Housing New York Magazine -- Q4 2025

HOUSING NEW YORK Issue 4

What New Yorkers Need To Know About The So-Called Renters' Utopia

Q4 2025

assuredpaperwork.com

THE ASSURED PAPERWORK DIFFERENCE EFFORTLESS, SECURE PAPERWORK DIGITIZATION Assured Paperwork has over 50 years of experience in digitizing documentation here in New York City. Assured Paperwork assists New York landlords with document scanning services, that moves their important paperwork to the cloud.

We offer Onsite and Offsite Scanning Services Our experienced expeditors assist with helping to locate all important documentation on various NYC websites or government agencies.

The benefits include saving office space, better customer service, less paper, enhanced security, ability to source records from anywhere, anytime.

Ask us for a Complimentary Real Estate Management Checklist

Ensure your properties paperwork are secured, safe, stored and available anytime, anywhere.

Important Filings Leases Avoid Rent Overcharge Complaints Adjudicating a Rent Overcharge in Court or with the DHCR Seamless sale of your property because all of your building paperwork is available in a concise and orderly fashion

Contact us for a

FREE CONSULTATION CALL: 212-227-0307 EMAIL: INFO@ASSUREDPAPERWORK.COM VISIT: ASSUREDPAPERWORK.COM The Woolworth Building | 233 Broadway | Suite 1807 | New York, New York 10297

We service Building Owners, Building Managers and Real Estate Brokers

Table of Contents 4 Did You Know?: Multifamily Insurance Edition 6 Election Recap 8 In The Courts

p10

NYU Furman Center Report Details the Different Worlds Of Rent-Stabilized Buildings

13 What RGB Members Are Saying 14 City Council Update 22 A System Under Strain: Insurance in New York 30 NYAA and NAA Form Historic Partnership 32 NYAA Members Help Feed New Yorkers 34 Compliance Calendar

p17

Cover Story: Is the Grass Greener in Vienna?

37 Message from Kenny Burgos

Q4 2025 3

?

Did You Know?

MULTIFAMILY INSURANCE

"Litigation costs in New York are 67% higher than the national average, driven by excessive lawsuits, inflated awards and settlements, and rampant fraudulent activity."

That is the estimate by the Milford Street Association, an insurance captive that has been praised by mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani for reducing the costs of insurance for a handful of non-profit housing providers.

– Carlina Rivera, President & CEO of New York State Association of Affordable Housing Providers

_____________

They report that roughly 75,000 slip and fall cases have been filed, in total. They estimate that the majority of them are fraudulent claims that are driving up rents.

“According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, New York City ranks #1 in the U.S. for questionable slip-and-fall claims. Fraudulent claims have become routine, often involving staged accidents or exaggerated injuries.

Beyond fake incidents, fraud also includes those claims in which a person did fall, but the accusation of improper maintenance or negligence is unfounded.”

– Kathleen Irwin, NYAA Policy Director

Fraudulent Slip and Fall cases are estimated to pull about $4 BILLION out of affordable housing investment in New York. _____________

#1

“Rising litigation costs—driven by thirdparty lawsuit financing and social inflation— are escalating premiums and prompting some insurers to withdraw from the market.

Slip-and-fall claims and prelitigation settlements are especially problematic, leading to stricter underwriting standards and nonrenewals. We recommend that the Legislature pursue targeted tort reforms to reduce legal abuse and provide greater predictability in liability exposure, ultimately benefiting policyholders across the state.”

– Professional Insurance Agents of New York

“...the hostile legal climate has created a chilling effect on development. Builders and developers are increasingly hesitant to take on new projects due to the cost of liability insurance. The risk of litigation is too high, and the cost of coverage is inflated by abuse.”

– Tom Stebbins, Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York

4 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

SNOWSTORMS ARE COMING… IS YOUR SNOW BLOWER READY?

Expert Snow Blower Repair • Service for all brands and models • Genuine parts installed by skilled technicians • Pick-up & drop-off included

2 2 3 7 2 4 ) 5 (718

FFSUPPLY.COM

SCAN ME

CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE New York City Looks Different After The Election For the past four years, New York City mayor Eric Adams has been viewed as a moderate who clashed with an increasingly progressive and independent City Council. This was a contrast to the previous administration, where Mayor Bill de Blasio and the City Council were more often in lock step on policy and passing bills, with very few public tiffs between the two.

Heading into 2026, we may be going back to the previous way things worked. Democratic Socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani will be sworn in on January 1st and the City Council will have nine new members. The new City Council Speaker will be elected on January 7, but Manhattan Democrat Julie Menin has already declared victory after a supermajority of incoming members voiced public support for her.

The members of the Council who did not support Menin’s candidacy were mostly members of the Progressive Caucus and some of Mamdani’s biggest supporters. This has led to speculation that the Council may be a moderating force on the socialist platform of Mamdani. This narrative may bear out, but historically the relationships between Mayor’s offices and the City Council have been defined less by ideology and more by personal relationships.

6 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

The first big test for the Mayor, and the City Council, will be the 2026 budget. Even before the election, projections for future years showed that there would be declining revenue to pay for the city’s safety net. This will force the mayor and Council to make difficult decisions.

For example, there has been a declining student population in public schools, which means there will be less state revenue. To fill that gap, the city would have to put a larger portion of their budget to the schools or teachers will be laid off.

Another conflict point could be the city’s CityFHEPs voucher program.

It has grown to a commitment of more than $1 billion annually as the city deals with the severe housing affordability crisis. Already the city has started to take steps to rein in the spending, by eliminating incentives for property owners to hold units for voucher holders for a few months as paperwork is sorted out. If the mayor and City Council have to choose between vouchers and teachers, what will they do?

In an attempt to head off these difficult decisions, the city is likely going to aggressively lobby the state legislature for more funding to cover budget gaps. It’s unclear if they will get it. 2026 is a re-election year for the state legislature and for Governor Hochul. Historically, lawmakers are less inclined to take bold swings on policy reforms in election years and mostly focus on delivering targeted help to key voting blocs in order to secure re-election. If the state government is going to operate in the status quo, then there won’t be a lifeline to New York City’s budget problems.

The New Mayor Zohran Mamdani

The New Council Speaker Julie Menin

■ He was born in Kampala, Uganda and moved to New York City when he was seven years old.

■ Former Attorney at Wiley, Rein & Fielding ■ Founded nonprofit Wall Street Rising after 9/11

■ He graduated from Bronx High School of Science

■ Ran for Manhattan Borough President in 2013

■ Prior to his political career, he worked as a foreclosure prevention counselor

■ Served as the Commissioner of NYC Consumer Affairs

■ He has represented parts of Queens in the Assembly since 2021

■ Served as Commissioner of Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment

■ He will be the first Muslim and South Asian Mayor of New York City

■ Served as Director of the Census for NYC for 2020.

■ Mamdani campaigned on a platform of freezing rentstabilized rents, universal public child care, fast and free buses, and creating city-owned grocery stores.

■ Elected to City Council in 2021, representing the Upper East Side

■ When he is sworn in, he will become the youngest mayor of New York City in more than 100 years

■ In 2024, Menin supported the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, the largest upzoning of the city in more than 50 years.

■ Chaired the Council’s Small Business Committee

"If the mayor and City Council have to choose between vouchers and teachers, what will they do?"

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

7

New York Housing Court

IN THE COURTS NY’s Highest Court Limits Good Guy Guarantee Protections in Commercial Leases The New York Court of Appeals recently issued a significant decision clarifying the scope of liability under a “good guy” guaranty in commercial leases (i.e., an agreement of a guarantor to be personally liable for any defaults of the commercial tenant).

Before this decision, courts have consistently held that where a lease requires an owner’s written consent before a tenant’s surrender can be valid, and the “good guy guaranty” incorporates the entire lease into the guaranty, then the guarantor’s liability ends upon surrender of the premises and the owner’s written acceptance thereof. However, the Court held in this case that liability under a “good guy” guaranty ends when the tenant vacates the premises and provides the required notice (if any is required), even if the landlord does not formally accept the surrender as the lease requires. The Court reasoned that if an owner’s acceptance is required, then “all of the conditional language in the

8 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

guaranty would be superfluous,” and the owner would effectively be able to hold the guarantor liable long after the premises were surrendered by the tenant.

This ruling alters the effectiveness of a good guy guaranty in commercial leasing and represents a shift in how the allocation of risk can be accomplished. Much of the decision was based on the language of the guaranty, which incorporated the lease terms for surrender, but also contained language such as a notice requirement and a “completely vacated” requirement that would have been rendered meaningless if the owner’s acceptance was ultimately controlling. The Court also noted that the guaranty contained a provision that its language would control in the event of a conflict with the lease, which the Court found was the case here. Owners should review and consider updating their standard form of guaranty to reflect the implications of this ruling. [1995 CAM LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC, No. 72 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2025)]

Housing Court Denies “Small Owner” Exemption from GCE

by Counting Owner-Occupied Units A housing provider brought a holdover proceeding against a tenant seeking to recover possession of a unit, and claiming the unit was not subject to the Good Cause Eviction (GCE) law on two grounds: first that he was a “small owner” of 10 units or fewer, and alternatively that the “owner occupied” exemption should apply. The housing provider was alleged to be the beneficial owner of six properties containing a total of 15 units (two and three unit buildings) that were owned through separate LLC’s. However, one building with three units was purchased after the holdover commenced, and therefore the court held it should not count towards the “small owner” calculation.

The housing provider also claimed that he lived in two units at one of the properties, and those should also not count towards the small-owner limit.

While the court accepted the argument that the units purchased after the petition was filed do not count towards the “small owner” limit under

GCE, it did not agree that the “owner occupied” units do not count towards the ten unit threshold. Accordingly, the court held that the “small owner” exemption did not apply, as the total unit count was 12.

The housing provider also argued that they qualify for the “owner-occupied” exemption under GCE, where an owner occupying a building of less than ten units is not subject to the law.

The housing provider reasoned that if all of the units are allocated to him under GCE, then the “owner-occupied” exemption should apply to all of the units as well, even if the owner is not residing in the building where the holdover was filed. The court did not agree, holding that the “small owner” exemption and “owner-occupied” exemption were two distinct exemptions and the “owner-occupied” exemption contained specific language that it only applied to the particular building where the owner-occupancy existed.

