Understanding the PHIX NY Plan

New York’s massive capital plans secure billions yet prioritize spending in almost every other area except public housing. A Public Housing Infrastructure and Investment Plan--what we are calling the PHIX New York Plan for short-- calls for viable and consistent capital funding for NY's public housing agencies, use of purchasing power to cut construction and costs and carbon emissions, add to the state’s housing supply, truly democratize public housing, and modernize our agencies so that they can actually spend the money they receive.

 

Preserve 40,000 Public Housing Units

NY State could begin a process of addressing public housing capital needs right now with $900M this fiscal year. The State’s last housing plan was $25 billion dollars. Just 20% of that--a $4.5B investment--between FY25-FY30, preserve 15,000 NYCHA units, 25,000 public housing units outside of NYC, build 3,000 new NYCHA units, 5,000 new public housing units outside of NYC, grow our economy by $9.5 billion dollars with only $4.5 billion in capital spending.

 

Cutting Costs and Emissions With Green Mass Procurement

Federal and state governments (including NY) have long taken advantage of scale to cut prices and make markets. NY should bulk purchase standardized green appliances and components for public housing renovations. Where possible, the State should issue RFPs for the production of the equipment in-state ensuring that Passive Haus, mass timber, and modular construction are not just the luxuries of the wealthy.

 

Let Authorities Actually Spend Their Funds

Currently, NY State Law ties PHAs’ hands with archaic procurement rules. The state must reform public housing authority procurement and contracting rules, including the expansion of the design-build authority.

 

Resident Management Corporations, Resident Votes, and Real Governance

Strong resident governance is important to the social housing movement but has been neglected in public housing. The State’s capital funding should be tied to these requirements: Promotion of Resident Management Corporations (RMCs), CLTS or similar structures and resident votes for RADs; Site selection standards, the HOTMA over-income rule, 40% of construction hours performed by public housing residents & use of “Section 3 Business Concerns."

 

New, Green, Diverse, Contextual Public Housing Development

The state currently directs authorities to only serve the lowest income residents and promote private sector development. The state should broaden this mandate and work with PHAs and localities to take advantage of Faircloth, LIHTC, and revenues from the sale of air rights to make developments fully integrated in the existing community, add to the housing supply, and ensure the sustainability of public housing.

 

Eviction Oversight & Greivance Form

There is no accountability and oversight regarding evictions in public housing and voucher-converted properties., & grievance and tenancy hearings subject public housing tenants to policies unheard of in the housing court that private tenants face. S1904 will improve hearings and transparency, & the legislature must pass additional legislation to require PHAs adopt a Code of Conduct for hearing officers, modeled after NYC’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) Officer Code of Conduct. 

 

$691.6 million would cover the entire backlogged capital costs for public housing in New York, outside of NYC

An analysis by CSSNY estimates that public housing developments in Western, Upstate, and Downstate New York, excluding NYC, require $691.6 million in capital repairs immediately. These dollars would eliminate asbestos, fix elevators, and end the repeated leaks and occurrence of mold--and they are needed yesterday. This chart displays the capital needs funding needed outside of NYC in NY. However, capital planning requires authorities to be able to predict funding levels years in advance. Ultimately, a consistent capital funding plan would put New York on the path of saving public housing.

Including funding for New York City, at $900 million in capital funding in the FY-2025 adopted budget, NY State would address decades of neglect. This would be the beginning of a 5-year plan that totals only 20% of the 2023 state housing plan.

This investment would not only impact the health of public housing residents and save NYer's homes, it will have widespread effects on the regional economy and in communities throughout the state.

 

---

 

This investment would...

