an affordable rent if your elevator is breaking every two months and if you are living in disrepair. We have to give people the resources.
Again, for property owners who are doing the right thing, give them the resources to maintain the building. I'd be advocating for a movement in Albany to have a government-backed insurance fund that would allow for the rent-stabilized property owners to do the upkeep and to have the resources that they need given the other increases in the market that are not tied to the rent. We have to be serious about an all-of-the-above approach, and that includes both supporting property owners who are doing the right thing and ensuring that tenants are protected as well.
Ryan Puzycki: You’ve said New York can’t survive as a city only for the wealthy or the subsidized. Beyond building more rental housing, how can we expand broader economic opportunity? You’ve proposed a First-Generation Homebuyers Fund—are there other ways you see for New Yorkers to build wealth and stability beyond housing?
Zellnor Myrie: Absolutely. It's certainly important in the homeownership space. And this is something that has been a passion of mine on the state-level, where I have fought against deed theft, where people are stealing generational wealth, and in many times the only source of opportunity that New Yorkers have. I'm hoping to be more proactive as the next mayor to ensure that people can get their foot in the door in the first place.
My mom had a small business. She had a jewelry shop on Flatbush Avenue many, many years ago that she could not keep open because she didn't have access to capital, could not navigate the City Hall bureaucracy. So, we want a small business accelerator fund, as well, to bring City Hall and our small business services to entrepreneurs, to ensure that they have the requisite training, access, and in some instances grants to get their business started and to maintain it.
I also think it's really important when we talk about childcare. This is one of the top reasons that people are leaving the city. If you are a parent in this city, you are twice as likely to leave because you cannot afford childcare. I would like to expand our pre-K and 3-K programs from 2:30pm to 6pm, because most working New Yorkers do not get off at 2:30pm, and allow for people to make professional choices so that they don't have to choose between a job that lets them off at 2:30 or 3 or 4, or staying in the city. It's also why I've been a huge proponent of universal after-school, and providing that for everybody in the city—again to provide some relief for working parents but also to have them make some professional choices to stay in the city.
Our housing plan isn't just about providing opportunity for people here in the city. We want to attract people to New York, as well. We want to stem out-migration. And those two things are better for revenue, so we can do things like extending childcare, so we can do things like providing after-school for all. We've seen in other jurisdictions that when you provide this type of support, when this allows for greater economic opportunity, that that revenue often pays for the programs itself. If we do not take the steps right now to stem out-migration—and that includes building a lot more housing, but also providing affordable childcare, giving people assistance, getting their foot in the door on homeownership, or starting a business—then we are going to see a city where you can only survive if it is by way of subsidy by the government, or if you're doing incredibly, incredibly well. And that's just not the city that I know, it's not the city my parents came to, and it's not the city that I want to lead, as the next mayor.
Ryan Puzycki: I'm glad you mentioned your mom's small business, though I'm sorry it didn't work out. When I think about small businesses, I think about outdoor dining—something that was hugely successful. Now the new system has made it almost impossible. What do you think went wrong? And why does that seem to happen so often?
Zellnor Myrie: It's a really frustrating thing, because we all went through a once-in-a-century pandemic that was tragic in more ways than we can count and describe. But one of the good things that came out was outdoor dining and the things that we were able to experience. People said, “Wow, this is great. We've never seen this in the city before.” It was something that many, many people—there were some detractors—but many everyday New Yorkers loved to see this, loved to participate in it, and the small businesses loved it because it brought more people in. It was frankly the only way that they could survive then.
After some legislation by the City Council, and subsequently by this Administration's failure to make the application process as easy as possible, we now see an almost negligible uptick on outdoor dining, as the weather is getting warmer, and as people are expecting to see more of it. I've spoken to business owners who spent thousands of dollars going through this application process, who hired lawyers, who did all of the right things, only to be denied for some really small and insignificant portion of the process, and who are now out thousands of dollars and don't have the outdoor dining. The city made this really, really difficult for people to get, and we are seeing the results now.
So I would like to reverse this trend. I'm going to have to go back to the City Council—and we're going to have some willing partners there because they represent these communities, as well. They represent these small businesses, as well. They've seen what the result has been. So let's try to go back in the other direction. Let's open this up. Let's make it easy for people to apply for this. Let's give them the technical support that they need, so that you don't have to hire three lawyers to navigate the application process, and let's have these businesses thrive. People give lip service, but these are the backbones of our city's economy. This is why people choose to come to New York, because you can taste the flavors of the world in your neighborhood. And why not be able to do that in a fashion where we are outside, where it's thriving? It's walkable. It's livable. That is something that I really want to lean into, as the next mayor.
Ryan Puzycki: We’re coming up on time, so one final question. You’ve said New Yorkers like to be inspired. If your housing plans succeed, New York would look and feel very different by the end of your second term. What’s your vision for the city you want to leave behind after eight years?
Zellnor Myrie: I want a city where every child from Pre-K through 12th grade does not know a world where they did not have after-school. I want a city where every single family and parent does not have to worry about the cost of childcare. I want a city where, whether you want to be a teacher, a social worker, a business person, a lawyer, an entertainer, an artist, you feel that you can find a place to live in this city and live out your dreams. That is what I want New York City to be by the end of the Myrie Administration—a place, simply, that is the capital of opportunity, where you could come and be anything you want without us getting in your way. That's the kind of city that I want, and I think we can get there. We just need the leadership and the courage to do it.
I enjoyed my conversation with Senator Myrie—and I hope you did, too! Please share this with New York City voters before the Democratic primary election on June 24th!
Special thanks to , , , , , , , and for submitting question ideas.
The Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) is New York City’s discretionary land-use approval process for major rezonings and developments.
The Charter Revision Commission is an independent body that proposes changes to New York City’s governing charter, which must be approved by voters in a referendum.
Historic district designation limits new construction and major alterations to buildings within the district to preserve a neighborhood’s historic character.
Myrie is proposing allowing property owners of vacant rent-stabilized units to rent to, for instance, Section 8 voucher holders at a higher rent level than the unit's regulated legal rent, as a way to bring more units back online while keeping the units in the rent-stabilization program.
OMG this guy is AMAZING! If I lived in NYC I would SO vote for him!
“There is a Charter Revision Commission2 that is currently examining the ULURP process. They are soliciting input from the public experts, from community members.”
In other words, all the people who currently have veto power over anyone nailing two boards together are deciding if they should give up that veto power?