Accordingly, the holdover proceeding was dismissed. The housing provider did not raise any issues relating to beneficial ownership [616 Manhattan LLC v. Placzek: Civil Court Kings County Index No. LT-319912-24/KI (10/10/25)].

Succession Not Barred by LIHTC Rules on Income Limits

out of compliance with LIHTC income and occupancy requirements.

A holdover proceeding was initiated by the housing provider after the tenant of record vacated the apartment. The remaining adult occupant opposed the holdover and moved for summary judgment on the basis of her minor son's eligibility to succeed to the lease as the son of the tenant of record. The housing provider did not dispute that the succession requirements were met under the rent stabilization law and code, but opposed the succession because of concerns it would violate the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit rules and regulations and place the unit out of compliance, potentially resulting in the loss of the entire building's LIHTC status. The housing provider believed that the succession would be characterized as a new tenancy under LIHTC rules because neither of the remaining occupants were members of the household at the inception of the LIHTC lease or listed on any recertification, thereby requiring new income certifications and occupancy verification. Because the remaining adult occupant’s income was above the LIHTC limit, and the family size would now be too large for the studio unit, the housing provider would be

However, the court rejected those arguments, holding that because the occupant was succeeding to the apartment, they step into the shoes of the prior tenant and the LIHTC program would treat this as a change to an existing household rather than a new tenancy – even though the tenant of record was no longer residing in the unit. Because the LIHTC program provides significant flexibility for household size changes and income growth of existing tenants in the program, that same flexibility would be provided to the succeeding tenancy, and therefore the housing provider would not be out of compliance with the LIHTC program rules. Accordingly, the court granted the occupant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the proceeding, finding that respondent's son was entitled to succeed to the lease, that the LIHTC program allows for exceptions in situations where a household’s income exceeds the initial threshold, and that such exceptions apply to a successor tenant [29 Flatbush Assocs. LLC v. Medina: Civil Court Kings County Index No. LT-302279-21/ KI (10/14/25)].

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

9

Breaking Down Rent-Stabilized Housing Legacy Buildings: Pre-1974, privately-owned, unsubsidized Legacy Buildings: Pre-1974, privately-owned, unsubsidized 90-100%

36-89%

>0-35% stabilized Median monthly per-unit rent:

Median monthly per-unit rent:

Median monthly per-unit rent:

$1,344

$1,698

$2,386

90+% stabilized

36–89% stabilized Segment

455,979 90-100% stabilized units

0–35% stabilized

0

100k

200k

300k

400k

500k

600k

There are 616,842 rentstabilized apartments in legacy properties (65% of all rentstabilized units). Legacy properties also house 241,943 market rate apartments, a reflection of the history of deregulation described above. In total, they hold 858,785 apartments.

They can be divided into three subsegments, which the following data briefs examine based on the share of rentstabilized units. 1

616,842 rent-stabilized apartments

NYU Furman Center Report Details the Different Worlds Of Rent-Stabilized Buildings Hundreds of people packed NYU’s Tishman Auditorium on a rainy Wednesday morning for a policy breakfast focused on rent-stabilized housing. The crowd included Department of Housing and Community Renewal Commissioner RuthAnne Visnauskas and Senate Housing

Chair Brian Kavanagh, all there to hear a new presentation on the state of the city’s regulated housing stock.

The sheer level of interest surprised many. Policy briefings and academic research rarely draw large audiences. But these are not normal times.

Renters are worried about keeping up with rising costs; property owners are overwhelmed by expenses; and government officials are increasingly concerned that the entire system is at risk of unraveling.

The NYU Furman Center’s new report underscored the depth of the distress, identifying the buildings facing the greatest financial strain.

These properties share three characteristics:

10 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

• They were built before 1974.

• More than 90% of their units are stabilized.

• They receive no government subsidies.

This group—known as “Legacy Buildings”—makes up 48% of all rent-stabilized units. Their median monthly rent is $1,344, of which $257 goes to property taxes, leaving only $1,087 for operating costs.

Two core expenses must be paid before anything else: mortgage payments and insurance. The two are intertwined, as banks require a certain level of insurance before issuing loans.

• Debt service: $336 • Insurance: $150

That leaves $601 for all remaining costs. According to Rent Guidelines Board data (2023, adjusted for inflation), those remaining expenses typically total:

Percent Change in Income, Expenditures, and Net Operating Income Legacy Properties, Percent change from 2019-2025 (Jan. 2025$)

• Labor: $104 • Fuel: $100 • Utilities: $123 • Maintenance: $204 • Administration/misc.: $185

5%

>0-35%

36-89%

90-100%

0%

At that point, the median rentstabilized unit is $115 underwater.

And this shortfall comes before mandatory building upgrades that are not included in RGB operatingcost calculations. As the Furman Center notes, this underfunding has resulted in fewer resources for maintenance and repairs, growing deferred maintenance, and a marked rise in distress indicators.

Buildings with property-tax liens have increased, and violations are up roughly 47% from early 2021 to 2025. Not surprisingly, declining net operating income has depressed property values and slowed sales activity.

The report also evaluated “government-subsidized, incomerestricted” properties. These include pre-1974 buildings with regulatory agreements and post-1973 buildings supported by programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

They share two features: • They receive significant operating subsidies.

• Their rents are capped below market levels.

-5%

-10%

-15%

Gross Income

Expenditures

Net Operating Income

Sources: NYC Department of Finance, NYU Furman Center.

Note: Values have been adjusted to Jan 2025 dollars. We exclude properties with fewer than 6 units, with any commercial space, as well as those reporting income and expenses of so in any given year from 2019 to 2025.

Yearly figures reflect data collected two years prior that was then trended forward according to DOF standards.

We estimate that 183,315 stabilized units in government-subsidized properties are primarily income-restricted. These buildings have a total of 191,989 total units (95.5% of which are rent stabilized). Government-subsidized, income-restricted properties used subsidy programs that require apartments to be income-restricted affordable housing; they are typically governed by a “regulatory agreement” between the City of New York or State of New York and the property’s owner. This category includes buildings built both before and after 1974.2

As the report explains, because these buildings are “reserved for low- and moderate-income households, they have no offsetting unrestricted market-rate units to cushion revenue losses when regulated rents grow more slowly than operating expenses.”

Percent Change in the Price Index of Operating Costs (PIOC) Component Costs, and Consumer Price Index (2019-2025) 150%

These buildings house 183,385 stabilized apartments—about 19% of the total stock. Their median rents are $1,249, and they almost never pay property taxes. That gives them roughly $162 more per unit to cover operating costs than unsubsidized privately owned buildings. But they are not in better shape financially.

Many nonprofit-owned buildings carry high debt loads due to preservation-focused refinancing used to fund repairs and capital improvements.

In reality, both nonprofit and private rent-stabilized owners rely heavily on refinancing to pay for major work—Local Law 97 compliance, boiler replacement, façade repairs, and more—because regulated rents do not generate the capital needed for large upgrades.

100%

50% CPI 24%

n Ins ura nc e

nis

tra

tio

e Ad

mi

ten an c Ma in

ies ilit Ut

l Fu e

r bo La

es Ta x

PIO

C

0%

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

11

After the report’s release, NYU hosted a panel featuring NYAA CEO Kenny Burgos; Emily Kurtz of RiseBoro, a major nonprofit housing provider; Jane Silverman, who leads community development for JPMorgan Chase; and Sam Stein from the Community Service Society. The conversation was moderated by David Reiss, former chair of the NYC Rent Guidelines Board.

The panel focused on two structural problems: tenants struggling to afford rent, and rents that are too low to cover operating costs for the majority of regulated buildings. The panelists agreed both must be addressed.

To support tenants, the group highlighted expanded rental assistance— vouchers, the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE), and its disability counterpart—as effective tools.

To stabilize buildings, they stressed the urgent need to reduce costs. All panelists agreed that insurance premiums for affordable housing have become unsustainably high, rising so fast they now pose an existential threat. Because insurance levels are tied to mortgage requirements, buildings often cannot simply reduce coverage.

Kenny Burgos also emphasized the importance of addressing property-tax inequity. While nonprofit buildings would see little benefit,

this reform would be a lifeline for the roughly 49% of older, privately owned stabilized buildings that operate with significantly less revenue.

Sam Stein agreed the system is inequitable, citing recent research by the Community Service Society. The panel also unanimously agreed that the J-51 tax incentive is ineffective in its current form and needs substantive reform to support necessary upgrades.

Moderator David Reiss pushed the panel to consider the future—specifically the idea of government takeovers. Stein argued the first step is providing meaningful support to regulated buildings. Only if those programs go unused should the government consider taking ownership or transferring buildings to tenants. He noted that tenant ownership does not automatically mean lower rents; in many cases, monthly costs could increase. But he stressed that tenants would at least have democratic control over the decisions.

Burgos underscored the sheer scale of the situation. The government does not—and likely will never— have the resources to take over a quarter-million stabilized units.

While falling property values mean some tenants could theoretically organize and purchase buildings in places like the Bronx or Northern Manhattan, the resulting monthly payments would likely be hundreds

Left to Right: Moderator: David Reiss, former chair of the NYC Rent Guidelines Board. Emily Kurtz of RiseBoro, a major nonprofit housing provider, NYAA CEO Kenny Burgos, Jane Silverman, who leads community development for JPMorgan Chase, Sam Stein from the Community Service Society.

12 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

The roughly 456,000 stabilized homes in legacy 90%+ buildings represent a critical share of the city’s affordable housing. Replacing these units with newly subsidized housing or with income support for tenants would require substantial public resources.

For that reason, it is important that the City and State address the challenges posed by rental revenues that lag inflation and operating costs that are rising in real terms across the broader multifamily market, while keeping affordability for current tenants at the center of any policy response. As policymakers, practitioners, and researchers consider potential interventions, the specific pressures facing the legacy 90%+ segment should remain a key focus.

of dollars higher than current rents.

For households already struggling, that path may not be realistic.

Emily Kurtz added that nonprofits cannot operate effectively under current rules for vacant apartments.

Without the ability to raise rents to match unit-level operating costs, nonprofits struggle to re-rent vacant units. That reduces revenue, worsens maintenance challenges, and can lead to mortgage default.

