Tag Archives: New York City

Reiss on Green Bonds

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Green Bond Bandwagon Promises Cash Returns For NYC (behind a paywall). It opens,

A New York City proposal to market billions in so-called green bonds could reduce debt costs for the city by enticing investors who have stampeded toward guilt-free returns elsewhere, but buyers must tread carefully lest their money ends up funding projects not seen as environmentally relevant.

New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer put forth a plan last week that would see the city’s capital spending program add municipal bonds for financing environmentally friendly projects to its plans to issue $30 billion in new debt over four years.

The proposal, which Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration is studying, suggests moving quickly while there this still a focus on reinforcing the city after Superstorm Sandy and amid the strong demand for green bonds in the private sector as well as in California, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. As soon as next year, the city could being to convert a large portion of its Municipal Water Finance Authority debt — some $1.5 billion per year — into green bonds and could allocate up to $200 million per year in Transitional Finance Authority and general obligation bonds to similar use.

“Green bonds should be another example of how New York City leads the nation in finding solutions that work,” Stringer said.

While experts in public debt investment largely see the proposal as a promotional bid to market New York City debt, they note that the city’s high national profile could make such a move profitable amid investor hunger to capitalize environmentally friendly projects.

“The big question is: How much demand would this create? One of the main points of the green bonds would be to increase demand,” said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss, an expert in real estate finance and community development. “If there really is pent-up demand, and New York City acts as an early mover, it might get a short-term benefit in the cost of borrowing.”

Stringer’s prediction that New York City could spark others to follow suit would also likely come true, Reiss said.

“If this is demonstrated to materially drive down borrowing costs, you’ll see others doing the same thing,” he said. “I’m a little skeptical, over the long term, that you’d have serious savings. But in the shorter term, you might.”

Lending to Keep Housing Affordable

Posted on by

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli issued a critical audit of a loan program of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. HPD disagreed with many of the audits key findings. For the purposes of this blog post, however, I am more interested in the Article 8A loan program itself. The program derives its name from its enabling statute, Article 8A of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law.

According to the audit, the program is intended

to improve living conditions and to preserve safe and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households. The Program attempts to achieve this goal by providing low interest rate loans, of up to $35,000 per unit, to owners of rent-regulated, multiple dwelling buildings in New York City (City). The loans are to be used to correct substandard or unsanitary conditions, to replace and rehabilitate building systems (i.e., heating, plumbing, and electrical work), or for other necessary improvements. (4)

To become eligible for this program, building owners “applying for Article 8-A loans must submit an application demonstrating that the physical condition of the property in question, and the owner’s property-related finances, warrant Program funding; and the applicant was unable to obtain a loan from at least two traditional lenders.” (5)

This is an interesting program design because it makes low-cost City funds available to owners who are already required to provide affordable housing pursuant to applicable rent regulation statutes. Given that many other owners of rent regulated buildings are able to operate their buildings without subsidized loans, one wonders why the relatively small number of buildings in this program should receive special treatment.

Legitimate policy rationales could include (i) preventing rent-regulated units from being left vacant due to their poor condition or (ii) preventing units from exiting rent regulation because they are eligible for the “substantial rehabilitation” exception to further rent restrictions. But better than assuming that a particular subsidized loan was made consistent with a legitimate policy rationale, would be for the City to make a specific finding of what it was getting in return for this subsidy. If subsidized loans were just going to (i) owners who had made bad choices in the past that led them to be rejected by private lenders or (ii) to owners in the “know” about this program, that would be a poor use of public funds.

Reiss on the $1M Parking Spot

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in NYC’s $1M Parking Spot Shows Appetite For Luxury (behind a paywall).It opens,

Atlas Capital Group LLC caused a buzz Wednesday with its listing of a parking space in a condominium building in SoHo for $1 million, more per square foot than the homes above it, but experts say in the context of a burgeoning luxury market such a price may just be the beginning.

That price for a 99-year license that allows the condominium resident to use the parking space — even one in its own condominium unit and tax lot — may sound wild, but experts say much of the attention this property has gotten may be a bit overblown, especially considering the level to which many are willing to go for comfort and convenience in New York City.

