Lobbying relentlessly for more city, state and nationwide affordable housing

On Wednesday, Rachel Fee, the decade-long executive director of the affordable housing policy and advocacy nonprofit New York Housing Conference, was among those standing with Kathy Hochul as the governor proudly announced the creation of roughly 71,000 new dwelling units in New York City – 21,000 of them priced affordably. The new units were the result of an extension on building time for the 421a program, in which builders got big tax breaks in exchange for making a certain percentage of units in new developments affordable for a range of income brackets. The extension had been fought for hard by NYHC and other groups, all of them arguing that the interruption of COVID-19 necessitated more time for pre-existing projects under 421a to come to completion. (The 421a program has since been replaced by a new program, 485x, which Fee calls an improved deal for affordable units.) 

The 421a extension was a victory for the four-staffer NYHC, which for 50 years has advocated for an array of budget increases, legislation and other mechanisms to grow affordable housing on the city and state, and even nationwide, level. Later on the same day, Fee spoke with New York Nonprofit Media about the group's wins and losses in recent years – and its goals for affordable housing at a time when control of the White House, Congress, Albany and even New York City (with the mayor's current legal woes) are all up in the air in advance of the coming elections.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Rachel, thanks for talking to us today. Tell us more about the governor's announcement today.

Last year, we successfully pushed for an extension on 421a. Projects couldn't meet their construction deadlines because of pandemic-era staffing and supply issues, so we thought it was only fair that they get a chance to finish construction. So as a result, there will be 71,000 new housing units coming online and 21,000 of them will be affordable. If we hadn't gotten the extension, all those units would've been stalled. 

So further to the governor, earlier this year she celebrated the passage of a wide range of affordable housing measures—something she'd failed to get through Albany the year before. What did you advocate for that you got in the package, that you half-got, and that you didn't get at all?

To take a step back, yes, in 2023, Hochul had put this huge housing supply package on the table and was looking for housing growth targets across the state, with a host of tools to get there—and we were fully on board with that—and it was a big flop. There was huge pushback especially from the NYC suburbs—legislators didn't want any state interference in zoning. 

So this year, going back to Albany, we were thinking, "What can we do?" A lot of the solutions were focused on making sure that NYC has the tools in place [to add affordable housing], so for us the #1 thing was that there was a replacement for 421a that would create more deeply affordable housing, and not just in low-income neighborhoods, as is currently mostly the case. So we got that this year, and the metrics on 485x are so much better than on 421a, which allowed a developer to get the tax break if 30 percent of their units were set at 130 percent of the average median income (AMI). But 130 percent of the AMI is basically the income you need for market rates in many outer-borough neighborhoods. We saw the greatest need for households earning $50,000 a year or less. And 485x is really targeting such households, mainly those earning under 80 percent of the AMI, but it can be even lower than that. So we're happy about that.

What else in the package are you happy about?

A new tax incentive to allow the conversion of offices and hotels into housing. And a bunch of other things, like optional upstate tax incentives, such as one for homeowners who build accessory dwelling units [ADUs, such as a mother-in-law apartment or tiny house in the backyard]. 

What was your biggest disappointment?

We'd still like to see the state take a more active role around improving zoning to encourage localities to take action. We have so many localities in New York State that have exclusionary zoning policies [such as one can only build a detached, single-family home] and don't want to build multifamily rental housing. After her big package failed in 2023, Hochul created, through executive order, pro-housing opportunities that a bunch of localities statewide have signed up for. But the ones who don't want to build and are not motivated by state funds will still opt to do nothing. 

It's funny because you hear about how the MTA commuter towns don't want to build multiunit housing near commuter stations, but riding the LIRR recently, I noticed large and new such developments alongside many train stops. So how much exactly is being built?

We've seen some localities go through really robust planning and we've seen the benefits of downtown revitalization adding more housing and helping their tax base grow and businesses thrive. In Westchester, New Rochelle has done it in a pretty big way and has the research to show that, as a result, rent growth there has slowed compared to the rest of the region. 

