Index Nos.: 109313/2013 & 101384/2013
APL-2016-00068
Court of Appeals
STATE OF NEW YORK
MATTER OF 60 EAST 12TH STREET TENANTS' ASSN.,
Appellants,
--- against ---
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
RENEWAL and 12 BROADWAY REALTY, LLC,
Respondents.
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF
THE URBAN JUSTICE CENTER IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
Garrett Wright
Urban Justice Center
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
123 William Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 459-3012
June 28, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY ST ATEMENT ............................................................................. i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE ............. .i
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ......................................................................... i
INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N .........•........................................................•.............................•.. 1
I. Finality is essential to prevent better-resourced landlords from
exploiting the MCI process and to preserving New York City's affordable
housing scheme ........................................................................................................ l
II. Discrepancies between MCI and J-51 forms are due to form design and
should not be held to constitute irregularities in vital matters ............................ 6
III. · Conclusion .................................................................................................... I 0
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
AjJi-onti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d 713, 720, 723 N.Y.S.2d 757, 761 (2001) ......... 5, 7
Matter of Siwek v. Mahoney, 39 N.Y.2d 159, 163 n. 2, 383 N.Y.S.2d 238
(1976) ..................................................................................... 5, 7
Statutes
S.B. 6012 (N.Y. 2015) ....................................................................... .4
Regulations
Rent Stabilization Code § 2527.8 ........................................................... 2
Other Authorities
Adam Leitman Bailey & Dov Treiman, How to Overcome Tenant Resistance to an
MCI Application (Sept. 20 14), available at: htt.Qs://alblawfirm.com/articles/mci-
a.Q.Qlication/ ............................................................................................................. 5
New York County Lawyers' Association, The New York City Housing Court in the
21st Century: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It? (Oct.2005),
available at: htt.Q:/ /cwtfhc.org/w.Q-
content/u.Qloads/2009/06/NYCLA HC in 21st Cent..Qdf.. .................................. 2
Office of the New York City Comptroller, The Growing Gap: New York City's
Housing Affordability Challenge 22 (Apr. 2014), available at:
b!ill :/I com_J2troller ~nyc. gov /w.Q-content/u.Qloads/ documents/Growing_ Ga!U2df .... 4
Urban Justice Center, The Burden of Fees: How Affordable Housing is Made
Unaffordable 10 (Sept. 2013 ), available at:
htt.Qs://cd.Q.urbanjustice.org/sites/default/files/The%20Burden%20of'Yo20Fees FI
NAL . .Qdf. ........................................................................................................... .ii, 3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center
respectfully submits this memorandum of law as amicus curiae. We would like to
acknowledge the work ofNew York University School of Law students Conor
Gaffney, Nicholas Krafft and Clara Potter for their excellent assistance on this
brief.
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Urban Justice Center is a non-profit 50l(c)(3) corporation with no
parents, affiliates, or subsidiaries.
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Urban Justice Center ("UJC") serves New York City's most vulnerable
residents through a combination of direct legal service, systemic advocacy,
community education and political organizing. The Community Development
Project ("CDP") of the Urban Justice Center formed in September 2001 to provide
legal, technical, research and policy assistance to grassroots community groups
engaged in a wide range of community development effmis throughout New York
City, including housing work. A large pati of our practice is assisting tenants
benefiting from rent regulations or who are at risk of losing their apatiments due to
deregulation. Our work is informed by the belief that real and lasting change in
1
low-income, urban neighborhoods is often rooted in the empowerment of
grassroots, community institutions.
CDP has represented or advised thousands of low-income, rent regulated
tenants in their opposition to landlords' requests for inappropriate Major Capital
Improvements ("MCI") rent increases. We have seen first-hand how oftentimes
landlords attempt to claim increases for work that was not properly completed,
items that are replaced that are still within their useful life schedule or work that is
otherwise ineligible for a MCI rent increase. In 2013, CDP issued a report on "The
Burden of Fees", which detailed how many landlords use various types oflegal
and illegal fees to dramatically increase low-income rent regulated tenants'
housing costs. Urban Justice Center, The Burden of Fees: How Affordable Housing
is Made Unaffordable 10 (Sept. 2013 ), available at:
https :// cdp. urban justice.org/ sites/ default/files/Th~%20B urdeno/o20of0/o20F ees FIN
AL.pdf A true and accurate copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
These tactics include a growing reliance on MCI rent increases as a way to raise
rents and ultimately displace low-income tenants who cannot afford to pay such
mcreases.
11
INTRODUCTION
At issue before the comi is whether the New York State Division of Housing
and Community Renewal ("DHCR") can reconsider a final order denying a Major
Capital Improvement ("MCI") rent increase for renovations that were characterized
somewhat differently in a previous MCI order than in a subsequent J-51 order. The
issue of finality in administrative determinations has important ramifications for
low- and middle-income tenants throughout New York City, because MCis are one
ofthe primary means of landlords to weaken the impact of rent regulation. Finality
is also essential to prevent the power discrepancy between landlords and tenants
from becoming even more extreme and unbalanced. Moreover, the discrepancy at
issue is a regular consequence of having different forms for MCI applications and
J-51 tax abatements, rather than an irregularity in a vital matter. Therefore, the
Comi should reverse the decision of the Appellate Division and hold that DHCR
may not reconsider a final order denying a Major Capital Improvement rent
increase, absent irregularities that are far more substantial than those alleged in this
case.
I. FINALITY IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT BETTER-RESOURCED
LANDLORDS FROM EXPLOITING THE MCI PROCESS AND TO
PRESERVING NEW YORK CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SCHEME
There are important policy reasons why finality is central to the rent-
regulation scheme as a whole. First, because of power imbalances among the
1
parties, a lack of finality would enable landlords (who can better afford to make
dubious claims and file questionable applications) to demand and receive duplicate
rent increases for unnecessary work. Second, since this compounded advantage
would incentivize more unwaiTanted MCis and thus more rent increases, the
broader goals of rent regulation to address the ongoing crisis of lack of affordable
housing in New York will be compromised. Thus, finality is important to
maintaining equity in the landlord-tenant relationship and New York City's
affordable housing scheme as a whole.
If the scope of "irregularity in a vital matter" under Rent Stabilization Code
Section 2527.8 is expanded so that the possibility of a ministerial discrepancy in
decades-old documents is a sufficient basis for DHCR to reopen a MCI
proceeding, landlords will have further incentive to fight for redundant MCis. The
typical position of landlords in the MCI process is to try to obtain the largest rent
increase possible from DHCR, and so they will typically benefit more than tenants
from the ability to more easily re-litigate long-settled MCI orders. Their inherent
resource advantage will compound this benefit, allowing them to undetiake
litigation more often and for longer periods of time. 1 In shmi, lack of finality gives
landlords the procedural opening to fight and win a war of attrition. Tenants, who
1 A report from the New York County Lawyers' Association notes, "the overwhelming majority
oftenants who appear (or default) in New York City Housing Comi proceedings cannot afford to
pay for counsel to represent them." New York County Lawyers' Association, The New York City
Housing Court in the 21st Centwy: Can It Better Address the Problems Before It? (Oct.2005),
avail able at: tillQ:/ /c~-contenti!!RLQ~<;i$12009/06/N_YCLA_J:lki!L~l?LC~n!-&df.
2
in many cases do not have the wherewithal to challenge MCis, will be saddled with
additional fees for work that may not actually be warranted.
CDP's September 2013 report on "The Burden of Fees" detailed the
prevalence of various types of tenant fees, from washing machine fees to legal
fees, which can add hundreds of dollars to rent bills. The report also surveyed
buildings in the Bronx and found that 26% of them had an MCI rent increase in the
previous five years. Exhibit A at p. 11.
MCis can also disproportionately affect non-English speakers, since the
notice letters are only in English. !d. at p. 10. Even for English speakers, the
burden is on tenants to rebut an MCI. Once landlords have additional opportunities
to apply for MCis, low-income tenants in rent regulated buildings must assume
this further burden of responding to such additional MCI applications or accept
higher rents, leading to a negative impact on tenants either way.
This power discrepancy is especially underscored in this case, where the
landlord had ample opportunity to rebut any perceived errors in the 1995 and 1998
orders. By allowing the better-resourced landlord to continue to reargue the denial
of various costs, DHCR is enabling the landlord to win a war of attrition. UJC's
2013 report noted that, "few tenants are aware they can submit complaints and
even if they do, the application process is complicated, slow and time consuming."
!d. at 14. If they are able to complain, not all tenants will have the ability to appeal
3
or defend appeals to the Court of Appeals, so it is incumbent on this Court to
ensure that DHCR enforce finality in its own proceedings. Otherwise, DHCR,
prompted by landlords with the resources and incentive to pick at miniscule
discrepancies in every otherwise-final order, will often be able to look back in its
own record to find enors it can correct to the landlord's satisfaction.
The impact of MCis extends far beyond the immediate benefit to landlords
and the immediate costs to tenants. The MCI becomes a permanent part of the base
rent. Because rent-regulated apatiments can become deregulated once the rent
exceeds $2,700 a month, wider availability ofMCis will markedly accelerate the
rate at which apartments cross this threshold. S.B. 6012 (N.Y. 2015).
While it may take several years for a relaxation of the standards for granting
MCis to lead to a drop in the affordable housing stock, this is an inevitable result.
Indeed, MCis are a major reason that otherwise stabilized rents increase at a faster
rate than should follow from the increases provided by the New York City Rent
Guidelines Board (RGB). Office of the New York City Comptroller, The Growing
Gap: New York City's Housing Affordability Challenge 22 (Apr. 2014), available
at: httQ:/ /comptroller.nyc.gov/wQ-content/uploads/documents/Growing Gap.Qdf. A
true and accurate copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. UJC requests
that judicial notice be taken of the facts in Exhibit B. Information from public
records such as the reports of the New York City Comptroller are properly the
4
subject of judicial notice. Ajfi-onti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d 713, 720, 723 N.Y.S.2d
757, 761 (2001); Matter of Siwek v. Mahoney, 39 N.Y.2d 159, 163 n. 2, 383
N.Y.S.2d 238 (1976). The repmi noted that while comprehensive MCI data are not
publicly available, "there is a perception of fraudulent activity associated with MCI
and IAI rent increases". !d. at p. 22. The repmi cited to a report by the Association
of Neighborhood Housing and Development about some landlords making false
claims of IAI work and recent decisions of DHCR where landlords did shoddy or
incomplete MCI work. !d.
Further, while normal RGB increases could preserve 80% of rent-stabilized
housing for the next 20 years, that fact in itself is a "stark reminder of the
incentives that apartment owners have to layer [MCI] rent increases and individual
apmiment improvement (IAI) rent increases into their rent rolls." !d. Landlords are
well-aware of this dynamic; for example, one law firm that represents landlords
adve1iises on its website the importance ofMCis as a means of achieving
deregulation, and how the recovery of MCI costs "can be much faster than the
seven years after approval of the application." Adam Leitman Bailey & Dov
Treiman, How to Overcome Tenant Resistance to an MCI Application (Sept.
2014 ), available at: https://alblawfirm.com/articles/mci -application/. In other
words, while the MCI is theoretically accounted for in the rent through increases
spread over an eight-to-nine year period, the ability to consistently continue raising
5
rents beyond what low-income tenants can afford to pay and to ultimately breach
the rent-regulation threshold early are both prime reasons for landlords to seek
MCis and to press the issue if they face resistance from either the tenants or
DHCR.
Tenants depend on finality as a safeguard against better-resourced landlords
who will take every available opportunity to seek rent increases from an MCI.
Landlords are amply incentivized to behave in this manner because of the rent
deregulation threshold, and so giving them more tools to do re-open prior MCI
orders will have a clear impact on the availability of affordable housing. Thus, both
the Appellants and low-and moderate-income renters in general will be subjected
to further economic pressure to force them out of their apartments, and New York
City's housing stock will be increasingly unable to accommodate the needs of
many working New Yorkers.
II. DISCREPENCIES BETWEEN MCI AND J-51 FORMS ARE DUE TO
FORM DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE
IRREGULARITIES IN VITAL MATTERS
In addition to the policy reasons discussed supra, which show why finality is
important to the rent regulation scheme, this case in patiicular demonstrates the
significance of finality in DHCR orders. The primary irregularity cited by the
appellate opinion, and argued by the Respondent-Owner 12 Broadway Realty,
LLC ("Owner") is between a 1995 MCI application and a 1998 J-51 order.
6
However, given the way these forms are constructed, such alleged irregularities
(the appellate division majority called them "discrepancies") are in fact likely to be
a regular part of the MCI process when both forms are involved. The capital
improvement categories listed on the MCI application are not perfectly identical to
those listed on the J-51 application form, creating a number of potential
"discrepancies" of the kind the appellate division found. A true and accurate copy
ofDHCR's current MCI Application Form (RA-79) is attached hereto as Exhibit
C. A true and accurate copy of the New York City Department ofHousing
Preservation and Development's ("HPD") current J-51 Application Form is
attached hereto as Exhibit D. UJC requests that judicial notice be taken ofthe facts
in Exhibits C and D. The forms are from the websites ofDHCR and HPD,
respectively (http://www.nyshcr.org/forms/rent/ra79.pdf;
httRs://www1.ny_<;_g_Q_v/assets/hp_d/downloads/pdf/J51-;w]2lication.pdf) Forms and
information maintained on government databases are properly the subject of
judicial notice. Affronti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d at 720; Matter of Siwek v.
Mahoney, 39 N.Y.2d at 163 n. 2. For the Court to hold that such discrepancies
constitute an irregularity in a vital matter, and thus warrant re-opening of a DHCR
proceeding, would create a major opportunity for landlords to overturn a final
order in many situations where both MCI and J-51 forms are utilized in the same
proceeding.
7
The Owner contends that because the 1995 MCI application was for
"RESURF EXT WALLS ETC," while the 1998 J-51 order was for
"WATERPROOFING, POINTING, MASONRY," there is an irregularity in a vital
matter regarding the original resurfacing work, which opens DHCR's 1995 finding
of resurfacing to administrative review. Though DHCR does not possess the
original 1995 MCI file, it explained that the discrepancy was because the J-51 form
did not have a separate category for resurfacing. See Record on Appeal at p. 133.
The current MCI and J-51 applications still contain this discrepancy that DHCR
noted. The MCI application form contains both blank write-in spaces for any
capital improvement, and also requires a submitted written statement of any
"pointing and waterproofing." See Exhibit Cat pp. 2, 5. The J-51 application form,
in contrast, only provides fields for "waterproofing", "pointing", and "masonry"
costs calculated by square footage but no field for "resurfacing." See Exhibit D at
pp. 7, 8. The MCI application form allows landlords to write in their own
description of the work, so any resurfacing work noted in a MCI application would
not have a corresponding field for entry in the J-51 form. Finding that this
discrepancy between MCI and J-51 forms constitutes an "irregularity in a vital
matter" at law would mean finding cause for DHCR or courts to revoke the finality
of such orders anew anytime an owner applies for both MCI and J-51 consideration
for resurfacing.
8
Such discrepancies are not limited to resurfacing. If a building owner repairs
or replaces the elevators, the MCI application asks if "new Controllers and
Selectors or new related technology" were installed. See Exhibit C at p. 5. The J-51
application provides fields only for controller upgrades, not "Selectors." See
Exhibit D at p. 8. For work done on the pipes in a building, the MCI application
asks if new overhead mains and valves are installed in the basement, while the J-51
application provides no entry for basement mains or valves, but only for "water
main, risers, branches." See Exhibit Cat p. 5, Exhibit D at p. 8.
Minute differences between forms used for different housing programs are
common in complex administrative systems. To decide that such differences create
room for error sufficient to overturn administrative finality would put undue
pressure on DHCR and HPD administrators and employees to ensure various
orders and forms precisely correspond with one another, and in cases in which the
forms do not allow such precise correspondence, such a rule would effectively
preclude administrative finality.
Even if the minor discrepancy in the description of the work in the MCI
order and J-51 order was considered to be legally significant, such a "discrepancy"
would not in any event mandate a different outcome as the Owner suggests. DHCR
has never previously adopted the Owner's theory that a landlord is entitled to
receive a MCI rent increase for resurfacing work that is performed within the
9
useful life schedule of prior pointing work. This fact alone should have been
grounds for the Appellate Division to deny the Owner's demand to re-open the
October 9, 2009 Order.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the decision of the
Appellate Division and hold that DHCR may not reconsider a final order denying a
Major Capital Improvements rent increase, absent irregularities that are far more
substantial than those alleged in this case.
Dated: New York, New York
June 28, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
Garrett Wright
Counsel of Record
Urban Justice Center
123 William Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (646) 459-3012
10
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1a, the undersigned, an attorney duly admitted
to practice law before the Comis of the State of New York, certifies that, upon
information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry under the circumstances,
the contents of the annexed documents are not frivolous.
Dated: New York, New York
June 28, 2016
11
By: Garrett Wright
EXHIBIT A
URBAN
JUSTICE
CENTER
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
New Settlement Apartments' Community Action for Safe Apartments
Community Action for Safe Apartments (CASA) is New Settlement Apartments'
housing organizing initiative. CASA began in 2005, out of the need in rhe community
to improve the poor housing conditions that persist for many families in our densely
populated and underserved area of the Southwest Bronx. CASA is made up of community
residents who work together to improve the living conditions in our neighborhood
and maintain affordable housing through collective action. CASN.s multifaceted work
combines building-specific efforts to improve housing conditions with neighborhood-wide
campaigns focused on tenants' rights to a safe, healthy and stable home. CASA also heavily
participates in the work of other coalitions that advocate for legislation to preserve affordable housing and
better protect tenants.
Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center
l11e Community Development Project (CDP) at the Urban Justice Center strengthens
the impact of grassroots organizations in New York City's low-income and other excluded
communities. CDP's Research and Policy Initiative partners with and provides strategic
support to grassroots community organizations to build the power of their organizing and
advocacy work. We utilize a "participatory action research" model in which low-income and
excluded communities are central to the design and development of research and policy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, v,re are sincerely grateful to the more than l 00 tenants of Chestnut Holdings'
buildings who spent countless hours filling out surveys, collecting data and door knocking to help their
neighbors fill out surveys. We were able to collect surveys from more than 20 Chestnut Holdings buildings
including, 1310 Sheridan, 1305 Sheridan, 1549 'lownsend, 200 Marcy Place, 1504 Sheridan, 1520 Sheridan,
1353 Sheridan, 1365 Sheridan, 1348 Sheridan, 1254 Sherman, 255 East 176th Street, 1220 Grand
Concourse, 214 East 163rd Street, 217 E. Mount Eden, 2050 Valentine Ave, 2875 Bainbridge and 1 West
182nd Street. We wanr to especially acknowledge Soledad Franco, Adama Tounkara, Alicia Kemp, Doris
Attah, Angelina Rivera, Alice Gonzalez, Baba Camara and Carmen Guillen.
Miriam Patricia Torres and Susanna Blankley at CASA provided critical staff support through every
stage of the project. A special thanks to CASA interns, Hannah Ceja and Inez McNealy for all of their support.
Research, writing and editing support was provided by Lindsay Cattell, Alexa Kasdan and Pat Convey
from the Community Development Project. Legal research and guidance was provided by Shafaq Islam,
Garrett Wright, and Nabanita Pal from CDP.
SaMi Chester from Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition and Zachary Lerner from
New York Communities for Change helped collect surveys and provided critical insight to the report.
Thanks to Christopher Chaput for designing this report.
l11is report was printed through the generous support of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.
TABlE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Methodology
II. Background
i
3
Ill. Overview of Fees 5
IV. lack of Government Oversight and the Need for Tenant Organizing 1.4
V. Call to Action and Recommendations 1.5
Endnotes 1.6
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOlOGY
Tenants in New York City's poorest neighborhoods are under attack. Despite the existence oflaws
such as rent stabilization to protect tenants from high rents, landlords are creating new ways to push rent
stabilized tenants out of their homes. One such tactic is the use of non-rent fees, a confusing and often times
unwarranted set of charges that are added to a monthly rent statement (sec Figure I). These include fees on
appliances (air conditioner, washing machine, dryer, and dishwasher), legal fees, damage fees, Jvfajor Capital
Improvement (MCI) rent increases and other miscellaneous fees. Often these fees appear on a tenant's rent
bill without any explanation. If a tenant fails to pay, even if they are unaware of why the fee was imposed,
they are sent letters rhat make them feel that they are being harassed and are threatened with eviction by the
landlord. Most tenants have a right to object to many of these fees, and landlords are legally prohibited from
taking tenants to Housing Court solely for non-payment of additional fees. But many tenants don't know their
rights about the fees and often pay them when they shouldn't. For low-income and working class tenants who
struggle each month to pay rent, these fees add up and make their housing costs unaffordable. While some of
the fees arc legal, many of them are not, and the consistency and pattern of the way the fees are being charged
and collected suggests that some landlords are intentionally increasing tenants' rent burdens to push out long-
term, rent stabilized tenants.
This problem is proliferating in the Bronx, where New Settlement's Community Action for Safe
Apartments (CASA) works to improve living conditions and maintain afiordable housing. l11is is particularly
apparent in buildings owned by Chestnut Holdings, a company that is t:ast becoming one of the biggest
landlords of rent stabilized buildings in the Bronx. In order to learn more about how these fees are impacting
rent stabilized tenants in the Bronx and develop recommendations to reform the fee collection system,
members of CASA partnered with the Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center,
New York Communities for Change (NYCC) and Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition
(NWBCCC) to conduct research about these fees.
