Press Room

"The life of a Black, homeless young man in a mental health crisis still has value – or, it should. I believe Daniel Penny was not trying to kill Jordan Neely, on camera, but he did. And while the level of accountability may be difficult to determine, no accountability at all is not an acceptable option. Does anyone doubt that if the roles were reversed, and a white former Marine in a moment of crisis was choked to death by a Black homeless man, there would have been a different outcome?

"This is the result that our mayor and many others wanted – that’s why he said that Penny did what the city 'should have done.' That the right response to a man in desperate need of food and support is violence. Instead of adding services to support people like Jordan Neely, the mayor has added to an environment of fear, rather than one of compassion. 

"We don’t know everything that passengers saw or felt on that train car, and can't dismiss any real or realized fears. We do know that neither Blackness nor poverty nor nuisance constitute an imminent threat. Yet this verdict tells people that the system is okay with violence against marginalized people. 

"Much has been made of the precedent a guilty verdict would have set, that New Yorkers would no longer intervene to help New Yorkers in need of aid. I am alarmed by the opposite precedent being set forth – another man killed on camera, without any consequences, will only invite more violence.

"Jordan Neely needed aid – and intervention would have meant food, or shelter, or mental health support, or a simple acknowledgement of his humanity. Instead he was met with violence. Jordan Neely is dead, and Daniel Penny is being celebrated, and that is neither safety nor justice."

"Jordan Neely's life had value, and there must be accountability for his death.  "One charge has been dismissed, and it is clear that despite what the mayor has said, regardless of the intention, Daniel Penny did not do "what we should have done as a city," and I hold hope for some semblance of justice."

After the New York City Council passed the ‘City of Yes’ housing proposal today, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams released the following statement:

“The housing and homelessness crisis impacts New Yorkers across our city, and every community must be a part of combatting it. With today’s vote and the months of negotiations that preceded it, the City Council has taken a significant step forward to increase housing production, and should be applauded for it. At the same time, we cannot simply build our way out of the affordability crisis. Today’s plan, and the City for All investments paired with it, must be part of an overall strategy that includes preservation, voucher expansion, tenant protections, and more. I look forward to working with partners in government and advocacy to ensure that deeply affordable, truly accessible housing is the priority as the City of Yes is realized.”

Last month, the Public Advocate responded to the plan’s vote through committee with a statement on its benefits and limitations. Ahead of today’s vote, the Public Advocate published an op-ed in City Limits which explores what must be done after the plan passes, and where it fits into a larger strategy for housing affordability. The piece is available online, and full text is below.

How Can New York Be a City of ‘Yes, And?

by Jumaane D. Williams, Public Advocate for the City of New York

On Thursday, the City Council is set to vote on “City of Yes”—a plan to increase housing production, put forward by the mayor and adjusted to be significantly more feasible to pass through the work of City Council in recent weeks. Despite some worrisome cracks and carve-outs, the Council will approve the proposal, and be applauded for it.

And then what? While revised zoning enables new structures, what other structures can we put in place to ensure that rising developments aren’t accompanied by still-rising rents? How can we be a City of ‘Yes, And?’

First, we hold developers of new units to strict affordability standards—not lax guidelines that are easily circumvented, such as those set forth at the state level under decades of 421-a. Government can and must invest more in and subsidize affordability, but that does not constitute a blank check for no return.

At the same time, as I’ve always argued, we can’t build our way out of this crisis, both because only a minority of new units will meet affordability standards, and because even 80,000 to 100,000 apartments will not increase housing stock at the levels needed, and certainly not on the urgent timeline this ongoing emergency demands. Preservation, not merely construction, is an essential part of any serious housing strategy.

Fortunately, while our reported vacancy rate is alarmingly low, there are units across the city excluded from the count that need to be included in our housing strategy. Property owners have spent years warehousing apartments. They have decided these units are worth more to them vacant than occupied, and tenants everywhere are paying the price. In many cases, these “zombie apartments” become dilapidated and harm residents of entire buildings and blocks. Any owner truly struggling with costs should be connected to the many supportive programs available, and hopefully some new ones, not pass costs to struggling renters or leave rooms vacant when space is scarce. 

When I was in the City Council, I passed a “Housing, Not Warehousing” bill to require a canvassing of the city for vacant properties which could be utilized for housing production. The Adams administration has instructed agencies to perform similar work in the past with city-owned spaces. But private owners are taking advantage of a lack of oversight and enforcement, and we need both an accurate count and actionable steps to bring these units back online. A significant investment must be made in HPD’s inspection and correction of these spaces. Advocates suggest about 80,000 apartments may currently be warehoused, and making them available would essentially double the promise behind City of Yes. In addition to revitalizing long-vacant spaces, under-used office buildings should continue to be prioritized for conversion. 

