Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. All this week, we will be in almost full-time election mode on the show now that early voting has begun in both New York and New Jersey. We will have some other guests too, at least one a day, that's not on the election, like today, Joyce Vance, the MSNBC legal analyst and popular Substack newsletter writer who has a new book. Joyce Vance, coming up today, but mostly election issues and election endgame coverage. Later this hour, our 30 Issues in 30 Days election series continues with Issue 26, President Donald Trump, as an issue in the New Jersey governor's race.

We want to start, for the benefit of New York City voters today, and you'll hear this is going to be relevant to others too, by digging more deeply into the three ballot questions that pertain to building more housing in the city. This should be of interest elsewhere too, as so much of our area, not just the five boroughs, I don't have to tell you, have affordable housing shortages. The city's Charter Revision Commission under Mayor Adams has placed three questions on the ballot designed largely to make it easier to build. They are Questions 2, 3, and 4. Make sure to turn your ballots over after voting for the candidates on the front to see all the ballot questions.

If you've been getting flyers in the mail like I have, oh my goodness, you may have noticed there are strongly worded campaigns on each side. We already did a 30 Issue segment on these, but we're coming back to them today because with voting starting, we not only know they're important, we've been hearing from many people who are confused. We will have another Brian Lehrer Show debate or exchange of views around this right now. In this case, we'll do it in two parts. First on Question 4, which is more controversial for some communities, then on Questions 2 and 3, which are more controversial for others. We're sure you can follow the separation.

Our guest throughout will be Alec Schierenbeck, Executive Director of the Charter Revision Commission itself, which approved these questions as issues for the voters. Joining us first, also specifically on Question 4 with Alec Schierenbeck is City Council member Lincoln Restler from Brooklyn. His district includes all the parts of-- Let's see if I get these right. The Councilman will correct me if I don't. Greenpoint, Vinegar Hill, Williamsburg, Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO, Downtown Brooklyn, and the Brooklyn Navy Art area.

Alec Schierenbeck, welcome. Councilman Restler, welcome back to WNYC.

Alec Schierenbeck: Thanks for having us.

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: Yes, thanks for having me, Brian, and you've got every single one of those neighborhoods. Well done.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. Mr. Schierenbeck, why don't you start and just lay out first what the Charter Revision Commission was going for overall with these three ballot questions, and then we'll zero in on Question 4.

Alec Schierenbeck: Sure. Well, look, I don't need to tell your listeners that we have a housing crisis, and longtime New Yorkers are being priced out of this city. We just saw last week a headline that nearly one in seven school children in New York City experienced homelessness last year. This is a profound problem, and a root cause of it is that we are not building enough housing to meet New Yorkers' needs. That's what's driving the soaring rents and displacement and homelessness and gentrification that New Yorkers are contending with.

A major reason why we're not building enough is that some neighborhoods in our city have not added affordable housing in a generation. The reforms that we are putting on the ballot, and that New Yorkers will flip their ballot and choose on, are targeted to create faster, simpler, and less political processes for targeted categories of housing, affordable housing and modest housing projects. That's Questions 2 and 3. Question 4 seeks to bring more voices to the table when our political process is considering projects that deliver affordable housing. Because right now we have a hyperlocal process where only the views of one person, in most cases the local council member, will determine whether an affordable housing project is approved or cut down. That has meant that whole parts of our city, where it's too politically toxic to say yes to affordable housing, have added virtually none at all.

Councilmember Restler here is joining us. He is not in that minority of councilmembers. His council district adds a lot of housing. In fact, his council district added more housing in the last decade than 19 council districts combined. Councilmember Restler has been a champion on housing issues, but that isn't true of everyone in the council because we have this hyperlocal approval process. We're trying to bring more voices to the table because our citywide housing crisis doesn't end at district lines, and we need citywide solutions.

Brian Lehrer: Now you teed up Councilman Restler perfectly for a first response, since you said his district has been building a lot of affordable housing. First, I want to make sure all our listeners have the phone number. Folks, if you have questions on this, or you can lobby, some electioneering welcome here. We see that some people are already calling in on one side or another of these housing proposals. Feel free. We definitely want people with questions because, again, the main reason that we're doing this for a second time on the show this election season is that I know people personally, and we're hearing from listeners who say, "Well, I don't know about these ballot questions on housing. I want housing, but I want some community control." Questions welcome. 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692. Call or text with your question or comment or electioneering.

All right. Councilmember Restler, your district has, according to Mr. Schierenbeck, been building a lot more housing. Zero in on this Question 4, Ballot Question 4. Maybe in your words, tell people in more detail what that one is and why you oppose it.

