Housing compact undone, for good cause?

Daily Point

The blame game begins

It’s not done yet. It won’t even be done this week.

But as the battles over the state budget continue, sources tell The Point that the most significant pieces of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s housing plan — including the idea of having a state board that could override local zoning and project-specific decisions if towns and villages did not add 3% to their housing stock in three years — have been dropped.

A statement Hochul released Wednesday nodded toward a shift even in her thinking, as she promised to “discuss other elements of the plan and policy changes that will increase supply and make housing more affordable.”

It’s unclear, however, whether good cause eviction — the effort to add tenant protections and limit rent increases — will survive. Hochul had not included good-cause in her budget, but lawmakers had signaled a desire to add it. Long Island developers and many suburban lawmakers, however, oppose the effort and argue it will make it more difficult to build new housing, as it would  impair their ability to finance projects.

State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said Thursday she wants “tenant protections” — but that could mean something other than good-cause, sources said.

But as some lawmakers more recently seemed to start pitting good-cause against the housing mandates, it provided a path for those who wanted neither.

Still on the table: A more incentive-based housing plan, which would encourage municipalities to build housing in exchange for infrastructure money and other funding streams.

That would be a win for the more moderate suburban lawmakers who’ve opposed both good cause eviction and housing mandates. But it’s already being couched as a loss for the left, as some observers wondered if the Regional Plan Association and other New York City-based housing advocates, along with the more progressive members of the legislature, spent too much time pushing the policies they wanted, without talking with anyone outside their silos or considering the potential for significant opposition that ultimately would sink their plan.

By Thursday, some advocates seemed to recognize the coming loss.

“Removing the #HousingCompact from budget negotiations removes the shared responsibility for creating more housing; removing mandates runs the risk of worsening the housing crisis across the state,” the RPA tweeted Thursday.

Another Housing Compact supporter, Welcoming Neighbors Network, tweeted: “Reforms as big & bold as Hochul’s Housing Compact rarely pass on their first run. But experience has shown that if advocates learn from the first experience, make adjustments to strategy, and continue to grow their coalition, they win before long.”

But this wasn’t “their first run.” After all, Hochul tried to push housing reforms focused on zoning and accessory dwelling units last year — and that, too, failed.

— Randi F. Marshall @RandiMarshall

Pencil Point

Breaking (the bank) news

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

Final Point

Assembly not likely to scrap judicial nominating committee

The bruising battles over judicial confirmations are almost over in Albany but the lingering animosity they created is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

State Senate Democrats are continuing their efforts to abolish the independent nominating process for the state’s top court which has been in place since 1978. But it's not likely to go much further.

Soon after Gov. Kathy Hochul nominated Hector LaSalle as chief judge of the Court of Appeals, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said the selection process should be changed to give the Senate more control over the candidates considered. Despite defeating LaSalle’s nomination and getting Rowan Wilson, who was included on the first list of candidates, confirmed for the job, the push continues. Michael Gianaris, the deputy majority leader, teed up the issue up again calling the system “arbitrary and not transparent,” in a Tuesday interview with Spectrum News.

But it may end up just a sop to the progressive movement, which in the end is unlikely to have accomplished their goal of moving the court to the left.

An initial canvas of Assembly sentiment by The Point doesn’t find much support for amending the state constitution to change the selection process. Amendments would have to be approved in two successive legislative sessions and then put before the voters as a referendum.

Unless there is a death or unexpected resignation, both of which have happened recently, there is not another opening for a while: Judges have 15-year terms. Associate Judge Jenny Rivera’s term expires in 2027 and she is likely to be reappointed. Rowan Wilson’s mandatory retirement comes due at age 70 in 2030, the same year Michael Garcia's term expires.

And the fallout is likely to linger. Assembly Democrats say they have heard from judges throughout the state, along with bar associations and good government groups who oppose the selection change. And there is concern in that chamber over the Senate’s aggressive stance toward the judiciary. More than one member mentioned the off-putting antagonism shown to Tamiko Amaker, acting chief administrative judge, in March during her testimony about the Office of Court Administration budget. Some Senate Democrats are threatening to reduce funding for the courts if there isn't mandatory training for judges on the new bail laws and new reporting requirements put in place.

That judicial budget hearing prompted a rebuttal from a spokesman for the OCA. “The measures contained in the Senate proposal far exceed proper oversight and are an affront to the constitutional separation of powers, undermining the healthy functioning of the three, co-equal branches of government,” said Lucian Chalfen, the spokesman.

With this atmosphere, it’s no surprise that the Senate proposals aren’t gaining much traction in the Assembly.

— Rita Ciolli @ritaciolli