Families Need Affordable Housing, but New York Residents Use Red Tape To Block Development
With the help of New York’s environmental review law, local NIMBYs halted an approved housing project, adding to delays and costs in a city facing a housing shortage.

Zoning cops have a knack for blocking affordable housing, but in Troy, New York, regulators greenlit an 11-unit apartment building on a vacant lot. Just as construction was about to kick off, however, the project ran up against a different, familiar hurdle.
Concerned neighbors—who already have housing—filed a lawsuit to keep outsiders out. Rather than challenge the developer directly, the project opponents instead took the city to court, insisting regulators hadn't done enough research before granting a zoning change. The city won a trial court victory in 2023, but opponents appealed and scored a reversal on October 24, 2024.
What have the "concerned citizens" given as reason for legal action? Evidence of a nearby quarry allegedly used by Native Americans in the distant past. Strangely, proximity to this site was not an issue when these residents secured housing for themselves. The "high archaeological sensitivity," as they frame it, came later.
New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) makes it easy for citizens to stall or kill housing in New York with almost any excuse they can cook up. Courts can be swayed by vague concepts like "community" or "neighborhood character." Project opponents can even cite generic concerns without showing specific harm.
In Guilderland, New York, a citizen group raised alarms about global climate change when developers proposed five apartment buildings and a Costco. This group, represented by the same lawyer now working to derail housing in Troy, won at the trial court level. But an appellate court reversed the decision in 2022 noting that construction would result in less driving, not more, producing a net gain for air quality.
But these NIMBY ("not in my backyard") activists don't need a win in court to achieve their goals. Even when they lose, they can use SEQRA to freeze construction for months or longer. In Old Westbury, Long Island, developers waited 25 years for permission to build religious facilities. The legal labyrinth is also expensive. SEQRA litigation added $2 million to a single housing project in Hempstead, New York.
Similar laws elsewhere have produced absurd claims. In summer 2024, two California residents rebranded an ordinary slab of asphalt as a "historic parking lot" and slapped a lawsuit on a local charity to stop plans for a food bank.
Even without litigation, SEQRA can add costs and delays to any project. The law mandates local officials to make broad environmental impact determinations. If a proposed project involves complex factors, regulators must conduct a full, costly review.
The one-two punch of zoning regulations and SEQRA is particularly onerous for private developers trying to add housing during a nationwide shortage that has created affordability problems for half of U.S. homeowners and renters.
Clearing the zoning maze is just the beginning. In recent years zoning police have thwarted efforts to build tiny houses in Calhoun, Georgia, a conservation burial ground in Brooks Township, Michigan, and detached units for the adult children of a homeowner in Seattle. Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, has battled regulators in all of these cases as part of our Zoning Justice Project.
For builders who survive the zoning maze in New York, they next face SEQRA. Those who persevere must pass along the extra costs to their buyers or tenants—the ultimate losers. The project in Troy still hangs in the balance. Providing solutions to the housing crisis should not be so complicated and burdensome. If New York lawmakers are serious about affordable housing, repealing SEQRA—or at least reining it in—would be a great start.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
11 units. LoL
Don't like it? Stop voting for democrats.
Kick the Yimbys out for intruding on the historic Indian quarry, and require them to restore the site to it’s original state at their own expense.
Because no one who owns a house actually wants affordable housing. They want the price to climb so they can sell and retire to Del Boca Vista.
This is one of the both sides arguments that is mostly true. Red and blue home owners both want to limit supply. They also need to limit renters in order to maintain control of the voting majority.
I’d say they should move out of New York but those assholes bring the same politics to the new places and fuck them up nearly as bad.
You chose the consequences when you chose the behavior.
BUILD THE WALL!
Seriously. The elite shitheads have done enough damage, and the ones already relocated are spreading the disease. Let's use the John Carpenter model, and shut down all egress from NYC, including posh helicopter shuttles.
>>Families Need Affordable Housing
idk premise seems weak.
Is a libertarian thing now that people have a right to live in a place they can’t afford?
It sounds more like communism to me.
One solution is to make it illegal to rent to single people.
Meh. Someday the peasants who have to spend hours each day commuting to serve their NIMBY betters will rise up and do a little enhanced house cleaning.
Why can’t I afford to live in a mansion in the Hollywood Hills?
Families Need Affordable Housing
Families need a lot of things. Nobody owes them a whit of it. Least of all the State.
Evidence of a nearby quarry allegedly used by Native Americans in the distant past.
HAHAHAHAHA. I love when wokeness is used against the wokes.
Look - Daryl, Bob, you seem like intelligent people. Let me explain this to you in as simple terms as I can:
NOBODY wants low-income housing anywhere near them. It's not just NIMBY - it's Not in My Backyard OR IN MY ENTIRE ZIP CODE. And you have to respect that argument, because you have to respect what homeowners and businessmen invest in when they settle there.
You're talking about diminishing, if not destroying, their investments. Low-income housing invariably brings with it crime (both petty and violent), diminished public education, lower property values, drug use/abuse, increased consumer prices (local commerce always raises prices when flooded with a market given free money), and an overall fracturing of any sense of a local community. There is no valid argument in favor of doing that. None.
So, now we're left with the problem of low-income populations. What to do with them. How to address that.
Daryl, Bob - respectfully, you're overthinking it. It's a problem for charity. But since we know that charity can't possibly keep up with the demand, if you want State involvement then put low-income housing where it belongs. Next to urban landfills, airports, prisons, ports, and the like. Real estate that nobody voluntarily wants to purchase and live in.
Every single American who worked hard to find themselves a nice piece of property should NEVER have to suffer on behalf of those who "need" one and can't/won't provide for one on their own. That's just another form of Redistribution Of Wealth. And every American should fight that notion with every fiber of their being.
Low income housing attracts low income problems. If you subsidize the housing as well, then you end up with a group out of step with their local community.
I don't necessarily have a problem with building more housing, but I don't want them slamming in a bunch of houses around me. They rarely upgrade the roads and utilities to accomodate it. It changes the features of the location in a way that eliminates much of what encouraged me to move here. Further, when you slam in apartment complexes and subsidized housing you WILL end up with more crime and general conflict.
As much as I agree that there needs to be sufficient options for low income people, (I was one until about 10 years ago) single occupancy apartments are inefficient and expensive. An 18 year old earning minimum wage needs to focus on renting a place with a few friends rather than paying $2000/mo. for a studio apartment.
While no one is owed housing, raising the prices above market rates by throwing government obstacles in the way, especially by NIMBYs is certainly rent seeking, taking from younger and less established to give to wealthier and older. And that's certainly not libertarian. In addition, no one is owed appreciation on their real estate purchases. People also do not own their property values. If you want to defend values, then buy up all the land in the area. I have seen people try to keep construction that blocked their view of a lake, but they were not willing to buy the land. They just wanted something nice for free. And that's certainly not libertarian.