Preserve 40,000 units

Build 8,000 units

Support 65,000 direct and indirect jobs

Create $9.5 billion in economic activity

 

---

Even with funding, public housing authorities have difficulties spending the money they receive. There are two major restrictions: 

1. NY State Public Housing Law forces authorities to use a long and costly procurement and contracting process
2. There is a shortage of affordable, efficient materials and components to rehab apartments

The reality is that public housing agencies were not built to create and manage the housing of the future. With federal code from the great depression and state charters only just younger, it’s no wonder that they have difficulty spending capital funds when it is allocated. While some of the restrictions placed on them are based federal law and regulation, the state can have a hand in modernizing PHAs. Steps that can be taken immediately include:

• Broadening the mandate of PHAs: The StateLegislature should expand the scope of PHAsby amending Article 13 of the Public HousingLaw in the State Code to remove the directive that emphasizes the encouragement of private enterprises in the housing market and limits PHAs to focus solely on low-income families. Instead, PHAs should be empowered to serve a broader range of demographics, ensuring that public housing is inclusive and caters to the diverse needs of all residents whom all require healthy and affordable housing options.
   
• Reform public housing authority procurement and contracting rules: The state legislature should amend provisions of New York State Public Housing Law, expand the design-build authority, include other methods like construction manager at risk and construction manager build and repeal Wick’s law, allowing greater discretion for PHAs when contracting building construction and alteration projects, leading to better quality and more efficient projects.

(Bills accomplishing these goals are tbd. We are looking for legislative sponsors and cosponsors to progress these changes.)

 

Going Green

The units in this plan need the basics— drywall replacement, installation of new ceramic tiling and vinyl flooring, brand new bathtubs, showerheads, sinks etc.— as well as systematic replacements like the replacement of fossil fuel-powered furnaces and boilers (some of which are from the pre-Titanic era) to air source heat pumps (ASHPs) powered by zero-carbon electricity or at least more efficient systems. Many buildings are one accident away from falling bricks gravely injuring a resident because of old facades; and leaks and mold due to poor roofing already are harming inhabitants. Public housing directors across the state and developers in PACT and RAD projects have complained that there are consistent shortages of necessary materials and appurtenances. The PHIX NY ACT capital plan creates a market for supplies that improves both the public and private construction industry and lowers the estimated project costs for public housing, while simultaneously providing an opportunity for NY State to lower costs even more by carrying out bulk purchases. This is a common government practice:

• Since 2000 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has worked to decrease drug prices via bidding and bulk purchases organized by local governments.
   
• The United States Marine Corps uses a lot of batteries in everything from radios to guided missile systems. The Department of Defense (DOD) has achieved economies of scale via bulk purchases of the BA-5590/U a non-rechargeable lithium-sulfur-dioxide (LiSO2) battery— purchasing this battery for $75 each at a great discount compared to the market price of between $199.95 to $152 each.
   
• NY already used it for public housing when NYCHA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the New York Power Authority (NYPA) launched the Induction Stove Challenge.

 

"TOPA for Public Housing"

Social housing comes in all shapes and sizes, and it fits everything from Community Land Trusts to limited equity coops. NY public housing residents have lived in the greatest source of public housing in the United States for decades, had their funding cumulatively cut by >$1.5bn and now are largely being given one option private management and voucherization via RAD. 

In NYC, there is hope given the creation of the Public Housing Preservation Trust. However, we cannot let new strong social housing governance models be expanded in New York to some tenants, but have simular advancements not be applied to public housing developments. We have a plan... Call it TOPA for Public Housing.

Step 1 - Secure basic protections and rights for public housing and voucher households

• Require “RAD Roundtable” protections for all RAD conversions: PHAs Upstate, in Western New York, and in Long Island, should adopt the supplemental resident protections—such as Section 9 succession rights and relocation plans for all residents—that NYCHA tenants are provided in the PACT program and in Section 18 conversion, in addition to the bare minimum required by HUD via RAD.
   
• Require a resident education and vote-- similar to the process for the Preservation Trust--for all public housing conversions, planned new units, and major renovation plans.
   
• Require that 40 percent of the construction hours are performed by public housing residents and that agency term sheets favor projects that include Section 3 “business concerns.”
   
