Public Land for Public Good, Ron Shiffman, FAICP, Hon. AIA, June 4, 2026

Plan Summary Followed by Questions and Critiques from a Public Land for Public Good / Housing as a Right Perspective

Professor Emeritus, Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment; Former NYC Planning Commissioner; Board Member, Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation

Purpose and structure. This document is intentionally divided into two parts. The first section summarizes and attributes the major public elements of Mayor Mamdani’s Block by Block housing proposal. The second section presents questions, concerns, and suggested strengthening measures from a public-interest perspective. The goal is to distinguish clearly between what the plan proposes and the additional tests that should be applied to make sure implementation advances housing as a right, public land for public good, preservation, resident power, local jobs, and complete communities.

I. What the Mayor’s Block by Block Plan Proposes

• Scale of production and preservation. According to the Mayor’s Office release and the released plan, Block by Block sets a path to build 200,000 new affordable homes and preserve another 200,000 affordable homes over the next decade.
• Major capital commitment. The proposal is described as being backed by a stated $22 billion City capital investment in housing over five years, paired with a land-use agenda and new financing tools intended to build and preserve affordable housing more quickly and efficiently.
• NYCHA investment and resident participation. The plan describes one of the largest City capital investments in NYCHA in recent history and proposes stronger resident participation through Resident Associations, NYCHA in Your Neighborhood events, and deeper tenant involvement after PACT conversion.
• NYCHA as a public developer. The proposal states that the administration will pursue a renewed role for NYCHA as a public developer, using new financing and development tools to generate revenue, improve campuses, and build new housing.
• Affordable homeownership and co-ops. The plan proposes to double the Open Door program and launch Our Home, a program intended to create permanently affordable co-ops for working-class New Yorkers.
• Tenant protections and enforcement. The plan proposes a major overhaul of the City’s response to code and heat complaints, including tenant-scheduled HPD inspections in some cases and coordinated roof-to-cellar inspection days in buildings with organized tenants.
• Public health and neighborhood planning. The plan includes an interagency planning effort in the Bronx to address persistent housing quality, public health, and economic inequality issues.
• Labor standards. The plan says City-financed construction should support good jobs, including implementation of the Construction Justice Act and exploration of project labor agreements for targeted affordable housing developments.
• Construction innovation and efficiency. The plan refers to innovation in construction, more efficient approvals, code reform, and tools such as accessory dwelling units and legal basement apartments as ways to increase supply and reduce barriers.
• Broader policy frame. The proposal is presented as an all-of-the-above housing strategy linking new construction, preservation, public housing, homeownership, tenant protection, worker protections, and government efficiency.

Attribution note. The points above summarize public descriptions of Block by Block in the Mayor’s Office release and the released plan. They are not offered here as an endorsement of each implementation mechanism. The questions below are intended to test whether the plan can be made consistent with public ownership, permanent affordability, resident democracy, job preservation, and complete community-building.

