New York looks set to lower a big barrier to building

GETTING A NEW building project through New York’s state environmental approvals can feel like a bureaucratic game of snakes and ladders. Even though projects are also signed off locally, the state process requires an analysis of their effects. After about two years of study, if a builder is lucky, he can hop up a ladder towards the end of the game. Others must go through a more-exacting report, moving one square for a public hearing and then another for each of the 20 technical analyses that must be done in New York City. This takes closer to three years. If the plan changes in that time, the builder lands on a snake (or a chute, in the American version) and goes back to the start. A lawsuit can create a whole second round.

Now New York is on the brink of throwing away the game. The state is set to pass the first big reform of its environmental reviews for housing in 50 years. Even though many developments are found to have little environmental impact, the convoluted process slows building and becomes a blocking tool for would-be-neighbours. Scrapping it “is going to be a real transformational moment” boasts Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor. But the Empire State is not alone: in an effort to get building, Democratic states across the country are rethinking their environmental reviews.

In 2024 New York state ranked fifth in the nation for cost burdens for housing, with more than a third of residents spending more than 30% of their household income on it. The state’s population has fallen, and it is projected to lose one or two congressional seats in the next reapportionment in 2030. For Ms Hochul, this is a crisis. “We’re losing residents to neighbouring states that have more ambition and willingness to not be thwarted by the NIMBY culture,” she says, referring to Not In My Backyard campaigners.

Her solution is to reform the 1975 law that governs environmental review in the state. Although theoretically it is just a fact-finding exercise, any project requiring a special permit or a zoning change must go through the painstaking process. The state reckons it costs $82,000 per unit of housing in New York City and has little environmental benefit.

A change to the state budget would scrap the reviews for projects of up to 500 units in the busiest parts of New York City and 300 units in other urban areas in the state, as long as they are on a plot of previously developed land. Although the final language is yet to be seen, wonks are jubilant. “This is a major step forward,” says Josh Berman of the Regional Plan Association, a local think-tank. “It allows municipalities that want to build to go forward and actually build.” “It’s a big deal,” echoes Steven Fulop, the head of the Partnership for NYC, a business group.

If the final legislation is as expected, there should be more permits issued by the end of the year, says Carlo Scissura of the NY Building Congress. There are hitches: local governments would keep their say over development, so places that are not keen on new housing would not have to embrace it (Ms Hochul attempted to nudge building in 2023 and was shut down). But advocates cheer how warm the reception for environmental reform was. “It is really, really notable that we are finally seeing just everyone sing the same tune that we need to build more housing,” says Annemarie Gray of Open New York, a YIMBY (the antithesis of NIMBY) group.

Plenty in New York attribute this to Ms Hochul’s vigour. But Democrats across the country have embraced the idea that the party needs to be more friendly to growth. In recent years California, Massachusetts and Washington have all made efforts to reduce the burden of climate reviews. State legislators are “all definitely trading notes”, says Charlie Anderson at Arnold Ventures, a research and advocacy group. “They’re also competitive.” This is a better game than snakes and ladders.■