Most of the NYC housing activists that I follow are very gung-ho about Garcia including Mathew Yglesias and Market Urbanism because of her policies regarding zoning and allowing housing to be built. They come at the issue as one of lack of supply. These activists have not been historically pro-Bloomberg or DeBlasio's approach and in fact have been extremely critical. I don't think it's fair to say Garcia would emulate their approach on housing.
Of course because many of these urbanists who say they want more affordable housing are co-opting tenant advocacy movements, co-opting racial justice movements to enact a pro overdevelopment agenda. The developers ran out of land to build so now they want to upzone everything and what better argument to use to silence people other than saying 1/2 family homes are racist, when the reality is a lot more complex than that.
Bums me out that you see it that way. There are a lot of writers advocating for more housing supply that are coming at it with good faith and data and their arguments are deeply rooted in Progressive ideals and alleviating the cost of housing for the poor, working poor, and lower / middle class. If you're interested in reading some of these I'd jump over to Matt Y's substack and hearing some of his thoughts. Here's a good one : https://www.slowboring.com/p/homelessness-housing
Trickle down housing, just like trickle down economics doesn't work. The way you house the homeless and working poor is by building more housing projects or having NYCHA or other housing authorities buying existing apartment buildings.
Upzone the wrong neighborhoods and there will be a lot of protesting across racial, economic lines. Believe it or not, many minorities want to be able to own a 1 or 2 family home with a backyard and a driveway to park their car. As a society, we should be able to make it easier for them to do so.
lol NYC should absolutely not make it easier for people to "own a 1 or 2 family home with a backyard and a driveway to park their car." What you're describing is a suburb.
The way you make it easier for minorities to own a 1 or 2 family home is through union jobs that don't require massive amount of student loans for an education. There are plenty of outer borough parts of NYC that have 1 or 2 family homes and even if you upzone, you're never getting a subway line built through these areas.
Great piece, Ross, and thanks for the important insights into Garcia's attitudes on rent stablization. Disheartening, to say the least. One historical correction to your opening about NYC after the 1975 fiscal crisis: Among the most important progressive, social-democratic losses to the city stemming from the post-1975 imposition of neoliberal policies was the gutting of the 130-year long tradition of free tuition at CUNY and the evisceration of Open Admissions that was only half a dozen years old when the fiscal crisis hit. CUNY has still not fully recovered from those cutbacks almost half a century later.
This is a fantastic article. Thanks, Ross. Controlling, stabilizing and reducing rent is key in making housing affordable. The neoliberals basically won when they abolished rent control. It fundamentally disempowered the lower middle and working classes. The high cost of housing has been the bane of my existence as a single mom of two kids with special medical needs and mental health conditions. It has consumed my retirement account and kept me and my kids creeping along rather than living.
In this post Garcia is quoted as saying, “We have a lot of small landlords. They control an enormous amount of the rent-stabilized housing stock and they have to be able to make it here as well.”
To which Barkan replies, "It’s a myth that small, hard-working landlords control most of the housing stock in the five boroughs. They are not lavishly funding the Real Estate Board of New York. Rather, it’s the enormous real estate firms and management companies that collect most of the rent."
These statements are, in principle, empirically testable. Do we have real data on the concentration in housing real estate in New York City?
This article gives some helpful statistics. One-property landlords own about 10% of rent regulated units in NYC. Small landlords (defined as owning 2-5 buildings) own about 20% of rent regulated units. So the majority are definitely medium and large landlords, but smaller landlords do own a not-insignificant number of rent-regulated buildings.
I don't think it's fair to accuse others of putting aesthetics before policy, then stating as fact that Garcia won't pursue the police-related policies in her platform because "it's hard to see" her doing so -- based on nothing more than your opinion of her sincerity.
You say yourself that she is a blunt person, so it seems odd to assume that she's telling the truth about her stances that you oppose, and lying about the ones you support.
Hey Ross, thanks so much for this great piece. Shared it with a friend who wrote back a solid question I'm hoping you can answer:
"I'm confused…
The article starts by explaining that the mayor has no ability to change housing policy
The mayor of New York City, thanks to changes in law made in the fiscal crisis era, has relatively little control over housing policy. Rent regulations, if they are to be strengthened, must be changed in the state legislature and approved by the governor.
And then says that the main reason he doesn't like Garcia is her poor housing policy (which I agree is poor)?
