← Max Politics
Max Politics
Dan Garodnick on 4 Years of Housing Progress in New York City & What Comes Next
01:05:08
Dan Garodnick — outgoing Director of the Departme…
Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:08]
B
Hello and welcome to Max Politics. This is Ben Max coming to you from New York Law School and its center for New York City and State Law. Thanks for tuning in for this episode of the show. Speaking here on Thursday, January 22, 2026. My guest today is Dan Garadnik. He's the outgoing director of the New York City Department of City Planning and chair of the City Planning Commission, positions here he's held for the last four years after being appointed by Mayor Eric Adams. Dan Gorodnik recently informed the new Mayor, Zoram Hamdani, that he'll be moving on from city government, but he's helping with the transition process as the Mamdadi administration looks for a new director of City Planning. Dan Garadnik is also a member of the MTA board nominated there by Mayor Adams as well, and serving as the transportation authority that's in charge of the subways and buses and more has been in its own particularly interesting and important phase, including major capital plans and the launch of congestion pricing. Guests has led much of New York City's planning efforts and housing policy development over the last four years, which even Eric Adams critics often acknowledge were very strong years for housing and planning in the city. So we'll discuss a number of the highlights of those actions here on the show today and lessons learned and revisit some of the battles and negotiations as well as broader issues and opportunities and challenges related to housing planning, growth, economic development. And we'll get into a bit of what the city should do next to take advantage of the major changes of recent years at the city and state levels, as well as very recently passed items like the city charter amendments through ballot proposals approved by voters that will speed up review of certain housing proposals in the city. Also new policy proposals from Governor Hochul related to speeding up housing approvals and some elements of Mayor Mamdani's agenda on housing and more. Dan Gorodnik worked closely with Mayor Adams, but also with Deputy Mayor Maria Torres Springer and a number of other top officials over the last several years, along of course with the staff at the Department of City Planning and beyond. He's also had to work closely with and negotiate with members of the New York City Council and former Speaker Adrian Adams, which had final say on a lot of what the Eric Adams administration moved toward approval, whether a massive overhaul of the city's zoning code, the first one done in six decades, and that was known as City of Yes, which had three parts City of Yes for carbon neutrality, City of Yes for economic development and City of Yes for housing opportunity. They also advanced five neighborhood rezonings, working very closely with City Council members and much more. Dan Gorodnik was particularly apt at those negotiations, in part because he's a former member of the New York City Council. He represented parts of the east side of Manhattan for 12 years in the council, and he formerly practiced practice as an attorney. And in between his time in the City Council and as City Planning Director, he led Riverside park in Manhattan. Dan Gorodnik, with me in just a moment. Briefly, if you've missed any recent episodes of the show, my two most recent conversations were with the two Democratic candidates right now in the running in this year's election. A June primary coming up in New York's 10th congressional district. That's lower Manhattan, and a big swath of Brooklyn, incumbent Representative Congressman Dan Goldman and his Democratic primary challenger, former City Comptroller Brad Lander. I spoke with Brad Lander and Dan Goldman each for about an hour recently here on the show. Really good conversations about Dan Goldman's case for reelection, Brad Lander's case for election, where they agree, where they disagree, several issues facing the city and the country. Really interesting conversations there, as that primary is one of many in the city heating up ahead of the June congressional primaries, which will also be be the time for primaries at the state level. And there's a lot of state and federal elections on the docket this year. A bunch of other good conversations in the podcast feed, including on issues related to transit and creating a more livable city, and a very interesting exit interview with Diane Savino, who was a top advisor to Mayor Eric Adams and a former state senator, getting her thoughts on the Adams years and more. Lots to check out in the Max Politics feedback after you listen to this one. All right, Dan Gorodnik is with me now. He's the director of the Department of City Planning, chair of the City Planning Commission, a member of the MTA board. Dan, thanks for joining me again here on the podcast. How are you?
- [04:35]
A
I'm doing great. Thanks, Ben, for having me back.
- [04:39]
B
Thanks for taking the time. So a lot of listeners to this podcast are pretty familiar with the Department of City Planning, but when you capture this work that you've been doing for four years and you're wrapping up in the coming weeks or maybe months, how do you capture for people what this job is, the director of City Planning, the chair of the City Planning Commission, how do you explain to someone who doesn't really know city government well what it actually is that this role is all about?
- [05:09]
A
Yeah, I appreciate the Question, because it tends to boggle the minds of a lot of people and for good reason. My role is, as you pointed out, pointed out, two parts. One is the director of the Department of City Planning, which is like running any city agency like the Department of Transportation or the Parks Department or the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Then I'm also the chair of the City Planning Commission, which is a 13 member commission which has a role in approving land use actions as they go through the city's process. The role that I have is the one which is the bridge between the Department of City Planning, which essentially prepares and evaluates applications from private entities or initiates its own applications on behalf of the city to make changes to land use rules. And when they are ready, it goes into the formal process for evaluation, which is where the City Planning Commission comes in. The community boards, borough presidents, and city council have a chance to weigh in and amend and approve or disapprove them. So think of the department as the evaluative, making sure that the technical pieces are there, and the commission as part of the approval process. And my role is the bridge between the two.
