Albany Mayor Proposes Cutting Affordable Housing Units to 5% | The Locally Times
The proposal would reduce the required set-aside from a maximum of 13% and allow developers to pay a $50,000 fee per unit instead of building them, according to a city announcement.
ALBANY — Mayor Dr. Dorcey L. Applyrs has proposed an overhaul of Albany’s affordable housing requirements, seeking to cut the percentage of affordable units required in new developments from a maximum of 13% to a flat 5%. The proposed legislation makes three fundamental changes to how Albany approaches affordable housing. Beyond the percentage reduction, it raises the income threshold for who qualifies for these units and introduces a new option for developers to pay a fee rather than build the units on-site. The city’s announcement presents the proposal as a way to stimulate housing development by removing barriers that have delayed construction, though the announcement does not specify what those barriers are or cite data supporting the claim. Responsibility for overseeing the new rules would fall to the Albany Community Development Agency (ACDA). The agency would be tasked with reviewing developer compliance plans and would be granted enforcement powers to deny, suspend, or revoke project approvals if requirements are not met. The ACDA will also be required to publish an annual report on new housing construction, according to the city’s news release. ## A Shift from On-Site Units to a Trust Fund A central structural change in the proposed amendment is the creation of an alternative compliance path for developers. Instead of building the required 5% of affordable units within a new residential project, developers would have the option to contribute $50,000 per required unit into a newly established Albany Housing Trust Fund. For a hypothetical 100-unit development, the current ordinance requires up to 13 affordable units. Under the new proposal, that requirement drops to five units. A developer could then choose to build those five units or, alternatively, pay $250,000 into the trust fund and build no on-site affordable units at all. The city’s announcement states that the revenue generated for the Albany Housing Trust Fund is intended to support emergency renter protection programs and provide downpayment assistance for first-time homebuyers. The Mayor’s office announcement states the amendment's language follows months of discussions with the Albany Common Council, New York State, and unidentified local housing leaders. The public documents do not, however, specify which state officials or housing leaders participated in these discussions. ## Redefining ‘Affordable’ for Albany Residents Alongside the reduction in the number of required units, the legislation proposes to change the definition of affordability itself. Currently, affordable units are targeted to households earning up to 60% of the area median household income (AMI). The proposed amendment would raise this threshold to 70% of the AMI. The AMI is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan Statistical Area. By raising the income limit, the new “affordable” units would be accessible to a higher income bracket than under the current rules. This change means that households with the lowest incomes, who may have qualified under the 60% AMI cap, could be priced out of the new units built under the 70% AMI standard. The city’s announcement does not include the current dollar figures for either the 60% or 70% AMI levels, making it difficult to assess the direct financial impact on residents from the provided record. This adjustment effectively re-targets the city's inclusionary zoning program to assist a different segment of the population, a decision that would alter housing accessibility for Albany’s lowest-income residents. The provided public records do not specify the date of that meeting. As the Common Council prepares to deliberate, the proposal raises key questions for which the initial announcement offers no public documentation. The central premise of the amendment is that the current 13% requirement is a barrier to new construction. However, the announcement provides no studies, reports, or specific data to substantiate this claim. The documents do not detail which projects have been delayed or canceled due to the existing ordinance, nor do they provide an analysis of how a 5% requirement will stimulate development more effectively. Furthermore, the financial logic of the $50,000-per-unit alternative compliance fee is not detailed in the announcement. The public record does not contain an analysis demonstrating whether this fee is equivalent to the cost of constructing and subsidizing an affordable unit in Albany, or how the amount was determined. Without this information, it is unclear whether the Housing Trust Fund will have sufficient resources to offset the loss of physically constructed units. The proposal represents a clear policy choice: trading a higher number of on-site, integrated affordable units for a smaller number of units and a cash fund. The long-term impact on the city’s housing stock and the economic integration of its neighborhoods will depend on the details that emerge as the Common Council takes up the legislation.