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: Thank you, Brian. I think it's important to just take a step back into how this commission was created. This commission was a political vendetta by Eric Adams and his staff. While we were negotiating the City of Yes housing plan with the Adams administration, the mayor and his team were upset that the City Council demanded that more money be invested in truly affordable housing that working people can afford in resiliency, so that people who live in flood zones or areas where new development is going to be happening are going to be safe in the face of the climate crisis. The mayor didn't like that. As a result, he created this Charter Revision Commission with the sole purpose of removing power from our communities and the City Council in the land use process and giving more power to developers and to the mayor's office.

Now, look, these proposals are a mixed bag. As Alec noted, my council district has built more housing than any other in the city of New York over the last 15 years. We've added nearly 40,000 units of housing. We have a housing crisis, and every neighborhood, every community needs to do more. In fact, that's why I support Question 2, which would ensure that in the neighborhoods and the dozen community districts around New York City where no housing development is happening, places like Throggs Neck and College Point and other parts in Southern Brooklyn, were finally going to start to see some development in those communities. That is a good thing.

I am deeply concerned about Question 4 because, in short, what this question-- if this question is approved, the City Council will no longer be a voice at the table for our communities. We will no longer be able to negotiate with developers to ensure that we secure truly affordable housing, that we secure investments in parks, in transit, in schools that really meet the needs of our communities. Developers will be able to build whatever they want, wherever they want. We hear from constituents all the time that they're frustrated about too many studios and too many one-bedrooms, not enough units for families. That they're frustrated that the "affordable housing" isn't actually all that affordable. The City Council and our communities, we step in and try to negotiate a better deal so that we have development that communities can support. That will no longer be the case and [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: Let me jump in on this and drill down on what you were just saying, which I think is the argument of many of the flyers that have been mailed out. Then Mr. Schierenbeck, we'll get your take on this aspect. Got a flyer in the mail yesterday that comes from New York City Council, so this doesn't even look like it's an outside interest group. The return address is New York City Council, or at least that's what it appears to be. It says, "Mayor Adams' misleading Proposals 2, 3, and 4 in the ballot this election will take away your community's power to demand the city and developers invest in your neighborhood when allowed to build." To demand the city and developers invest in your neighborhood when allowed to build.

I've seen other flyers like this, Councilmember, that say specifically- and I don't know if they came from City Council too, but they say specifically, you won't be able to negotiate community benefits with developers who are coming into your community to profit off the housing that they would build. Can you talk about this community benefits or demanding that developers invest in your neighborhood and how that would be removed from a community's power?

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: I'd be happy to. Just this week, day after tomorrow, I'll be supporting approval of a 1,262-unit housing development at Domino on the waterfront in Williamsburg. The developer, we are approving every single unit of housing that the developer proposed. It's a good thing in our transit-rich community to be building more housing. We've talked to the developer, and they're going to be investing in a new protected bike lane around their development site. They're going to be investing in more trees and sustainability initiatives across our district. Fixing up a schoolyard that is at one of our poorest schools in District 33.

The developer was happy to make each and every one of these investments. Indeed, the developer is going to be renting apartments at $8,000 or $9,000 or $10,000 a month in this new project. They can afford to invest in our community. Actually, by making these investments, it improves the neighborhood as a whole; for the people who will be living in his building and for the people who have been living in our neighborhood long term. If the process changes, if Question 4 is approved, then none of those investments will happen. The developer will just build the housing that he or she proposes and have no concern for what is happening in our neighborhood. I'll give-- [crosstalk] Yes, go ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Well, go ahead real briefly, and then I want to throw it back to Alec [crosstalk]--

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: I just want to give another example that's really important. The Gowanus rezoning, which was just approved a couple years ago, Alec was actually on the community board that voted for it. In that Gowanus rezoning, there was $200 million for NYCHA housing to fix up dilapidated developments, investment for artists in Gowanus to stay in the neighborhood, investment at Gowanus Green, a big, deep, affordable housing development on a toxic site. There was investment in transit improvements and more. None of those investments would have happened in the Gowanus rezoning because none of the people on this new appeals board wanted them. It's really important that when we're building housing, we're thinking about how do we build neighborhoods, not just units.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Alec Schierenbeck, head of the Charter Revision Commission, which placed these questions on the ballot, how do you address the concern of what power communities would have, if Ballot Question 4 gets approved, to negotiate with developers to get community benefits when they build?

Alec Schierenbeck: Well, thank you, Brian. I'm going to get there in a second, but I want to start with we're hearing a lot about Mayor Adams, and you're getting a lot of flyers about Mayor Adams if you're a voter in New York City. What you're not hearing is that these proposals, including Question 4, are supported by people who are not friends of Mayor Adams, like Comptroller Brad Lander, like Borough President Antonio Reynoso, like Habitat for Humanity, and the Ali Forney Center, and the Supportive Housing Network of New York. The people who are building the low-income housing who are advocating for homeless New Yorkers and are certainly not cronies.