“It’s not really about $1 million for a parking space,” said Bruce Bronster of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP. “If you were just going to condo a parking space, you couldn’t get $1 million for it. It has to do with having an amenity on a very expensive apartment.”

There aren’t many places to park in SoHo, making a convenient parking spot a hot commodity, but experts say the bigger message is that New York City’s luxury residential market is hotter than ever, creating new opportunities for developers to differentiate themselves with the right amenities.

The development is at 42 Crosby Street, near Broome Street, where Atlas Capital Group is turning what used to be a parking lot itself into a condominium building with three-bedroom units ranging from $8.7 million to $10.45 million, according to information gathered by The New York Times.

The eye-popping element comes when one looks at the price per square foot. Some of the parking spots — there are actually 10 being built under the condominiums — are expected to be up to 200 square feet, but they will reportedly all cost between $5,000 and $6,666 per square foot. The condominiums, on the other hand, are only going for about $3,150 per square foot.

But experts say this isn’t too surprising, considering the demand for luxury housing and amenities that has skyrocketed in recent years.

Prices for luxury residential properties have risen to pre-recession levels and surpassed them in some cases, with a few record-breaking penthouse deals passing the $90 million mark thanks to flush foreign investors.

More than anything, experts say, the $1 million parking spots are a way for Atlas Capital Group to distinguish 42 Crosby from other apartment buildings and draw in those investors willing to pay top dollar.

“The million-dollar spots do highlight how developers have seriously monetized amenity spaces,” said David Reiss, a real estate professor at Brooklyn Law School. “In all likelihood, the prices for amenities like parking spaces will follow the same trend line as those for the apartments to which they are attached.”

And it’s not just parking spaces; Reiss said he has seen similar setups with amenities such as storage facilities and rooftop cabanas commanding top dollar.

Is NYC Rent Too Damn High?!?

Posted on by

Husock and Armlovich of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research have posted an Issue Brief, New York’s Rent Burdened Households: Recalculating the Total, Finding a Better Solution. The brief makes some important points, but they are almost lost because of its histrionic tone.

First, the good points. The authors write this brief in reaction to the de Blasio administration’s plan to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing. They believe, however, that the administration has exaggerated the need. They write: “the housing needs of low-income New Yorkers must be acknowledged and addressed. Still, they should not be exaggerated by numbers that fail to reflect the income and in-kind assistance that benefit poor households.” (6)

They argue that the administration’s claim that more than 600,000 households are “severely rent-burdened” is flawed, resulting in an overestimate of the need for affordable housing. While I am not in a position to evaluate the underlying work, they make a reasonable case that the administration did not properly account for the impact of Section 8 housing subsidies and a variety of other programs that offer financial assistance to low-income households in arriving at their number.

They also argue that the administration’s proposed solution, permanent affordability, is flawed because some households that may be income-eligible at the commencement of their tenure in an affordable unit may end up with a significantly higher income down the line. Indeed, this has been a long-time issue with the Mitchell-Lama program.

These are some serious issues for the de Blasio administration to chew over. Clearly, we should be working from the best data we can about the extent to which households are severely burdened by housing costs. (Indeed, another recent study also indicates that the administration is working from too high of an number.) And just as clearly, the solution chosen by the administration should work as effectively as possible to reduce the rent burden for low- and moderate-income households.

But the brief’s tone, unfortunately, masks these insights. First, the brief opens by questioning the basis for the mayor’s affordable housing plan — that many New Yorker’s are severely rent burdened. But the authors acknowledge that at least 300,000 households are severely burdened, even after they make their adjustments to the administration’s numbers. That hardly undercuts the policy rationale for the Mayor’s affordable housing initiative.

Moreover, some of the adjustments made by the authors are themselves suspect. For instance, the authors exclude households “that report severe rent burdens while paying more than the 90th percentile citywide of per-capita” out-of-pocket rent. (5) They state that “Logic dictates that such households have significant existing savings or assets themselves, or they receive assistance from family or other sources.” (5) That seems like an extraordinary “logical” leap to me. While it may describe some households at the 90th percentile, I would think that it is also logical that it includes some people who barely have enough money to buy food.