The overarching conclusion from both the report and the panel was stark: roughly two-thirds of rent-stabilized buildings are in serious distress. Without changes, the city faces widespread loan defaults, declining services, accelerating deterioration, and the potential permanent loss of more than 670,000 deeply affordable homes—units that New York cannot afford to lose.

“Freezing the rent now… would harm tenants and their homes.”

What Members of The Rent Guidelines Board Are Saying About Rent-Stabilized Housing “A rent freeze won’t In a recent Daily News Op-Ed, Rent Guidelines Board Public Member Alex Schwartz wrote “A rent freeze won’t work…”

Schwartz is the longest serving member of the RGB and he voted for a rent freeze in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In his opinion piece, he makes it clear that affordability for renters is on the front of the RGB members minds, but he said a rent freeze comes with dire consequences. He writes: “The arguments in support of a multiyear rent freeze are misguided and the consequences of such a freeze would endanger the physical and financial viability of thousands of rent-stabilized buildings, many of which were built or preserved with taxpayer dollars.”

Schwartz goes on to point out two main facts about the RGB. First, prior to 2019 when the rent laws changed, property owners could increase rents on vacancy, which allowed the RGB to advance lower rent increases for existing tenants.

This can no longer happen.

He also points out that rent adjustments under the Eric Adams administration, when adjusted for inflation, were lower than under the de Blasio administration. He writes: “Inflation was exceedingly low during the de Blasio years, averaging just 1.6%. This was not the case under Adams. From January 2022 through September 2025, the consumer price index for the New York region increased at an average annual rate of 4.2%. As a result, the RGB’s rent increases during the Adams admin-

“Consider allowing modest rent resets when tenants voluntarily vacate.”

be supported by economic data…”

He then writes:

istration, after adjusting for inflation, were lower than under de Blasio. In fact, they were often negative, effectively delivering rent rollbacks.”

Schwartz goes on to warn that too many rent-stabilized buildings are already in distress, including many nonprofit run buildings. He writes:

“Over the past decade, that link has been broken. Successive boards have approved 10 straight one-year rent increases below inflation — the longest continuous real-dollar rent rollback in RGB history for one-year guidelines.”

Armlovich said the consequences of a four-year rent freeze would be catastrophic. He writes: “Without cost-flattening reforms, four consecutive rent freezes amid costs compounding at a typical 3% annual rate risk re-creating by regulatory fiat the mass tax foreclosures of the 1980s naturally-occurring real estate bust.”

“Already, more than 9% of all rent stabilized buildings, 1,563 in total, are distressed, with operating costs exceeding income. And this does not include hundreds more whose income falls short of their combined operating costs and mortgage obligations. Even more buildings hover on the brink of insolvency.”

He concludes the piece by saying: “There have been times when rent freezes were justified, but this is not one of them. Freezing the rent now, especially for multiple years in a row, would harm tenants and their homes.”

RGB Public Member Alex Armlovich, a Senior Housing Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center, wrote an article for Vital City titled “A Housing Roadmap for New York’s Next Mayor”.

In the piece, he said the RGB operates like a “utility-style cost regulator” and writes the mandate is “to align rent adjustments with changes in building operating costs.”

Armlovich offers several proposals to address the skyrocketing distress in rent-stabilized housing, including reforms to the state’s hardship program, which is virtually never used because it is impossible to navigate, time consuming, and relief is not guaranteed. To address this, Armlovich said the state should process applications promptly and the law should be changed to allow rent increases to restore solvency.

He adds that lawmakers should look at issues around vacant apartments as well, writing: Longer term, consider allowing modest rent resets when tenants voluntarily vacate, keeping total revenue aligned with costs and minimizing hardship increases during tenancies.

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

13

City Council Rushes To Pass Bills Before New Year

A

s usual at the end of every legislative session, but especially after an election year, the City Council is rushing to jam through a plethora of bills that have not had enough discussion or input from stakeholders, but are important to special interests that supported their campaigns. While it may have been too politically risky for some council members to vote for these bills before the election, now we get to see their true colors. The reason for the end of session rush is that any pending bills would need to be reintroduced, with a new committee hearing and an opportunity for the democratic process to work, with

more stakeholder and constituent input. Although it would take more time, and the result would be better than the half-baked bills that typically get passed at this time, the council members who vote “yes” or co-sponsor these bills would also have to be more accountable to their constituency. Historically this dynamic has led to a flurry of activity in November and December, and this year is no different. Here are a few bills that NYAA has been tracking.

(In our next magazine issue, we will have a comprehensive recap of what passed and what did not.)

14 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE ACT (COPA) Receiving the most attention from the industry has been the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, or COPA. This bill was originally introduced back in 2021 and then re-introduced in 2024. In the initial version, it would have delayed the sales of all buildings with 3 or more units of housing for as much as 180 days to allow government-certified nonprofits the opportunity to buy them first, or match any offers. The sponsors of the bill said the objective was to make sure tenants had time to organize and work with nonprofit entities and se-

cure financing. In the current environment, they feel they are never given a chance at a purchase.

NYAA opposed the original version of the bill and city agencies also raised a lot of concerns around the proposal, because it would have caused a lot of market disruptions and distortions that would have hurt housing preservation.

In early December, an amended version was put forth that significantly limited the scope of the bill. It now only applies to a smaller universe of buildings, in particular those properties on watchlists and with a significant number of Class C violations, and buildings that are preparing to exit tax credit deals. The new version is viewed more as an added tool to address the growing number of distressed properties that are on a pathway towards default on their mortgages, property tax delinquency, and eventually government takeover or third-party-transfer to another entity.

This version of the bill, or something close to it, is expected to pass (at least as of the time of publication of this magazine), unless more reasonable views prevail. Please follow NYAA social media accounts and daily messages for updates.

MANDATORY COOLING AND DEHUMIDIFICATION BILL Another bill that may pass at the end of 2025, after significant modification, is a bill that would require all apartment buildings to be able to maintain an indoor temperature below 78 degrees.

NYAA opposed this bill when first proposed for several reasons. First, it is technologically impossible for many older rent-stabilized buildings to perform upgrades that would allow for tracking and control of temperature and humidity. In its original form, the bill did not simply require that an owner provide an air conditioner to an apartment ­—it required the owner to make sure the air conditioner was being used correctly, in conjunction with dehumidifiers, in all apartments to make sure they were cool and not overly humid.

Since this would be a requirement by the City Council, any purchase of an a/c unit or electrical upgrade that is necessary to provide adequate power to the a/c unit would be eligible for a rent increase as either an Individual Apartment Improvement (IAI) or a Major Capital Improvement, depending on the work required.

The irony of the two bills —one designed to protect tenants in distressed properties, while the other adds additional cost mandates that will drive buildings into further distress —illustrates the lack of a clear plan or policy from the Council.

NYAA continues to work with the City Council to inform them of the impacts of these bills on rent-stabilized housing providers and their tenants. If it passes, we will also be proactively explaining to renters why the rent is being increased in their apartments.

Amended versions of the bill circulating at the time of publication have eliminated the humidity requirements, and limit the cooling areas to bedrooms (and sleeping areas), but would still require property owners to provide all apartments with air conditioners that are capable of cooling the room to 78 degrees.

The irony of the two bills —one designed to protect tenants in distressed properties, while the other adds additional cost mandates that will drive buildings into further distress — illustrates the lack of a clear plan or policy from the Council.

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

15

Isthe Gras s

r eene r G Vienin a n

?

Elected officials praised What Newhave Yorkers Vienna as a model for housing Need To Know in New York, things in About ThebutSo-Called the Austrian capital are not Renters' necessarily better, Utopia just different

16 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

F or years, American politicians, advocates, and creators online have pointed to Vienna as the gold standard of affordable housing, a “renter’s utopia” that New York City should simply copy.

The New York Apartment Association took a trip to Vienna to see for ourselves. After spending time on the ground, speaking directly with the academics, housing officials, and nonprofit leaders who help shape the system, a far more complex, and far more useful, picture emerges. Vienna is not magical, simple, or universally accessible. It is a carefully engineered structure built on strict rules, stable funding, selective access, and a level of transparency that New York does not practice.

Another defining difference is who pays for what. In New York, a rent check covers almost everything: taxes, maintenance, debt service, staff, utilities. In Vienna, the “rent” is only one slice of the monthly bill. Tenants also pay utilities, trash removal, maintenance reserves, a 10% VAT-style tax on rent, and a dedicated 1% income-based housing tax. The Viennese tenants also pay for a risk-mitigation fund. “In your rent calculation... you are allowed to charge 2% extra as a risk premium... to account for, for example, vacant housing stock,” Koessl said. When all of these are added together, the cost of living in many older Vienna buildings ends up close to older, rentstabilized buildings in New York, the only difference is that Vienna breaks

each cost out clearly, line by line. That transparency builds trust. In New York, renters are in the dark about where their rent check goes.

Vienna’s model also works, for them, because every building must be financially self-sufficient. There are no loss-making units, no buildings operating below cost, and no expectation that one unit should subsidize another or that one building should subsidize another.

In New York, cross subsidization is expected. The Rent Guidelines Board puts out annual reports showing that overall income is up for rent-stabilized buildings, which is fueled mainly by free market rent increases. This is then used as justification for adjusting rents below inflation, which has driven

The first thing you learn in Vienna is that housing is treated as a cost system, not a political battlefield.

Rents rise or fall based on math. If a building needs a new heating system, tenants are told upfront: this will cost money, and your rent will increase to pay for it.

Gerald Koessl, Housing Researcher at Austrian Federation of Limited Profit Housing Associations, emphasized this clearly. “As a tenant, you pay… what it costs your landlord to manage, and maintain the building, to pay back, loans, etc”.

There is no illusion that upgrades, mandates, and maintenance can be free. In New York, by contrast, elected officials often pass costly requirements and mandates and act oblivious when rents increase because of their actions. Instead of partnership and openness, owners and tenants in New York often seemed trapped in a cycle of deterioration and blame.

Vienna’s honesty about costs is one of the foundations that keeps its housing stable.

