top of page
Sep 6

Partial Moratorium: Residential development in low-lying areas

Lowland Protection Paired With Upland Upzoning

A proposal by the City Club of New York

June 2024


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Six feet of sea level rise and more frequent and intense storms are expected by 2100, submerging low-lying neighborhoods and extending the floodplain into even more communities. Meanwhile, the City is rezoning for and incentivizing higher-density housing development in these areas, increasing risks to public safety, family investments, and the trauma and expense of relocating people later. 

 

The City Club of New York urgently proposes a pause on incentivizing residential development in coastal New York City. This “partial moratorium” would allow the City sufficient time to adjust its land use and regulatory policies in preparation for climate change. It should be accompanied by upzoning in suitable upland areas convenient to transit and throughout the city to offset and spread the burdens associated with more development. Such a partial moratorium improves the opportunity and necessity of doing more ambitious planning and regulatory changes by providing a deadline that compels all stakeholders to take climate change seriously. 

 

Climate change’s challenges are now escalating, with far more dramatic challenges only decades away.  Let’s not squander our only advantage: the time to plan, budget, and IMPLEMENT adaptation to climate change with long-term public safety, economizing, fairness, and community well-being prominent. This starts with hard decisions today.

 

The map below is conservative.  It indicates the future 500-year floodplain with roughly two-and-a-half feet (31 inches) sea level rise, as predicted for 2050. With six feet (72 inches) sea level rise, the floodplain is somewhat larger; the key difference is in the much larger amount of submerged land.


The GIS analysis and map were prepared by Shibani Debnath and Bansri Makadiya, recent alums of Pratt Institute's graduate Environemental Systems Management program.


PROPOSAL

The City Club of New York urgently proposes a pause on incentivizing residential development in coastal New York City. This “partial moratorium” would allow the City sufficient time to adjust its land use and regulatory policies in preparation for climate change, wherein a vast number of properties will be below high tide and in an enlarged floodplain by 2100. It should be accompanied by upzoning in suitable upland areas convenient to transit and throughout the city to offset and spread the burdens associated with more development. This is not a moratorium on residential development in the endangered coastal areas; the current zoning would remain intact. No downzoning is involved. Property rights would remain intact. Needed community amenities can and should be built. It would simply pause the City’s actively worsening the dangers to life, housing, and communities in these coastal areas.

It is reasonable to plan for a six-foot sea level rise by 2100, submerging much of the coast, sometimes whole neighborhoods. The floodplain will likewise reach further into the city.  Storms and storm surges, like the “500-year” Superstorm Sandy (meaning a one out of 500 chance of happening in any given year), are expected to become much more frequent; they could occur 17 times as often. The threat is particularly acute for the low-lying southern coast of Brooklyn and Queens, Greenpoint, Long Island City, Hunters Point, and East Harlem—not just Lower Manhattan, which has gotten the bulk of the attention and funding. 

 

There is the prospect that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will build storm surge prevention infrastructure to protect portions of the city’s coast, but how and how much is not certain. Nor does this infrastructure fully address sea level rise. Their proposals have proved controversial, with the relevant civic groups questioning their efficacy over time and calling for an integrative approach mindful of the unintended consequences of walling the waterfront—such as aggravating stormwater flood conditions, worsening pollution of water bodies, and downgrading public access. Also, as Hurricane Katrina proved in New Orleans, walling off the sea is only successful if uncompromised.  A failure in one spot along a dike can mean, for instance, the failure of the entire system—and there are multiple ways for a floodwall to fail.

 

The City has engaged in planning for climate change contingencies. The Department of Environmental Protection's work on green infrastructure stands out. The Mayor’s Office and other City agencies have generated significant reportage, data, interactive maps, and other forward-thinking planning. The Department of City Planning has prepared advisory waterfront plans with substantial community input. The City has adopted guidelines, building codes, and zoning to protect buildings in the current floodplain from flood damage. 

 

However, the budgets must be increased and locked in for green infrastructure to be as ubiquitous and maintained as required. Across the board, City agencies lack the necessary mandate and budget to address the threat to the City’s parks, schools, firehouses, public housing, rail yards, subway yards, maritime facilities, electrical substations, sewage treatment plants, waste transfer stations, and other public infrastructure that will be destroyed due to sea level rise and frequent flooding. The existing codes do not extend to the future floodplain, leaving it vulnerable. There is the potential failure of floodproofed buildings as at-risk islets in the coming high tide zone.  The advisory waterfront plans have yet to be adopted to compel their implementation.  Furthermore, the City's decisions to upzone for higher-density housing development in areas that will be submerged or frequently flooded unduly increase risks to public safety, obliterates family investments, and amplifies the trauma and expense of relocating people later.