Now I think it's important to turn down the temperature here, because I know the Councilmember does support Questions 2 and 3, and talk specifically about what Question 4 does. Okay, what Question 4 does is it says that the process we have today with a community board and a borough president weighing in, then a City Planning Commission, then a City Council, all of that stays the same, but if on an affordable housing project, if the council rejects that project or cuts it down, then there would be an opportunity to appeal to a new three-person body. On that body would be the speaker, representing the interests of the council; the borough president, representing both the local views of the community and the views of the borough; and the mayor, who's a citywide and democratically accountable elected official. If, and only if, two out of those three voices agree could a project that is rejected be restored or a project that is cut down be brought back up.

If, like Councilmember Restler says, there's a deal at the council with the local council member that doesn't involve cutting down or killing a project, but secures community benefits, then, and this is critical, the appeals board doesn't even have jurisdiction to review. The appeals board doesn't have jurisdiction to review things like community benefits agreements or points of agreement or those investments. I think that's probably why people like Brad Lander [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: I guess the Councilmember is asking, what leverage would the community have to secure those agreements?

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: None.

Brian Lehrer: I know. That's what you were saying. I want to give Alec his turn to respond to that.

Alec Schierenbeck: Well, I think the leverage is the leverage that you have through three democratically accountable elected officials. Why would Borough President Antonio Reynoso just give a handout to developers? That's what's so confusing about this line of attack, that apparently borough presidents are just illegitimate, not democratic and rollover for developers. It's hard to square with the views of New Yorkers represented through the people they're electing. The same is true of a mayor and the City Council speaker who's accountable to all the members of the City Council, and does a good job of trying to reconcile both the local views and the views of the council at the whole.

I just want to say one more thing, Brian, is that today the process we have where the views of only one district and not the other 50 districts matter is profoundly undemocratic because it prevents a majority of New Yorkers who want to see housing built from having that desire to be expressed in real policy.

Brian Lehrer: I'm glad you raised that because I was about to. This is what's known-- and listeners, this is key to this Ballot Question 4 debate, and Councilmember, I want to get your response to this. The notion that's usually called member deference. That is, all of City Council will generally defer to the member from a particular neighborhood on a proposed development process.

Councilman, what you just heard Alec argue is a development proposal could be in the interest of the city overall, but the local community is in a NIMBY mindset. They don't want something in their backyard for whatever reason. Gentrification. They don't want more density. They don't want people like that there. For whatever reason. Member deference, that one member of City Council representing their district can have the power, in effect through the conventional politics, to veto a proposal that might be good for the city overall. Apparently, Ballot Question 4 would make that much harder. Do you support the concept of member deference? If so, is that good for New York?

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: I think it's important to think about all three questions together. If you're particularly concerned about the neighborhoods where no construction is happening, areas in the East Bronx, or Northeast Queens or Southern Brooklyn, Question 2 solves for it. No longer will representatives from those communities be involved in approving new development, and we will finally see those communities contributing more to addressing the housing shortage. That is the solve.

When we look at member deference, I think that it's generally misunderstood. We look at many hundreds of land use actions a year at the City Council, and it's impossible for me as an individual member to have deep expertise on every single one of them. We rely on the local members who know their communities best, who know the stakeholders best, who understand the issues best, to give us guidance on projects. We've approved 94% of the projects that have come before this City Council. We've approved over 140,000 units of housing in this City Council. We have approved the largest neighborhood rezoning in the City Council in decades just earlier this month. Later this week, we may well approve a neighborhood rezoning even bigger than that in Long Island City.

This City Council has been approving more housing than any council in my lifetime. We're doing a ton. When a local member takes a position on a project, and they can't make the case for why their position is right, we'll overturn them; just like we did a couple weeks ago on the Just Home project in the Bronx to ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals with great medical needs have housing on the Jacobi Campus, just like we did at the Blood Center on the East Side of Manhattan to ensure that the New York Blood Center is able to meet its growing needs. That's the role of the council, and we're proud to serve that role, representing our communities, working in partnership with the stakeholders in our neighborhoods.

I do just want to go back, though, to a point Alec made a moment ago. He mentioned Borough President Reynosa, who's one of my favorite people. He officiated my wedding. I love Antonio. There's no criticism there. We've been friends for 20 years. Antonio represents an area that's larger than Chicago as the borough president of Brooklyn. There's no possibility that he can be engaged at the local level in the way that the councilmember is to negotiate the specific needs that are needed in Boerum Hill, or the Northside of Williamsburg on a given development project. That's where you want your local council member to guide you through the process.

