Institutional differences. For the second part of the kthe c. E. O. Will interview the governor of oregon who has been out in front. They play such an Important Role to bring together governors for sraourplal challenges. I want to acknowledge the western governors so, who has been a partner and worked closely with governor cotechnique and other executives to develop solutions and Work Together on issues of critical importance to the western united states. Housing abe affordability is one of them. It is essentially to the health and wellbeing of so Many Americans but for a Team Families rental housing and Home Ownership is increasingly costly. The foremost issue is the shortage of approximately four million units. Some estimates have it at seven million so it is something challenge. Half of the renters are spending 30 or more on rent which is an all time high. Many in d. C. We feel it every day. Homelessness has risen sharply where repeat is rising in pew Research Indicates there are initial steps states are taking to contain rents, make buying homes a reality appear reducing homelessness. A growing number of states and counties are looking to the solutions and passing laws. We will have a discussion with two guests. The commissioner and c. E. O. Of new york state homes and montanas director of Environmental Quality and housing being Task Force Chair for the governor. Join me in welcoming the commissioner and travis for the next panel. Thank you. Welcome, commissioner and director. I would like to thank you for traveling to washington, d. C. To discuss what your states are doing to grapple with the housing crisis. I would like to welcome the 400 people who registered for this event here in our offices in d. C. And any online. The participants are pretty wide ranging. We have state legislative, regulatory and executive staff and many housing experts, academics and advocates. So this is going to be a really interesting discussion because the centerpiece of the efforts that montana has tphapbgted, that new york is considering involves a set of policies traditionally left to localities, counties, cities, unincorporated areas. That is Land Use Planning and zoning. Statewide zoning efforts have grown sharply since 2019 when oregon was the first state to put a socalled middle housing bill on the books. It deals with smaller more affordable units like accessory dwelling units which might be an apartment standing on the land of a Single Family home or a duplex or basement apartment or try plex. Now fine states allow and six permit duplexesen most residential lots and some are proposing lower cost forms that is traditionally stymied by local regulatory panels. So the focus of this discussion will be to dig in with two experts from different states on the problems they are facing, the reasons they are recommending Land Use Planning and zoning to address the problems and Evidence Based Solutions that they are proposing. Just to make it interesting i would say it would be hard to identify two states that are more dissimilar than montana and fork. There are similarities but when it comes to population dense did i, geography, race and ethnicity Political Representation there are significant differences yet i have been struck about the similarity of the proposals coming out of both states, not the differences. Understood the leadership of montanas governor and the director, the task force that he leads recommended proposals that were facted by the state legislature. It is a very sweeping set of proposals and very similar to the thrust and in some cases specifics of proposals that the commissioner has been the chief architect of for the governor of new york. I want to dig in with the discussion with these two for about 45 minutes but audience members start putting your questions into the chat and thinking of what you want to say because with about 15 minutes left we will take your questions. Director, lets start with a question i will ask both of you but please kick us off. Talk about the problems of your state and Evidence Based Solutions you landed on and your task force landed on are and what the underlaying reasons, the most important underlaying reasons were that you decided to go there route. Thank you for the invitation to be here. In july of 2022, the governor signed, drafted an executive order for us to aggressively put together recommendations not only for the legislature but executive to consider and implement changes to improve the housing in the state. Lets go back a little bit and look at the start of our housing problem. It has been a decade in the works. Many states see the same thing. However, what we saw through covid is that people didnt want to live in as urban an area and could work repoeltl. So we see communities growing at over 10 per year which is very aggressive. Then they need provision for housing and altos that live in month are forced to pay a much higher housing rate. Availability with sub 3 for rental and median home prices went over 700,000. This is an historical sustain unsustainable by toes that live there and throws that are trying to be attracted so we assembled a 27 member panel and we insured it was bipartisan, point out stake and point out geographic and multigeographic. We set up a threemonth schedule and delivered i think we were six weeks in the first six weeks away delivered our first report which is recommendation for the legislature to consider because we were going two the 2023 session. We needed proposals far in advance for the legislature to fully digest, it takes time to get ideas through. The second report was completed in december and that was proposals for the executive to consider. When i say executive, it is those who