Democrat Ben Chou is trying to unseat Republican City Council member Vickie Paladino in northeast Queens. Why should the industry care? Because competitive races reveal which way the pendulum is swinging on key real estate issues.
One thing is clear: Candidates do not see the housing shortage as a safe topic in single-family neighborhoods.
Paladino, a Trump-style conservative, opposes any development that would change the character of her district. That fuzzy argument has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike against all manner of rezonings and projects — even accessory dwelling units.
The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity was a good example. It was explicitly designed to add a little housing in every community, but not the same amount in every community, to avoid changing their character.
It was proportional, meaning dense areas like Midtown South would get more units than low-scale neighborhoods such as College Point, Whitestone, Bayside, Douglaston and Little Neck, all of which Paladino represents. Yet Paladino railed against City of Yes.
Queens politicians who are primarily polemicists (Paladino) or entertainers (Curtis Sliwa) portrayed City of Yes as The End of Queens as We Know It. I try to ignore Paladino’s propaganda and Sliwa’s shtick. The more oxygen they consume, the less there is for serious debate.
Fortunately, Paladino and her conservative colleagues were unable to sabotage City of Yes, which passed the Council 31 to 20 — not on partisan lines, but geographic ones. This City Limits map shows a crescent-shaped swath of “no” votes across the farthest-from-Manhattan neighborhoods where, not coincidentally, the least housing has been built.
Chou cannot possibly be worse than Paladino on housing development. But will he be better? His website doesn’t even mention the issue, although land use is the Council’s most important power and the city has a severe housing shortage.
That’s because a pro-development platform might well be suicidal for a Council District 19 candidate.
What does play well there? Protecting large residential buildings from the city’s carbon emissions cap.
Chou’s website says he will “save co-ops from the burden of Local Law 97.” His explanation: “We cannot fight climate change by putting the cost on the backs of working- and middle-class homeowners. Local Law 97 is an important and well-meaning law, but it places an unfair burden on co-ops and condos.”
Chou proposes extending and expanding the J-51 tax break to help co-ops and condos reduce their emissions.
Paladino — unlike Chou — opposes Local Law 97. But, realizing she cannot repeal it, she also wants a salve like J-51. She also introduced a bill in 2023 to push back Local Law 97’s deadlines by seven years. (It didn’t pass.)
“My bill seeks to buy time,” she said then. “Yes, I’m opposed to the law, but if it has to happen, we have to do it wisely. If we’re going to push these drastic climate bills, it would be nice if there was a J-51 type of tax break.”
It makes sense, politically, to offer help to co-ops and condos large enough to be subject to Local Law 97. Queens politicians love their co-ops and condos. Just don’t ask them to allow any more to be built.
Read more
Council leaders blocking bill to ease emissions law
Court of Appeals tosses Local Law 97 challenge
“A tough sell”: Landlords pick fines over Local Law 97 compliance