• Reform the public housing grievance process and provide eviction oversight: The lack of accountability and oversight regarding evictions in public housing and voucher-converted properties is unacceptable. Furthermore, the reality that biased grievance and tenancy hearings with little to no standards and zero transparency has been allowed to subject public housing tenants to policies unheard of in the housing court that private tenants face. There are two new legislative solutions to these issues:
  • Pass S1904/A1135: This bill would require public housing authorities to implement specific procedural protections in their administrative hearing process, including giving residents sufficient notice of charges and ensuring residents have access to their tenancy file and the evidence that the authority intends to use against them.
  • Pass legislation that would require public housing agencies to adopt impartial hearing officers, modeled after NYC’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) Officer Code of Conduct. This would create an unbiased, fairer process for public housing residents.

Step 2 - Train and support Resident Management Corporation (RMC) Conversions

• Require/fund resident training programs mirroring the programs used in the Ford Foundation and HUD’s 1975 National Resident Management Demonstration and the 1985 National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise program. Resident voting, managent and control will provide an alternative to RAD accorss the state, and most importantly give public housing residents more democratic governance of their homes.

(Bills accomplishing these goals are tbd. We are looking for legislative sponsors and cosponsors to progress these changes.)

 

---

 

A HUD study comparing resident management to regular public housing found that those living in resident-managed developments were...

11% more satisfied with their housing overall

17% more satisfied with their building's maintenance

Residents also had an enhanced sense of personal responsibility and were provided more supportive services and employment opportunities.

 

---

The path towards financial stability for public housing doesn’t have to be through private management. New, contextual development and the allowance of income mobility can put public housing on a path to a stable foundation once again. The biggest help in this would be for the Federal government to allow residents whose incomes increase to remain in their homes. However, state and local lawmakers can do their part as well.

• Unlike past state public housing investments, the PHIX NY plan is self-sustaining. Meaning, that upon completion of the individual projects, the state will NEVER have to spend to upkeep the units. This plan doesn’t call for large infills or demolition of public housing, instead, scalable designs situated on the lower levels of the developments will produce brand new public housing units, provide revenues, and upgrades that can only be unlocked thanks to state investment. In 2020, architects serving as fellows in Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) Kaplan Chairs for Urban Design produced designs that replace outdated and centralized building mechanicals, added private outdoor spaces via balconies, and better integrating existing buildings within neighborhoods. The most striking and novel element of the proposal was the expansion of existing buildings into the unoccupied ground floor to develop additional units. New units extended the properties to sidewalks and streetside, finally integrating NYCHA with the rest of the city. Adding to this proposal, a mixture of household types can ensure that NYCHA properties remain well-maintained, recapitalizing the city’s greatest assets.
  • These new units could include:
    • Faircloth to RAD units
    • Homeless set-aside units (utilizing project-based CityFheps or other vouchers)
    • Mixed-Income Rent-stabilized units
    • LIHTC units
    • Section 18 (converted from the existing Section 9 units)

(This plan dictates that the details involving any new units would require a resident vote as described earlier.) 

And at the local level there is an opportunity to easily provide a fudning source for public housing immdiately.

Expand Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) and other zoning changes: The concept of air rights, which refers to the legal ownership of vertical air space above a developed real estate area, has emerged as a pivotal solution. Currently, air rights can be transferred through mechanisms like zoning lot mergers, special purpose district transfers, and landmark transfers. However, these methods are often restricted to adjacent properties or specific districts, limiting the potential for broader urban development and optimization of space. NYCHA has shifted unused development rights from one lot to another, as-of-right at the College Avenue - East 165 Street, Bay View, Manhatanville, and other public housing developments. The only exception is that property owners that are not immediately adjacent to a NYCHA-controlled lots, but are within the same block, may pursue purchasing NYCHA development rights, if the merged zoning lot contains contiguous parcels. This makes transferable development rights (TDR) difficult for the agency. The restrictions are contributory to continued poor conditions for NYCHA residents. PHAs like NYCHA should request for planning and zoning rules that benefit residents. Specifically, where necessary, they should push local planning authorities to allow for the transfer of air rights across larger districts, not just between adjacent properties or within the same block. By creating a Public Housing TDR Program, city and county planning departments could increase the frequency of transfers. This would contribute to preservation funding mostly in urban locations. PHAs should also look for other opportunities to advocate for beneficial zoning for local campuses.