implement both at the state and local level the executive side of process and procedure. Under the direction of the d. E. Q. , department of Environmental Quality people were upset we were a significant bear your. Spent 18 months or two years being a significant barrier to the provision and allowance for the permitting of housing and we got better in a very short period of time. That is one i think i want to come back to the role environmental regulations have played in terms of blocking housing. We made a series of recommendations out of this study. I compartmentalized on purpose the approach because at the beginning everyone thrust themselves through the door and said i have the exclusion r solution and almost no one does because to one listens to the other party understanding their Perspective Matters and housing provisions they deal with whether rural or urban they dont listen well. So i said here is how we will do there. We broke it into tack groups, working, construction, financing and other because theres a smattering of other issues. I set the group to say well first fully identify what the challenges are. You may not think of solutions at this point. We ghent and then said lets Brainstorm Solutions and time phase lets find our recommendations. What i said at the beginning is lets allow for the dissenting opinions. Podgel 27 members representing a wide variety of stakes and interests and partisan issues theres no way we would come to full 100 consensus. So i allowed for at the beginning documented dissent saying while i agree housing is not a partisan issue, it is not a rural or urban issue. People need to live in a home they can count on but we allowed people to disagree with a set of recommendations even a solution set to say while there report will be published my name wont be signed to it. While i agree we have a housing issue that recommendation is not my favorite. We came to consensus and get a set fully agreed but will their name on a disagreement and that was just a relief valve. So great i dont have to agree with everything chris says. Could you tell us the major components of that consensus if sure. First, identity is a requirementment we had communities in montana that wouldnt allow that had disaster struck and multifamily housing unit be destroyed you couldnt put another multifamily housing unit back in its place. So we said you have to allow for multifamilies. We allowed for and planned for a significant of 200 million to 300 million was the initial target to buy down margin that would be spent on straw using Infrastructure Investment and extension. We said what we would like to do through the provision of Municipal Infrastructure warrants who are lines, extension that would allow for throws making great margin on mcmansions to invest in multifamily within communities. So then a provision maining for growth policy within three years ted a basket of options within the growth policy they could consider but must at a minimum complete a growth policy. We allowed for a. D. U. s, point out family, reduced the lot size and step back and parking requirements. All of which have contention but all of which if you reduce footprint and essentially can double the housing per footprint you have reduced your cost. To be clear, this is the state saying we are not going to place parking requirements or lot size requirements on you, the communities on you, the developers. That isnt to say you pint decide to do it any way. Absolutely. Commissioner, new york state has the legislature talked about your proposal last year. You are still working it through. Tell us what the major factors are in terms of the problems that need to be addressed and what you have proposed. Sure. Thank you for having me. Im delighted to be part of this conversation. Our governor had been the lawsuit governor prior and spent years going around the state hearing in so many places the number one issue is house availabilityed a affordability availability and she talked about how there were houses and no jobs but now jobs and no housesment so she came to us on being governor what can we do about this . Tell me what we need to do. So between the policy team and my staff we put together this series of promises we brought through the legislative session last year but there are rooted in a couple of important factors for us. One, we didnt arrive at the crisis today. It has been a decade in the making not unlike montana. We have really high rowth and high house price appreciation, just a lot of pressure on the housing market. We have done a great job creating jobs our baseline is we created approximately two million jobs other 10 years but only 400 units of housing and we expect the next decade to produce 400 units of housing and a series of organizations said what do we need the next decade to accommodate growth and the number is about 800,000 so we need to double from 400,to you units it 800,000 units of housing growth and say how do we do that. We put together the proposal calls the housing compact with a series of policy elements. One of the big ones is housing tkwroefrt target, villages, towns, cities, we have over 1500 units of government unit in the state of new york. Many of them on long island. Many on long island and they have zoning controls. We said you can grow however you want, you can legalize accessory units, quad plexes or whatever the larmer ones are, multifamily, by the train station, if you want to go to mansions. Whatever the growth pattern but you have to grow and create options for young people who want to come back to the town they grew up and seniors to downsize and people who want to move into the houses seniors are downsizing so whatever works you can build but we are