A brutal ballot fight ends with a victory for housing — and democracy.

Plus, owners aren't holding apartments off the market because they want to, they're doing it because they can't afford not to.

And there are only two things certain in life: Death, and New York City’s unjust property tax system.

This is your New York Apartment Association weekly update with CEO Kenny Burgos.

Follow NYAA on BlueSky: @housing.bsky.social

Follow @housingny on Instagram X TikTok YouTube & Substack 

Send us questions or comments at podcast@housingny.org 

On The Agenda

0:57: Housing on the Ballot: New Yorkers will vote on housing measures in November

→ Check out the Charter Revision Commission’s ballot questions here.

1:45:  NYC’s Unlocking Doors program has no takers 

→ Just two owners applied; they both dropped out.

3:48: “NYC retirees got burned by bets on rent-stabilized apartments” 

→ Could the 2019 Rent Laws have something to do with it?

6:02: [Death] & Property Taxes

7:32:  The fight over CityFHEPS

8:52: Polling & the November election: How you ask a question matters.

→ The more New Yorkers learn about Zohran Mamdani’s proposed rent freeze, the less they support it.

Visit our website for more information.

Follow Us:
BlueSky
X
Instagram
Tiktok

Transcript

This week on Housing New York, a brutal ballot fight ends with a victory for housing — and democracy; I’ll explain. Plus, a city program is handing out free money, but nobody is taking it. 

And we talk about everyone's favorite headache: property taxes!

Let’s start Housing New York

[THEME (waterfall)]

“We need 800,000 units to meet the demand today. What we have right now in the United States and what we have right now in New York City is almost a crisis of absurdity. Hundreds of thousands of renters are at risk, and there is literally no plan. The distress of rent-stabilized buildings is going to be one of the biggest stories for the next 12-18 months.”

[INTRO]

Hi everyone. Kenny Burgos here. We are way past Labor Day now, so I hope you are all kicking things into high gear. It is less than six weeks until Election Day, where the next Mayor of New York City will be decided. And amongst that, also a few ballot measures... 

[0:57] [Housing on the ballot]

…So two weeks ago I talked about the ballot proposals that could make it easier and cheaper to build housing in New York.

Today I am glad to share some good news: The Board of Elections voted to keep these proposals on the November ballot, after members of the City Council pushed for them to be removed.

I, alongside my team, pushed for this outcome. We have backed the Charter Revision Commission's proposals from the get go, and we put out a statement calling on the Board of Elections to reject the proposal from the Council.

These proposals are a big deal. They'll help fast track affordable housing, cut red tape for smaller projects, and create an appeals process when the City Council blocks rezonings. Each one of these changes means lower costs and more homes for New Yorkers. And this November voters will get the chance to decide how we move forward in fixing the housing crisis.

[01:45] [NYC’s Unlocking Doors program isn’t working] 

Now let's shift gears and talk about a city program that has gotten some attention lately, but continues to fall flat: the city's Unlocking Doors program, which has yet to unlock a single door. 

This program was supposed to bring vacant, low-rent apartments back onto the market by offering owners $25,000 for renovations. The city just recently raised that number to $50,000. 

On paper, this sounds like a fix. In reality, not a single apartment has been brought online. In fact, only two owners applied and they both dropped out. Why? Because the numbers don't work. Renovating a low rent apartment that's been vacant for the past two years can easily cost $100,000 or more. That's double what the city is currently offering, and even if the upfront costs were covered, the rents these apartments would have to stay at don't even cover basic operating expenses. 

For many rent-stabilized buildings, the average operating cost per unit is around $1,200 a month; under Unlocking Doors, eligible apartments need to have rents below $1,200.

So to recap, the building owner needs to invest the money to fix an apartment, find a voucher holder to put in the unit, and then ask for a reimbursement from the city — for what will likely be only half the renovation costs. And if they do all that, they will still lose money every single month because the voucher payment won't cover basic operating costs.

It's like if I told you I would give you $1,000 every month, but you have to fly to Greenland to pick up the check, and it's about $1,500 for a round trip flight from New York to Greenland. 

In case you were wondering, my team and I issued a statement making this clear. Raising the renovation allowance was a step in the right direction, but it doesn't fix the bigger issue until the rent levels are adjusted to actually cover operating costs.

This program will never succeed. Owners aren't holding apartments off the market because they want to, they're doing it because they can't afford not to. 

We need to work together to come up with actual solutions to this problem. 

Unlocking doors is not a solution, it's just a distraction. 

[03:48] [City pensioners burned on investment in rent-stabilized apartments]

What does Hurricane Sandy have to do with rent-stabilized buildings losing boatloads of money? Well, Bisnow has the answer in a story they published last week. 

Back in 2012, Hurricane Sandy devastated the city with billions in damage and thousands of homes destroyed. In the aftermath, City pension funds – and that's the retirement savings for teachers, police, firefighters and other city workers – decided to invest in rebuilding. They put about $500 million into real estate, with $300 million going to a fund managed by related companies to buy and fix up rent-stabilized apartments. 

The idea was simple: Preserve affordable housing for New Yorkers while earning solid returns for pensioners. Early on, it looked like a smart move; some properties even sold for a profit. 

But then came the 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, or HSTPA. That law cut off many of the ways building owners could raise revenue to cover costs — like adjusting rents after renovations, or when tenants moved out. 

After that, the value of rent-stabilized buildings dropped by as much as 60%. For the Sandy fund, that meant deep losses. 

