Building an Affordable Future: Recommendations for Preserving & Creating Affordable

Housing in New York City

   

2  

INTRODUCTION New York City’s diversity is one of its greatest strengths. The five boroughs have long been home to working families, senior citizens, immigrants, young artists, and entrepreneurs. But today, soaring housing costs are forcing many longtime residents from their communities and are preventing the next generation from putting down roots in our great city.

The problem is particularly pronounced in Manhattan, where in April 2012 the average rent hit an all-time high of $3,973 per month, almost $2,800 more than the national average.1 These prices threaten to displace many residents who are essential to the social and economic fabric of our city.

To keep Manhattan’s neighborhoods cohesive and dynamic, we must protect affordable complexes, like the venerated Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village, as well as NYCHA housing. In addition, we must come up with innovative new approaches to create the next generation of affordable homes. The Manhattan Borough President can play a major role in achieving this through the land use process, funding, and advocacy.

This plan includes the following recommendations for preserving existing affordable housing, and creating the affordable homes of tomorrow:

1. Reforming the Rent Guidelines Board to more fairly represent tenants. 2. Closing loopholes in state rent regulations that allow thousands of affordable units to

leave the system each year. 3. Protecting Mitchell-Lama residents when their buildings leave the program, and

incentivizing buildings to stay in the system. 4. Connecting more seniors with rent benefits, expanding the NORC model, and forming a

task force on senior housing issues. 5. Strengthening legal protections for tenants and supporting groups that help them

organize. 6. Increasing legal resources for tenants by utilizing new pro-bono requirements for the

New York State bar, and providing city-funded lawyers for seniors and the disabled in housing court.

7. Creating new permanently affordable housing that is truly accessible to local residents. 8. Assessing whether underutilized city-owned property can be used for affordable housing,

and involving communities early in the redevelopment process.    

                                                                                                                         1  O’Leary,  Amy.  The  New  York  Times.  What  Is  Middle  Class  in  Manhattan?  January  18,  2013.  

   

3  

LAPPIN’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECORD

• Sponsored resolution, which passed the City Council, calling on the state to restore home rule to New York City on rent-regulation, and to repeal vacancy decontrol (Resolution 700-2011).    

• Voted to extend rent control and stabilization and consistently testified on behalf of tenants before the Rent Guidelines Board.

• Supporting measure calling for Rent Guidelines Board reforms, including

requiring City Council approval of appointments, and allowing members to come from a broader range of professions (Res 1329-A).

• Worked with Department of Finance to improve the administration of the

Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) program, which protects low-income seniors from rent hikes they can’t afford.

 • Introduced legislation with Council Member Brad Lander to create a Senior

Housing Task Force made up of city agencies to make recommendations on safe, affordable, appropriate residences for older New Yorkers (Intro 777-2012).    

• Secured funding for Eviction Intervention Services to run a monthly legal clinic for low-income tenants facing eviction, and for MFY Legal Services’ Assigned Counsel Project to provide legal representation for seniors in housing court.  

 • Co-sponsored a measure, written by Council Member Rosie Mendez, to

provide free lawyers for low-income seniors who face eviction (Intro 90-2010).

• Co-sponsored and voted for the Tenant Protection Act (Local Law 7 of 2008). The law allows tenants to sue landlords in housing court for using tactics to force them out of their apartments including threats, disruption of essential services, and frivolous litigation.

• Helped 1,679 individual constituents with housing issues including, heat and hot water, apartment repair, and eviction.

   