17

As social scientist Sarah Kumnig put it, “depending on your last name, people will invite you to look at the apartment or not”. Also, large upfront payments, often €30,000 to €50,000, are required to secure a governmentbacked condo apartment. It is a significant sum that Koessel said “can be a barrier to some households, some individuals.” The result is a system that works extremely well for middle-income, long-term stable residents who are able to gain access.

It doesn’t work for people in unstable and vulnerable situations.

roughly two-thirds of the stabilized housing into financial uncertainty.

The idea of a unit charging less than its operating cost simply doesn’t exist in Vienna. "Every building is financed by the tenants living in [it]. So these tenants who take care of their own house cannot finance a different one. So that's strictly forbidden.” said Christian Schantl, a housing expert who worked for Wiener Wohan, Vienna’s social housing entity.

Finally, Vienna’s biggest key to success is that it builds. Social housing and tenant protections are secondary to their commitment to adequate supply. Year after year, decade after decade, the city adds new supply, often in partnership with private developers when fully public housing was too costly or the government didn’t have adequate budget to pay for it.

Limited-profit housing plays a major role, but so does the private sector, which is incentivized to build through predictable rules, long-term financing tools, and subsidies for climate upgrades. Building more housing is a In New York’s rent-stabilized system, hundreds of thousands of apartments core part of the strategy, Koessl said, “when you increase that share [of are legally capped below their cost housing]...it has a price dampening of operation, forcing cross-subsidies impact… on the housing market.” or long-term deterioration, neither of Vienna knows that affordability which Vienna allows. Koessl warned requires continuous construction, not why Vienna avoids this. “Below cost just price regulation. recovery would also mean that the organizations encountered financial In many ways New York cannot difficulties in the long term," Koessl copy Vienna. The legal framework, said. tax structure, land availability, But perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of Vienna is how selective the system actually is. While Americans imagine a universal, open, fully accessible safety net, Vienna relies on gatekeeping. Applicants must meet strict personal and familial rules, residency history requirements, and documentation standards. Family structure, a past eviction and blatant discrimination are factors.

and political philosophy are fundamentally different. Changing those things in New York would be a Herculean effort. But New York can learn from Vienna. Honesty about costs, predictable funding, consistent development, and a recognition that buildings must be financially healthy to remain good homes are all priorities in Vienna that should be adopted in New York.

18 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

Vienna Rents Don’t Cover A Lot of Building Costs, They Pay Separately One of the biggest myths about Vienna is that rents are low because the government covers most buildings expenses. But when you look closely at how housing is funded, and talk to the people who know the system, it becomes clear that Vienna’s affordability is built on full financial transparency and on renters directly covering nearly every cost of their building.

In New York, a tenant pays one number. Inside that single rent check are property taxes, maintenance, insurance, utilities, debt service, labor costs, and the city’s long list of unfunded mandates. Most renters have no idea where their rent check goes. Vienna does the opposite: it itemizes each charge openly, and tenants pay each one separately.

Here’s how it breaks down for an average Vienna tenant: Rent:

€700

Betriebskosten (building costs):

€170

Utilities:

€150

VAT Tax:

€85

Instandhaltungsrücklage €20

(mandatory maintenance reserve):

Capital Improvement Loans:

€30

Total:

€1,100–€1,200

per month ($1280 to $1400)

In New York, the structure is completely different. Owners must finance large improvements but often cannot recover the cost, since rent increases for renovations are capped. Vienna avoids this mismatch

Vienna’s system works for them The result is a system that works extremely because the numbers always add up.

Every cost has a funding source, every well for middle-income, long-term stable apartment pays its share and so every residents who are able to gain access. It doesn’t building remains stable. And the entire sector avoids the downward spiral that work for people in unstable and vulnerable happens when housing is expected to operate at a loss. situations.

This doesn’t make the system perfect, by ensuring every euro is accounted for and linked to a specific bill paid by tenants. This different approach builds collective purpose for renters and building operators, and lawmakers, to keep costs down. In New York, lawmakers generally don’t care about cost increases, because they are not personally blamed for the accompanying higher rents or the physical decline in buildings.

Every Building in Vienna Must Be Financially SelfSufficient One of the defining features of Vienna’s housing system is its insistence that every apartment and every building must be financially selfsustaining. There are no loss-leaders, no buildings operating at a deficit, and no cross-subsidy from one property to another. Vienna’s system simply does not allow it.

In Vienna, rents are cost-based. That means the price of an apartment is tied directly to the real, itemized expenses of operating the building: maintenance, utilities, services, insurance, improvement funds, taxes, and loan repayments. If costs rise, rents rise. If costs fall, rents fall. It is a mathematical equation, not a political fight.

When we asked experts in Vienna whether any unit charges less rent than it costs to operate, the reaction was genuine confusion because in their system, the concept doesn’t exist. Buildings cannot run a deficit.

Apartments cannot be legally

underpriced. And housing providers cannot move money between properties to cover financial shortfalls.

Christian Schantl put it bluntly: “Every building is seen as, as one... owned entity. And, you can't finance one entity with the savings of another.” It’s a hard rule, and it shapes everything.

Compare this to New York, where thousands of rentstabilized apartments have legal rents far below the actual cost of maintenance, taxes, insurance, labor, and heat. When a building’s regulated rents fall short, owners rely on marketrate tenants in the same property to fill the gap, driving those rents through the roof, or siphon money from other buildings just to keep the lights on. What Vienna sees as financially impossible, is standard operating procedure in New York.

This stability has another major consequence: the limited-profit sector in Vienna has never experienced a default. Because costs are always covered, lenders don’t see these buildings as risky. Insurance providers stay in the market. Rents remain predictable. Maintenance doesn’t get deferred. And buildings don’t fall into disrepair simply because operating costs outpace revenue, a crisis currently unraveling in New York’s affordable and rentstabilized housing stock.

but it does make it stable. And in a city like New York, where thousands of buildings are collapsing under the weight of rising costs and frozen rents, Vienna’s insistence on financial selfsufficiency is a lesson we shouldn’t overlook.

Vienna’s Housing System Is Highly Selective, and Often Exclusionary Vienna’s housing system is often portrayed in American media as universally accessible, open to all, and free of discrimination. The reality is a little bit different. Vienna’s social and limited-profit housing may be large in scale, but it is not universally available and many of the city’s most vulnerable residents face steep barriers to getting in at all.

To even reach the waitlist, applicants must clear a long list of requirements.

Proof of stable residence in Vienna, verified income, clean paperwork, documentation of uninterrupted housing history and being a part of a "proper" family. Those barriers alone exclude many low-income residents, newcomers, people in unstable living situations and nontraditional families.

As Sarah explained, ”depending on your last name, people will invite you to look at the apartment or not”. These applicants are often screened out, this is not an occasional issue. It is built into the structure of the system.

In practice, Vienna prioritizes people who are already stable. Long-term residents, middle-income families, people with predictable employment,

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

19

people with a large amount of savings and those who can present a clean, uncomplicated application.

Meanwhile, people entering the city from other countries, individuals recovering from crises, and residents who have experienced evictions or homelessness face the highest denial rates.

The financial barriers are equally bad, if not worse. To secure an apartment in the limited-profit sector, tenants must often make a large upfront downpayment commonly between €30,000 and €50,000, sometimes even more. Koessl underscored this: “Downpayments can be significant… and yes, this can be a barrier for some households.” For many working-class families, this requirement is almost

impossible, and for immigrants just arriving into the city, it is entirely out of reach.

This upfront cost alone excludes most lower to middle income residents.

It functions as a massive sorting mechanism, creating a housing system that looks egalitarian from the outside but is built on layers of financial and social filtering.

Even after someone enters the system, the rules remain strict. Evictions in Vienna are fast, common, and rarely delayed. As Sarah Kumnig put it, “If you’re not able to pay rent, you’re evicted… it happens all the time.”

Schantl reinforced how swiftly the process moves, telling us after the third notice of nonpayment, it goes to court and eviction begins.

And the consequences don’t end there. If someone is evicted for falling behind on rent, they lose access to the entire public and limited-profit housing system until the arrears are fully repaid.

Contrast this with New York, where tenant protections are extensive, where discrimination by name or family structure is illegal, where landlords cannot screen out applicants based on personal characteristics, and where upfront payment requirements on this scale would violate multiple housing laws. In New York, you cannot deny someone access to affordable housing because they owe arrears. In Vienna, that is standard practice.

It is impossible to separate Vienna’s affordability from the access restrictions that are in place. If they were required to operate under New York’s anti-discrimination laws that protect vulnerable populations and allow more access to housing, they would struggle to provide affordability.

Vienna’s model benefits people who are already stable. New York’s laws intentionally protect those who are not. Understanding this distinction is essential to understanding why the Vienna Model works in Vienna and why copying it in New York would be near impossible.

Vienna Builds More Housing Every Year and Partners with Private Developers to Do It One of the most important lessons from Vienna has nothing to do with rent caps, subsidies, or regulation.

It’s their commitment to something New York has struggled to sustain for decades: continuous construction.

Year after year, decade after decade, Vienna adds new housing. In good markets, bad markets, and everything in between. In the last five years alone, Vienna added about 50,000 new homes, nearly twice the per-capita

20

rate compared to NYC’s 136,000 homes over that same period.

Vienna never stops building because the city understands a basic truth: you cannot achieve affordability through regulation alone. Rent caps and subsidies can only work if the city simultaneously expands its housing stock. Building more housing is a core part of their strategy. And as Koessl said, increasing housing “has a price dampening impact…on the housing market” Despite the common American narrative, Vienna’s government does not build every unit itself. In fact, one of the reasons Vienna has been able to maintain such a steady production pipeline is that the city relies heavily on private developers when fully public construction is too costly or when government budgets are limited.

Private builders have always played a role in Vienna’s housing ecosystem, and today they remain essential partners when the city wants to continue production.

Vienna’s limited-profit housing also shoulders a major share of the work.

These buildings operate under strict cost rules, capped profits, and rigid financial transparency. They compete for development opportunities, but within a framework designed to keep long-term operating costs stable.

What ties all of this together, public, private, and limited-profit, is predictability. Vienna offers developers: • Long-term financing tools • Clear cost-based rent formulas that guarantee buildings will — at the very least — break even

When a developer invests, they know exactly how the math will work, and that stability keeps the housing pipeline moving even when the economy isn’t the best.

