Newark mayor Ras Baraka's administration is proposing downzoning some parts of the city back to R-1 single-family zoning:

newark.legistar.com/LegislationD...

Glad to see this is fairly far along! Saw a petition against it recently and was worried it would be stopped, but I think not at this point.

The article is wrong and it has nothing to do with the new Journal Sq IZO. Its not even in the 2060 redevelopment plan. I sent them an email about it and they didn't correct it.

Even he is supportive 😭

Everyone except Solomon.

Yeah, those polls are the latest. They are all internal polls, so must be taken with a grain of salt. Hard to know where it stands now.

Jersey City and AC Residential Project Receive Aspire Credits The NJEDA Board has approved residential projects in Jersey City and Atlantic City for tax credit awards under the Aspire Program.

We need a much more robust welfare state at the state+federal levels that provides direct aid to families in need. Until we figure that out, if we're going to do affordable in new bldgs, leveraging that huge pot of state money is the way to go, IMO.

JC's left a lot of those funds on the table.

Oh I just saw your question about vouchers. Yes, from an economist's standpoint, vouchers/direct aid are way more efficient and would house way more people per dollar than even the best-designed inclusionary programs. The question is how to fund expanding vouchers at a local level.

O'Dea is pretty much suggesting this, and I think it's because he has worked as an affordable housing developer at a non-profit and knows how these financing tools work.

When you do this, the subsidy rrequired from the city per affordable unit can be lower since the state and federal governments are paying a part of it. That means for any given city PILOT subsidy budget you can build more affordable units.

I think the optimal policy for affordable is to try to leverage state and federal subsidies for 20% affordable buildings. You focus all the subsidies in these bldgs, encouraging more of them to be built, rather than spreading them out over a larger number of projects that are ineligible at lower %.

Thanks for your questions, they are really good ones.

The way they're doing the subsidy is annual, via a PILOT that reduces the property taxes they pay.

It's the 177 Grand St PILOT proposal that's up for a vote tomorrow at Council.

That same San Francisco Comptroller's report finds that every incremental 1% increase in the universal inclusionary requirement decreases total housing production and increases rents for market-rate units citywide.

There is no magic rate below which underfunded/unfunded inclusionary requirements don't reduce housing supply. This SF Comptroller's report explains the mechanics:
www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...

For any given project, it might be able to afford some inclusionaey percentage. But that percentage is different for every project so any given rate will kill some projects.

To jumpstart housing, Boston officials float flexibility on affordability rules - Boston Business Journal Boston officials are open to moving affordable units off-site — or dropping the affordable units altogether, in favor of cash payments — in order to boost housing production.

In Boston, it has gotten so bad that Mayor Wu has been negotiating loopholes and exemptions around the affordability mandates with developers.
www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/...

These requirements are way more expensive than they look.

Boston and SF have universal affordability requirements, higher rents than JC, and yet have lower construction rates of new housing than JC. With the higher rents they should be building more.

There is a building downtown, in the highest-rent part of JC, that is required to do 15% affordable, and an independent audit found that they had an $18 million financing gap to make the project viable. City subsidy needed would be over $270k per affordable unit.

Also, if imposing a universal affordability mandate on all new developments in JC would tank housing production, would you still be in favor?

In his answer, he also says he wants to reduce the density of the proposal. The school convo is a minor quibble.

I am not sure what you mean. Yes, opposing a project with substantial affordable housing in the richest and most transit-oriented part of town is evidence of being NIMBY imo. He also killed a proposal next to PS5 that would've added an extra floor and 3 affordable units to what was allowed by-right.

The "we're going to stop them from building luxury-only housing" line really gets at my concern about him from way back—and I raised this concern to him directly months ago—that he is more fixated on stopping market-rate buildings than building more affordable units.

The yimbyer candidates are Mussab Ali and Bill O'Dea. And uphill battle for them to get into the runoff, but not impossible. O'Dea probably has a better chance unless Ali really drives youth turnout at historic levels.

O'Dea backing 150 Bay St., asks other Jersey City mayoral hopefuls to do the same - Hudson County View Commissioner O'Dea is coming out in favor of the 150 Bay St. project downtown and is asking other Jersey City mayoral hopefuls to do the same.

He says he'll stop them from building luxury-only housing, but he's also opposing a project with 150 low-and-moderate income units and 100 workforce units in his wealthy ward. So...

hudsoncountyview.com/odea-backing...

He says he'll stop them from building luxury-only housing, but he's also opposing a project with 150 low-and-moderate income units and 100 workforce units in his extremely wealthy ward.

hudsoncountyview.com/odea-backing...

Really sucks that Jersey City might replace one of the most YIMBY mayors in the country (Steve Fulop) with one of the most NIMBY ones. Do not vote for Solomon

Solomon: "we're going to stop them from building luxury-only housing"

Nimbyest candidate in the race.

My calculations above are conservative. Subsidies would have to be higher in lower-rent areas (177 Grand St is in one of the highest-rent parts of JC). I only did 15% IZ. I assumed he'd exempt ~1,000 units/yr in smaller bldgs from requirements.

5000 units/year housing production * 15% IZ citywide on all projects = 750 affordable units/yr

290k per affordable unit subsidy * 750 affordable units/yr = $217.5M/yr in subsidies.

The city tax levy is only $840M per year. This level of subsidy won't materialize. He'll have to tank housing instead

Instead, under his plan, city PILOT subsidies will be stretched incredibly thin. Many fewer projects will viable, resulting in less affordable housing. At 177 Grand St, the subsidy is equivalent to $290k/affordable unit in tax revenues. This level of subsidy won't scale to all new buildings in JC.