4  

PRESERVING OUR CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK

STRENGTHENING RENT REGULATION Over one million New York City apartments, including 48 percent of Manhattan’s rental units, are rent regulated.2 Rent-regulated apartments are home to more working class and older New Yorkers than any other type of housing. The median annual income for rent-stabilized tenants is $38,000.3 In Manhattan, over 23 percent of rent-stabilized households are led by a senior, compared to 7 percent of market-rate households.4 Rent regulation is designed to safeguard tenants from excessive rent increases and unfair evictions. However, the current system is flawed. The Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), which determines annual rent adjustments for regulated units, often acts as a rubberstamp for rent hikes. The board approved rent increases at the height of the recession in 2009, and although our economy continues to struggle, last year it approved hikes of 3.75 percent for one-year leases and 7.25 percent for two-year leases. The economic downturn is already forcing New Yorkers to do more with less, and these increases are further squeezing tenants. The Rent Guidelines Board should be reformed to provide greater tenant representation. Currently, all nine board members are chosen by the Mayor, without input from other elected officials. In addition, appointees must have backgrounds in finance, economics or housing. To achieve greater accountability and diversity on the board, Borough Presidents, City Council Members, and others, should play a role in the appointment process. Council Member Jessica Lappin is sponsoring a resolution that would require City Council consent for RGB appointments, and allow members to come from a broader range of professions, including urban planning, social services and public policy (Res 1329-A). As Borough President, she would advocate for these changes and, if they are enacted, participate in the hearing and consent process for appointees. Loopholes in state rent regulations, which are allowing thousands of affordable units to leave the system each year, must also be fixed. Under current law, apartments that rent for $2,500 can be permanently removed from rent stabilization under certain conditions. A provision called vacancy decontrol allows rent increases of up to 20 percent once a stabilized unit becomes vacant. Another measure allows rent increases for “major capital improvements,” which has led unscrupulous landlords to make unnecessary repairs in order to reap higher profits. Over the past two decades, these factors have pushed thousands of apartments over the $2,500 threshold and out of rent regulation. Since 1994, a total of 121,659 rent-stabilized units have

                                                                                                                         2  Furman  Center  for  Real  Estate  &  Urban  Policy.  “Rent  Stabilization  in  NYC.”  http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabilization_fact_sheet_FINAL_4.pdf  3  http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/Press/20110313/report.pdf  4  Furman  Center  for  Real  Estate  &  Urban  Policy.  “Rent  Stabilization  in  NYC.”  http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabilization_fact_sheet_FINAL_4.pdf  

   

5  

been deregulated, the majority of which have been located in Manhattan, as Figure 2 illustrates.5 Landlords are asked, but not required, to report destabilized units, so the number is likely higher.

Figure 1 Rent-Regulated Units Lost to High Rent/Vacancy Deregulation (Source: NYC Rent Guidelines Board6)

Year Manhattan NYC Total % Manhattan

Compared to NYC Total

2000 2586 2934 88% 2001 4490 4982 90% 2002 5431 6144 88% 2003 7048 8204 86% 2004 7271 8856 82% 2005 7303 9272 79% 2006 7187 9983 72% 2007 7114 10342 69% 2008 8600 12800 67% 2009 8718 13557 64% 2010 7807 12911 60% 2011 6378 11364 56%

Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village illustrate the threat of deregulation to moderate and middle-income communities. After World War II, Met Life received tax breaks and incentives to build these affordable complexes, which were home to middle class tenants such as civil servants, nurses, and retirees in Manhattan. But today, nearly 50 percent of units are market rate, up from 28 percent when Met Life owned the property.7 The loss of rent protections means that Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village may be out of reach for future generations of working families. The next Borough President must work closely with the STPCV Tenants Association and other elected officials to protect this, and other, middle class havens. In addition, rent regulation loopholes must be closed to stop the drain of affordable units and protect middle class New Yorkers. Council Member Jessica Lappin sponsored a measure, which the City Council approved in 2011, calling on the state to restore home rule to New York City on rent regulation, and to repeal vacancy decontrol (Resolution 700-2011). Legislation to repeal vacancy decontrol has passed in the New York State Assembly, but not in

                                                                                                                         5  Rent  Guidelines  Board.  Changes  to  the  Rent  Stabilized  Housing  Stock  in  NYC  in  2011.  http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/changes2012.pdf  6  NYC  Rent  Guidelines  Board.  Changes  to  the  Rent  Stabilized  Housing  Stock  in  NYC  in  2011.  May  31,  2012.  7  http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/15/a_stuy_town_expert_speaks_on_stuy_towns_past_and_future.php  

   

6  

the New York State Senate. The Borough President should take a leadership role in lobbying our state legislators to give New York City home rule. In addition, owners should be required to report deregulated units, so the city can accurately assess its rent-stabilized stock. Rent and eviction protections must be strengthened to keep tenants in their homes and to keep New York’s communities vibrant and cohesive.