- [06:44]
B
And so much of this work is saying, what does the city have? What does the city need? Who lives here? How many. How many people want to live here? Are people leaving? Are people coming? And taking into consideration all of the things that a city has to offer. Right. I mean, a lot of the focus is on housing, but you also have to consider whether, you know, generally speaking, there's school seats and open space and sewer lines and all sorts of things like that. I mean, when we think broadly about city planning, I mean, we're taking in the totality of it. So you're seeing, you're seeing everything in the city come across your desk in this role, right?
- [07:25]
A
That's correct. You know, we've spent a fair amount of time talking about housing, but we also have done a lot of work as it relates to economic development and the environment. And the environment. We've got a population division, we have a regional planning division, and we. And sustainability and, you know, we work with our sister agencies consistently to think about how to make necessary infrastructure investments around the city as a way to both spur growth and also to complement our rezonings, our neighborhood planning processes, our citywide initiatives. So, yes, we see it all and we consider it all when we are trying to make changes in neighborhoods or certainly when we do things citywide.
- [08:18]
B
How much of this job is master negotiator? It seems like it is an immense amount of dealing with people with varied interests, whether it's in city government, private developers, other agencies, the mayor, other elected officials. And you are sort of at the fulcrum of all of that, trying to hear people's concerns, push forward initiatives that you really want to get done. You know, seemingly the sort of skill set that you've brought to the position is, is, is one that you know is the reason that you were, you were hired for it. But say a little bit about how much it's negotiator in chief here.
- [09:01]
A
Well, I do think that it's really important to have an understanding of what people's interests are, to know what is bringing them to the table, what is prompting objections in many cases, or even what's prompting their support. And being able to get a real handle on what is driving people and what is motivating them is very important to having success. You are correct to observe that one of the reasons why I made a case for myself in the role was I thought that bridging the gap between very complicated jargony, technical material and the public realm and elected officials was an important skill to have in the role. And I continue to think that it is a really, really important piece of the puzzle. So not only being able to understand where people are coming from, their interests, what's driving them, but also be able to explain complicated, nuanced issues in a way that aren't so scary. My feeling is, as a general matter, if people don't understand what you're talking about, they're going to, they're going to and should distrust what you're saying. I remember being on the receiving end of initiatives coming out of the Department of City Planning when I was in the, in the council. And I remember feeling like it was very inaccessible and that even somebody like me who was trying very hard to make sure that I was ready and thoughtful and you know, trying to go deep into the material, I found it to be incredibly difficult. And that has been central to the way that we have operated over the past four years as a way to be able to, to bridge a lot of those gaps.
- [11:12]
B
And at the same time, a big ethos of the work has been this city of yes theme. And you had a three part overhaul to the city zoning code, the biggest rewrite in what, 60 plus years of the rules around land use in the city. And you had as you got at a piece related to the environment, you had a piece and you know, climate related issues, you had an economic opportunity and development piece. And then you had the big housing opportunity Piece in this three pronged city of. Yes, rezoning. But before we get into any of those details or, Bridget, if you'd like, part of the whole thing here was this. This was going to be sort of the mantra of these years. Say a little bit about making that become true and needing to. In that work that you were talking about, about explaining things to people in terms they could understand, about hearing people's concerns, about negotiating, about getting things to approval, you were carrying in. And really, you know, one of the key voices, if not the key voice, perhaps other than the mayor, who's got the biggest bully pulpit, you know, around talking about it being a city of yes, and what that means. Say a little bit about that ethos of these last years and how it potentially carries forward.
- [12:33]
A
Yeah, Well, I think it was the right moment for us to take some big swings around reforms here. As you pointed out, we didn't do it just once or twice. We did it three times citywide for different initiatives. We saw that our zoning was not keeping pace with where we wanted our policy results to be. And that was true for the environment, economic development. Coming out of the pandemic, lots of rules were keeping us from being able to grow and evolve as a city. And certainly with housing, where we have for so long been in a housing crisis, people have taken it as a fact of life that that's just how we have to be. And we said, well, we don't need to live like this. We have the power to make these changes. So animating all of this was a moment that we felt like coming out of the pandemic with the new administration and the mayor who was willing to allow us to go forth and take a big swing. We, you know, we took these three initiatives and we, you know, we made them into what we call the city of yes, which was, I think, thematically, you know, appropriate because it really was saying, let's get out from under these rules that were okay in 1961, perhaps, but for 2024, 2025 and beyond, no good, not so good. You know, no references to recycling or composting in the zoning resolution. Limitations on where you could do manufacturing, including very low impact manufacturing, like a jewelry maker or a 3D printer, because manufacturing in 1961 was a very different sort of experience. And certainly with housing, where we spent many years starting in 1961 and then certainly going forward, recognizing that we were in a housing crisis, but also making it more and more difficult to actually add housing through our zoning resolution, we thought it was time to Say yes to a little more housing in every neighborhood and create an opportunity to do more. So that was what drove it. That's why we referred to it that way. And these were the biggest changes to zoning in the city's history. Certainly on housing, you know, we've never done a housing supply initiative citywide. So that was one that stood all by itself. And even in prior citywide zoning text amendments like the ones that were done under the de Blasio administration, like mih, which required mandatory affordable housing in new developments that had increases in density, more permission from the city, and through zqa, which was one which changed some parking requirements and enabled for more flexibility for senior housing and things like that. Those initiatives didn't create any housing, none. So, you know, we are, you know, so proud of what we were able to accomplish here because I think, frankly that, you know, most mayors in history had not actually even been willing to take the shot. So I feel a lot of satisfaction that we were able to, to get it done.