Brian Lehrer: I want to get a couple of phone calls in for both of you. Alec, I'll give you one more short comeback on that last answer if you want one, but give me just like 30 seconds.

Alec Schierenbeck: Sure. I'll say that borough presidents already play a really big role in our land use process. They have an advisory opinion. They work really closely with community boards. They make appointments to community boards. Historically, borough presidents did play a larger role in our land use process, as you know very well, Brian. When they did, there were still community benefits agreements, there were still investments in communities, but we struck a better balance between local views and boroughwide views to try to address critical citywide problems.

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: Brian, I just have to say, I just think it's important for listeners to understand that- and anyone who's familiar with the development land use process in New York knows this, that when a group has an advisory opinion, like the community board or the borough president, developers may care what that group has to say, but they often don't. They care about what the City Council has to say on behalf of our communities because we have the actual power and leverage to negotiate with developers and deliver for our neighborhoods. That's what's [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: Right, or to kill a project. Vishnu in Sunnyside, you're on WNYC. Hello, Vishnu. Thank you for calling in.

Vishnu: Hi. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this. I actually used to be Councilman's Restler's district constituent, and I appreciate that his district has built a lot of housing, but I still had to move out of the district because it was too expensive to live there because it is a regional crisis. I appreciate that Councilman Restler is still supporting Props 2 and 3, but I strongly feel we need to be passing 4 as well.

The appeals board created by Question 4 still consists of elected officials that represent the folks living in the area; it's just a different perspective and a different lens that I think is important to look at before we decide to say no to much needed housing. I don't see it as taking away representation and community voices. It is a balance, and we are making tweaks here with these questions, but this is nothing close to throwing away local control. Frankly, I think the City Council's reaction, and especially the scaremongering mailers and Facebook ads paid for by taxpayer dollars, is a petty attempt to maintain their often parochial control.

Brian Lehrer: Vishnu, thank you very much. I think you were just responding to that, Councilman, so I'm going to go on to another call that's on the other side. Nick, in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello, Nick.

Nick: Hi. I'm a strong no, no, no to 2, 3, and 4. The main reason is that in my experience in Brooklyn, I feel like developers here are among the most dangerous criminals and thugs that we have. I've seen them destroy buildings without regard to regulations and with billows of asbestos clouds on our block. I've seen them build buildings very quickly and very shabbily that have fallen apart or that have done terrible things that have not been according to code and there are no consequences.

Brian Lehrer: Nick, let me jump in and ask you a quick follow-up question. Why would that not be a matter of how construction and building management are regulated rather than whether to enable more construction, which I think you're opposed to?

Nick: Well, I feel like it is disingenuous to say that there are homeless children in New York because we don't have enough affordable housing. I feel like we don't have enough affordable housing because we haven't made the housing that exists affordable and the economy has a lot of problems, but I also think that giving developers more of a green light is a huge-- They should be in prison, in my view.

Brian Lehrer: Nick, thank you very much. Before we switch guests from Councilmember Restler, who supports numbers 2 and 3, but opposes this Ballot Question 4, as we've been discussing, I want to play a clip of Curtis Sliwa from last week's mayoral debate, Councilman, and it relates to what the caller was just saying. Sliwa made a similar argument, even though I think the caller is on the left, and Curtis Sliwa is the Republican nominee, the caller and Sliwa, if I understand both of them correctly, are both saying we don't need to build a lot more housing to solve homelessness and affordability generally. We need to make more of the housing and vacant units that we already have affordable. Here's 13 seconds of Curtis Sliwa from last week's debate.

Curtis Sliwa: And you know how oftentimes, I've been accused, "How are you going to work with a Democratic-controlled City Council?" I, Adrienne Adams, and the predominant Democrats, including many of them very liberal and progressive, believe no to yes.

Brian Lehrer: Believe no on the ballot questions is what he's saying, and no to City of Yes, which is why he used the word yes in there, which is related. Councilmember Restler, are you on the same side as Curtis Sliwa? I think you would disagree on Question 2, which goes to more of the neighborhoods that he classically represents, single-family-home neighborhoods, and you want more development there. How much common ground do you have with Curtis Sliwa?

Councilmember Lincoln Restler: It's a question I never thought I would have asked. I'm proud to have been an outspoken champion for City of Yes in the City Council. We delivered Eric Adams, I think, the only consequential victory of his four years in office. I'm proud that my district has approved and built 38,000 units of housing over the last 15 years, more than any other in New York City. We need to build a lot more housing across every neighborhood and every community to address what truly is a housing crisis.