PROTECTING MITCHELL LAMA RESIDENTS The Mitchell-Lama program began in the 1950s and has provided affordable homes for hundreds of thousands of working New Yorkers. It is perhaps the city’s most successful affordable housing initiative, helping to create Manhattan Plaza, East Midtown Plaza, and many other buildings that make up Manhattan’s middle class. Through Mitchell-Lama, the city and state offered developers 40 or 50 year low-interest mortgages in exchange for limitations on profits, income limits for tenants, and supervision by government housing agencies. However, because owners were allowed to “buyout” after 20 years, thousands of affordable units have already left the program. According to a 2008 Community Service Society report, New York City lost over 29,000—or 45 percent—of its Mitchell-Lama rental units between 1990 and 2007.8 While owners have the right to exit the program, tenants must be protected from rent increases they can’t afford. If a Mitchell-Lama building was occupied after December 31, 1974, and does not receive certain tax breaks, it will become market rate after a buyout. Of the 29,000 rental units that have left the program, 14,000 are not eligible for rent stabilization.9 Every Mitchell Lama tenant should be protected by rent stabilization when their building leaves the program. Council Member Lappin supports measures that would place all Mitchell- Lama developments into rent stabilization in the event of a buyout (A.795 / S.4250) and would remove the threat of high rent increases due to the “unique or peculiar circumstances” of a buyout (A.352 / S.5245). These measures have passed in the New York Assembly, but have stalled in the state Senate. The next Borough President should push for their passage. To retain our remaining Mitchell-Lama units, owners should be incentivized to keep their buildings in the system. The city’s Mortgage Restructuring Program offers some owners the opportunity to refinance their existing first and second mortgages if they agree to stay in the program for an additional 15 years. This year, Governor Andrew Cuomo initiated the transfer of the Mitchell-Lama asset portfolio to the New York State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR) agency to help refinance these housing projects and leverage additional private and public funding for rehabilitation. As Manhattan Borough President, Lappin will work to expand programs that revitalize Mitchell-Lama buildings and encourage owners to stay in the system. She will also explore other city-sponsored options to help owners refinance.                                                                                                                          8  Community  Service  Society  Testimony.  NY  State  Assembly  Subcommittee  on  Mitchell-­‐Lama  Hearing.  May  21,  2010.  9  Community  Service  Society  Testimony.  NY  State  Assembly  Subcommittee  on  Mitchell-­‐Lama  Hearing.  May  21,  2010.  

   

7  

In addition, Mitchell-Lama residents should have opportunities to collaborate on the issues affecting their buildings. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has hosted monthly task force meetings for current and former Mitchell-Lama tenants. Lappin would continue the task force as borough president, so residents can discuss strategies to preserve and enhance Mitchell-Lama housing.

HELPING SENIORS STAY IN THEIR HOMES With New York’s senior population expected to double over the next 30 years, the time for the city to proactively plan for their housing needs is now. Forty-five percent of New York renters over age 65 have lived in their current home for more than 30 years, but many are struggling to keep up with rising housing costs.10 In addition, many seniors require support services to live independently. The next Manhattan Borough President should work to expand benefits and programs that help older New Yorkers stay in their homes. Improving the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) Program Approximately 47,000 low-income seniors are protected from rent increases they cannot afford through the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) program.11 Under SCRIE, rent increases are limited for qualifying seniors and in return, participating landlords receive a property tax break.12 Tenants are eligible if they are at least 62 years old, have a maximum household income of $29,000, live in a rent-regulated or Mitchell-Lama apartment, and have a maximum or regulated rent that is increased to a level exceeding one-third of their household’s income. As real estate prices soar, SCRIE is often the only way that seniors can afford to stay in their apartments. However, since the program was transferred from the Department for the Aging (DFTA) to the Department of Finance (DOF) in 2009, a series of problems in the program’s administration have created difficulties for participants. Following the transition, applications for seniors and the disabled were combined into one long and confusing form, and there was a huge backlog in processing them. While DFTA allowed tenants to contact agency representatives directly on SCRIE issues, DOF required them to call 311 and wait for a response. And, to make matters worse, SCRIE landlords did not receive property tax abatements on their July 2011 bill because of a computer glitch. These issues put seniors at risk of losing their benefit and their homes. As Chair of the City Council Aging Committee, Council Member Lappin has pressed DOF to resolve these issues. The Council’s Aging and Finance Committees have worked with the agency to make a number of improvements. Applications for seniors and the disabled have been separated, and the backlog has been resolved. The SCRIE unit now has an outreach coordinator, and seniors can call or visit staff directly for assistance. Lappin will continue working with DOF as Manhattan Borough

