In a move that has sparked both support and criticism, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed changes to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to expedite housing projects by easing some environmental regulations. As New York faces a housing affordability crisis, Hochul aims to streamline the construction process, a move that has divided climate advocacy groups.
Originally enacted in 1975, SEQRA ensures that government agencies consider environmental impacts alongside social and economic factors when reviewing development projects. However, developers have long argued that SEQRA slows down construction and inflates costs. Hochul’s proposal seeks to address these concerns by exempting certain housing projects from additional environmental review if deemed to have “no significant impacts” by regulatory agencies.
Support for the proposal comes from some environmental nonprofits. “We are broadly supportive of the governor’s proposal,” said Patrick McClellan, Policy Director of the New York League of Conservation Voters. He highlighted the benefits of creating denser housing near mass transit as a positive step in combating climate change.
However, the proposal has met with opposition from other environmental groups who view it as a threat to essential environmental protections. Adrienne Esposito, head of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, expressed her concerns, stating, “Instead of using a scalpel to help build affordable housing, we would be using a machete to create an open season for developers.”
Under Hochul’s plan, exemptions would apply to New York City projects with up to 250 units, or 500 units in high-density areas, and to projects elsewhere in the state with up to 100 units on “previously disturbed” land connected to water and sewer systems.
A coalition of affordable housing groups and business organizations supports the plan, describing SEQRA as a “bottleneck” that hinders vital housing and infrastructure projects. However, some environmentalists argue that this bottleneck serves as a necessary safeguard against profit-driven development at the expense of the environment.
Critics, including the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter’s Roger Downs, believe the proposal misdiagnoses the housing crisis, attributing it more to land speculation and high rents than to permitting delays. “Merely blaming the environmental review process will only ensure that new unaffordable housing comes now with greater environmental impacts,” he said.
Concerns also arise from the proposal’s definition of “previously disturbed site,” which could potentially include farmland with minor existing structures. McClellan and Earthjustice’s Liz Moran have called for a more precise definition to prevent exploitation by developers.
As the state Senate and Assembly continue to hold hearings on the budget proposal, legislative leaders anticipate a contentious debate over the proposed changes to the environmental review process. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie noted the complexity of altering local community review processes, emphasizing the need for thorough discussion.
While environmental groups may not reach a consensus, McClellan remains hopeful that they can collectively offer recommendations to refine Hochul’s proposal. “If at the end of the day we still have disagreements with some other environmental groups, that’s fine,” he said. “That’s politics.”
Original Story at gothamist.com