- [16:28]
B
So what did you, I mean, what did you get done in more real terms in terms of the housing crisis, particularly? So if you rewrite the zoning code in a significant way, what is that going to mean? What does that allow? We just saw the passage of the city of yes, for Housing Opportunity, which was sort of merged with a city council package called City for All, which included some more funding for different things and additional promises to pursue different policies. And we can get into some of that maybe later. But this was only passed, you know, a year or so ago, say a little bit about what it actually is going to do and lead to for the city's future.
- [17:07]
A
Well, focusing on housing, we can put aside the environmental and the economic development for a moment and go back to them if you wish. But on housing, housing, where we wanted to open the door to allow for a little bit more everywhere, that meant for, you know, lower density neighborhoods, the ability to add an accessory dwelling unit on your own property if you wish. It meant on an area's near transit, on wide streets and on the short end of a block, the ability to add a three, four or five story apartment building or on a commercial strip, what we call a commercial overlay in zoning, the ability to do a three, four or five story building in those areas which are very well suited for having mixed uses. Commercial at the base, residential up above, allows for people to live closer to where they get their services. All those things were things that we enabled in lower density areas. In our medium and high density areas, we created a bonus for Affordable housing. We allowed for office to residential conversions. And we significantly changed our parking rules citywide to reduce the conflict that we were seeing between mandatory parking and the need for housing. Where, you know, we heard from architects and developers who were like, you know, the first thing we do when we look at a project is we say, okay, how much parking do we need to put in here? And then we design the building after that without regard for are we right on top of a train station or do we need the parking here? So we thought it was very important for us to modify those rules and make it so the city was not mandating in so many areas the parking, but that it would be more neighborhood by neighborhood or even building by building based on need. So now, in answer to your question about what are we seeing, what's happened? Well, we're seeing some success. I mean, this thing passed over a year ago and this is intended to be a generational change. I mean, I expect we're going to be talking about this. Well, maybe not you and me, Ben, but somebody will be talking about this in 2085. Maybe we'll see in 2085. You know, modern technology, we'll see. But you know, 2085, you know, look, 60 years into the future, this should be the sort of thing which continues to create opportunities for more housing over time. But even in a year, we're seeing success across a lot of different aspects of the program. Office conversions, a big star here with over 12,000 of them in the pipeline. 12,000 homes in the pipeline, more than 3,000 of them permanently affordable thanks to the 467m tax incentive from the state. We're also seeing use of new high density zoning districts. I forgot to mention those in my list of things that were in the plan. But we, we created new districts which were higher density than what was a 12 far. Now I'm getting into the weeds. But 12 far limit that was, you know, prescribed by the state of New York. We got that change. You could do more dense residential development in New York City. We got the state to change those rules. And then we created a tool in this initiative that allowed us to use it. So now those tools are being used. Midtown south, we use them. 125th street, at the end of the Second Avenue subway that's being used there. Downtown Brooklyn, the tools are already being employed. That universal affordability preference, the bonus for affordable. We've seen there's 100 projects across all five boroughs that have applied for this program. And we're starting to see people take advantage of the ADU opportunities in their own backyards or attics or garages. So we're seeing real take up, which is very satisfying one year in.
- [21:40]
B
And so when you combine the rewrite of the zoning with the neighborhood plans that you've passed, what are you estimating to add on to the housing stock of the city over the next, I don't know, decade? That wouldn't have happened without these changes.
- [21:57]
A
So it's about 130,000 homes that are enabled through the City of Yes for housing initiative, which was 82,000, and our five neighborhood plans, which were about 50,000.
- [22:14]
B
And again, these are estimates based on expected uptake. As you were just getting at. There's some data from year one or so, but, you know, more to be seen in terms of how these actually play out and then we can get to this in a few minutes. But they also coincide with other policies at the city and state levels, like affordable housing, tax breaks and, you know, all sorts of different things. The ballot questions that were passed and so forth.