StafF and members from the above organizations collected surveys at legal clinics, tenant association
meetings and organizational events. All survey respondents live in rent stabilized buildings owned by Chestnut
Holdings. In total, the coalition collected 172 surveys from 23 buildings, representing 13% of the number
of apartments in those buildings. The research sample accounts for 4% of all the apartments that Chestnut
Holdings owns, and 28% of rhe buildings. Researchers also collected rent bills and other supplemental
materials (including letters to and from landlords, housing court decisions, and more) from 196 Chestnur
Holdings tenants. Coalition members chose to focus on these buildings because they are rent stabilized and
located in the neighborhoods where each organization is actively working. Data in tllis report comes from
surveys, recent rent bills collected from Chestnut Holdings' tenants and interviews with tenants.
Overall, we found that the problem of non-rent fees is serious and widespread in the Bronx. 81% of
the tenants we surveyed had been charged some sort of fee. From the rent bills we reviewed for this report, the
average tenant had $671.13 in non-rent fees on their most recent rent bill.
FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE OF A RENT BILL WITH ADDITONAL CHARGES
=~~~:·r?.~~~12;:_~"=-"-·~-~-~····-~·-·····:~l~~~~:~J~~~;;~-. -···-~~~-"~-
DAM DAMAGES 260.10 2€0.10
LEG LEGAL FEES 900.00 900 Ofl
RNT RENT
WM WASHING MACHINE 244.84.
I
l
13.62 251:L4G
II. BACKGROUND
The Critical Need to Protect Affordable Housing in the Bronx
Despite the enormous amount of wealth in New York City, nearly half of all New Yorkers are at or
close to the poverty line. 2 According to a recent UN Habitat report, tided "State of rhe World's Cities," New
York is the second most unequal city in the country.3 rTI1is is especially apparent in the Bronx, where almost
40%l of Bronx renters make less than $18,500 per year4 and the median Bronx household income is $33,495,
the lowest of all five boroughs. 5
Bronx Community Board Percent of Housing Units that are Rent Regulated 1
Community Board 4 83%
·~------------------------_,
Community Board 5 76%
---------·····-------·-· ... ···-····-------····--·------·····--···---··-·-----------------_,
Community Board 7 92%
Due to this level of poverty and inequality, it is critical that New York City have protections in place
to safeguard its residents' basic necessities--one of the most important of these being housing. With an average
rent of over $1,000 in the City, programs that reduce people's rent burden are essential.6 One important
example is New York City's system of rent stabilization, which provides a myriad of tenant protections
governed by the state legislature. It is estimated that close to a million apartments and 2 million people are
protected by rem stabilization in New York_? 'fl1e \X!est Bronx, in particular, is home to some of the highest
concentrations of rent regulated housing in the Bronx, and among the highest in all of NYC (See Table 1).~
Under rent stabilization, increases in rem are controlled by a group of people appointed by the IV1ayor
to the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), not bv the landlord. TI1is means that tenants can count on a stable
/
percentage in rent increases, typically between 2-8% a year, instead of worrying that their landlords will
suddenly and drastically increase rents. In addition, tenants have a right to stay in their apartment indefinitely
as landlords are required to renew their leases every 1-2 years.') Together, these provisions mean that tenants
have a choice to raise their children and grandchildren in the same home, which ultimately contributes to
neighborhood stability.
Despite the dire need for these protections, rent stabilized tenants are facing unethical and
unscrupulous practices by landlords. One of these practices--and the focus of this report--is the use of non-
rent fees. Rent stabilized tenants feel that these fees arc being used to harass, intimidate and ultimately displace
them. Each fee is unique in terms of pricing, applicability, and government regulation, making it complicated
and confusing for tenants to understand. If tenants want to challenge these fees, the current complaint driven
system puts the onus on tenants to know their rights and submit formal complaints to the appropriate agenc)'
or court. In the end, these fees increase a tenant's rent burden, leading to unnecessary displacement, and
threatening affordable housing and neighborhood stability. In the Bronx, CASA members have seen fees being
charged by landlords who own large amounts of rent stabilized housing, such as E&M Associates, Finkelstein
and Timburger and Gazivoda Realty Co. \vhilc multiple landlords employ this problematic practice, this
report will focus on one of the worst offenders, Chestnut Holdings.
Chestnut Holdings' Use of Non-Rent Fees Throughout the Bronx
Chestnut 1-l.oldings, a company that is
f.'lst bccom i ng one of the biggest landlords of rent
stabilized housing in the Bronx, regularly adds
non-rent fees ro rhe rent bills of many of rheir
tenams. Chestnut IJoldings almost exclusively owns
rent stabilized buildings with a total of 82 buildings in
the City, 72 of which are in the Bronx, and of those,
almost all of them are in the North and Southwest
Bronx. Chestnut Holdings is one of the worst
examples because instead of simply adding these fees to
rent bills, rhey send tenants 3-day eviction notices for
non-payment of non-rent fees, even when the tenant is
current on their rent. Before Chestnut Holdings took
over a few years ago, tenants had never before been charged for non-rent fees. As this report will demonstrate,
both the amount and the way in which rhe fees are collected by landlords like Chestnut Holdings creates an
unnecessary strain on thousands of low-income tenants in New York City.
Chestnut Holdings Tenant Coalition
Challenging non-rent fees, is one of the many obstacles that Chestnut Holdings tenants face.
For example, tenants at 1520 Sheridan got their cooking gas restored after living without it for more
than six months, only after raking their landlord to court. When the landlord denied their request for
compensation, tenants filed anothet lawsuit in small claims court and announced the court case at a
press conference. They were greeted by staff of Chestnut Holdings, who staged a protest, screaming
and shouting at them.
Additionally, in a tenant coalition
effort, more than 400 tenants from 18
Chestnut Holdings buildings sent a letter
to their landlord in February of 20.13 that
outlined their concerns. These included
insufficient heat and hot water, unresponsive
and disrespectful management, lack of quality
repairs, lack of adequate security, lack of
adequate extermination, lack of respect for
tenants' right to organize, and others. For
tenants who struggle with all of the above,
receiving rent bills marked urgent with
numerous non-rent fees feels like the landlord
is doing everything possible to make them
move out, short of changing the locks.
Ill. OVERVIEW OF FEES
'll1is section includes some basic inh)rmation about common non-rent fees that arc appearing on many
tenants' monthly rent bills. Overall, 81% of the tenants we surveyed had been charged some sort of fee and
54% reported that they had paid these fees at some point. From the rent bills we reviewed for this report, the
average tenam had $671.13 in non-rent fees on their most recent rent bill.
'lbe fees below have a few things in common. First, landlords cannot take tenants to housing court
solely for non-payment of any of these types of fees. However, once a tenant and landlord are in court for
non-payment of rent, the landlord can also pursue payment of all of the non-rent fees. Secondly, all of these
non-rent fees are contestable, meaning that a landlord's right to charge them is questionable and varies on a
case by case basis. Thirdly, these fees almost always appear on tenants' rent statements without any explanation
of their origin, further confusing tenants and making them difficult to challenge. Additionally, all of these fees
arc charged in addition to rent, which often significantly strains tenants' finances. Lastly, some of these fees
(washing machine, air conditioning fees and MCis) are determined by the New York State Division ofHornes
and Community Renewal (HCR) and exist as part of the system of rent stabilization. However, with little
regulation and proactive efforts from the state agency, landlords collect these fees in an unscrupulous manner.
Types of Fees:
• Legal Fees
• Air Conditioning Fees
• Washing Machine Fees
• Major Capital Improvement (MCI)
Rent Increases
• Damage Fees
• Miscellaneous Fees
FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF A RENT BILL WITH ADDITONAL CHARGES
THIS IS YOUR FEBRUARY 2012RENTAL Blll-
THANKYOU
=- ~~=~:::~--~~~, ~ ":VJ~i], ·~:=- "~"';~~
CMD CARBON MONIXlDE D 7,38 7,3Si
LEG LEGAL fEES 3,000.00 3,860.00'
MCI MCI RETRO 162.41l 162.48
NG NG CHARGE 75 00 7.5,00
RNT RENT
WM WASHING MACHINE G5&,'/U 1!1.82 673 52
Legal l<'ees
• 56% of surveyed tenants were charged legal fees.
" Tenants had an average charge of $1,056.58 and a high of $3,860.
One of the most confusing fees that tenants find
on their rent bills is a "legal fee." Landlords cannot impose
legal fees on tenants unless: (1) the tenant's lease has a legal
fees clause that allows the landlord to seek such fees if the
landlord is successful in a lawsuit against the tenant, (2)
the tenant is actually sued by the landlord in a court (such
as having a case commenced against the tenant in Housing
Court or SmaH Claims Court) and (3) either a judge has
ordered a tenant to pay the legal fees (after determining
that the landlord did indeed prevail in their lawsuit against
the tenant) or the tenant has consented to pay legal fees in
a court-approved stipulation or agreement. However, even
56% are charged legal fees
Average amount of legal fees
on rent bill: $1,056.58
if a tenant's lease allows for legal fees or they are in housing court, tenants still have a right to object to legal
fees. 1hesc fees have even been added to the bills of tenants who have not been sued in Housing Court. l11ese
tenants have no idea what the legal fees are for since tenants are not sent any information explaining why the
landlord is charging the tenant for legal fees.
56% of surveyed tenants were charged these fees. For the rent bills we reviewed for this report,
the average tenant was charged $1,056.58 and a high of $3,860. Many tenants feel forced to pay these
outrageously high fees because they show up on rent bills and landlords, like Chestnut Holdings, follow-up
with letters that tenants feel are threatening.
Re; •
FIGURE 3: EXAMPlE NOTICE FROM lANDlORD
1504 $!11llltOIIH ll.C
C!te•lnvl Holdlr1Qtl ol New Y01k, '""
5676 Rlvetrla!e AVCJ, Sutte 307
llu;tll<, NY 10471
(718) 643- 67.00
PAST DUE
lns1 Paymant
PA)'ffl
~·----------~-----~-~=:___ ·~:::..~
L~ -~-- -- -·-- 15000 0.00 150.00
9111Wi01 lf:Gl.EGA!.FEES 15ll00 0.00 150.00
wa5!1001 LEG LEGAl- FEES 233,54 11.69 221.65
1111012007 OAMtJAIAAGES 100:00 0.00 150.00
12114fl010 LEG lE<>At fEES 150 00 0.00 1110.00
1/14fl011 LEG l£G/IL FEES !OO.OO 0.00 100.00
3!161'l011 LIIG LEGJ\L FEES ii!O.OO 0.00 16/112011 MCI t.'CII\~TRO 48.57 o:oo 48:51
tOtii:I011 ~~ MC~~~~ -411:51 o.oo ~8-57
TENANT PROFILE #1: Ramona Alvarez, 1305 Sheridan Avenue
Ramona, a monolingual Spanish speaker, moved into 1305 Sheridan Avenue in 2011 with
her daughter and grandchildren. Ramona is retired and living on a fixed income. She was able to get
a preferential monthly rent of$1,150.00 (rhe apartment is currenrly registered at $1,555.13). But her
daughter lost her job and now they are trying to make ends meet. "To feel that I am one step away
from becoming homeless is difficult," she said.
Ramona's current rent bill and rent demand letters state that she owes $2,430.00 in legal fees.
Ramona is desperate and confused as to how much she has to pay in rent and how much Chestnut
Holdings is charging her with other fees. "I didn'r know I didn't have to pay legal fees. 1hey made me
pay so much money I didn't owe." Ramona has already paid dose to $2,000 in legal fees. With all of
the added fees, Ramona and her family will not be able to afford to live in this apartment anymore.
Air Conditioning Fees
• 68% of surveyed tenants report that they had been charged AC or washing machine fees.
• On average, tenants arc being charged $71.04 in back AC charges.
Many landlords charge tenants additional fees if they have an air conditioner (AC) in their apartment.
'v(lhile landlords of rent stabilized and rem controlled apartments are legally allowed to charge AC fees, the
specifics of the fees are regulated by the New York State Division of Homes and Community Renewal (HCR).
Currently, landlords are allowed to charge a monthly fcc of $5 for each air conditioner if chat unit protrudes
past the window, assuming the tenant pays their own electric bill. H• lhe current fees are in effect until
September 30'", 2013, at which point HCR will release the next year's fecs. 11
However, HCR has made it clear that landlords waive
the right ro collect AC fees if they do not begin collecting
this fee within a reasonable time after learning about the
installation of the air conditioner. L' It is unclear what IICR
means by "reasonable time" and it often depends on the
individual circumstances, however it is usually not more
than a year. 13 That means that if a renant has had their air
conditioner for a long time and was not charged, the landlord
has waived the right to charge that tenant. In addition, if a
prior landlord waived the right to collect these fees, any new
landlord loses his right to collect these fees as wcll. 1'1
68% are charged AC or
washing machine fees
Average AC fee on rent bill:
$71.04
Research with tenants reveals that these fees are pervasive in rent stabilized housing. 68% of surveyed
tenants reported that they had been charged AC or washing machine fees. For the rent bills we reviewed for
this report, the average tenant was charged $71.04 in back AC charges. Many of these fees are assessed by
landlords like Chestnut I Ioldings who collect fees they have already waived the right to collect. '1l1ese fees
add up over the years and make "afFordable" rent stabilized housing that much more expensive for truly low-
income New Yorkers.
TENANT PROFILE #2: Judith Morrishow, 1310 Sheridan Avenue
111tee years ago, the year that Judith retired from her health care profession, Chestnut Holdings
(CH) bought her building, 1310 Sheridan Avenue, where she has lived for over 19 years. Since 2009,
CH has added a monthly $5 fee in her rent bill for an air conditioner which she has had since she
moved in. She paid the fee for a few months, until she learned that she didn't have to. Since then,
twice a month she becomes aggravated when the super inserts a 3-day notice letter under her door. TI1e
last letter stated that she had ro pay $1,022.84. Judith is current in her rent and she has proof of all her
payments.
Judith feels harassed and thinks that this is a way of"exploitation", because the landlord takes
advantage of tenants that don't understand the letters and feel afraid to be homeless. She sends the
landlord over a thousand dollars in rent for her apartment every month, bur the landlord is not helpful
and doesn't maintain her apartment. When she calls to ask for repairs or complain about the letters,
they never respond.
In April of2013, the super removed her air conditioner saying that she didn't have the right
bracket to hold the air conditioner safely. When she asked how she could put the right bracket on,
the super told Judith that this was not his job. Today, the $5 fee has finally been removed and the air
conditioner is sitting on the floor in Judith's living room.
TENANT PROFILE #3: Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Gonzalez, 200 Marcy Place
Alice and lvfanuel Gonzalez have lived in 200 Marcy Place for 21 years and have always had an
air conditioner. They saw an AC fee in their rent bill for the first time in Ocrober of 2012. Since then,
Alice has been challenging that fee by sending the landlord letters and organizing a tenant association
in her building, hoping that together they can address this issue and many others in her building. The
building manager came to meet with the tenant association only to tell them that he has to talk wirh
the landlord and that he will get back to rhe tenants. He never got back to them.
Alice and Manuel have never paid the AC fees and they receive monthly rent demand letters
for this fee. Alice is affected by these letters, "'TI1is fee is put on me as if we are not in compliance. I
worry about other tactics this landlord will use against us in the near future". Alice has sent letters
questioning the fee and attached a copy of their original lease. She believes that rhe landlord knows
that he can't charge her this fee.
"As I went over the lease, I noticed that in the Pan A section, fourth sentence, rhe following
language appears: "separate charge if applicable." I noticed where the word "other" appears, there is a
charge in the amount of $10. Is that for the AC? If so, why not put it in the AC section?" 111e landlord
continues to ignore her attempt to contact them and refuses to give an answer as to why they are
charging her that fee. Alice has submitted an overcharge application \"lith HCR and is planning to go
to civil court if she can't address this issue with the state and if the landlord continues to send her rem
demand letters.
Washing Machine Fees
• On average, tenants are being charged $201.21 in
back payment for washing machine fees.
• One tenant is being charged $673.52 in washing
machine fees.
Similarly, landlords of rent stabilized aparrments
may charge tenants with washing machines ::m extr:1 fee as
set forth by l-ICit l~or example, if a tenant recently acquired
and installed a washing machine, the landlord has a right
to charge that tenant a monthly fee of $16.82 per washing
machine if the tenant pays for the electric bill (which is the
case in most Chestnut Holdings buildings). 15 HCR reassesses
these fees every few years.'(·
68% are charged AC or
washing machine fees
Average washing machine
fee on rent bill: $201.21
Again, the landlord must begin charging these fees within a reasonable time after learning about
rhe installation of the washing machine, or the landlord waives the right to collect this fcc. Indeed, even if
a landlord discovers a new vvashing machine within rhe reasonable time frame, fees may only be collected
moving forward and not rctroactivdy. 17 Just like air conditioning fees, new landlords lose the right to collect
washing machine fees if rhe prior landlord waived rhe right to collect these surcharges. 18
68% of surveyed tenants report rhar they had been charged AC or washing machine fees. For the rem
bills we reviewed f<>r this report, the average tenant was charged $201.21 in back payment for washing machine
fees. One tenant surveyed had accrued almost $675 in washing machine fees. Clearly, these "little charges" add
up to a lot over time and can substantially increase a low-income renant's ovt:rall rent Gurden.
TENANT PROFILE #4: Beverly Clec, 1549 Townsend Avenue
"] have lived iu this apanmenr since 1982. I'm a senior and I live on a fixed income. I can't
be paying these fees," said Beverly Clee a resident from 1549 Townsend Avenue. Chestnut Holdings
bought her building in April of 2008 and immediately Beverly's May rent bill came with a washing
machine fcc of $18.62. In October, her rem bill came with an air conditioner fee of $5.00. Beverly
had her washing machine and air conditioner for more than 26 years before Chesmur Holdings took
over. Legally, she shouldn't have to pay these fees. Yet, as of today, Beverly has paid Chestnut Holdings
approximately $1,230 in washing machine and air-conditioner fees.
"I kept paying them because I thought I had to pay them", she says, but now she is afraid that
the landlord could take her to court if she stops paying the fees. "I just don't want to go to court. I
don't like to deal with legalities." She would like to have an "official document" stating that she has the
right not to pay the fees.
In addition to her rent, Beverly has to pay other bills, "I will be relieved ifl get those fees off
my rent bills, it will be a big difference." Beverly doesn't understand why Chestnut Holdings needs the
fees from her: "I never made an agreement with them to pay these fees, why are we paying extra? We
don't have extra nioney."
Major Capital Improvement (MCI) Permanent Rent Increases
• 34% report that they had been charged an MCI, repair or late fee.
• ln the past 5 years, 26% of the buildings we sunreyed had an MCI rent increase.
If a landlord makes improvements to a building, in accordance with rent stabilization laws, that landlord
may seck approval from HCR to permanently raise tenants' rents. 19 'lhis is called r each
apartment based on a set formula. 22 For rent-stabilized apartments
there is a 6% limitation on the annual MCI rent increases, but this
is only enforced through tenant com.plaints, which rarely happen
because tenants often do not know this is a violationY HCR has the
povvcr to approve or deny rbesc applic:l/.\r.wJ.vJ.u&inl~tPnJ>t.>,J,<;run/biiJ.d<'c.l>la~iq/brid~~iJJg.nn>in;;,r!Jllc-ineqrralil}'.4;.~JLh. 5·t2li23.Uum)
Swc oft he World's Cirie.< 2010/201 J. Cities for Ali: Bridging th<' Urban Dit~ide. UN Habitat. Available a1: !HJ.jl.HW.\\:lY&O.hahililJ,Qif,(J)Jl1>5lthlt:
l tc.'!'tl);:wihdlJX')~.illhli.mtin.ulD c ~~2..11
Nowhere to Go: A C'ri>i.< ,!f/!jfindability in tht· Bronx:, 20!3. UNrv. NEtGHRORHOOD Hous. PrwGRAM, J\vaiiablc at hr.tp;L/\.!JI.UJ!~'!.'{!.{J.~dftN<~"hcrc..:
]j)(i(),jldf
Stat~ o(New lnrk Cit/< Housing ,wd Nt·zf!,hbmhood<, 201 I. '!he Furman Center for Real Est~te and Urban Policy. New York University. Available
on I inc at: )JJ H >:ll (\ II!Jl~ll(f'JJ.E;J,!.>I)!!Ji!r5L'5Dld ~2G .. £il.LLJllif
• State of New York CiJfs Housing dnd Neighborhoods. 2011. TI1c Furman Center tor Real Estate and Urban Policy. New York University. Availab!e
on I ine at: ]!Uj;;lll.ittnhUl£\.JlbO:J,.QL~;iGk.>io:v.tdS( )(;_{QlLpdf
Hou..rllJVS-t\rrhi.ve .shlllli
• St,1tt' ofNew lork C!rys Housing a11d Nt:ighborhoods, 201 !. The Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. New York University. Available
onlin<: at: hu1d/l!H.l.lH!l<;~:.t.t~ry/filcs/smc/SOC 20ll.pdf
N.Y. Div. ofHous. and Cmcy. Renewal, Fact Sheet #l Rent Stabilization and Rent Control (May 2008), available at h.t!)':l/www.nyshrr.t>Jj![
Rcnr/FanSlwcts/oraf:Kl.Jl.dL
"' 'Jhc $5 per momh fee only applies to tenants who purchased and ins1'allcd their own AC unit between October 1 20 J 2 and September 30 2013.