Properties that were bought for tens of millions sold for half that. In total, the fund lost more than $127 million. For pensioners, that's their livelihood. 

Now some say the blame lies with the Legislature for passing laws that crush the economics of rent-stabilized housing. Others argue that the investments were too risky from the start and that taxpayer-backed pensions shouldn't have been exposed in that way.

What I find interesting is that owners of rent-stabilized buildings are often accused of speculation, but nobody has accused the Pension Fund of speculation. 

The reality is that there was a system that allowed for modest increases in building values, which created a safe investment for everyone involved. As the buildings increased in value, they were able to be upgraded and well-maintained. 

In 2019, that balance was destroyed and the result was a more than 60% decline in building values — increasing violations and worsening living conditions for hundreds of thousands of renters. 

This hasn't only affected tenants and housing providers. It also touched retirees, taxpayers and the city's broader economy. 

[06:02] [Property Taxes]

There are only two things certain in life: Death and New York City having an unjust property tax system. We're gonna talk about the latter. 

Over the last few weeks, you've probably seen headlines about the mayoral race. Yes, there's been plenty of drama about who's in, who might drop out and whose support is going where. 

But underneath all that noise, one issue keeps coming up again and again: New York's broken property tax system. It's not just a policy detail, it's one of the biggest drivers of high rents in this city right now. 

Older rent-stabilized buildings are some of the most overtaxed properties in New York. At the same time, single and two-family homes, even those worth millions, are taxed at a fraction of the rate. That imbalance pushes costs directly onto renters and threatens the survival of the city's affordable housing stock.

That's why I keep saying property tax reform has to be at the center of this election. Candidates can talk about income taxes, vouchers, or housing subsidies, but none of that will fix the underlying problem if we don't address the inequities in our property tax system. 

Our team has spoken with mayoral candidates about this topic. I personally have done so as well. It's clear that there is a desire to do something about this problem.

At NYAA, we'll keep pressing for a system that eases the crushing burden on rent-stabilized buildings and brings fairness back into the way the city raises revenue. Because here's the bottom line: Until we fix property taxes, we're going to keep having the same fights over affordability and renters will keep paying that price.

[07:32] [The fight over CityFHEPS]

Another story I wanna touch on is a fight over CityFHEPS, New York's housing voucher program. Here's what's going on…

Back in 2023, the City Council passed a package of laws to expand CityFHEPS. They wanted more people outside the shelter system to qualify, so they raised the income limits. 

Mayor Adams vetoed the bills. The Council overrode him, and since then, it's been tied up in court. 

Last month, an appeals court said the city has to implement the expansion, but instead of moving forward, City Hall filed yet another appeal. So two years later, the changes still aren't in place. 

Advocates are frustrated, and for good reason. Right now, more than 60,000 households rely on CityFHEPS. Fifteen thousand used it to move into housing last year, and still 13,000 voucher holders are waiting to find a home.

But that's not the issue here. Even if expansion goes into effect, it doesn't solve the real problem: We don't have enough housing supply. 

Adding more vouchers into the system without adding more apartments just means longer waiting lists and more competition. Families may technically qualify for help, but in practice, they'll be stuck waiting months or even years to actually use that subsidy.

At the end of the day, you can't solve a supply problem with paperwork. We need to build more housing, so vouchers actually work in the real world. 

[08:52] [Mayoral Race update]

We're gonna wrap up this podcast by talking about the polls. 

There have been half a dozen new surveys released in the past few weeks, and all of them show that Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani has a clear lead in the four-way race, with more than 40% of the vote — but always less than 50%.

NYAA recently conducted some polling and it said the same thing as well — but our poll did say that 48% of voters were not going to vote for Mamdani. 

Our poll also asked about Mamdani’s signature proposal: a rent freeze for stabilized tenants. 

Here is where things got interesting. The New York Times and Siena released a poll that said 69% of voters support a rent freeze for one million apartments. 

We asked the same question, [but] with a slight tweak: We asked if they supported a rent freeze for 40% of apartments, and only 58% supported that. 

In New York City there are one million rent-stabilized apartments, and that is 40% of the rental units. How you ask the question matters. 

Our poll also asked voters if they supported a rent freeze for 40% of renters, if that meant rents rose faster on the other 60%. Support for that plan plummeted, with only 32% supporting it and 50% opposing it. 

Now this is not [just] us speculating. Centuries of economic evidence suggests that is what is going to happen if you freeze rents [only] part of the rental market.

But you don't have to listen to us, because we asked voters if they think that is what will happen, and 67% told us that it is likely rent will go up faster on market-rate apartments if they freeze rent on rent-stabilized apartments. 

So in short, the more New Yorkers learn about the proposed rent freeze, the less they support it. 

There's a famous quote that says, “You campaign in poetry and govern in prose.”

It helps you get elected if you promise a rent freeze, but you suffer the consequences when the majority of renters realize it doesn't apply to them. 

This proposal doesn't address affordability in New York City. It picks winners and losers, and that's what voters are getting… If we believe the polls.

[OUTRO]

That's it for this week's episode. Before I wrap up, I wanna remind you again that the New York City mayoral debates are set for October 16th and October 22nd. We'll be watching closely to see if housing takes center stage. As we get closer, we'll also share the questions we think should be asked. 

I'll be back in two weeks. Until then, make sure you follow us on Instagram, TikTok, X. You'll find us @housingny. 

And remember, good housing policy starts with good conversation.