Progressives’ Glaring Development Hypocrisy

[M II A II R II K]

Progressives’ Glaring Development Hypocrisy


Aug 09, 2021

By Ryder Kessler

Read More: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...7gm-story.html

As a lifelong New Yorker who works on national Democratic campaigns, I walked into my first meeting as a member of Manhattan’s Community Board 2 in 2019 eager to bring the energy of the resistance from Washington to W. 11th St. The city’s 59 Community Boards comprise many of our most politically empowered citizens. Unfortunately, when it came to our own streets, I quickly learned that the New Yorkers most engaged in left-wing politics are often the most opposed to the progressive change they preach.

- Nowhere is this divergence worse than on housing. I left CB2 in 2020 to work on the races for the White House and Congress, wished well by colleagues who also hoped for a blue wave. But on July 26, CB2 voted, 37-to-1, against the city’s proposed upzoning of SoHo and NoHo. No modifications to the plan would change their mind, members said, endorsing a status quo in which largely white and wealthy areas do not add to the city’s housing supply amid an ongoing crisis of affordability. I was disappointed but not surprised. — The night of my first meeting, the board considered Haven Green, an affordable housing development for low-income, formerly homeless, largely LGBTQ seniors proposed for a space now occupied by the Elizabeth Street Garden. Those testifying in favor were heckled, called paid agitators imported to the neighborhood. Affordable housing should be built, board members said, just not here. They voted four-to-one to oppose the project.

- Today Haven Green is still unbuilt, and our affordability crisis continues. Self-described progressives continue to oppose new housing, taking positions contrary to their professed values and perpetuating segregation, stagnancy and sprawl. It’s uncomfortable but imperative that we connect these dots. — First, progressives pride ourselves on following the facts. They are undeniable: New York City must build. Between 2009 and 2018, we added only 19 housing units for every 100 new jobs one for every five new New Yorkers. With demand outstripping supply, prices nearly doubled. Our neighbors struggle to stay housed, with record numbers in city shelters. We can stem the impact of astronomical prices with rental aid like CityFHEPs vouchers, but prices will only come down with more supply. Even at the peak of COVID-19 when vacancies more than doubled, there were only 16,000 empty apartments; New York built one million fewer units over the last five decades than in the 50 years before.

- Critics argue that new market-rate housing doesn’t help and affordable units will still be inaccessible. But research is clearer by the day: New units of all kinds drive all prices down, and those in desirable neighborhoods take pressure off lower-income areas more likely to suffer from displacement. Moreover, a two-bedroom in SoHo/NoHo now rents for $8,000; after rezoning, a designated affordable equivalent would cost less than $1,000. — Second, progressives say we are committed to combating entrenched racial injustice; many Community Board members took to the streets last summer to say that Black Lives Matter. But opposition to new development across the streetscape preferring a McDonald’s in Prospect Heights or a tow pound in lower Manhattan means blocking integration. — Third, progressives reject processes that entrench the power of the privileged. However, in Gowanus, rezoning opponents cited virtual meetings as illegal and sued over the fact that notice to the Community Board was made via a link in an email rather than in the email itself.

.....

[mhays]

The headline is right. Nimbyism and anti-developmentism are common among progressives and liberals, as it is with other political types. Some progressives think any development is evil and don't get the supply/demand thing. Liberals might be more likely to get the concept but also furious about anything that changes the status quo in their own area, or gets in the way of free parking everywhere. Working class right-wingers can match progressives and patricians can match liberals, some with a more overt racial or anti-poor fear added.

But it's possible to get beyond much of this.

People's ideas seems to be a localized. In my area, a lot of progressives are on the more-development bandwagon, including council members who are otherwise off the rails. Maybe it's about who's speaking up, with minor differences in the conversation that can tilt the overall mood. There's also a common ethic that we need to slow sprawl to protect farms and forests, so it's a shorter leap to allow more density.

Just as importantly, some cities let projects get stopped, and others allow things by-right or nearly so if they're basically compliant with the zoning. My area is in the latter group, even while entitlements are a lengthy pain in the ass. The argument will be about the nuances of design, not about whether you can build an 85'-tall apartment.

