MSCC, Ronald Shiffman, FAICP, Hon. AIA, June 4, 2026

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Block by Block housing framework deserves serious support from housing advocates. It recognizes the scale of New York City’s crisis and speaks in the language of public responsibility, tenant protection, preservation, public housing repair, and permanently affordable homes. According to the Mayor’s Office, the plan aims to build 200,000 new affordable homes and preserve another 200,000 over the next decade, backed by a $22 billion five-year capital commitment. That is an important statement of direction.

But support should not mean silence. Advocates should be bold enough to hold the mayor and his administration to the principles the plan itself espouses. The test should not be whether New York produces more units alone. The test should be whether those units are truly affordable, whether existing residents are protected, whether public land remains a public asset, whether jobs are preserved and expanded, and whether new housing helps create strong communities of opportunity for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income New Yorkers.

The first challenge is definitional. “Affordable housing” has too often become a misleading term. Housing that is affordable only to households earning well above neighborhood incomes does not meet the needs of those most at risk of displacement. The city must clearly define affordability so that very-low-, low-, and moderate-income families are the central focus. Every program should disclose who can actually afford the homes being produced and preserved.

That is especially important where new development requires assemblage, demolition, or the conversion of existing buildings. In the name of creating more housing, the city must not encourage the destruction of truly affordable housing. Existing affordable units should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. If replacement is unavoidable, lost units should be replaced by a multiple number of truly affordable units, not by higher-income units that masquerade as affordable because they meet regional AMI formulas.

Public land requires an even stronger standard. City-owned land, state-owned land, NYCHA land, and other publicly controlled sites should be treated as permanent public assets, not as subsidies for speculative development. They should remain under public, nonprofit, community land trust, limited-equity cooperative, or other mission-driven ownership structures that guarantee permanent affordability and public accountability. Public land should be used to advance public good in measurable ways: deeply affordable housing, family-sized units, community facilities, childcare, health services, open space, small business opportunities, and local jobs.

The framework’s references to NYCHA and social housing are promising, but they also raise hard questions. NYCHA should be strengthened as a public developer and steward of public housing, with the clear purpose of preserving housing as a public good and a public right. It must not become a back door to privatization or a Trojan horse for private control of public land, public housing, or resident decision-making. Any NYCHA-related redevelopment or rehabilitation plan should protect residents, preserve public ownership, prevent displacement, and demonstrate strong public benefit before it moves forward.

If the city is serious about social housing, it will need durable public finance. A sales tax on financial transactions, or in New York State the Stock Transfer Tax, should be considered as one possible dedicated revenue source for NYCHA rehabilitation and social housing. The point is not simply to identify a new tax, but to match a long-term public obligation with a long-term public revenue stream.

The plan’s interest in modular, manufactured, prefabricated, and mass-timber construction is also welcome. But these methods should not be treated only as ways to build faster or cheaper. Properly adapted, they can generate local employment, apprenticeships, small business development, and minority- and women-owned business opportunities, especially in low- and moderate-income communities. A public housing production strategy should create a steady pipeline of work that supports neighborhood-based fabrication, assembly, maintenance, and supply-chain jobs.

Site selection must also be guided by a public-interest test. Housing should not be placed in ways that compete with or jeopardize needed commercial, industrial, manufacturing, or maritime uses. New homes should be located where they can enhance social and economic opportunity and support quality communities. Protecting job-generating land uses is not anti-housing; it is part of building a city where working people can live and work.

Finally, the city must treat qualitative goals as equal to quantitative ones. The move toward abundance must not become an excuse for lower standards, weaker planning, or abandonment of community building. Housing policy must ask: Who benefits? Who decides? What is preserved? What is lost? What opportunities are created for existing residents and future generations?

The mayor’s housing framework opens an important door. Advocates should help push it through that door — toward public land for public good, housing as a right, deeply affordable homes, democratic accountability, and communities where lower- and moderate-income families can thrive.

Source note: This article is based on Mayor Mamdani’s Block by Block housing framework, public statements from the Mayor’s Office, and Ronald Shiffman’s public-good and housing-as-a-right critique.