By Walter Pryce
This is an opinion column. It reflects the views of the writer. It discusses a brief by the Manhattan Institute; the brief’s findings and framing are the Manhattan Institute’s, and the recommendations for Western New York here are the writer’s.
Albany’s next big housing fight is already taking shape, and a new brief from the Manhattan Institute offers a useful map of it. The brief, by Eric Kober and published Nov. 12, reviews “State of Yes,” a package of 32 housing bills that Assembly member Tony Simone of Manhattan and a group of progressive legislators proposed in August.
The Manhattan Institute, a market-oriented think tank, finds “the seeds of good housing legislation” in the package. Its objection is to the bargain behind it: that bills making it easier to build must be paired with new rules on private landlords. “More housing is an inherently desirable goal that should not have to be part of a trade,” Mr. Kober writes.
For Western New York, the more useful part of the brief may be its data, because it shows that Buffalo’s housing problem is not New York City’s, and that it is not standing still either.
What the brief found
Mr. Simone pitched the package as an answer to the state’s housing shortage. “New Yorkers need a big and bold housing agenda.… We need to stop nibbling around the edges,” he said when it was introduced, as the brief quotes him.
The Manhattan Institute sorts the 32 bills into “pro-housing” and “pro-tenant” groups. It urges Gov. Kathy Hochul to build on three supply bills in 2027, in this order: a wider exemption from environmental review for affordable housing; an “Exclusionary Zoning Reform” bill, A2586, from Assembly member Anna Kelles of Ithaca that would set statewide minimum zoning standards; and a state zoning board of appeals for affordable housing. It is skeptical of the landlord measures, such as a tenant opportunity-to-purchase bill, and says the governor’s own position on the package is unclear.
The brief also argues that upstate and downstate need different things. “Bills that impose statewide administrative burdens to solve primarily downstate problems should be less of a priority than bills that are likely to have the greatest effects in areas where more housing needs to be constructed,” it says.
What it says about Buffalo
Using Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, the brief reports that 46.7% of renter households in the Buffalo–Cheektowaga metro were cost-burdened in 2024, paying more than 30% of income for housing and utilities. That is below the 49.4% national rate and down from 48.9% in 2014. Among households earning $45,000 to $74,999, the Buffalo figure is 27%, compared with 65.2% in the New York City metro.
The Manhattan Institute reads this as evidence that upstate cost burden is “primarily driven by income,” and suggests it may be eased through rent supplements, while downstate needs more supply. That is a fair reading of the rent numbers.
But the brief’s home-price table tells a second story. Buffalo’s ratio of median home price to median income rose from 2.5 in 2014 to 3.7 in 2025. Nationally, the ratio went from 4.0 to 4.7. By that measure, Buffalo is still cheaper than the country, but it has been getting more expensive faster. That is a warning sign, and an argument for making it easier to build here before prices catch up.
Where the Kelles bill would land in Western New York
As the brief describes it, A2586 would bar cities from requiring lots larger than 1,200 square feet, ban off-street parking requirements and allow at least four homes on each lot. That would reach Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Lackawanna, Tonawanda, Lockport and North Tonawanda. In towns, minimum lot sizes would be capped at 5,000 square feet where water and sewer lines exist, and 20,000 square feet elsewhere.
Buffalo has already done part of this on its own. Its Green Code made it the first major U.S. city to eliminate minimum parking requirements, Streetsblog reported in January 2017. The suburbs are a different matter. This page argued last month that Western New York’s towns should start with their minimum lot sizes if they want more starter homes.
The strongest objection
The best case against a statewide floor is local control. Town boards know their sewer capacity, their roads and their drainage better than Albany does, and many Western New York residents chose the suburbs for the larger lots that a state rule would chip away at. There is also a fair point in the brief’s own data: in a region where weak incomes drive much of the cost burden, zoning changes alone will not lower anyone’s rent next year.
Those are real concerns, but they argue for a modest floor, not none. The bill, as described, leaves towns free to require bigger lots where there is no sewer, and the Manhattan Institute itself recommends starting with small changes, “through lot splits and small numbers of additional units where only one is permitted today.” Letting a homeowner add a second unit is not the end of local control.
What Western New York should do
Western New York’s state legislators should not let this become a downstate-only debate. They should press for the supply bills that fit upstate, starting with the environmental-review exemption and a version of the Kelles minimum-zoning standards with sensible limits for towns, and judge the landlord bills on their own merits rather than as a price of admission.
Gov. Hochul should say where she stands on the package before the 2027 session opens, and include the supply measures in her own agenda.
Town boards in Erie and Niagara counties should review their own lot-size and parking rules now. Towns that act first will have more say over how any state standard applies to them.
What you can do
Ask your Assembly member and state senator whether they support A2586 and the environmental-review exemption, and whether they think housing supply should be traded for anything. Then ask your town board when it last reviewed its minimum lot size. Both answers will tell you a lot about whether Western New York stays affordable.
Leave a Reply