New York Governor Kathy Hochul's proposal to expedite certain housing projects by relaxing environmental regulations has sparked a heated debate among state's prominent climate advocacy groups. The plan, aimed at addressing the state's housing affordability crisis, would allow developers to build denser housing near public transportation without undergoing additional environmental review if they meet specific criteria.
Some environmental nonprofits, including the New York League of Conservation Voters, have expressed support for limited changes to the decades-old State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), arguing that it can slow down construction times and drive up costs. However, others, such as the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, have criticized Hochul's plan, saying it would roll back a crucial environmental law meant to protect clean water and critical habitats.
The proposed exemption for housing projects with "no significant impacts" on the environment has raised concerns among green groups about the potential impact of reduced scrutiny. Critics argue that this could lead to more development on previously disturbed land without adequate environmental review, which could have devastating consequences for local ecosystems.
A coalition of affordable housing groups and developers, however, sees the current process as a bottleneck that hinders critical projects such as clean energy, transit, and infrastructure initiatives. They claim that environmental regulations can drive up costs and slow down construction times.
Not all environmental organizations are opposed to Hochul's plan, with some arguing that it is not as destructive as initially thought. Earthjustice New York Policy Advocate Liz Moran believes the governor's proposal does not appear to roll back environmental protections entirely. However, concerns remain about the definition of a "previously disturbed site," which could include farmland with old structures.
As the state Senate and Assembly continue holding hearings on Hochul's budget proposal through February, leaders predict a contentious battle over the proposed changes to the environmental review process. A battle over the proposal is expected in March when lawmakers put forward their own plans.
Some environmental nonprofits, including the New York League of Conservation Voters, have expressed support for limited changes to the decades-old State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), arguing that it can slow down construction times and drive up costs. However, others, such as the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, have criticized Hochul's plan, saying it would roll back a crucial environmental law meant to protect clean water and critical habitats.
The proposed exemption for housing projects with "no significant impacts" on the environment has raised concerns among green groups about the potential impact of reduced scrutiny. Critics argue that this could lead to more development on previously disturbed land without adequate environmental review, which could have devastating consequences for local ecosystems.
A coalition of affordable housing groups and developers, however, sees the current process as a bottleneck that hinders critical projects such as clean energy, transit, and infrastructure initiatives. They claim that environmental regulations can drive up costs and slow down construction times.
Not all environmental organizations are opposed to Hochul's plan, with some arguing that it is not as destructive as initially thought. Earthjustice New York Policy Advocate Liz Moran believes the governor's proposal does not appear to roll back environmental protections entirely. However, concerns remain about the definition of a "previously disturbed site," which could include farmland with old structures.
As the state Senate and Assembly continue holding hearings on Hochul's budget proposal through February, leaders predict a contentious battle over the proposed changes to the environmental review process. A battle over the proposal is expected in March when lawmakers put forward their own plans.
. On one hand, I get what climate advocacy groups are saying - we need affordable housing ASAP and these regulations can slow things down too much. But on the other hand, I don't want to see our state's waterways or natural habitats getting destroyed just because we're in a hurry 
. And honestly, I think we need more transparency around what constitutes a "previously disturbed site" - it's all about finding that balance between progress and preserving our environment 
this whole thing is super sketchy... like, i get that housing affordability is a huge issue but do we really wanna sacrifice our planet for it? 
the idea of "no significant impacts" on the environment just sounds like a fancy way of saying 'we're gonna slap a Band-Aid on the problem and pretend everything's fine'. 
what if those 'disturbed sites' turn out to be actual habitats or water sources? that's just crazy talk... 
I don't get why these groups can't just find a compromise, ya know? Like, you wanna reduce regulations on housing projects that benefit low-income people, but then you're gonna roll back environmental protections too? 
It's like they're speaking different languages or something. Can't we just focus on building more homes for people who need 'em without totally sacrificing the planet? 
I mean, I get where these green groups are coming from, but sometimes I think they're being way too rigid. Relaxing regulations a bit wouldn't kill anyone... unless you're some kind of environmental extremist 
.
. I'm not saying relax all regulations, but come on, we can't just build everything in an instant 
️. Give the devs some leeway, but still keep those environmental protections intact 
I'm kinda split on this one... On one hand, housing affordability in NY is super dire 
- it's crazy expensive to live here! But at the same time, I don't wanna see us losing all our protections for the environment 
If we start building denser housing without proper review, what's gonna happen to all those poor critters who call these islands home? 
And on top of that, I'm worried that this is just a way to get construction moving faster and cheaper - what about the cost to us in terms of our own quality of life? 
. On one hand, it's all about getting affordable housing up and running ASAP 
. Like, what if reducing environmental scrutiny leads to more development on sensitive land? 
It could have serious repercussions for local ecosystems and biodiversity 
. Is it just gonna get watered down to a point where any old site is considered 'previously disturbed'? 
. We need some real clarity on that front 
. But we gotta find a balance between progress and preservation 
. Maybe this whole thing can be hashed out over the next few months 
. Fingers crossed 
. I'm not sure I buy that "no significant impacts" thing, either... it sounds like they're just tryin' to push stuff through without doin' their homework 
.
. It's like my old man used to say, "You gotta think about the future, kiddo!" 
. I think it's all about finding that sweet spot where innovation meets sustainability 
. And honestly, who gets to decide what "no significant impacts" even means? It's like we're playing a game of environmental whack-a-mole 
, where we gotta keep pushing back the limits without losing sight of what's truly important 
.
. Can't we find a way to make development and conservation work together? 
, then maybe it's worth considerin'. It's like, how do you balance progress with conservation? 
. How are they even gonna define that? 
It's just so frustrating when it feels like no one's on the same page 
.
. Maybe there's a way to do it without sacrificin' our planet 
.