An Analysis of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) in New York City

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) policy in New York City. It begins with an introduction to the affordable housing crisis in NYC, highlighting factors such as rising rents and the mismatch between housing demand and supply. The report then delves into the specifics of the MIH policy, including its background, objectives, and key players, such as the government, activists, and local communities. It examines the types of governance used to impose the initiative and the reasons behind opposition to the policy from residents. The report also explores the targets of the MIH policy, including creating economically diverse communities and ensuring a share of new housing is affordable. Finally, it investigates the potential for displacement and gentrification caused by the MIH policy, drawing on various sources and research findings to present a comprehensive overview of the issue. The report concludes with an assessment of the policy's overall impact and effectiveness in addressing the affordable housing crisis in NYC.

Running head: QUESTION 0
critical challenges of governing cities
OCTOBER 25, 2018
STUDENT DETAILS:

QUESTIONS 1
Introduction
The scarcity of reasonable and inexpensive housing in New York City has arrived at a crisis
stage. According to NYC housing, this issue of inexpensive housing has various reasons such
as increment of purchasing rate of New Yorkers in housing market. During the last 20 years,
the salary of renters of New York has not been changed so much, however, the average rent
per month for the apartment in New York enhanced by about 40 percent. Additionally, the
mismatches between demand and supply also raise the issue of shortage of inexpensive
housing in New York. The housing developments are required in New York City. These
developments show the various challenges to know the targets or aims related to inexpensive
housing in the New York City.
In the following parts, the concept and significance of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing
(MIH) is discussed and examined.
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) Policy Initiative in New York City-
(a) Background of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) Policy Initiative in New York
City-
It is stated by the 2011 U.S. Census, that there are about 979,142 low income households or
very low-income households, however there are only approximately 24,949 inexpensive and
reasonable units vacant to lease. In this way, reasonable and inexpensive housing is
considered as the top priority of administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio. In year 2014, this
plan had been released by him to build 200,000 units of reasonable and cheap housing by
addressing or implementing two policies such as mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) and
zoning for quality and affordability (ZQA). The mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) is
more effective policy to develop inexpensive housing in New York City (Zeng, 2017).

QUESTIONS 2
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) refers to the innovative initiative. It makes
affordable housing compulsory and perpetual where innovative and fresh housing capacity is
permitted by the land use action. The Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) is considered
as very strong and the flexible policy of the kind in the nation.
(a) Urban crisis and housing affordability problem in the New York City-
New York City has developed by more than one million populations since 1990 with the
estimation of the increment of over 3, 00,000 populations in the previous 4 years alone. The
cost of housing has also enhanced rapidly. That is why many people compete for the
apartments. There are about 270,000 people in the waiting list for an entitlement of the
housing, and lotteries for private housing draw the great number of members (Scally and
Tighe, 2015).
For first time in decades, there are many people, who are moving to the New York City or
moving to stay in the New York City than residing. The old citizens are aging instead of
moving after their retirement. Moreover, the young people are staying in the New York City
in the place of moving to the borders when their child attains school age. The pleasant
appearance of the New York City is a hard-fought victory. It is required to continue to retain
and catch the attention of the citizens in respect of flourish.
Further, it is not possible for the private market to produce the sufficient and proper housing
for the citizens in present. In spite of substantial public investment to encourage the
manufacturing of housing that is inexpensive and reasonable for the low-income citizens and
moderate-income citizens, the supply of widely subsidized housing fulfils the requirements of
only the part of the person in those income classes (Shi, Chen and Wang, 2016).
The sustained mismatches between supply and demand of reasonable or inexpensive housing
also worsen the arising income variation which is not good for the growth of New York City.

QUESTIONS 3
The New York City faces urban crisis. It does not get success to fulfill the promises, when
50,000 or more than 50,000 citizens stay in homeless shelters and more than thousands do
struggle to pay high rent with insufficient incomes.
Key players of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH)
The government, activists, professionals and the local communities are the key players of the
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) policy incentives. It is found that some of these are
in the favour of the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and some are in against of
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing in New York City. The most favourable and strong point to
support the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) is that it will result in production of the
reasonable housing units, which are required on the yearly basis. It also makes sure the
financial viability and the reasonable benefit for the builders in New York City (Schipper,
2015).
It was primarily considered by the Smart City movement that it was best place to build the
urban atmospheres. Although, governance by code can be overemphasis, their resolutions for
cities they chosen to collaborate with, were infused by neo-liberal entrepreneurialism. In this
way, the broadcasted motivated plans and procedures combine around experimental civic
services. However, these plans and procedures remain largely silent in stating the urban
problem such as access, scarcity, or dissimilarity (Stabrowski, 2015). The youngsters, city
activists, and professionals want to improve the living standards the citizens with the help of
housing schemes. As per this, the youngsters, city activists, and professionals support the
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) (Lubell, 2016).
Further, Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) is not only getting pushback from long-time
challengers, but also from the very lawmakers and government who made it. The scheme

