Current Issues in Affordable Housing in New York City

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

Feet to The Fire on Property Taxes

Created by ChatGPT

Newsweek interviewed me for Mamdani’s Property Tax Plans Holding Hochul’s Feet to Fire, Expert Says. It reads, in part,

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s proposal for a 9.5 percent property tax increase in the city is a way of holding Governor Kathy Hochul’s “feet to the fire,” according to David Reiss, professor of law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School.

Mamdani said this week that he was proposing the increase in property tax rates in New York City as an option if he could not persuade the governor to approve higher taxes on the wealthy.

“It’s very interesting, because Mamdani endorsed her in her race for governor, which is this year,” Reiss, an expert in real estate, told Newsweek, pointing at the strong relationship that the two have maintained until now.

Not only is the 34-year-old mayor backing Hochul in her reelection bid, but he also told organizers of a Tax the Rich rally in Albany, planned for February 25, that he would likely not attend the event because he does not want to antagonize the governor, as reported by The New York Times.

“So he’s done some things that are very good for her, but then he’s kind of holding her feet to the fire and saying that Albany can make the situation much better in New York, and this is how I want you to do it,” Reiss said.

“‘I want to raise taxes on the wealthy, and the backup—because I want more revenue for the city—would be my property tax hike, but I acknowledge that it’s painful,’” he added. “’I acknowledge that that’s unpleasant, but I want to hold your feet to the fire on the income tax increase.’”

* * *

“I think Mayor Mamdani is trying to set the terms of the debate and kind of trying to allocate blame for the budget deficit that the city’s about to face,” Reiss said. “And so he’s trying to say, ‘I have a path forward, but it requires partners in government to help with that path forward,’” he added.

“And so, he’s kind of trying to set up a dynamic where, when blame is allocated for budget cuts and promises unkept, he could say he did his best to make this happen, but partners in government are not playing ball with him.”

* * *

For Reiss, the unfolding tension between Mamdani and Hochul over a “rich tax” in New York is a reflection of a bigger split within the Democratic Party nationwide.

“I think both in New York and nationally, what we’re seeing is the economically progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as reflected in Mamdani, represents a push to reallocate resources away from the very wealthy towards the low-income and working class constituents,” Reiss said.

Mamdani, he thinks, is doing a good job at setting that debate up. The question is, he said, which wing of the party will win.

“It’s an interesting question in a majority Democratic state like New York, where both the governor and the mayor are Democrats. But it’s also going to be interesting in jurisdictions where you might have a Democratic mayor and a Republican governor, especially as we go to the congressional midterms,” he added.

“Republicans are going to talk about Socialist Democrats and Democrats are going to talk about billionaire-loving Republicans. And voters will have to decide, you know, which vision of America they agree with more.”

* * *

Voters, Reiss said, are sophisticated enough to understand that Mamdani might not keep all of his campaign promises, and might be willing to cut him some slack because he has already delivered some important reforms.

“For Mamdani, a very early win was getting the governor to go along with the child care proposal, which is, I think, fulfilling a major campaign promise,” he said.

“I think he now has the ability, because he’s been able to appoint a majority to the rent guidelines board, to encourage the board to implement a rent freeze, and that was a major campaign promise,” Reiss added.

Mamdani’s First 50 Days: Housing Edition

By Dmitryshein, CC BY-SA 4.0

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani

I was interviewed for AMNewYork’s story, Mamdani’s First 50 Days. It reads, in part,

For Professor David Reiss, a Cornell University housing expert and former chair of the Rent Guidelines Board, the mayor’s housing orientation so far is unmistakably pro-tenant, but it also underscores deeper challenges.

“He’s clearly pro-tenant,” Reiss said, noting Mamdani’s rhetoric, appointments, and actions such as launching his rental rip-off hearings and the revival of the Mayor’s office to protect tenants. But he cautioned that short-term policies aimed at controlling tenants’ costs must also account for the long-term viability of the housing stock.

“Are you pro-tenants five years, 10 years, 15 years down the line?” Reiss asked, pointing to the risk that buildings with constrained revenue might struggle to cover unavoidable expenses like property tax, insurance, and mortgage payments without meaningful engagement.

Reiss traced much of this pressure to state rent restrictions, which eliminated several mechanisms that previously allowed landlords to raise rents between tenancies. Under current conditions, he said, the annual RGB adjustments are often the only permissible rent increases, which, in recent years, have been modest in the view of landlord groups.

If rents are capped or frozen, his view is that the city will have very few tools to ensure financial stability without subsidies or cost reductions — whether direct (financial support) or indirect (tax relief or reduced operating costs).

