Multi-Family Housing Coming Near You Soon! (New York, Albany: young professionals, prices, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in GC, and I'm wondering how this will play out if this will ever gets passed by Albany. Similarly for towns like Manhasset, Plandome and Port Washington. Where are we going to put an apartment building exactly?
But I know what the agenda is, it's not uplifting people who can't live in upper-class communities, it's bring those communities down.
This interview actually gets into aspects that doesn't have anything to do with "leftists" or any political leaning, but other factors that come into play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HtSaPr6BKo
Again, I think this will be a thing for select communities that have the space and rail access in terms of Long Island and wouldn't be a thing in all communities.
I think the takeaway at the end of the video is the key in all of this. No need, if the demand isn't in a certain community.
I think the takeaway at the end of the video is the key in all of this. No need, if the demand isn't in a certain community.
It doesn't really talk about communities that don't want this, but where this is external demand. Developers would love to start building in upper middle-class communities, people would love to move in but residents moved to these communities for a reason and it's not to put an apartment building right next to a train station.
It doesn't really talk about communities that don't want this, but where this is external demand. Developers would love to start building in upper middle-class communities, people would love to move in but residents moved to these communities for a reason and it's not to put an apartment building right next to a train station.
He may not have said it specifically, but indirectly, as if there isn't any demand for such housing in those communities, they are unlikely to even be considered. At the end, if you notice, it was mentioned that this is more in line with places that have shovel ready sites for industrial development, but in this case, it would be communities with the space for housing development. I think this is why a place like Wyandanch has newer development by the train station there, because they had the space for such development in a strategic area of that community by a train station. After all, such housing would likely be done in a way where walkability and proximity to services and goods would come into play versus just plopping it down on a community without walkability to services/goods or the space in a strategic area. I say that because those are the types of places that would have some degree of demand.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 02-06-2023 at 09:44 AM..
He may not have said it specifically, but indirectly, as if there isn't any demand for such housing in those communities, they are unlikely to even be considered. At the end, if you notice, it was mentioned that this is more in line with places that have shovel ready sites for industrial development, but in this case, it would be communities with the space for housing development. I think this is why a place like Wyandanch has newer development by the train station there, because they had the space for such development in a strategic area of that community by a train station. After all, such housing would likely be done in a way where walkability and proximity to services and goods would come into play versus just plopping it down on a community without walkability to services/goods or the space in a strategic area. I say that because those are the types of places that would have some degree of demand.
No offense, but you are not familiar with LI. Garden City has the apple in the eye of developers and the activists of Hempstead for decades. They would live nothing more than to be able to force Garden City to have higher density housing against the village's wishes.
Hochul will get her bribe aka donation from the developers and political backing from the left to get this done and ruin a village.
Back on the day, Hempstead was the more desirable place to live. Then came the apartment buildings and low income influx. Now Hempstead is more slum like compared to Garden City.
No offense, but you are not familiar with LI. Garden City has the apple in the eye of developers and the activists of Hempstead for decades. They would live nothing more than to be able to force Garden City to have higher density housing against the village's wishes.
Hochul will get her bribe aka donation from the developers and political backing from the left to get this done and ruin a village.
Back on the day, Hempstead was the more desirable place to live. Then came the apartment buildings and low income influx. Now Hempstead is more slum like compared to Garden City.
We dont need history to repeat itself
I'm familiar with that and that is why I asked if certain communities had the space for such development. That would have to be considered versus just saying that Garden City alone would get such development.
I'm familiar with that and that is why I asked if certain communities had the space for such development? That would have to be considered versus just saying that Garden City alone would get such development.
Where did Hochul specify that there has to be room for it? No one is saying Garden City alone would get the development. In fact she called for mandatory rezoning for a half mile within every LIRR station and subway station. Note she did not say only near stations that had room around it.
Quite the opposite, I think incorporation of villages largely hinders development. There is generally a much bigger NIMBY sentiment among villages, and numerous local laws (architecture review, extra operating permits and licenses, etc) make it harder for businesses or developers to establish themselves. Add to that the relatively small size, with fewer "acceptable" or open areas to develop as compared to the larger townships. In terms of politics, it's harder too... face it, a Town official can upset one neighborhood and not risk his re-election; a village trustee probably doesn't have that luxury. Incorporated Villages do have more say in their direction, but it tends to be much more conservative when it comes to development.
People like to throw around the "nimby" label as some sort of insult. They also distort the turn meaning.
An incorporated village may "hinder" development, but it is simply what the residents of that area want. They many not want something "in their backyard," but they are certainly not telling anyone where to put it.
Contrast that to the "town" level. As you point out, the town official can upset one neighborhood. He doesn't want in in _his_ backyard, but is more than happy to put it in yours. That's NIMBYism in its true form.
Even worse is some politico in Albany deciding how to zone development for the large sections of the state. I'll lay odds that you will never see "high density housing" constructed in Hochul's neighborhood (or any other high-ranking politician of the ruling party). Things like that will always go to the poor areas, or those with high percentages of people who don't vote the right way.
I suspect that many who are in favor of these proposals are the true NIMBYs and would be the first to oppose single family home neighborhoods being replaced with apartment complexes.
Nassau/Suffolk is the suburbs. You want high-density, NYC is right next door. You want it in your neighborhood, get your neighbors together and do something about it in your own area.
Where did Hochul specify that there has to be room for it? No one is saying Garden City alone would get the development. In fact she called for mandatory rezoning for a half mile within every LIRR station and subway station. Note she did not say only near stations that had room around it.
Where are you going to build such housing if there isn't room for it? So, do you think there would be a demolition of current housing just to built this housing? I'm thinking that the zoning change would only make sense for communities that may have it for other uses like industrial, but also have a demand for more housing.
An interesting quote from a Daily News article from a few weeks ago, "The governor specifically called out suburban communities surrounding New York City for limiting building in recent decades and said in her address that the state is ready to step in.
“Local governments can meet these targets any way they want,” she said. “They can shape building capacity. They can redevelop old malls or buildings, office parks, incentivize new housing production or just update the zoning rules to reduce the barriers.” Source: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...7eq-story.html
So, what are some communities that you or others can think of, where such structures(old malls/buildings, etc.) could be used for housing?
Where are you going to build such housing if there isn't room for it? So, do you think there would be a demolition of current housing just to built this housing? I'm think that the zoning change would only make sense for communities that may have it for other uses like industrial, but also have a demand for more housing.
An interesting quote from a Daily News article from a few weeks ago, "The governor specifically called out suburban communities surrounding New York City for limiting building in recent decades and said in her address that the state is ready to step in.
“Local governments can meet these targets any way they want,” she said. “They can shape building capacity. They can redevelop old malls or buildings, office parks, incentivize new housing production or just update the zoning rules to reduce the barriers.” Source: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...7eq-story.html
So, what are some communities that you or others can think of, where such structures(old malls/buildings, etc.) could be used for housing?
We are talking two different things here: converting outdated malls is one thing. Mandatory rezoning near LIRR stations is another requirement of her plan. Do I think the state would promote knocking down existing property? Hell yes. Whatever will get the developer and politician the most money they will do.
The crappier the community the more rundown areas are a good place to build, but that doesnt fit the agenda here. Housing advocates want forced integration into upper class areas, not just building in lower class areas. That has already been done without needing a heavy handed govt intervention such as in Wyandanch.
The easy pickings are over. Now the state will ram.it down the throats of areas that dont want it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