[jbermingham123]

This is a real story.. Unfortunately, due to the bona fide maoism in the mainstream media, topics like this are relegated to opinion pieces in 2nd-tier publications. This shit ought to be in the NYT

[Obadno]

This shouldn't surprise anyone if you spend time in "Progressives'" Circles.

A lot of what you find are people interested in "correcting" the backwards practices of people and places they've never been and will never go as well as a "good for thee but not for me" sort of attitude among people in the high tax brackets.

Not to mention a healthy dose of self flagellation for past sins projected on the wider community/society whatever...

Not all of them, not even most but a healthy undercurrent and minority of them.

Gentrification vs anti-gentrification, and NIMBY are all outgrowths of these sets of attitudes

[craigs]

NIMBYism is not a partisan political issue in California. People see densification of their (mostly suburban) neighborhoods as a significant threat to their economic wellbeing. NIMBYism is unfortunately widespread and spans the entire political spectrum.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by Obadno

This shouldn't surprise anyone if you spend time in "Progressives'" Circles.

A lot of what you find are people interested in "correcting" the backwards practices of people and places they've never been and will never go as well as a "good for thee but not for me" sort of attitude among people in the high tax brackets.

Not to mention a healthy dose of self flagellation for past sins projected on the wider community/society whatever...

Not all of them, not even most but a healthy undercurrent and minority of them.

Gentrification vs anti-gentrification, and NIMBY are all outgrowths of these sets of attitudes

Precisely correct. For as many urban-ish things that Progressives are correct on, it's grating to listen to these jerks advocate for allowing homeless people to set up tents on parks and playgrounds while blocking developments all while their children struggle to afford adequate housing remotely close to them. Basically denying their children the ability to grow their net worth and benefit from the stability of ownership in their communities and denying their grandchildren a stable and secure childhood - because they don't want any more people living near them.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by craigs

NIMBYism is not a partisan political issue in California. People see densification of their (mostly suburban) neighborhoods as a significant threat to their economic wellbeing.

The irony is that California is one of the most densely populated states in the US and could probably benefit from multi-family housing.

[tablemtn]

in which largely white and wealthy

A lot of people are going to ignore a message when it has obvious race-baiting. NYC is only 34% white, which means that the old 'black/white' dynamic is simply not applicable anymore in the modern era (blacks and whites COMBINED in NYC are barely more than half of the city's population).

It's strange to me how even a lot of younger people are trapped in that outdated mental framework of American race-relations even though it simply doesn't work anymore as an analytical model, since it excludes too much of the population.

[YourBuddy]

Originally Posted by craigs

NIMBYism is not a partisan political issue in California. People see densification of their (mostly suburban) neighborhoods as a significant threat to their economic wellbeing. NIMBYism is unfortunately widespread and spans the entire political spectrum.

Yep here in Arizona, especially Scottsdale, you will see people who identify as left leaning against high density development, public transportation, and gentrification in already wealthy areas. While on the right they have a large group that is “anti-growth,” against all of the things the left leaning people oppose, but they’ve argued anything over 1 story is too tall, the protested a 7 story building claiming it would turn Scottsdale into Los Angeles, while claiming these luxury amenity condo developments with units worth no less than half a million dollars are bulsheviks buildings meant to house migrants.

[Chef]

The premise of this thread isn't even true. The two most forward thinking zoning reforms have come from the Oregon legislature and the Minneapolis city council, both of which are left leaning. The Minneapolis city council is far enough left that Ilhan Omar would be considered a moderate on it yet it is probably the most pro density, pro urbanist elected body in the US.

There is a portion of the progressive movement that reflects the impulses and prejudices of the sort of highly educated, high income liberals who disproportionately live in places like New York City and San Francisco. Call them the Warren liberals. They tend to be anti-development, and generally when elite media, centrists and conservatives want to bash the left they like to pretend that those people are the entire left, when in reality they are only a small slice of it. Part of the issue is that they tend to live in the same places where the chattering classes live. Part of the reason the east coast media writes stories like this is because the people they are demonizing tend to live in NY and Boston in large numbers. If they were based in Minneapolis it would be harder for them to write these articles.