- [22:37]
A
Absolutely correct to point out that when you pass the zoning changes, that does not flip a switch and the buildings go up. And there are a lot of things that, that come into play. And you hope, you hope that people do the things that you expect them to do through a rigorous analysis and a, you know, prognostication about what likely will happen. But based on our environmental review and study of what these plans do, 130,000 new homes. And just to put that in context for you, Ben, that is in four years, more homes that were enabled through zoning changes in the past 20 years combined. And it's not only more, it's 30% more in four years than what were delivered through zoning changes in the past 20. So this was a very, very big step. And I think that people will look at the City of Yes initiative in these five neighborhood plans as the moment we started to turn the tide on this housing crisis. And it is really a very, very important step that we took because, you know, I think people are seeing now that the human costs of not having enough housing in New York City and there is more of a willingness to embrace some level of change here. And so very important.
- [24:17]
B
Stephen, ask you about that culturally because obviously you got enough city council members significantly enough to get on board with the City of Yes rewrite. You worked with city council members on the neighborhood plans. Of course, that's sort of a labor intensive negotiation with the local council member or members if the rezoning is going to, you know, go across districts where you're really, you know, adjusting zoning in a certain area of the city, but then you're making all sorts of other promises about investments and so forth in those neighborhoods, school seats and parks and things like that that come along with some of the zoning changes. But, but so you've, you know, you've gotten that. But then we also saw with the passage of the ballot questions, which I wasn't sure that putting questions before voters around, fast tracking housing were going to pass. I wasn't sure that, you know, people who are living in the city already and in many cases have stable housing. We're going to, you know, be on board with seemingly some of this sort of much more broad approach to yes in my backyard and abundance and some of these, you know, terms that we've been using in recent years to really describe a new approach to a city of yes type of atmosphere. But I've been a little surprised with how much sort of uptake there's been among elected officials. And of course, that's often reflective of how their constituents are feeling. We know there's so much stress on renters especially, and there's a homelessness crisis and doubling up and all of this. We know that. And so a lot of those people are voting, of course, and people paying high rents. But have you been surprised by how much the atmosphere has changed and how voters approve those ballot questions to speed up housing development and how this has all moved? Or you're so in the weeds of the crisis that you understand how people couldn't see it any other way? Because I've been a little surprised by the atmosphere change.
- [26:11]
A
Well, I think I share your surprise for this too, although one of the reasons why I think that we have seen the change in attitude is because we've been doing a much better job connecting the dots here. You know, adding housing is mission critical to changing the dynamic. For examples, for example, between landlords and tenants in New York City, there are a lot of renters in New York, and there's a lot of renters that have very little leverage relative to their landlord. Why? Well, because they don't have a good option waiting on the other side. So when a landlord presents to you your lease renewal with an increase that you believe to be exorbitant and unreasonable, well, if you have three other options which are competitive, bigger, nicer, cheaper, whatever, anything, literally anything, well, you're in a very strong position to negotiate the terms of that lease if you have nothing that you could possibly go to that could even remotely resemble where you are now. Regardless of whether it is meeting your family's specific needs, whether it's too big or too small or anywhere in any direction, you're at the mercy of what that lease renewal is presented to you. Same thing for repairs, Same thing for anything where a landlord is setting the terms or a tenant has a need. And, you know, in a housing scarcity environment, that's a landlord's market, people are beginning to understand that we need housing supply to balance that out, to reduce those dynamics. Also the pressures of gentrification, displacement, certainly homelessness, we have to create a lot more housing across the board. And I think people are now seeing much more clearly the connection between those dynamics there. And, you know, starting in the last several years, to me, this has been the first moment in my time in public life where I think that people are really actively making that connection. And you are right. When they approved those ballot measures to make it easier and to create more processes for more streamlined approval, the voters of New York City were very clearly saying that they wanted to see more and they wanted to make sure that things get approved, particularly affordable housing. And I think we should all take note of that.
- [29:22]
B
Now, a lot of this work of the last four years, of course, was led by yourself. It was led by Deputy Mayor Maria Torres Springer, other housing officials, obviously the every. Everyday civil servants at all the departments and in the mayor's office. And, you know, too many people, obviously the list, and there's so many people doing the work, but at the. At the leadership level, you know, deputy mayors and housing commissioners and the director of city planning, but at the top was Mayor Adams. And as much as, you know, he's been unpopular for a whole bunch of reasons, I think people are putting housing as sort of the number one thing to give him credit for. How do you think about his legacy on this front?
- [30:03]
A
I mean, I think he was really, really good on this issue. I think that he made it very clear that he wanted to see more housing production, and he gave us that mandate. We took him very seriously and went out and took a big swing at the problem. And I will say that mayors operate in a political environment which is complicated. I certainly went to my share of community conversations with the mayor and saw the various issues that people were raising and what they were upset about and what sort of inbound critiques he was getting. And as it related to housing, at no moment did he flinch or hesitate or backtrack. He was clear. And he was a tremendous advocate for the city of yes. Initiatives and for our neighborhood plans. And that Gave us room to go out and do what we needed to do out in the city to be able to make a case for it. And so I think you're right. I think that this will prove to be one of, if not the biggest accomplishments of the Adams years. And, you know, I feel very proud to have played a role in that.
