New York City goes for ‘all of the above’ on affordable housing

New York City Deputy Mayor for Housing and Planning Leila Bozorg has served under one presidential and now three mayoral administrations throughout her career in government.

Before joining the Mamdani administration, the urban planning expert was executive director for housing for two years under Mayor Eric Adams' administration. Prior to that, she worked at the city's Department of Housing Preservation & Development for more than six years, serving as Deputy Commissioner for Neighborhood Strategies + Division of Tenant Resources, as well as chief of staff to the commissioner, all under Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration. And Bozorg worked for four years in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Barack Obama's administration.

"Leila has what you might call the dream résumé in housing and planning," said Justin Lapatine, a partner at GSG on Tuesday while hosting a breakfast and fireside chat with Bozorg Tuesday at the firm's offices in Manhattan.

Bozorg in the interview detailed how the Mamdani administration is addressing New York's dire housing crisis with an ambitious "all of the above" approach, spelled out by its "Block by Block" plan. She also noted how she took a 3-year detour in between the de Blasio and Adams administrations to work in the nonprofit world, serving as chief of strategy at the college savings program, NYC Kids RISE, and how that influenced her current role in government.

The following introduction and interview have been edited for length and clarity.

Introduction by New York City Deputy Mayor for Housing and Planning Leila Bozorg:

It's very nice to be here, and I appreciate the introduction. While I have a strong housing background, how I come into this role really reflects the people I've worked with and learned from along the way—almost like training as an athlete.

At HUD, I worked in the Secretary's office under Shaun Donovan. When I returned to New York, I worked under [former deputy mayor for housing and economic development] Vicki Been, and alongside leaders like Maria Torres-Springer. I also spent time at NYC Kids RISE, working with Debra-Ellen Glickstein. That experience connects directly to how I think about housing, which I'll come back to.

I've had the opportunity to work across housing, community development, and city planning, and I've been fortunate to work with some incredible leaders.

I want to briefly set the context we're operating in and highlight the housing plan we released about a week and a half ago called Block by Block.

We are living under a severe housing shortage in New York City. The vacancy rate is 1.41%—functionally zero. It's even lower for more affordable units and around 3.5% for higher-cost units. These are the lowest levels we've recorded since 1968.

More than 50% of New Yorkers are rent-burdened, paying over 30% of their income on rent. Many low-income households are severely rent-burdened, paying over 50%. One indicator of this crisis is that about 90,000 people are in shelters each night, including roughly 30,000 children.

Housing growth has not kept pace with population or job growth. Strong job growth is essential for the city, but we need to correct the imbalance on the housing side. Much of the problem stems from barriers we've put in place over time—downzoning, layered regulations, and restrictions on where we can build.

Rental arrears are also rising across income levels, and housing courts are facing serious challenges. Meanwhile, development has been uneven—over the last decade, the top 10 districts produced more housing than the other 41 combined.

We've also lost 600,000 units priced below $1,500 over the past 30 years—affordability that's extremely difficult to replace. That's why our plan focuses both on production and preservation.

The housing shortage also contributes to segregation and limits economic opportunity. Where you live still strongly shapes life outcomes.

NYCHA faces a $78 billion capital backlog, driven by decades of federal disinvestment. That makes it a central focus of our plan.

The plan outlines a roadmap: building 200,000 new affordable homes over 10 years and preserving another 200,000. It also includes code enforcement reform, homeownership support, and major investment in NYCHA.

We take an "all-of-the-above" approach. There is no silver bullet—every unit, every strategy matters. We need supply, tenant protections, new construction, preservation, rental housing and homeownership.

We're also focused on improving how government functions—fixing the housing lottery, strengthening enforcement, and making systems work better for people.

That's the framework.

Justin Lapatine, partner at Global Strategy Group: So, let me start with a bigger-picture question. You've been in city housing for over a decade. You've seen a lot of housing plans. This one is incredibly ambitious. Some parts are in the city's control and some aren't. What has to happen for this to be successful? Where have past administrations fallen short? What makes execution work?

