New York’s housing crisis is undeniable. Rents are high, supply is tight and too many families are struggling to find a place to call home.
In response, Albany is advancing proposals like the REVIVE Act alongside Gov. Kathy Hochul’s Let Them Build agenda — efforts designed to cut red tape and accelerate development.
The goal is right. The challenge is getting the approach right, too. At the heart of the debate is a familiar tension: how to build faster without sacrificing thoughtful planning and public trust.
It’s not just about process; it’s about trust. Residents are more likely to support new housing when they believe their voices are heard. Developers are more likely to invest when rules are consistent. And elected officials are more effective when they can balance urgency with accountability.
Supporters of reform make a compelling case. New York’s development process is notoriously slow and expensive.
Reviews under the State Environmental Quality Review Act can stretch timelines by years, even for projects that ultimately pose little or no environmental risk.
According to state data, projects can take up to 56 percent longer to start compared with other states, and cost up to $45,000 per unit on Long Island. Those costs are usually passed on to renters and buyers. In a state where affordability is already a crisis, those inefficiencies matter.
The REVIVE Act seeks to address this by targeting underused commercial properties — shopping centers, office parks and large parking lots — and encouraging their conversion into housing. In concept, this is smart policy. Repurposing dormant or declining properties into vibrant residential communities can ease the housing shortage while revitalizing local economies.
But the concerns raised by local officials and residents are just as valid. Critics argue that the legislation could sideline local zoning authority, limit public hearings and reduce meaningful community input.
The inclusion of a “deemed approved” provision — allowing projects to move forward automatically if municipalities fail to act within an expedited timeline — is a flashpoint.
One side says projects would move forward without public hearings or meaningful community input. That might overstate the case, but it isn’t entirely off base. The proposal appears to compress timelines and shift leverage away from local governments. If those timelines are too tight, or if municipalities lack the resources to review complex proposals quickly, the result could be approvals by default rather than by design.
And what about the timeline itself? That remains a critical detail. Without clear and reasonable deadlines, “expedited” can quickly become “unworkable.” Municipal boards might need additional support to operate on state-imposed clocks. If they are rushed, oversight suffers. If they miss deadlines, community members may feel that decisions are being made for them, not with them.
Yet it would be a mistake to dismiss the need for reform altogether. Doing nothing is not an option. The current system is too slow, too costly and too unpredictable.
Developers face uncertainty and communities can miss opportunities.
The answer lies not in choosing sides, but in combining the best ideas from both. New York should streamline environmental review for projects that consistently demonstrate minimal impact, particularly those on previously developed sites. It should set clear, enforceable timelines for decisions.
Those timelines, however, must be realistic, and paired with resources, training and technical assistance for local governments. The state’s proposal to modernize permitting and create a “permitting academy” is a step in the right direction.
At the same time, local decision-making must be preserved. Communities deserve a voice in shaping their neighborhoods, especially when it comes to density, infrastructure and quality of life. Public hearings should not be eliminated, but they can be made more efficient and focused.
If “deemed approved” provisions are included, they must come with safeguards: flexibility for municipalities acting in good faith, transparency in the review process and mechanisms to ensure that projects meet clear standards before moving forward.
New York doesn’t need a rushed solution. It needs a smart one. Albany has an opportunity to get this right. By blending efficiency with oversight, and speed with community input, lawmakers can craft a housing policy that works for all.