What I also think is important to note is that when new buildings are going up on the Williamsburg waterfront, or on the Greenpoint waterfront, 15 minutes from the G-train, three-bedroom apartments are being rented for $10,000 a month; for obscene amounts of money that I can't wrap my head around, that working people who have lived in Greenpoint their whole lives could never even dream of paying. Yes, we need new development, but we need to maximize affordability. We need to make sure that developers are being asked to contribute everything they can to deepening affordability and to improving the neighborhoods where they're building.

I think long term, when we're thinking about development happening in New York City, and we've seen a lot of it and we need a lot more of it, when there's a 20-story building going up next to your house, it's not fun, right? Beside the construction noise and the impacts on light and air, it's not a fun experience. It's important that that developer be making contributions that make your neighborhood a better place to live for the people who live there today and for the people who will live there tomorrow.

Brian Lehrer: Brooklyn City Councilman Lincoln Restler, thank you for joining us for this part of the conversation. We're going to continue in a minute with our guest who leads the Charter Revision Commission, which placed Questions 2, 3, and 4 on the ballot. We will pivot, I think it's fair to say, more to some of the reasons that Curtis Sliwa opposes these ballot measures. Like I said in framing the last question, more to protect against more dense development in single-family-home neighborhoods in the city and places like that. We're going to bring in another guest with Alec from the Charter Revision Commission. Stay with us.

Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we continue to dig in for a second time on this show to the Ballot Questions number 2, 3, and 4 that are on the ballots for New York City voters. These have to do with making it easier to build housing in the city. We continue with Alec Schierenbeck, the Executive Director of the Charter Revision Commission, which approved these questions as issues for the voters. The Revision Commission was empaneled by Mayor Adams. We just dug into Question 4 in particular.

Joining us now with opposition to Questions 2 and 3 is Andrew Berman, Executive Director of the group Village Preservation. Andrew, welcome to WNYC.

Andrew Berman: Thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Again, in this section, Alec, I want to give you the first words. Explain Questions 2 and 3 like you explained Question 4 before and what you're getting at here.

Alec Schierenbeck: Sure. Question 2 creates fast tracks for affordable housing. Now this again is trying to solve the problem that we need more affordable housing and in particular, we need more affordable housing in the parts of the city that have not been adding affordable housing for a very long time.

Question 2 has two parts. It creates a fast track for 100% typically affordable housing that's publicly financed. That's when the city itself is bankrolling deeply affordable housing all across the city. There would be a fast-track process that would keep community board review for 60 days, and then there'd be a final decision at the Board of Standards and Appeals, which is a five-person independent body with members that are approved with the advice and consent of the City Council. Then there'd be a separate fast track for projects that deliver affordable housing in the 12 of 59 community districts that today produce the least amount of affordable housing. That's the problem that Councilmember Restler was trying to get at too, which is that some parts of the city [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: Because he supports this Question 2 even though he opposes number 4.

Alec Schierenbeck: Exactly. That's because there are some parts of the city that have seen very little affordable housing for a generation because there, it is so politically toxic to say yes to affordable housing that it's impossible for a local council member to say yes and hold their job. This would create a fast track for affordable housing projects in those districts and those districts alone, where there'd still be community board and borough president review for 60 days, followed by approval by the City Planning Commission. The City Planning Commission is 13 people. It's an independent commission. 12 of those 13 members are approved with the advice and consent of the City Council, and there are appointments by the mayor, seven appointments, each borough president, and the public advocate.

That's Question 2. Would you like me to go to Question 3 now too, Brian?

Brian Lehrer: Before you go to Question 3, how much would you agree with my characterization before, and of course we'll let Mr. Berman in on this too, but my characterization before, that this more targets the lowest-density neighborhoods in New York City, places that are more politically conservative, a lot of Staten Island, parts of Northeast Queens, places like that, where there are a lot of single-family homes and frankly, some Republicans who represented in City Council, which very few districts have, and it's a hot button in those more Republican, more single-family-home neighborhoods and targeting them most of all.

Alec Schierenbeck: Well, it's true that many low-density parts of the city and maybe parts of the city that are more Republican have not been adding affordable housing for a very long time because it's politically toxic to do so. I think, as you're about to hear from our guest, it's not only Republican parts of the city that have not been adding affordable housing. The Greenwich Village Historic District lost 375 apartments in the last decade because affluent New Yorkers there are combining apartments, turning multi-family homes into single-family homes, to cater to the wealthiest people in New York City. That community is also the community that is the second most expensive in the whole city, and it has the fewest affordable units, deeply affordable units in all of Manhattan.