going to require you to grow and we put in a penalty mechanism. We didnt come up with one of the ideas on our own, we looked at campbell, oregon, massachusetts, fuselage, people doing something for a time and some more aggressively and pulled from the best of those and talked to telled a started building our proposal and they all said dont do an incentive base. Have some starbucks in there so we had a proposal with consequences for, indicted permitting for localities that didnt grow. So that was the focus of the governor. There were other pieces we are bringing back to the ledge legislature this year that are in the National Conversation around commercial conversion and legalizing basement apartments and tax incentives. That is the essence of what we were talking about last year and portions of it this year, too. Thank you. Im going to turn to you to talk now about reaction. Localities, as i mentioned traditionally zoning within their control so you get reaction from them. You are getting reaction from many stakeholder groups that you are dealing with in new york, tenants groups, landlords, developers, et cetera. This is going to go eventually to the director but if you had to distill down to the three biggest learns in terms of talking to the public, to electricalities, about this set of challenges dealing with support and building support, dealing with opposition, what would you think . I would say a couple things. Phobe likes change or if you do, you like it to happen somewhere else, not where you live. And those are always have been and will be truths. But we tried to do a couple things. One is we used a lot of data. So it wasnt we the government making up what should happen and making up the problem or the solution. I think nationally people agree on the problem. We are at a point now taken a while at crisis level but people are talking about the pressure for low income families and finding housing and we agree on the problem. It is step one. Getting to agree on the solution is partially rooting this conversation in data and we cited a lot of data in the effort to say look at tease folks doing independent research about where there is housing growth we see price appreciation were less than where there is no growth and we have pretty abysmal suburban housing growth around new york city so we talk about that and the way that is reflected in prices. Rooting the conversation in data i think showing people what we are talking about. You certainly it towns and villages outside no, with you talked about three or four stories of housing people like might shudder and you go to places like mineola and towns on long island have rezoned and they have three and four story buildings and lively downtown and hard to tkpwraefrbgtsd, coffee shops are full. It is a cool thing. This is somewhat driven by the fact they have three and four story buildings fear the train station and people live here so showing people what we are talking about we get a lot of we getwardy talking about policies and have things but it is go to the place and see what it looks like and that helps sell the conversation for people to take some of the fear away of what we are talking about. I give the example in talking about accessory dwelling units people say how many cars there will be if you put an accessory building. I dont know how many cars were there in a Single Family house the people could have one car or four and why we have to go immediately from an attic apartment or apartment over a garage means traffic and cars. Not to mention Public Transit which are pretty decent in some parts. Showing people there is a town that allowed accessory unit and doesnt look different from one that didnt except there is more availability. Some are showing people what it means rooting the conversation in understanding people are afraid of change and dont give up. You mentioned the x word so i have to ask you about it since you are well positioned to the s word suburbs an growth has been pretty limited in new york city suburbs and it is a pattern we see around the country. The suburbs have been a generated support and opposition bipartisan in a lot of parts of the country. What do you think sort of is unique concerns and solutions are in terms of suburban thinking starting to shift toward the kind of density that you are talking about . I would say a couple things. One, i think for some places it is a little bit of grow for your own success. This is so true in long island and westchester that there are so many young people who want to live there and work whether in the health field or tech field and dont want to commute an hour and cant afford anything. So i think the suburbs are slowly starting to absorb that at the want to grow their next generation and they need to provide some of that. The other way we brought up this topic is in infrastructure. We invest a lot of water and sewer, roads, schools, whatever the issue pine and we will continue to do that and dont want infrastructure to be a barrier and we are sensitive to the fact there feeds to be more infrastructure to see how it can handle growth and they cant always pay for it so we can be a willing partner will help us be more successful. Director, i was struck about the fact that in montana you are able to get your city mayors for the most part, environmental groups, conservative think tanks, all on the same page when it came to your approaches that had been enacted. What would you say if you had to identify two or three lessons in terms of how you accomplished that what would at the be . One of the key wins i would say at the beginning was to identify what we werent going to do. So, through definitions housing can take on so many different terms or