PATTERN REPORT EXAMINES HOW NEW YORK’S NEIGHBORS ARE TAKING STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS
Report underscores that New York is lagging behind its neighboring states to create policies that address the severe underproduction of housing and the affordability crisis

Decades-old strategies and legal precedents in other states help to strike a balance between home rule and the production of housing to meet statewide and regional needs

NEWBURGH – Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress today released a new research brief that examines the strategies, requirements, and legal precedents utilized by New York’s neighboring states to produce affordable housing for their residents. The report – Local Zoning, Regional Needs – outlines how other states have preserved the core intent of home rule while also requiring their towns to allow for the development of diverse housing that meets statewide and regional needs.

“Proposals to create statewide housing policies in New York are often decried as attacks on home rule,” Pattern CEO Adam Bosch said. “But our research found that practically every state surrounding New York balances home rule with reasonable mandates to diversify zoning and meet regional housing needs. Our neighbors prove that states can allow towns to govern and design themselves, while also requiring those towns to allow for certain housing that meets the greater public interest.”

The report examines the underlying laws, regulations, and legal precedents related to zoning and housing in the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. All those states are so-called “home rule” states, except Vermont.

Among the six states, New York stands out as lagging in its efforts to create statewide policies that address the severe underproduction of housing in its municipalities. There is longstanding case law in New York that requires local governments to diversify their zoning to protect “the greater public
interest that regional needs be met.” However, these legal precedents have not inspired mandates or programs in New York like they have in our neighboring states.

The following are some examples of state-level actions that our neighbors have taken to maintain home rule, diversify their zoning, and meet the growing need for housing:

  • Under the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act” in Massachusetts, developers are entitled to appeal municipal decisions to a statewide Housing Appeals Committee when a municipality rejects a building proposal or imposes onerous conditions. Developers can only appeal if their project includes at least 20-25% affordable housing. Municipalities in which 10% or more of the housing is already affordable are not subject to the authority of the Housing Appeals Committee.
  • Massachusetts also requires that all municipalities served by the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, including those directly adjacent to those municipalities, establish at least one multi-family zoning district within one-half mile of rail, bus, subway, or ferry stops. Development in that district must be permitted at a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre and may not be subject to age restrictions.
  • Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s established the “Mount Laurel Doctrine” in New Jersey, which requires its municipalities to provide their fair share of affordable housing based on population and economic-growth trends that are reassessed every 10 years. The next update and recalculation will happen in 2025.
  • Zoning reforms in Connecticut required all its municipalities to increase the variety of housing types they allow to affirmatively further fair housing across the state. This reform barred municipalities from using “neighborhood character” as a reason for denying approvals by land-use boards, and it prevents municipalities from capping the number of units allowed in a multifamily development.
  • Although it is not a home rule state, Vermont has also taken steps to improve the quantity and diversity of its housing stock. For example, municipalities in Vermont must zone all areas served by public water and sewer at a minimum density of five dwelling units per acre. They must also permit duplexes in all single-family zones.

Additional examples of actions by our neighboring states can be found in Local Zoning, Regional Needs.

This research brief builds upon a guest lecture by Alan Mallach at Pattern’s annual housing conference in 2023. Mallach, a longtime urban scholar and a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, shared a list of state-level actions taken by other states to improve the production of housing. Mallach helped Pattern to compile the information that is published in the Local Zoning, Regional Needs.

The report was also inspired by Pattern’s examination of migration trends that track the movement of people into and out of the Hudson Valley. In its latest report on domestic migration, Pattern found that many thousands of people have moved out of the Hudson Valley and into our neighboring states in recent years. Outward migration from the Hudson Valley has far outpaced the number of people moving into the region. Along with certain tax advantages (the average family saves about 25-60 percent on taxes when they move to neighboring states), the availability of more diverse and affordable housing is likely a factor that contributes to this outward migration. A U.S. Census Bureau survey of people in the Northeast found that housing – affordability and availability – was the No. 1 reason people moved out of the region.

Local Zoning, Regional Needs was produced by The Center for Housing Solutions & Community Initiatives, which was created by Pattern in 2012 to promote the regional significance of diverse housing through research, planning, and policy recommendations. The center collaborates with public and private partners to create a positive impact for the Hudson Valley. Its research, technical assistance, planning, and innovative policy solutions have helped dozens of communities throughout the region learn about their housing needs and act to meet them.

Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress is a nonprofit organization that provides objective research, planning, and educational training throughout the region. Its work identifies civic challenges and promotes regional, equitable, and sustainable solutions to constantly improve the quality of life in Hudson Valley communities. Pattern develops its work upon a considerable foundation of facts and experience, without political aims or affiliations.

Pattern was founded in 1965 by the region’s academic, business, and nonprofit leaders. It serves a nine-county region that includes Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester counties. Visit Pattern-For-Progress.org. Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn @PatternForProgress, and on Twitter @HVPattern.