C
hris Marte's vote against the City of Yes plan doesn't make him wrong, but his reasons for opposing it are misguided. The New York City establishment has been moving away from outdated assumptions about real estate, which contributed to the city's housing crisis. However, Marte seems stuck in a bygone era, perpetuating myths that pro-housing groups have worked hard to debunk.

    To bring him into the real world, let's examine his claims. During his Council floor speech, Marte stated: "I represent neighborhoods like the Lower East Side and Chinatown where unchecked market-rate development has led to skyscrapers that sit empty." However, this is not accurate. Development in New York City is heavily regulated by zoning laws and other restrictions, driving up construction costs and limiting supply.

    Marte also claimed that market-rate development drives up speculation, causes rents to skyrocket, and displaces immigrant communities. But the real world tells a different story. Research shows that adding supply tempers rent growth, and development can actually make an area more attractive, increasing demand but ultimately offset by new supply. Moreover, immigrants have historically populated and revitalized neighborhoods, only to filter into other areas as newcomers arrive.

    Marte's notion that the city should freeze communities as they are is a recipe for stagnation and decline. Immigrants' children and grandchildren won't stay in the same tenements as their ancestors; if Marte wants them to remain in the 'hood, he should allow construction of buildings that appeal to them.

    Furthermore, Marte's claim that City of Yes is a plan "by the real estate industry, for the real estate industry" is misleading. The plan was crafted by the Department of City Planning, which aims to strike a balance between affordability and housing supply. Requiring too much affordable housing can actually yield no housing at all, as it loses money.

    Marte has told many more falsehoods, but one notable example is his assertion that the City of Yes should have mandated more affordability. However, this ignores the fact that housing must be paid for somehow, and requiring too much affordability can lead to a lack of new construction.