New York’s development environment could not be more different.

Construction surges under some administrations and collapses under others, zoning changes take years, subsidies are rewritten constantly, property taxes distort the economics of multifamily construction, and when interest rates rise, construction freezes entirely.

Affordability requires supply. Supply requires consistency.

• Stable subsidy programs, especially for climate and energy upgrades • Reliable land-use rules that don’t shift every budget season

CHALLENGE YOUR PROPERTY TAXES. Waiting for a property tax miracle?

NYC property taxes rise almost every year.

Yet those who know the property’s true value can pay less.

We advise and represent property owners of commercial and retail properties, apartment buildings, condominiums and cooperatives.

Property Form:

Attorneys at Law 31-18 38th Avenue, Suite #2 Long Island City, NY 11101 (646) 355-8602 |info@apflaw.com Prior esults o ot uarantee a imilar utcome.

A System Under Strain Skyrocketing insurance costs are a hidden crisis for affordable housing New York lawmakers are sounding the alarm. At a joint public hearing held on November 18th, three State Senate Committees—Housing, Construction, and Community Development; Insurance; and Investigations and Government Operations—came together to confront a problem that has been quietly destabilizing the state’s housing market: the rising cost and shrinking availability of residential property insurance. The hearing followed a formal investigation launched in August 2025, in which lawmakers demanded detailed information from the Department of Financial Services (DFS), insurance associations, and carriers in an effort to understand the forces behind the sharp escalation in premiums.

The findings pointed to a slow-moving crisis. Although New York has not yet plunged into the turbulence gripping states like Florida or California, key sectors—particularly affordable housing, supportive and senior residences, and older multifamily buildings—are feeling acute strain. Premiums have soared, cov-

erage options have narrowed, and more properties are being pushed into the costly surplus lines market. The consequences extend far beyond policy rates, threatening affordability, financial stability, and the long-term health of neighborhoods.

A RARE GATHERING OF VOICES The hearing drew one of the most diverse coalitions to weigh in on the state’s insurance landscape in years. DFS and NYC Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) shared insights alongside nonprofit housing providers, mission-driven developers, preservation groups, and associations representing large multifamily portfolios such as NYAA, BRI, and SPONY. They were met with testimony from insurers, brokers, and national industry associations, balanced by plaintiff-side trial lawyers, consumer advocates, climate experts, and equity organizations. Together, they painted a comprehensive picture of a system struggling under the weight of compounding pressures.

22 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

WHERE LAWMAKERS PRESSED HARDEST Senators drilled into the central questions driving public concern.

Why have premiums doubled or tripled in so many cases? Why are neighborhoods like The Bronx facing widespread nonrenewals? And how are older multifamily buildings—often the backbone of New York’s affordable stock—being evaluated by insurers?

The liability environment became one of the hearing’s flashpoints. Industry representatives blamed soaring claim costs, large settlements, and the longstanding Scaffold Law. Trial lawyers fired back, arguing that insurer practices—including delays, denials, and a lack of transparency—inflate costs more than litigation does.

Other testimonials addressed the broader societal trends influencing claim frequency. This included a focus on a growing number of lawsuits, the expanding role of injury-focused trial lawyers, and shifting attitudes about liability and com-

pensation. One nonprofit insurance provider estimated that slip and fall cases are “pulling nearly $4 billion out of the housing stock” annually.

Another major concern was the state’s inability to access granular, claim-level data. Without it, lawmakers argued, DFS cannot assess whether New Yorkers are subsidizing losses in other regions, whether catastrophe models are aligned with actual risk, or whether underwriting criteria disproportionately affect certain communities.

These concerns fed into deeper questions about potential discrimination. Legislators pressed regulators and industry actors on whether underwriting patterns penalize rent-stabilized communities, voucher holders, and low-income neighborhoods—raising the specter of modern-day redlining disguised as risk assessment.

Climate and global market forces also loomed large. Stakeholders acknowledged that while New York has avoided the massive disasters seen elsewhere, it is not insulated from global reinsurance volatility, climate-driven catastrophe losses, or rapidly rising construction costs—all factors that insurers say are now baked into premiums statewide.

WHAT THE TESTIMONY REVEALED As testimony unfolded, a unified theme began to take shape: nearly every sector is feeling squeezed, albeit in different ways.

Regulators described a market that remains relatively stable overall but contains pockets of acute distress— particularly among older buildings and affordable housing. They highlighted ongoing efforts to modernize modeling, enforce anti-discrimination rules, and incorporate climate risk into regulatory frameworks, while acknowledging that limited access to data continues to hamper oversight.

Housing providers and nonprofit owners delivered some of the most urgent warnings. Insurance costs have become one of the fastest-rising and most destabilizing expenses in the sector. For many, premiums now consume 16–22% of gross rents. Some properties have experienced 300–500% increases. Maintenance is being deferred, refinancing is stalling, and operating deficits are widening. Many urged the state to explore reinsurance support, liability reform, and incentives tied to building upgrades that reduce long-term risk.

Insurance costs have become one of the fastest-rising and most destabilizing expenses in the sector.

For those unfamiliar with reinsurance, it is a product that insurance providers purchase from large banks or private equity, to protect their business from failing to pay out extremely high premiums. When global disasters increase the cost of reinsurance, it has a direct impact on all insurance premiums, even if the policies are written in places without high risk.

Insurance industry representatives framed the crisis as part of a broader national and global market recalibration. They pointed to construction inflation, climate-linked disasters across the country, reinsurance shortages, and New York’s own aging building stock as the main drivers of cost. They urged lawmakers to reform the Scaffold Law, streamline DFS rate approvals, and require more robust mitigation measures from building owners.

Trial lawyers countered that insurers’ narratives mask deeper issues— chief among them, insufficient transparency and weak accountability for unfair claim practices. They argued that without stronger consumer protections, claim-level reporting, and bad-faith remedies, policyholders will continue bearing the brunt of insurer-driven cost escalations.

Meanwhile, advocates for low-income homeowners and tenants highlighted the human impact: rising premiums that threaten homeownership, shrinking coverage that leaves families unprotected, and a looming risk that insurers may retreat from vulnerable neighborhoods unless the state invests substantially in resilience and smarter land-use planning.

WHERE EVERYONE AGREED Despite profound differences in perspective, the hearing revealed several shared truths: Premiums are rising sharply while coverage shrinks, with older multifamily and affordable housing hit hardest.

Multiple forces—climate risk, liability exposure, construction inflation, and reinsurance volatility—are converging, even if stakeholders disagree on which matters most.

Data gaps remain one of the biggest obstacles, leaving regulators, lawmakers, and the public unable to fully understand or address market behavior.

Solutions will require a multifaceted response, including targeted legal reforms, resilience investments, statebacked reinsurance options, stronger consumer protections, and incentives for risk-reduction measures.

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

23

Insurance Hearing (cont.)

New York Insurance Hearing:

I. Housing Provider Testimony (NYAA, SPONY, and BRI) Across New York’s residential housing sector, the message from property owners—large and small, nonprofit and private—is unmistakable: the state is in the middle of an insurance crisis that is destabilizing rent-stabilized and affordable housing. The New York Apartment Association (NYAA), representing more than 400,000 units of pre-1974 rent-stabilized housing, delivered sweeping and urgent testimony, describing a market in which premiums have more than doubled, coverage has collapsed, and insurers are fleeing entire neighborhoods. Supporting testimony from the Building & Realty Institute (BRI) and the Small Property Owners of New York (SPONY) confirmed that the crisis is statewide, affecting large portfolios, co-ops and condos, and mom-andpop owners alike.

Northern Manhattan, premiums climbed 134%, with some properties paying more than $3,300 per apartment per year. Insurance’s share of operating costs jumped from 5.4% to 8.2% in four years, far outpacing all other expenses. NYAA emphasized that these increases hit buildings regardless of claims history, reflecting broad market abandonment rather than property-specific risk.

Annual Insurance Premiums in New York

Just as troubling, NYAA testified that 87% of owners

have been forced to take on more risk, accepting higher deductibles or reduced coverage. Many now face deductibles five or ten times higher than before, shrinking umbrella coverage, and policies so limited that they no longer provide adequate protection.

Meanwhile, insurers are pulling out: 74% of small owners were denied coverage, and every operator managing more than 5,000 units had at least one carrier refuse renewal.

Common explanations included: “no rent-stabilized buildings,” “no Bronx buildings,” and “no NYC multifamily.”

NYAA described a market collapsing under legal pressure, risk aversion, and structural failings that leave both tenants and owners exposed.

BRI’s testimony reinforced NYAA’s findings with regional data from NYAA’s survey of over 60,000 Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau rent-stabilized units revealed the Counties. There, insurance costs scale of the disruption: total insurrose between 22% and 67% over ance costs rose 113% in just five just two years, making insurance years—from $703 per unit in 2020 the fastest-growing operating cost to $1,501 in 2024. In The Bronx and

and far outpacing utilities, mainte Survey Findings: Some Key Housing Provider nance, or labor.

BRI connected

these increases

to climate-driven

weather events,

skyrocketing build ing material costs,

and a broken reinsurance market

that has pushed

carriers out of older

and lower-income

24 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

housing stock entirely. Their members report that even “good risk” buildings are receiving double-digit increases and, in some cases, 100– 200% hikes for high-limit policies.

SPONY’s testimony showed how the crisis is crushing small landlords, many of whom provide naturally occurring affordable housing. Owners of small buildings reported premium increases exceeding 37% in a single year; others saw liability premiums rise 95% or umbrella coverage drop from $100 million to $15 million.

Many received only one last-minute renewal offer—sometimes requiring the entire multi-year premium paid upfront. SPONY emphasized that fraudulent personal injury claims, sewer-related flooding, and crime-driven underwriting restrictions add layers of pressure that small operators cannot absorb.

Across all three testimonies, a shared conclusion emerged: without intervention, escalating insurance costs will undermine the financial stability of New York’s most affordable housing. Their recommendations converged around the need for a state-backed reinsurance program, targeted tort reform, improved transparency, and incentives for resilience upgrades. Without these steps, they warned, New York risks losing the very housing that keeps the state affordable for working families.

