The Kingston Common Council’s Community Development Committee voted unanimously Monday to table a proposal by two city lawmakers that would lower the income threshold for “affordable housing” under the city’s new zoning code. It is the second time a council committee has declined to put the measure, which faces strong opposition from Mayor Steve Noble, before the full council.

The “Kingston Forward” zoning code implemented in 2023 was intended to promote the development of affordable housing through a mix of mandates and incentives. They include a requirement that new multifamily projects with five or more units set aside 10 percent as “affordable” housing and a provision that allows developers who surpass the mandate to build on extra stories over and above what would normally be allowed in the zone. The code defines “affordable” as having a rent equal to 30 percent or less of the income of an individual or family making up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income. In addition to affordable housing, the code includes mandates and incentives for “workforce housing” affordable to people making between 80 and 120 percent AMI.

The problem for city lawmakers Michael Tierney (D-Ward 2) and Michele Hirsch (D-Ward 9) is that, they say, the affordability thresholds contained in the zoning code do not match the economic reality of Kingston renters. While the zoning code uses Ulster County’s AMI of $77,197, the AMI for Kingston is $62,071; for Kingstonians in rental housing that figure is $43,526. The higher numbers mean that a one-bedroom apartment renting for $1,788 per month can qualify as “affordable” while a one-bedroom renting for $2,514 would qualify as a “workforce” unit.

“It’s semantics — it’s affordable on paper but it’s not affordable for our community,” said Hirsch. “It’s a joke, it’s not real. It’s an empty promise to people because developers are just coming in and building regular market-rate apartments and we’re pretending they’re affordable units.”

Hirsch and Tierney have proposed amending the zoning code to make those affordable housing definitions better align with the economic reality faced by city residents. The proposal would lower the threshold for affordable housing from 80 percent of AMI to 50 percent and that for workforce housing from 120 percent to 80 percent AMI. Under the amended code, maximum rent on an affordable unit would be $1,036 and a workforce apartment $1,788. Tierney told fellow lawmakers that the lower threshold would help account for the 40 percent increase in local AMI since 2020 and make a reality the new code’s commitment to affordable housing.

“That has totally thrown off all of the good intentions of this council and the public who demanded [the affordable housing provisions] be included,” said Tierney of the surge of affluent residents into the city since the pandemic. “How can you look your constituents in their faces and say this is affordable housing?”

But the proposal has been condemned by Mayor Steve Noble, who pushed for the new zoning code and its affordable housing mandates and incentives. Noble said that further lowering the affordable housing threshold would risk driving off developers and stifling the creation of new housing at all levels. In an op-ed on Kingston Wire published on Friday, Noble suggested that the existing mandates in the code may have already had a chilling effect on development — one that would only be exacerbated by lowering them further.

“If this proposed zoning change moves forward, the extreme limitations will signal to all would-be developers that the City of Kingston does not want new housing built in our community,” Noble wrote. “If we have had limited development with our current requirements, it stands to reason that tightening those requirements further will stifle development completely.”

In the op-ed Noble reiterated his contention that the city needs housing of all types and noted that the city supported efforts by dedicated affordable housing providers like RUPCO to build more deeply affordable housing at projects like Energy Square and Landmark Place.

Last month, the council’s Laws and Rules Committee voted to table the measure. On Monday, lawmakers again moved to put off a full vote. The matter will be back on the Community Development Advisory Committee’s agenda next month.