- [31:36]
B
Now, at the same time, he deeply muddied, let's say, the relationship between the two sides of City Hall. There was a lot of conflict. Again, I'm not going to put it all on him. There was obviously City Council Speaker Adrian Adams and other council members throwing a lot at him. We won't go into now how much was deserved in this direction or that, but it was a very difficult relationship. He had his indictment, he had all sorts of scandals. He had people resigning. And you had to keep doing this work and keep negotiating with City Council members and the City Council speaker. How much harder was that? And some people have described it that there were sort of two administrations going on. There was like the administration vertical that you had and Maria Torres Springer and some other folks, Andrew Kimball at EDC and some other people in like Housing and Planning and things like that. And then there was a lot of the chaos in other areas. Is that a fair description? How hard was it to navigate through all of this and come out on the other side pretty victorious on policy?
- [32:48]
A
I think it's fair to say that all of the stuff you mentioned presented challenges. And there was a very difficult relationship between the mayor and the council throughout this entire period of time. And, you know, the timing of some of the things. The mayoral indictment happened on the day. The day that the City Planning Commission passed City of yes. For Housing Opportunity, putting it on a 60 day track for the City Council's consideration and approval, which I can assure you was not the most favored circumstance. Not exactly how we had planned that. So the degree of difficulty there was high. But we stayed focused on the substance. And to the council's credit, the Speaker's credit, they understood that we were on the verge of doing something truly historic here. And they had spent enough time advocating for more housing citywide. They passed a bill requiring that there be targets set district by district on housing production. They, you know, through so much of their advocacy had made it clear that a council priority was going to include adding housing. I think for a lot of the reasons that I was describing before, I think that council members to a large degree had adopted this notion that, well, we're in a real problem here in New York City. If we don't move much quicker on this issue. So they saw the opportunity to. And they were willing to continue the engagement even through some of those challenges. Mayor, of course, stood firm even through all of that, too. And the end result was a negotiated solution where the council, you know, added some significant funding components to this. This package, which is something that, you know, we certainly anticipated in any event. But it was something that was meaningful and good and they really kept money. Governor came in. Governor to her credit, was, you know, has been a great advocate on this, and the council kept the proposal largely intact and did something really extraordinary. So, you know, I think that, you know, particularly in the moments where things got a little choppy or turbulent, a lot of credit to the council for not just throwing up their hands or using this as a moment to say, hey, you know what, this is too complicated, the moment is too complicated. Our relationship is too fraught here, but actually to do the hard thing and get it done. So I also give them a fair amount of credit for this as well.
- [36:01]
B
One thing that has stuck out to me about how that came together that I think is instructive for the future that I wanted to ask you about is there were some modifications made to the proposal that reduced the amount of housing expected to come out of the city of. Yes, changes. Right. So there was some negotiation with the council that led to some, you know, let's say, scaling back of the ambition of the zoning changes about what is allowed and where now, seemingly those concessions would be needed to get the most affected council members to come along with the proposal. But correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of the. A lot of the areas of the city where those concessions were made to sort of appease those elected officials or those communities, those council members still voted against it. Was that something that, in retrospect, maybe those concessions shouldn't have been made if it wasn't going to get people on board with the. With the proposal. I know there were some marginal votes that also came along that did want some of those concessions and some of the, as you got it earlier, some of the nuance to still allow some parking requirements with development and it wasn't fully eliminated, but it was, you know, scaled back significantly, that parking is required, you know, in certain areas, things like that. But how do you think about those negotiations and sort of lessons, you know, going forward for a mayoral administration or a new city council speaker that we have in Julie Menon in trying to bring votes along and things like that?
- [37:33]
A
I had trust in the speaker and her team to make the amendments that they felt were necessary to bring along the votes that were necessary to get this done. I don't think that they over did on giving things away in areas where votes were still nos to the contrary. I actually think that they held this proposal fundamentally together in a way which is really impressive considering political challenges, considering that there were 20 full votes against this in the city council. 20 votes, Ben. That doesn't happen every day. You know, I was 12 years in the council. I don't remember that many 31 to 20 vote situations with a level of passion that people had on both sides of the issue. So I think that it was important for them to make some modifications to be able to assuage some concerns. And that is absolutely what you would expect in any proposal of that size. What you might not expect is that every component piece that we started with in this plan remained. There was not a removal of accessory dwelling units or town center zoning or transit oriented Development or universal affordability preference or, you know, the parking changes were modified but not eliminated. There was, there's a lot of stuff that, you know, we have to be realistic about a political process. But fundamentally what they did was nothing short of, of an extraordinary and historic move for the city. And they adopted most of what we had proposed. And I'm very grateful for that.
