A proposed New York City Council bill that would make it harder for landlords to opt out of the Mitchell-Lama program is drawing concern from some tenant advocates, who say the bill would undercut attempts in Albany to expand the rights of tenants.
A bill introduced by City Council Speaker Gifford Miller a month ago would require that landlords notify tenants of their intentions to opt out of the program 18 months in advance instead of the current 12 months, levy a $1,000-per-apartment fee on landlords and require impact studies on tenants if landlords want to leave the program.
The measure would apply to some 14,000 city-supervised rental units built after 1974, or about 12 percent of all Mitchell-Lama units in New York City.
The speaker s proposal is the latest parry in a battle by tenant advocates to block landlords from leaving the Mitchell-Lama program or from charging market rents when they do. Currently, if owners of Mitchell-Lama rentals built after 1973 leave the program, the apartments can be rented at market rates.
If the bill passes, landlords are expected to sue to overturn the measure, a move that could result in months of legal wrangling. The bill is also being opposed by the Real Estate Board of New York. REBNY is charging that it is improper to modify regulations that were set out in the Mitchell-Lama program some 50 years ago. Under that law, Mitchell-Lama owners can withdraw from the program after a minimum of 20 years.
“Changing the rules now would be a serious breach of faith and would dissuade investors from creating much-needed units of new affordable housing in the future,” the group said in a statement. “The Mitchell-Lama program stands as a contract between government and the private sector, and any change being proposed by the City Council would clearly be a breach of that contract resulting in the loss of trust in government. We also question the City Council s authority to enact such changes, but even the attempt to do so is sending a terrible message.”
On the other side of the fence, several tenant associations and community groups have signed on in support of the bill. But some members of the Mitchell-Lama Task Force, created by Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields in 1999, worry that the bill is too narrowly focused to help most tenants, and could divert attention from more expansive bills pending in Albany, where the fates of most Mitchell-Lamas are controlled.
Since the bill only applies to 12 percent of the 120,000 Mitchell-Lama housing units in New York City (i.e. the city-supervised rental units built after 1974), it threatens to divide the broader movement, some say.
“This is directed at city-owned Mitchell-Lamas, not state-owned ones, and it s geared mostly toward rentals and not co-ops. I think there is a danger in pitting tenants [against each other],” Louise Sanchez, co-chair of the Mitchell-Lama Residents Coalition, told City Limits magazine.
Others have expressed concerns that the legislation might not stand up to a constitutional challenge. “My prediction is it s going to be beaten down by the courts,” Bob Woolis, also a coalition co-chair, told City Limits.
Some supporters say the city legislation won t get in the way should the state legislation be passed, however.
One state bill, sponsored by Assembly member Vito Lopez (D-Brooklyn), would offer landlords another period of tax breaks if they stay in the program. It has already passed both houses and only awaits Gov. George Pataki s signature.
Currently, 12 projects are seeking to leave the city program, including Downtown s Independence Plaza, a 1,332-unit project being purchased by Larry Gluck for $100 million. The complex is the home of former City Council Member Kathryn Freed and has been a recent focal point in the Mitchell-Lama battle.
Overall, of the more than 60,000 units in the city-sponsored program, only about 5,000 have gone out of Mitchell-Lama program since 1989.
The legislative process for the City Council bill will begin when the Council reconvenes in September.