By Raheem Soto
New York has a housing problem. That much is obvious.
What is less acceptable is the idea that Albany should solve that problem by steadily weakening the ability of towns, villages and local residents to make decisions about their own communities.
Governor Kathy Hochul has spent years advancing housing policies that increasingly tie state money, environmental review and development policy to Albany’s preferred outcome: build more housing, build it faster and reduce the ability of local processes to slow it down.
Her administration calls that progress.
I see an erosion of home rule.
The latest example is Hochul’s “Let Them Build” agenda, which she signed into law as part of the FY 2027 budget. The package makes major changes to New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, with the stated goal of shortening environmental reviews and accelerating housing and infrastructure projects. Hochul says the reforms preserve local zoning while eliminating unnecessary delays.
But home rule is about more than whether a town technically retains a zoning code.
It is about whether communities retain meaningful control over what gets built, where it gets built, how projects are reviewed and whether residents have a meaningful opportunity to influence decisions that permanently change the places where they live.
That principle should matter especially on Long Island.
Southampton is not Buffalo. Riverhead is not Manhattan. Huntington is not Albany.
Every community has different roads, schools, water supplies, wastewater limitations, environmental concerns and neighborhood character. Local zoning exists precisely because those differences are real.
When Albany creates statewide incentives, approval structures and funding systems designed to push municipalities toward one preferred housing policy, local control can remain on paper while becoming weaker in practice.
That is already visible through Hochul’s Pro-Housing Communities program.
The administration openly states that certain discretionary state funding is prioritized for municipalities that receive the state’s Pro-Housing designation. Those programs include significant economic-development and infrastructure funding.
Think about what that means.
Albany does not necessarily have to abolish local zoning to influence local land-use policy. It can simply make communities choose between maintaining their own approach and gaining access to money their taxpayers already send to the state.
That is not the kind of partnership between state and local government New Yorkers should want.
It is leverage.
And local officials elsewhere in New York are already saying so. In February, the Town of Hurley formally objected to what it described as an erosion of home rule, arguing that state actions were centralizing decisions involving zoning, infrastructure and community standards.
The same concern has surfaced on Long Island around other Albany housing proposals. State Sen. Steve Rhoads and local officials have criticized the proposed REVIVE Act because qualifying projects could be treated as permitted by right, with statewide rules affecting density, height and parking while limiting local review.
The governor and her supporters have a legitimate argument: New York desperately needs more housing, lengthy approval processes can increase costs, and local governments sometimes use zoning and environmental review to prevent reasonable development.
Those problems deserve solutions.
But correcting bad local policy cannot become an excuse for transferring more decision-making power to Albany.
There is a better approach.
Give municipalities incentives to create housing. Help them expand sewer infrastructure. Provide grants for downtown redevelopment. Help convert vacant commercial properties. Support first-time homebuyers. Work with communities to identify appropriate areas for multifamily housing.
Hochul’s own housing program contains many of those worthwhile investments.
But incentives should remain incentives.
Once state funding, regulatory deadlines and statewide development mandates begin forcing local governments toward Albany’s preferred land-use decisions, the balance changes.
For Long Island communities, that should be a warning.
Our drinking water, traffic, schools, coastal environment and infrastructure are local realities. The people living with the consequences of development should have the strongest voice in deciding how that development occurs.
Albany has a role.
It should not have the final word on everything.
New York can build more housing without dismantling the principle that local communities know their own needs.
Home rule is not an obstacle to good government.
It is part of good government.
And once Albany takes that authority away, getting it back will be much harder than giving it up.