QUESTIONS 4
permits developers who set aside minimum twenty percent of the units in the house projects
at the rent below the market price to make long project than will otherwise be permitted.
When the scheme itself harvested extensive support, the individual projects have been
getting shattered down by the general officers (Whittemore, 2017). Furthermore, the activists
think that the government can use money to improve low-income groups by making buildings
with cheap housing plans. They think that residents should have powers to decide their best
interest.
Type of governance the city of New York is using to impose its initiative
The City Council plays an important role in making strategies and approaches for affordable
housing in New York City. The City Council is required to ensure the transparency and
flexibility while adopting the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing. The factors of low income of
family are also required to be considered while adopting the housing schemes. NYS local
government also plays significant role in imposing the initiatives. The City Council and NYS
local government ensure the good and effective strategies to address and implement the
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing policy initiatives in the New York City. Their main purpose
is to improve the transparency in affordable housing in city. The City Council and NYS local
government make focus on the issues and problem face by low income citizens.
Reasons of opposing the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing by residents-
The low-income residents or low-income families cannot afford the house or accommodation
in the wealthier area of New York City. It is required by the residents that it should be
ensured that the housing projects involve the standards of the affordability. Generally, the
residents do not support the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing because the level of income or
the earning of reasonable units will not succeed to make the proper units for lowest income

QUESTIONS 5
families (Massey and Rugh, 2017). It is stated by statistics that the uselessness of the
inclusionary zoning program makes to not to implement this program. Firstly, the hidden cost
of affordable units disheartens developers to take involvement in this program. Secondly,
people living in inexpensive housing units will have a hard time searching a sense of group in
their area, because stores in the neighbourhood are pointing the rich groups. Finally, low-
income people are the targets of up zoning programs (Mallach, 2017).
According to Fisher (2015), Most of residents make the objection to the management’s
approach of up zoning lowest-income neighbourhoods to form rent-restricted housing with
the help of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH). They have made arguments that it
specifies the great percentage of the units at market rate to these neighbourhoods and
improves redevelopment. The management is rapid to highlight that the policy may also serve
to form the inexpensive housing not only in relocating neighbourhoods, but any time the
private creator in any area of the New York City relates for an upzoning (van den Nouwelant,
2015)
Targets of MIH policy
The Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) is the locating device with the help of city
planning department, department of housing preservation and the growth, that need the
developers to involve the inexpensive housing in the zones which are rezoned to permit for
more progress regarding the housing units. The Department of City Planning and the
Department of Housing Preservation and other Developments have stated that the main goals
of the proposal are to create more economically diverse communities across the New York
City. The other goal is to ensure that a share of new housing in developing communities is
affordable. Several targets are determined by the City Council to establish and modify the

QUESTIONS 6
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing policy initiatives in the New York City. The main target is
to enhance the transparency in applying the housing schemes (Plunz, 2016). The Mandatory
Inclusionary Housing policy initiative should state concerns about security. The policy should
also specify the concerns related to the general employment. Further, it is required to identify
the issues of the dislocation and tenant nuisance or the harassment. It is also required to solve
the problems of this displacement and resident provocation. Furthermore, the other targets
involve close gaps in the program management and solution of the problem of low-income
family. As per the pre-determined targets, it is also required to maintain the flexibility, while
adopting the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) (Madar and Willis, 2015).
Rights to the City and city activists-
The motto ‘Right to the City’ resounds with city activists. The city activists are required to
represent the scheme or plan about what type of city it must be. At the similar period, the
right to the city has also attained important power with global NGOs and advocacy
companies, if with somewhat various connotation. The city activists should propose the plan
for launching the fair housing scheme. They should make sure that the housing scheme
should be affordable for the citizens. The city activists should focus on the importance of
organisational change specially the de-industrialisation of the inner environs and the
influence of the city activists and the association of residents in the given time period
(Stringer, 2015).
It is also suggested by Nathan Newman, a housing activist, that in place of involving cheap
units in large building, it is required by the government to sell density to the builders for cash.
The government may use this money to improve the low-income people by making buildings
as per proper housing plans. It is also required by the government to permit the residents to
decide what to do for the best benefits.