                                                                                                                         10  American  Association  of  Retired  Persons,  New  York  –  State  Housing  Profiles  2011  3,  Sept.  2011,  available  at    http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-­‐com/AARP-­‐HouProf_2011-­‐NYs.pdf.  11  Laws  of  1972,  Ch.  689.    12  Id.  

   

8  

President to help participants stay in the program, and to connect more eligible seniors with this benefit. The income guidelines for SCRIE eligibility should also be adjusted to allow more seniors to qualify. The current $29,000 income threshold is extremely low and excludes many seniors who desperately need help with housing costs. In addition, cost of living adjustments for entitlement programs such as Social Security may push SCRIE recipients over the income limit. Assembly Member Dan Quart is sponsoring legislation in the state Assembly to raise the income threshold and include an annual cost of living adjustment for SCRIE (A.2257 of 2012). As Borough President, Lappin will work with Quart and other legislators to ensure this legislation is passed. The Future of Senior Housing The next Manhattan Borough President should use the office’s city planning powers to explore and fund options for senior housing. Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORCs) offer a successful model for helping New Yorkers remain in their homes. NORCs are complexes with large senior populations that offer services such as case management, counseling, health assessments, transportation, and socialization. Penn South in Manhattan is the first NORC in the nation, and other buildings including Phipps Plaza West, Knickerbocker Village, and the Chinatown NORC have replicated this type of housing to help more New Yorkers age in place. The city should take a much more comprehensive approach to address senior housing needs. Council Member Jessica Lappin and Council Member Brad Lander introduced legislation to create a Senior Housing Task Force made up of city agencies including the Department of Buildings, City Planning, Housing Preservation and Development, and others, to make recommendations on safe, affordable, appropriate residences for older New Yorkers (Intro 777-2012). As Manhattan Borough President, Lappin will convene a similar task force to examine the best practices for preserving and creating homes for seniors in the borough.

ENHANCING LEGAL PROTECTIONS AND RESOURCES FOR TENANTS When tenants lose their homes, it destabilizes communities, diminishes the affordable housing stock, and strains city resources. Council Member Lappin will use the Manhattan Borough President’s office to advocate for greater organizational and legal resources for tenants. Supporting Tenant Organizations The financial benefits associated with deregulation have led some landlords and building owners to speed up the process by encouraging tenants to move out prematurely. In 2008 The New York Times documented the practices of private investments firms that purchased thousands of rent-regulated units in the city with the goal of increasing the value of their investments after existing tenants left.13 Following these acquisitions, tenants reported patterns of harassment by the building management, including being sued repeatedly for allegedly unpaid rent, receiving false

                                                                                                                         13  Morgenson,  supra  note  3.  

   

9  

notices of unpaid rent, being accused of illegal subletting, and receiving lease termination and non-renewal letters.14 To combat tenant harassment, the New York City Council passed the 2008 Tenant Protection Act (Local Law 7 of 2008). The law allows tenants to sue landlords in housing court for using tactics to force them out of their apartments including threats, disruption of essential services, and frivolous litigation. Previously, tenants could only take their landlords to court for problems with services or the physical condition of apartments. On April 15, 2013, Council Member Lappin chaired a hearing of the City Council Aging Committee on the issue of harassment of elderly tenants. Testimony from housing and legal advocates revealed that the Tenant Protection Act is most powerful when used in group cases. For example, in 2011 a group of tenants brought a class-action lawsuit against the Pinnacle Group following allegations that the landlord intimidated and harassed tenants in an attempt to secure their early departure from rent-regulated units. Pinnacle agreed to settle the lawsuit for $2.5 million.15 Legal service providers need strong community partners that can help unite tenants against harassment. It is critical to provide support for groups that organize and mobilize tenants including Tenants & Neighbors, Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES), United Neighborhood Houses, the Metropolitan Council on Housing, Housing Conservation and Coordinators, and others. Increasing Legal Resources for Tenants There is also a need for greater legal resources for tenants in housing court. Residential evictions are on the rise in New York City, increasing 21 percent from 2006 to 2012, as Figure 2 illustrates. But unlike criminal defendants, tenants in housing court have no legal right to government-paid lawyers, and 90 to 99 percent of New York City tenants have no legal representation in eviction cases.16

