We are on the verge of a historic election in New York. As we head to the ballot box to secure a likely Democratic Socialist victory, we will also face three questions about housing. In our opinion, you should vote “YES” on ballot propositions 2, 3 and 4.
Over the past few years we have worked on And advocated policies that move our housing system from one based on profit and greed to one focused on meeting people's housing needs. We won't achieve our goals of housing justice for all without more housing, and that these ballot proposals will make that more possible—as long as we combine it with all the other good work we do as a movement.
And it is by looking at what we really need in the city that we call for a YES vote. We need both sides of our strategy to work together: strong tenant protections and more affordable homes built with a community purpose. There is a real housing shortage in New York City today, which landlords are taking advantage of, but the last five years have proven that renters can benefit. We need to continue to develop the potential of tenants while increasing production at a cost and pace.
Some argue that the democratic answer is “public control.” In practice, “public control” was not neutral. Too often, groups of wealthy homeowners have used procedural narrow passages to block shelters, stop affordable housing developments in segregated areasand even stop providing housing for older people returning from prison. What we have today is not really democracy; it is a complex veto system that preserves exclusion.
Real democracy means citywide planning based on equality, with transparent rules and real mass governance, not infinite veto points that reward those who are best able to say no. Currently, the approval process for projects at each stage takes precious months. Large luxury projects can withstand this process, but smaller, mission-driven, not-for-profit developers are struggling as costs rise. Optimization to improve accessibility really makes a difference.
These proposals for voting aims exactly at this. Proposition 2 speeds up government-funded, affordable projects and opens pathways to isolated areas where apartments have long been blocked. This shortens discussion windows and allows reviews to be conducted in parallel rather than sequentially, reducing downtime without sacrificing transparency or community input.
Proposition 3 helps the city quickly acquire distressed or predatory portfolios and convert them to social/public use. Proposition 4 creates an Affordable Housing Review Board, which allows Board members to still negotiate about local needs.
These ballot proposals will also help the next mayor create the housing platform the city favors: streamlining the public path to construction, cutting red tape that favors luxury over affordable housing, and finally adding homes in high-opportunity neighborhoods that have blocked them. Yes, these tools were initiated under Mayor Adams, but the tools are shaped by how we use them.
Put them in an administration that is pro-tenant and pro-public developers, and they become agents of social housing and greater affordability, rather than givers of luxury properties. Taken together, these proposals increase benefits for the workforce.
In our argument we want to make three things clear. First, these reforms are not a panacea. Results will and should depend on organization, budget choices and public management over the long term. We're also not making a YIMBY, “abundance” argument. We are not saying that supplying market prices alone will solve the crisis.
Our cause still remains public or targeted productionnon-market tenure, subsidies targeted at the lowest income earners, and existing tenant protections. We do not see them seeking to centralize power under the leadership of the mayor. Under the new mayor, we must work to centralize authority while significantly decentralizing power. We support the use of centralized governance tools while expanding decentralized and sustainable people's power—tenant unions, neighborhood housing assemblies, participatory budgeting, and community governance institutions.
We don't have to choose between progressive construction program and tenant power. Passing these proposals does not replace the fight for universal rent stabilization, social housing and major public investment, but achieves this by lowering unit costs and accelerating government delivery, allowing for greater subsidies.
After all, no policy is perfect, and a lot will depend on mobilization of movements. Vote YES on Propositions 2, 3 and 4 so that a pro-tenant, pro-union administration can act like a public developer – faster, cheaper, fairer, while we continue to build tenant power and win the long-term investments that make housing a right.
Baiocchi is a professor of individual studies and sociology and founding director Laboratory of Urban Democracy. Carlson is an assistant professor of sociology at Kean University.
