Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.
By Mark Chiusano
For part two of Cityland’s candidate questionnaire on public space, we asked how the top Democratic mayoral hopefuls would reform the way New York City makes many land use decisions. [Read part one: Outdoor Dining, Open Streets, & Trash Containerization: Where Democratic Mayoral Candidates Stand on Public Space Issues]
That byzantine method — the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP — dates back to 1975, when an updated city Charter laid out rules for approving certain development projects, giving more of a voice to neighborhood groups, advocates, and local officials. After another Charter revision in 1989, the upshot is a complicated calendar of hearings, advice, and approvals from several different bodies, from community boards to borough presidents, the mayor, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council. It all takes time: when city government or private developers want to build something that goes beyond the project site’s current zoning, the review can last up to a year from project introduction to final decision, and that’s often on top of months if not years of informal planning. The final decision often ends up being made by the local City Council member, thanks to the practice of “member deference,” with a heavy focus on local political concerns.
This has been seen by many housing experts as a recipe for limited growth, creating built-in political incentives “skewed against the approval of new housing,” as a recent Citizens Housing & Planning Council memo put it. While many stakeholders consider an involved process a necessary check and balance against developers running roughshod, questions remain about how long such a process should take, what input should matter most, and how to balance local and citywide needs. Many politicians want more housing and parks, but are wary of upsetting residents afraid of construction.
ULURP should be having a moment this campaign, since Mayor Eric Adams in December launched a charter revision commission expected to take on reforms of the land use review procedure, among other potential Charter changes the commission may propose to voters on the fall ballot. The exact contours of what Mayor Adams wants aren’t clear, but he has already pushed growth-minded zoning reform and quicker construction, most notably through the three-pronged City of Yes initiative, which he and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams shepherded through the Council. Commission hearings are underway and if reforms are approved by voters this fall, the new system will be implemented by whoever is mayor the next four years.
Some of the tensions around development, growth, and process can be seen in the candidate responses CityLand received from Democrats running in the June primary. Readers will also notice that many of the candidate responses trended cautious on this thorny and wonky issue. Respondents included former Assemblymember Michael Blake, City Comptroller Brad Lander, Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, State Senator Zellnor Myrie, former City Comptroller Scott Stringer, and investor Whitney Tilson. If Adrienne Adams, Andrew Cuomo, or Jessica Ramos responds, we’ll update this article.
Speed
All of the candidates who responded — Blake, Lander, Mamdani, Myrie, Stringer, and Tilson — support speeding up elements of ULURP.
Tilson called the current process “outdated and a major obstacle to solving our housing crisis,” and floated a particularly provocative idea: limits on community board input (which is already advisory but can have a real impact on the outcome). “Community boards should have a say, but there must be clearer parameters to prevent projects from being endlessly stalled by local opposition,” Tilson said. He also promised to push for stricter timelines for application and pre-certification for proposed land use changes.
The most popular proposal to speed things up was a form of fast-tracking for certain projects, which all the candidates support. Myrie, for example, suggested hastening housing approval by creating a “fast lane” for projects that follow certain templates, such as redeveloping “publicly owned sites as mixed-use properties.” He highlighted Inwood Library in Manhattan or the Alloy Block in Brooklyn as recent examples of this kind of work.
Mamdani and Blake proposed a similar fast-track system for, in Mamdani’s case, “any 100% affordable development,” and for Blake, projects with clear benefits like affordable housing or open space improvements.
Lander would declare a new “temporary state of emergency” on housing to help put in place an “alternative, streamlined 90-day ULURP review.” That short version of ULURP would remove a huge decision-maker — the City Council — so long as the rezoning under consideration complied with a broad plan put together by a so-called “citizens assembly for housing growth,” consisting of members “randomly selected to reflect New York City’s rich diversity.”
For his part, Mayor Adams has been publicly vocal about streamlining the construction process as well, including with a “Green Fast Track” program to accelerate environmental reviews.
Master Plan
Lander also wants a more comprehensive, citywide plan for development. This idea was namechecked by Mamdani, too. “Comprehensive, citywide planning will allow NYC both to address the legacy of racially-discriminatory zoning and to proactively plan for the health and needs of the city – in housing, transit, education, and other areas,” said Mamdani. This kind of planning would include “increasing zoned capacity, supporting climate sustainability and accessibility, and eliminating parking minimums,” Mamdani said.
Outliers
In a departure from the general atmosphere of criticism, Stringer said that though there isn’t enough housing in New York City, “the ULURP process is not the cause of our problems.”
He argued that ULURP “gives the community a voice in land use decisions. What slows down housing growth is inertia and inaction from the mayor and City Council.”
Nevertheless, he outlined reforms such as “setting clearer timelines, providing more technical assistance to community boards, and creating a fast-track option for certain types of beneficial projects, like low-income housing.”
But he reiterated his support for some elements of the current protocol: “The goal should never be to weaken community input—it’s to create a system that delivers more housing, faster, while making sure it actually serves the people who need it the most.”
Blake was even farther afield than the rest in the sweep of his ULURP ideas, proposing that the process include more community-level input and levers. One such plan would give the input of community boards “more weight,” perhaps by mandating that the City Planning Commission and City Council “give more detailed explanations when disagreeing with community board recommendations.” He also proposed higher environmental standards for developers to meet, going “beyond the typical environmental reviews to evaluate how a project may impact vulnerable populations or contribute to environmental injustice.” And he suggested more incentives for projects that contribute to community-based initiatives like job training.
“Each reform should prioritize giving a voice to communities while also ensuring that the city’s growth and housing demands are met,” he explained.
Waiting and Seeing
Non-candidate stakeholders have begun floating their own ULURP ideas, from higher-tech ways to gauge public opinion than the slow current system to “a check against member deference,” and beyond, often with the goal of creating more housing in a city with deep homelessness and affordability crises.
More such ideas will likely get aired as the charter review commission’s hearings pick up — right as the mayoral race gets hotter, too. This was not lost on some of the candidates, either.
“I am very excited to see what all the smart folks who are serving on or testifying before the charter revision commission come up with,” Myrie said.
*****
Mark Chiusano is a Senior Fellow in New York Law School’s Center for New York City and State Law and the author of The Fabulist: The Lying, Hustling, Grifting, Stealing, and Very American Legend of George Santos.