Fees for all units installed before 1 985 are governed by whatever was the "lawful practice then in dtecr" according to the Operational Bulletin.
N.Y. Div. ofHous. and Crnty. Renewal, Fact Sheet #27 Air Conditioners (Apr. 2002), available at h.ilPjiww~.tX>l:!J.J:&!:I~flkmiFi!tJSI.u:t15/Jl!:~~
&!:En:t::i.bn·t'i.lqp-
l:.t<.J:Z~!'dL
•; N.Y. Div. ofHous. and Cmry. Renewal, Opinion Letter (Jun. 16 2.005).
14 N.Y. Div. ofHous. and Cmty. Renewal, Facr Sheet #27 Air Conditioners (Apr. 2002), available at h.up;Ljwww.nyshcr.mil/Rt~nr/F;~rlShec~
Llf17,pL\I'.WJW.US.iJJgny~: •. cmui
J..<.>'~l!JJ>;1tlrvcys.
A Report by New Settlement Apartments' Community Action for Safe Apartments and
the Community Development Project (COP) at the Urban Justice Center
URBAN
JUSTICE
CENTER
For More Information, Please Contact:
New Settlement Apartments' Community Action for Safe Apartments (CASA)
718-716-8000, ext. 125
or
s.blankley@newsettlement.org
Find us on Facebook:
www.facebook.cotnLJ2_qg~New-Settlement-Apartments-CQJJ111ll)tlity-Action-for-Safe-Apartments-CASA
EXHIBITB
Executive Stn11mary ...................................................................................................... 1
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
II. New York City's Housing in the Bloomberg Era ......................................................... 4
The Cost ofHousing .................................................................................................... 4
H·ousing Affordability ................................................................................................... 8
Hon1elessness ............................................................................................................. 12
III. Why Has New York City's Housing Grown So Expensive? ...................................... l5
Gentrification .............................................................................................................. 16
Rent Regulation .......................................................................................................... 18
Population Growth and Housing Supply ................................................................... 23
IV. Conclusion: Housing Priorities for Post-Bloomberg New York ................................ 25
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 28
Table 1: Changes in Rent and Home Values, 2000-20 I 2
Table 2: Distribution oflnfiation -Adjusted Rents in New York City
Table 3: Changes in Ffousehold Incomes, 2000-2012
Table 4: Income Distribution ofNYC Households, 2000-2012
Table 5: Rent-to-Income Ratios for NYC Renters by Household Income Category, 2000 and 2012
Table 6: Change in Households Earning $100,000 and Over and Change in Rents, 2000-2012
Table 7: Hypothetical Rent Growth, 2000-2014
Table 8: Longevity of New York City's Rent Stabilized Housing Stock
Table 9: Average Stabilized Rents from 2002- 201 1
Table 10: Average Market Rate Rents from 2002-2011
Figure I: Shelter Cost Inflation in the United States and the New York Metropolitan Area, 2000-2013
Figure 2: Number of Regulated and Unregulated Apartments by Rent Category, 2011
Figure 3: Growth in Shelter Population and Shelter Stays
Figure 4: Youth Shelter Populations
Figure 5: Rent Stabilization- Additions and Subtractions
Figure 6: Deregulation Breakdowns by Year
For a century and a half New York City has been a national laborato1y for innovative and expansive
affordable housing policies- from the Tenement House Laws of the late I 9th and early 20th century, to
the development of the nation's largest public housing system in the 1 930s, to the sweeping community
development efforts of the 1980s and beyond.
But just as New York's housing environment has continually evolved, so has the depth and complexity of
its affordable housing challenge- a challenge that today is marked by an evaporation of low-rent housing,
·record hornelessness, an increasingly aged building stock, and rapid shifts in the city's economic and
demographic landscape.
The figures in this rep01t, published by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, tell a sobering
story-of stagnant incomes, rising rents, and a deepening affordability crunch, especially for the working
poor and others at the lower end of the income spectrum. This financial squeeze comes despite significant
housing investments during the 12 years ofthe Bloomberg mayoralty.
From 2000 to 2012, this report found:
• Median apartment rents in New York City rose by 75 percent, compared to 44 percent in the
rest ofthe U.S. Over the same period, real incomes of New Yorkers declined as the nation struggled
to emerge from two recessions.
• Housing affordability-as defined by rent-to-income ratios-decreased for renters in every income
group during this period, with the harshest consequences for poor and working class New
Yorkers earning less than $40,000 a year.
• There was a dramatic shift in the distribution of affordab lc apartments, with a loss of approximately
400,000 apartments renting for $1,000 or less. This shift helped to drive the inflation-adjusted
median rent from $839 in 2000 to $1,100 in 2012, a 3l.l% increase. In some neighborhoods -
among them Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Ft. Greene and Bushwick in Brooklyn, average real rents
increased 50 percent or more over the 12-year period.
• The elderly and working poor are making up a growing portion of low-income households,
with 40 percent of the increase tied to households in which the head is 60 years or older.
• In 2000, renters earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars were dedicating
an average of 33 percent of their income to rental costs. Twelve years later that average jumped
to 41 percent. Their housing circumstances became more precarious even though their labor force
participation rates soared.
It is clear that affordable housing remains one of New York City's most pressing needs. Mayor de Blasio
has laid out a goal of creating or preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing over a l 0-year period,
an ambitious increase over the 165,000 units pledged under Mayor Bloomberg's 12-year New Housing
Marketplace Plan.
Now, with the winding down of one major housing initiative and the launching of another, it is appropriate
to take stock of the City's housing circumstances, to evaluate the changes that have taken place in the city's
housing ecology, and to outline strategies for future housing investment that are informed by the city's
evolving housing landscape.
tlffira nf tho !\low Vnrl£ f'ih1 f'r~mntrnllor ~rr.tt 1\11 ~trinr1<>r
This report provides critical data to help policymakcrs align resources with needs, so that limited dollars
can be targeted effectively and taxpayers assured of the greatest possible return on their investment. lt
is intended as a resource to help guide the City's affordable housing agenda and offers the following
guidelines:
I. Alleviate the crushing affordability squeeze on working families. Working families at the bottom
end of the ladder- those making less than $40,000 a year-- have seen their incomes stagnate, while
the supply of rental apartments affordable to them is rapidly evaporating. Programs need to be
geared to the specific income needs of this burgeoning group.
2. Invest in the stability and preservation of the New York City Housing Authority. The intensity
of the City's low-income housing situation reinforces the essential civic role played by NYCHA, as
well as the need for greater investment in public housing by every level of government. The costs of
rehabilitating NYCHA's housing stock arc estimated at less than one-third the costs of replacing it.
3. Adopt a new mix of policies to reverse the alarming increase in homelessness. The city's shelter
population currently stands at more than 52,000, including over 22,000 children-- an historic high.
It is clear that a new mix of policies is needed to minimize the human and budgetary costs of a
shelter system bursting at the scams.
4. Repair the rent regulation system. New York's rent regulated housing stock is losing covered
units at a faster rate than they arc being replaced. As a result, one of the City's greatest housing
challenges in the next decade \Vill be stemming unwarranted attrition from the rcgulatmy system
and replenishing the pipeline of rent regulated housing- either through the preservation of existing
housing stock or through new constmction.
5. Address the SIJecial housing needs of the elderly and disabled. The demographic shift in the
City's low-income population towards the elderly will only grow as more Baby Boomers reach
retirement age, suggesting that their housing needs should be carefully considered. Many of them
arc homeowners, and may need specialized services that allow them to remain in their homes as
they age.
In the end, New York's position among global cities will be defined in large part by its ability to maintain
diverse neighborhoods, and to attract and retain talent from around the world. A comprehensive plan that
provides safe, affordable housing at all levels ofthe economic spectrum is not just important to the city's
future, it is essential.
In June, 1920, Walter Stabler, Comptroller of the
Metropolitan Life fnsuranceCompany and a member
of Mayor John Hylan's Housing Conference
Committee, proclaimed, "We are approaching a
crisis in the housing situation. Unless radical action
is taken, something drastic will happen."'
At that time, New York City's perceived housing
crisis was a result of the economic disruptions
that followed World War I, and radical action
was indeed taken. Later that year New York State
adopted an early version of rent control and the City
launched its first experiment with tax-subsidized
housing construction. Because of-or perhaps
in spite of-State and City housing policies, new
housing construction in the 1920s exceeded 700,000
dwelling units,2 by far the biggest housing boom the
city ever experienced.
Yet, despite the 1920s' astounding surge in housing
constmction, by the mid-l930s tenants, landlords
and public officials were once again referring to
a crisis in the city's housing conditions.3 [n fact,
although the most urgent concerns have shifted
over time, there has rarely been a period in the past
century when New York City's housing market
seemed to be serving adequately the needs of the
city's residents.
Each Mayor during the past centl11J' has needed, in
his turn, to redirect and retarget the City's housing
effort to a different mix of pressing needs. Fiorello La
Guardia and William O'Dwyer responded to a "low-
rent housing crisis" with public housing and slum
clearance; Mayors Wagner and Lindsay oversaw the
massive Mitchell-Lama program that addressed the
growing obsolescence of the city's housing stock
in an era of rapid suburbanization. Ed Koch was
confronted by a tide of housing abandonment; his
administration's innovations to stem disinvestment
and rebuild devastated communities were continued
1 T~eed $560.000,000 For Housing Crisis," New York Tirnes, June
17, 1920.
2 rlistor•cal data courtesy of New York Cily Flent Guidelines Board.
3 ''Tenement Owners Threaten Evictions.·· Nev-1 York Times, February
1' 1937
and refined under Mayors Dinkins and Giuliani.
By the time Mayor Bloomberg took ot11ce, the
concern of advocates, policy makers, and the public
had shifted to housing affordability and its inverse,
homclcssness. The city's economic rejuvenation in
the 1990s contributed to an increase in the median
rent that outpaced the national increase by about 15
percent, reinforcing the perception that the city's
middle class was being squeezed between rising
rents and stagnant incomes.4 Moreover, individual
and family homelcssness, which had emerged as a
paramount civic issue in the 1980s, developed into a
chronic strain on the City's budget and conscience.
Mayor Bloomberg responded to the affordability
problem with his New Housing Marketplace
initiative (NHMP). When announcing the program
at a gathering of the New York Housing Conference
in late 2002, the new Mayor justified the initiative
by emphasizing the impmtance of affordable
housing to the city's economic future. "Without
these homes and neighborhoods, New York will
lose these people-and lose its future. That's why
affordable housing is fundamental to our long-term
economic prosperity," the Mayor said in reference
to the "safe and stable neighborhoods" the program
would nurture. 5
The Mayor initially promised a $3-billion, 5-year plan
to build 27,000 new affordable housing units and to
preserve an additional38,000 affordable units; the plan
was eventually scaled up to 53,000 new construction
units and 112,000 preserved units through 2014.
Widely viewed as a laudable commitment to affordable
housing, the NHMP is expected to reach its goal of
creating and preserving 165,000 units of affordable
housing by June 2014. Ultimately, execution of the
plan required an investment of$23.6 billion, of which
$5.3 billion were City funds and $18.3 billion were
leveraged from other public and private sources.6
4 From 1990 to 2000, the median rent increased 44 percent wlrile the
rnedian renter income increased 28 percent.
5 "Housing Plan for New Yorl; City's 21st Century Neighborhoods."
speech o! Mayor Michael J. Bloornt)erg at New York Housing
Conference/National Housing Conference 29th Annual Luncheon,
December 10, 2002.
http:/ /VV'NW. gotharngazette. ccrn/IJ>dex. pl!p/governmenV 1481-rnayor-
rnichaei-r-hloomberg-announces-housing-plan-for-new-york-citys-
21 st -century-neighborhoods.
6 The New Housing Marketplace f)lan 2003-2014. NYC Department
Nevettheless, the targeting of the plan and
other housing policies of the Bloomberg
Administration were not without their critics.
7Furthermore, according to a public opinion
poll conducted in August 2013, 65 percent of
New Yorkers felt that housing had become less
affordable since Michael Bloomberg became
mavor and 85 percent felt New York City was
becoming too expensive for people like them to
live in.8
During the mayoral election of 2013, candidate
Bill de Blasio pledged to pursue an even more
aggressive approach than the NHMP - the
creation or preservation of 200,000 units of
affordable housing over a ten year period. After
his election he reiterated that goal and when
announcing his appointment of Vicki Been as
Commissioner of the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development (HPD)9, Mayor
de Blasio pledged: "We're going to take a new
approach to this crisis that holds nothing back ...
every decision we make wi 11 focus on maximizing
the affordability of our neighborhoods."
At a point in time when one massive housing
investment effort is winding down and another
is being designed, it is appropriate to take stock
of the city's housing circumstances, to evaluate
the changes that have taken place in the city's
housing landscape, and to identify the most
urgent housing needs we now face. That is
the purpose of this report. The history of New
York City's housing programs shows a continual
adaptation of its strategies in response to a
constant evolution of its needs. The more clearly
those needs can be defined, the more efficiently
techniques can be designed to address them.
of Housing Preservation and Development
http:i/www.nyc. govhtrnl/ilpd/down loads/pdf/HPD-Annual-20 13-
1-li--JAL.pdf
7 State of tho City's Homeless 2014. Coalition for the Homeless.
Marct1 14, 2014.
8 "New Yorkers' V:ews on Their Mayor and His Programs." Now
York Times, August 16, 2013.
9 The Mayor also appointed Carl Weisbrod as Chairperson ot
the City Planning Cornrnission and Director of he Depac-trnent of
Citv Plannlno. Gilbert Taylor as Cornrnissionor of tho Department
of Hornelessy Services, Shola Olatoye as C!1air of tile New York
City Housing Authority, Gary D. Rodney as President of the
Housing Development Corporation. and Alicia Glen as Deputy
Mayor for Housing anc! Economic Development.
The Cost of Housing
Even though consumer price inflation has been
relatively modest in the 21st Century, it is
understandable that most New Yorkers would
perceive housing-as well as most other goods
and services-as becoming more expensive.
Between 2000 and 2013 national consumer
prices for all items rose by about 35 percent,
but by 41 percent in the New York metropolitan
area. Moreover, the relative increase in the
New York metropolitan area's cost of living has
been primarily driven by housing costs, which
increased, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), by 45 percent, compared to a
34 percent national increase. Pigurc 1 shows
the increase in the "Shclter"10 component of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the nation and
for the New York metropolitan area since 2000.
Although the familiar CPI shows clearly that
housing in the New York region has grown more
expensive relative to housing nationally during
the period that spans Michael Bloomberg's
mayoralty, the BLS data has some important
limitations. In particular, it is available only for
the New York metropolitan area as a whole and
its measure of ownership housing costs, while
economically sound, docs not directly measure
home prices. Fmtunately, there are other good
sources of data that allow for a more granular
analysis of regional housing priccs. 11
Using the decennial U.S. Census and the annual
American Community Survey (ACS), it is
possible to confirm that housing costs rose faster
in the New York metropolitan area from 2000 to
2012, and also that they rose faster in New York
City than in the New York metropolitan area as a
whole. (Table 1) Between 2000 and 2012 median
apmtment rents in New York City rose by 75
10 The shelter component oxc!udos household iuel. utilities and
furnisr;ings.
11 The CPI uses an ··ovvnors' equivalent rent" rnHasure cf horne
costs.
Tho r=:rnwinn r;:,n- 1\low Vr,rlt r.ihr'c l-ln1 1cinn fiffnrr!,;,hilihr r.h::dlonno
percent, compared to 69
percent in the New York
metropolitan area as a
whole and 44 percent
in the rest of the United
States. Moreover, the
faster rate of rent growth
in the New York metro
area was entirely due to
rent increases in New
York City; the median
apartment rent in the
metro area outside of
the city grew by only 43
percent, nearly identical
to the national increase.
A similar pattern is
evident when rents
arc measured by their
average, although the
gap in the rate of growth
is not as large.
Figure 1: Shelter Cost Inflation in United States and the New York
Metropolitan Area, 2000-2013
lGOO
1400
g 1200 '
8
~
~
E
~
~
8 80.0
60.0
40,0
~shdter-U.S.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Within the city, rents grew fastest in Brooklyn, where
the average monthly rent increased by 77 percent
between 2000 and 2012. Although the highest
average rents arc found in Manhattan and the lowest
in the Bronx, they increased by a nearly identical
65 percent between 2000 and 2012. Average
rents in Queens and Staten Island grew somewhat
in Queens had risen above those of the northern New
York suburbs and southwestern Connecticut. Insofar
as all of the metropolitan area counties serve, with a
greater or lesser degree of commuting convenience, a
common labor market, the relative rise of rents in the
boroughs indicates some shift in residential preferences
towards city living.
Census and ACS
more slowly,
increasing by
63 percent and
55 percent,
respectively.
"Between 2000 and 2012 median data also provide
a vivid picture
At the turn of the
century, rents in
apartn1ent rents in Plelv }~Jrk Ci~v rose by
75 percent, contpared to 69 percent in the
New York 111etropolitan area as a whole and
44 percent in the rest of· the United States. "
of how the
distribution of
rents in the city
changed during
the Bloomberg
era. Table 2
New York City with the exception of Manhattan were
generally lower than rents in the smrow1ding patts of
the metropolitan area. That was still tme in 2012, but
average rent growth of 69 percent in the outer boroughs
closed the gap with many surrounding areas. Rents
increased by 55 percent in nmthern New Jersey, by 54
percent in Nassau-Suffolk, by 51 percent in the northern
New York suburbs, and by 44 percent in southwestern
Connecticut. By 20 12, Long Island remained the priciest
rental market outside of Manhattan, but the average rent
compares the distribution of contract rents in 2000
to the distribution in20 12, with the 2000 rent values
adjusted to 2012 dollars using the national CPIY
The data show a dramatic upward shift of the city's
rent distTibution during the 12-year period, with a
12 Although calculations from ACS microdata samples yield precise
estimates they should not be taken too litera!ly, For example, the
margin of error on the total number of NYC housing units in 2012
is +/--3,249, rr1eaning that thme is a 90% probability that the true
number lies witf1in that distance of the estimate,
Table 1:
Changes in Rent and Home Values, 2000-2012
NewYork City, New York Metropolitan Area,
and United States
2000 2012 %Change
Median Rent {dollars) (dollars) (%)
h!YC 630 1,100 74.6
~~y Met'O area 650 1,100 69.~
Outside NYC 700 1.000 42.9
Rest of US. 480 690 43.8
Average Rent
NYC 698 1.167 67.2
NY Metro area 708 1,144 61.6
Outside NYC 723 1,1 iO 53.5
Rest of U.S. 515 773 50.1
Median Home Value
NYC 225,000 450,000 100.0
NY Metro area 225,000 375,000 66.7
Outside NYC 187,500 350,000 66.7
Rost of U.S. 112,500 160,000 42.2
Average Home Value
NYC 272,203 620,096 '127.8
NY Metro area 256,041 489,107 91.0
Outside NYC 250,995 446,630 77.9
Rest of U.S. 144,486 227,987 57.8
Source: NYC Comptroller's Office frorn Census Bureau rnicrodata
loss of approximately 400,000 apartments renting for
$1,000 or less (in 2012 dollars) and a corresponding
gain in the number of apartments renting for more
than $1,000 per month. Moreover, the shift was
not due to a small real increase in rents pushing
many apartments over an arbitrary $1 ,000/month
threshold; the $601 to $800 apartment category
declined by a whopping 240,000 units while the
largest gain was in the number of apartments renting
for $1,201 to $1,600. That shift drove the median
city rent, in constant dollars, from $839 in 2000 to
$1, I 00 in 20 J 2.
The rise in the city's median real rent over the 12-
year period may reflect, in part, the City's own
community development eff01ts. By improving
neighborhood conditions throughout the five
boroughs, the City may have reduced the number of
private apartments that rent at a discount because of
undesirable neighborhood environments. Statistical
measures of the dispersion of individual apartment
Table 2:
Distribution of Inflation-Adjusted Rents in New York City
(based on 2000 rents adjusted to 2012 dollars using national CPI)
2000 2012
Rent Category Number Percent Number Percent Net Change
Up to $200 140,484 6.l 130,846 6.2 -9,638
S201 to $400 189,413 9.0 158,815 7.5 -30,598
$401 to $600 211,808 10.1 139,326 6.6 -72,482
$601 to $800 '-166.~124 22.1 225,164 10.7 -241,160
$801 to $1,000 434,199 20.6 387,947 18.4 -46,252
$1,001 to 2FI,703 13 2 290,0 $2,000
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ID to to to w~
$100 $1,249 $1,499 51,749 $1,999
apartments in the city renting for less than $500 per
month were public housing units or apartments in
other government-assisted housing developments.
(Figure 2) Conversely, 58 percent of apartments
renting for $1 ,250 or more were in the pri vatc,
the presence of a large, rent-regulated housing
sector causes rents in the non-regulated sector to be
higher than they othctwise would be, but there is no
convincing empirical evidence on that point.
"55 percent of all apartments in the city
renting for less than $500 per 1nonth were
public housing units or apartments in other
government-assisted housing developments."
While most New York City households
rent their homes, approximately one
million own their cooperative apartments,
condominiums, or conventional houses.