As to the solution of permanent affordability, the authors write,

a household member could win the lottery, or sign a multimillion-dollar major league baseball contract, and an affordable unit’s rent would remain unchanged. Affordable units would be “permanently” affordable, creating what economists term a “lock-in effect,” limiting the likelihood that such units will be vacated. This is problematic for a city housing policy that seeks to decrease the overall number of severely rent-burdened households. (6)

This is just silly. Very few people have such windfalls. And very few of those who do have such windfalls live in small apartments afterwards. The more common problem is that young, educated people get affordable units when their earnings are low and then become middle-class or upper-middle class over the years. This is a serious program design issue and it means that the administration should think through what permanent affordability should mean over the lifetime of a typical household.

As I noted, this brief raises some serious issues amongst all of its heated rhetoric. One hopes that the administration can get through the hot air to the parts that are informed by cool reason.

 

Industry City in Brooklyn

Posted on by

Some readers of the blog may be interested in this upcoming event at Brooklyn Law School, sponsored by the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (CUBE):

Presentation by Andrew Kimball

Director, Innovation Economy Initiatives, Jamestown
and CEO, Industry City

About the Presentation
Manufacturing is once again widely seen as an important and growing component of New York City’s economy. Andrew Kimball, CEO of Industry City in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, and former President and CEO of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Corporation, will discuss the strategies behind adaptively reusing and transforming these massive and long underutilized industrial complexes into creative communities that are now at the forefront of manufacturing’s rebirth in New York City and the evolution of the innovation economy.

The event is on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 6:30 — 8:30 pm

Location
Brooklyn Law School
Feil Hall
Forchelli Conference Center, 22nd Floor
205 State Street
Brooklyn, NY

RSVP online: www.brooklaw.edu/cubepresentation
before Monday, September 15, 2014

Directions
www.brooklaw.edu/directions

Planning and Protesting at the Brooklyn Book Festival

Posted on by

I will be moderating a panel at the 2014 Brooklyn Book Festival on Sunday, September 21st at 10am in the Brooklyn Law School Moot Courtroom.  The panel is

Planning and Protesting: Cities Evolve!
With the city constantly evolving, each major project has its supporters and protesters. Authors Gregory Smithsimon and Benjamin Shepard (The Beach Beneath The Streets – Contesting New York City’s Public Spaces) and Daniel Campo (The Accidental Playground: Brooklyn Waterfront Narratives of the Undesigned and Unplanned) and Peter Linebaugh (Stop, Thief! The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance) discuss how public space is shaped through policy, perspective and protests, how to agree to disagree, and the dynamics of shaping a city’s growth and change. Moderator David Reiss, Professor, Brooklyn Law School.

Compact Units: Mountain or Molehill?

Posted on by

NYU’s Furman Center has posted a short Research Brief, Compact Units:  Demand and Challenges. The brief notes that there is no formal definition of a compact or micro unit of housing, but

the term is typically used to refer to units that contain their own bathroom and a kitchen or kitchenette, but are significantly smaller than the standard studio apartment in a given city. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are self-contained units located on the property of a single-family home. Sometimes ADUs are separate structures, like a cottage on the same lot as a primary dwelling; sometimes they are attached to the primary structure, located in a basement, in an extension, or over a garage.

Proponents of compact units argue that they allow seniors to live independently, respond to changing household sizes and demographics, reduce sprawl through urban infill, mitigate the environmental effects of larger developments by reducing energy consumption, free up larger units for families, and help cities provide housing affordable to a wider range of households. (2)

The brief is a very useful overview of the debate concerning compact units but my own take is that they represent a mere molehill of possibility when it comes to affordable housing. No new construction in cities, unless heavily subsidized, is geared toward low-income households and probably only a small portion of such new construction is geared to moderate-income households. The economics of new construction just don’t allow it.

This is not to say that New York City shouldn’t change its larger-than-average minimum unit size regulations (400 square feet) so that they are in line with those of other cities (220 square feet). These small units could work well for all sorts of one-person households, which, by the way, make up more than half of all households in NYC. They just wouldn’t be low-income households. But, by expanding the total number of units available, they can put at least some downward pressure on rents.

My bottom line: compact units are good, but they will not provide the mountain of affordable housing that some claim they can.