The need for preservation also extends to maintaining what are intended as the most deeply affordable units in our city, NYCHA’s public housing. Fulfilling the promise of NYCHA requires deep investment in capital upgrades to existing buildings, as well as the development of additional units—potentially through land trusts, RAD-PACT partnerships and in authentic partnership with residents. NYCHA residents have seen their living spaces and their trust in city management decline for decades. While the worst private landlords take housing off the market and make rents unaffordable, too often poor conditions in public housing make units unlivable.

No amount of new units will address the housing crisis if New Yorkers simply cannot afford to move into them. This administration wants to trumpet the Council’s pending passage of “City of Yes” as a win, but refuses to implement housing voucher expansion passed by the Council years ago. They are actively preventing the most immediate means of getting New Yorkers into permanent homes, while supporting record rent increases on regulated units. If the mayor is committed to housing reforms, even only for political gain, he can at the very least stop ignoring the city’s housing laws for political purposes. 

Particularly in areas where new large-scale developments may not be best, we should expand efforts to prevent and enforce against unscrupulous deed theft—families who have held homes for generations cannot be displaced.

Finally, while affordability percentages were increased in the final package, the city’s income-targeted mandates remain flawed at their foundations. This is a federal failure—as I have written in the past, Annual Median Income is calculated using far too wide a map—including suburban counties to set so-called “affordable” housing rates that are completely out of reach for the New Yorkers most in need of homes. A federal re-calculation of AMI, centered on our city, is vital for a long-term strategy that recognizes the reality in our streets, not the hypothetical on a spreadsheet

No measure, no singular vote, will solve the housing crisis that has been building for decades. Addressing housing insecurity, affordability, and homelessness requires not just new construction, but a deconstruction of the root causes and foundational solutions. Only then can we build up our city in a way that lifts up New Yorkers and keeps them in their homes.

With the City Council set to vote on the ‘City of Yes’ housing plan on Thursday, City Limits has published an op-ed from Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams on the ways in which the plan fits into an overall strategy for housing affordability, and how to go beyond it, entitled ‘How Can New York Be a City of ‘Yes, And?’ In the piece, the Public Advocate questions what comes next after the plan passes.

As the Public Advocate points out, “No measure, no singular vote, will solve the housing crisis that has been building for decades. Addressing housing insecurity, affordability, and homelessness requires not just new construction, but a deconstruction of the root causes and foundational solutions. Only then can we build up our city in a way that lifts up New Yorkers and keeps them in their homes.”

Among the necessary steps put forward are holding developers to strict affordability standards, repairing and maintaining NYCHA, and working to bring tens of thousands of ‘warehoused’ vacant apartments back onto the market through enforcement. As the Public Advocate declares, “ We can’t build our way out of this crisis… Preservation, not merely construction, is an essential part of any serious housing strategy.”

“While the worst private landlords take housing off the market and make rents unaffordable, too often poor conditions in public housing make units unlivable,” he argues. “No amount of new units will address the housing crisis if New Yorkers simply cannot afford to move into them.”

Finally, the Public Advocate demands the administration commit to meaningful affordability policies rather than declare victory, that “This administration wants to trumpet the Council’s pending passage of ‘City of Yes’ as a win, but refuses to implement housing voucher expansion passed by the Council years ago. They are actively preventing the most immediate means of getting New Yorkers into permanent homes, while supporting record rent increases on regulated units.”

The full piece is available online here.

"During his media availability today, the mayor continued to scapegoat migrants arriving in our city for his own failure to support policies that benefit New Yorkers. He denigrated immigrants and non-citizens as unworthy of basic rights. His rhetoric is as dangerous to our city as his leadership has been harmful. 

"The mayor has misled the city for years about the cost of aiding asylum seekers, but the cost of his misinformation is clear. Longtime New Yorkers should know that if leaders like this mayor supported the policies he now blames migrants for preventing, those leaders could have advanced them long before the first buses arrived. The money to fund these programs was there, the mayor's support wasn’t. We cannot allow people like the mayor to mislead and divide us on these issues. With the looming danger of the Trump presidency, and the mayor choosing to mimic rather than condemn it, we have to stand together to defend both the New Yorkers who have little and the ones who have less."

"I want to wish a bountiful Thanksgiving to all celebrating in New York City,  the homeland of the Lenape people.

"In a time of uncertainty, of existing challenges and looming fears, I feel it is especially important to reflect with gratitude and grace – not to ignore struggles, but to steel ourselves for them on the strength of our blessings. I am blessed with the opportunity to work to create a safer, more just, more affordable city.. I am grateful for  my family, friends, and my team.

"In his first Thanksgiving proclamation, President Lincoln called not only for a day of gratitude, but one to petition for 'inestimable blessings of peace, union, and harmony throughout the land.' I celebrate the holiday in that spirit, rather than the false presentation of its origins and the harm done to indigenous people.

"I hope that New Yorkers’ celebrations and your table are full; that we are able to spend time with those we hold dear. As we humbly consider all that which has given us strength, joy, and support this past year, we re-dedicate to supporting the most vulnerable New Yorkers in the coming year."