Also, many renters aspire to own their
own homes and many eventually do.
unregulated sector. The middle rent levels are
dominated by private, rent-regulated apartments. 14
The most sophisticated, recent econometric study
ofNew York City's rent regulations found that rent
regulations reduced monthly rents by an average of
$458 in regulated apartments in 2008, but that the
eflect was unevenly distributed throughout the city,
with an average effect ranging tram $829 per month
in Manhattan to $195 per month in the Bronx.15
There has long been a controversy about whether
Survey, U.S, Census l'luroau. http://wv.;v.;,consus,gov/acsfwv,rv;/
Downioads/library/2008/200B_ Callis __ O 1.pdf
14 For these purposes, regulated apartments include those under
fiont Control, Rent Stabilization. and tho Mitchell-Lama program,
15 Rent Regulation: Beyond the Rhetoric. Citizens Budget
Commission, 2010, http://www,cbcny,or9/sites/defaultifiles/HEYOHT _
F\entReg_06022010.pdf
Consequently, the price of owner-occupied
housing is also an impmtant indicator of the
adequacy of the city's housing options.
ACS data indicate that the price of the city's owner-
occupied housing rose even faster, in absolute
and relative tenm, than did rental housing prices
during the 12-ycar period. According to the ACS,
between 2000 and 2012 the average New York
City owner-occupied home rose in value by 128
percent, compared to a 91 percent increase in
overall New York metro area home values and to a
58 percent increase in the rest of the United States.
16Consequently, over the 12-year period the average
1 G The owner-occupied horne values in the Census and ACS arc
self-moorted by the questionnaire respondents. Technical research
on self-reported horne values finds U1at respondents report home
value of a home in the city rose approximately
28 percent relative to homes in the rest of the
metropolitan area and by 44 percent relative to
homes in the rest of the United States.
Another source of owner-occupied home price data,
the well-known Casc-Shiller Home Price Index, is
available only on a metropolitan area basis. The
index shows an 11 percent increase in New York
metropolitan area home prices relative to the 20-city
national average between the beginning of2000 and
the end of 2012, compared to the 21 percent relative
gain shown by the ACS data. There are a number
of technical reasons why the precise changes
shown by these two measures might diverge, but
mortgage loans is often a critical consideration in
a home purchase. The steep decline in mortgage
rates during the past decade mitigated-and in fact
was partially responsible for-the large increase in
home prices.
For example, a New York City homebuyer
purchasing a median-priced !-family home in the
city in 2000, with an 80 percent loan-to-value ratio,
would have incurred a monthly mmtgage cost of
$1 ,238. A homebuyer purchasing a median-priced
home in 2012 would have incuned a monthly
mortgage payment of $1 ,466. 1 ~ Although the
median sales price increased by 90 percent over
that time, the effective cmzying cost of the home
in any case they are
in agreement that
metropolitan area
home pncos rose
relative to national
prices during the
period. The Case-
Shiller measure
shows a narrowing
"Between 2000 and 2012 the average
New York City owner-occupied home rose
in value l~J: 128 percent, compared to a
91 percent incretLve in overall N(:w }~nk
metro area home values and fo a 58 pen:ent
increase in the rest of the United States."
purchase (excluding
taxes and other
operating expenses)
increased by only
about 18 percent. In
n1ct, most New York
City homeowners
who purchased their
homes in 2000 or
of the gap in 2013, due to the strong rebound of
national housing prices.
The ACS data is in close agreement with the City's
own Finance Department. Finance Department
assessments ofthe average market value ofN ew York
City 1-, 2- and 3-family homes and condominiums
grew by 123 percent between fiscal years 2001 and
2013. Finance Department data on the median sales
prices of 1-, 2- and 3-family homes in the city over
this period also conespond well. 17
In the case of ownership housing, however, the
purchase price of a home is not the same as the
ownership cost, since heating costs, water and sewer
charges, maintenance costs, and real estate taxes,
which are typically paid by renters in their contract
rents, must be paid for separately by homeowners.
Most importantly, debt service on a mortgage must
also be paid, and the interest rate on available
values reasonably accurately. See, for example: Brain Bucks and
Karen Pence, Do Homeowners Know Their House Values and Mort-
gage ierms? F'ederal Flcserve Board oi Governors, 2006
17 t\nnual Hpport on :he ~~ow York City Property Tax, fiscal years
2001-2013. New York City Department oi Finance.
earlier have probably lowered their can-ying costs
during the intervening years by refinancing their
mortgages. ln the above example, the buyer of the
median-priced home in 2000 could have lowered
their monthly mortgage cost to about $770 if they
refinanced in 2012.
Housing Affordability
The cost of housing is one indicator of the adequacy
of the city's housing supply, but it necessarily must
be evaluated against the level and trend ofhousehold
incomes to determine affordability. The correlation
between area household incomes and housing prices
is one of the strongest empirical relationships in real
estate economics.
Table 3 summarizes changes in all household and renter
household incomes for New York City, the New York
metropolitan area, and the United States between 2000
18 :he median sales price was $209,900 in FY2001 and $400,000
in FY2012. according to OOF's Annual Report on the Real Property
Tax. ~;lonth!y mortgage calculations wcro basecl on Freddie rvlac·s
Prirnary ~Aor.tgago Ma.rkot Survey annual averages for 30·}/Gar, fixed
rate rnort9agns lor tt1o respective years.
and 2012. The generally weak economic conditions,
and the high and persistent unemployment after the
financial crisis of2008, allO\ved the median household
income nationwide to rise by only 24 percent during
the period, well below the 35 percent increase in
consumer prices, leading to a 6 percent decrease in the
national median income over the 12-year period.
Income growth, measured by either the median or
the mean, was significantly stronger in New York
City and its metropolitan area than in the rest of
the nation. Median household income in the New
York metropolitan area rose by 30.8 percent from
2000 to 2012, easily out-pacing the increase of
23.5 percent experienced in the rest of the country.
Furthermore, the median income of city residents
rose even more, by 33.3 percent. Unfmiunately,
because metropolitan area price growth exceeded
the national inflation rate by about 0.3 percentage
points annually, the median real income of New
Table3
Changes in Household Incomes, 2000-2012
New York City, New York Metropolitan Area,
and United States
All Households
Median Income
NYC
2000 2012 %Change
NY Metro area
Outside NYC
Rest of U.S.
Average Income
NYC
NY Metro area
Outside NYC
Rest of U.S.
Renters only
Median Income
NYC
NY Metro area
Outside NYC
Rest of U.S.
Average Income
NYC
NY Metro area
Outside NYC
(dollars)
38.100
52.000
61,000
40,500
57,487
73,628
82,901
54,459
30.000
32,500
36.000
26.200
44,652
45,674
46,980
34,772
(dollars) (%)
50,800 33.3
68,000 30.8
79,400 30.2
50,000 23.5
7l,060 34.0
97,641 32.6
109,721 32.4
69,797 28.2
38,000 26./
38,000 20.0
40.000 !1.1
30.000 14.5
58,756 31.6
58,112 27.2
57,260 21.9
42,064 21.0
Source: NYC Comptroller's Office from Census Bureau microdata
York City households declined 19 by 4.8 percent.
Movements in mean and median income levels arc
instmctivc but can mask more complicated trends and
crosscwients. Table 4 shows the number of total 1\TYC
households by income categ01y for 2000 and 2012. For
comparability, year 2000 incomes were adjusted to 2012
ptiee levels.
The table shows that there was considerable growth
in the number of New York City households in
three distinct income categories during the period.
The greatest growth was in the two lowest income
categories, and especially of those households in the
$20,000 to $40,000 income band. There was also
considerable growth in the number of households
in the middle-income band of $80,000 to $160,000,
and in the upper-middle band between $200,000
and $300,000. However, those tlu·ee growmg
Table 4
Income Distribution of NYC Households, 2000 -2012
In Constant 2012 Dollars
All NYC 2000 2012 Net
Households
HH Income Number Percent Number Percent Change
less than 718,052 23.8 7~-34,728 23.8 16,676
$20,000
$20,001 to
$40,000
$40,001 to
$60,000
$60,001 to
$80,000
$80,001 to
$100,000
$100,001 to
$120,000
$120,001 to
$140,000
$140,001 to
$160.000
$160.001 to
$180.000
$180,001 to
$200.000
$200,001 to
$300,000
$300,001 &
above
Total
546,038
476,161
363,574
248,827
167,388
123,958
80,887
61,807
50,309
83,985
95,018
18.1
15.8
12.1
8 ~ .0
5.6
4.1
2.7
2.1
1.7
2.8
32
581,304 18.8
458,081 14.8
353,016 11.4
252,421 8.2
179,215 5.8
134,262 4.4
89,733 2.9
60,355 2.0
45,618 1.5
105,533 3.4
91,541 3.0
3,016,004 ·woo 3,085,807 1oo.o
35,266
-18,080
-10,558
3,594
11,827
10,304
8,846
-1,452
-4,691
21,548
-3,477
69,803
Source: NYC Comptroller's Office frorn Census Bureau microdata
19 Reqional incomes can be deflated using either \he national or
metropolitan CPI, depcncJirl£1 on the "nalytcal purposes to which
the calculations are being put. If tho NYC median incorne is ddiated
JSing the national CPI, there was virtually no chango in the real
median income of city households over the period.
income groups were separated by large income
ranges in which the number of households declined,
notably those between $40,000 and $80,000 annual
income and between $160,000 and $200,000 annual
income. 20
"(From 2000- 2012) there was
a dramatic sh{jt in the city s lo-vv
income population toward elderly
and working poor households. 40
percent of the increase in low-
income households over the period
were households in which the head
was over 60 years old ... lov.;-income
homeowners represented more than
60 percent of the increase in low-
income households. "
All told, the number ofhouseholds earning $140,000
or more grew hy about 20,000, or by l, 700 per year,
during the 12-year period. During the same period,
the city added about 52,000 low-income households,
a rate of increase of4,300 per year. Further analysis
of Census and ACS microdata indicates that about
40 percent of the increase in low-income households
over the period were households in which the head
was over 60 years old,21 suggesting that much of
the low-income growth was demographically
driven and that the housing implications may not be
straightforward. In fact, low-income homeowners
represented more than 60 percent of the increase in
low-income households. Despite the growth in the
retirement-age low-income population, however,
20 Recipients of Census and ACS questionnaires are required by
lavv to compfy 'Nilh the surveys, but there is no legal sanctior1 if
a respondent household mic;reports ils incomr~. Conscquen!ly, it
is useful to compare t11o data presented tmre with tr1oso from tt1e
New York State Personal lncorne Tax files. TMse fiios for 2000
through 201 i show tr1e nurnbc1 of New York City resident PIT filers
grow1ng much faster than the number ot households estimated from
Census Bureau data. There are a numDor of possible roasons for
the numbers to diiier aside from reporting errors. Till! numt1er of
PIT filers in each income cate>)ory (rneasured by inflation-adjusted
federal Adjusted Gross Income) incroascd; however, the relative
increases by income category roughly correspond to tho chAnoes in
the income distribut·on as discussed above.
211v1ore detailed tabulations of renter and owner inconlt::S and char-
acteristics of the c!t~(s low-inc orne populaton can he founli onihe
Comptroller's website, wvv\v.comptrollor.nyc.gov
the number of low-income households headed by an
employed or unemployed head increased by about
120,000, while the number headed by an individual
not in the labor force declined by about 70,000.
During the period under consideration, there was a
dramatic shift in the city's low income population
toward elderly and working poor households.
As we have detailed in the preceding pages, New
York City experienced a significant rise in inflation-
adjusted rents during the 2000 to 2012 period while
real incomes stagnated. Moreover, the distribution
of apartment rents in the city shifted dramatically
away from apartments in the $400 to $1,000 per
month range (in constant 2012 dollars) at the same
time there was a substantial increase in the number
of city households earning between $20,000 and
$40,000 annually-the very households that would
require apartments between $400 and $1,000 in
order to maintain reasonable housing cost budgets.
In addition, there was a further diminution of the
number of private apartments renting below $600
per month and affordable to households with even
lower incomes; approximately 60 percent of the
remaining apartments renting for cash rents under
$600 per month are public or publicly-assisted
unitsY As a result of these factors, the rent-to-
income ratios of low-income New Yorkers have
shown an almming spike.
Table 5 shows the average contract rent-to-income
ratio for all U.S. renters and for New York City
renters in inflation-adjusted income categories.
The table shows that rent-to-income ratios in New
York City are three to four percentage points higher
than those nationally at virtually all income levels,
but that the biggest gap is among renters earning
$20,001 to $40,000 annually. While the national
average rent-to-income ratio was 30.0 percent in
2012, it was 41.4 percent for New Yorkers in that
income band. For renters earning $20,000 or less,
the rent-to-income ratios in New York City are
obviously untenable, and arc quickly becoming
so nationally as well. The housing circumstances
of those low-income households-of which New
22 Excludin~J apartrnents occupied for no casi 1 rc;nt, which are usu~
aily occupied by build;ng maintenance workers or by relatives of iho
property owner.
Table 5
Rent-to-Income Ratios for US and NYC Renters
by Household Income Category, 2000 vs. 2012
Average Rent-to-Income Ratio
2000 2012
HH Income ($2012) us NYC us NYC
(percent) (percent)
$20,000 or less 55.2 68.7 58.7 68.0
$20,001 to $40,000 26.0 33.2 30.0 41.4
$40,001 to $60,DOO 18.1 22.2 20.9 278
$60,001 to $80,000 14.5 17.5 17.1 227
$80,001 to $100,000 12.5 14.1 15.1 19.5
$100,001 to $120,000 11.4 i3.1 14.0 16.9
$120,001 to $140,000 10.5 12.4 13.0 15.7
$140,001 to $160,000 9.6 11.5 12.1 15.3
$160,001 to $180,000 9.2 11.2 11.4 13.5
$180,001 to $200,000 8.5 10.4 13.5 13.5
$200,001 to $300,000 7.2 8.7 9.3 12.0
$300,001 & above 3.9 5.2 5.5 5.9
All Renter Households 29.3 35.6 34.7 39.4
Source; NYC Comptroller's Office from Census Bureau microdata
York City has some 630,000-must be considered
extremely precarious unless they are receiving non-
cash public subsidies or are already in subsidized
housing.
The deterioration of housing affordability for low-
income New Yorkers displayed above is based
on the ratio of contract rents to household money
income, a measure that is useful for evaluating the
"fundamentals" of housing affordability in the city.
Many low-income families, however, do not pay the
entirety of their rental costs out-of-pocket; various
rent subsidies make some nominally untenable rent-
to-income ratios economically sustainable for their
recipients. There arc also some non-cash income
supplements, such as food stamps and Medicaid,
that raise the effective income of low-income
families.
The most impm1ant non-cash rent subsidy for
tenants in private housing is the federal Section
8 program. In Fiscal Year 2013 about 129,000
city households utilized Section 8 certificates
and vouchers administered by the New York City
Housing Authority (NYCHA) and the Dcpartmentof
Housing Preservation and Development, compared
to approximately 102,000 in Fiscal Year 2001.
The growth in the number of households utilizing
Section 8 vouchers actually exceeded the growth in
the number of low-income renter households in the
city since 2000, but the increase was small relative
to the loss of low-cost The table also shows
that rent-to-income
ratios increased
for renters in every
income group, both
nationally and in New
York City, between
2000 and 20 l2. That
is undoubtedly a
reflection of the real
income decline that
''The biggest relative increase in rent-
to-income ratios was in the $20,001 to
$40,000 income band. Average rent
ratios for households in that incorne
category increase four percentage
points nationally, but by 8.2 percentage
points in New York Ci~F· "
apartments. A variety of
other rent supplements
are also provided since
2000, including Jiggets
rent supplements,
Housing Stability Plus
supplements, Family
Eviction Prevention
supplements, and the
like.
American workers experienced during the period.
The national average increased more than the
New York City average because more American
households slid down the income ladder, but the
increase was greater in New York City for most
income bands. The biggest relative increase was,
again, in the $20,00 l to $40,000 income band.
Average rent ratios for households in that income
category increased four percentage points nationally,
but by 8.2 percentage points in New York City.
Unlike the American Community Survey, the
New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey asks
respondents the amount of rent they pay out-of-
pocket, as well as their contract rent, and the type
of rent subsidy they receive if any. The HVS data
indicate that rent subsidies reduce the amount of
cash rent renters eaming $20,000 or less pay by
about $200 per month, on average, and by about
$100 per month for renters caming between $20,000
and $40,000. Of course, renters actually receiving
subsidies have their rents reduced by much more
()ffiroa Af tho 1\l.o\At VrwlE rit\1 rr.mntrr.llor C:r-1'\lt 1\A C::trinrt.or
than the average, while others receive no rent
subsidy. Rent subsidies lower the number of very
low income households (earning $20,000 or less)
who pay more than 50 percent of their income in
rent from 500,000 to 383,000.
Homelcssncss
It is well established that homclessness is a
multidimensional problem not solely attributable
to housing market conditions. Unemployment,
ill health, domestic violence, mental illness and
substance abuse can ali contribute to an individual
or family's housing instability. 23 But all of those
circumstances arc more challenging when there
is a mismatch between a household's income and
its housing needs. Consequently, the incidence
of homelessness can be considered a fundamental
indicator of the city's housing conditions. For
example, the structural housing conditions of a city,
including the availability of low-rent housing and
per-capita spending on residential beds and mental
health care in supportive housing settings have both
been statistically associated with homelessness
rates. 24
Pursuant to a I 981 consent decree, New York City
must provide shelter to every eligible individual
or family that seeks it.25 Since 1981, when there
were an estimated 36,000 homeless individuals,
the City's homeless population has fluctuated
somewhat but ultimately it has risen.26 As of March
20, 2014 the shelter population in New York City
was 52,267, including over 22,000 childrenY
23 Mental Illness )
150
' 100
so
0
its Advantage program in Febmary 2012.31 In the
twenty-one months that followed some 49.4 percent
of families enrolled in the Advantage program
returned to the shelter systemY By November
2013, shelter populations surged to 53,270 - an
increase of over 70 percent over the course of the
Bloomberg administration. In addition, the average
length of shelter stays for families increased over
this same period from 319 days in January 2002 to
419 days in November 2013. Figure 3 illustrates
those two trends.
The Department of Homeless Services posts a series
of "critical activity reports" which provide data on
permanent placements and other exits from the
shelter system from Fiscal Year 2002- Fiscal Year
2011. Data is broken down into three categories
- single adults, family services and adult services.
The adult services category was established in
Fiscal Year 20 I 0, so data in that category is limited.
From July 2001-June 2011, the City placed 145,682
shelter dwellers in permanent housing or other
31 New Destiny, a non-prcfit provider of hcusing for victims of
domestic violence, provides a detailed summary of the legal
proceedings surrounding the AdvantBge program with links to
relevant c:ourt documents: http://www.newdestinyhousing.org/get-
help/advantage-ny
32 T!1e Revolving Door l4: Youth ShelterPopt•fatioi\S
situations, a monthly average of 1 ,214. The most
widely used placement vehicle for the Department
of Homeless Services was the Advantage program.
During its lifespan, the variants of the Advantage
program were responsible for 22,675 pe1manent
housing placements, with Work Advantage
responsible for the majority of the Advantage
placements.
Among the least utilized vehicles for shelter
FY 2009 through FY 2011.
A recent surge in the youth shelter population is
among the most troubling of the City's homclessncss
trends. Data published by the Depattment of
Homeless Services reveals steady upward increases
in child and adolescent shelter populations from July
20 11 to September 2013. During this time period,
the number of children age 5 and under in homeless
shelters increased by over 25 percent, children ages
6-13 increased by over 50 percent and children ages
placements were the New
York City Housing Authority
and the Department of
Housing Preservation and
Development. During the ten
year period for which data is
available, only 6.9 percent of
all placements were reported
at these two agencies with only
2,051 HPD placements and
8,061 NYCHA placements.
"NYCHA shelter placenwnts
averaged 106 per month for
families in shelter.fi·om l?Y
2001 to FY 2006. I-lmvever:
14-17 increased by over 4 7
percent.33
Figure 4 illustrates increases
in youth shelter populations
from July 20 II through
September 2013.
1bllmvinv a chanee in housinf! ~'! (J LJ LJ
policy those placements
droppedprecipitously, to
about II per month."
In addition to the City's sheller
census, the prevalence of
street homelessncss is another
NYCHA shelter placements averaged 106 per month
for families in shelter from FY 2001 to FY 2006.
However, following a change in housing policy,
those placements dropped precipitously, to about
11 per month. The high water mark ior NY CHA
shelter placements was 343 shelter dwellers in
August 2005. However, after September 2006 that
figure never went above 60 in any given month and
lingered in the single digits and teens for much of
indicator that the Depmtment of Homeless Services
routinely tabulates. Since 2005, the Depmtment
of Homeless Services has conducted an annual
homeless population outreach estimate known as
the HOPE survey. The survey is usually conducted
each January with the cooperation of thousands
of volunteers and its results provide a snapshot of
street homelessness during the winter months.
33 h!tp•//www.nyc.gov/tltrnl/dhs/hirni/cornmunicmions/s!ats.shtml
Street homelessncss recorded by the HOPE survey
peaked at 4,395 in 2005; hit a low of 2,328 in 2009
and most recently rose back up to 3,180 in 2013.3'1
Although the unsheltered surface area population
had decreased dramatically from 3,550 in 2005
to 1,339 in 2013, unsheltered subway populations
have increased by over 117 percent during this same
time period.
