Is housing politically affordable for NY Democrats anymore?

Daily Point

For local Republicans, it’s the gift that keeps on giving

Even better for Nassau County Republicans than a gifted subscription to the jelly-of-the-month-club is having some Democrats in Albany attempting to usurp local zoning laws in the name of affordable housing. Again.

For a few years now, Albany has tried to coerce, cajole and harangue local municipalities into offering more affordable housing, a desperate need across much of the state.

And year after year, Republicans — especially on Long Island — have been able to turn those attempts into political gold by decrying Albany oversight and fighting for local control.

Politically astute observers may wonder, then, why Democrats — although none from here — would resuscitate an issue that has caused them so much angst with voters on Long Island.

Republicans have already turned affordable housing into a campaign issue for the 2025 cycle, with a host of GOP electeds holding a news conference March 18 to slam two bills — A. 2586 and S.5674.

The Assembly bill would limit some zoning capabilities of villages and towns. The Senate bill would create a New York State Social Housing Development Authority. Republicans last week said both bills would effectively strip local communities of zoning control and foist urbanization upon their residents.

Malverne Village Mayor Tim Sullivan, a Republican who attended the March 18 presser, said he has heard from several officials opposed to the most recent iterations by Albany to provide affordable housing in the suburbs without local input.

"We're not denying there is a need. We are advocating for organic growth," Sullivan, a real estate developer and investor, told The Point.

In a statement, Hempstead Town Supervisor Don Clavin said the Albany bills are "a disguised attempt to override zoning laws" and that Republicans will "continue to fight for our communities and protect our home from becoming the sixth borough of New York City."

Republican Assemb. Jodi Giglio (R-Baiting Hollow), listed on the Assembly website as a co-sponsor of A. 2586, said in a text message to The Point: "I did not sign onto this bill and am being removed from it. I believe in local control."

Protecting your community against Albany plays well with suburban voters. Republicans can cast themselves as heroes battling Big Government who save picturesque villages from overdevelopment.

That is, until the introduction of the Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act, which has almost two dozen co-sponsors in the Senate and more than 40 co-sponsors in the Assembly. A Global Strategy Group poll shows overwhelming support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

The initiative would give religious institutions the green light to build affordable housing on their underutilized land. The poll, which was conducted from Jan. 28 to Feb. 4 of 600 likely 2026 voters, showed 74% approve of the act. The demographic breakdowns are even more supportive: 77% of Long Islanders, 69% of Republicans, and 73% of white voters support it, according to the poll.

Bashing one-house bills like A. 2586 and S. 5674 is softball. But the curveball presented by the Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act may back Republicans into a corner. Do they support the Democrat-sponsored Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act and risk upsetting suburban voters? Or do they renounce it and risk alienating religious voters, a core GOP support group?

It’s a Hobson’s choice of sorts for Republicans. New Yorkers generally bemoan the overall lack of affordability, but don’t support Albany’s heavy-handed attempts to create multiunit developments for people with low incomes. Long Island Republicans, who have successfully used affordable housing against Gov. Kathy Hochul, may find the issue more difficult to manipulate in 2025.

— Mark Nolan mark.nolan@newsday.com

Pencil Point

Pete's Signal

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/250301nationalcartoons

Final Point

Groups lobby to keep state's ‘prevailing wage’ law unchanged

Six Long Island business and economic development groups are joining a statewide coalition to push back against State Senate and Assembly budget proposals to expand laws on prevailing wage payments — the top level of hourly pay received by local union workers.

State law now requires any project that receives public funds that account for 30% of total construction costs to pay prevailing wage. That law, which dates back to 2021, also established a Public Subsidy Board to act as the entity that would define which projects fall under the prevailing wage requirements. In its one-house budget proposal, the State Senate suggested changing the threshold from 30% to 20% of costs and getting rid of the Public Subsidy Board. In its place would be a new certification process, while enforcement of the statute would be transferred to the Department of Labor. The Assembly made similar changes in its proposal.

In a letter sent last week to Gov. Kathy Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, 35 organizations, including industrial development agencies, chambers of commerce, real estate groups, the NYS Association of Counties and NYS Conference of Mayors, said they "strongly oppose any expansion or modification of construction prevailing wage laws" in the next state budget.

"At a time when New York is grappling with an escalating affordability crisis, declining development, fewer construction jobs, and a shrinking pipeline of new projects, imposing additional cost burdens on construction will further destabilize the state’s economic outlook," they wrote.

Among the organizations that signed on to the letter were the Long Island Association, the Long Island Builders Institute, the Association for a Better Long Island, the Commercial Industrial Brokers Society of Long Island, and the Glen Cove and Riverhead industrial development agencies.

The letter said that prevailing wage requirements increase project costs by 20% to 30%.

The groups also argue that the existing stand-alone Public Subsidy Board is sufficient to handle the review process for potential projects. In response to concerns that too few projects have qualified for the prevailing wage requirements, the groups suggest that those that don’t qualify fall under various exempt categories. Some are too small or receive little public money, while others are being developed by a not-for-profit or are focused on affordable or supportive housing, they said.

"The law is working as it was intended to do," the coalition wrote.

— Randi F. Marshall randi.marshall@newsday.com

Subscribe to The Point here and browse past editions of The Point here.