I like to say that there are no coincidences in politics.
Case in point: The last four City Council approvals of a real estate project over the objections of the local member were at the end of four-year election cycles: 2009, 2021 and 2025. Credit for that observation goes to Howard Slatkin of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council.
The Council’s message when it ignores the custom of “member deference” seems to be: “See? We’re not provincial, turf-protecting insiders! We act in the interest of the whole city!”
But we’re talking about four instances in two decades, if not longer. The Council has considered thousands of land use applications in that time, and in 99.9 percent of them, the local member has decided the result.
Make no mistake: Member deference is alive and well.
It’s also not a coincidence that two of the four instances came last week, as the Council was preparing a campaign against City Charter revisions that — if approved by voters on Nov. 4 — would weaken member deference.
Perhaps Council Speaker Adrienne Adams will point to the chamber’s Sept. 25 approval of Bronx and Brooklyn rezonings over the objections of Council members Kristy Marmorato and Simcha Felder, respectively, as evidence that the system works. No reform needed!
Sorry, no. As noted, these are election-year exceptions. True outliers.
The 2021 override was to approve a New York Blood Center project. In that case, the Council snubbed a member unpopular with his colleagues, Ben Kallos. He had sided with entitled Upper East Side residents who claimed shadows would ruin their precious playground. Project supporters said it was more important to find a cure for sickle cell anemia.
To be sure, there was some political theater going on. Kallos claimed he might have negotiated a deal with developer Longfellow Real Estate Partners had Council leaders not hijacked the process.
Incidentally, the Blood Center project has yet to break ground.
Getting back to charter revision: One measure would create an appeals process for applicants voted down by the Council. Rejections could be overturned by getting two votes from a three-member panel of the mayor, borough president and Council speaker.
Will any voters change their minds about the charter questions as a result of the Council’s votes last Thursday? No chance. Only land-use geeks will even connect those dots. But the Charter Revision Commission can take some credit for the overrides.
What we’re thinking about: While the Council speaker asks New Yorkers to vote against charter reforms that weaken the Council’s power, Council conservatives and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis sued on Tuesday to remove those three questions from the ballot.
They complain that the revisions would fast-track some projects around environmental reviews. That is exactly the point: to stop needless reviews that gum up the process and make housing more expensive.
Once upon a time, conservatives sought to free the private sector from bureaucracy and frivolous litigation. Here, they are suing to do the opposite.
It’s an ironic but common example of conservatives exploiting processes created by liberals to delay new housing and infrastructure. What are your thoughts? Email them to eengquist@therealdeal.com.
A thing we’ve learned: A Quinnipiac poll of likely New Jersey voters found only 6 percent of them (including 8 percent of Democrats and 4 percent of Republicans) considered affordable housing the most important issue in determining their vote in the governor’s race. Why so few? In part because 63 percent of New Jerseyans are homeowners.
Elsewhere…
— Remember when residential mortgages were bundled into securities and sold to investors in public markets? That hasn’t happened since 2013 — not because publicly issued RMBS were banned, but because regulations put in place five years after the housing crash effectively killed them. The regs required detailed information on every mortgage in these bundled securities.
Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked for comments about reviving them. If that sounds familiar, you are one of the few people who continued paying attention to this issue after “The Big Short.” For everyone else: In 2019, then-SEC Chairman Jay Clayton issued an identical request. But Donald Trump lost the election, Clayton left his post, and the RMBS effort was mothballed. (Clayton is now the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan.)
— President Trump’s new tariffs on lumber and cabinets will add $720 and $280, respectively, to the cost of a new home, UBS estimates. The first tariff adds 10 percent to the cost of softwood timber and lumber imports, and the second adds 25 percent to the cost of kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered wood products.
— Want an ADU? The city on Tuesday began accepting applications to create accessory dwelling units through the DOB NOW: Build filing portal.
Closing time
Residential: The top residential deal recorded Tuesday was $5.75 million for a 2,170-square-foot condominium unit at 151 East 58th Street, One Beacon Court in Sutton Place. Marina Bernshtein with Brown Harris Stevens had the listing.
Commercial: The top commercial transaction recorded was $213 million for a 44,200-square-foot retail property at 529 Broadway in Soho. The seller was a joint venture that included Jeff Sutton’s Wharton Properties. The buyer was the furniture store Ikea.
New to the Market: The highest price for a residential property hitting the market was $11.75 million for a pre-war co-op at 770 Park Avenue in Lenox Hill. Leslie R. Coleman and Christina Lee with Brown Harris Stevens have the listing.
— Matthew Elo