New York Insurance Hearing:

II. DFS and HPD Testimony The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) presented complementary but distinct perspectives on the state of the insurance market. DFS, as the regulator, sought to contextualize New York’s insurance dynamics within national trends. HPD, as the steward of the city’s affordable housing stock, emphasized the acute crisis unfolding within specific segments, particularly older and affordable multifamily housing.

submitted by insurers. Lawmakers also expressed frustration with the opacity of underwriting decisions and sought clarity on how insurers define “high-risk” neighborhoods.

confronted system-wide escalation that outpaced operating budgets.

DFS highlighted ongoing initiatives, including modernizing climaterisk modeling, enforcing antidiscrimination rules, implementing mitigation-discount programs, and deploying new budget authority to support affordable housing. DFS confirmed that its climate-risk guidance is intended to reduce long-term exposure and improve market stability—but acknowledged that mitigation benefits take time to materialize.

HPD’s testimony delivered a stark and urgent assessment: insurance costs are now among the most destabilizing pressures in New

HPD raised concerns about potential discriminatory pricing patterns, including instances where buildings with Section 8 or voucher tenants were quoted higher rates or denied coverage outright. While HPD acknowledged the complexity of causal attribution, it emphasized the importance of ensuring that voucher holders are not indirectly penalized through insurance pricing.

Further, HPD described emerging climate-related risks, including new flood-insurance needs, rising extreme-weather exposure, and concerns about insurer withdrawal from coastal neighborhoods.

HPD referenced resilience work in Mitchell-Lama buildings and urged state policymakers to integrate resilience funding, insurance reform, and capital programs.

DFS cited four major national cost drivers— climate disasters, construction inflation, reinsurance volatility, and litigation costs—all of which filter into New York’s marketplace.

DFS testified that New York remains “more stable than crisis states” like Florida and California, pointing to relatively low nonrenewal rates, a competitive market structure, and moderate statewide premium growth. However, DFS acknowledged significant stress within concentrated strata such as older multifamily buildings, supportive housing, and pre-war properties located in high-density or coastal areas. DFS cited four major national cost drivers—climate disasters, construction inflation, reinsurance volatility, and litigation costs—all of which filter into New York’s marketplace.

York City’s affordable housing sector. HPD reported that premiums across its monitored portfolios have nearly doubled—approximately a 94% increase—with some individual properties experiencing spikes of 300–500%. Liability insurance was cited as especially volatile. HPD noted that larger portfolios, including those using captives, fared somewhat better but still

In closing, both DFS and HPD underscored the need for greater data transparency, targeted interventions, and coordination across state and city agencies to stabilize the market and protect the long-term viability of affordable housing.

A repeated point of tension during questioning was DFS’s lack of access to claim-level data.

Legislators pressed DFS on whether New Yorkers may be subsidizing losses in other states and how DFS evaluates catastrophe modeling

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

25

Insurance Hearing (cont.)

New York Insurance Hearing:

III. Insurance Industry Panel Testimony Rising insurance costs and tightening availability in New York’s residential property market were the central focus of testimony delivered before the New York State Senate Committees. Representatives from the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) offered a unified explanation for the pressures confronting homeowners and insurers across the state. Collectively representing state regulators and the vast majority of the nation’s property insurers, the organizations argued that the challenges facing New York’s insurance landscape stem not from industry misconduct or cost shifting between states, but from deep structural changes driven by climate

risk, economic conditions, legal system dynamics, and regulatory limitations.

The testimony underscored that New York’s insurance market remains both competitive and highly regulated.

NAMIC pointed out that New York, despite its growing risk exposure, still ranks below the national average for homeowner premium levels.

More than 230 insurers continue to offer coverage in the state, a strong indicator of market competition and consumer choice. APCIA reinforced this point by highlighting the New York State Department of Financial Services’ (DFS) rigorous rate-review procedures, which ensure that premiums cannot be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

Both organizations firmly rejected suggestions that insurers increase rates in New York to offset losses in other states. They emphasized that actuarial standards and state law require rates to reflect New Yorkspecific loss experience, and DFS oversight makes cross-subsidization impossible.

Despite this strong regulatory environment, insurance costs are

26 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

rising because the risks themselves are rising. The witnesses identified climate change and the increasing severity of catastrophic weather as significant drivers. According to APCIA, New York experienced ten billion-dollar disasters in 2024 alone, a stark departure from the historical norm of fewer than three such events annually prior to 2003. NAIC added that FEMA consistently ranks New York among the highest-risk states due to its dense development, valuable infrastructure, and exposure to hurricanes, severe storms, flooding, and severe winter weather.

Catastrophe modeling shows that insured hurricane losses in New York could rise by as much as 64 percent under a 2°C global warming scenario. These escalating climate pressures require insurers to reassess risk and pricing more frequently and more aggressively.

Economic forces are compounding the problem. NAMIC and APCIA explained that inflation in construction materials and labor— up more than 40 percent in recent years—has dramatically increased the cost of repairing or rebuilding homes.

New York’s housing market has also grown more valuable, with home values increasing 94 percent over the past decade. As the replacement cost of homes rises, so too does the insured value of those structures, resulting in higher premiums even for homeowners who have never filed a claim. These economic pressures leave insurers with little flexibility, as rising replacement costs directly impact the amount they must be prepared to pay out in the event of a loss.

Legal system dynamics further complicate the situation. NAMIC and APCIA highlighted New York’s

approvals eventually led insurers to withdraw from entire regions, leaving consumers with reduced options and limited access to coverage. The organizations warned that similar outcomes could occur in New York if regulatory frameworks do not evolve alongside changing risk conditions.

Despite the complexity of these challenges, NAMIC, APCIA, and NAIC converged on a clear solution: prioritizing resilience and mitigation. NAIC emphasized that mitigation is the most effective long-term strategy for stabilizing premiums, reducing losses, and maintaining insurer participation in

Nationwide, liability claims have increased by 57 percent over the past decade

the insurance market as climate and economic pressures intensify.

Throughout the hearing, a clear tension emerged between lawmakers and industry representatives. Elected officials focused heavily on consumer protections, affordability, and transparency. They raised concerns about market consolidation, insurer withdrawal from high-risk areas, and the need to ensure that consumers do not bear the full burden of rising costs. Industry representatives, on the other hand, stressed the importance of understanding the structural forces driving risk and the need for regulatory flexibility so insurers can remain solvent and competitive in an evolving market.

A recurring theme was the importance of crafting legislation and regulatory reforms that avoid unintended consequences—such as reduced availability of coverage, increased premiums, or diminished benefits for consumers. The testimony made clear that while insurers and regulators share the goal of protecting New Yorkers, achieving long-term affordability and market stability will require not only greater resilience and mitigation efforts but also thoughtful regulatory modernization and legal reform.

unusually high litigation costs, driven in part by the Scaffold Law, the prevalence of nuclear verdicts, widespread fraud schemes—such as staged accidents—and the rapid expansion of third-party litigation financing. Nationwide, liability claims have increased by 57 percent over the past decade, a phenomenon often described as “social inflation.” These legal pressures are particularly consequential for older multifamily buildings and high-risk communities, where insurers face elevated exposure to costly claims.

As litigation-driven expenses rise, insurers become more cautious in underwriting properties in areas where risks are already elevated.

high-risk markets. APCIA pointed to successful programs in Florida and Alabama, where home-hardening measures, stronger building codes, and community-level risk-reduction investments have reduced losses by 40 to 70 percent. NAMIC urged New York lawmakers to modernize statewide building codes, invest in resilient infrastructure, and expand incentives for homeowners and communities to undertake riskmitigating improvements. These measures, the organizations argued, would not only protect consumers but also strengthen the stability of

Regulatory constraints also play a role. APCIA expressed concern that DFS’s lengthy rate approval process—averaging 233 days— prevents insurers from adjusting premiums in a timely manner to match rising costs. NAMIC noted that overly restrictive regulatory approaches can unintentionally destabilize insurance markets, citing California as a cautionary example.

There, prolonged suppression of rate

■ Construction materials and labor costs are up more than 40% in

SOME KEY INSURANCE INDUSTRY TAKEAWAYS: recent years.

■ Liability claims nationwide have increased 57% over the past decade— a surge often described as "social inflation."

■ New York experienced ten billion-dollar disasters in 2024 alone— compared with fewer than three per year before 2003.”

■ Insured hurricane losses in New York could rise by as much as 64% under a 2°C warming scenario.

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

27

Insurance Hearing (cont.)

New York Insurance Hearing:

IV. DFS and HPD Testimony

insurers. Lawmakers also expressed frustration with the opacity of underwriting decisions and sought clarity on how insurers define “highrisk” neighborhoods.

The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) presented complementary but distinct perspectives on the state of the insurance market. DFS, as the

DFS highlighted ongoing initiatives, including modernizing climaterisk modeling, enforcing antidiscrimination rules, implementing mitigation-discount programs, and deploying new budget authority to support affordable housing. DFS confirmed that its climate-risk

those using captives, fared somewhat better but still confronted systemwide escalation that outpaced operating budgets.

HPD raised concerns about potential discriminatory pricing patterns, including instances where buildings with Section 8 or voucher tenants were quoted higher rates or denied coverage outright. While HPD acknowledged the complexity of causal attribution, it emphasized the importance of ensuring that voucher holders are not indirectly penalized through insurance pricing.

HPD reported that insurance premiums across its portfolios have nearly doubled— about a 94% increase—with some properties Further, HPD described facing spikes of 300 to 500 percent. emerging regulator, sought to contextualize New York’s insurance dynamics within national trends. HPD, as the steward of the city’s affordable housing stock, emphasized the acute crisis unfolding within specific segments, particularly older and affordable multifamily housing.

DFS testified that New York remains “more stable than crisis states” like Florida and California, pointing to relatively low nonrenewal rates, a competitive market structure, and moderate statewide premium growth. However, DFS acknowledged significant stress within concentrated strata such as older multifamily buildings, supportive housing, and pre-war properties located in highdensity or coastal areas. DFS cited four major national cost drivers— climate disasters, construction inflation, reinsurance volatility, and litigation costs—all of which filter into New York’s marketplace.

guidance is intended to reduce long-term exposure and improve market stability—but acknowledged that mitigation benefits take time to materialize.