I was in one of those tiny mayoral forums a few months ago when Garcia was asked about the police closing down entire streets for their own use. She said she didn't like it, but she added, "I defer to the NYPD on public safety." Beyond the insanity of having that attitude about an organization that breaks the law so consistently, there's the troubling nature of her understanding of hierarchy. As one friend of mine, considerably more conservative than me, pointed out, the mayor should not defer on anything to anyone who works under them. Seek advice and guidance, sure. But the mayor is in charge. And when Garcia said she'd defer to the NYPD, it's a great sign of how assumed it has become for politicians to believe that the cops run the city.
And who do you defer to for public safety? I’d really love to know what answer you were looking for. I mean. She said she does not like police closing down streets for their own use. But that doesn’t mean she’s insighting anarchy? What are you offering as a solution.
- Me? I'm not in charge of public safety. The mayor is. The next mayor, unlike the current mayor, should assert lawful executive authority over the police department. As I said above, it's OK for the mayor to ask members of the department for advice or guidance. It's not OK for the mayor to let the department run itself, which is what Garcia's statement to me implied. It's the same with any situation in which the armed agents of the state are legally overseen by an elected official. I'd be similarly horrified if the president said he'd let generals and admirals make military policy on their own.
- Almost any answer that didn't include letting the police run themselves would have been better.
- Since Garcia has no current position, I don't believe she is inciting anarchy. But I never said she did. Your question is a non-sequitur.
- I can't answer this unless the question is clearer. Since you didn't pose a problem, it's impossible for me to offer a solution. Another non-sequitur.
Very persuasive piece, Ross! Suggests that the "neoliberalism" of NYC mayors is less ideological (since people like David Dinkins and Michael Bloomberg don't have much in common, ideologically) and more structural. Given the severe limitations on the Mayor's power since the fiscal crisis, they are almost forced to pursue policies broadly described as "neoliberal," which I think is frankly why the Left is better off staying away from this race. With a the gains made at the State legislative level, and a semi-decent shot at a Tish James gubernatorial campaign, there's a realistic chance that Albany will be more progressive than City Hall come 2023, which opens up a lot of possibilities....
I would very much appreciate an article explaining why "neoliberal" views against freezing or canceling rent, and opposing more/higher taxes on real estate are so pernicious, and how more "progressive" policies on this front would, in the long-term, be for the greater good of the poor and working class.
Most of the NYC housing activists that I follow are very gung-ho about Garcia including Mathew Yglesias and Market Urbanism because of her policies regarding zoning and allowing housing to be built. They come at the issue as one of lack of supply. These activists have not been historically pro-Bloomberg or DeBlasio's approach and in fact have been extremely critical. I don't think it's fair to say Garcia would emulate their approach on housing.
Of course because many of these urbanists who say they want more affordable housing are co-opting tenant advocacy movements, co-opting racial justice movements to enact a pro overdevelopment agenda. The developers ran out of land to build so now they want to upzone everything and what better argument to use to silence people other than saying 1/2 family homes are racist, when the reality is a lot more complex than that.
Bums me out that you see it that way. There are a lot of writers advocating for more housing supply that are coming at it with good faith and data and their arguments are deeply rooted in Progressive ideals and alleviating the cost of housing for the poor, working poor, and lower / middle class. If you're interested in reading some of these I'd jump over to Matt Y's substack and hearing some of his thoughts. Here's a good one : https://www.slowboring.com/p/homelessness-housing
Trickle down housing, just like trickle down economics doesn't work. The way you house the homeless and working poor is by building more housing projects or having NYCHA or other housing authorities buying existing apartment buildings.
Matthew Yglesias is stunningly uneducated on so many things.
It's almost impressive that you don't mention zoning throughout all of this, the single most important thing in creating a livable, affordable city.
Upzone the wrong neighborhoods and there will be a lot of protesting across racial, economic lines. Believe it or not, many minorities want to be able to own a 1 or 2 family home with a backyard and a driveway to park their car. As a society, we should be able to make it easier for them to do so.
lol NYC should absolutely not make it easier for people to "own a 1 or 2 family home with a backyard and a driveway to park their car." What you're describing is a suburb.
The way you make it easier for minorities to own a 1 or 2 family home is through union jobs that don't require massive amount of student loans for an education. There are plenty of outer borough parts of NYC that have 1 or 2 family homes and even if you upzone, you're never getting a subway line built through these areas.
The only housing issue that matters is zoning, and Garcia is the best there.
Great piece, Ross, and thanks for the important insights into Garcia's attitudes on rent stablization. Disheartening, to say the least. One historical correction to your opening about NYC after the 1975 fiscal crisis: Among the most important progressive, social-democratic losses to the city stemming from the post-1975 imposition of neoliberal policies was the gutting of the 130-year long tradition of free tuition at CUNY and the evisceration of Open Admissions that was only half a dozen years old when the fiscal crisis hit. CUNY has still not fully recovered from those cutbacks almost half a century later.