I think it starts with knowing what problem you want to solve—because there are many—and then having the right people focused on it.

There's a lot outside our control, but also quite a bit within it. For example, the previous administration took a big swing at the zoning resolution, which is something the city controls. And there's still more to do there.

You need the appetite to take on hard challenges and the belief that you can solve them.

Take the housing lottery. When I returned to city government in 2023, one of the biggest issues we heard was that units were taking over a year to lease after completion. That's in the middle of a housing crisis.

It's hard to get bureaucracies to move quickly on difficult issues. But leadership and resources matter—financial resources, staffing, and political attention.

Political will matters too. Passing "City of Yes" for housing opportunity required enormous political strength from both the speaker and the mayor. We're seeing that again now—some of what we want to do with NYCHA is unpopular, but you need the will to move forward.

So let me ask about that political will in terms of rezonings. "City of Yes" was a big success, but some neighborhoods still pushed back and reduced density. This plan anticipates more density in those areas. How is the administration approaching rezonings differently to overcome that resistance?

You have to be nuanced. It's not one-size-fits-all, and not every neighborhood should look the same or have the same level of density.

But many neighborhoods can take on more housing than they historically have.

Part of the work is building public momentum and reinforcing that we have a real housing supply and equity problem. We've made progress in getting broader acknowledgment of that.

We've also historically had political systems that allow smaller groups to block housing. The recent charter changes give us new tools to address that—but we have to use them responsibly or risk backlash.

That means careful planning and strong community engagement. We're also introducing new approaches like "micro-plans," focusing on specific corridors instead of large rezonings.

Ultimately, polling shows that people support more housing, but our systems haven't always reflected that broader will.

And, on the transportation-oriented development side—there's a huge opportunity with projects like IBX. How are you thinking about rezoning around new transportation infrastructure?

It's a mix. We have opportunities around existing transit, but we also want to plan ahead.

That means creating zoning that anticipates future stations, not just reacting after they're built.

We're analyzing current capacity, thinking about appropriate density, working with communities, and building flexibility into zoning to support future growth.

It's challenging, but it's part of the work we're doing now.

Speaking of challenges on NYCHA, RAD [Rental Assistance Demonstration] and PACT [Permanent Affordability Commitment Together] could be major tools, but progress has been slow and sometimes controversial. Are you approaching these projects differently?

We have to.

RAD allows us to convert Section 9 funding into long-term Section 8 contracts, which unlock private financing and enable full renovations.

It's not privatization—NYCHA still owns the land and buildings—but there's understandable skepticism from residents given past disinvestment and broken trust.

So we need to both expand these tools and build support for them—through engagement, transparency, and delivering results.

In places where residents have seen successful renovations, support has grown. But we need to earn that trust consistently.

Can I ask just in terms of Albany—you mentioned that the year with the most housing creation was when 421A was expiring, so there was a rush to get foundations in the ground. We hear from developers that the successor program isn't really working and is leading to a lot of 99-unit buildings. Do you see the city making a push in Albany next year to fix that?

Well, we absolutely need the program to be working and producing housing. We can't hit our goals if 485-x isn't working to create more housing across the city. It's an important piece of a broader set of tools.

And it's not working in ways that people across the board are happy with. Labor isn't satisfied, and developers who want to build larger sites aren't satisfied either. So if something happens in Albany next year, it requires everyone coming to the table to solve this together in a way that ultimately works.

I still think it's a little early. There are still projects coming in under 421A, and even some extensions from the last session. But the prevalence of 99-unit buildings clearly signals an issue. There are sites leaving floor area unused, which isn't good.

Some say close the loophole, but if you just make it harder to build 99 units, nothing may get built—which would be worse. So the goal is to see whether people are willing to come back to the table and fix this in a way that advances multiple policy goals without pitting them against each other.

You mentioned your time at NYC Kids RISE. What did you learn from that experience that's influenced how you think about housing and economic opportunity?