                                                                                                                         14  Id.    15  Id.  16  THE  TASK  FORCE  TO  EXPAND  ACCESS  TO  CIVIL  LEGAL  SERVICES  IN  NEW  YORK.  November  2010.  http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/access-­‐civil-­‐legal-­‐services/PDF/CLS-­‐TaskForceREPORT.pdf  &  MFY  Legal  Services  “Testimony  on  Harassment  of  Elderly  Tenants”  Presented  to  NYC  Council  Committee  on  Aging.  4/15/2013.    

   

10  

Figure 2: Number of Residential Evictions in NYC17 (Source: Housing Court Answers)

Not having a lawyer can mean the difference between tenants keeping their homes, or ending up on the streets. Several organizations in New York City provide free legal assistance on housing issues. For example, Council Member Lappin allocates city funding for Eviction Intervention Services (EIS) to offer a free monthly legal clinic for low- and moderate-income tenants in her district. However, the need for pro-bono housing lawyers far exceeds the supply. The Legal Aid Society reported that requests for legal housing assistance jumped by 18 percent in 2012. The demand is so high that Legal Aid is forced to turn away eight out of nine requests for assistance in civil cases.18 Last year Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman instituted a new requirement that lawyers perform 50 hours of pro-bono legal work to receive their New York State license. This first-in-the-nation mandate offers unprecedented opportunities to expand legal aid for tenants. The approximately 10,000 lawyers who apply to the New York State bar each year will provide about a half-million hours of free services for people of limited means, non-profits, and groups that promote access to justice.19 Existing organizations can team up with law schools to expand housing clinics and other types of pro-bono legal assistance. Providing legal representation for elderly and disabled tenants facing eviction is especially critical. As Chair of the Aging Committee, Council Member Lappin has been a supporter of MFY Legal Services’ Assigned Counsel Project. Last year, the Manhattan Housing Court referred 125 seniors to the program. At the City Council Aging Committee hearing on elderly

                                                                                                                         17  Housing  Court  Answers.  http://cwtfhc.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2013/02/DOI_2006_to_2012.pdf  18  The  Legal  Aid  Society  2012  Annual  Report.  Page  10.    19  Best  Practices  in  Legal  Education  Blog.  http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2012/09/20/nys-­‐chief-­‐judge-­‐unveils-­‐pro-­‐bono-­‐mandate-­‐while-­‐supporting-­‐supervised-­‐organized-­‐law-­‐school-­‐clinical-­‐programs/  9/20/2012  

23,798   24,973   25,109   26,492   25,701  27,655   28,756  

2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012  

   

11  

tenant harassment, MFY testified that “what we have learned from our work is that Housing Court judges are well-positioned to identify tenants whose age and disability make them especially vulnerable to even the flimsiest claims when combined with the bewildering environment of the court. When judges have nowhere to refer such tenants, the Court becomes an instrument of the harassers, and overwhelmed judges often rubber-stamp one-sided, meritless stipulations. When a judge can refer an elderly tenant to the Assigned Counsel Project, then the Court can fulfill its role as a backstop against frivolous, harassing eviction suits.”20 As Manhattan Borough President, Lappin would expand the Assigned Counsel Project and similar initiatives. Lappin also supports a measure, written by Council Member Rosie Mendez, to provide free lawyers to tenants facing eviction who are age 62 and older and have an income of less than $27,000 (Intro 90-2010). In 2007, the city’s Independent Budget Office examined a similar legislative proposal and found that 8,800 to 10,750 low-income elderly residents would quality for city-funded legal representation. It would cost the city $9.7 million to $11.9 million a year, compared to $61,740 to provide each member of an elderly household with emergency shelter.21

THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OF TOMORROW In addition to protecting our city’s existing affordable homes, we must explore ways to build the next generation of housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-income New Yorkers. By 2014, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s New Housing Marketplace Plan (NHMP) will have preserved and created 165,000 affordable units, including 92,000 new units.22 The next Mayor must build on this and make affordable housing a priority.

