New York City’s perennial housing crisis—the city has regularly declared a housing “emergency” since 1971—is back on the city council’s agenda, with two proposals to address it. On the surface, the two plans, one championed by Mayor Eric Adams, the other by City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, seem complementary; both promise more housing. But a closer looks reveals that Adams’s “City of Yes,” introduced last spring but stalled, at least takes a step away from policies that have created the crisis, while the council’s “City of All,” announced last week, promises to perpetuate the crisis.

It’s crucial to understand that Gotham somehow has a housing emergency, notwithstanding the fact that it already has a massive inventory of subsidized “affordable” housing—and has been “investing” ever more in new such units. Including public housing projects (177,000), rent-regulated private apartments (1.1 million), and city-subsidized “affordable” units (101,000 constructed since 2014), some 45 percent of all the city’s housing is “non-market.” Ten city neighborhoods have seen 3,000 new affordable units built every year since 2014.

Much more is in the pipeline. The current city budget allocates $8 billion over just the next two years for new construction through the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Most cities have no agency operating at anything like such a scale. Houston, for instance, subsidized just 786 affordable units in 2022. The average rent in New York is more than $3,800; in Houston, it’s just $1,191.

The city council proposes still more subsidies as the cure. City for All would “significantly increase funding” for “affordable housing programs and deeper affordability.”

It may seem counterintuitive, but all this affordable housing is actually a recipe for continuing the city’s housing crisis. That’s because the new affordable housing—like rent-regulated apartments and public housing—encourages its tenants never to move out, even if their incomes go up and they could afford to buy their own home. “Affordable” rents are set by income level whenever a household moves in.

After that, the apartments become “permanently affordable.” In other words, a household may become able to pay more—but for the most part, it need not pay more, as noted by the real estate site 6sqft, which offers the definitive guide through the maze of New York’s affordable housing rules: “Contrary to what most people believe, HDC [New York City Housing Development Corporation] notes that if a tenant’s income goes up or down it does not affect the rent. The same is true for NYCHA and Section 8.” (Some tax-subsidized units are also subject to rent regulation; their rents can increase, albeit only as approved by the city’s Rent Guidelines Board.) It’s good that residents are not penalized for increased income, but bad that they can avail themselves of a deal for which they wouldn’t qualify on the basis of that higher income. It’s even worse when it comes to the city’s 1 million-plus rent-stabilized apartments; income doesn’t even figure into whether a household qualifies for the below-market rent to begin with.

So it is that so many New Yorkers, when they find a good housing deal, give thanks and stay put. Resident “tenure,” per Census data, has been more than twice as long in New York (nine years) as in booming Austin (four years). In dynamic cities, residents move in and out, helped by new construction. New York has historically relied on ambitious newcomers to rejuvenate it; its housing policy now works to discourage them, keeping vacancy rates low by limiting turnover.

Mayor Adams’s City of Yes is by no means a clean break from this dysfunctional past. It proposes a “universal affordability preference” that makes building larger apartment buildings contingent on setting some aside as “income-restricted.” Still, the emphasis of the Adams proposal can be justifiably described as build, build, build—“a little more housing in every neighborhood.” To get there, City of Yes would make it possible for new commercial buildings to include apartments above them; relax parking requirements that drive up construction costs; and make possible alternative housing arrangements such as “shared living,” where unrelated persons live together a la dormitories with common kitchens. These are positive reforms.

New construction will help resolve the city’s ongoing housing crunch. But the crisis will never truly end without a root-and-branch change to the massive stock of existing “affordable” housing.