Manhattan consistently registers the highest
street homelessness results. A research team that
examined the methodology of the HOPE survey has
speculated that because Manhattan's buildings are
often directly adjacent to sidewalks with restricted
access to areas behind buildings, there are fewer
opportunities to shelter in the types of discreet areas
that arc available in the other boroughs.35
As homelessness has expanded in New York City, so
too has the budget for homeless services. According
to the City's FY03 Adopted Budget, the City's
expense budget for the Department of Homeless
Services was over $535.8 million in FY02.36 Since
that time, the agency's operating budget has grown
at a pace well above the rate of price inflation; the
Office of Management and Budget forecasts over
$1.04 billion in spending for the Depm1ment of
Homeless Services by the conclusion of FY 14 and
the Mayor's Preliminary Budget calls for some
$981.6 million in FY15Y The average annual cost
to shelter a family in one of the City's 167 family
shelters is $34,573.38
Clearly, a renewed commitment is necessary to
alleviate the City's mounting homclessness problem.
Housing policy measures that have been proposed
in the past to mitigate homelessncss include:
liberalizing access to public housing for families
and individuals in shelters, establishing new rental
voucher programs, expanding pem1anent housing
production for the homeless, and placing a heavier
emphasis on low-income housing preservation and
homelessness prevention services. All of those
options merit consideration.
34 https:i/a071-hope.nyc.gov/hope/statistics.aspx
35 http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih. gov/prnc/articles/PMC2446453/
36 http :i/VIWW. nyc. gov/htrnl/ornb/dcwnloads/pdf/erc 7 _ 02b pdf
37 h!tp:i/www.nyc.gov/html/omb/html/publications/projections.
sr•tm1?45
38 http://comptroller.nyc.gov/Vm-content/
upioads/2013/07 /20130509 _NYC RentaiSubsidyPrograrn_ v12.pdf
The indicators of New York's housing trends
presented in the preceding section of this
report suggest that, even after the Bloomberg
Administration's substantial investment in
affordable housing, the city's housing conditions
remain problematic. Some concerns-such as a
middle-tier housing stock that falls short of modern
American standards-are competitively important
but iong-tenn in nature. 39 Others--such as a growing
homeless shelter population that cannot continue on
its cuiTent trajectory---are urgent. But the oveniding
development in the city's housing picture has been
the significant upward shift in the city's apartment
rent distribution, as reflected by a median rent that
has increased by 31 percent in real terms in just 12
years.
As previously noted, it is a truism of urban real
estate that metropolitan income growth is one of the
drivers of metropolitan housing price growth. Yet,
the city's recent housing cost inflation has come
during a period of notably stagnant real income
growth. This section explores several possible
explanations for that troubling inconsistency.
Gentrification
Gentrification is one of the most controversial
processes in the modem urban environment, partly
because it is poorly defined and poorly understood.
In this discussion we use the tem1 in only one of its
limited meanings: a growth in the number of middle-
or high-income households in a neighborhood or
the city as a whole. The increase could come from a
number of sources-through migration from other
parts of the country or from abroad, from the shifting
39 Relative to other parts of the Unitecl States. New Yorl\ers generally
enjoy fevver housing amenities and live in more compact dwellings.
Only ono in four New Yorkers live in homes with rnore than one
bathroom and nearly tvvo thirds of ;"Jew Yorkers live in homes with
two t)edroorns or less. In comparison, approximately 65 percent of
Amer:can hornes come equipped with more than one bathroom and/
or more than two bedrooms. Appliances such as washing machines
anrJ clothes dryers, dishwashers and in--sink garbage disposers-
common arnenities in rnost American hornes- are rate luxuries in tiw
typical New York City dwelling.
of resident households from one neighborhood to
another, or endogenously, resulting from the upward
economic mobility of the city or neighborhood's
resident population.
It is reasonable to expect that if the number
of middle- or high-income households in a
neighborhood increases, so will average rents and
home prices. New housing development, typically
of a higher quality and higher cost than the existing
housing stock, will usually become more viable
and common. There will
income group grew from 9.65 percent of the city's
households to 9.82 percent over the period.
Few New York City households earning $100,000
annually would consider themselves "high income,"
but according to conventional standards of housing
aftordability they would be expected to spend up
to $2,500 per month on rent. \\'hen we expand our
consideration to households able to realistically spend
that much on rent, high-income household growth is
fhund to be somewhat more rapid; the number of city
households earning $1 00,000 or more in inflation-
be more competition
for existing housing
units and more income
available to monetize
that competition.
Also, existing housing
may command higher
prices simply because
a proliferation of retail
"The number of high-income
households (over $160,000 in 2012
dollars) increased by only about
12,000 over the 12-year period, a
small change in representation in a
city with over 3 million households . . ,
adjusted dollars grew by
about 43,000, or by about
3,600 per year. Even that
number, however, is far
less than the net increase
in the city's housing
supply over the period.
Furthermore, nearly 60
percent of the additional
households earmng
services and other neighborhood improvements
make the neighborhood more valued by renters and
homcbuycrs.
It has already been noted in this report that New
York City as a whole has been "gentrifying," but
at a rate much slower than commonly perceived.
According to ACS data, the number of high-
income households (over$ I 60,000 in 2012 dollars)
increased by only about 12,000 over the 12-ycar
period, a small change in representation in a city
with over 3 million houscholds.40 Overall, that
40 The New York State personal income tax files show faster growth,
but overall a fewer number, in that income group for the 2000 to 2011
period. The data are not necessarily inconsistent. insofar as the ACS
Table 6
$100,000 or more were homeowners. The increase in
renter households earning $100,000 or more was only
about 19,000 over the whole period, or about 1,600
per year. It is difficult to see how that relatively small
increase in the number of mid- and high-income renters
could result in the disappearance of nearly 400,000
affordable apartments (those renting for under $1,000
per month).
\Vhilc gentrification of the city's household distribution
was an unlikely cause of rent inflation citywide during
the Bloomberg era, the evidence at the borough and
neighborhood level is more convincing. During the 12-
data is collected on a housel;old basis while the unit of observation
in the tax files is "tax filer." In 2011, 6.1 percent of 1\IYC resident in-
come tax filers reported federal adjusted gross incomes of $160,000
or rnore.
Change in Households Earning Over $100,000 in 2012 Dollars and Change in Real Rents, 2000-2012
HHs>$1 00,000 Real Average Rent
Neighborhood 2000 2012 Net Change 2000 2012 %Change
Clielsea!Ciinton/Midtown 25,770 36,461 10.691 1.456 1,864 28.0
Brooklyn Heights/Fort Greeno 12,730 22.401 9,671 933 1,474 58.0
Wiliiamsburg/Greenpoint 5,794 13,389 7,595 737 1,297 76.1
Greenwich Village/Financial District 31.050 38,270 7,220 !,651 2,096 27.0
Park Slope/Carol! Gardens 15,493 20,864 5,371 1,183 1,634 38.1
Astoria 12,069 17.126 5,057 882 1 '185 34.4
Lower East Side/Chinatown 9,791 14,007 4,216 864 1,234 428
Central liar/em 3,873 7,779 3.906 585 853 45.7
1-Jorth Crown Heights
East Harlem
Flockaways
Bedford Stuyvesant
Bushwick
Sunnyside!vVoodside
Throgs Neck/Co-op City
Forest H:ilstRego Park
Sunset Park
Hillcrest/Fresl1 Meadows
Upper West Side
Nort11 Shore Sl
Morningside Heights/Hamilton Hts
Washington Heights/lnwoocJ
Kew Gardens/Vvoodhaven
Flatlands/Canarsie
Brownsville/Oceanhill
Highbridge/S Concourse
Mid-Island Sl
East New York/Starret City
Jamaica
Morrisiana/Fast Tremont
Coney Island
Bensonhurst
South Shore Sl
Stuyvesant Town[Turtie Bay
Borough Park
Pelham Parkway
Middle Village/Ridgewood
Mot! Haven/Hunts Point
Jackson Heights
Sheepshead Bay/Gravesend
F1iverdale/Kingsbridge
University Heights/Fordham
Soundview/Parkchester
Bay Ridge
Howard Beach/S Ozone Park
Flat bush
East Flatbush
Baysideilittle Neck
Kingsbric1ge Heights/Mosholu
Elmhurst/Corona
South Crown Heights
Bali rose/Rosedale
Upper East Side
Williamsbrige/Baycr,estor
2000
5,806
4,174
6,!91
4,119
2,673
8,678
9.984
13,829
6.490
14,833
47,645
14,632
7,880
8,468
9,183
17.423
2,667
2.160
15,743
4,751
13,214
2,150
4.917
11,013
21,065
38,928
8,452
7,505
12,216
2.443
9.415
12,585
9,929
2,593
6.424
12,397
9,804
9,682
7,478
15,582
4,080
7,404
4,891
20,135
61,070
9,014
HHs>S1 00,000
2012
9,431
7,645
9.324
6,724
4,7B8
10,672
11,890
15,534
8,006
16,013
48.803
15,683
8,835
9,260
9,919
18,014
3,251
2,671
16,249
5,169
13,571
2,477
5,212
11,293
21.214
38,938
8,297
7,313
11,965
2,163
8,937
12,098
8,429
2,076
5,844
11,691
8,922
8,751
6,450
14.405
2,859
G.132
3,536
18,549
59,330
6,736
F'lushing(vVhiteslone 21 ,542 18,686
Source: hJYC Comptroller's Office from Census Bureau microdata
Net Change
3.625
3,471
3,133
2,605
2,115
1,994
1,906
1,705
1,516
1,180
1,158
1.051
955
792
736
591
584
511
506
418
357
327
295
280
149
10
-155
-192
-251
-280
-478 '
-487
-500
-517
-580
-706
-882
-931
-1.028
-1,177
-1,221
-1.272
-1,355
-1,586
-1.740
-2,278
-2,856
2000
725
G58
716
627
684
943
831
1,100
829
981
1,442
782
818
751
945
900
596
671
859
721
835
557
696
876
1,707
867
814
872
491
936
836
933
671
722
914
955
81B
841
1,145
763
950
784
1,022
1.709
817
1,020
Real Average Rent
2012 % Change
952
895
921
1,028
1.323
942
1,243
1,093
1,134
1,640
902
1,198
945
1,214
1,027
829
824
886
857
1,024
711
743
1,010
1,059
2.016
1.073
1,004
1,057
689
1, 152.
98D
1,108
857
8[)9
1,148
1,217
99fi
962
1,309
968
1,172
963
1,201
1,834
980
1.125
41.7
44.6
25.0
46.8
50.3
40.4
12.4
12.9
31.8
15.5
138
15.4
46.!)
258
28.6
14.1
39.0
22.8
3.2
18.9
22.6
27.7
6.8
19.6
20.9
18.1
23.8
23.3
21.3
40.4
23.0
18.2
18.8
27.7
203
25.5
27.5
2i.G
14.4
14.3
2
., .. 0
0 . .:.-
23.4
22.9
17.6
7.3
20.0
10.3
f'lffil'a nf tho 1\low Vrwk f'iht f'nrnntrnllor ~l"n!t 1\A ~trinf'lor
year period, Brooklyn gained about 28,000 mid- and
high-income households and Manhattan gained about
21 ,500 such households; all of the other boroughs
saw the number of their resident households earning
$100,000 or more decline. ft may not be coincidental
that Brooklyn experienced the largest increase in
average rents while Queens and Staten Island the
lowest.
The effects of a reshuffling of the city residential
patterns on the rental market can be seen even more
Rent Regulation
New York City has a rent regulation system that
shields covered tenants from extreme rent shocks
and provides crucial protections that facilitate tenant
longevity in their homes during times of housing
emergency. New York's rent regulations arc enabled
by the 1969 Rent Stabilization Law which is subject
to renewal every three years in order to determine if
a housing emergency remains in effcet.42
at the neighborhood level.
Just i1vc sub-borough
areas had a net change
in households earning
$100,000 or more of over
40,000, compared to a
change for the city as a
{(No New York City sub-borough area
New York City's vacancy
rate is arguably the
most important statistic
tracked by the Housing
and Vacancy Survey. A
vacancy rate below 5
witnessed a decrease in real average
rents during the 12-year period JJ
(/i'om 2000- 2012).
whole of 43,000. Overall, 33 sub-borough areas had an
increase in mid- and high-income households while 21
sub-borough areas lost such households between 2000
and 2012. As can be easily seen from Table 6, there
was a high con·elation41 between a neighborhood's
gain in households earning $100,000 or more and the
percentage change in its average rent level.
The neighborhood data suggests that there is a
positive conclation between the increase in the
number of middle- and high-income households
residing in a neighborhood and the rate of increase
in real average rents. However, every New York City
neighborhoods that saw a decrease in the number of
households earning $100,000 or more nevettheless
experienced an increase in real average rents
between 2000 and 20 12, ranging from 7 percent
(Upper East Side) to 40 percent (Mort Haven/
Hunts Point). No New York City sub-borough area
witnessed a decrease in real average rents during
the I 2-year period. The implication is that while
gentrification may have played a role in raising rent
levels in some neighborhoods, there were other
factors at work that were putting pressure on rent
levels citywide.
<11 Tho correlation coefficient between the two change variables is
7,62,
percent legally defines
a "housing emergency" which enables the City's
rent regulation Jaws.43 According to the most recent
IIVS report, the vacancy rate in New York City in
20 l1 was 3.12 percent, an increase from a citywide
vacancy rate of2.94 percent in 2002.44 The vacancy
rate reported in the 20 II HVS triggered a three year
renewal of rent regulations that was signed into law
by Mayor Bloomberg on March 26, 2012.45
According to the 2011 HVS report, 45.7 percent
of renter households in New York City are rent
stabilized, 1.8 percent arc rent controlled, 8.8
percent live in public housing and 38.6 percent
live in unregulated or "market rate" rental units.46
42 "The New York Hen! Stabilization Law of 1969", Columbia Law
Heview, (,January 1970),
43 The 2011 HVS report noted that vacancy rates in New York City
increased for units in high rent categories and decreased for units
in low rent categories, The 2011 HVS report observed ·a pervasive
shortage of available vacant units for rents of less than $1,000 in
the City and the shortage of those available for less than $BOO was
appaU:ngiy acute", That conclusion aligns with the findings of this
report. which also details a <)ramalic tightening of the housing supply
for low income residents,
44 According to HVS data. the nurnber of vacant units in New Yorl<
City gradually increased ever the last four Housing and Vacancy
Survey's, After a rise of 9.6 percent from 2002- 2005, U1e total
number of vacant units remained stable until 2011. when the total
number of vacant units increased once again, Most notably, from
2008 to 201 i, he number of vacant units not available for rent or
sa!e grew by ·19_5 percent
45 Mayor Bloomberg Signs Legislat:on Extending the Rent
Stabilization Law through />_pril 20 15_ Press Reiease 107-12, March
26,2012.
46 The Rent Guide!:nes Board provides detailed expiains of the
distinction bet~..veen rent control and rent ~tabiHzation on their website
Figure 5 illustrates the attrition of affordable housing units from the rent stabilization system over the
course of the last decade.
figure 5: Rent Stabilization - Addtlions and Subtractions
Affordi.!bie Units Added ro Rent
stahiliz:atioo
Mi Affordable un:rt:s Subtracted From
Rent Stabiliz:atioo
2003 2004 2005 2006 2.007 2008 2009 2010 2011 .Wll
The remaining renters in New York City are spread
across other affordable housing programs, including
Mitchell-Lama housing, ln Rem housing, regulated
lofts and other housing regulated by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB)
sets rent adjustments for the City's rent regulated
housing stock. Each year, the RGB convenes for
a series of meetings to review and deliberate the
findings contained in annual research rcpo11s on
housing conditions and receive testimony on current
housing conditions from tenants, owners and other
concerned New Yorkers. Following these meetings,
the RGB agrees upon a certain percentage increase
for rents in the City's rent regulated apartments.
The costs and benefits of rent regulation in New
York City has been a topic of intense civic debate
for many years. A 2010 analysis, based largely
on data from the 2008 HVS, was published by the
Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) and provides
the most recent reputable estimates of the effects of
at: ll!tp://wwvv.nycrgb.org/htmliglossary_defs.htrnl#rentcontrol and
http://www.nycr£Jb.mg/htmi/91ossary_defs.iltml#rentstab
regulationY The CBC found that 86 percent of the
monetary benefits go to households with incomes
less than $100,000. The report estimated that rent-
regulated tenants in Manhattan realize average
discounts amounting to $9,954 per year. However,
in the other boroughs where regulated rents more
closely align with unregulated rents, the rep011
found lesser discounts for rent regulated tenants.
Tables 9 and 10,48 which appear later in this report
suggest that rent regulated tenants in the Bronx and
Queens realize the smallest discounts. The CBC
also attributes a $283 million decrease in prope11y
tax revenue to the City's rent regulation regime
and uses maintenance deficiency data from the
HVS to show that rent regulations may discourage
necessary building maintenance, especially large
building-wide major capital improvements.
Data published by theN ew York City RentGuidelines
Board shows that from 1994 to 20 12 New York City
47 The Rent Guidelines Board provides detailed explains of the
distinction between rent control and rent stabilization on their website
at: http://wV'.ivwycrgb.org/html/glossary_dofs.htmlilrontcontrol and
llttp://www.nycrgb.org/htrnlig!ossary_ .. defs.html#rentstab
48 This refers to "average stabilized rents from 2002- 2011" and
"average market rate mnts iron1 2002 201 1" on page 15.
added 144,113 new rent stabilized units and lost
249,355 rent stabilized units- a net loss of l 05,242
regulated housing units. Some 10,126 additions to
the City's rent stabilized housing stock over this time
period came from Mitchell-Lama buyouts. These
additions arc the result of a ] 991 regulation which
stipulated that rental units in developments that
leave the Mitchell-Lama program would be subject
to rent stabilization laws.49 Additionally, another
rent high-income deregulation accounted for 74
percent of rent stabilized apartment losses.
High-rent vacancy deregulation occurs when a
tenant moves out of a rent stabilized apartment where
the maximum legal rent is greater than or equal to
$2,500. High-rent high-income deregulation occurs
when the maximum legal rent at a rent stabilized
apartment is greater than or equal to $2,500 and
when the total annual 37,383 additions were
the result of conversions "(There was) a net loss ofl52, 751 federal adjusted gross
income of the current from rent control to rent
stabilization.
Thus, nearly one third of
rent stabilized apartment
qfj()niahle hou,c·dng units in Nmv }~)rk
Ci(y :v rent stabilization .\:)lstemji·om
1994-2012."
tenant household exceeds
$200,000 for two
consecutive years. Prior
gains from 1994 through 2012 were achieved by
shifting the classification of cctiain housing units.
After accounting for this regulatory shifting, the
true increase in affordable apmimcnts through the
rent stabilization system is 96,604 units - a net loss
of 152,751 affordable housing units in New York
City's rent stabilization system from 1994-2012.
to a strengthening of the
New York State rent laws with the passage of the
Rent Act on June 24, 2011 52, the lower thresholds
outlined in the Rent Regulation Refonn Act of
199753 prevailed.
Other losses of affordable housing units from the
City's rent stabilized housing stock can be attributed
to co-op and condo conversions, the expiration
Of the 144,113 units that were
added to the rent stabilized
housing stock from 1994-20 1 2,
the majority were the result of
tax incentive programs. Among
the largest generators of new
rent stabilized housing was the
421-a property tax exemption50
and the 420-c tax incentive for
low income housing developed
by non-profit corporations51
which accounted for 36.9
percent and 26 percent of
new rent stabilized units
respectively.
Figure 6 illustrates the large role played by vacancy deregulation is recent losses
to the City's rent stabilized housing stock.
Figure 6: Deregulation Breakdowns by Year
other Deregulated Units
~' Hig!Hlent High-lncorne
Deregulation
Among the units that were
subtractedfromrentstabilization
over the last decade, high-rent
vacancy deregulation and high-
2:003 2004 2005 2006 2:007 2DOll 2009 2010 2011 2012
Soo.-ce: New Ymk city Rent Guidelines BOard
49 New York State Homes and Community Renewal. Alxlut the
fvlitct1eii-Lanla Housing Progr31r.
bO Now York C!ty Deparln1ent of Housing Preservation and Devel-
oprnont. 421-a Tax Incentives. http://www.nyc.gov/htrnl/hpd/htrnl/
cicvelopers/421 a.shtmi
S 1 New York City Departn1ent cf Housing Preservation and Devol-
op;nent. 420-c Tax Incentives. http://www.nyc.9cV/htrnl/t1pd/html!
deve!opers/420c.shtml
S? New York State Assembly. Assembly Bill .A.OBS '8 http://bit.
ly!1hF4tzL
53 Rents greater than or equal to $2,000 and household income of
$17S,ODC or rnme. New York Stille Homes and CorYnunity Henewal.
Summary of the Rent Reforrn Act of 1997. http:/iwv;w.nyshcr.org/
RtJnt!inforent.ilt!n
of 421-a and J-51 tax incentives, substantial
rehabilitations and conuncrcial or professional
conversions.
The RGB also publishes data on rent stabilized
losses by borough. Over the last decade, 69.2
result Jrom the factors described in the previous
paragraph, calculations were made based on the
average increase in legal rents that arc registered
each year with the New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
percent of the City's rent stabilized
housing losses were in the Borough of
Manhattan. Brooklyn and Queens lost
rent stnbilized apartments at similar
rates with 14 percent and 13 percent
of New York City's rent stabilized
attrition originating in those boroughs,
respectively. Rent stabilized housing
decreases were relatively low in the
City's other two boroughs - with
3.3 percent of the City's losses in
the Bronx and 0.5 percent in Staten
Island. Following the passage of the
A ffordablc Housing Act, losses to the
City's rent stabilized housing stock
dropped in all five boroughs. For
example, in the Borough of Manhattan
the average number of rent stabilized
units lost was 7,865 from 2003- 20 I 0.