Something I love about NYC Kids RISE is the idea that you can create a vehicle for different entities to come together to invest in a child's future.

Our neighborhoods are ecosystems—they include belief systems, small businesses, institutions, and schools. Each piece can either reinforce or detract from a child's expectations for success.

That idea applies directly to housing. We're not just investing in housing units—we're trying to improve neighborhoods, create better retail, better services, and better health outcomes.

It's about community participation and collective well-being. Creating belonging and autonomy is critical. Research shows that those things enable economic mobility.

In our housing plan, particularly in the NYCHA section, we talk about working with philanthropy to invest directly in scholarship accounts for NYCHA students to help build wealth and reinforce expectations around college.

You've worked across multiple administrations. How would you describe the current mayor's management style, and how is it different?

The mayor speaks to a very wide range of New Yorkers and emphasizes the importance of a government that is responsive—especially to people who feel it hasn't been.

What I find most compelling is the focus on public excellence. That means not just big policies and partnerships, but fixing systems people interact with every day—like the housing lottery and code enforcement.

That work doesn't replace the need for growth and new housing—it complements it. There's a strong focus on making sure people feel government is actually addressing their day-to-day challenges, not just big-picture policy goals.

One of the biggest issues we see is the cost of liability insurance in construction. Is the city looking at a captive insurance program or changes to the scaffold law?

We're planning an investment and issuing an RFBI (Request for Bids/Bidders Information) through EDC [the New York City Economic Development Corporation] to create a structure that allows the city to use its purchasing power to help bring down costs.

There are multiple drivers of insurance costs, some regulatory, some not. Our focus is on what we can influence directly through a city-backed insurance approach.

With respect to the scaffold law, it's politically very challenging to change. It would require many stakeholders to agree, and there are strong views about its role in protecting workers.

More broadly, rising construction costs are one of the biggest concerns I have. Costs have increased dramatically in just five years. That's why the plan includes building code reform, housing maintenance reform, and other efforts to reduce costs through innovation.

There's always been tension between building affordable housing and prevailing wage requirements. How is the administration approaching that?

The plan doesn't explicitly require prevailing wage, but a lot of housing does get built with it, especially when federal funding is involved. It's simply more expensive.

Our approach is to avoid pitting these goals against each other while taking a pragmatic approach. For example, we're implementing the Construction Justice Act, which sets a $40 minimum wage plus benefits for workers on certain HPD projects.

It's about raising the floor for workers while still making sure we can build the housing we need—without overcorrecting.

Do you see a role for artist or occupation-based housing preferences going forward?

This has come up a lot, and it raises fair housing concerns. Any preference system has to ensure it doesn't create disparate impacts by race or class.

The data doesn't strongly support artist-specific preferences from a fair housing perspective. And it raises broader questions: teachers, essential workers … where do you draw the line?

We already had a decade-long lawsuit over community preference policies. That experience showed how careful we need to be to avoid unintended consequences.

It's something we're open to discussing, but it's complex.

On housing court, many landlords feel the system isn't working post-COVID. Is the administration looking at reforms?

Yes. The mayor recently visited Brooklyn Housing Court—the first sitting mayor to do so—which speaks to how little attention this has received at a high level.

Housing court isn't working well for anyone: judges, tenants, or landlords. We're working to understand the challenges and identify solutions.

There are staffing issues, right-to-counsel delays, and infrastructure problems. Expanding access to counsel can actually help cases move faster.

We're also exploring eviction diversion programs and other ways to resolve disputes outside of court. It's going to require a mix of strategies.

With a new charter revision process underway, are there structural changes that could support your housing goals?

We already went through a charter revision focused on housing last year, which introduced meaningful changes.

The new commission will likely consider a broader range of issues. While we addressed many housing-related needs, new ideas can still be brought forward.

We're hearing proposals around procurement, nonprofit contracting, and infrastructure delivery. Public input will be important, as it was last time, and could lead to further improvements.