groups or solutions sets so we we didnt address Affordable Housing because you start it economic dialogue and those are challenging. We know that provision for additional husbanding will trickle through and filter and ultimately the market will respond and provide a better price point and more availability. I will illustrate this through other being. During the task force and implementation of legislation we had a failure disaster, a rain and snow event that washed out a community, multiple communities were impacted. Housing was seriously harmed. During that event they said you are a housing guy why dont you help with there emergency housing provision and here is how and no because it is a different issue. So saying no to certain provisions of housing really helped us focus on adding supply where we feed and not within every did he ever figures of every solution that or problem that was identified. The second thing is being aggressive. Be aggressive in the tame lane. When we began the attack force an economist who said theres no way it solve it. We have been dealing with this 10 years. Tpfrd us you have no solution. Respectfully i disagreed. We set an aggressive pace it provide solutions and we have not solved all of our housing problems. We provide incremental improvement and you provide incremental additional husbanding units and Solutions Come forward. Gathering bipartisan support in the beginning, point out stake and point out community the voices that we sent out from our individual meetings, we were competing aggressively, but im saying to those folks go spread the message. You are not the sole voice. Go within your community and so, and if you are a builder talk to other builders. You are not the sole voice. Come back and provide us input is we have an inclusive montana response. A followupper both of you. Have you seen in it current wave of discussion about statewide zoning reforms, have you seen new stakeholders come to the table or have you identified voices that should be heard more than they are being now . We will go backwards, if you can answer that, director, then i will get to the commissioner. Island say within the high growth communities the voices are loud. That is simple. Within the rural kpaoupbts you still have a housing need and could be lower scale but it doesnt matter we people still dont have houses. For three families it can be a major deal . Absolutely. We are seeing double digit growth in a county you can see lie single digit in Rural Communities as even our state tends it urbanize. But if you dont address some of the rural feed especially as they are distant from logistics and from labor force that creates a higher cost naturally you have to maintain a focus beyond the loud and obvious. You have to still address the Rural Communities in your state. For us that is certainly the kind of community has grown a lot and we talk about we proposals are shot down they are turned down by people who currently have access to housing and against. They tends to be not exclusively Young Professionals eastern priced out of the higher cost community. Saying i would like to so i dont get to sit on the planning vote and have a vote but i would certainly be supportive of and we see that in no, because of the particularities of the lands use process but throughout the state there are a lot of environmental regulatory barriers that prevent housing from getting built or take years and local people against. So for us the extension of the communities topic by topic has helped bring more people into the conversation to talk about access to housing. Theres been sort of the racism that exist aware not land but in the new york city and new York State Housing ecosystem has gotten a bigger voice of people talking about access to high Opportunity Areas and not allowing suburbs to continue what is effectively impacting the redlining we have seen so long we passed a bill to not allow people to discriminate based on source of facebook so if you have a section eight voucher we had a settlement the other day there is brokers or rampant and latent discrimination. So i think all of those voices are voices that had traditionally been in the pro housing, pro supply and Pro Development and that is giving us wind and we also have a great new bill yes, in gods back yard bringing churches two the land use conversation. We long will Church Redevelopment in new york city and rest of the state powerful jinx for development but looking with per tools an another great voice. A lot of religious institutions tend to be house rich if you will. That is they have facilities, they are cash poor so this helps them sustained themselves. Absolutely. And we try to say while we are the state Housing Agency we can not build the supply that is needed in new york state. It has to be done by the private sector. We only have so many resources meant it create Affordable Housing and we feed taxes and zoning incentives and middle housing. We feed that to get built in addition to what we do. A followup question for you, commissioner. You pensioned systemic racism. There are serious issues in new york and elsewhere with racially segregated housing. What has been the brought discussion about tenant needs as part of this discussion on zoning and Land Use Planning . We have very Strong Campaign in full court and by extension a little bit of fork state but out of the city around increasing taken protections hand and hand with the splay conversation. We have just sort of a little bit of context in full court theres about three million housing units, about a million of them Home Ownership and million unregulated rental units and another million regulated units. So we have a very highly regulated and