Wednesday, June 13, 2018

421-a rule change causes dip in regulated apartments

From AM-NY:

This spring, the city announced it had given hundreds of property owners one last chance to recoup the 421-a tax benefit by complying with provisions of a perk that aims to encourage the creation of affordable homes.

Now that the May 1 compliance deadline has passed, 730 of the 1,788 targeted properties lost the benefit, according to data provided by the city Department of Finance last month. Collectively, the properties lost about $22.38 million, according to the Department of Finance.

The property tax benefit was launched in the 1970s to spur residential construction. Over the years, it has been extended to co-ops, condos, two- to three-family homes and rental developments.

Although the city yanked 421-a from properties for a variety of concerns, advocates have focused their attentions on rental properties, since they must abide by rent stabilization rules while receiving 421-a.

Earlier this year, at least 367 developments with rental units had 421-a suspended for undisclosed reasons. The new city data shows 175 of these lots have had the benefit reinstated by fulfilling all of the 421-a requirements by May 1.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

F_ them, to get that break you have to sign layers of covenants with the city.
So many you practically no longer have homeowners rights !!
Too add if a tenant has a problem and cant pay the rent they receive special protections. You could be handed a section 8 check. And if you sign that check you will have dozens of even BIGGER problems. Including letting the city into your building to snoop around at any time and all sorts of special regulations

Anonymous said...

This will mean skyrocketing rents for thousands of apartments and the city can do nothing except collect a few more dollars every year. The families that can’t afford the rent will be evicted and the whole demographic of neighborhoods will change. The loser will be the average middle class person. Great job mayor.

Anonymous said...

Is this a good thing? It seems like it, but is there something the article isn't mentioning?