Tag Archives: housing development

Current Issues in Affordable Housing in New York City

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Bar

I will be moderating a panel on Rent Freezes, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), and Nonpayment at this in-person New York City Bar program on May 7th. The registration link is here and the full program description is below:

Description:

This program will provide an inside perspective on the future of affordable housing in New York City.  Seasoned practitioners from the private and public sectors will discuss the role of the city, state and federal governments, in conjunction with for-profit developers and not-for-profit organizations, in building and preserving affordable housing. Participants will learn about the statutory, regulatory and business considerations underlying critical topics in affordable housing.

Three expert panels will present on the following:

    • Rent Freezes, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), and Nonpayment
    • The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA)
    • Case Study – Office to Residential Conversions

The detailed agenda for the day follows.

9:00 am – 9:05 am        Introduction & Program Overview

Farhana H. Choudhury, Associate Counsel/Chief of Staff for Legal at NYSHCR

Julia A. Solo, Senior Vice President & Counsel at Federated National Land

9:05 am – 10:05 am       Panel 1: Rent Freezes, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), and Nonpayment

This panel will focus on the impacts of the HSTPA that have limited rent increases for things like apartment and major capital improvements, the Mamdani administration’s proposal for an extended rent freeze, and post-pandemic rent collection challenges.

Organizers:

Farhana Hassan Choudhury, Associate Counsel/Chief of Staff for Legal

Andrew M. Darcy, Pro Bono Counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Moderator:

David Reiss, Professor, Cornell Law School

Panelists: 

Doug Apple, CEO, 1811 Consulting

Rafael Cestero, CEO, Community Preservation Corporation (CPC)

Tim Collins, Partner, Collins Dobkin & Miller LLP

Rob Ehrlich, Partner, Lazarus Karp Ehrlich McCourt, LLP

Topics will Include

    • Trends in Court
    • Long-Term Sustainability & Expectations Over the Next 5-10 Years
    • Potential Solutions
    • Public Commission

Question & Answer Session Conclusions

10:05 am – 10:15 am    Break

10:15 am – 11:15 am     Panel 2: The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA)

This panel will discuss the current status of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA).  In December 2025, COPA passed the City Council but was vetoed by outgoing Mayor Adams on his last day in office. Mayor Mamdani and new City Council Speaker Menin did not attempt a veto override when the new City Council was seated in January, and the bill which passed City Council in December is effectively dead for the time being, although many advocates and politicians, including Mayor Mamdani, have vowed to continue the fight for COPA. It’s not clear where COPA will stand in May, but this panel will examine the history and advocacy behind COPA, its operation in Washington, DC and San Francisco, and potential constitutional challenges to the law.

Organizers:

Gerrald Ellis, Deputy General Counsel, Paths Development

Alexandra Hohauser, Associate at Nixon Peabody LLP

Moderator:

Gerrald Ellis, Deputy General Counsel, Paths Development

Panelists:

Erica F. Buckley, Partner, Nixon Peabody LLP

Arielle Hersh, Director of Policy and New Projects, UHAB

Topics will Include

    • Overview of COPA, as proposed, in NYC
    • Current status of COPA in NYC
    • Discussion of the main sticking points in even getting COPA passed
    • Discussion of COPA in Washington, DC and San Francisco
    • Potential constitutional challenges

Question & Answer Session  Conclusions

11:15 am – 11:25 am     Break

11:25 am – 12:25 pm     Panel 3: Office to Residential Conversions that include Affordable Housing

This panel will discuss the challenges and benefits to office-to-residential conversions in New York City, including land use considerations, challenges in design, the unique considerations of financing, the 467-m tax incentive and case studies.

Organizers:

Daniel M. Bernstein, Member and Leader of the Tax Incentives and Affordable Housing Department at Rosenberg and Estis, P.C.

Zachary L. Nathanson, Senior Associate Attorney at Adler & Stachenfeld LLP

Moderator:

Daniel M. Bernstein, Member and Leader of the Tax Incentives and Affordable Housing Department at Rosenberg and Estis, P.C.

Panelists: 

John Cetra, FAIA, Co-Founder, CetraRuddy Architecture D.P.C.

Tricia Dietz, Assistant Commissioner for Housing Incentives, NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development

Alexander Tendler, Vice President at Vanbarton Group

Daniel Weisen, Senior Director at Eldridge Capital Management

Topics will Include

    • Land Use Considerations
    • Partial Conversions
    • Design Considerations in the Conversion Process
    • 467-m: Eligibility Considerations
    • 467-m: Applying for Tax Exemption Benefits
    • Lender Considerations
    • Case Studies

Question & Answer Session Conclusions

12:25 pm – 12:30 pm     Closing Remarks

Farhana H. Choudhury, Associate Counsel/Chief of Staff for Legal at NYSHCR

Julia A. Solo, Senior Vice President & Counsel at Federated National Land

High Rents and Land Use Regulation

Posted on by

photo by cincy Project

The Federal Reserve’s Devin Bunten has posted Is the Rent Too High? Aggregate Implications of Local Land-Use Regulation. It is a technical paper about an important subject. It has implications for those who are concerned about the lack of affordable housing in high-growth areas. The abstract reads,

Highly productive U.S. cities are characterized by high housing prices, low housing stock growth, and restrictive land-use regulations (e.g., San Francisco). While new residents would benefit from housing stock growth in cities with highly productive firms, existing residents justify strict local land-use regulations on the grounds of congestion and other costs of further development. This paper assesses the welfare implications of these local regulations for income, congestion, and urban sprawl within a general-equilibrium model with endogenous regulation. In the model, households choose from locations that vary exogenously by productivity and endogenously according to local externalities of congestion and sharing. Existing residents address these externalities by voting for regulations that limit local housing density. In equilibrium, these regulations bind and house prices compensate for differences across locations. Relative to the planner’s optimum, the decentralized model generates spatial misallocation whereby high-productivity locations are settled at too-low densities. The model admits a straightforward calibration based on observed population density, expenditure shares on consumption and local services, and local incomes. Welfare and output would be 1.4% and 2.1% higher, respectively, under the planner’s allocation. Abolishing zoning regulations entirely would increase GDP by 6%, but lower welfare by 5.9% because of greater congestion.

The important sentence from the abstract is that “Welfare and output would be 1.4% and 2.1% higher, respectively, under the planner’s allocation.” Those are significant effects when we are talking about  real people and real places. The introduction provides a bit more context for the study:

Neighborhoods in productive, high-rent regions have very strict controls on housing development and very limited new housing construction. Home to Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area is the most productive and most expensive metropolitan region in the country, and yet new housing construction has been very slow, especially in contrast to less-productive large cities like Houston, Texas. The evidence suggests that this slow-growth environment results from locally determined regulatory constraints. Existing residents justify these constraints by appealing to the costs of new development, including increased vehicle traffic and other types of congestion, and claim that they see few, if any, of the benefits from new development. However, the effects of local regulation extend beyond the local regulating authorities: regions with highly regulated municipalities experience less-elastic housing supply. (2, footnotes omitted)

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that localities that are attempting to deal with their affordable housing problems have to directly address how they go about their zoning. If the zoning does not support housing construction, then no amount of affordable housing incentives will address the demand for housing in high growth places like NYC and San Francisco.

Wednesday’s Academic Roundup

Posted on by