ACHIEVING TRUE AFFORDABILITY

Currently, many units that the city markets as “affordable” are too expensive for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers. The city bases income guidelines for affordable housing on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) calculation of Area Median Income (AMI) in the New York City region.23 This number is skewed higher than the actual median income of New Yorkers. For example, in 2010, AMI for a family of four in New York was $79,200, but actual median income was only $62,799.24

There are several reasons for the disparity. HUD loosely bases AMI on the New York Fair Market Rent Area (FMR), which includes wealthier suburban counties that boost the median income higher than if it only included New York City. HUD also adjusts New York FMR

                                                                                                                         20  MFY  Legal  Services.  Testimony  on  Harassment  of  Elderly  Tenants.  April  15,  2013.  21  Fernandez,  Manny.  The  New  York  Times.  Free  Legal  Aid  Sought  for  Elderly  Tenants.  November  16,  2007.    22  2010  New  Housing  Marketplace  Plan.  nyc.gov    23  http://www.nychdc.com/pages/Income-­‐Eligibility.html  24  Association  for  Neighborhood  and  Housing  Development.  “Real  Affordability:  An  Evaluation  of  the  Bloomberg  Housing  Program  and  Recommendations  to  Strengthen  Afffordable  Housing  Policy.  http://www.anhd.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/07/ANHD-­‐2013-­‐Platform_MSPublisher_011013rev-­‐1-­‐11-­‐13@11am-­‐post-­‐online.pdf  

   

12  

upwards because of high housing costs in the area. In addition, HUD uses a multiplier to determine AMI for households of different sizes, which artificially inflates incomes for larger families.25

As a result, many working families are being priced out of the affordable housing market in their own communities. Although the city currently reserves half of all new developments for those who live in the local Community District, a recent study by the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development found that two-thirds of residents earn too little to qualify for the majority of affordable units built in their neighborhood.26

Housing is not truly affordable if it is out of reach for the majority of local residents. Affordability targets should address the discrepancy between AMI and actual incomes, and take into account the income variations in each borough and neighborhood. In order to make more affordable homes accessible to local residents, our city’s housing policy must accurately reflect the economic realities of working New Yorkers.

BUILDING PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Of the nearly 125,000 units created under the New Housing Marketplace Plan, almost all affordable units will expire, usually after 30 years, and sometimes after 50 or 60 years. Only 2 percent of units are required to remain permanently affordable. 27 The Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development (ANHD) estimates that beginning in 2017, New York will lose an average of more than 11,000 units of city-sponsored affordable housing every year.28 The Mitchell Lama buyout crisis shows the risks of short-term affordability programs. When restrictions on a development expire, longtime residents can be priced out of their homes, and future generations can lose affordable housing options. New York City should incentivize permanently affordable housing to protect residents and promote economic diversity in the long term. There are several ways that the Manhattan Borough President can encourage sustainable affordability. Lappin would use the office’s role in the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) process to promote the development of long-term and permanently affordable housing. As a trustee for the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS), the largest of the city employees’ pension funds, she would promote investments in affordable units.

