The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary’s definitions of the term “gaslighting” (listed as their Word of the Year for 2022) is as follows:

1) Psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.

2) The act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one’s own advantage.

Since the first day of his administration in January of 2022, Mayor Eric Adams as well as City Planning Chair Dan Garodnick (above) and their allies in the real estate industry have continuously been gaslighting the public about housing and development in New York City – and what the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity will do about it if it becomes law. Here are some of the soundbites that we have heard, some for years and others more recently:

“Just a little more housing in every neighborhood.” – Mayor Eric Adams

“We have an historic housing crisis in New York City. Inaction is not an option.” – City Planning Commission Chair Dan Garodnick

“It’s a good plan. Housing is needed in every community and every community should do its fair share.” – City Councilmember Rafael Salamanca, Chair of the Land Use Committee

“I think most boards and most [civic associations] know where I’m at, so, I don’t think it will surprise them that I’m certainly going to be a ‘yes.’ These are small landlords; they don’t have the means to do large-scale development. So, I don’t think the plan is going to lead to this big building boom that people think it will.” – Queens Borough President Donovan Richards

While all of this may sound both reasonable and urgent to the uninformed – which propaganda and rhetoric often does – along with other “statistics” and “facts” that the Adams administration is constantly bombarding the airwaves and print media through press releases and news conferences ad nauseam, the reality is that most of this is classic gaslighting.

Let’s look at some of the facts:

• In 1960, the population of New York City was 7.9 million. While our population has decreased and increased significantly over the last 64 years, today it stands at less than 8 million for the first time in over 25 years – and continues to decline. The Department of City Planning insists on using census data from 2020 to justify ramming the City of Yes down our throats.

• Hot off the presses, we have this summary from QNS regarding a RentCafe survey of new housing construction: “The study concluded that the New York City metropolitan area is set to have 150,327 new apartments built from 2024 to 2028 without the City of Yes. This would present a significant jump from the 116,207 completed from 2019 to 2023, which was the second-most over that span, behind only Dallas, Texas at 128,418.” We are constantly told that developers build where there is demand, and most of the apartments are in Brooklyn and Manhattan, so why exactly would Fresh Meadows or Middle Village need to build more housing, when that’s not where people want to live? Especially since we’ve seen an exodus of people from NYC since 2020?

• The City of Yes Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) says that it will only create a maximum of 58,000 to 109,000 units over 15 years. And yet, most articles written over the past few months have city reps quoting that they “hope” that it will create 500,000 units over a decade. Low-balling unit counts and population growth to justify no increase in infrastructure or services while claiming that there is a desperate need for housing is the proverbial definition of gaslighting.

• New York City has over 800,000 additional units of housing as compared to 1960 with a similar population. Yet, according to Mayor Adams and his sycophants, we are in a housing crisis. We do not have a housing crisis; we have an affordability crisis and the City of Yes will do very little to nothing in addressing this.

• Mayor Eric Adams told WBLS radio in August, “Sadly, of the 59 community boards, only 10 are building affordable housing. The other 49 are refusing it.” 49 community boards are “refusing” affordable housing? No, they quite justifiably are refusing to greenlight a “plan” which will usher in an era of speculation to the degree that your neighborhood – which undertook a lengthy and carefully planned contextual zoning between one and two decades ago – won’t be recognizable in 10 years.

• Mayor Eric Adams and Dan Garodnick have continuously stated that the zoning we have – based on the 1961 Zoning Resolution – is outdated. The “buildout” or maximum amount of development that can occur as of right now would accommodate another 8 to 12 million people if we never, ever changed our zoning again. However, the proposed zoning in the City of Yes would bring us back to the policies and substance of the 1916 Zoning Ordinance – replacing “outdated” with positively “prehistoric” zoning, accommodating up to 55 million people only in terms of zoning, not infrastructure or other city services (schools, public safety, etc.).

• Both Mayor Adams and Chair Garodnick have stated that deregulating our zoning laws will create more affordability in housing through increased supply and demand. However, as Tom Agnotti, professor emeritus of urban policy and planning at CUNY and a former planner at the Department of City Planning made clear last month in an op-ed, Long Island City has added over 30,000 units in the past two decades and the rents have increased dramatically from $3,400 to $5,300. This has occurred everywhere across the city where there has been increased unit count regardless of the economics or demographics of the community where housing has been built.

The last stop for COY will be the City Council. Councilmembers have been given their marching orders, and some have even come out and said that they expect it to pass with flying colors after some tweaking. These are people who agree that the plan is terrible, but currying favor with the administration and the real estate lobby is what will be behind their support. Council Member Rafael Salamanca, the chair of the Council’s Land Use Committee, has openly stated that passing this will take the burden off council members who feel they must oppose neighborhood-altering development to save face in their communities. As-of-right zoning takes away one of the few powers that Councilmembers actually have: land use. Imagine representatives who want to have LESS say in what gets built in their neighborhood? And, apparently more important to Salamanca, if the City of Yes is approved, the Councilmembers will no longer have to be beholden to those pesky voters in their district.

Speaking of demographics, both Mayor Adams and Chair Garodnick have repeatedly said that the current zoning – particularly in the lower density areas across the city – is “racist.” Huh? How can zoning be racist when most lower density areas in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn – which are also the areas with the largest percentage of owner-occupied housing in the city – have populations that are also majority non-White?

Mayor Adams’ and Chair Garodnick’s purposeful disinformation campaign about the City of Yes rivals that of a man that they both profess to despise: Robert Moses, who constantly used the term “progress” to justify his often destructive and terrible development proposals. Gaslighting crosses party lines and political leanings all in favor of one simple truth: making Mayor Adams’ friends and donors – developers and the real estate industry – much, much richer at the expense of what’s left of the middle class in New York City.

And yes, BP Richards, the lower density neighborhoods are filled with mostly owner-occupied housing and small landlords now. Most property owners will not have the capital or the desire to add another building unit – or maybe ten, twenty or more if they are in one of the proposed Transit Oriented Development zones. However, when a developer who does have that desire and ability comes around with a suitcase full of money, a lot of blocks won’t be occupied by small live-in landlords anymore because those people will cash out and leave.

The COYHO hearings
City of Yes for Housing Opportunity has already passed review by Community Boards, Borough Presidents, and the City Planning Commission. Many Community Board hearings were beyond contentious due to the consistent gaslighting from City Planning representatives; the vast majority of them voted a hard NO, with (for example) 12 out of 14 boards in Queens telling them to get lost. Residents who testified against COY at the July City Planning Commission hearing were argued with or openly mocked by Chair Garodnick and COY supporters, which is not something that is supposed to happen at public hearings. Then again, about 95% of those COY supporters were “on the clock” or being paid to be there, working for developers, lawyers, pro-housing groups and their allies. 95% who spoke in opposition to COY were homeowners, tenants and civic association volunteers, taking time off from work to make their voices heard.

Let’s be clear: this is by no means a lost cause. When the City Council hearing for the City of Yes is scheduled and made public, it’s imperative that we show up in a force of strength, turning out in person and in large numbers. It will be crucial to let the Councilmembers know that we are not okay with this, that we know most of them are running for another term and, if they vote in favor, there will be consequences at the ballot box and beyond.