The Frozen City
The Frozen City
Misguided policies keep some New Yorkers in subsidized apartments and raise costs for everyone else

It’s hard to blame New Yorkers for thinking that the city should “seek to create additional units of below-market-rate affordable housing,” as 71 percent of respondents answered in a Zogby poll commissioned by the Manhattan Institute.

After all, New York residents continually see evidence of a dysfunctional housing market: high rents; low vacancy rates; young adults tripled up in tiny apartments; illegal and unsafe conversions to divide old units into new ones; and stratospheric prices for co-ops and condos in high-income neighborhoods. No serious political voice has argued for trying to solve these problems with anything but more subsidized construction.

In fact, the leading mayoral contenders virtually all endorse the idea that the city, by wielding zoning requirements and using its own financing, can conjure up more “affordable housing.” Christine Quinn’s website proclaims that “creating quality, affordable housing for all New Yorkers has always been a top priority” for her.

Bill de Blasio wants to do the following: build 100,000 affordable homes for low-income New Yorkers over the next 10 years; preserve a similar number of existing housing units; dedicate $1 billion from the city’s pension-fund investments to affordable housing; and require developers in rezoned areas to include affordable housing in all new projects (or contribute to a fund for such homes).

Bill Thompson trumpets his use of city pension funds, during his tenure as comptroller, to help “finance the construction and preservation of over 43,000 units of affordable housing in New York City.” Republican Joe Lhota is an exception—but only for not saying much about the issue at all.

Such groupthink ignores the real cause of New York’s perennial housing crisis. The high rents and low vacancies aren’t the result of having too little subsidized housing. They’re the result of having too much.

Price-Regulated Homes

In New York, it’s the norm, not the exception, for rental housing to be shielded from market forces. About a million rental units are covered by rent stabilization, which limits how sharply a landlord can increase rent each year, and another 38,000 or so by rent control, which dictates the rent itself. Federal housing vouchers pay the rent for 120,000 more units. The city’s vast public-housing system comprises 185,000 units (almost 18 percent of all the public housing in the country).

All in all, some 1.3 million units—61 percent of occupied New York rentals, or 42 percent of all New York homes—are price-regulated in one way or another, according to the New York City Rent Guidelines Board.

In that respect, New York differs radically from most American cities, where public-housing programs are small, subsidized construction is limited, and rent regulation is nonexistent. Many New Yorkers don’t realize how many apartments are price-controlled; as the same Zogby poll shows, fully a third of voters think that just 24 percent of the city’s housing is buffered from the market.

It may be counterintuitive to suggest that all this price-regulated housing worsens, rather than ameliorates, the city’s persistent housing shortage (the vacancy rate is generally below 3 percent) and cutthroat market. But think for a moment about the psychology of subsidized housing. If you’ve managed to snag what looks like a good deal, whether it’s a rent-stabilized apartment or a spot in public housing, you’ll probably hang on to it, even if your circumstances change and make it otherwise unattractive.

Where a typical American couple with a new baby might move to a bigger apartment, or an older couple whose kids are grown might move to a smaller one, a New Yorker with an artificially low rent is likely to stay put. And that means fewer apartments on the market and higher rents for the nonregulated ones that are available.

Census data bears out that argument. Though New York likes to view itself as a place that welcomes striving, talented newcomers, the city actually has a strikingly low rate of housing turnover. That is, it’s unusually hard for newcomers to find a place to live, since current residents are staying in place.

New Yorkers Staying Put

From 2007 through 2011, just 11.43 percent of New Yorkers changed residences, compared with 15.41 percent for the nation as a whole. New York’s turnover rate is by far the lowest of the country’s 10 biggest cities. The difference is even larger when you compare Gotham with such boomtowns as Charlotte (whose turnover rate is 23 percent) and Austin (27 percent). There, fluid markets give residents and newcomers alike the opportunity to find the housing best suited to their needs. That opportunity is rare in New York. I call it the frozen city phenomenon.

New York’s public housing system offers the clearest illustration of how the city is frozen. By law, a tenant’s rent can rise no higher than 30 percent of his income. Small wonder, with that incentive not to move, that the average household in New York’s public housing spends more than 20 years there. Not only is turnover low; many households have more room than they need.

