Opposition to 75%-88% Rent Increases for Westview & Island House on RI
August 14, 2008
This week I testified against the proposed rent determinations for Island House and Westview that would increase rents by as much as 75-88% in these buildings.
The owners of Westview and Island House have applied to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal for permission to raise rents by as much as 75% (at Island House) and 88% (at Westview). DHCR holds hearings to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposals. Originally these hearings were to have taken place in June, but as I blogged about then, I was able to convince DHCR to grant a 60 day extension to give tenant associations ample time to prepare for these hearings. This week I testified at two hearings (one for Island House and the other for Westview) on behalf of tenants on Roosevelt Island. Click here to go to the Publications section of this website where my testimony can be accessed.
Any rent increase like the ones proposed would be a disaster - it would drive out long-term residents and would essentially mean the end of affordable housing for much of Roosevelt Island.
Roosevelt Island was conceived as a planned community, offering affordable homes for a diverse mix of working New Yorkers. Driving up rents at two of the Island’s remaining Mitchell-Lama buildings is a betrayal of that mission and of the families who have long called the Island home. The owners’ request is especially obscene because they have failed to do their part. The owners have not tried to cut their own costs and when they were given rent increases in the past, they didn’t do with that money what they were supposed to in terms of improvements to the buildings.
Why should we trust them again?
DHCR Proposal a Step in the Wrong Direction on ‘Phony Demolitions’
August 13, 2008
I spoke at a press conference yesterday, along with other local elected officials, including Senator Martin Connor (pictured to my left), to oppose DHCR’s regulations proposals on demolition provisions.
It is no secret that the current real estate market provides landlords with strong incentives to find ways to remove rent-regulated tenants and convert their apartments to market-rate units. My office is contacted on a daily basis by rent-stabilized and rent-controlled tenants facing harassment, denial of services, improper refusal by landlords to renew leases or acknowledge succession rights, as well as numerous other pressures brought to bear by landlords who seek to raise rents and ultimately remove their units from regulation. In this context, it is all the more vital that the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the watchdog for affordable housing in New York, to uphold the central principle of the Rent Stabilization Laws, which is that landlords may not evict tenants simply because they wish to charge higher rents for their apartments.
One increasingly common loophole landlords seek to exploit in order to rid their buildings concerns what we have come to call “Phony Demolitions.” The law grants landlords the right to refuse to renew leases when an owner intends to demolish the building. Increasingly, landlords have tried to convince courts that “demolition” includes cases where an apartment is merely gut renovated.
Phony demolitions represent an assault on affordable housing in New York, and an assault on the principles of the Rent Stabilization law. They reduce the stock of housing available to low- and middle-income New Yorkers, they upend families without justification, and they damage the public’s confidence in the government’s commitment to upholding the principles of rent stabilization.
In the past few years, tenant leaders and elected officials have called on DHCR to remove any ambiguity about the legal definition for “demolition” by updating the Rent Stabilization Code to clearly define it as razing a building to the ground.
Today, DHCR held a hearing on new regulations, but unfortunately what they propose is a step backward from any common-sense definition. The new language would allow landlords to evict rent-stabilized tenants in order to perform a “complete gutting of all interior space in the building.”
This change would essentially give property owners a green light to continue this abuse. I testified at the hearing today and urged DHCR not to approve these regulations because of their potential to undermine affordable housing in New York.
I asked them to instead adopt the common-sense definition as well as to guarantee tenants the right to a hearing when a landlord files a demolition application. Longstanding DHCR policy affirmed such a right, but a policy change during the Pataki administration eliminated this crucial guarantee of due process.
Also at issue is what happens to tenants in buildings that are demolished. Right now, tenants receive an inadquete stipend as compensation, but the proposed changes to the stipend have a complex formula based on “the mean registered rent of the zip code of the housing accommodation proposed for demolition.” DHCR has not clarified how such a figure would be calculated, and until they do, it’s hard to judge what this means.
But ultimately it is the stipends themselves that are the problem. They require landlords to provide minimal compensation for a limited period of time – eventually, leaving tenants to fend for themselves in an increasingly difficult real estate market. All this does is postpone the date when tenants will no longer be able to afford to live in their own neighborhoods. It’s a system, if anything, that encourages a vicious circle.
When I testified today, I told DHCR that I think the stipend should be eliminated and instead owners should be required to relocate their rent-stabilized tenants to similarly-sized apartments, in the same neighborhood, at comparable rents. If a new apartment is not rent-stabilized, DHCR should require landlords to ensure that the relocated tenants are contractually guaranteed the same rights as those provided under rent stabilization.
Opposition to Unfair Rent Increases Proposed by Rent Guidelines Board
June 12, 2008
The New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) has proposed a range of rent increases for rent regulated apartments. The increases would apply to leases renewed between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009. I strongly object to the size of the increases suggested by the RGB. The RGB proposes that rent increases on one-year renewal leases should be between 3.5% - 7%, while those for two-year leases should be between 5.5% - 9.5%.
While there is no doubt that landlord expenses have increased with rising fuel costs, the RGB’s proposed rent increases are significantly higher than usual, and would create a serious burden for low- and moderate-income New York tenants, who already face enough challenges in a stagnating economy and a city where food, transportation, medical, and other costs just continue to go up.
The final rent guidelines will be adopted at a meeting on June 19. In the meantime, the public will have the opportunity to comment. I will be testifying at a hearing on the proposed increases on Monday, June 16. The hearing will be from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Great Hall at Cooper Union, 7 East 7th St., at the corner of 3rd Ave. I strongly urge you to come to the hearing and add your voice in opposition to the size of the suggested increases.
State Budget Increases New York’s Investment in Affordable Housing
June 12, 2008
Investing in and maintaining affordable housing are some of the most important things that I fight for in Albany. I am proud that New York’s 2008-09 state budget includes more than $300 million in capital funding for affordable, supportive, and workforce housing opportunities across the state.
This number includes $54 million in funds for the Mitchell-Lama Rehabilitation and Preservation (RAP) and All Affordable programs. RAP offers flexible, low-cost debt service financing to help the owners of Mitchell-Lama housing make needed improvements to their properties or restructure their debt in return for committing to remain in the program and keep rents affordable. All Affordable loans support the construction of housing in which every unit is affordable to low- and moderate-income tenants.
The budget also includes capital funds for other housing programs, including $60 million to the Low Income Housing Trust Fund, $45 million for the Affordable Housing Corporation, and $36.5 million to the Homeless Housing Assistance program.
The Assembly worked successfully to ensure that the state’s total capital investment in affordable housing was increased by $200 million over the executive budget proposal - dramatically strengthening New York’s investment in initiatives that help residents find affordable housing, create housing opportunities for homeless New Yorkers, and help communities restore and revitalize existing buildings.