In 2011 and 2012, that average fell to
5,468, a decrease of over 30 percent.
Table 7 below illustrates the steady growth of this hypothetical rent.
Table 7
Hypothetical Rent Growth, 2000-2014
Year 1 Year In-
crease(%)
Rent (S) 2Yenr
Increase(%)
Rent DHCR Rent Rent($)
($) Growth(%)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.50
3.50
2.75
~.25
3.00
4.50
3.00
2.25
3.75
2.00
4.00
697.67 -~~-~--~------
725.58 --------------
754.60 6.00
/6969 --------------
804.~j3 ?.50
832.48 --------------
855.37 5.50
891.73 ------~¥------
918.48 5.75
959.81 ---------·-----
988.60 6.00
10108~) --------------
1048.75 7.25
1069.73 --------------
1112.52 7.75
697.67 ----·-----~---- 697.67
697.67 5.30 734.65
739.53 4.40 766.97
739.53 6.90 819.89
794.99 1.GO 833.01
795.00 5.80 881.32
838.72 7.20 944.78
838.72 6.00 1001.47
886 95 5.90 1060.55
886.95 .5.40 1117.82
940.16 5.40 1178.19
940.16 1.20 1192.32
100832 -----------
1008.33 _,~ --- --·-~------
1086.4/ -------------
Source: Rent Guidelines Board, f\JYC Comptroller's Office
In order to provide an easily understandable
illustration of how increases to rent stabilized
leases compound and impact tenants over time, a
hypothetical rent was calculated using the RGB 's
one- and two-year rent increases from 2000 to
the present. To keep the calculation simple, it is
As is evident from Table 7, actual increases in
stabilized rents, represented on the right hand side
of the tablc in the DHCR rent growth columns,
generally increased at a faster annual rate than the
nominal increases pennitted by the RGB. This
is because calculations that solely rely on rent
assumed that this hypothetical
rent commenced on January
I, 2000 and that the tenant in
this hypothetical apmtment has
remained in her unit since that
"Over the last decade.
69.2 percent of the Cit,v :S'
rent stabilized housing
increases passed by the RGB do
not account for the possibility of
nu~jor capital improvement (MCI)
rent jncreases and individual
time.
lo,r.,·ses were in the
Borough qj'Manhattan."
apartment improvement (!AI)
rent increases to improve physical
housing conditions54 or vacancy
The starting point for this
hypothetical scenario is a rent of $697.67 which was
the average New York Cityrentatthattimeaccording
to the 2000 Census. Because rent stabilized tenants
have a right to a one year or a two year lease, both
scenarios were calculated. Additionally, in order
to capture some of upward pressure on rents that
54 The Comptroller's Office evaluated changes in physical hous-
ing conditions using data from t!1e 2002 HVS and the 2011 HVS.
Incidents of heat breakdowns, cracks and holes in walls, holes in
f!oors and interior water leaks wore among the building deficiencies
that were examined. In general, the physical condition of the City's
rent stabilized and market rate housing stock remained constant
during ihe period, with only marginal increases and decreases in
the five cateuories that were examined. The higher prevalence of
bui!ding deficiencies in rent stabilized apartments relative to market
rate apartments aligns wilrl the findings of the 2010 Citizens Budget
rent mcrcascs that are permitted when tenant
turnover occurs.
The DHCR rent growth figures in Table 7 reflect
the maximum legal rent rolls that building owners
report to DHCR each year. Increases in this
category that exceed the RGB percentage increases
arc presumably attributable to the three types of
rent increases detailed in the paragraph above.
55Disparitics in the rates of increase indicate that
the rent stabilization system is significantly more
pcnnissive to rent increases than it may appear
when RGB increases arc taken solely at face value.
Comprehensive data from DI-ICR on MCI and IAT
rent increases are not publicly available, which
prohibits an empirical analysis into the impacts of
these rent increases on the City's rent stabilized
housing stock. However, anecdotal evidence from
affordable housing advocacy organizations 56and
allegations made in a series of recent judicial
procecdings57 suggest that there is a perception of
fraudulent activity associated with MCI and IAI
rent increases.
DHCR has taken some recent steps to address
potential fraud through its newly established Tenant
Protection Unit. One prominent action taken by this
new unit included audits of owners who flied for
Individual Apartment Improvement rent increases in
2012. sg These audits resulted in the rc-stabilization
of 28,000 previously deregulated apartments and a
total return of over $200,000 to tenants who were
unknowingly ovcrcharged.59
To gain a better understanding of the longevity of
Commission study cited earlier in this report.
55 Programmatic details for Major Capital Improvement Rent
increases, Individual Apartment Renl increases and Vacancy Rent
Increases are included in these respective links: http://www.nyshcr.
org/Ren!/factsheets/orafac24.pdf
hltp://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheetc~iorafac 12.h1m
http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheets/oraiac5.htm
56 "The $20,000 Stove: How Fraudulent Rent Increases Undermine
~~ew York's Affordable Housing." Association for f'Jeighborhood
Housing and Development. (,January 2009)
'07 Estis f!, Turkel. "DHCR's Major Capi:allmprovemeni Policy Up-
heid." Now York law Journal, Marcil 7, 2012.
SB DHCR Tenant Protection Unit Major Initiatives: http:/(www.nyshcr.
org/RontffonantProtectionUnit/tpu-units-and-initiatives.htm#IAIA
!)9 "Governor Cuomo Announces Settlement Curtailing lrnr11igrant
Tenant Harassment to Ensure Fair and Sain Ccrmnunities for 1\Jew
York City Renters." Press Release, January 15, 2014.
New York City's remaining rent stabilized housing
units, the future attrition of existing housing units
from the rent stabilized housing stock was calculated
using a one year rent increase of3 .4%.60 Ofparticular
note, the passage of the Affordable Housing Act of
201 J will help to ensure that over 28,000 homes that
were on the brink of destabilization will remain rent
regulated for up to 7-11 additional years.
Table 8
Longevity of New York City's Rent Stabilized
Housing Stock
Rent Number Years to %of Rent
of units destabilization Stabilized
Housing Stock
$800-$899 101.486 35-31 years 10.70%
$900-$999 122,179 31-28 years 12.90%
$1,000-$1,249 263,560 28-21 years 27.80%
$i,250 -$1.499 133,306 21-16 years 14.10%
$1,500-$1,749 89.454 16-11 years 9.40%
$1,750-$1,999 28.:.W5 11-7 years 4.40%
Source: New York City Rent Guidelines Board, NYC Comptroller's Office
Table 8 shows the projected longevity of New York
City's rent stabilized housing stock. 61
The attrition projections in Table 8 cover some 80
percent of rent stabilized apartments in New York
City. The conclusion can be drawn that some 80
percent of the remaining rent stabilized housing
stock could remain in place over the next two decades
if rent increases approved by the RGB adhere to
historical nonns. However, Table 8 is also a stark
reminder of the incentives that apartment owners
have to layer major capital improvement (MCI) rent
increases and individual apartment improvement
(IAI) rent increases into their rent rolls.
MCI rent increases can occur when a building owner
makes improvements to building systems such as
boilers, elevators, electrical wiring or roofs. The
amount of an MCI rent increase is based on the cost
ofthe improvement and can equal up to 6 percent of
60 3.4% is the average one year rent increase passed by the Rent
Guidelines Board from 1988 201~l. Like Table XYZ, major capital
irnprovernent rent increases, individual apartrncnt improvement rent
increases and tenant turnover were not facwrecl into those calcula-
tions.
G 1 The hornes in Table XYZ ropresent '79.3% of New York City's rent
stat)ilizeci apartrnen1 stock.
a tenant's rent each year. 62 IAI rent increases reflect Island, stabilized and market rate rents increased at
increased services, new equipment or improvements similar percentages.
to an individual apartment. In buildings of 35 units
or more, the amount of an IAI rent increase is 1 /60th Population Growth and Housing Supply
of the cost of the improvement. In smaller sized
buildings the lAf increase is 1 /40th of the cost.
Tenants and housing activists have suggested
that some unscrupulous apartment owners have
abused MCI and IAI rent increases. In an eff01i
to combat abuses, a tenant protection unit was
established within the DHCR in 2012. Since that
time, random audits requiring selected apartment
owners to produce proof of building improvements
Urban land theory predicts that population growth in
an urban area will cause housing prices to increase.
The price increases are a necessary lubricant to
growth; without them, there is no incentive for
property owners to shift existing land uses to new
housing supply-by converting commercial uses to
residential, by convctiing lower-density residential
to higher-density, or by restoring brownfields
to habitability. However, the degree to which
have resulted in refunds
totaling over $220,000
to rent stabilized tenants
whose rents were
improperly increased.63
"From 2002 to 2011, non-regulated or
market rate rents increased at a fi:~ster
pace than rent stabilized rents, with
the two rising at 56 percent and 43
population growth causes
a rise in housing prices
depends on a multitude
of local characteristics,
including the natural
and built geography, the
regulatory climate, and One other factor that
. I , percent, respectzve y.
can impact the attrition
projections made in this report is the vacancy lease
rent increase. When a rent stabilized tenant vacates
an apartment, an increase of 18 percent for one
year leases and 20 percent for two year leases can
be levied on the maximum legal rent paid by the
previous tenant. The vacancy lease rent increase
is only permitted once each year but it nonetheless
results in a strong tenant turnover incentive in rent
stabilized apattments.
Average rent stabilized and non-regulated rents were
calculated citywide and for each borough using data
from the last four Housing and Vacancy Survey's in
order to track the rate at which rents in these two
categories has increased over time.
Overall, from 2002 to 2011, non-regulated or
market rate rents increased at a taster pace than
rent stabilized rents, with the two rising at 56
percent and 43 percent, respectively. However,
the citywide pattern did not always hold true at the
borough level. For example, rent stabilized rents
in Manhattan increased by 42 percent during this
time frame while market rents increased by just 22
percent. [n the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten
62 htip://wvvw.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheets/orafac24.htm
63 t1Up ://www. oove! nor.ny. govipress/0?0420 14-rent -stabilization-rolls
the composition of the
population growth.
Tracking the growth of the city's population is a
difficult task, and official Census Bureau counts
arc almost surely understated.64 Nevertheless, the
basic dynamic of the city's population growth has
been established for several decades: a large annual
outflow of residents to the rest of the United States
(including the surrounding suburbs), offset by a
natural demographic increase (an excess of births
over deaths) and by immigration from abroad.
However, during the past few years there has been
an important change in the population flows, with
an apparent slow-down in domestic out-migration
and a pick-up in domestic in-migration.65
Although the city is estimated to have gained
64 There have been considerable improvements in Census proce-
dures since the 1990 Census and tile counts in subsequent Census
are considered to be more accurate. There have also been some
tecl•nical difficulties witt1 the Census counts and tr18 ACS surveys
which arc bench marked to them, affecting tile pattorn of rocorded
growth from 2000 to 2010 to 2013. See Joseph J. Salvo and A.run Pe-
ter Lobo, "Misclassifying ~~ew York's Hidden Units as Vacant in 2010:
Lessons Gleaned for i11e 2020 Census," Population Research Policy
Review (21 03), 32:729-751. Also. http://www.nyc.gov/hlml/dcp!html/
consus/popcur.shtml
G5 "Population Growth in New York City Is F~eversing Decades-Old
lrend. Estimates Show." ~~ew York Times, March 27, 201,1
Table 9 below details average stabilized rents from 2002-2011. during the 2000 to 2012 period, or
by more than 5 percent. That figure
comports fairly well with the 227,000
new dwelling units completed between
200 I and 20 12, according to DCP
data compiled from certificates of
occupancy. Although the Department of
Buildings tracks the number of buildings
demolished annually, it docs not rep011
the number of dwelling units demolished.
A comparison ofthe available data series
implies that approximately one existing
housing unit is demolished for every
three new units that are built.68
Table 9:
Average Stabilized Rents from 2002 - 2011
NYC Bronx Brooklyn Man hat- Queens Staten
tan Island
2002 $795.44 $775.81 $775.70 $803.85 $782.81 $779.17
2005 $908.98 $880.23 $881.41 $915.07 $891.06 $882.68
2008 $1,006.10 $963.05 $962.72 $1,016.71 $979.81 $965.95
2011 $1,139.07 $1,091.35 $1,105.38 $1.140.62 $1,104.83 $1,096.89
Source: New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey
Table 10 below details average market rate rents from
2002-2011.
Table 10:
Average Market Rate Rents from 2002-2011
NYC Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens
2002 $1,075.30 $791.97 $863.79 $2,330.62 $923.67
2005 $1,256.75 $985.27 $996 69 $2.279.85 $1,051.43
2008 $1,523.83 $1,093.94 $1.181.10 $::>,687.84 $1,219.58
2011 $1,677.51 $1,168.93 $1,308.62 $2,851 69 $1,296.48
Source: New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey
61,000 residents in 2013, details of that population
increase are not yet available.66 From 2000 to 2012,
the time-frame evaluated in most of the report,
the city's population increased from 8.01 million
Staten Island
$746A2
$913.20
$1.020.57
$1,090.82
Although the construction or new
housing units is important to containing
housing cost increases, the role of new
private construction is often exaggerated
or misunderstood. A Comptroller's
Office analysis of recent HPD projects
indicates that a reasonable estimate of the
total development cost for a new housing unit in the
city is around $3 75,000.6'; When long-term financing
costs and the developer's retum on investment are
to 8.34 million, an increase of
about 336,000 residents. That
population increase represented
about 69,000 households,
according to Census Bureau
data. The Census Bureau also
estimates that the number of
({Approxinwtely one
existing housing unit is
demolished j(n" every three
new units that are built. "
factored in, plus typical monthly
operating costs, the average new
housing unit would need to rent
for at least $2,600 month, even
if it received full tax exemption.
At conventional measures of
affordability, that would require
total housing units in the city increased by 170,150
but, according to the ACS, the number of occupied
housing units increased by only 69,800.
The ACS data consequently implies that the number
of vacant apartment increased by more than I 06,000,
or 59 percent. An analysis by the Department of City
Planning (DCP) suggests that the Census Bureau's
estimate of the number of vacant apmimcnts was
flawed, and that many of them are occupied. 67
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that the city's
total housing supply expanded by about 170,000
GG US Census bureau. hltp://wv.rw.census.govipopcst/data/countes/
totals/20 13/CO-EST2013-03.html
67 Joseph J. Salvo and Arun Peter Lot)o, "Misclas~:ifyin;; f\!ev.; York's
Hidden Units as Vacant in 2010: Lessons CJ!e.~ubsidized housing uwa!ly does net feature luxury
finish~ngs and rnany o1 fho sarnp!e projects ... vere bui!1 on city-ovvned
or low-cost sites. Many rnarkoHate projects involve total develop-
mGnf costs significantly above this figure.
about 3,600 per year, over the 2000 to 2012 period.
Given that rate of growth in the city's population
that can afford new market-rate housing, it is
remarkable that 227,000 new dwelling units were
completed during that 12-ycar period. According to
figures published by HPD, the NHMP created about
50,000 of those new units. That both underscores
the importance of subsidized affordable housing
programs to the growth of the city's housing supply,
as well as the implausibility of expecting the private,
unsubsidized market to produce new housing supply
at a significantly faster rate, regardless of the zoning
and other regulatmy measures adopted.
~ ·~~~@¥~oicl~i$)~: HJ0~~ing'Btlall~mges .. ·.
· " ::~m .2~ sl Gentur~J'Nevi~oruk · ; ·
~p~><>'>K,_~~,;'<~'\<-cox '-''O<~",z" x
For a century and a halfNew York City has been the
national laboratory for innovation of humane and
affordablchousingpractices. In the late 19th and early
20th centuries its Tenement House Laws established
standards for governmental regulation of housing
conditions. In the 1920s it pioneered techniques
for tax-subsidized affordable housing construction
and in the 1930s for building public housing. In
the 1960s and 1970s the state-city Mitchell-Lama
program became the national template for interest-
subsidized affordable housing development. In the
1980s its housing finance professionals were the first
to demonstrate the large:..scale viability of federal
low-income housing tax credits while its housing
agency demonstrated the power of comprehensive
community redevelopment. In the 1990s, local
non-profits proved the value of supportive housing
while the City's Housing Development Corporation
successful, setting the stage for a burgeoning street
homeless population. In the 1970s, it promoted
large-scale middle-income housing developments,
without proper attention to the collateral effects on
an older, financially vulnerable housing stock.
New York City's housing efforts have been
most successful when public initiatives have
directed sophisticated techniques to well-defined
problems as when, for example, development of
suppotiive housing for needy singles improved
life for the homeless, mitigated the impact of
street homelcssness on neighborhoods, and saved
taxpayers money. In contrast, a vague sense that
housing is too expensive in New York provides little
strategic guidance for the design of a multi-billion
dollar municipal effort. It is the purpose of this report
to help identify, at the conclusion of the Bloomberg
Administration's New Housing Marketplace Plan,
the city's most pressing housing needs.
Relieve the Affordability Squeeze on Low-
income Households
While it is evident that New York City has had a
more buoyant economy than many other parts of the
country, relative prosperity should not be confused
with absolute prosperity. Two tepid expansions,
punctuated by a disastrous recession, have left
the city's real median household income little
changed from what it was at the turn of the century.
Meanwhile, there was a dramatic up\vard shift in
the distribution of apartment rents in the city, with
the real median rent rising by over 30 percent.
Working families in the bottom half of the income
distribution have seen their incomes stagnate while
pioneered new ways to
finance the construction
and preservation of
a1Tordable housing.
Yet, while New York City
has repeatedly been the
vanguard of affordable
((A Comptrollers Office analysis of
recent HPD projects indicates that
a reaL\'OJ7able e,\'timate (~f'the total
development costfhr a new housing
unit in the city is around $375,000."
the supply of rental
apartments affordable to
them has evaporated.
Stagnant real incomes
and a shift in the rent
distribution have caused
housing technique, it has sometimes made
damaging blunders in its housing strategies. rn the
1950s and 1960s it sought to eliminate Single Room
Occupancy hotels, an effort in which it was only too
a sharp increase in the
average rent-to-income ratio for the lowest income
households. Average rent to income ratios for
households earning under $20,000 stayed essentially
constant at an untenable 68% while households
earning $20,0000 to $40,0000 saw their average
rent-to-income ratio increase from 34 percent to 42
percent.
While New Yorkers at all income levels pay more
in rent than their counterparts elsewhere in the
count1y, rent-to-income ratios come into line with
standards of affordability once household incomes
reach approximately $40,000 which, for a family
of four, corresponds roughly to the HUD income
threshold for 50 percent of area median income.
For example, in 2012 only about 43 percent of New
York City households earning between $35,000 and
$40,000 had a rent-to-income ratio of 30 percent
or Jess, compared to 62 percent of households
earning $45,000 to $50,000. Although most New
Yorkers probably feel that housing in the city is
too expensive, it is primarily those earning under
$40,000 who literally may not be able to find an
apartment they can afford.
Stabilize and Preserve Public Housing
The intensity of the City's low-income housing
situation reinforces the essential civic role
played by the New York City Housing Authority
(NYCHA). While the federal government has
virtually eliminated funding for new public housing
construction, NYCHA has actually become a more
important element ofthe city's housing infrastructure
as the number of !ow-rent private dwellings has
diminished. Public housing now accounts for more
than half of all apartments in the city renting for
$600 or less.
Unless HPD 's programs and other housing subsidies
are retargeted to low-income households -only 7.9
percent of new construction units developed by HPD
between FY 2009 and FY 20 11 were eam1arked for
those earning up to 40 percent of the area median
income70 - it is likely that the proportion of low-
income New Yorker's housed by NYCHA will only
increase in fhture years.
In recent City Council testimony delivered by
Chairwoman Shola Olatoye it was noted that
NYCHA needs approximately $18 billion dollars to
lO Associaiion for Neighborhood Housing and DeveloprnenL "Real
NiorciatJili1y." February 2013.
bring all of their developments to a state of good
repair. 71 Chairwoman Olatoye 's City testimony,
together with data on the physical conditions at
NYCJ:-JA developments,72 suggests that public
housing in New York City is falling into a pernicious
cycle of disrepair. The City has a clear interest in
repairing and maintaining public housing units
for current and future low-income populations.
According to an August, 2013 study prepared for
the Housing Authority by HR&A Advisors, the
average per-unit cost of rehabilitating a NYCHA
unit is $99,000 while the average cost of replacing
a NYCHA unit is $370,000. HR&A estimates the
total cost of rehabilitation at $12 to $23 billion
compared to an estimated $47 to $85 billion cost of
replacement.73
Mitigate Homelessness
Like unemployment or poverty, homelessness is
a social problem that probably cannot be entirely
solved at the municipal level of government.
However, there are proven programs and policies
that can minimize its incidence, lessen its impact on
adults and children, and reduce its various costs to
taxpayers. The City can and must adopt a new mix
of policies to reverse the alarming increase in its
homeless population that has occmTed since 2008.