But when you look at what the New York suburbs are building compared to Jersey, or when you compare New York State as a whole to other states, we're really not where we need to be in terms of adding housing supply. But we do have a governor who's really focused on that and we have a lot of movement in NYC right now from City Hall. Right now, the City Council is looking at a set of zoning reforms that we have a huge coalition of 150 members behind that they'll likely vote on in early December.

Right, and that package of reforms reflects largely the mayor's "City of Yes" plan to get all neighborhoods in NYC, not just low-income or high-density ones, to take on their share of new housing units by things like getting rid of parking-space requirements for new developments or letting more people build an ADU—a unit atop their building or in the backyard, etc. But now of course our mayor's political future is very tenuous. Do you think that is going to weaken his sway with the City Council in passing this, as this op-ed in City Journal argues?

I actually think that our City Council really understands that inaction on this issue is not an option and they are going to move it ahead. City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said last week that the mayor's proposal was insufficient and that she'll be working with her members to propose a broader action plan around housing. I think the City Council understands that they have a lot of leverage right now [with Mayor Adams' legal woes] in asking for more in the budget for housing in exchange for their support of him at this time. 

So it could lead to a more robust and bolder plan than what the mayor proposed?

Exactly. We could end up with zoning reforms.

Could we end up with mandates for all neighborhoods?

Unfortunately that's not where we're going with this. The zoning code for NYC is complicated and doesn't get updated very often, so this would be an update to encourage more affordable housing in medium- and high-density neighborhoods via allowing developers to build bigger if they include affordable units in their plans. 

And in the lower-density districts, this would create a modest increase in the existing zoning around transit-oriented development—what they're calling town-center zoning, like putting units over shops. It's not a big rezoning that'll create a major change from today. But it includes eliminating those parking-space minimums and allowing ADUs. We think that, paired with the tax incentives that were passed in Albany, we can then see the more housing supply come online.

Okay, great. So to go back to Square One with you, if we met at a party and you told me you were the head of New York Housing Conference and I had no idea what that was, what would you say?

I'd say we're a statewide nonprofit affordable housing policy and advocacy organization. We work on increasing resources and changing policy to  build and preserve affordable housing at the city, state and federal levels. 

If I asked for an example?

I'd say come testify with us at the "City of Yes" hearing next week! [laughs] We're working on zoning reforms and we have new legislation that we'll be talking about in D.C. next week which would unlock more of the low-income housing tax credit [LIHTC], which is the #1 financing tool for building new affordable housing nationwide, to boost affordable housing production statewide and nationwide. So we're always working on a variety of issues. Our state-level priorities include reducing the cost of insurance for affordable housing. I could go on and on!

What is your own professional journey that brought you to being the head of NYHC?

I started out working in international development in D.C., then got a scholarship to study economics in Ireland, so I moved there. After I finished grad school there, I worked on academic industrial exchange programs for five years for nonprofits. Then I realized that I'd been living in Ireland for more than five years and I'd better go home, so I moved back to NYC and started as a project manager at the city's Department of Housing, Preservation and Development (DHPD) and caught the housing bug there because it's part of a social justice agenda but it's also working on economic policy and working with the built environment. It makes a tangible difference in New Yorkers' lives. For a decade, it's been the thing that everybody is always talking about.

So I worked for the city for eight years, then did consulting for a year around the Housing First campaign [to create permanent housing for New Yorkers experiencing homelessness, mental illness and substance use], which brought stakeholders together in a common agenda around affordable housing. De Blasio was running for mayor for the first time and affordable housing was his #1 issue, which made my job pretty easy. We did a lot of analysis on what was needed for housing investment and recommended doubling the city's capital budget for housing, and that's what they did that year.

Then I was hired by NYHC to reinvigorate the organization and lead their policy and advocacy, and I've been here ten years now. The organization has been around for 51 years but we're still very scrappy. When I came on board, it was me and one other staffer, and now it's four including me. We're nimble and we have a lot of expertise we can tap into with our advisory board. We've been able to establish ourselves as a voice on housing policy in New York.

