Modified COPA Nears Passage Amid Pushback

A controversial City Council housing bill that once sent the real estate industry into a panic is back in play: the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.

The proposal, better known as COPA, was dead for a time after former mayor Eric Adams vetoed the bill and the Council lacked the votes to override it. But Council member Sandy Nurse has introduced a new version of the legislation, which would give nonprofits or joint ventures certified by the city first dibs at buying certain distressed multifamily buildings when they go for sale.

The latest iteration comes with new concessions, including tweaks to eligibility criteria and a streamlined timetable. Nurse said she revised some of the bill’s requirements and language after the city’s Law Department raised last-minute concerns, and is now framing it as a “stronger and more targeted” bill that would apply to fewer transactions.

Real estate professionals remain skeptical. Some opponents argued that the changes are marginal and don’t address their core concern that added uncertainty in deals will make it harder to secure financing and line up buyers. But the opposition campaign that once raged hot against the bill appears to have cooled somewhat.

Unlike last year, the city’s current mayor supports the bill. Mayor Zohran Mamdani backed COPA on the campaign trail and has reiterated his support in office. He recently posted on social media that he’s “proud to support COPA” and looks forward to working with the Council to pass the bill. On Thursday, Nurse secured a majority of Council support with 26 sponsors; the bill won’t need a 34-vote supermajority, as the mayor won’t veto the measure.

Council Speaker Julie Menin, a moderate counterpoint to Mamdani, has at least committed to giving the bill a public hearing for lawmakers to gather feedback. Nurse expects a hearing to happen in the fall, and is “confident” that the new version could pass by year’s end.

“We listened to stakeholders and I think we came back with a smarter bill,” Nurse told The Real Deal. “I believe we’ve done our best to incorporate a fair amount of feedback, certainly not everything, but we’ve really gone a long way to build a bill that has a lot of consensus in it.”

COPA redux

The revised bill shrinks the timeline for nonprofits and joint ventures seeking to buy properties. Potential buyers would have 20 days, down from 25, to express interest and 70 days, instead of 80, to submit an offer. The measure also caps extensions at five days, replacing open-ended extensions allowed under the earlier version.

Once the exclusivity period ends, owners would have 10 days to accept, reject or counter an offer, and both sides would then have 30 days to sign a contract. If a competing bid emerges, nonprofits and joint ventures would have 15 days to match it under their right of first refusal.

As written, the bill would apply to buildings with four or more units that meet at least one of several distress criteria. Among them is that buildings would need to average three or more violations per unit — up from one in the prior version of the bill. A building could also qualify if it is in the city’s Alternative Enforcement Program, in rem foreclosure, has underlying-condition violations lasting for at least a year or received a recent denial of a certification of no harassment.

“We are putting a lot of public dollars into these buildings,” said Nurse. “These are not good actors, for the most part — these are the owners that give the industry a bad rap.”

COPA still applies to buildings with affordability restrictions set to expire in two years, but that rule now only affects properties with no more than 100 units. The new version also exempts buildings where the affordability requirements are the result of a 421a tax break.

Based on the current criteria, Nurse estimates COPA would have applied to 335 city buildings out of 51,000 sold last year — roughly .6 percent, based on a review of 2025 sales data. An estimated 1 percent of transactions would have been affected under the prior version. Though the data does not reflect properties with expiring affordability restrictions and may be higher, said Nurse.

The industry braces

Real estate professionals argue that the program’s core structure — along with their concerns — hasn’t changed. Delayed closings can complicate financing and title insurance, while added uncertainty may deter investors and lenders and weigh on sale prices, opponents say.

“By slowing down the process you’re basically limiting the buyer pool,” said Matt Cosentino, who leads multifamily sales at Brooklyn-based brokerage TerraCRG. “Anyone who owns one of these buildings likely is not going to be able to sell for the price that they would have.”

Deborah Riegel, an attorney at Rosenberg & Estis who works with multifamily building owners, added that the latest changes “make some changes around the margins” but leave property owners more or less where they were last year.

“I appreciate that she tried to narrow it, but the timeline is still very problematic,” said Riegel.

Industry groups at the negotiating table are taking a more measured tone.

Real Estate Board of New York President James Wheelan said in a statement that he appreciates the Council’s ongoing engagement on the bill. Wheelan added that he’s committed to working with the Council to “ensure that the legislation achieves our shared goals of protecting tenants, preserving affordable housing, encouraging much-needed investment, and delivering more homes for New Yorkers.”

New York Apartment Association Executive Vice President Jay Martin called the revisions “much more palatable,” but said the bill still fails to address the root causes of distress facing the targeted buildings, including refinancing challenges and limits on raising rents in regulated units.

“We’re not dealing with the underlying problems, which is that housing is extremely expensive,” said Martin.

Ann Korchak, board president of Small Property Owners of New York, echoed those concerns, adding that cash-strapped small owners find themselves in distress due to “overreaching city and state laws and regulations that cap their income but not their operating costs and expenses.”