This is a fantastic article. Thanks, Ross. Controlling, stabilizing and reducing rent is key in making housing affordable. The neoliberals basically won when they abolished rent control. It fundamentally disempowered the lower middle and working classes. The high cost of housing has been the bane of my existence as a single mom of two kids with special medical needs and mental health conditions. It has consumed my retirement account and kept me and my kids creeping along rather than living.
In this post Garcia is quoted as saying, “We have a lot of small landlords. They control an enormous amount of the rent-stabilized housing stock and they have to be able to make it here as well.”
To which Barkan replies, "It’s a myth that small, hard-working landlords control most of the housing stock in the five boroughs. They are not lavishly funding the Real Estate Board of New York. Rather, it’s the enormous real estate firms and management companies that collect most of the rent."
These statements are, in principle, empirically testable. Do we have real data on the concentration in housing real estate in New York City?
This article gives some helpful statistics. One-property landlords own about 10% of rent regulated units in NYC. Small landlords (defined as owning 2-5 buildings) own about 20% of rent regulated units. So the majority are definitely medium and large landlords, but smaller landlords do own a not-insignificant number of rent-regulated buildings.
The only small landlords I experienced in Brooklyn were homeowners who rented their small, dark and dank basement apartments for $2800 per month.
I don't think it's fair to accuse others of putting aesthetics before policy, then stating as fact that Garcia won't pursue the police-related policies in her platform because "it's hard to see" her doing so -- based on nothing more than your opinion of her sincerity.
You say yourself that she is a blunt person, so it seems odd to assume that she's telling the truth about her stances that you oppose, and lying about the ones you support.
lol u mad
Hey Ross, thanks so much for this great piece. Shared it with a friend who wrote back a solid question I'm hoping you can answer:
"I'm confused…
The article starts by explaining that the mayor has no ability to change housing policy
The mayor of New York City, thanks to changes in law made in the fiscal crisis era, has relatively little control over housing policy. Rent regulations, if they are to be strengthened, must be changed in the state legislature and approved by the governor.
And then says that the main reason he doesn't like Garcia is her poor housing policy (which I agree is poor)?
Am I missing something?"
I was in one of those tiny mayoral forums a few months ago when Garcia was asked about the police closing down entire streets for their own use. She said she didn't like it, but she added, "I defer to the NYPD on public safety." Beyond the insanity of having that attitude about an organization that breaks the law so consistently, there's the troubling nature of her understanding of hierarchy. As one friend of mine, considerably more conservative than me, pointed out, the mayor should not defer on anything to anyone who works under them. Seek advice and guidance, sure. But the mayor is in charge. And when Garcia said she'd defer to the NYPD, it's a great sign of how assumed it has become for politicians to believe that the cops run the city.
And who do you defer to for public safety? I’d really love to know what answer you were looking for. I mean. She said she does not like police closing down streets for their own use. But that doesn’t mean she’s insighting anarchy? What are you offering as a solution.
In answer to your questions (in order):
- Me? I'm not in charge of public safety. The mayor is. The next mayor, unlike the current mayor, should assert lawful executive authority over the police department. As I said above, it's OK for the mayor to ask members of the department for advice or guidance. It's not OK for the mayor to let the department run itself, which is what Garcia's statement to me implied. It's the same with any situation in which the armed agents of the state are legally overseen by an elected official. I'd be similarly horrified if the president said he'd let generals and admirals make military policy on their own.
- Almost any answer that didn't include letting the police run themselves would have been better.
- Since Garcia has no current position, I don't believe she is inciting anarchy. But I never said she did. Your question is a non-sequitur.
- I can't answer this unless the question is clearer. Since you didn't pose a problem, it's impossible for me to offer a solution. Another non-sequitur.
Very persuasive piece, Ross! Suggests that the "neoliberalism" of NYC mayors is less ideological (since people like David Dinkins and Michael Bloomberg don't have much in common, ideologically) and more structural. Given the severe limitations on the Mayor's power since the fiscal crisis, they are almost forced to pursue policies broadly described as "neoliberal," which I think is frankly why the Left is better off staying away from this race. With a the gains made at the State legislative level, and a semi-decent shot at a Tish James gubernatorial campaign, there's a realistic chance that Albany will be more progressive than City Hall come 2023, which opens up a lot of possibilities....
I would very much appreciate an article explaining why "neoliberal" views against freezing or canceling rent, and opposing more/higher taxes on real estate are so pernicious, and how more "progressive" policies on this front would, in the long-term, be for the greater good of the poor and working class.
The way you address affordability is having a large expansion of NYCHA.