As I’ve written previously in City Journal, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) estimates that more than a fifth of its apartments are “under-occupied,” with one or more empty bedrooms. A middle-aged tenant whose children have moved out has no incentive to move to a smaller place, since rent remains fixed at that 30 percent of income, no matter the size of the apartment. Meantime, 144,000 families, mostly single parents with young kids, languish on the waiting list for public housing.

Large as it is, New York’s public-housing empire is less than one-fifth the size of the city’s array of rent-stabilized apartments, which likewise contribute to the frozen-city phenomenon. There is no data available on under-occupancy in rent-stabilized units, but New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy reports that turnover in these is slow. In a 2011 analysis, it found that “on average, stabilized tenants have been living in their units for 12 years compared to 6 years for market-rate households.”

The low turnover rate of stabilized apartments isn’t abstract theory; it’s a fact of life that savvy New Yorkers recognize. “Rent stabilized apartments are very common (about 50 percent of all apartments) but nearly impossible to find because once you land a rent-stabilized apartment, you don’t leave it,” says the New York apartment-search website “With rent-stabilized apartments priced $1,200 cheaper (on average) in Manhattan, it’s understandable why renters don’t leave them.”

Simply put, rent stabilization locks in victory for those lucky enough to have won a lottery. And those winners, it’s important to note, are not the poor. The Furman Center has found that the median income for new tenants of rent-stabilized apartments is close to $100,000.

Nor is the subsidy system going anywhere soon. For a while, the number of stabilized units had been diminishing slightly, as a result of 1997 state legislation that allowed a landlord to start charging market rates once a unit’s rent topped $2,000 and the income of the household in the unit reached $175,000. But in 2011, the state raised both of those thresholds, ensuring that deregulation would proceed more slowly, if at all. In July 2012, the New York Times reported that the change would make about 250,000 apartments likelier to remain stabilized.

Public housing and rent stabilization aren’t the only forces freezing the city’s housing stock. New York also has a long tradition of subsidizing private construction, via public funds or tax breaks, for developers who agree to various schemes that supposedly create affordable housing.

The state’s Mitchell–Lama program, dating from the 1970s, provides tax incentives to developers who rent to tenants within a particular income range; it currently includes some 139,000 units in New York City. The 421a tax exemption reduces the city property tax for owners who voluntarily submit their units to rent stabilization and who let the city set their initial rents; there are now 54,000 such units. The Bloomberg administration is currently pushing its New Housing Marketplace program, a proposed $8.5 billion initiative through which the city will help finance the development of new private housing that sets aside units for low- and middle-income residents.

These programs reduce turnover further, either by depressing the rents in some apartments or by limiting others to a particular variety of tenant.

How can New York begin to thaw its housing market? The obvious solution is phasing out rent stabilization and ending subsidies to developers for so-called affordable housing. But the public favors both policies so strongly that it’s hard to imagine killing them.

Deregulation for Greater Fluidity

Another solution: zoning changes and other forms of deregulation that make it easier to construct new buildings. The more apartments in New York, the more fluidly people will move among them.

Thanks to the Bloomberg administration’s wise decision to allow areas formerly zoned for manufacturing to be used for new residential construction, the last few years have seen an increase in the city’s overall housing supply, from 3.27 million housing units in 2008 to 3.35 million in 2011.

To unfreeze its public housing slightly, the city should start charging higher rents for larger units, giving tens of thousands of residents in under-occupied apartments an incentive to move to a smaller place. (By charging a flat rent instead of a percentage of the tenant’s income, the change would also remove the current perverse incentive not to earn more.)

Further, time limits for new tenants could slowly convert public housing from a long-term poorhouse into what it was always intended to be: the first rung on a ladder of upward mobility. Eventually, these time limits would reduce the size of the system, and projects in high-value neighborhoods could be sold to private developers, who could replace them with market-rate housing. The proceeds of these sales—hundreds of millions of dollars—could help create a maintenance endowment for the rest of the public-housing system.

Squeezing Space

As the Bloomberg administration rushes to innovate ahead of its exit, it has decided to lease the plazas and other underused public areas in eight Manhattan public-housing projects to private developers, who will erect market-rate apartment buildings there. The move offers the housing authority—which faces a huge maintenance backlog and estimates that the system needs $6 billion in capital repairs—roughly $50 million a year; the funds can be used to repair broken elevators, leaky plumbing, and damaged heating systems.