                                                                                                                         25  Id  26  Association  for  Neighborhood  Housing  Development.  “Affordable  Neighborhoods:  2013  Housing  Policy  for  the  Future  of  New  York  City.  Page  5    27  Association  for  Neighborhood  and  Housing  Development.  “Real  Affordability:  An  Evaluation  of  the  Bloomberg  Housing  Program  and  Recommendations  to  Strengthen  Afffordable  Housing  Policy.  http://www.anhd.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/07/ANHD-­‐2013-­‐Platform_MSPublisher_011013rev-­‐1-­‐11-­‐13@11am-­‐post-­‐online.pdf  28  Association  for  Neighborhood  and  Housing  Development.  “Real  Affordability:  An  Evaluation  of  the  Bloomberg  Housing  Program  and  Recommendations  to  Strengthen  Afffordable  Housing  Policy.  http://www.anhd.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/07/ANHD-­‐2013-­‐Platform_MSPublisher_011013rev-­‐1-­‐11-­‐13@11am-­‐post-­‐online.pdf  

   

13  

Mayoral candidates have also offered promising proposals. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn called for state legislation that would provide building owners with a new tax exemption in exchange for keeping units permanently affordable. This bill would apply to existing units, as well as those built in the future, and the exemption could be renewed every 30 years. 29 Public Advocate Bill de Blasio has proposed enhancing and streamlining incentives for developers to build more long-term affordable housing. New York City should continue to explore incentives and regulations that offer long-term solutions for affordable housing.

ASSESSING VACANT CITY LAND & INVOLVING COMMUNITIES IN REDEVELOPMENT

Limited space is a significant contributing factor to the city’s housing shortage. New York City owns over 1,500 plots of vacant land through various departments and agencies, and this may offer new opportunities for affordable housing development.30 In 2007, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer conducted a street-by-street survey of underutilized and vacant property in Manhattan, to assess potential space for affordable housing in the borough. As Borough President, Council Member Lappin would work to ensure the city is continuing to review these properties to determine the best use of the land, either through the Borough President’s office or a city agency.

If vacant or underutilized city-owned land can be repurposed, residents should have a meaningful say in the process. The recently approved Seward Park Urban Renewal Area (SPURA) redevelopment process offers a promising starting point for community-driven planning. The area was an eyesore on the Lower East Side for more than four decades. In 2008, Manhattan’s Community Board 3 (CB 3) reinitiated the development process. The board worked to gain community consensus on the project, and to draft a set of guidelines for redevelopment with the help of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEC), the Department of City Planning and other city agencies. The city and CB 3 also agreed to form a joint taskforce, made up of five community board members, two local Council Members, the Manhattan Borough President, and two members of local stakeholder groups, with the power to craft the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the site, review proposals, and play a role in the final selection of the developer. In February 2013, the city issued an RFP that called for, in addition to other amenities, 500 units of affordable housing, with 20 percent set aside for low-income households, 10 percent for moderate-income households, 10 percent for middle-income households, and 10 percent for senior households.31

                                                                                                                         29  City  Council  Speaker  Christine  Quinn’s  2013  State  of  the  City  Address.  http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/2013socrelease.shtml  30  Association  for  Neighborhood  and  Housing  Development.  “Real  Affordability:  An  Evaluation  of  the  Bloomberg  Housing  Program  and  Recommendations  to  Strengthen  Afffordable  Housing  Policy.  http://www.anhd.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/07/ANHD-­‐2013-­‐Platform_MSPublisher_011013rev-­‐1-­‐11-­‐13@11am-­‐post-­‐online.pdf    31  NYCEDC  http://www.nycedc.com/project/seward-­‐park-­‐mixed-­‐use-­‐development-­‐project  

   

14  

Council Member Lappin is exploring legislative options to mandate greater community involvement in future RFPs for city-owned land. As Borough President she would create local task forces, made up of broad coalitions of stakeholders, early in the development process. She would connect them with the Department of City Planning and other city agencies to provide technical support, as well as labor organizations that could provide insight into local hiring and job standards.

CONCLUSION Protecting and creating new affordable housing is essential to preserving the diversity and character that define New York. In the face of a chronic housing shortage and record-high real estate prices the challenges are formidable. Part of the solution is protecting our existing affordable housing by strengthening rent-regulations, and incentivizing owners to remain in affordability programs such as Mitchell-Lama. Additional legal resources will also help tenants stay in their communities, and protect our affordable housing stock. And as our city develops the housing of tomorrow, options for creating permanently affordable homes that are truly accessible to local communities should be explored. The Manhattan Borough President has the power to lead on these issues. With the right vision and planning, we can and must ensure that New York remains a beacon for those from all socioeconomic backgrounds.