Good moves on state housing plans

The budget proposals released by the Assembly and State Senate this week represent a significant and positive step toward developing a plan that can encourage new housing while avoiding unworkable mandates.

Now, the conversation can really begin.

Gov. Kathy Hochul must decide whether to compromise on her controversial Housing Compact, which would establish a new state board with the power to override local zoning decisions and require new density levels around transit stations. Both legislative majorities would rightly eliminate those aspects of Hochul's plan. Importantly, both would maintain Hochul's housing targets, including an increase in downstate residential units of 3% over three years and an expansion of incentives to get there.

Both chambers double Hochul's incentive pot to $500 million statewide, a bit closer to what's necessary to fund infrastructure improvements and spur housing. The Assembly suggests municipalities receive some funds upon submitting housing growth plans as well as information about their current housing and zoning situations. Counties, towns and villages would then get a second payment when they meet the growth target. If they don't reach it, they would risk a "clawback" of the initial funds.

Linking incentives to housing plans and production is a good start. If the governor wants to up the ante, she could also tie existing grant programs that fund environmental needs, economic development, and more to the housing target. Widening possible incentives could push municipalities to develop aggressive plans and see them through.

Under Hochul's initial idea, the half-mile radius around any train station within 15 miles of the New York City line would have to be rezoned at an aggregate density of 50 units per acre. That one-size-fits-all requirement was doomed to fail. Both the Assembly and Senate were right to eliminate it. But a balanced housing plan should include a nod to the importance of transit-oriented development, by encouraging it where it makes sense or counting it toward meeting growth targets.

The same goes for affordable housing, which was not a significant feature of Hochul's proposal. Whatever plan Hochul and the legislature agree upon should make affordability a key component, so municipalities that build housing at a variety of prices are rewarded.

It's unusual that both legislative houses reach a similar place on a high-profile issue at this stage. Their plans contain elements that should make the final cut, while removing potential deal-killers. Their efforts provide a foundation for a successful solution.

It's up to Hochul to build on that foundation, to recognize the importance of allowing and motivating municipalities to create and carry out their own plans. If state leaders can agree on this, we can start building the housing our current and future residents need.