Burned in the Bronx: Making sense of election upset

City Council members should not draw the wrong conclusion from their colleague Marjorie Velázquez’s election defeat last week.

Velázquez’s support for a mixed-use project in Throggs Neck is being blamed for her loss to Kristy Marmorato, the first Republican to win a Bronx general election in 50 years. Her colleagues’ kneejerk reaction would be to pander to NIMBYists who demand they reject housing development in their districts.

The bigger problem, though, was that Velázquez flip-flopped on the project’s rezoning at the 11th hour, validating constituents’ suspicion that she could not be trusted. Not only that, but she hid from them for much of the debate, fearing for her safety.

The Council member was threatened by opponents of the project, and that should not be taken lightly. Personal threats have no place in our public discourse. But the response cannot be to avoid community meetings. It’s the NYPD’s job to protect people.

As for the development controversy, voters don’t expect their elected officials to agree with them on everything. Most will respect a politician who takes a contrarian stance and articulately defends it.

New Yorkers of a certain vintage will remember the late Assembly member Anthony Genovesi, who consistently opposed the death penalty despite representing a conservative Brooklyn district during the high-crime 1980s and 1990s. His constituents strongly disagreed with Genovesi’s position on capital punishment, but they admired his bravery and repeatedly re-elected him. Most eventually came to see the death penalty as ineffective and unjust.

Brad Lander doggedly pursued an upzoning of Gowanus despite NIMBY opposition. He spent years building local support and came to terms with the de Blasio administration without any apparent pressure from organized labor or other politicians. The rezoning passed, triggering a flurry of mixed-income apartment projects. Lander was elected city comptroller.

Velázquez didn’t show moral fiber like Genovesi or pound the pavement like Lander. Instead she criticized the proposed development — which will bring hundreds of apartments and a supermarket to Bruckner Boulevard — throughout the public review process, then reversed herself under pressure from City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and Mayor Eric Adams.

The developers’ agreement to use union labor played a pivotal role in her decision, which triggered hundreds of thousands of dollars in union spending on her re-election.

Unions don’t win elections, however. Candidates do. And Velázquez was a bad candidate.

Voters on both sides of the rezoning did not like how she handled it. Opponents were outraged by her approval. Supporters felt betrayed by her reluctance to approve it and saw her change of heart as insincere.

She had been elected with support from Open New York, a pro-housing group that expected her to embrace apartment projects, not resist them.

Velázquez might argue that her hostility to the proposal gave her leverage to extract concessions from its developers. But a Council member need not be hostile to gain leverage. Developers will do everything within reason to gain the local member’s support, knowing it’s rare for the Council to buck its tradition of member deference. The last two times it happened were 2021 and 2009.

It wouldn’t be a plausible excuse in any event, because Velázquez clearly catered to project opponents from the outset. They were classic not-in-my-backyard types, unwilling to share their neighborhood with new tenants or tolerate buildings taller than theirs.

Unlike in communities of color, Throggs Neck residents objected to the creation of affordable housing, not the lack of it. Rezoning would trigger the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing law, meaning 1 in 4 units would be income-restricted.

To help society and also win re-election, Velázquez needed to advance the narrative that 348 apartments would not harm the community and in fact would benefit it, and the city as a whole.

The mayor makes this case all the time. “Don’t tell me you support more housing in the city,” Adams will say, “then say ‘no’ when it comes to your neighborhood.”

Leadership — that’s what New Yorkers expect from the City Council. Which is why Marjorie Velázquez won’t be there next year.

Read more

New York

Groundhog day in NYC: Housing’s recurring nightmare

New York

Zoning wars: City’s developers, future at mercy of politics

New York

It’s official: Rent control is about wrecking apartments