protect a lot of low income people and stable housing in new york and theres still a large amount unregulated. Police people are looking at sort of three to 10 unit buildings maybe unregulated or basement apartments or Owner Occupied three unit building. So theres a real desire as we talk about supply from the sort of tenant advocacy side it increase tenant protection in new york city and new york state. So that for us is part of the conversation and we are trying it make sure aware clear that supply is our number one success we feed people to be focussed on and we want the tenant protection discussions but not with no supply or we will continue to be at crisis level in new york city. Now aware getting to the lightning round of questions. Audience are coming audience questions are coming soon. I will they two items on the table and you can respond it both or full i to one and not the other. I mentioned environmental regulations. The commissioner, this is something you raised when we talked to you before it session. Im interested in how your views on whether and how environmental regulations are being used in the housing context to block out or for Environmental Protection purposes for the post part or is it a mix. And the director mentioned in montana there are huge rural areas, manufactured housing is now being considered and has been for many years as an important source of low cost housing. At first in rural areas but now more in urban areas. It is amazing what a definition will creates a barrier. Within statute manufactured homes received both a social stigma but a provision for on a concrete tphoupbgs and a simple fix allowing for manufacturing homes on a Permanent Foundation that being considered a home for both financing and for performing is a big deal. I think well probably see some of that in 2025 in our session. On the environmental front im also the director of the department of Environmental Quality and it goes back it what i said earlier. What were trying to limit things that are not maintained well and extension of City Infrastructure and emphasis on density provides an improved environmentsal footprint as well. So you have communities that are well versed and well staffed, well engineered in order to provide water and Wastewater Treatment and provision for the communities they serve whereas in your incentivizing sprawl and that toe nut area the fringe area is such a complex area where you have city and county governments that dont gets along suddenly the state says you should consider that is a tough policy position to be in and we still forged ahead believing density is a good solution and step forward. I would say similarly environmental regulations are good and we want to protect the watershed. But they have been used increasingly it is by nature Building Impact so to study that and framework around what to study or do we need to look at housing next to a train station the same way other types of housing. So over and over again towns use it to create delay and some projects take three or four years to get a shovel in the ground and we wonder why we are a couple hend thousand units short of housing. So i think we will come back and new york city will do this and the state will follow with what are the low hanging fruit changes we can do to shorten that process while still protecting things we want to protect in terms of water and other natural resources. I think we will get there but it is a place we see a significant amount of what we call weaponization of the process of the subdevelopment. I think our manufactured housing people dont think of mobile home runs that we have in but we have almost 1800 of them. There is one on long island but they are all over and we have about 80,000 or 100,000 units in those parksment we invest a lot in those infrastructure to get lesser systems and roads and making sure the infrastructure is there and we have Branch Programs for people to get new as people have soon theres a lot of old stock in those elections and getting newer Housing Stock but in condition junction with that as many know if you are on leased land you are getting a chattle loan, not a mortgage so we have that is their term for perform property higher rate. Like putting your house on your credit card. So we have made changes in new york state so through the Mortgage Agency provide loans on leased land at a much por favoren rate and longer term to get some capital flowing so people can have access to credit as they go it replace home runsment we have worked with nonprofits to by manufactured home parks. Theres been a lot of longterm family ownership and has that has come out and corporate owners in and some of that has gone not so great in many places across the country the we try to work with for profits and we want you to buy a mobil park and you want us to do what . Yes. So we are trying to shift the land scape of ownership to make sure the rent stays stablement we have right of first refusal if they come to sale residents can buy it. We have a lot of strategies to deep r keep what is the lowest cost of Home Ownership and housing in new york state, keep it there and habitable and support accessible and we will continue to do that. How lets see what kind of questions we are getting. Any thing you can say results of impact. The two most urban communities we have seen rental rates drop by 20 and randall vacant go from 3 to 6 which is a palpable feeling within those urban areas that there is house available and a trickle both from starter through second and on. For those who dont live and breathe occupies rates that pilot seem like a small difference but in terms of cost it is incredible. Other questions. Cant hear you. Efforts to advance