It’s a good idea, though it would make even more sense to sell these eight public-housing complexes outright and relocate their tenants, either to other NYCHA projects or to rental units covered by government vouchers. With luck, the city won’t compel the developers to set aside a certain number of “affordable units”—a common Bloomberg-era zoning regulation that would only force the market-rate tenants to pay more to subsidize a lucky few.

The administration also deserves credit for an experiment that, if expanded throughout the city, could expand the housing supply: zoning that permits the development of tiny rental “micro-units.” The common objection to this idea—that such diminutive apartments are the billionaire mayor’s idea of how the poor should live—is unfair. A city with as varied a citizenry as New York’s should have as many different types of housing as possible.

A common, if unspoken, assumption about New York is that, without the bewildering network of rules, guidelines, programs, and subsidies that currently regulate the housing market, rich people waiting in the wings would move in everywhere and force out everyone else. But that’s a delusion. It has never happened in any city, including all the lucky cities that lack New York’s arcane housing policies. And it wouldn’t happen if New York began, at long last, to thaw its frozen housing market.

Howard Husock, a contributing editor of City Journal, is the Manhattan Institute’s vice president for policy research and director of its Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. This article was adapted from City Journal’s special issue, “After Bloomberg: An Agenda for New York.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Epoch Times.

  • Defiant

    Right…the “teat-suckers” get shielded from responsibility and the pressure of rising costs while the contributors are required to struggle to support themselves AND the users. Nice.

  • B.S. Detector

    The above Op-Ed should be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Freedom Tower (is that still what they’re calling it these days?)… Keep in mind, Mr. Husock, who wrote the piece, is a Vice President of the ultraconservative (masquerading as libertarian) think tank Manhattan Institute. Other prominent members have included the likes of Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan; a “man of the people” Husock is not. A quick Google search will reveal he actual makes a very good living railing against subsidized housing in all its forms. Nice work if you can get it.

    The piece is filled with misinformation, blatantly biased assessments, and lying by omission. Husock clearly comes from the Goebbels school, believing that if a lie is made big enough, and repeated enough times, it will eventually take on a patina of the truth. His big lie is this: that subsidized housing, and rent-stabilized housing in particular, is the reason why the Manhattan housing environment is so “dysfunctional,” as he terms it.
    No, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, rent-stabilized tenants as well as market-rate tenants, are the victims of the unending money games played by big developers and their enablers, the international banks, and aided and abetted by Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Quinn, who never saw a big development project they didn’t love.
    The facts are, the same bad actors who crashed the global economy with their rampant real estate speculation games, just five short years ago, are at it again. Not one thought is given to ordinary people, with ordinary jobs, who have to somehow try and survive and raise families in this climate. Husock would have us all switch apartments every year, constantly downsizing until we are able to fit into one of Bloomberg’s “micro-units,” and pay $2000+ a month to live in 250 square feet. Meanwhile, wealthy guys like Bloomberg, and Husock, will not be downsizing their own residences.
    His attack on rent stabilization in NYC is similarly disingenuous. He mentions the updates to the law in 2011, which made it slightly more difficult for landlords to price an apartment out of the program, but fails to mention that the 2011 law was in direct response to a 2005 law that went a long way toward gutting rent regulation. The 2011 law restored only a fraction of the provisions that the 2005 law eliminated. The actual result of the 2005 law was to paint a target on the back of every rent regulated tenant, inviting harassment by landlords in an all-out effort to convert the tenants’ apartments to market rate.
    I have personal experience, having lived in a rent-stabilized apartment for some 22 years. About 10 years ago, the building was sold from its former, small corporate owner, to the first in a series of three major developer/landlords. The results were far from pretty. Most of the tenants and their families were harassed into leaving, to be replaced by a transient population of students. Those of us who stayed have been subjected to unending harassment, both subtle and gross, a far cry from the libertarian values Mr Husock claims to support (when it’s convenient to his conservative agenda).
    I guess if you don’t care about the character of neighborhoods being lost, or degrading quality of life for individual residents and their families, then Mr. Husock may be onto something.
    The B.S. Detector has determined conclusively that Mr. Husock’s piece is just more conservative, Republican, trickle-down B.S., disguised as libertarianism. No wonder the commenter with the Reagan avatar agrees wholeheartedly.

    • Cori527

      You are absolutely correct, guest, in everything you have stated.

× close