Miller backs Mitchell-Lama protection bill

By Albert Amateau

More than 200 residents of Mitchell-Lama housing developments throughout Manhattan came to the steps of City Hall on Tues. July 22 to hear City Council Speaker Gifford Miller introduce legislation aimed at protecting tenants at risk of losing affordable housing when landlords leave the Mitchell-Lama program.

Tenants chanted “Save our homes,” and cheered the provisions of the proposed Mitchell-Lama Conversion Protection bill, which has the support also of Councilmembers Alan J. Gerson, Christine Quinn and Margarita Lopez.

The Mitchell-Lama law, enacted 43 years ago, allows landlords to leave the program and charge market-rate rents after 20 years if they pay off outstanding mortgages and taxes.

The proposed legislation is intended to make it more difficult and expensive for owners to leave the affordable housing program. If enacted, the bill could affect an estimated 25,000 Mitchell-Lama units in the city, including 1,340 apartments at Independence Plaza North in Tribeca and 420 apartments in West Village Houses in the Village, which are in the process of leaving the program.

I.P.N. and West Village Houses tenant associations want to acquire the buildings and create limited-equity co-ops.

“We’re here for one specific reason,” Gerson told the crowd. “That is to say we will not be moved. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the community. The tenants of I.P.N. moved in when this was a barren neighborhood and built a community. Then after 9/11 they lived through the worst of the worst. We’re not going to let a so-called sunset provision in the Mitchell-Lama law do what the terrorists were not able to do — force us out of the neighborhood.”

However, Steven Spinola, executive director of the Real Estate Board of New York, denounced the proposed legislation in a statement released later on Tuesday.

“Changing the rules now would be a serious breach of faith and would dissuade investors from creating much-needed units of new affordable housing in the future,” Spinola said. “The Mitchell-Lama program stands as a contract between government and the private sector, and any change being proposed by the City Council would clearly be a breach of that contract resulting in the loss of trust in government. We also question the City Council’s authority to enact such changes, but even the attempt to do so is sending a terrible message.”

Miller, however, said that while the state has tremendous authority in Mitchell-Lama matters, “we believe that these steps can be taken by the Council.” The proposed legislation, he said, “gives the Department of Housing Preservation and Development the tools to negotiate on behalf of the tenants and the city.”

Referring to the $50 million city, state and federal program to build 315 affordable apartments in Lower Manhattan that was announced by the mayor and the governor on July 21, Miller said, “That’s really good. We need 315 more units of affordable housing. But what about the 25,000 affordable Mitchell-Lama apartments that can be saved at a fraction of the cost?”

The proposed legislation would apply to Mitchell-Lama rental apartments supervised by the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development and built after Jan. 1, 1974, meaning that they are not subject to rent stabilization if landlords buy out of the program.

H.P.D. would be required to do an impact study on the effect of a building’s leaving Mitchell-Lama. The study would examine the rent increases that tenants would have to pay, the availability of affordable housing and the number of families likely to be displaced as a result of higher rents. The owner would then have to pay for mitigating any adverse effects on tenants.

Miller said the legislative process would begin when the Council reconvenes in September.