consistency around state regulations, standards to more readily enable prefabricated supply of housing. Anybody want to jump in on that. Im not sure we serve at the state level at regulations on manufactured home parks. Many of the manufactured home parks would not be able to get rebuilt under the current zoning. I dont know if that is true of other states. We have spent time preserving what we have it make sure it stays affordable but i dont know that we look at a lot of statewide regulations on that. I dont know either. I would say system on the lease provision for financing on a lease lot that is something we are facing as well. Do you think it might help in terms of siding, prefab or manufactured housing or encouraging production . I would say yes. The challenge i think goes against one of my tenants of saying no to some things you are not good at but i would say the promise of i read an article in the last month about there where Large Manufacturing facilities we can develop housing, you have not figured this out. I could put up a factory and develop a house in no time and two of them have gone end with funding so i think it is more challenging than people give credit. And i have to say on that in fact the joint city for housing studies at harvard has published several papers on manufacturing and that bears that out. The manufacturing component if you are truly going to increase manufactured housing it is a source of housing that has to be figured out. One underlaying things r thing is building codes. Manufactured homes and building codes and even production of homes within a factory type home. Any in person questions. Any ununwant to stand up at the mic and ask a question. You mentioned earlier about with you mind introducingover . Im the cofounder of mb of northern virginia. You mentioned earlier but i would like answers from both of you about consensus. And also how like Environmental Concerns are eastern weaponized against good process. How have you kept the desire for consensus from being weaponized against good outcomes . Arlington county for example really big on consensus in our local government and that has kept us in the past from really accomplishing a lot more than we could have. How have you addressed that in your states and efforts . Thank you. I would say that predominant ly i have been asked this is the state being happy handed in its approach to tell local governments to have a growth policy. I would say we are. Heavy landed probably not. As you come together in the attack force you have a point out state and point out geographic input you are gathering input and i will say to anyone you are being heavy handed tell me you dont have a housing problem. So, this is an increment in how to gather input to supply solutions. One of the things we did and i think will play out a Public Engagement process within the Growth Planning policy, within the great growth policy area as a precursor then there allowing individual or requiring individual developments to go through a Public Engagement process so you say everyone come to the table and agree that in this area we are going to put housing, there is what if will look like and infrastructure to provide for it, that sum of input, engagement, the active engagement will result in improved efficiency. Then dent have go to a commission to be dragged out for an extended period of time. We put together the housing compact last year and in the early part it was the Governors Office of 20 different continuation and we taught we would have a subset and yes lets do them all and there is like a minute knew not bike like a buffet. But we had a comprehensive package and we taught we were going to get to some if not all but the benefit is away did put on the table a framework and here is 15 different tools that we feed to get and there is no one single thing to get us what we need in terms of housing so it has allowed us to say we have more consensus on on some things than others so lets move forward. Not shall loves them, loves all of them but we have agreed some are more obvious and more plus do and we continue to do nothing it reflects back on the legislative body that represents the people to be accountable for that. So i think it has get us get more consensus by having a rangeer tools and being ok with incremental containing and hopefully this year we get a subset of those tools and come back it try to add more. I have to say that montana miracle is actually as we are observing house states are moving. You are deposition r exceptional. You pulled the tang force together and did a point out pronged piece of legislation. In most states it is more step by step. That is the issue in california and other states. Everybody does it their own way. Other questions from the audience . How are states tackling homelessness policy exams and related question is are s. O. O. s part of the mix of the solution . I will add a research promo that pew research and many others shows something these two will not be surprised about very strong connection between price and homelessness. Rents in particular. One of the obvious problems and very sreub problems is that as you need to develop and build home runs we are importing a workforce that then feeds a home. And what we have seen in montana is that mobile work force living on the street right next to their project. That then adds challenges both to phaoupbl waste, wastewater provision, and then just the homelessness challenges of that condition many we have asked communities to take that on a Community Basis and we have seen some initial success in one of our more urban and fast he is growing communities in montana which i said here is the policy, there is a requirement within a