Zoning in the United States began in New York City and later spread to all parts of the country. Initially, zoning was an effort to preserve light and air for city residents, but as time passed the concept of zoning was used (even abused) to promote less-desirable policies such as burdening poor and middle-class neighborhoods with what were perceived to be undesirable structures such as public housing, affordable housing, schools, sewage treatment plants, waste facilities and other necessary infrastructure. These efforts to block certain types of development in specific neighborhoods came to be known as NIMBY or NIMBYISM — “not in my back yard.”
Now, 40-plus years later, a new attitude in major metropolitan areas favors distributing small affordable housing developments in all neighborhoods. This movement is going by the acronym YIMBY, which stands for “yes, in my back yard.” This movement has the potential to increase affordable housing and avoid creating pockets of poverty and violence while diversifying communities without impacting property values or the tax base.
Zoning and city planning began in the 1880s and 1890s as taller and bigger buildings began to sprout in Manhattan. The first effort to address the issues was the Tenement House Act of 1901. After the 1915 opening of the Equitable Building at 120 Broadway, with its seven-acre shadow over lower Manhattan, New York City responded with the Zoning Resolution of 1916. Gradually, zoning became common in urban and suburban areas.
Early zoning efforts sought to keep factories and other industrial uses, as well as dangerous traffic such as rail lines, away from residential areas. Gradually, with the increasing density came more “creative” uses of zoning. One such use was to effectively segregate people by class. Race was a factor in some of these decisions.
Over time, this use of the zoning laws created housing segregation in major urban areas. The housing segregation policy of creating large developments for low-income residents resulted in densely populated pockets of poverty overlaid by years of neglect in the maintenance of the development all of which was eventually wrapped in hopelessness, illegal drugs and other crime.
Cabrini-Green, a notorious Chicago North Side housing project, was an example of how zoning and site selection had gone awry. Eventually, most of the Cabrini-Green buildings (and two other similar housing developments in west and south Chicago) were demolished, except for the two-story row houses. Today, a less densely populated mixed-use development that includes low, moderate and some market-rate housing is being developed at the former Cabrini-Green location.
Over the years, many public buildings and projects were fought by local neighborhoods. Some of these neighborhood disputes, such as some on the Upper East Side in New York City, have been in opposition to the over-development of the York Avenue corridor by the hospitals, often on the grounds that the hospital-affiliated research laboratories were discharging heavy metals and other carcinogens into the air. Others have been for less logical reasons, such as objecting to homeless shelters. Housing projects have been a frequent target of protestors based on the (false) perception that low- and moderate-income housing is associated with crime and loss of property values.
In certain urban areas, such as Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, middle- and upper- income residents are taking a second look at affordable and low-income housing. These developments, when small, properly maintained and part of a larger mixed-use community (that usually includes good public schools with a diverse population of students), are not causing crime or posing other dangers. This trend is appearing in New York City as well. Small buildings of 10 or fewer families, either affordable or low income, are being disbursed throughout neighborhoods without issue. This trend should not create any adverse issues for neighbors and hopefully will create more diverse communities over time. For cooperative and condominium buildings, these small mixed-use developments should not adversely impact property values or quality of life.
As with all development in New York City, these projects must comply with the New York City Building Code in all respects. Developers of these projects must protect, insure and indemnify neighbors for any physical damage to the neighboring properties and any temporary loss of use. No permanent loss of use or property belonging to neighboring property is permitted under the New York City Building Code.
This column presents a general discussion. This column does not provide legal advice. Consult your attorney for specific legal advice.
Carol A. Sigmond
Greenspoon Marder LLP
590 Madison Ave., Suite 1800
New York, NY 10022
carol.sigmond@gmlaw.com
(212)524-5074