What skills have you attained over your career that you put to use in your current role?

I think I bring to this job not just work experience, but life experience. I was a middle child so I'm a natural peacemaker where I want to find common ground to advance solutions, which is really critical in this work, being interested in and understanding other people's point of view. Also, I think, for me, having that really practical experience as a project manager working for the city is key. I understand the financing, the land-use process, the engagement with communities and how difficult it is to get a project going and get it built. As a project manager, you're really in the nitty-gritty of all that stuff. 

Also, affordable housing is so complicated and wonky, with a million acronyms and very complicated financing. When we're going to lawmakers, they don't have this deep understanding of that stuff, so I think I'm able to make sure that what we're asking for is really clear, that we're explaining the problem in a digestible way and really motivating them to work with us.

Where do you still feel challenged in your skills?

It can be difficult to work in a small organization because you're pulled in so many directions all the time and you don't have the infrastructure of a large workplace to lean on. I'm constantly doing ten jobs. I feel like if I had more time and less things on my daily to-do list, I'd really like to focus on being a better manager, really helping my team bring out the best of their capabilities, utilizing their strengths—maybe being more intentional about that. But often in this work, you're reacting to what's being thrown at you and you don't have time.

What is a typical day like?

I live in Windsor Terrace with my husband and three kids, who are in high school, middle school and elementary school. So I wake up about 6:30 and have a double espresso—and maybe another one later—and start my day by reading all the news, the housing news. Then my husband and I have to get the kids out the door. Then I have a morning team meeting at 9:30. We're hybrid—Monday and Friday work from home, Tuesday through Thursday in the office. We do a team check-in to go over immediate priorities for the day and everyone update's one another on what they're working on. Then it's Zoom meetings after that—sometimes eight to ten. And in addition to that, we're always working on some kind of report or analysis, so I have to block off chunks on my calendar for research and writing.

Then I normally pick up my youngest from after-school at five or five-thirty, come home, cook dinner and hear about everyone's day. If it's a really good day, I might even squeeze in tennis. I play in the park near my house. I just started learning two years ago so I'm really enjoying it and apparently it's going to make me live longer, so that's a bonus. 

I'm the primary cook in our house. I think it's really important that my kids are eating healthy, well-balanced meals, and I can't control what they eat during the school day, so we have a meal together every night. My kids are pretty carb-centric and request pasta a lot, so spaghetti bolognese is a favorite. We eat salmon once a week, maybe some kind of chicken sheetpan dinner.

What are your goals for NYHC over the next three to five years—both affordable housing policy goals and internal organizational goals?

We really want to expand the supply of affordable housing. We hope we'll be successful in expanding the LIHTC in D.C. next year. I also think the ultimate solution for the lowest-income renters is a housing safety net. We don't have one at the federal level. You have unemployment insurance if you lose your job, and when you retire, there's Social Security. But nothing like that on the housing front.

What would that be?

I think it would be Section 8 rental assistance for everyone who qualifies. Right now, only one in four renters who qualify for Section 8 receive it because we don't fully fund it at the national level. If we could fully fund it, it could go such a long way for people who are rent-burdened or facing losing their housing.

That reminds me: We may be facing another Trump administration and possibly a Republican Congress. What was doing your work like under the last Trump administration?

It was a difficult period because Trump's budget office was proposing very drastic cuts to some of our core programs. Thankfully, Congress at that time was not interested in draconian cuts. What happens this election cycle really matters. Who's controlling the House and Senate really matters. We're watching it all really closely. Both red and blue states are really suffering from housing unaffordability, so there's much more bipartisan interest in addressing the housing crisis. But if Trump is elected again, we'll be playing defense on the housing budget.

Okay, thanks. And what's a goal for NYHC itself? More budget and hence more staff?

Well, that would be good. We're scrappy but we've had manu wins. So if we had additional resources, longer-term support, we could be doing even more. •