It has been long understood that youth homelessness
results in negative physical and mental health
outcomes, reduces educational achievement and
impedes physical and social development.74 In
addition to increasing the necessity for government
funded social service interventions/5 these negative
consequences impede the development of the
city's future workforce and heighten the possibility
of chronic homelessness later in life. Housing
71 Testimony before the \Jew York City Council Committee on Public
Housing. March 21, 2014
72 />,Comptroller's Office analysis o1 HVS data found that serious
maintenance deficiencies aro more common in NYCH/1 units than
in either rent stabilized or unregulated housing units. and that the
incidence of sor;ous maintenance clcliciencies grew most rapidly in
NYCHA units between 2002 and 20i 1.
7:3 "Cost oi P.ehal,ilitation versus the Cost of Replacement Across
NYCH/\'s Portfolio". HR&/1 Advisors. August 16, 2013.
74 fiafferty and Shinn, "The Impact of Homelessness on Children"
American f'sychologisl (r'C<;; t;ri~,- · ··
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Tt is not nccessaty that the above be sworn to, but false statements may subject you to the penalties provided by law.
RA·7'J MCI (7!15) -I-
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
D
fmprovcmcnts
(I)
Claimed MCI Costs:
**Do not include finance charges, rebates, discounts, refunds or sales tax.
Deductions F1·om Claimed MCJ Costs:
a. Enter sum of allocated amount(s) from all copies of Supplement 3, line 6,
if commercial spaces benefit from the performed work. $ (
b. Cooperative Reserve Fund not reimbursed, or credit applied
against reserve fund:
c. Insurance proceeds from loss on replaced items:
d. Grant amounts fl·om government agencies:
Total Deduction tl:om Claimed MCI Cost- add Lines 2a through 2d:
Net Claimed MCI Cost - subtract Line 3 from Line 1:
Amortization Period - Check appropriate box below:
$(
$ (
$(
Divide line 4 by 96 months for buildings with 35 or fewer housing accommodations:
)
)
)
$
$ (
$
$
Divide line 4 by 108 months for buildings with more than 35 housing accommodations: $
**Claimed
Cost
(5)
6. Enter the total number of rooms in all apartments,
(including apartments used for professional or commercial purposes):
7. Rent Increase per Room per Month - divide Line 5 by Line 6:
Costs and statements are subject to verification by DHCR.
If this application is approved, in whole or in part, rent increases will be subject to the following limitations:
New Ynrl< City Rent Stabilizl'd Apartments- In any 12 month period from H1~:~ date of eollectibility established by the Ord~~r. the
collection of the punnanent ami temporary retroactive increase combined shall not exceed 6%, ofHw individual npmimcm rent in
effect on the filing date of the application. Any amount exceeding these limits will be collectible in fut11re 12-monlh periods and
shall not exceed 6% ofthe rent in any subsequent 12-month period. The permanent rent increase is to be collected first.
New York City Rent Controlled Apartments and Rent Regulated Units Outside New York City- In any 12 month period the
rent increase will not exceed 15% of the cmrent rent as of the Order issue date, payable at the next rent payment date. Any
amount exceeding this limit will be allocated to future 12 month periods and will not exceed J 5%.
In addition, this application is to be considered in connection with other MCl orders issued, so that in any 12 month period from the effec-
tive date of the order no more than one 6% increase for a rent stabilized apartment (15% for a rent-controlled apartment and rent regulated
units outside of NYC) will be collected for the permanent, and temporary retroactive increase combined, or any prospective increase.
RA-79 MCI (7115)
State of New York
Division of Housing and Community Renewal
Office of Rent Administration
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Gertz Plaza
92-31 Union Hall Street
Jamaica, NY 1143:-l
(718) 739-6400
Docket Number:
[._ 6~n·r~;:::::;;~:~;:::lf~~f::E:::f;:~~:::~:;rovemcnts-. ··~
Owner Instructions: Complete this form for each Major Capital Improvement item claimed. If more than one contractor/vendor
installed an item, complete a separate form for each contractor/vendor. Section A- Owner infmmation must be properly completed and
signed by the Owner. Section B- Contractor/Vendor information must be properly completed and signed by the contractor/vendor. If
certification by contractor/vendor cannot be provided see instructions.
[_ __ ~-?~t~~Ec1:.~~~~·~~~}1tto1·iri~ti()if ' --]
MCI Item; ------------ ·· Date Work Started: Date Work Completed:
1. Number of: Similar Items in building Items installed
If the above numbers arc not the same, please explain:
'.' ------·-·---·-------------·----------------·-·
2. Did the replaced item exceed its useful life?
D D Yes No If "No", please review Operational Bulletin 90-2 and explain:
3. Contracted Cost: $ Amount Paid to ContractorNendor: $
If the above amounts are not the same, please explain:
4. Are the applicable Governmental Penn its and/or Certificates of Operation attached?
[] Yes [] No lf"No", please explain: __ , ·-"'-- ..
5. If the MCI Item above was one of the following installations, check the appropriate box and answer the relevant questions on
6.
Page 5 of Application.
Pointing/Waterproollng
Burner and/or Boiler
Rewiring
1
,, ''l
... J Elevator Upgrading
Roof
Mailboxes
Rc-piping
Is there or has there ever been a relationship, financial andior otherwise, between owner and this contractor/vendor or
principal of same? DYes []No lf"Yes", please explain relationship: _____________ _
I hove read the statements contained in this affirmation and I affirm under the penalties provided by law that the statements are true
and accurate to the best of my own kuowledge.
Owner/ Agent:
Type or Print
By:
Title: Date:
It is not necessary that !he above be sworn to, but false statements may subject you to the penalties provided by law.
RA-79 MCf ~uppkmcnt f (7il5) -3.
Submit a separate Affirmation for each improvement
Subject Building: ____ _
Con!rnctor's
Address
Is there or has there ever been a relationship, financial andior otherwise, between owner and this contractor/vendor or principal of same?
Yes No lf "Yes", please explain relationship:
I affirm, under penalties provided by Law, that the eost(s) of the improvcment(s) and all information listed above arc true and accurate; that
these improvements have been made in the subject building and paid in full; or arc subject to an installment
agreement; in case of a relationship, financial or othcnvisc, bct>vccn the mvncr and contractor the information provided is true
and accurate.
Contractor:
By:
*Signature
Contractor's License Number:
Title: Date: ............................................... .
It is not necessary that the above be sworn to, but false statements may subject you to the penalties provided by law.
*Submit original
RA- 79 e.-lCl Supplement I (7!15)
I Docket Number:
lfonc or more ofthc boxe!; were checked for Question 5, Section A, Supplement l answer the following questions.
Burner and/or Boiler
!. ff Burner is designed to be gas/oil interruptible, has the gas hook-up been completed?
2. What is: the maximum gross input in B.T.U.'s?
the maximum gross output in B.T.U.'s'?
Ekvator Upg1·ading:
l. Were new Controllers and Selectors or new related technology installed?
Mailboxes:
1. Were the old mailboxes located in the: D Inner vestibule L.J Lobby
2. Arc the new mailboxes located in the: Inner vestibule [::] Lobby
3. Are the front doors kept locked? Yes
]'ointing and Waterproofing:
CJ Yes
1
· .. ······ l Yes
... i
[.~No
[]No
LJ Outer vestibule?
[] Outer vestibule?
No
Submit a statement from the Contractor or other qualified individual who examined all exposed sides of the building before the pointing
and waterproofing were perfonned which confirms that all necessary pointing and waterproofing was done on all sections of each
exterior wall where such work was required. Attach a diagram indicating areas where such work was performed.
1. What is the approximate square feet of pointed and waterproofed area?
Rewiring:
1. Have you installed new copper feeders and risers extending from
property box to every housing accommodation?
2. Is the voltage after the rewiring: 110
Roof:
1. What is the approximate: Square Feet of entire roof area?
Square Feet of new roofing?
If the dimensions are not the same, please explain:
Rc-piping:
1. Were new hot and/or cold water risers, returns and
branches to f1xtures installed in every housing accommodation?
2. Were new hot and/or cold water overhead mains with all
necessary valves installed in basement?
RA-79 MCI Supplement I (7115) ~5 ~
D Yes '~] No
220 [-~-I Both
------- ·-·----·--
[J Yes
[-~] Yes [~~] No
Stale of New York
Division of Housing and Community Renewal
0111cc of Rent Administration
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Gertz Plaza
92-31 Union Hall Street
Jamaica, NY 11433
(718) 739-6400
I Docket Number: -----
I
-- -----·-------·~------ ·-·
.·. Supplement 2- Schedule of Tenants for
, Owncc'> A Jlplkation for Rent lncJ·ca\11 oeation F ~H; <::f) lllltl~r~i at .'J'NI It n ls
. ]3encfit~r~g };:rornTilc MajtlrQapitaJ :Impnl)~tmn:'uf(s)
','' ' /I- c ,,-: ;' :,;,;.J·o .·.' . ,.",· ,' ·'. . ." · · ,' -',"··.\;· . ;., .. :.·· .. ·., ; .. , · ..
Name of Owner/Agent:
Address of Subject Building:
Commercial Units:
Instructions To Owner: Owners should complete this Supplement only if there are commercial tenants in the subject
premises benefiting from the MCf. You may be required to substantiate the entries below.
1. MCI ilem(s) which benefit the Commercial Tenants
(as well as residential tenants).
* Do not include finance charges, rebates, discounts, refunds or sales tax.
2. Total Cost ofMCI Hem(s) Above:
3. Total floor area (square feet) in the building:
(Do not include basement area unless all or part is used for commercial purposes. If applicable,
include in the total area only the square feet of basement areas used for commercial purposes.)
Claimed Cost(s)
of Items(s)*
4. Total fioor area (square feet) of commercial space (basement included but not apartments used for
commercial or professional purposes) benefitting from MCI:
5. Benefited Commercial space as a percentage of total space (divide line 4 by line 3):
6. Benefited Commercial space share of MCI Cost (multiply line 2 by line 5):
Enter amount on line 6 on page 2, line 2a of the application
Note: Jn the event a commercial unit benefits from some but not all of the improvements file a separate Supplement 3 for the unit.
RA-79 MCI Sq1plemcm :J ('/!15) . g.
EXHIBITD
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.go\'/hpd
Office of Development, Division of Housing J ncentives
I 00 Gold Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212) 863-5517
J-51 APPLICATION PACKET
This application packet includes the forms you will need In order to apply for J-51 tax benefits. It is the sole
responsibility of the applicant to submit a complete and accurate application; processing cannot begin until all
requir€d documentation has been received by the .J-51 Unit.
You are strongly advised to consult the statutes governing J-51 benefits (NYS Real Property Tax Law Section 489
and NYC Administrative Code Section ll-243) as well as the J-51 Rules and Regulations (Tille 28 Rules of the City
of New York Chapter 5, hlip://72.0.151.11MmTIH'wmuh·sTitldll.:lli!.~J.
The following is an index of the contents of this packet. Ynu mav noi ll<'<'d In mlll!!klt• ""''n· form, Consult the
application instructions for guidance.
=:> APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
=:> LIST OF PERMITS REQUIRED FOR J-51 APPLICATIONS
=:> PROJECT INFORMATION (Form J-1)
=:> ITEMIZED SCHEDULE (Fonn J-2)
=:> CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS REGULATIONS (Form J-3, formerly
Form TA-3)
=:> COOPERATIVE AND CONDOMINIUM INFORMATION (Form J-4)
=:> OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT OF NO HARRASSMENT (Form J-SA)
=:> OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT OF NO HARRASSMENT (Late Filing) (Form J-5A & B)
;=:. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP & ENERGY STAR COMPLIANCE (Form J-6)
::::> AFFIDAVIT OF RENT REGISTRATION (Form J-7A)
=:> RENT ROLL (Form J-7B)
=:> INTERIM AFF!DAVJT OF RENT REGISTRATION FOR NEWLY CREATED DWELLING l..JNJTS IN
BUILDINGS EXPECTED TO BE OWNED AS RENTALS (Form .I-7C)
=:> INTERIM AFFIDAVIT OF RENT REGISTRA TlON FOR NEWLY CREATED DWELLING {;'NITS IN
BUILDINGS EXPECTED TO BE OWNED AS COOPERATIVES OR CONDOMINIUMS (Form J-70)
=:> OWNER'S DECLARATION OF PARTIAL WAIVER OF RENT ADJUSTMENT (Form J-R)
::::) AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION CLEARANCE FOR OWNER (Form J-9A)
=:> AFFIDAVIT OF VIOLATION CLEARANCE FOR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS (Form J-9R)
=:> AFFJDA VJT OF COOPERATIVE OR CONDOfvliNJUM ELIGIBI LJTY FOR OFFICERS {Form J-I OA.2)
=::. AFFIDAVIT OF COOP ERA T!VE OR CONDOMINIUM ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCOUNTANTS (Form .J-IOB.2)
=:> AFFIDAVIT OF FIRST SALE FOR COOPERATIVE OR CONDOMINIUM ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICERS
(Form J-JOC)
::::) NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE FOR J-5I TAX EXEMPTION AND TAX ABATEMENT PURSUANT TO
SECTION ll-243 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (Form J-JI)
The following documents are not lncludtd in the packet but are available upon request:
::::) MODERATE REHABILITATION NOTICE TO TENANTS OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED (MR-I)
~ MODERATE REHABILITATION AFFIDAVIT TO HPD CONFIRMING NOTICE TO TENANTS (MR-2)
::::) APPLICATION FOR ENRICHED BENEFITS FOR GOVERNMENT-ASSISTED REHABILITATIONS OF
VACANT CITY-OWNED BUILl DINGS ("Short Forms") (Forms SF-I and SF-2)
=> APPLICATION FOR J-51 BENEFITS FOR LEAD-BASED PAINT !lAZARD ABATEMENT
Page 1 of 1
Office of Development, Division of Housing Incentives
100 Gold Street
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
New York, N.Y. 100:18
(212 )863-5517
.J-51 LIST OF HEQLJIRED I'EHMITS
The following is a list of requirements that arc accepted as documentation by the J-51 Unit. They are
categorized by type of alteration/improvement:
Applicationsfor alterations requiring anew or amended Certiflctlte of Occupancy must include:
(l) PW-l,l'W-IA, PW-IB and Initial Work Permits; and
(2) Final Certificate of Occupancy; and
(3) Additional documentation as may be applicable or requested.
Applicadons for the following major capital impr01•ements require the appro1•al of designated agencies on the
forms indicated below, and such additional documentation as tfte Office slwll require. The forms listed
fterein may he revised or added to by tire Department of Builili11gs, ill wlrich case the Ojjice will require tire
forms as rel•ised. If 11 Borouglr Office was not using any of tire referenced forms wlren documentation was
obtained, tire Office may require tire forms then in effect or as listed in tire prior Rules.
a) Asbestos Abatement
(1) Asbestos Inspection Repm1 (ACP-7), or copy of Asbestos Removal Plan.
b) Adequate Wiring, New Wiring or New Service
(1) Certificate of Electrical Inspection or contractor's affidavit if Certificate is not applicable.
c) Boiler/Burners: Boiler and Oil Burner Replacement
(I) Notice of Proposed Steam or Hot Water Boiler Installation 1\lf boilers serving 6 units or more and over
350,000 BTU's (B form 900A signed by a boiler inspector, DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) For boilers with a capacity of 350,000 BTU's or more, approved Application for Certificate of
Operation (APC 5-0, stamped) or Certificate of Registration (APC 501), (Bureau of Air. Noise and
Hazardous Materials, DEP); and
(4) DOB Certificate of Electrical Inspection or contractor's affidavit if the Certificate is not applicable (e.g.,
if boiler only); and
(5) Certificate of Approval for Oil Burning Installation (B Form 16A, Sign-off, 0013).
d) Boiler/Burners: Boiler and Gas Burner or Boiler and Combination Gas and Oil Burner
(I) Schedule B Plumbing (PW-1 B) and/or Notice of Proposed Stearn or Hot Water Boiler
installation (B form 900A signed by a boiler inspector) (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) For boilers with a capacity of350,000 BTU's or more, approved Application for
Certificate of Operation (APC 5-0, stamped) or Certificate of Registration (APC 50 I).
(Bureau of Air, Noise and Hazardous Materials, DEI'); and
(4) DOB Cc•tificate of Electrical Inspection or contractor's affidavit ifthe Cerrificate is not applicable.
c) Boiler/Burners: Boiler Only
(l) lfburner is oil-fired, documents (I) through (5) in paragraph (c) above; or
(2) If burner is gas-fired, documents(!) through (4) of paragraph (d) above; or
(3) Jfbumer is gas- and oil-fired, documents (1) through (4) of paragraph (d) above.
PERMIT LIST (Rev J~n 2014)
Page I of 4
f) Boiler/Burners: Burn(•r Upgt·ading
(I) Approved Application for Certificate of Operation (APC 5-0, stamped, Bureau of Air, Noise and
Hazardous Materi~ls, DEP),
g) Boiler/Burners: New Central Heating System
(I) Plan/Work Approval Application with Schedule CHeating & Combustion Equipment for oil or
Schedule B Plumbing for gas (PW-l with PW-JC or PW-1 B), or computer printout showing scope of
work (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Pem1it or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) DOB Certificate of Electrical Inspection or contractor's affidavit if the Certificate is not applicable; and
(4) Approved Application for Certificate of Operation (APC 5-0, stamped, Bureau Air, Noise and
Hazardous Materials, DEP); and
(5) Letter of Completion for Directive J 4 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
h) Boiler Enclosure
(I) Initial Work Pcnnit or PW-2 (DOD); and
(2) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (008).
i) Chimney
(I) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(2) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
j) Compactor: Conversions to Central and Upgrading of Incinerators
(l) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(2) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
(3) For replacement compactor, submit affidavit attesting to the replacement
k) Compactor: New or Refuse Chute
(I) Initial Work Pem1it or PW-2 (DOB); and
(2) Computer print-out showing plumbing sign-off or B Form 505 (DOB) or Letter of Completion for
Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing the sign-off date (DOB).
l) Elevator Installation: Replacement or Upgrading (except replacement of hoist cables)
(I) Approved Elevator application/Permit (ELV-1, DOB); and
(2) Sign-off by a DOB inspector (Fonn 73), or a stamped Elevator Inspcction!fcst Report by Approved
Private Elevator Inspection Agency (ELV-3, DOB).
m) Fire Escapes
(l) Initial Work Pcnnit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(2) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
PERMIT LlST (Rev Jan 2014)
Page 2 of4
n) Hot Water Heater or Hot Water Tank
(l) PlaniWork Approval Application with Schedule B Plumbing (PW-l with PW-lB), or computer printout
showing scope of work (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB): and
(3) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to pcm1it or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
( 4) For boilers with a capacity of 350,000 BTU's or more, approved Application for Certificate of
Operation (APC 5-0, stamped) or Cenificate of Registration (APC 501), (Bureau of Air, Noise and
Hazardous Materials, DEP).
o) Landmarks Preservation Work Permit
( 1) Pt~rmit for Minor Work or Certificate of Appropriateness as appi icablc and Notice of Compliance
(Landmarks Preservation Commission); and
(2) Description of Landmarks Preservation work listed on or attached to the J-2 form (previously R-2 form)
available from the J-51 Oft!ce.
p) Oil Tank Installation
( l) PlaniWork Approval Application with Schedule CHeating & Combustion Equipment (PW-1 with PW-
JC), or computer printout showing scope of work (DOH); and
(2) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) Cctiiflcatc of Approval for Oil Burning Installation (B Form 16A, Sign-ofl~ DOB).
q) Piping: Gas
(l) Plan/Work Approval Application with Schedule B Plumbing (PW-l with PW-1 B) or computer printout
showing scope of work (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Penni! or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) Computer print-out showing plumbing sign-off orB Form 505 (DOB); and
(4) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant 10 permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
r) Piping: Waste and Vent
(l) Plan/Work Approval Application with Schedule 13 Plumbing (PW-1 with PW-1B) or computer printout
showing scope of work, (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Pem1it or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) Computer print-out showing plumbing sign-off orB Fonn 505 or Letter of Completion for Directive 14
on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing the sign-off date (DOB).
s) Piping: Water Mains and Risers
(1) Plan/Work Approval Application with Schedule B (PW-1 with PW-IB) or computer printout showing
scope of work (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Pennit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) Computer print-out showing plumbing sign-off orB Form 505 (DOB) or Letter of Completion for
Directive 14 on work done pursuant to pcm1it or computer printout showing the sign-off date (DOB).
t) Sealing Dumbwaiters
(I) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 or Plan/Work Approval Application or computer printout showing scope
of work (PW-1, DOB); and
PERMIT LIST (Rev Jan 2014)
Page 3 of4
(2) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
u) Sewc1· (Strl'et Connection)
(I) Street Opening Permit fi·om the Bureau of Sewers (DEI') or Bureau of Highways (Dcpatiment of
Transp01iation), as applicable.
v) Spdnk!ct· (new or relocated) Plumbing and Drainage
(l) Plan/Work Approval Application with Schedule B Pltmtbing (PW-J with PW-IB) or computer printout
showing scope of work, DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
w) Standpipes
( 1) Plan/Work Approval (PW-1) or computer printout showing scope of work, (DOB); and
(2) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
(3) Letter of Completion for Directive 14 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
x) Structut·al Items Not Physically Verifiable
(I) Affidavit from an architect or engineer specifying the nature, quantity and location of work done (e.g.
number of floor joists installed, cubic yards of structural concrete used, pounds of structural sled used,
etc.). In addition, length, size and placement of steel beams may be required. Photographs of new tloor
joists in place are recommended.
y) Water Service (Street Connection)
( l) Street-Opening Permit (Bureau of Highways, DOT)
z) Water Storage Tank
( 1) No permit required for replacement, submit affidavit al!esting to replacement.