Our problem of not adding affordable housing in the city isn't relegated necessarily to the lowest-density communities. There are also exclusive wealthy communities in medium and high-density parts of the city that are not adding enough affordable housing. That has profound consequences for the ability of working people to stay in this city, and to make sure that every community is a place where working-class and middle-class New Yorkers can thrive.

Brian Lehrer: All right, so we'll come back separately to Question 3, but on what you were just describing; Andrew Berman, let me bring you in here, Executive Director of Village Preservation. I have a feeling you're not going to be thrilled with being lumped in with Curtis Sliwa and the most Republican parts of the city, but tell our listeners a little bit what Village Preservation is, and why you've been so active against Question 2.

Andrew Berman: Sure. Let me just say, yes, I would actually associate our position more with groups like Tenants PAC, the Met Council on Housing, the Cooper Square Committee, Churches United for Fair Housing, as well as several of the city's largest unions, all of which are opposing Questions 2 and 3, as well as 4. I think there's been a variety of mischaracterizations here, particularly in relation to Question 2, and let me just give you an example.

Alec spoke to how Community Board 2, which is Greenwich Village, SoHo, NoHo, Hudson Square, has had one of the lower rates of affordable housing production. We've also had three rezonings, all of which were supposed to deliver affordable housing, but haven't. The most recent one, the SoHo-NoHo rezoning, passed four years ago, which this Question number 2 would allow to be approved with just the mayor's okay, that has not delivered a single unit of affordable housing since it's been passed and it's destroyed many existing units of affordable housing. The only affordable housing that it guarantees will be produced are ones that the City Council negotiated with the mayor as part of the deal in order for this to be passed. If Question 2 were to be enacted and Community Board 2 were relegated to that list of community boards that no longer gets a City Council role in rezoning actions, the only affordable housing to come out of that rezoning would never happen. That's just one illustration.

I'll also say it's interesting Councilmember Restler supports Question 2, but he pointed to the fact that he and the council, in fact, voted against the local council member in one of those districts in the East Bronx where they were opposing an affordable housing rezoning. Interestingly, there, the council passed it. The mayor is now trying to kill that project and kill that rezoning. Again, if Question 2 were passed, that's a case where an affordable housing rezoning wouldn't have happened. In fact, it's the mayor that's trying to kill it, and the council, which against the wishes of the local council member, is voting to support it. Those are just some illustrations of why Question 2 would do much more harm than good on the issue of affordability.

Brian Lehrer: Let's keep having an exchange on this. Alec?

Alec Schierenbeck: Yes, so there's a couple of just factual misrepresentations in what Andrew just said. The first is that on the affordable housing fast track, if you're in the bottom 12 community districts for affordable housing production, the only projects that are fast tracked are those that are guaranteed to deliver permanently affordable housing pursuant to the city's mandatory inclusionary housing program. [crosstalk]--

Andrew Berman: Like SoHo-NoHo.

Alec Schierenbeck: Right. It's not surprising Andrew just wants to talk about stuff in his backyard because that's what a NIMBY does, but we can talk about SoHo-NoHo. There are already three projects that will deliver mandatory inclusionary housing in the pipeline for SoHo. It's true that it's hard to build housing in historic districts like SoHo and NoHo, so it's a little bit slower to come online than perhaps other places, but they're on the way. I'll say, Andrew also opposes 100% affordable housing projects in his neighborhood, like 388 Hudson, because he'll find any excuse to oppose an affordable housing project [crosstalk]--

Andrew Berman: That is 100% untrue. In fact, the only reason why 388 Hudson Street is moving forward as an affordable housing development is because it was negotiated as part of the SoHo-NoHo rezoning by the City Council. That is in fact a factual misrepresentation. Let me give you another example, though. Also, in Community Board 2, at something called Gansevoort Square, the mayor would like to build a 600-foot-tall tower that would be by far majority super-luxury housing with something like 25% affordable. There, we and others in the community are pushing back, saying we want only 100% affordable housing, and we do believe that 600 feet is too tall in our neighborhood. If this were to pass, and Community Board 2 were to be relegated as one of those districts that no longer has a City Council say, we would not be able to do that. We would get the majority super-luxury tower. [crosstalk]--

Alec Schierenbeck: Brian, can I--?

[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Yes, let him finish his sentence and then you can come back. Andrew, finish that thought.

Andrew Berman: Sure. I just want to also say, keep in mind, the way in which the community boards would be determined is not how much affordable housing you have; it's how much affordable housing has been built in the last five years. A community board could have literally thousands and thousands of units of affordable housing, and if they weren't built in the last five years, you're relegated to this list. It also does not count rent-regulated housing as affordable housing.

