Relates to limited profit housing companies

Summary of specific provisions

This bill authorizes New York City or any city, town or village in the counties of Westchester, Nassau and Rockland to extend the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (the ETPA) to cover rental buildings which: (1) were owned by limited-profit housing companies which voluntarily dissolved or which dissolve in the future, or (2) were covered by rental assistance contracts between their owners and HUD and such contracts expired or terminated previously or do so in the future. The bill also prevents owners of such buildings from applying for higher initial rents under the ETPA or the New York City Rent Stabilization Law than were previously charged to their tenants.

Section 1 of this bill sets forth Legislative findings and declaration of emergency.

Section 2 of the bill amends Section 5 of section 4 of Chapter 576 of the laws of 1974 constituting the emergency tenant protection act of 1974 by adding a new subdivision c to set rents for buildings completed after January 1, 1974 as the rents charged on January 1,2007, as subsequently adjusted by rent regulation laws. Furthermore, this section clarifies that the rent setting language with a base date of January 1, 2007, will supersede any agreement made between a tenant and landlord whether in a lease or another agreement.

It makes it clear that "Unique" or "peculiar" circumstances rent increases authorized by the New York City rent stabilization law and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act are not applicable to Mitchell-Lama or project based. Section 8. buildings whether the building were completed before m after January 1, 1974.

Section 2 sets forth an effective date of immediate and provides that the law applies to housing accommodations located in buildings or structures-owned by housing companies that dissolved on, before, or after such date and to housing accommodations in buildings or structures that were covered projects and had contracts for rental assistance that expired or were terminated on, before, or after such date; provided that the amendments to section 5 of the emergency tenant protection act of nineteen seventy-four made by section two of this act shall expire on the same date as such act expires and shall

not affect the expiration of such act as provided in Section 17 of chapter 576 of the laws of 1074.

Justification

Many limited-profit housing companies are exercising their option to buy-out of the Mitchell-Lama program. Likewise, HUD contracts with the owners of rental buildings for Section 8 assistance are expiring, being terminated or not being renewed Existing middle income tenants in Mitchell-Lama and Section 8 housing are faced with eviction if they cannot afford new market rents. Extending the ETPA to these buildings will ensure that existing tenants can continue to afford to live in their current apartments. ETPA coverage will also enable building owners to more readily be eligible for rent increases under annual ETPA guidelines.

Legislative history

2013/14 - S.1169 - Died - Housing 2011/12 - S.1010 - Died - Housing 2009/10 - S.3326D - Died - Housing 2008 - S.5284 - Died - Housing

Fiscal implications

Most costs of administration of ETPA and rent stabilization are covered by per unit fees charged to property owners.

Effective date

This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to housing accommodations located in buildings or structures owned by housing companies that dissolved on, before or after such date and to housing accommodations in buildings or structures that were covered projects and had contracts for rental assistance that expired or were terminated on, before or after such date; provided that the amendments to section 5 of the emergency tenant protection act of nineteen seventy-four made by section two of this act shall expire on the same date as such act expires and shall not affect the expiration of such act as provided in section 17 of chapter 576 of the laws of 1974.