certain number of weeks or days they patrol that lightly, they allow a lot of officer by officer discretion so those who understand the bigger issue and we have seen that be successful. Then within that as well there is a concerted effort to provide for the services that they need food and shortterm shelter and transition. Ultimately what we would like to do is increase supply so entry levels for that mobil workforce they could enter and we could trickle up. We have a shelter in new york city that has a big impact on our Homeless Population they are not on the street and you dont see them but they occupy and the city has to next throughout the year to accommodate and we have a very large phraoeug grant influx right now so we have a very large temporary shelter population. As you have written about, our house prices and homelessness gearing you data for your research. But for sure homelessness is complex but there are a lot of fox who are completely priced out and are in the system because of that and a lot of people in the homeless who have Mental Health needs and there are huge investments on the state and city level on those to make sure we have housing between new york city and new york state almost a billion dollars of capital a year going two the creation of afor housing and a Affordable Housing nd emphasis on Affordable Housing for a spectrum of different people that need it. And the investment in housing an Mental Health system we are making great strides. That said we are homeless numbers are not any better today tan a year ago and that is very were linked together so we wont get out of our Housing Price and homeless crisis unless we increase the supply that we have both in new york city and surrounding suburbs and statewide. I cant say that enough how much we feed supply. Supply. Im with the Mortgage Bankers association. There is for the commissioner. The white house and hud put out their blueprint for tenant proceed r protections and you mentioned protection and rent control is the other side of that new york city being kind of the poster child of that. Im curious how you are looking at the two of those with working on the protection side we theres a disconnect with lenders to the property manager to owners to the tenant. We have about a million apartments covered by rent stabilization and a couple of years ago we extended that to the rest of the state so localities can up the rent stabilization if testify a 5 or less they can opt in to systems that exist. We just had a vacancy study done in new york and we have a 1. 4 vacancy rate which is shocking and lowers in over 50 years. You said the state. Full court. The stay. The vacancy rate in new york city. I was about to have a heart attack. We were be before that the sraeupblgs si rent for apartments in new york city that rent for less than 2500 and that is about a two bedroom section eight apartment. It is about functionally zero so we have people on street that cannot find apartments because theres no vacant apartments. All of which is to say on the rent be stabilization side we have a robust system that is working and keeping rents modulated in that part of the stock and in new york we make decisions twice a year, we make them in the budget right before march 31 where consensus or not it comes together in one big budget which is the sort of policy statement for the governor and ladies and gentlemen and life session in june and we get the opportunities to make change on policies so i think we will be working through the tenant production side as we go into those. We have the last question right here. Dan hashed castle from hud. First on the manufactured housing conversation i want to put on the radar in the future we will have a set of announcements around manufactured Housing Finance both on the individual level for our title one chattle or personal property Financing Program and the Community Level with new resources to help preserve existing communities so i would encourage folks to look at that. The general question i have as you look at what has happened in california state level and it a active process they have gone through where they had to play with how communities are evading provisions. In the montana case how do you think you will look back at the recent changes you made and measure their success and then the new york cases you embark on hopefully a new set of changes what do you think success looks like this . Decorate question. You stole my thunder. I would say looking back at the success, the success major will be twofold. Increase in supply and availability in pricing changes. Two will be a reduction in complaints. I mean that in all sincerity. People that need homes tends to be quite advocate and rightfully so. I think as we provide for their bake need i think that will be a palpable change and one in which we take really seriously. I would say we want to be your study five years from now that shows that with the big increase in permits the next three to five years we see more production and increase in residents home praises that have borne out in other places and we needs that in new york city and suburbs around the city and state wide. We would like to be your next case study for success as we come out of our session. We would like to do it. Please join in tanking our wonderful panel. Our next guest will be the governor of organize interviewed by our chief executive officer. Give us two minutes and we will get started. Ive done. Weve done it very much in new york city and really sort of statewide. Its not just a new york issue. We want to do your case study for success. We would like to do it. Absolutely. Join me in thanking our wonderful panelist. [applause] our next guest will be