[M II A II R II K]

Other than NYC most other cities have plenty of post war suburban surrounding development that can be infilled and cut down on the endless seas of asphalt and less or no history to inconvenience.

[jtown,man]

I see this all the time.

I was working on a Complete Street project for Chicago Ave. in Austin, Chicago.

I proposed adding speed cameras. Two people said they had "equity" concerns.

huh?

I asked what they mean, and basically, it was that they didn't want poor black drivers to be fined. I asked what about poor black people walking, biking, or taking transit, do their equity concerns matter or do we just worry about drivers (my god, this is among people who are 1000% against cars)? They were putting the needs of drivers over pedestrians, bikers, and people waiting for the bus. "Equity" has blinded these folks. It's a religion that doesn't require any inspection.

I also see this with gentrification.

My Leftist colleagues obviously know the history of redlining and how it kept many black families from building wealth through home ownership. Yet, they oppose any black neighborhood from gaining value. Even in the poorest neighborhoods, 30-50% of people own their home. These folks could make a ton of money through gentrification. This is EXACTLY what we are fighting for, yet Leftists always oppose it.

"They will be kicked out of their homes because they can't afford property taxes!" - Ok? Getting kicked out and getting a huge check isn't the worst thing in the world.

"They won't be able to stay in the neighborhood." - Slighly different argument but again, we are fighting against historic redlining. You can't have it both ways.

[jtown,man]

And my last post is not meant to just take a shot at liberals.

I work in a pretty conservative town and I go nuts almost daily with the residents and their "concerns."

One guy told me the other day that Elmhurst is too packed now, with way too many people and its "shoulder to shoulder" downtown now. This man serves on an influential planning board in the town I work in.

This is primarily why I am so pessimistic on American urbanity. You have an unholy alliance (that they don't even realize) of the left and right in America to oppose moving forward.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

A lot of people are going to ignore a message when it has obvious race-baiting. NYC is only 34% white, which means that the old 'black/white' dynamic is simply not applicable anymore in the modern era

The ultra-NIMBY parts of NYC are heavily white and wealthy. So, yeah, it's a likely factor, though not the only one.

The SoHo rezoning is so freaking modest. They would only allow subsidized housing, none of it would be particularly high density, and all of it would be built on parking lots, and subject to landmark regulations. It sounds like an ultra-liberal's wet dream.

But the local "community group" voted it down like 46-1. They claimed it would "destroy the character of SoHo". And if it ultimately gets passed in some form (which is likely since community group votes are advisory), you're guaranteed to see endless lawsuits, screaming, and AOC-type politicians doing press conferences.

Also, that 100% affordable senior housing development mentioned in the article has been held up for like 15 years bc some grannies grow tomatoes on city owned land, and don't want to give up their garden. This is a garden sitting in the middle of Manhattan, and is probably worth $100 million. Yet it's locked up and the only people who have keys are a few neighboring rent-controlled grannies.

These people are nuts.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The ultra-NIMBY parts of NYC are heavily white and wealthy. So, yeah, it's a likely factor, though not the only one.

The SoHo rezoning is so freaking modest. They would only allow subsidized housing, none of it would be particularly high density, and all of it would be built on parking lots, and subject to landmark regulations. It sounds like an ultra-liberal's wet dream.

But the local "community group" voted it down like 46-1. They claimed it would "destroy the character of SoHo". And if it ultimately gets passed in some form (which is likely since community group votes are advisory), you're guaranteed to see endless lawsuits, screaming, and AOC-type politicians doing press conferences.

Also, that 100% affordable senior housing development mentioned in the article has been held up for like 15 years bc some grannies grow tomatoes on city owned land, and don't want to give up their garden. This is a garden sitting in the middle of Manhattan, and is probably worth $100 million. Yet it's locked up and the only people who have keys are a few neighboring rent-controlled grannies.

These people are nuts.

And what would be this "character of SoHo"? Older people on the top 1% income bracket, living in one of the most expensive districts of the world?