II. Questions and Critiques from Ron Shiffman

Public Land for Public Good / Housing as a Right

1. Housing as a public responsibility. The plan is a serious step toward treating housing as a public responsibility, not simply a private-market commodity. Its strongest elements are the commitment to major public capital investment, public housing repair, tenant protection, preservation, and permanently affordable housing.
2. Public accountability versus private-sector reliance. The plan’s social housing elements are promising, especially the focus on NYCHA, permanently affordable co-ops, preservation, and rebuilding public development capacity. But these goals raise a central question: how will they be achieved if the City relies too heavily on private-sector delivery rather than strong public-sector accountability, public ownership, resident protections, democratic oversight, and publicly controlled revenue sources such as a financial-transactions tax or, in New York State, the Stock Transfer Tax?
3. Affordability must be clearly defined and truly affordable. The plan should clearly define affordability so that very-low-, low-, and moderate-income families are the major focus. Affordability should not be allowed to mean housing that is technically income-restricted but out of reach to the families most burdened by rent, displacement, and overcrowding. The City should avoid regional AMI measures or income bands that allow higher-income housing to masquerade as affordable housing.
4. Preserve existing affordable housing and avoid unintended consequences. To avoid the unintended consequences of good intentions, the drive to create more housing must not encourage the assembly of properties in ways that destroy truly affordable housing, rent-stabilized housing, smaller older buildings, or naturally affordable homes. New development should increase the net supply of truly affordable housing rather than replace existing affordable housing with higher-income housing that carries an affordable label but does not serve those most in need.
5. Replacement must create a multiple of truly affordable units. All affordable units should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. If demolition or replacement is unavoidable, the standard should not be one-for-one replacement alone. Existing affordable units should be replaced by a multiple number of deeply and permanently affordable units, with residents protected from displacement and guaranteed a right to return under conditions that are truly affordable to them.
6. Public land must remain a permanent public asset. Public land should be treated as a permanent public asset, not as a subsidy for speculative development. City-owned land, state-owned land, NYCHA land, and other publicly controlled sites should be retained under public, nonprofit, community land trust, limited-equity cooperative, or other mission-driven ownership structures that guarantee permanent affordability, public accountability, and long-term community benefit.
7. Public land must produce measurable public good. Public land should be used to advance public good in substantive and measurable ways. That means prioritizing deeply and permanently affordable housing, family-sized units, public housing preservation and expansion, community facilities, open space, childcare, health services, local jobs, small business opportunities, and long-term neighborhood stability. Public land should not be disposed of simply to maximize unit counts or private financial returns.
8. Do not sacrifice commercial, industrial, manufacturing, or maritime uses. Housing sites should not compete with, displace, or undermine needed commercial, industrial, manufacturing, logistics, or maritime uses. Site selection should strengthen social and economic opportunity by protecting existing jobs, fostering new sustainable jobs, supporting small business development, and choosing sites that can become part of quality communities rather than isolated housing projects.
9. Protect existing jobs while creating new sustainable jobs. A housing plan should not jeopardize the employment base that allows low- and moderate-income New Yorkers to remain in the city. It should protect existing jobs, foster new sustainable jobs, and support neighborhood-based enterprises, worker training, apprenticeship opportunities, minority- and women-owned businesses, and local supply chains tied to construction, maintenance, environmental repair, and community services.
10. NYCHA must not become a Trojan horse for private control. 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. That means rebuilding NYCHA’s capacity to plan, finance, rehabilitate, and develop housing in the public interest – including through public revenue mechanisms such as a financial-transactions tax or, in New York State, the Stock Transfer Tax – not using NYCHA as a back door to privatization or as a Trojan horse for private control of public land, public housing, or resident decision-making. Any NYCHA-related development or rehabilitation proposal must protect residents, preserve public ownership and accountability, prevent displacement, and demonstrate a strong public benefit before it moves forward.
11. Prior commitments should be rethought where necessary. PACT, the Public Housing Preservation Trust, and similar public-private mechanisms should be evaluated through a strong public-interest test. The Mayor should have the courage to rethink prior commitments where they fail to reflect the actual views of residents, where resident opinion has been distorted or narrowly represented, or where promised benefits come at the cost of displacement, demolition, or loss of public control – as concerns raised in Chelsea and other NYCHA communities illustrate.
12. Democratic process must be real. The plan should be clearer about who benefits from new housing and who makes the decisions. Production alone is not enough if the housing is unaffordable to those most in need or if communities are asked to accept predetermined outcomes. A democratic process must be required at every stage, with transparent information, genuine resident participation, independent review, and a clear showing that each proposal advances a strong public interest.
13. New construction techniques should serve public goals. Modular, manufactured, prefabricated, and mass timber housing should be treated not only as construction techniques, but as tools for local economic development. If adapted properly, they can generate local employment, training, apprenticeship opportunities, and small business development, particularly in low- and moderate-income communities that have too often been excluded from the benefits of public investment.
14. One-off pilots will not be enough. New building techniques will only work if the City creates a steady pipeline of projects tied to local hiring, workforce training, minority- and women-owned business participation, and neighborhood-based fabrication, assembly, maintenance, and supply-chain opportunities. One-off pilots will not be enough.
15. Mass timber should be elevated from pilot to strategy. Mass timber is a promising low-carbon approach for mid-rise, family-friendly housing and community facilities, but it should not remain only a pilot or studio concept. Publicly controlled sites should be used to test and scale lower-carbon, high-quality, family-friendly buildings where they can reduce embodied carbon, shorten construction time, and improve neighborhood fit.
16. Social housing needs a durable finance structure. A true housing-as-a-right agenda requires a permanent social housing finance system, not only a five-year capital plan. The City and State should consider municipal housing bonds, a social housing authority, land-value recapture, revolving public funds, cross-subsidy in mixed-income social housing, and permanent affordability covenants that keep public investment in public hands.
17. Quality communities are as important as unit counts. Quantitative goals matter: New York needs more homes, more affordable homes, and faster repairs. But qualitative goals must be treated as equally important. The move toward abundance should not lead to lower standards, weaker review, or the abandonment of community building. New housing should create strong, viable communities of opportunity for low- and moderate-income families, with schools, childcare, health services, transit, parks, libraries, environmental quality, cultural life, local jobs, and small businesses.
18. Abundance must not replace accountability. An abundance agenda should not mean accepting any project, in any location, under any ownership structure, at any affordability level, simply because it adds units. The test should be whether development expands true affordability, prevents displacement, protects jobs and essential land uses, advances environmental justice, and strengthens democratic control over the future of neighborhoods.
19. Complete communities, not isolated projects. The key question is not only how many units are built, but who can live in them, who controls them, whether they remain affordable over time, and whether they are part of complete communities. Housing production should be linked to opportunity, stability, public services, environmental quality, and economic mobility for lower- and moderate-income families.
20. The next implementation test. The plan opens the door to social housing, but it has not yet fully walked through that door. The next step should be a clear implementation plan connecting public land policy, public financing, resident protections, construction innovation, permanent affordability, job protection, and complete community-building.