“You have very few tools,” he said. “They usually involve somehow reducing costs directly or indirectly, or increasing income by subsidizing,” Reiss said that any meaningful approach will have to consider how the city allocates limited funds, especially in the face of a budget gap that has already pushed the administration to consider rainy day funds and reserve drawdowns elsewhere.

That tension between immediate affordability and long-range health of the housing stock frames much of the current policy conversation. Reiss said the rent freeze itself — assuming it survives legal and procedural hurdles — would represent a significant political success if delivered, given that it was a core campaign pledge. But he stressed that a broader housing strategy must also ensure that rent-regulated buildings can cover ongoing costs without descending into default or neglect.

“Success for the Mamdani administration,” Reiss said, “is to thread the needle between his expressed statement of reducing rent increases or rent freeze on the one hand, but ensuring that the housing stock has enough income to support itself — not just for this year, but for three years, five years, seven years down the line.”

Mamdani and Affordable Housing Development

CNN quoted me in Zohran Mamdani Has Big Housing Plans. Here’s What Stands in The Way. It reads, in part,

Mamdani’s rent freeze plan could undermine his goal of building 200,000 publicly subsidized, rent-stabilized, permanently affordable homes over the next decade for low-income households and seniors.

That’s because the private sector may be dissuaded from participating if these buildings don’t include market-rate housing. The private sector has a “very important role” to play in building housing, Mamdani has said.

“A rent freeze will change how a conversion might pay off for the developer,” said David Reiss, a law professor at Cornell University who served on the Rent Guidelines Board under Mayor Bill de Blasio.

And to be permanently affordable for extremely low-income renters, it will require deeper government subsidies than Mamdani has pledged, experts say. Previous New York City mayors have attempted to produce housing for a wide range of incomes to help offset higher subsidies for deeply-affordable units.

“It’s in the right direction to focus on people with the greatest affordability challenges,” said Alex Schwartz, an urban policy professor at The New School and a current member of the Rent Guidelines Board. “It’s important to recognize that the capital dollars won’t go as far in terms of total numbers of units if they only go toward people with extremely low incomes.”

Mamdani wants the city to borrow $70 billion to build affordable housing over the next decade, on top of the roughly $25 billion it already plans to invest.

That’s no easy task – he will need state approval since the plan would exceed the city’s debt limit by around $30 billion, as well as the New York City Council’s approval of zoning reforms that would make it easier to build.

“This would be a significant increase in city capital to produce deeply affordable housing,” said Rachel Fee, the executive director of the New York City Housing Conference, a non-profit affordable housing policy and advocacy organization. “It’s not something he can just implement on his own. It will take a political coalition to make this happen.”

 

NYC Rent Guidelines Board Final Vote Interview

I was interviewed on WCBS AM’s Drive Time about the vote of the New York City Rent Guidelines Board. Click here to hear it.

Does Historic Preservation Limit Affordable Housing?

By Stefan Kühn - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9413214

I answer that it can in CQ Researcher’s Historic Preservation:  Can The Past Escape The Wrecking Ball?

Many people fail to realize that land use policies like historic preservation involve big trade-offs. The most important one is that if you want to protect existing structures from demolition and modification, you can’t replace them with bigger ones that could house more people. Consider:

  • Historic preservation equals height and density restrictions. New building technologies (think steel girders and elevators) allow buildings to be built higher as time goes by. If a city landmarks a large percentage of its inner core, it restricts the ability of that core to go higher. This can lead to sprawl, as a growing population is pushed farther and farther from the city center.
  • Historic preservation favors the wealthy. Limited supply drives up housing prices and apartment rents, benefiting owners. And low-income and younger households are likely to suffer, as they are least able to bear the cost of the increases compared to other households. Future residents — think Midwesterners, Southerners and immigrants seeking to relocate to a city like New York for job opportunities — will also suffer.
  • It isn’t easy for historic preservation to be green. It feels environmentally responsible to protect older, low-density buildings in city centers because you have no dusty demolition, no noisy construction. But it actually comes at a big environmental cost. Denser construction reduces reliance on cars and thereby lowers carbon emissions. People living in a dense city have a much smaller carbon footprint than those in a car-oriented suburb.

Just because preservation comes at a cost does not mean it is bad. Much of our past is worth protecting. Some places benefit from maintaining their identities — think of the European cities that draw the most tourists year in and year out. But it is bad to deploy historic preservation indiscriminately, without evaluating the costs it imposes on current residents and potential future ones.

Cities that want to encourage entrepreneurship and affordable housing should deploy historic preservation and other restrictive land use tools thoughtfully. Otherwise, those cities will be inhabited by comparatively rich folks who complain about the sterility of their current lives and who are nostalgic for “the good old days” when cities were diverse and hotbeds of creativity.

If they fail to understand the trade-offs inherent in historic preservation, they won’t even understand that a part of the problem is the very policy they support to “protect” their vision of their community.