This election season has revealed a division within New York City’s far-left political circles, not over the mayoral race but over proposed changes to land-use policy. Four City Charter revisions concerning development and rezoning have sparked debate among progressive groups, particularly around how these reforms might affect affordable housing and the influence of individual City Council members.
Zohran Mamdani, the left-leaning candidate for mayor, has notably hesitated to take a firm stance on these ballot questions, in contrast to his positions on other issues. This reluctance is attributed to divisions among his supporters regarding the proposed reforms.
Michael Kinnucan, a left-wing writer, outlined the disagreement in Jacobin magazine. He explained that some tenant organizations are concerned that reducing council members’ leverage would undermine efforts to secure more affordable housing. However, he noted that this leverage is sometimes used to block projects entirely—either due to local opposition or by setting affordability requirements so high that developments become unfeasible.
Kinnucan endorsed a “yes” vote on the charter revisions. According to him: “You can’t have social housing without building housing.” He argued that “loosening the city’s anti-housing regime is essential if we ever want to build social housing at scale,” emphasizing subsidized housing as key for readers of Jacobin but also noting the importance of privately funded developments in addressing supply shortages.
The advocacy group Tenants PAC has publicly opposed the proposals and made claims about their impact. For example, it told its followers there was “no affordability mandate whatsoever” in the charter proposals. In reality, most of these measures are tied to Mandatory Inclusionary Housing or deeper affordability requirements set by agencies such as the Department of Housing Preservation and Development or state housing finance authorities. The exception involves certain low-density zoning areas (R1 to R5), where affordability mandates do not apply because those zones do not permit such requirements.
Tenants PAC also stated that Proposal 3 would allow some projects a 30 percent size increase “on top of the 40 percent granted by City of Yes earlier this year.” However, according to reporting, City of Yes allows only a 20 percent increase—and only when sufficient affordable units are included.
Kinnucan described opponents as “an odd coalition, uniting conservatives who systematically oppose virtually all construction, including affordable construction, with tenant activists who support massive city investment in social housing.” He warned that Mamdani’s own plan for social housing would be “near impossible” without these charter changes: “If the city’s social housing program is subject to the unappealable veto of every individual city council member, every development will require months of negotiation over building heights and parking minimums, and much of the city’s land area will be quite simply off limits.”
He further pointed out that nearly 70 percent of New York City is zoned for single-family or low-density multifamily use—a major obstacle for expanding housing stock without rezoning efforts.
Kinnucan concluded that member deference in land-use decisions has led to a persistent shortage of homes: “a crippling housing shortage that gives landlords the upper hand against tenants.” The reasons why some tenant advocates wish to maintain this system remain unclear.