HPD’s testimony delivered a stark and urgent assessment: insurance costs are now among the most destabilizing pressures in New York City’s affordable housing sector.

HPD reported that premiums across its monitored portfolios have nearly doubled—approximately a 94% increase—with some individual properties experiencing spikes of 300–500%. Liability insurance was cited as especially volatile. HPD noted that larger portfolios, including

A repeated point of tension during questioning was DFS’s lack of access to claim-level data. Legislators pressed DFS on whether New Yorkers may be subsidizing losses in other states and how DFS evaluates catastrophe modeling submitted by

28 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

climaterelated risks, including new floodinsurance needs, rising extremeweather exposure, and concerns about insurer withdrawal from coastal neighborhoods. HPD referenced resilience work in MitchellLama buildings and urged state policymakers to integrate resilience funding, insurance reform, and capital programs.

In closing, both DFS and HPD underscored the need for greater data transparency, targeted interventions, and coordination across state and city agencies to stabilize the market and protect the long-term viability of affordable housing.

HOUSING NEW YORK WITH

KENNY BURGOS

The politics and public policy shaping the future of Housing in New York

Tune in weekly for our Housing New York podcast hosted

by NYAA CEO Kenny Burgos.

Each week we discuss the biggest housing news in New York, and explain why it matters.

Visit housingny.org/ housingnypodcast

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

29

Association, we will have NYAA and NAA Apartment a stronger voice in Washington, D.C. to advocate for housing reforms that Form Historic will increase the supply of housing and make New Yorkers’ lives better.

Partnership This is an exciting opportunity and In November, the National Apartment Association and the New York Apartment Association approved a charter agreement, joining forces to provide building owners and operators more support and political clout. NYAA joins NAA’s nationwide federation of 140 affiliate partners that represent more than 13 million apartments.

“NAA is honored to welcome the industry-leading New York Apartment Association to our national federation,” said NAA President & CEO Bob Pinnegar.

“As the rental housing industry continues to meet the challenges and opportunities of our time, this collaboration will ensure that our members are getting vital local and national support in one of our nation’s most populous areas. We look forward to working with the New York Apartment Association to make a significant impact for our shared members.”

“The pathway to better housing is having a strong presence on the state, local and federal levels, said NYAA CEO Kenny Burgos.

“By partnering with the National

we are thrilled to work with the talented people at NAA.”

Housing remains a top issue across the country and in New York City, where there is a historically low vacancy rate of 1.4% of available apartments for rent, according to the 2023 Housing and Vacancy Survey. The driving force behind housing affordability remains a lack of supply. Both NAA and NYAA have been leading voices on the need for more housing of all kinds, to meet the growing need for homes.

Together, the organizations will collaborate to continue the fight for better policy.

As part of the charger, NYAA members will also have access to industry-leading benefits, including educational services, operational resources, and avenues for advocacy both in New York and in Washington, D.C. “This partnership is a decisive win for housing providers in New York and across the country,” said NAA 2025 Chair of the Board Alan King. “Now more than ever, NAA is working to unite our industry in support of sustainable housing solutions and helpful resources and opportunities

30 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

for our members. We are eager to work alongside the incredible leadership of NYAA in the months and years to come.”

“This is a big day for building owners in New York,” said NYAA Chairman Aaron Sirulnick. “We all know the struggles of building and maintaining housing, from regulatory inefficiencies to growing costs that are out of our hands.

This exciting partnership with NAA makes us stronger. It gives us powerful allies in Washington, D.C. that will be able to make sure New York is not ignored in Congress and the very real problems facing apartment buildings in our state are part of a discussion on creating better housing policy.”

PAID ADVERTORIAL

BUILDING TRUST IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT A CONVERSATION WITH IZZY BAUTA OF ZION MGMT

P

roperty management in New York is a notoriously tough business.

Between navigating tenant needs, regulatory changes, and the constant upkeep of aging housing stock, it’s a sector that tests both patience and persistence. For Izzy Bauta, cofounder of ZION MGMT, it’s also an opportunity. He’s built the company around transparency, accountability, and a simple promise, to take the stress out of owning rental property.

We sat down with Izzy to talk about his background, why he launched ZION MGMT, and how he sees the future of property management.

Q: You came from outside the typical “big real estate” track.

How did your background shape the launch of ZION MGMT? Izzy Bauta: I grew up around small business owners. My parents ran businesses where trust was everything, you succeed if you deliver, and you don’t hide behind fine print. When I started buying and managing property myself, I saw how disconnected many management companies were from that mindset. Owners were frustrated, tenants were frustrated. I thought there had to be a better way.

I also had experiences as a tenant, and I knew firsthand what it felt like to be ignored when something broke or when communication wasn’t clear. That perspective pushed me to create a management company that values both sides of the relationship. ZION MGMT came out of wanting to do business differently, grounded in accountability.

Q: A lot of firms make service promises, but ZION MGMT has formal guarantees. Why was that important to you?

Izzy: Because promises aren’t enough. Too often, owners sign a management agreement and feel stuck, even if they’re unhappy.

I decided early on to back our work with guarantees, if a tenant leaves within 12 months, we replace them without charging another leasing fee. If a repair doesn’t hold, we make it right.

And if an owner feels the relationship isn’t working, they can walk away without penalty. That forces us to earn trust every single month.

It’s really about alignment. I want owners to know our incentives are tied to theirs. We take responsibility for the outcome, not just the process. And that extends to our pricing, too—we structure it on a flat-rate model that’s transparent and customized to each property’s needs, as low as $59 per unit per month, avoiding hidden fees or surprises that plague the industry. With our Resident Guarantee waiving leasing fees for early turnover and the Maintenance Guarantee covering fixes at no extra cost, owners can focus on returns without worrying about the fine print.

Q: How do you balance owner priorities with tenant satisfaction?

Izzy: Owners care about reducing vacancies and expenses, tenants care about responsiveness and convenience. The truth is, they’re connected. Happy tenants stay longer, pay on time, and treat properties with care. That reduces turnover and improves financial performance for owners.

That’s why we invested in a tenant portal, streamlined rent collection, and work with vetted vendors. It may sound basic, but doing the fundamentals consistently, answering calls, fixing issues quickly, has a big impact.

Q: What’s next for ZION MGMT? Where do you see the company going?

Izzy: Growth, but not at the expense of service. We’re already managing over 4,000 units, but scale only matters if we maintain the same level of accountability.

We’re also expanding services beyond management, brokerage, renovations, association management, so owners have a onestop shop. My vision is to make ZION MGMT a trusted partner for everything related to a property’s lifecycle.

Q: Looking back, what’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned running ZION MGMT? Izzy: That trust is the real currency. Real estate is about buildings, but management is about relationships. And I’ve learned that the simplest ideas, be transparent, stand behind your work, take care of people, are often the ones that work best.

ZION MGMT’s steady growth shows that a management model built on accountability and trust resonates in one of the toughest real estate markets in the country. For Izzy Bauta, the mission is clear, take the stress out of ownership and deliver results that speak for themselves.

31

Keeping aHoliday

radition T live A NYAA Members Help Feed New York as Holiday Needs Surge During the holidays, as families across New York gather around the table, NYAA members are once again stepping up to make sure more of their neighbors can do the same. Across the city, members are working with community partners, food banks, and volunteers to provide meals and support to New Yorkers who are struggling to make ends meet.

This year, those efforts carry special weight. With federal SNAP cuts, rising grocery costs, and continued economic uncertainty, food insecurity has grown sharply across the five boroughs. Many of the same food banks and pantries that

organize Thanksgiving distributions now serve thousands of families every week, underscoring how essential this network of support has become year-round.

and the owners and operators step up it really means a lot to the community.” said Abreu. “Every time we need you guys (NYAA) you step up and do your part,” he added.

Among the many member-led efforts, one cherished tradition stands out. For more than a decade, NYAA members Jeff Farkas and Scott Donner have partnered with the Inwood Food Pantry to organize an annual turkey giveaway, distributing 500 turkeys and 125 cases of food to local families the weekend before Thanksgiving.

Ismael Trinidad runs the Centro Evangelistico food pantry, which is open three times a week for residents to pick up fresh produce and canned goods. He said times have been tough this year.

This year’s event took place on Saturday, November 22 at 148 Post Avenue (near 207th Street). Among those in attendance, greeting residents and volunteers were Rep. Adriano Espaillat and City Councilman Shaun Abreu, who spoke about the importance of helping the community during the holiday season.

“With cuts at the federal government the need is greater. So when the New York Apartment Association

32 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

“We all know the prices have gone up. They have also reduced funding

for SNAP. Which means we have to fill the gap. We are making their Thanksgiving happen,” Trinidad said.

The Inwood effort is one of many examples of NYAA members’ quiet generosity — from Bronx owners sponsoring local pantries to Brooklyn managers running coat drives and Queens operators supporting tenant-led food programs.

“Our members are part of the communities they serve,” said NYAA CEO Kenny Burgos. “Even as they face challenges of their own, they continue to show up, not only during the holidays, but throughout the year. to make sure New Yorkers have the support they need.”

In a difficult economy, these acts of kindness reflect something deeper than seasonal goodwill. They highlight the vital role housing providers play in keeping New York’s neighborhoods strong — not just by providing homes, but by helping the people within them thrive.

U.S. Representative Adriano Espaillat and Ismael Trinidad of the Centro Evangelistico Food Pantry

Volunteers gather early as Donner’s truck arrives with the delivery

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

33

Compliance Calendar Winter 2025

Learn More: For further deadlines subscribe to our substack

JANUARY HIGHLIGHTS

1/1 NEW YEAR’S DAY Sanitation Workers’ holiday. No garbage pickup, no street cleaning.

1/1 LEAD PAINT NOTICE Must be delivered to every tenant between Jan. 1 and Jan. 16 in buildings built prior to 1960.

1/1 WINDOW GUARD NOTICE Must be delivered to every tenant between Jan. 1 and Jan. 16.

1/1 FIRE AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ANNUAL BULLETIN To be distributed to residential occupants and building staff.

1/1 STOVE KNOB COVER NOTICE Must be delivered to every tenant by Jan. 16.