Brian Lehrer: Alec, you want to respond.

Alec Schierenbeck: Yes, I do. Because there's a core misrepresentation in what Andrew said, which is that he says that under Question 2, the mayor would have unilateral power to approve projects. That's not true. All that happens under Question 2 is that in the bottom 12 community districts, there is a fast-track process that includes community board and borough president review, but that ends at the City Planning Commission. The City Planning Commission is not the mayor. 13 people sit on that independent commission. 12 of those 13 are approved with the advice and consent of the City Council, so if the City Council doesn't like those members, they can reject them.

That's an important check and balance, and again, it only applies in those parts of the city where today's political process is failing to deliver the affordable housing we need. It may include the West Village because Andrew and folks like him have made their political life about torturing the politicians who want to say yes to delivering affordable housing. If it's 25% affordable, they say it needs to be 100%. If it's 100% affordable, they say it needs to be shorter. Any excuse to say no. That's why that neighborhood has been transformed from one that working-class people could live in to one that now is for Facebook billionaires.

Brian Lehrer: Obviously, strong disagreements on this. Olivia has a question for Andrew. Olivia in Brooklyn, that is. You're on WNYC. Hello, Olivia.

Olivia: Hi. I'm a homeowner in Brooklyn. Actually, my question is for Alec, but I am in support of these revisions. One of the reasons, as a homeowner, is that when I signed my purchase contract for my apartment in Brooklyn, there was no clause in it that said that the neighborhood around me would- that I was guaranteed that the neighborhood around me wouldn't change. I'm always in support of creating more housing, especially more affordable housing, in my neighborhood and seeing slightly taller buildings go up because I know it's going to house more neighbors.

My question is in response to something that Andrew said, which is he pointed out that several of the unions are against Questions 2, 3, and 4. I'm a union member for over 20 years. Very proud union supporter. I believe these are actually pro-labor because I think they'll actually create more opportunities for prevailing wage jobs, but I wanted to have Alec maybe speak more about that.

Alec Schierenbeck: Yes, I'm happy to. Your experience, Olivia, aligns with mine. My mom was a nurse for 47 years and a union member. My dad worked for the UFT as a union member. If you can believe it, there was a time when two people like that could afford a brownstone in Park Slope. That's where I grew up, and I saw my neighborhood transform over the years to one where you basically have to work on Wall Street or have a trust fund to live in. Working people like that just can't afford to live in Park Slope anymore.

We hear from union members that they have super commutes, 120 minutes of driving to get into the city because they can't afford to live here. It's not just they need to live here. They need good jobs, working to build the affordable housing that we need. These proposals sync with requirements in state law because if you're mandatory inclusionary housing, and that's the only thing we're fast tracking under Question 2 in the bottom 12, then you are going to rely on a state program called 485-x. We're getting wonky now, Brian, for your listeners, but it's a state tax program and that program delivers good wages for bigger projects. If you're over 100 units, you have to deliver a $40 minimum wage. If you're over 150, you have to do discounted prevailing wage. That's going to mean that there's going to be good union jobs on so many of these projects. That's another exciting part of the fast track.

Brian Lehrer: Andrew, I want to give you a response on that because the caller was- even though she's on the other side from you, she was responding to your mention of unions being against. What unions are against and why?

Andrew Berman: Several of the city's largest unions are opposed to it. It's because they know that this process is, generally speaking, the only way in which they are able to negotiate the kinds of labor agreements that they're looking for. My understanding is the Central Labor Council of the AFL-CIO, 32BJ, the New York City District Council of Carpenters, the Hotel Trades Council, are all opposed to these.

I also want to say this. Unlike Alec, who grew up in Park Slope, I grew up in the city's largest affordable housing development in the Bronx, which is Co-op City. The types of projects that this would fast track, which they refer to as affordable, actually, generally speaking, have significantly higher income thresholds than what most New Yorkers really think of as affordable, like the places where I grew up. In fact, the thresholds that they have typically are at least a quarter higher than the median income in New York City and sometimes are double the median income in New York City. Be careful what is characterized as affordable because by most people's standards, it is not.

Brian Lehrer: I want to take one more call, anti. We've had two pro now, and here comes our second anti to even it out before we get to the end of the segment. Ro in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC on these Housing Ballot Questions 2, 3, and 4. Hi.

Ro: Hi, Brian. Longtime listener, first-time caller. I'm calling from Brooklyn. Relative familiar with the ULURP process. I serve on my local community board as a member of the land use committee [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: That's the land use process for people who don't know what ULURP is. Go ahead.

