Some Red State/Blue State Indicia

Governor Kathy Hochul has made housing supply expansion a central policy goal, and she’s pursued it through a mix of subsidies, zoning pressure, tax incentives, and procedural changes. The key point, though, is that most of her actions are indirect supply measures—they try to encourage or enable construction rather than mandate it.

Here’s a structured breakdown.

🏗️ 1. Large-scale public investment (the backbone)​

$25 billion housing plan (2022–2027)​

  • Goal: create or preserve ~100,000 affordable homes
  • Includes:
    • Direct subsidies for affordable housing
    • Supportive and senior housing
    • environmental upgrades

Additional funding layers (recent budgets)​

  • $1.5+ billion new capital funding for housing supply
  • Funding for:
    • mixed-income development
    • starter homes
    • infrastructure tied to new housing
👉 This is classic supply-side via subsidy: lower the cost of building → more units get built.

🧱 2. Tax incentives to spur private construction​

  • Replacement/extension of programs like 421-a–style incentives
    • Led to ~71,000 new apartments moving forward in NYC
  • New opt-in tax incentivesfor:
    • mixed-income housing
    • affordable multifamily construction
👉 These aim to make marginal projects financially viable in a high-cost state.

🏙️ 3. Zoning and land-use reforms (partial, politically constrained)​

Original proposal: “New York Housing Compact”​

  • Target: 800,000 new homes over a decade
  • Included:
    • Local housing targets
    • Transit-oriented development mandates
    • Pressure on suburbs to allow more density
👉 This was the most aggressive supply reform—but it largely failed politically.

What actually passed (2024–2025)​

  • Incentive-based approach instead of mandates
    • Funding rewards for “pro-housing” municipalities
  • Support for:
    • accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
    • local zoning flexibility
👉 Shift from “force suburbs to build” → “pay them to cooperate.”

🏢 4. NYC-specific upzoning and development deals​

Working with New York City:

  • “City of Yes” zoning reform
    • ~80,000 new homes over 15 years
  • Infrastructure + zoning package (~$5B scale)
    • Enables higher density in more neighborhoods
👉 This is one of the few direct pro-supply zoning changes with real scale.

⚙️ 5. Reducing regulatory / procedural barriers​

  • Efforts to:
    • streamline environmental review
    • speed permitting
    • reduce development delays
👉 These target the “soft costs” that often block housing supply in New York.

🏚️ 6. Unlocking existing or underused housing stock​

  • Programs to:
    • redevelop vacant or historic properties
    • upgrade existing multifamily housing (e.g., $125M AMP program)
👉 This increases effective supply without new land.

🧠 Big-picture assessment​

What she has done effectively:​

  • Put large public money behind housing production
  • Expanded tax incentives and financing tools
  • Advanced NYC upzoning (City of Yes)
  • Shifted state policy toward pro-supply rhetoric

What she has not fully achieved:​

  • Statewide zoning reform, especially in suburbs
  • Binding housing targets across municipalities
  • Large-scale deregulation of land use
Her original plan was closer to a Massachusetts-style or California-style push on local zoning, but political resistance forced a retreat.

📊 Bottom line​

Hochul’s approach to expanding housing supply is best described as:

“Subsidy-heavy, incentive-based, and only partially structural.”
Click to expand...
  • Strong on funding and tax credits
  • Moderate on procedural reform
  • Weak (so far) on forcing local zoning change
 
Here’s a clear, data-driven comparison of wind, solar, and battery electricity in California vs. Texas—the two dominant U.S. states in this space.



Big picture (2024–2025)​


  • Together, California and Texas dominate U.S. renewables:
    • ~40%+ of U.S. solar generation comes from just these two states
    • Texas alone produces ~28% of U.S. wind generation
  • Both states are also far ahead in battery storage deployment

But they specialize in different things.



1) Solar power: California still leads (but Texas is catching fast)​


Generation (2025)​


  • California: ~90,100 GWh
  • Texas: ~64,100 GWh

Key differences​


  • California
    • Longtime leader due to policy + rooftop solar
    • Solar is a major share of electricity (roughly 25–30% range in recent data)
  • Texas
    • Rapid growth, especially utility-scale
    • Still a smaller share of total electricity (~8%)

Interpretation​


  • California = solar-heavy grid
  • Texas = fastest-growing solar builder, but not yet dominant in its mix


2) Wind power: Texas dominates completely​


Generation (2024)​


  • Texas: ~125,000 GWh
  • California: ~15,000 GWh

Share of electricity​


  • Texas: ~22% of total generation
  • California: much smaller share (wind is secondary there)

Why?​


  • Texas has:
    • Vast land + strong wind resources (Great Plains)
    • Large transmission buildout (CREZ lines)

Interpretation​


  • Texas = wind superpower (by far #1 in the U.S.)
  • California = minor wind player


3) Battery storage: California leads (for now), Texas scaling faster​


Installed capacity (recent data)​


  • California: ~9,900 MW
  • Texas: ~4,800 MW

Pipeline (next few years)​


  • Texas: projected ~17,000 MW
  • California: ~16,000 MW

Functional difference​


  • California
    • Batteries are already critical
    • Sometimes become the largest power source in evening peaks
    • Designed to smooth solar’s “duck curve”
  • Texas
    • Batteries growing fast but still less central
    • More focused on grid reliability during extreme demand (heat waves)

Interpretation​


  • California = most advanced battery-integrated grid
  • Texas = fastest scaling battery system


4) Overall electricity mix (very different systems)​


California​


  • ~57% of electricity from renewables (including hydro + solar)
  • Solar + batteries are core
  • Natural gas fills gaps

Texas​


  • ~30% renewable overall
  • Wind is dominant renewable
  • Natural gas still ~50% of generation
 
sturg33 said:
Im sure Texas needed to achieve this by imposing massive regulatory policy like California, eighty?
Click to expand...
Actually the pattern is a familiar one. California innovates and leads the way. Texas and other states benefit from the technological spillovers and cost reductions that come when the technology matures. I know y'all hate to hear it but that's how if often goes. As California goes so does the rest of the country, with lags of various lengths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top