1/1 PAY NYC PROPERTY TAX For properties assessed at more than $250,000, the last semi-annual payment for fiscal 2025-2026. For properties assessed at $250,000 or less, the third quarterly payment is due.

1/15 NOTICE OF ASSESSED VALUE The tentative assessment roll is open for public inspection on the City’s website, www.nyc.gov/finance. The Dept. of Finance mails notices of annual property tax assessment in January, but is not obligated to notify you of an increased assessment. RSA recommends that all owners review the records for their Buildings.

1/15 2025 PERSONAL ESTIMATED INCOME TAX DUE Last payment for Federal, State and City income taxes.

1/20 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY Sanitation Workers’ holiday. No garbage pickup, no street cleaning.

1/31 FEDERAL TAX FORMS DUE EMPLOYEES Deadline to provide all employees with W-2 Wages and Tax Statement for the calendar year 2025. Form 1099-Misc-Statement for Recipients of Miscellaneous Income-2025 must be furnished where applicable.

1/31 MULTIFAMILY BUILDING COLLECTION ALTERNATIVE SET-OUT TIME Enrollment Deadline.

Annual ELEVATOR INSPECTION ELV3 form must be submitted within 60 days from the date of inspection for each listed device. The report for the annual inspection must be filed one year from the last file date.

Annual BOILER INSPECTION Boilers must be inspected by licensed plumber and reports must be filled by December 31.

Annual PARAPET INSPECTION Owner must visually inspect parapet and retain inspection reports for 6 years.

Annual LOCAL LAW 55 (INDOOR ALLERGEN) Owners are required to use integrated Pest Management Practices to address pest infestation and use the prescribed Safe Work Practices to fix mold and underlying defects in dwelling unit and common areas.

Annual LOCAL LAW 69 OF 2017 BEDBUG REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Owners must provide each tenant, upon commencement of a new lease and with each renewal lease: a copy of the most recent electronic form submitted to HPDONLINE, and a DOHMH Notice “Stop Bed Bugs Safety” (or both notices may be posted in the building).

Annual LOCAL LAW 87 Begin the energy audit and retro-commissioning process if your building is required to submit an Energy Efficiency Report by December 31. Covered buildings with a tax block number ending in 6 are required to comply in 2026.

Annual LOCAL LAW 152 Buildings in Community Districts 4, 6, 8, 9 and 16 in all boroughs must have gas piping systems in all buildings, except for buildings classification in occupancy group R-3 inspected by a Licensed Master Plumber (LMP) or a qualified individual working under the direct and continuing supervision of an LMP. FEBRUARY HIGHLIGHTS

2/1 2026-2027 MBR CYCLE Owner must serve each rent-controlled tenant with form RN-26s.1 and file the Master Building Rent Schedule within 60 days of January 1 or the issue date of the order, whichever is later, to collect the rent increases for the first year of the 2026-2027 cycle.

2/1 BENCHMARKING NOTICE OF DATA INACCURACY Failure to submit a report correcting any errors prior to the next quarterly deadline (May 1, August 1, November 1, and February 1 last deadline) will result in a violation and penalty for each period of non-compliance.

2/12 LINCOLN’S BIRTHDAY Sanitation Workers’ holiday. No garbage pick-up, no street cleaning.

2/15 TENANT’S RESPONSE TO LEAD PAINT NOTICES DUE If tenant fails to respond, you must inspect the apartment at “reasonable times” to determine if a child under 6 years of age (5 years or younger) lives there. If, there is no response by March 1, write to Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) documenting your efforts to contact the tenant and to gain access to their apartment.

34 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

2/15 TENANT’S RESPONSE TO WINDOW GUARD NOTICES DUE If tenant fails to respond, you must inspect the apartment at “reasonable times” to determine if a child under 11 years of age (10 years or younger) lives there. If there is no response by March 1, write to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) documenting your efforts to contact the tenant and to gain access to their apartment.

2/15 SUPPLEMENTAL STOREFRONT REGISTRY STATEMENT due to report vacancies as of December 31.

2/16 PRESIDENTS’ DAY Sanitation Workers’ holiday. No garbage pick-up, no street cleaning.

2/21 LOCAL LAW 11 OF 1998 (FAÇADE INSPECTIONS) Compliance deadline for owners of buildings over six stories to inspect the exterior walls and to file a facade inspection report. Cycle 10 began February 21, 2025 and runs through February 21, 2029.

2/21 Sub cycle 10B – Blocks ending in 0, 7 and 8 must file between February 21, 2026 through February 21, 2028.

MARCH HIGHLIGHTS

3/1 DEADLINE TO NOTIFY DOHMH Write to Window Falls Prevention Program if tenants fail to respond to window guard notice and you are unable to determine if a child under eleven lives in the apartment, detailing attempts to acquire the information and to gain access to inspect the apartment.

3/1 DEADLINE TO NOTIFY DOHMH Write to Lead Poisoning Prevention Program if tenants fail to respond to lead paint notice and you are unable to determine if a child under six lives in the apartment, detailing your attempts to acquire the information and to gain access to inspect the apartment.

3/1 NYC REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT PROTEST CLASS 2 & CLASS 4 PROPERTIES Today is the last day to apply to the Property Division of the Dept. of Finance (DOF) for a reduction of the 2026-2027 assessment for Class 2 & Class 4 properties.

3/1 TAXABLE STATUS DATE Assessed value for the following City fiscal year is based on ownership, condition and value as of this date.

3/15 NYC ASSESSMENT APPLICATION DEADLINE For filing Tax Commission applications for correction of 2026-2027 tentative assessed valuation for Class 1 properties.

3/15 FILE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS Last day to file for calendar year ending December 31, 2025, unless you file for an extension. All other corporations must file within two and a half months after the closing of their fiscal year unless you file for an extension.

NYC Owes RentStabilized Building Owners A Thank You

By Kenny Burgos This November I was invited to be part of a panel discussion on the growing distress in rent-stabilized housing.

Before our discussion, the NYU Furman Center presented data and analysis on the current state of regulated housing, with a detailed breakdown of which buildings were in trouble, and which ones were doing okay.

They found that 48% of all stabilized apartments are in buildings that are highly regulated, with more than 90% of apartments registered as stabilized. The median rents in these apartments were $1,344, with an estimated $257 going to property taxes. This leaves the majority of rent-stabilized buildings with roughly $1,087 per apartment in operating costs, far below what is needed to fund NYCHA or nonprofit housing that is similar to the Pre-1974 rentstabilized housing stock.

According to the Citizens Budget Commission, the cost to operate NYCHA housing was $1,471 in 2022.

Adjusting for inflation, that is $1,610 per apartment today.

The Furman Center report also highlighted the distress of non-profit housing with strict rent limits. This makes up roughly 19% of all rentstabilized housing and has median rents of $1,249 —but pays no property taxes.

This is why I think the city owes you a thank you. You are operating nearly half a million apartments, housing more than one million people, and you are doing it with 68% of the budget of NYCHA and 87% of the budget of nonprofits, while delivering buildings with far less violations and complaints on average.

Your ability to find efficiency, negotiate costs, and invest wisely in the future of your properties have created the largest reserve of quality affordable housing in New York City.

I know that instead of being thanked for your work, you are often vilified by elected officials who suggest that your desire to profit is the reason New York City has housing affordability issues. Even when confronted with clear evidence that public housing and nonprofit organizations are spending considerably more to deliver a worse product, they still point fingers at you. And that is unfair.

Lawmakers also tell us what their priorities are through their tax policy.

Older rent-stabilized buildings are by far the most overtaxed housing units in the city. Elected officials prioritize huge tax breaks to new development projects, which charge rents twice or three times as high as you are allowed to charge. They also prioritize small buildings and single or two-

family homes that in many instances pay 8 times less in taxes per square foot than a rent-stabilized building on the same block.

As the CEO of NYAA, I am going to continue to have these conversations with elected officials and make it my mission to inform all of them of the amazing work you all do with a limited budget. In 2026, I am also going to advocate fiercely for help for you. That might come as property tax relief, or lower insurance costs, or subsidies.

But I know that larger regulatory reform is necessary to make your buildings sustainable again. Already, nonprofits have started to call for a vacancy reset for apartments in need of significant renovations. They want the carve out for themselves, but I will make the argument that our members deserve it just as much, based on the data.

We have a lot of work to do and I will continue to put all my effort into solving the housing crisis that has been created by bad policy. For now though, I want to thank you for the amazing job you are doing under incredibly difficult circumstances.

Your dedication to providing safe, clean, affordable housing to New Yorkers is vital to the city’s success.

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

37

Millions of Views.

Countless Conversations.

The New York Apartment Association: Leading the Dialogue on Housing Issues Across Social Media.

The New York Apartment Association (NYAA) is your premier source for all things housing, boasting millions of views and some of the highest engagement rates of any housing trade group in the country.

Our social media platforms are buzzing with conversations that matter—featuring exclusive insights from housing experts and public officials, dialogues with advocates, and stories from tenants across New York.

Don’t just stay updated—get involved!

Operating Costs Instagram Post: Views: > 16k Watch Time: 2 Days, 14 Hours Reshares: 264

Our social media channels are the go-to destination for anyone passionate about housing in New York. Whether you’re a property owner, tenant, or advocate, there’s a place for you in the conversation.

FOLLOW US! @HousingNY

Visit HousingNY.org to learn more and connect with us online!

Communications: Michael Johnson MichaelJ@housingny.org

Housing New York Magazine is published semi-regularly

The official publication of the New York Apartment Association

Kade Buci Kbuci@housingny.org

Publisher: New York Apartment Association, 123 William Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY.

Chief Executive Officer Kenny Burgos

Advertising/Sales: Lisa Richmond LRichmond@housingny.org

USPS#: 013163

Senior VP of External Affairs Jay Martin JMartin@housingny.org

Andrew Pap AndrewP@housingny.org

38 Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

Telephone: (212) 214-9297 Periodicals postage paid in New York, NY

The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art & Architecture Collection, The New York Public Library. "Affiche américaine pour l' "Inland Printer" (Christmas 1895)" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1899.

Housing New York Magazine | ISSUE 4

39

HOUSING NEW YORK Issue 4

What New Yorkers Need To Know About The So-Called Renters' Utopia

Q4 2025