III. Suggested Framing for Discussion

Support the Mayor’s housing framework, but insist on public-interest implementation. The Block by Block plan should be welcomed for its scale, its stated commitment to public housing and preservation, and its willingness to use public capital. But implementation must be guided by housing as a right, public land for public good, clear and truly affordable income targeting, preservation of existing affordable units, protection of existing jobs and essential land uses, resident democracy, and the creation of complete communities of opportunity. The standard should be not only more units, but better, fairer, more permanent, and more publicly accountable housing outcomes.

Support the plan’s thrust while holding the administration to its own principles. Housing advocates should be supportive of the broad thrust of the Mayor’s initiative – especially its stated commitment to public housing, preservation, tenant protection, permanent affordability, and public investment. At the same time, advocates must be bold enough to hold the Mayor and the administration accountable to the rhetoric and principles espoused in the plan. Support should not mean silence. It should mean insisting that implementation be faithful to the plan’s public-interest promises: housing as a right, public land for public good, true affordability, resident democracy, protection against displacement, preservation of existing affordable housing and jobs, and the building of strong communities of opportunity.

Sources Cited for the Plan Summary

• Mayor’s Office, City of New York, “Mayor Mamdani Releases ‘Block by Block: The Housing Plan for A New Era,'” May 26, 2026. This release states the plan’s goals of 200,000 new affordable homes and 200,000 preserved affordable homes, the $22 billion five-year capital investment, Open Door and Our Home, NYCHA investment, tenant protections, and labor commitments.
• City of New York, “Block by Block: The Housing Plan for a New Era,” released May 2026.
• NYC Economic Development Corporation, “NYC Mass Timber Studio,” current program description. This source is cited only for the broader feasibility and public-sector context for mass timber in New York City, not as proof that Block by Block itself makes mass timber a central strategy.