- [39:34]
B
What should the next mayor and the next city council build on? You know, if you had a top few agenda items for them that sort of build directly off of what you've been doing these four years. Is it revisiting any of the things you just mentioned? Like Mayor Mamdani was very assertive that he was against all parking requirements. You know, open that back up perhaps. Or you just mentioned, you know, again, transit oriented Development seems like one of the biggest areas that people across the spectrum, you know, often point to as like the best, you know, case scenario for more housing is put it right near or very close to mass transit, you know, stops. There could be a revisiting of some elements in the zoning code around that, or maybe it's things out of zoning. But what are, what are some top of mind things for you that you think the next mayor who's obviously here now and the next speaker who's here now, what should they be building on in terms of advancing your, your work of the last four years?
- [40:33]
A
Well, let me, let me say this. I mean, so I'm still around at the Department of City Planning and helping them think through some of that even, even now. And I do think that, you know, Mayor Mamdani has cited the City of Yes initiative as something he would like to build on. And I think that that's good because I think that it really was a meaningful change and there are avenues to grow and evolve that initiative. I don't think retreading on old stuff, it's too fast to me because we just went through that battle. Who wants to reopen old wounds that are not that anyway? But I do think that there are areas and he talks a lot about Transit Oriented Development. Finding ways to to do some meaningful changes around certain transit hubs or stations either in particular areas or citywide. Finding ways to reform the environmental review process he has already made as a priority, as has the governor.
- [41:47]
B
Yep.
- [41:48]
A
Which is a very unsexy but super meaningful part of this process because people spend, you know, a couple years of time trying to navigate through the pre application process before they even get into the political challenges that exist out there for a land use change. There's a couple years of pre game here that are really challenging and expensive and the state has the ability to modify that as well. And I also think that there's ways to speed up the regulatory environment after an approval. So you've got your pre application. So that's the environmental stuff. You have your. During the application time period. That's our official ulurp, official charter defined process. That's city planning commission, borough presidents, community board and council, which is modified somewhat by some recent charter changes. The after approval is also important and it's also an avenue which a mayor has real authority, which is getting rules up and running, getting approval of permits going, making sure that there is clarity in both enforcement and approvals in a way that allows individual homeowners or other private interests to know what to expect and know how to proceed. My view is the city can always set good, clear, even tough rules defining the environment for development, whether it's for a single family homeowner or for a building as large as one Vanderbilt or the JPMorgan Chase building. As long as the city is clear and sets its rules in a way that people can understand, it doesn't zig and zag all over the place, the city's interests will be met and the private interests will find a way to comply with them. But it's very important for the city to speak with a single voice, to not deviate, set its priorities and then let something happen. Because that's the way that things will happen most successfully in New York.
- [44:23]
B
Are there big picture ways that we do planning in the city that need a rethink Are there, you know, other structural things? You know, there was a lot of debate several years back that's kind of waned a bit about comprehensive planning. Are there things from your vantage point that, you know, need a. Need a good hard look, a rethink, or do you think between City of. Yes. The ballot questions, you know, some of the other things that have been changed over the last few years that, you know, there's been a lot of change, and let's see how it all plays out. First, before thinking more structurally, I think
- [45:02]
A
that the ballot changes, the charter amendments, are a significant enough change that we should see how that modifies this dynamic. I mean, we have seen a land use process for many, many years that is very specific, and it's defined in the way it's been defined. And now that was just pretty significantly changed by the voters of New York City. And it includes things as simple as, you know, some projects will end their approval at the City Planning Commission. There will be an appeal of some projects if they are modified or turned down by the council. And then, of course, you know, There will be 12 community districts identified at some point later this year as those districts which are underperforming on housing, and then they will have a special process for approval. All of this stuff is very meaningful and will change the dynamic in a way that I think, you know, nobody quite can predict exactly what it will mean for whom and when. But it certainly is another avenue for approval of complicated projects, which I think, you know, people are taking note of and thinking about what it means for them and for their own properties.
- [46:38]
B
Yeah. I mean, the streamline approval of certain projects, but then also, as you got at the lowest, producing 12 community districts and getting fast tracking in those areas. I mean, that this could be, you know, a real sea change that builds on top of City of. Yes. And, you know, other programs that have been, you know, passed at the state and city levels that, yeah, this. The whole landscape here seemingly is. Is changing pretty quickly now, but we'll see how it all plays out in reality. To get to some of what you outlined a minute ago, you know, Mayor Mamdani has talked a lot about public excellence, about understaffing at agencies. It might not be the most exciting topic to talk about, but just even briefly, does the Department of City Planning need sort of like, you know, to be supercharged in a way to allow more work to happen more quickly, or do you think there isn't necessarily the political appetite for, like, having more neighborhood rezonings, you know, in the Pipeline at the same time and things like that, that over complicates and overextends, you know, what the city can do.
- [47:47]
A
Well, the short answer is it depends on what the agenda is. We were able to do the biggest things the city has really ever done with the current team that we have at the Department of City Planning. You know, we changed our focus, we refocused the culture, we put our. We created a new division for the purpose of community engagement. We, we have done a lot of things that were designed to make the work a lot more accessible and also to make things faster and easier for applicants. There's more to do there. But I also think that, you know, there's ways to use your people creatively and to make sure they're motivated and moving fast. And depending on what the mayor's agenda ends up being here, either that will be able to be accomplished with the existing team or it will need more resources. I will note that one of the changes in the charter amendments was taking some of the topographical units, the mapping and moving that from borough president offices to the Department of City Planning. There's an example of an area where the Department of City Planning will inevitably need more resources. But on the specific planning, neighborhoods, citywides, etc. The short answer is it depends on what precisely that looks like.