QUESTIONS 7
Is Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) causing Displacement and Gentrification for local
communities?
It is stated by Karki (2015) that Neighbourhood is self-motivated enterprises which can
experience the modification across the different extents. Economic changes and social
changes are the outcome of an invasion of high-income families. The housing investments are
collectively considered as redevelopment. These modifications can result in both positive
results and negative results on those real citizens who stay in the neighbourhood, as well as
the incoming citizens.
The health effects of redevelopment have not been discovered widely, despite the possibility
of the influence on neighbourhood socio-economic position. As part of an analysis,
examining the effect of neighbourhood socioeconomic status, Stein et al. also evaluated the
changes in the neighbourhood socioeconomic status influenced by preterm birth. The reason
is that redevelopment influences both substantial sources and psychosocial stress. There is
not a way, which leads to preterm birth, but many ways.
Conclusion
As per the above analysis, it can be concluded that it is expected to face the permanent
concerns on the basis of the communities about the affordability and redevelopment or
renovation effects. The fair housing effects of the Community Preference Policies, moreover
salutary the neighbourhood-stabilizing goals MIH, make difficulties in achieving the objects
of affordable housing in New York City. It is required that as per this inclusive strategy, the
targets or aims related to affordability will be well served. In this way, these types of policies
and the organisations can function properly in New York City.

QUESTIONS 8
References
Fainstein, S. (2016)Financialisation and justice in the city: A commentary. Urban
Studies, 53(7), pp.1503-1508.
Fisher, L.W.(2015) Paying for Pushout: Regulating Landlord Buyout Offers in New York
City's Rent-Stabilized Apartments. Harv. CR-CLL Rev., 50, p.491.
Karki, T. K. (2015) Mandatory Versus Incentive-Based State Zoning Reform Policiesfor
Affordable Housing in the United States: A Comparative Assessment. Housing Policy
Debate, 25(2), pp.234-262.
Lubell, J. (2016) Preserving and Expanding Affordability in Neighborhoods Experiencing
Rising Rents and Property Values. Cityscape, 18(3), pp.131-150.
Madar, J., and Willis, M. (2015) Creating affordable housing out of thin air: The economics
of mandatory inclusionary zoning in New York City. Housing for an Inclusive New York:
Affordable Housing Strategies for a High-Cost City, 45(5), pp.1-15.
Mallach, A. (2017) A decent home: Planning, building, and preserving affordable housing.
New York: Routledge.
Massey, D.S., and Rugh, J. S. (2017) Zoning, Affordable Housing, and Segregation in US
Metropolitan Areas. The Fight for Fair Housing: Causes, Consequences, and Future
Implications of the 1968 Federal Fair Housing Act, p.14.
Plunz, R. (2016) A history of housing in New York City. Columbia: Columbia University
Press.

QUESTIONS 9
Scally, C.P., and Tighe, J. R. (2015) Democracy in action?: NIMBY as impediment to
equitable affordable housing siting. Housing Studies, 30(5), pp.749-769.
Schipper, S. (2015) Urban social movements and the struggle for affordable housing in the
globalizing city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Environment and Planning a, 47(3), pp.521-536.
Shi, W., Chen, J., and Wang, H. (2016) Affordable housing policy in China: New
developments and new challenges. Habitat International, 54, pp.224-233.
Stabrowski, F.(2015) Inclusionary Zoning and Exclusionary Development: The Politics of
‘Affordable Housing'in North Brooklyn. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 39(6), pp.1120-1136.
Stein, S. (2018) Progress for Whom, Toward What? Progressive Politics and New York
City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing. Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(6), pp.770-781.
Stringer, S. (2015) Mandatory inclusionary housing and the East New York rezoning: An
analysis. New York: Office of the Comptroller, 38(2), pp. 1-5.
van den Nouwelant, R., Davison, G., Gurran, N., Pinnegar, S., and Randolph, B. (2015)
Delivering affordable housing through the planning system in urban renewal contexts:
converging government roles in Queensland, South Australia and New South
Wales. Australian Planner, 52(2), pp.77-89.
Whittemore, A. H.(2017) The experience of racial and ethnic minorities with zoning in the
United States. Journal of Planning Literature, 32(1), pp.16-27.
Zeng, W. (2017) does MIH (mandatory inclusionary housing) work. Available at:
https://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/larson17/2017/05/05/does-mih-mandatory-inclusionary-
housing-work/ (Accessed: 29 September 2018)