Ro: Okay. I'm sorry, the land use committee, and I'm a homeowner. I'm a strong no on 2, 3, and 4. I believe these upzonings are vertical financial windfalls for developers with minimal consideration to the existing population and the future of communities. Developers receive tax incentives for affordable housing, "affordable housing," but until AMI is recalculated to reflect the communities within New York City's catchment area, specifically, and respective neighborhoods, it's not affordable. Also, 80% to 90% of the developments that come [crosstalk]--

Brian Lehrer: That is, it should be pegged to the median income in a particular neighborhood, not just to the region at large.

Ro: Exactly. Also, 80% to 90% of the developments that come before us in my community board are rentals. There's no opportunities for homeownership and equity. People can stay in their communities, people can stay in New York City if they have equity and capital where they already are. Nobody wants to go into a neighborhood that doesn't want them. We know that from the '70s and '60s when Black folks were trying to go into other neighborhoods and all of the ire that came along with their arrival. People can stay in the communities they want to stay in if they have equity and homeownership.

Brian Lehrer: Let me-- and Ro, thank you very much for raising that aspect. I do notice – Alec, I'll go to you first on this – that a lot of buildings that are going up recently due to some of the rezonings that have taken place in recent years, they tend to be rental buildings rather than co-ops or condos. That's part of the core question, I think, that the caller is raising. No opportunities for equity; just rent, rent, rent, rent, rent, rent, rent. What's your reaction to that and her larger concern about when there is affordable housing, the rent is pegged to the area median income, not the median income of some lower-income neighborhoods?

Alec Schierenbeck: Sure. Look, we need more rental, and we need more homeownership, and we need more senior housing and more supportive housing. We need more of all of it. These proposals actually make it easier to build all kinds of housing that we need, including homeownership. Question 3, which we haven't talked about a lot, Brian-

Brian Lehrer: Yes, let's do that.

Alec Schierenbeck: -but that creates a fast track for smaller, modest development, including in low-density parts of the city, development with a standard height of 45 feet, three or four-story home. That's very conducive to homeownership, the kinds of small buildings that allow for more naturally affordable homeownership. Those are the kinds of buildings that New York used to build, modest, multi-family, and that remain a bastion of affordability in the city. You're right, we need homeownership, but also when the price of a home is over $1 million in Brooklyn, we need rental opportunities for people who do not have a down payment so that they can stay in New York City too.

Brian Lehrer: Question 3 is specifically to make it easier to build relatively low-rise, like you're saying, three or four-story homes and buildings. Is there a cutoff there?

Alec Schierenbeck: It has two aspects. If you are in a lower-density part of the city-- and we have maps online. If you go to charter.nyc, you can find them. If you're in a lower-density part of the city, and you want to build something that has a standard height no taller than 45 feet, then you can go through this fast-track process. Similarly, if you're in a medium or high-density part of the city, say you're in Andrew Berman's neck of the woods, and you can today build a 10-story building, we'll let you build a 13. What we'll do in medium and high-density areas is allow you to build or ask to build up to 30% more than you can today, just a 30% bump.

Because what we found, Brian, is that today the public review process is delivering only big changes, like our community board caller just talked about. Big changes that communities find it hard to grapple with, but it's not really working for modest and incremental changes because we have a one-size-fits-all process that requires you go through the same process for a 30% bump as Hudson Yards. It's nuts, and it categorically prevents incremental changes.

Brian Lehrer: Andrew Berman, your opposition to Question 3, in particular? Then we're out of time.

Andrew Berman: Yes, so let me give you sort of a real-world example. We are currently fighting a 538-foot-tall tower that's going in on 13th Street in Greenwich Village. It's about literally 10 times the size of most buildings on the block, and it's only about 30 super-luxury condos. No affordable housing whatsoever. Under this, if the developer said, "I'm not happy with my 538-foot-tall tower. I want to build a 700-foot-tall tower," 30% bigger, he could just go through this simplified process and get it approved. No affordable housing, no public benefits. There wouldn't even have to be more units of super-luxury housing. The housing units could just get 30% larger.

I just want to make one last point. The City Planning Commission, the majority of its members are appointed by the mayor. The City Planning Commission has not, in living memory, rejected any proposal that a mayor has put forward. The City Plan Planning Commission is a creature of the mayor.

Brian Lehrer: Well, we've gotten your basic takes on that. Listeners, we have now had an exchange of views on Ballot Questions 2, 3, and 4, all pertaining to housing in New York City. I hope this has been useful. We thank Andrew Berman, Executive Director of the Greenwich Village-based Village Preservation, and we thank Alec Schierenbeck, Executive Director of the Charter Revision Commission, which approved these questions as issues for the voters. Thank you both very, very much for joining us.

Alec Schierenbeck: Thank you, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.