- [49:17]
B
Does all the concern over the mayor's promise rent freezes on rent stabilized apartments and the distress in a lot of rent, largely rent stabilized buildings, does that come across your purview at all? Is that something you can work on at City Planning or have looked at, or is that more of a, of a separate issue given it's the rent? It's the like existing rent stabilized stock and it's concern for the older, older buildings with higher numbers of rent stabilized units, where if rents are getting frozen or even there's very small increases, they're not able to make up for increased expenses and they're getting more and more distressed.
- [49:57]
A
It's not something that specifically crosses the desk of the Department of City Planning, except that we pay attention to these sorts of things and note that there obviously are a lot of buildings that are struggling out there and are, you know, are vulnerable and you're seeing foreclosures and bankruptcies and things like that based on existing rent rolls and expenses. So I think that that's a point that deserves public focus and consideration and make sure that, you know, the balance is right here between finding ways to look after tenants and also making sure that our housing stock is livable and is accessible. So I think that there's a variety of questions. They're not specifically Department of City Planning questions, but I think that they're extremely important.
- [50:54]
B
Right. As you're getting at it fits into the larger view you take of what the city needs and has and, and, and all that Last few questions for you, Dan Gorodnik, I appreciate all the time. I assume there's got to be some examination already underway around the Interborough Express and this light rail line that that's going to have a lot of stops in Brooklyn and Queens. Is that something that, you know, City Planning is going to be probably taking a very close and detailed look at in the near future to plan for some of that Transit Oriented Development as that project moves ahead?
- [51:33]
A
Short answer is yes, it's a great and exciting transit initiative in its own right. I certainly, as a member of the MTA board, am very excited to have supported the early plans to get that going. And yes, it does present real opportunities for thoughtful planning. And that work is, you know, is already being contemplated at the Department of City Planning. And we have certainly we're well aware of the opportunity, but, you know, it's also some time away. So we want to make sure that we're coordinating properly here
- [52:16]
B
in the city. For all Deal, there was agreement on looking at several other neighborhood planning studies. And I know you got five neighborhood plans passed then. You also have put out some, you know, plans in recent months that, you know, are in early phases, a big Manhattan plan and some other things. But are there neighborhood plans that you're excited about or that you, you know, want to encourage your, you know, department as, as you move on to your next adventure, you know, to, to continue to pursue or prioritize?
- [52:54]
A
Well, it is clear it's correct to say that we did make commitments as part of city asked for housing to advance certain conversations in some neighborhoods, which we have done. I will let the mayor announce his own neighborhood plans because I think that is something that he should do when he is ready. But I do think that there are opportunities in a variety of neighborhoods that I think will allow him and his administration to build on into the future. But I think we should give him the opportunity to announce this.
- [53:33]
B
Figured you'd say that. Just for listeners, the list in the city for all Deal was to initiate planning studies for Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn, East Flatbush in Brooklyn, Harlem river north in the Bronx, White Plains Road in the Bronx. And I know in my conversations with the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queensborough presidents, they've also suggested some other Neighborhoods in the city that could be interesting for some rezoning. So will be very interesting to see what is announced. And I figured.
- [54:04]
A
And isn't that terrific though? Love that. Love that the borough presidents are advocating for neighborhood rezonings and want to see more housing. It's more of that point that we discussed earlier, which reflects the moment that we are in and I find that very encouraging.
- [54:23]
B
And the new speaker of the City Council, Julie Menon, is out there talking about being much more proactive in terms of housing and wanting to put out a council affordable housing plan. And obviously Speaker Adrian Adams, as you got at, has gotten a lot of credit from people for taking on housing as an issue and getting city of yes and city for all through, especially in some of those delicate political moments that we talked about. There's other conversation out there around better using public sites and land like libraries and building either building. We've seen a little bit of this new libraries with housing on top, doing that perhaps with more schools, looking at, you know, either building new schools that are mixed use facilities or perhaps looking at existing schools. There's obviously always conversation around NYCHA infill development and any of these things or other ideas out there that you're particularly excited about or would suggest, you know, to the next administration to take a close look at.
- [55:24]
A
Yeah, well, I think the important thing about public sites, and it does tend to occupy a lot of political conversation because it feels easiest. And I just want to caution your listeners that when they hear public sites as, you know, either a silver bullet or a cure all to these questions. It's not. It's a good opportunity in certain circumstances, but it's very difficult in many circumstances to execute, evaluate them all, activate the ones you can. But it's, it's in many cases the city has found the sites that it owns and has either put out RFPs for the purpose of developing affordable housing on them. Great. Or they're weird and unusually shaped sites where it's very difficult to do anything. Or you have an existing school or library or whatever and those require relocations and moving things around for years while development happens. All really exciting opportunities. But they are not as simple as sometimes they are presented in the public discourse. But they are important.