It's extremely difficult to make a very wealthy district to be interesting/vibrant. For their own characteristics they will be necessarily bland and empty, even in urban environments.

Anyway, reading all posts above makes me a bit depressing about major changes in the US urban living. Most problems will be there to stay.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I see this all the time.

I was working on a Complete Street project for Chicago Ave. in Austin, Chicago.

I proposed adding speed cameras. Two people said they had "equity" concerns.

huh?

I asked what they mean, and basically, it was that they didn't want poor black drivers to be fined. I asked what about poor black people walking, biking, or taking transit, do their equity concerns matter or do we just worry about drivers (my god, this is among people who are 1000% against cars)? They were putting the needs of drivers over pedestrians, bikers, and people waiting for the bus. "Equity" has blinded these folks. It's a religion that doesn't require any inspection.

The problem may be that rich people can successfully lobby against speed cameras in their neighborhoods much more effectively, leaving an abundance in poor areas. I think we should have speed cameras on every street. There's a very easy way not to get a ticket... don't speed.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The problem may be that rich people can successfully lobby against speed cameras in their neighborhoods much more effectively, leaving an abundance in poor areas. I think we should have speed cameras on every street. There's a very easy way not to get a ticket... don't speed.

I 100% agree. I've been really unpopular in our local Facebook groups for advocating them.

They work.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by Chef

The premise of this thread isn't even true. The two most forward thinking zoning reforms have come from the Oregon legislature and the Minneapolis city council, both of which are left leaning. The Minneapolis city council is far enough left that Ilhan Omar would be considered a moderate on it yet it is probably the most pro density, pro urbanist elected body in the US.

There is a portion of the progressive movement that reflects the impulses and prejudices of the sort of highly educated, high income liberals who disproportionately live in places like New York City and San Francisco. Call them the Warren liberals. They tend to be anti-development, and generally when elite media, centrists and conservatives want to bash the left they like to pretend that those people are the entire left, when in reality they are only a small slice of it. Part of the issue is that they tend to live in the same places where the chattering classes live. Part of the reason the east coast media writes stories like this is because the people they are demonizing tend to live in NY and Boston in large numbers. If they were based in Minneapolis it would be harder for them to write these articles.

The rezoning in Minneapolis allowed duplexes and triplexes as uses informally single-family zoning districts but it didn't initially change the height or setback restrictions. The built form regulations that were passed capped Floor Area Ratios for triplexes at .9:1, meaning that the maximum gross square footage of the building can only be 90% of the total lot area. That's going to kneecap a lot of two or three-bedroom triplexes on typical urban or streetcar suburban parcels. So, the change was performative and signaled progress while not actually accomplishing anything.

[mhays]

It's hard to tear down a house if you can't build substantially more -- a lot of cost vs. the reward/risk. That said, it's still progress and should result in some construction. Houses in bad shape, small houses, big lots, vacant lots, etc., are all categories that could merit new construction. Are there stats about construction of this type for Minneapolis?

Seattle has some precedent. In the 20% of the city that allows real density, maybe half is zoned to encourage townhouses. Since the 1990s, some neighborhoods are now dominated by them, often with three or four replacing an old bungalow (often two in the front, two in the back).

Iirc, Minneapolis has an onerous parking requirement, but they also have alleys that should make this more palatable.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

The rezoning in Minneapolis allowed duplexes and triplexes as uses informally single-family zoning districts but it didn't initially change the height or setback restrictions. The built form regulations that were passed capped Floor Area Ratios for triplexes at .9:1, meaning that the maximum gross square footage of the building can only be 90% of the total lot area. That's going to kneecap a lot of two or three-bedroom triplexes on typical urban or streetcar suburban parcels. So, the change was performative and signaled progress while not actually accomplishing anything.

The triplexes aren't the most important part of the reform to the zoning code, it is just the one that got the most press. The most important piece is that they up zoned all the commercial nodes, bus lines and arterial streets to allow midrises by right and instituted height minimums downtown. They also scrapped parking minimums.

If anything, allowing triplexes throughout the city was a smokescreen that diverted opposition from the fact that they were doing a much more sweeping up zoning of all of the major streets outside of downtown.