 

The crux of the problem is political and administrative.  Compared to cities on the Southeast and Gulf coasts of the United States, New York City’s challenges are manageable. As the wealthiest city in the hemisphere, New York City is positioned to rally to the challenge presented by climate change; check out the massive infrastructure projects already completed in London and Tokyo. In the process, we can aspire to a more excellent city—as was done from 1810 to 1860, when a sea change was coming thanks to the Erie Canal and immigration. That’s when we extended the grid, planned the first large “central park,” initiated ferries, rail, and streetcars, ended slavery, and created the public school system. Contemporarily, we can draw inspiration from the Green New Deal proposal by integrating physical planning with economic, social, and racial justice. 

 

The City is planning for the short-term horizon. We have no comprehensive plan. Current City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) studies generally foresee a time horizon of ten years, with token analysis for longer-term climate change. Politicians and community and civic groups are understandably focused on the crisis of the moment—housing right now. Next decade, it will be something else, as, since the 1970s, the primary focus has also been disinvestment, the fiscal crisis, the crime wave, the Great Recession, the fears unleashed by 9/11, the carceral state, and COVID. How can the abiding contingencies of the longer term come to the fore even as we address the priorities of the moment?

 

That’s why we think a partial moratorium is essential. For the moratorium, we do not propose that development cease—not even in areas that will be under high tide in the future; only that there be no more upzoning and a freeze on public incentives for residential development in the most endangered areas… and only for a year or few till needed plans and regulations are put in place. 

 

The City already has the codes and guidelines written for an expanded floodplain; the City only needs to map it. We urge that it be the demarcation of the 500-year floodplain as of 2100—i.e., the equivalent of Superstorm Sandy following a highly likely sea level rise of six feet. This is the minimal boundary since sea level rise will not cease simply because humans have demarcated a new century. Rapidly expanding the area the regulations apply to makes sense since the vast majority of what we build now will still be here beyond 2100. The rules have proven cost-effective and practical, and the development community is accustomed to them. Expanding them to the future floodplain is prudent, not radical.  

 

The thornier issue is what happens in areas that will be underwater and flooded with every high tide. Should these areas be downzoned? Should they be targeted for gradual acquisition? How can renters and others with little housing choice in today’s market be addressed? What about property rights? How can public access and enjoyment of the waterfront be assured? How can neighborhoods best transition to a different climate? How are communities given agency and improved in the process—especially “EJ” (environmental justice) neighborhoods where lower-income and working-class folk have long suffered from pollution and lack of parks? What happens to the land during and after the buyout? A partial moratorium improves the opportunity and necessity of doing this complex planning by giving it a deadline that compels all stakeholders to take the climate change future seriously. 

 

The timing for the partial moratorium is ideal. Vis-a-vis housing: The proposed City of Yes zoning promises to vastly expand the opportunity for housing construction near transit, commercial corridors, and other areas. Vis-a-vis flood protection: Over the next few years, the U.S. Army Corps will devise a new plan for the city, further mindful that flood surge is not the only climate change risk. Vis-à-vis political contingencies: The more we delay, the less likely there will be sufficient federal dollars since the catastrophe facing the Gulf and Southeast will be immensely greater and far sooner.  Besides, major infrastructure takes decades to plan and implement.

 

The City Club recognizes that even saying the word “moratorium” is loaded. We debated whether something like “transition policy” might serve better. But we are alarmed by the prospect of the City muddling through, mayor-to-mayor, without confronting the hard choices needed to ensure that our great city weathers the coming storms of climate change—literally and metaphorically. We are putting it on the line. Let’s not squander our only advantage: the time to plan, budget, and IMPLEMENT adaptation to climate change with long-term public safety, economizing, fairness, and community well-being prominent. 

 

On behalf of the Board of Directors and the Waterfront Committee of the City Club of New York,

 

Tom Fox            John Shapiro 

Co-Chairs, Waterfront Committee 

 

 

City Club Waterfront Committee 2024

Alice Blank

Sally Bowman

Rob Buchanan

Bill Calabrese

Clay Hiles

Sam Jackson

Klaus Jacob

Layla Law-Gisiko

Elliott Maltby

Alex Miller

Gita Nandan

Walter Rodriguez Meyer

Aaron Singh

John West

​

CITATIONS

1. Since they contribute to a neighborhood's resiliency, we do not call for a moratorium on commercial development, public facilities, and public infrastructure (provided they are flood-proofed), even in the areas that will be inundated by high tide.  It will take a generation to reorganize investments and relocate the most endangered folks there. Such non-residential uses contribute to the community’s well-being and resiliency during that transition.

26.  Full moratoria on all development are typically for one year with the prospect of six-month extensions provided there is progress on the planning called for. The “partial moratorium” is a freeze on changing policy embodied in current zoning and codes, so it need not be constrained in time and does not likely need an Environmental Impact Statement as per the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). Any resulting changes to the area subject to the City’s regulations for the floodplain would, nonetheless, trigger the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), including a full CEQR review. This might mean two years are necessary.  For sure, neighborhood-by-neighborhood planning would require varying timeframes of longer than one year, especially considering U.S. Army Corps of Engineers scenarios and ensuring full community partnership in the planning. Recall that the current zoning and the rights thereof would remain intact during the interregnum. The partial moratorium is a freeze on policy, not a cessation of development. That is why it can be implemented speedily.

bottom of page