- [56:58]
B
Okay, so you have been around a while now, 12 years.
- [57:06]
A
I beg your pardon? Ben, I don't know what you're trying to say here.
- [57:10]
B
You're a veteran. What's broken in city government that doesn't get enough attention? You were in the city council, you did a lot of oversight. You Chaired different committees. Now, you've obviously been leading a city agency and the commission for the last four years. You're on the MTA board. You ran a park. What's. What's broken in city government? You know, Mayor Mamdani has talked a lot about, you know, fixing government. Obviously, lots of elected officials talk about fixing government. That's the job. But what's something broken in the way we do things or in city government that needs more attention, that doesn't get talked about enough or is getting talked about enough? But you have a. A solution to any, any other big picture thoughts on sort of how we get a better government in New York? And, you know, people feel like government's, you know, fixing things rather than, you know, taking too long to address the problems the city faces.
- [58:05]
A
I think that, I mean, well, you just, you. You sort of answered the question in the way that I was going to answer it, which is, I think too often city government is an impediment as opposed to a partner for changes that we want to see as a city. And that could be true for housing creation. Yes, but it's also true for small businesses or for creating an environment, for solar panels on the roofs of buildings, or, you know, even for starting up a new venture or locating a new venture. In New York City government and New York City, we're the best. We know we're the best. But we should not get so comfortable to believe that we shouldn't be hustling to perform. And the city government needs to be refocused to treat all of its constituents. And whatever agency you're talking about, whatever need you're talking about, to prioritize New Yorkers, their problems, their challenges, treat them like the most valued clients that they are, and to deliver services in a way that is meaningful and fast and complete and unwavering. And that, to me, is something. It was something which actually motivated me to run for office in the first place when I did it so many years ago. Ben, thank you very much. But it was something which I tried to do in my own council office, certainly tried to do at the Department of City Planning. And I do think that writ large, the city has a lot more room to be able to do better on performance delivery. And I think that that should be a priority all around.
- [60:19]
B
Before I ask you a quick question about what you may do next, you're departing city government. There was a lot of reporting out there that you were in conversations about a deputy mayor role. Is there anything you want to say about what happened there with Mayor Mamdani. And nothing working out to stay in city government. Is it as simple as you had conversations and it didn't work out, or was there, you know, more to it in terms of the fit or, you know, the possibilities? How come city government's losing you?
- [60:52]
A
Well, I had some conversations with the mayor about his vision, the city, the future, and, you know, after four productive years, it felt like the right moment for me to close this chapter and move on to other things. I wish him all the best. They were. They were good conversations. I think he is a very thoughtful guy who wants to do well. And even outside of government, I remain, you know, ready to. To be a partner and think about how I can be useful. But it's time for me to go and have some new adventures, Ben, and I'm excited about that.
- [61:37]
B
What does any of this mean for your MTA board role?
- [61:42]
A
Well, I am now a holdover on the MTA board, which is what happens when your term is officially up and nobody has yet been appointed to replace you. So. Open question there. That will be up to the mayor to decide what he wants to see for his four appointees on the MTA board.
- [62:04]
B
Gotcha. And what do you want to do next? What are you looking for?
- [62:08]
A
Well, it's a good question. Something I'm thinking about actively right now. We'll be around at the Department of City Planning and the Commission for another few weeks, and then I, you know, we'll sort it all out. But I'm not. I'm not in a huge rush. I have had a tremendous experience, you know, working with the. The people at the Department of City Planning. They are truly incredible public servants. I feel grateful for having had the opportunity. I'm ready to take a minute, recharge a little bit, and then think about the very good question that you have just asked me, which I have not yet sorted out, but. But I'll look forward to reporting back to you.
- [62:54]
B
All right. And is it more likely government or more sector?
- [62:59]
A
I think it's more likely private sector at this point, you know, but. But we'll see.
- [63:05]
B
All right. And lastly, do you have another run for elected office in your future, do you think? You know, I've. I've taken note that there were recently open elections for Manhattan Borough president for City Comptroller. You didn't jump in. You had a nice, you know, citywide director of City Planning gig here, so I understand why you might not jump into a race for elected office, especially given the purview you've had, but is that something you're interested at some point down the future.
- [63:35]
A
I wouldn't entirely close the door to it. I loved the experience of being in the city council for 12 years. I have some campaign funds left over, but I don't wake up in the morning dreaming about how to get back into elective office at this moment in time. I feel like there's a lot of ways for me to serve the city and state, and that's one of them. So we will see. Not going to close the door, but it's also not on the immediate horizon either.
- [64:13]
B
All right. We'll leave it there. Dan Gorodnik, really appreciate the time and thoughts. And of course, don't be a stranger.
- [64:19]
A
You got it, Ben. Thanks for having me.
- [64:20]
B
All right.
- [64:21]
A
Be well, Sam. It.