(2) Plan/Work Approval Application with Schedule B Plumbing (PW-1 with PW-113) or computer printout
showing scope of work DOB); and
(3) Initial Work Permit or PW-2 (DOB); and
( 4) Letter of Completion for Directive I 4 on work done pursuant to permit or computer printout showing
the sign-off date (DOB).
PERMIT LIST (Rev Jan 2014)
Page4 of4
FORMJ-1
UpdJtcd: Jan 2014
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Office of Development
Division of Housing Incentivc~/.J-51 Program
100 Gold Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
PROJECT INFORMATION
DATE PREPARED ______ COMMUNITY BOARD ___ _ ASSEMBLY DISTRICT __ _
This is an application for (0 only one box) Prior Opinion 0 Temporary Benefits 0 Mod Rehab 0
(!Joe>! hcndi!;}
l'inal Benefits 0
i<>cq>l Mod Rd,.oh}
Lot(s) •................ Number of Buildings ___ _
ko:1do lois, if:;,.pplicablc)
Zip Code: .. --------····
Authori1cd Agent N;;mr ___________ _
Address. _____ _ :\(hlrn~--"" -------------------
l'lot Pbn- Skr:tcb
Appro};;.imatc;: ptol plan and
plo! dinwnsions. Lab(•l !ht>
cross strc('ts.
_jl
Tckflhon('
liNIT nrSTRIBUTlON (Mmt bl:' filled ou[ complctc·l_v)
~.---·-~-- ----:l'c.-u-n-,-b,-r-o'"'r_A_p_t:r_l_m_e_nt-s---.-----:N"'u_m_b:-c-r-o"'f_A_p_a-:rl:--m-c-,tt:-s--
Apt l~!ff!tt_g~~,~}!!,lihlfi~ ---- Afft~r RehahiliiGtiOJl
Type Con~ Stabi~ E):ern111 Total Con- Slabi~ Exempt Total
-o·~·~l~ro~ll~c~d-;_~li~bf~ ..... .
If yes, give: l'ux Exemptie>nfAbalc:ment DuckN Nunbcr(s}.~.-~···------· ·--·---·---·----·-··
if yGs, which pmgnJm'! _________ _
lf so, was I he: rch:.:h finan::cJ with Subst::mti.i! GovcmmC'nt A:'s.istnr.cc? Y cs 0 No 0
Please fpecify. __ ·--·-·-·--·---~-·------------------·----
5. Is thl:- building a. WOJH.'ra:ivc or cvndominimn? Yes 1 ·~ ~-h; rl If yes, ph:a.,;c compk-11.: the Co~up :.md Ccndo lnftl!nlutiO!\ Fonn
6. lf.you arc sub;-nilling proof1.'f paynH'nl thai also peti Compliantc'' flom the Lan(h;~:Jrks P1cscrvation Comm1s:::ion.
9. Arc yt~u submlHi::g huilding pLms tr. the J-51 Of!i..::e with this :>pp]kntlnn? Y~s (] Nn 0
----·-~--------------···----·~--------------------~------
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION (please supply the squar:_1~~~-e!!~.:.<.:.!o:..;',·rc.:.:ac;:.;h:...c:...l:...as.:.:·s)'-,--..,.--=----.-------1
Cl:itt:gory Class A Class H! Ct~mmcrd:d Professional Manuf9.c~ Hotel I~D
1----~-----------·-j-----·-------·i- ..:Se-,R,_0"--+--------1-----+-'-''":o'~ln,_·~--1------~----------·-· .. .....J.I.~!!'.) __ ..
Total
Before RehaiJilitation
After Hehablllt:.1tion
GOVERXMENT~ASSISTEI) PROJECT JNFORMATJON (mu~>t bC" fiH<·d out ifpn1j~ct js govcr-nmenl~assisfcd)
I, lf !his pmjcct is b~ir.g f:na.nccd by a go..,·cmml.'nl hX1.n, whllit progl'3.!11 is i:lVofvcd?
8A __ PLP ______ NRP 2il3K ___ LlRP __ 1 IUD MF ______ IIOM E __ LISC ____ En!crprisc ........... _HOC .... ... } 12 __ fiODMJ
llou!'.ing Tmst fund ____ MAC~ OthC( {specify)_~--~~-··
2. HPD MorigJgc Officer/Loan Coordinator: Name._ ............. ___ Tclephor.~~
lflhis p10jec1 hilt: rece"ived rempnwry bc;;dit~, what i~ the d~lcket number'! ................ --···~ .................. .
#~-----------·-------· Docket# ____ _
Tille CIT\' OF NEW YORK
llEPARTMF.NT OF HOUSING l'l SC!!!;()UL£
Ill.!)(;
DEPT
APPLJC.
OWNI':IIS
CLA!~IEO
OATF.CO,'\S..
·nwcno' QUANTITY ALLOWED TOTALS
COli1Pl;ETEil ALLOWI':D PER UNIT ALLOWED
Ill OCK I OT ---- ---
____ ;o_k JS IJS
BLOG
DEPT OWi\'ERS Di\1j.. COJ\·~. 5
APPUC. CLAI~IED 1 RVCTiO~' ~~~~~~~~-~
ALLOWED TOTALS
ITEM
·-···
QUANTITY 1\IJ,\lFI:H COST CC\~!I'l.l"ll-;ll PER UNIT !ALLOWED ...................
l'e· •«·
l'onifir.«>< framinn
-~· ·---"··-···-
if, • Poinl'n·
· Chute, cnnl;ulatinc cia« "''''
I•• Wiudow. i<»ulnnn , 1 n_
····· -'"'· ..•. i·
I• Winrlow vwu.ts. 1mpmwl """ri" "'" , .....................
I· w;"dmv "'"'ct'. "''~mr.lcte ~"''''·•><<
'Crm«" ma<>ucllo aulnaidydcvicc l><«<;·<< ''•!'''"""
I• • llol wnler '"""hnHI, Ul)
1# •• Insula< inn. nil>< (ok,; heo
""'"e. """" c~nnndoioc· "".
' Tank.'"'" >kl<>!« ,,.,.
Wn:oc cb"ll "'"" lu" Rum<> lnnln!!l\ ""'
[rnr,vceln" or radia!cc< ''" :,.,,_
""' r cc>nlm! mlcm ~-·
jExhauc! dr:cr (kil & bath <>nly)<"•'r '"''"'" w $310
iu • Mlng Ill···~<>!
• Apartmeol "iring onlv. ad /Eks•lfic: i ' With individual mrit
• With individ11ol meter oc
I• Wi!h m;>Sicr meter "'
I• lolerco'''''·""'''""'''""' D>'I•'Olll DL
Ooflcl on new drcuit """ . '"'"'"'"'""" ""'""''" . r. c•rd wircJ 1>1
• Sui""'"''"" '""'""ion n·
I• > Eauinmcnl ,,,,.,
ISUB-l'OHL
~"" •T<; REIIAIHIXfAT!Ol' 0:-lLY (only if completed bOI II" FT
I Kitd>e·u cahinc"·· har,k>l ,k, "'"' , .1 "·"'" .,,_l!fifi/!1) "'"' SUB-fOT~L
_TOTAL
in ·t''" . !JY
'!\EVIl DY
HI' I> USE ONLY
DATl
DATE
" !)Alh
150%
-· - IIIII
I{JO%
AV5Ci
INSPECT ION I'ENALTY
TOTAL
TEMP
• llENOTES Mi\.IOR CAPITAL JMPROVE~!ENT IMCI)
...,. Of.NOTES ENERGY CONSERVATION ITEMS (MCi)
# lli':I\'OTF:S Rf.OliC'fJOl' FOR NOI'-RESIOF:r\TJAL S!'ACF:
---
ADJUSTED TOTAl.
DOLLAR Hl
CUBIC liON
SIOO
S55
_$1Q.
$85
SW\
-~420_
SO.RO
"""""'"""'
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Office of Development
Division of Housing Inccntivcs/J-51 Pt·ogram
I 00 Gold St.·eet
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)R63-551 i
J-3
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS REGULATIONS
(FORMERLY TA-3)
Section I: Applicant Must Complete in Triplicate-· This Section Only
Block
Address
FORM: J-.1
Vp(i.a!cd: J;:n 2014
---------·-·--··--------·-·------------··-···-··--~-· ""·"--"---~---~--··----· ··-----·---
APPLICANT: PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THESE LINES
Section II: Applications for Work Not Requiring a Department of Buildings Pcnnit
Pursuant to Section ll-243(g)(l) of the New York City Administrative Code (formerly Section J51-
2.5(g)(l)), the Depanment of Buildings (DOB) has certified a tme copy of the record of DOB violations
which indicates that there are no outstanding Building Code violations on the prope1iy.
Approved: __________________ _
HPD
Section III: Applications for Work Requiring a Department of Buildings Permit
Pursuant to Section ll-243(g)( l) of the New York City Administrative Code (formerly Section J51-
2.5(g)(l )), the Department of Buildings (DOB) has certified that the work claimed on the J-51 application for
the above-referenced premises has been completed and inspected in compliance with the rules and
regulations of the DOB, and that, based on a review ofthe record ofDOB violations, the premises is
structurally sound and is in compliance with the applicable provisions of law.
Item
-----------------------
Plan/Work Approval
Application #
CofO
Permit Date Sign-off Date
All#/
Permit ~·--·-----------------------------· Inspection Date: __ .... ----------- __ _ ____ _
CofO
Issue Date:
Items Delctcd: __________________ Applic;mt's Initials:
Approved:
FOR HPD DOCKET#
USE ONLY
DOB
Date
Sent: ......
__ ···-····-····· Date: ______ _
Date
Received: _________ _
Office of Development
JORMJ-4
Upd:Jh'd: Jan2014
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Division of Housing Inccntivcs/J-51 Program
100 Gold Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
COOPERATIVE AND CONDOMINHJivf INFORMATION
Borough
Docket ·····················:·~···--···:c·::·
(if available)
I. Is this building a Cooperative? Condominium?
2. Is the building privately sponsored? Yes No _____ _
3. If not privately sponsored, is the building a Mitchell-Lama? Organized under Article XI
ofthe Private Housing Finance Law? Organized under Article V of the Private Housing
Finance Law? Other (specify)·-·····-·------
4. Is the building an Interim Multiple Dwelling (l.M.D.)? Yes No
5. Is this an application for a co-op or condo in which dwelling units have been newly created tlu·ough
the Substantial Rehabilitation of a vacant building or the conversion of a non-residential building?
Yes No
6. For co-ops and condos where work was completed within 3 years from the date of the first closing of
the sale of a unit or transfer of shares, provide:
Date of first closing of a sale of a unit or transfer of shares to a bona fide purchaser
·---·"·--· Submit with your application;
a) An affidavit from an officer of the co-op board or condominium association (Fonn J-1 OC) and a copy
of the Attorney General's letter accepting the amendment declaring the Offering Plan effective.
b) Alternatively, if all work was completed within 3 years of the Attomey General's acceptance for
filing of the prospectus, the Applicant may submit the AG's leiter confirming acceptance in lieu of
the Form J I 0-C.
7. For co-ops or condos where work was completed more than 3 years after the first closing or transfer
of shares, submit:
a) Tax history from the Department of Finance showing assessed value at the time of commencement of
constmction; and
b) An affidavit signed by an officer of the co-op board or condominium association which lists, for the
three-year period prior to commencement of work, the units which were sold, the sales price, and the
number of rooms in each unit (Forms J-IOA and lOB); and
c) Documentation supporting the room count. If no Certificate of Occupancy or other document on file
with the Department of Buildings exists indicating the number of zoning rooms, then the determining
number will be the number in the Offering Plan. If the number of rooms differs from that in the
Offering Plan, submit a statement certifying the correct number from a licensed Architect.
All cooperatives and condominiums must submit an opinion of counsel, which states that, the
building is a legal co-op or condo. All co-ops and condos must also submit a copy of the prospectus
filed with the Attorney General. Co-ops or condos that were formed prior to the date when a
prospectus was required by law, or which arc exempt for other reasons from the filing requirements,
must submit an attomey's opinion explaining why no filing was made.
Office of Development
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Division of Housing Inccntives/J-51 Program
100 Gold Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT OF NO HARASSMENT
STATE OF NEW YORK )
CITY OF NEW YORK ) SS Docket#
COUNTY OF _________ ·~--···---~-~' (if available)
F0Rt .. 1 J~)l\
Up,b!,~d:Jo;l :ZO!t.
Page l of2
I,---....,.------------------------·· . ····--------' being duly swom
depose and say:
1. I am over I 8 years of age and I reside at
·-------····· -----------------
Borough __ Block ____________ Lol
to be herein referred to as the "premises".
2. This affidavit is filed in compliance with the requirements of Section 489 of the Real Prope1iy Tax
Law for receiving real estate tax exemption and/or tax abatement for which the total Cenified
Reasonable Cost (CRC) per dwelling unit of the contemplated alteration or improvement (including
any CRC approved within four years prior to the commencement of the alteration or improvement)
exceeds seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500).
3. The attached list contains my name and the name of every owner of record and every owner of an
interest of ten percent (I 0%) or more in the premises or entity owning the premises or sponsoring the
conversion, alteration or improvement Such list is incorporated herein as a schedule and is sworn to
as part of this affidavit.
4. The date of the filing of this affidavit (the "cut-off date") is not less than 30 days prior to the
commencement of the conversion, alteration or improvement, ("the Work"), lor which an application
for benefits shall be filed.
5. None of tbose persons listed on the schedule on the list appended to this affidavit, had, within five
years prior to the cut-off date, been found to have harassed or unlawfully evicted tenants by judgment
or determination of a court or agency (including a non-governmental agency having appropriate legal
jurisdiction) under the penal law, any state or local law regulating rents or any state or local law
relating to harassment of tenants or unlawful eviction, (a "Finding").
6. Benefits for the Work shall not be granted if: (a) this affidavit contains a willful misrepresentation or
omission of a material fact; or (b) any person listed on the schedule has been found to have harassed
or unlawti.Illy evicted tenants pursuant to a Finding, until and unless the Finding is reversed on
appeal, provided that any such Finding after the cut-off date shall not apply to or affect any tax
exemption or abatement for the conversion, alteration, or improvement covered by this affidavit.
7. I am required to amend this affidavit when and if any information contained herein changes prior to
applying for or claiming Benefits for the Work. However, any Finding made after cut-off date
affecting any person either listed on the schedule or listed on any amendment shall not apply to or
affect any tax exemption or abatement shall not apply to or affect any tax exemption or abatement for
the conversion, alteration, or improvement covered by this affidavit.
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Office of Development
Division of Housing Inccntives/J-51 Pntgram
100 GQ!d Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT O.F NO HARASSMENT
(LATE FILL'VG)
) STATE OF NEW YORK
CITY OF NEW YORK ) ss _____ ) COUNTY OF
Docket
(if available)
FORM J-5B
Upd~graph, (A) ''hmoschdd <~ppli;n;cc:·• !,;hill! mc;HI any r~frigcrator, room ;ti! co:'ldi(ioncr, Uishwnshcr nr clothe~ washrr, within a dwelling un!t
in the nwitiple d\vdHllg ;hat is provid0d by lhe cwncr, tmd eny h:1iler or f~mnce thai provi•ks hr:;H l)i hot wa;cr ftlr m;y d\vtdling unit in the multiple dweHing, and
{B} "Energy Star'' shall mean a th.:slgnatiml from fhe Unih:d Stah::':i Environment<11 Protection Agt:m:y or Dt:parlmer:t of Energy indic<~1ing that a pnuJu~t meds the
CIK.rgy c(tidcn~·y ~landards set ft)r!h by the agct:cy f<:r \:nmpl!:mc-c with tl!.:- En~·rgy Stnr rn.~j;I"Jili
Department ot
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
STATE OF NEW YORK
CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY
Office of Development
Division of Housing Incentives/J-51 Program
100 Gold Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
AFFIDAVIT OF RENT REGISTRATION
)
) ss Docket# ____ ~~~~~
(if available)
I,-··············-····:·······-- ··········-···-············-·····-··········---··-··-························ ···-······
depose and say:
being duly swom
FORM J-?A
UpJJ.!cci; JJn 201·1
and make this affidavit in support of the application for tax exemption and/or tax abatement benefits pursuant to
Section 11-243 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. l hereby affirm that for each of the dwelling
units in the premises, a tiling for rent registration with the New York State Division of Housing and Community
Renewal has been made prior to the date of this affidavit. I further afiirm that the said filing was done as required by
the Omnibus Act of l9R3 and that l submit as proof of registration the attached copy of rent registration from RR-2S.
I make these statements to induce the City of New York to grant tax abatement and/ortax exemption and
know the City of New York will rely on the veracity of such statements in granting tax abatement and/or tax
exemption. The attached application is intended to be a written instrument as de tined in Article 175 of the Penal Law
and !understand that any false statement is punishable as a Class E felony which provides a term of imprisonment not
to exceed four years.
Swom to me this
__ day of_ 20
Notary Public
Affiant Signature
Name
Tiile
Name of Entity
(if applicable)
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Borough __ _
Address ··-·---···-····-
Office of Development
Division of Housing Inccntives/J-51 Program
100 Gold Street
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
RENT ROLL
-··-------Lot
Docket#------·-····------------
(if available)
SCHEDULE OF RENTS BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENTS
FORMJ-7ll
UpJIHCE
TOTAL UNITS. ____ TOTAL ROOMS. ____ TOTAL SALES PRICE. _____ _
AVERAGE PRICE PER DWELLING UNIT ________ _
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Oftlcc of Development
Division of Housing Incentivcs/J-51 Program
100 Gold Street
New Yot·k, N.Y. 10038
(21 2)863-5517
AFFIDAVIT OF FIRST SALE FOR
COOPERATIVE OR CONDOMINIUM ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICERS
rORM 1-!GC
UpJ:itt>t.!: Jan 20!4
STATE OF NEW YORK
CITY OF NEW YORK
) Docket# ___________ _
) ss (ifav;;ilable)
COUNTY --··-··--···-··--·-·-·- ) Address ______ _
Borough ................... ·····-----
Block Lot
I, ..................................... ----·--······-···········-··-----.. ··········---·········--···
depose and say:
I am an officer of the co-op board or condominium association of the above-referenced cooperaiive
or condominium.
This affidavit is submitted in support of the application for Tax Exemption and Tax Abatement
benefits pursuant to Section l 1-243 (fom1erly J-51) of the Administrative Code ofthc City of New York.
Based upon an examination of the books and records for
The date of the first closing or transfer of shares to a bona fide purchaser is ·--
Attached is a copy of the Attorney General's letter accepting the amendment declaring the
effectiveness of the Offering Plan.
I have read this certification and I (we) hereby affirm under the penalties provided by
law that the contents thereof are true of my (our) own knowledge.
Sworn to me this
_____ day of
Affiant Signature
Name
Title
-·-- " ··--·-- ·--,~~~--~~~
Notary Public Name of Entity
(if applicable)
Department of
Housing Preservation
& Development
nyc.gov/hpd
Office of Development
Division of Housing lnccntivcs/J-51 Program
100 Gold Stn~cl
New York, N.Y. 10038
(212)863-5517
fORMJ-11
Upduta.!: Jl.!r. 10 J 4
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE FOR J-51 TAX EXEMPTION AND TAX ABATMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-243 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE _______ ,
MUST BE STAMPED BY HI'O
This Form J-ll must be completed by the applicant. It should then be filed and stamped as J-51 PROGRAMS UNIT
"received" by the HPD's J-51 Program onicc not less than forty-five (45) days before the
start of work; failure to do so will result in the assessment of a penalty equal to S500 plus
one percent of the approved certified reasonable cost (CRC) in excess of$10,000. lfthcre is
a material change in the scope or cost of the alteration, the applicant must submit a revised
form.
APPLICANT 1-----___;_ ___ .......:_ __ ~-"··~~~" PREMISES
ADDRESS --------~-A_D_[)_RJJ§§_
1. CURRENT BlJILDING STATUS:
D CLASS A-NUMBER OF UNITS
D COMMERCIAL
[] CLASS B-NUMBER OF UNITS
[] MANUFACTURING
2. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED NEW USE OF THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING THE
NUMBER OF NEW UNITS ANn RENTAL STATUS:. _______________ _
3. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE.: _____ _
4. ESTIMATED COST OF PROPOSED ALTERATJON: . ....,...---------------
(Applic•nt J-51 Program offlce at:
Dept. of Housing l'n·st•n·nlion & Dev~lopmcnt
100 ( ;nld Stl·tN, 81!1 Floor
New York, NY 10038
212-863-5517
Index Nos.: 109313/2013 & 101384/2013
APL-20 16-00068
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF NEW YORK
- -
MATTER OF 60 EAST 12TH STREET
TENANTS' ASSN.,
Appellants,
-against-
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL and 12
BROADWAY REALTY, LLC,
Respondents.
BRIEF AMICUS CURIE OF THE URBAN JUSTICE
CENTER IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
/___..
sfifa~ Esq., of counsel
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
Harvey Epstein, Esq.
123 William Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Tel. (646) 459-3012
Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curie
To: Clerk of the Court
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York 12207
Service of a copy of the within is admitted.
Dated,
B.~R-Q.m!.s:_u.t