The City Council approved a modified version of the mayor’s sweeping zoning reform plan, City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, with a vote of 31-to-20. Here’s how each lawmaker landed.
Emil Cohen/NYC Council Media Unit
The City Council’s stated meeting on Thursday, where lawmakers voted 31-to-20 to adopt City of Yes.
The City Council on Thursday approved a modified version of the mayor’s sweeping zoning reform plan, City of Yes for Housing Opportunity—the culmination of a months-long and often heated public review process, as officials debated how to tackle New York’s housing shortage and rising homelessness.
The plan, which included a number of changes from the original proposal and a pledged $5 billion for housing and infrastructure programs, passed by a vote of 31 councilmembers in favor and 20 against.
“City of Yes” updates a swath of the city’s zoning code to make it easier to build new housing: via Accessory Dwelling Units like a backyard cottage or basement apartment, adding apartments on educational and religious campuses, allowing taller buildings in low-density commercial districts and transit hubs, among other efforts.
The proposal is a key part of Mayor Eric Adams’ housing plan, as the city faces a historically-low residential vacancy rate and more than 144,000 people staying in homeless shelters each month.
Lawmakers negotiated several changes before passing the plan, which they estimate will spur at least 80,000 new homes over 15 years. The Council added more incentives for developers to include affordable units in exchange for the extra room to build. It put restrictions on several provisions, scaling back where ADUs could be built—banning basement units in flood zones, for example, and shortening the radius around train stations in lower density neighborhoods where 3-5 story apartment buildings would now be allowed.
The approved plan also kept requirements that developers build new parking to accompany housing in several outer borough neighborhoods, as opposed to eliminating most parking minimums altogether, as the initial proposal would have. A more detailed rundown of the final package can be found here.
Speaker Adrienne Adams, who lead the negotiations with City Hall over the plan and the Council’s push to include capital funding for affordable housing and infrastructure, said the final deal is “not perfect” but balances the concerns of many who opposed it, who were worried about the impact of new development on “neighborhood character.”
“This Council cannot be the body that says ‘no’ to people that need a place to live,” Adams said. “Advancing solutions to difficult problems isn’t easy, but it can be done when we unite behind the common goal to focus on what is best for New Yorkers and the future of our communities and the city that we all love.”
Of the 20 councilmembers who voted against the plan, several cited the opposition they heard from constituents, including the more than two dozen community boards that weighed in unfavorably earlier on in the public review process.
“All four community boards in my district disapproved of this proposal,” said Councilmember Chris Banks, whose district spans the Brooklyn neighborhoods of East New York, Brownsville, East Flatbush and Canarsie. “My constituents fear the proposal would irreparably change the character of their neighborhoods, opening the flood gates for developers to build and construct with no concern for their interests.”
Still, others expressed the opposite: that the proposal is too modest in its changes, especially with some of the elements softened during Council negotiations.
“The promise of City of Yes was to create equity for communities citywide. However, this plan still falls short of that,” said Councilmember Althea Stevens.
Steven’s District 16 in the West Bronx saw 4,415 new units of affordable housing built between 2014 and 2023, according to the New York Housing Conference. By contrast, South Brooklyn’s District 43—represented by Councilmember Susan Zhuang, who voted against City of Yes—produced just 27 affordable apartments during that time.
“True equality demands all districts across the city contribute their fair share,” Stevens said.
Still, she voted in favor of the plan. “I recognize that halting the advancement of housing development will only deepen this crisis and harm the communities that I fight so hard to serve,” she said.
To reach the reporter behind this story, contact [email protected]
Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.