Honorable Sheldon Silver
Speaker of the Assembly
Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12248

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am pleased to present the 2006 Annual Report for the Assembly Committee on Housing highlighting the accomplishments of the past Legislative Session. It was a productive year, particularly in regards to budgetary accomplishments. Through the budget conference committee process the Assembly was able to secure $25 million in additional housing capital for existing and new programs. The Assembly was also successful in securing an additional $7.4 million to fully restore funding for the Neighborhood Preservation Corporation and Rural Preservation Corporation programs, as well as override the Governor’s veto of these vital programs.

Many bills important to the preservation and creation of affordable housing were passed by the Assembly and several were signed into law. The achievements of the Committee include bills designed to facilitate the continued work of New York City’s Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD). Bills chaptered include ones to extend HPDs authority to restructure rents under its different programs (A.9824-A; A9860; A.9993) and extend authorization of the Article 8 Loan Program.

In response to the continuing threat of buildings pre-paying or "buying out" of the Mitchell-Lama program, the Assembly again passed a package of bills to protect tenants. Bills passed include one that would eliminate the six percent cap on owner dividends while providing rent stabilization to tenants in buildings that buy out (A. 2454), ones that would require early notification for buy-outs (A.459), and extend from twenty to fifty years the period of time before limited-profit housing companies may dissolve (A.460), and bills that would extend rent stabilization to buildings occupied after 1974 (a.458 and A.2522). Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass these bills. The Committee will continue to advance this legislation in the next session and explore additional ways to keep owners in the program.

The Committee held several public hearings in 2006. In May, the Committee held a hearing to examine the New York City Housing Authority's proposal to increase rents in order to avoid future budget shortfalls. In June, the Housing Committee joined the Real Property Tax Committee to hold a public hearing to discuss strategies that would enhance access to affordable housing for working New York families. In July, the Committee convened a public hearing to examine whether intimidating tactics are being used to harass tenants for the purpose of forcing them to vacate rent-regulated units. The Housing Committee, in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Mitchell-Lama Housing, held a public hearing in August to explore possible solutions to keep units in the Mitchell-Lama program and discuss any changes that could be made to improve the program. And in September and November, the Cities, Codes, and Housing Committees held hearings examining the powers, duties, obligations, and accountability of New York City’s regulatory system for construction, development and zoning enforcement.

Finally, the Assembly passed a bill that was signed into law raising the allowable annual amounts that may be given to the statewide network of Neighborhood Preservation Companies (NPCs) and Rural Preservation Companies (RPCs) (A.3526).

I am pleased with the many successes of the Committee and look forward to continuing our efforts in what is sure to be an exciting session ahead. I wish to extend my sincerest thanks to the members of the Committee, my staff, the staff of the Housing Committee, and to you, Mr. Speaker, for your commitment and support.

Sincerely,

Vito J. Lopez
Chairman

2006 ANNUAL REPORT

OF THE

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

VITO J. LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN

Members of the Committee

1. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION AND PURVIEW

   1. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS
      1. Rent Increase Proposed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
      2. Section 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law and 2 Its Correlation to Affordable Housing
      3. Harassment and Eviction of Rent Regulated Tenants
      4. The Future of Mitchell-Lama Housing
      5. Regulation of Construction and Development in New York City and the Enforcement of the Building Code and Compliance with the Zoning Resolution

2. 2006 LEGISLATIVE HIGHLIGHTS

   1. STATE OF NEW YORK MORTGAGE AGENCY (SONYMA) AND HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (HFA)
      1. Reauthorizing the State of New York Mortgage Agency
      2. Increasing HFA’s Authority to Finance Affordable Housing
      3. Facilitating Financing of Quality Affordable Housing for Special Needs Populations
      4. Extending the Definition of “Rehabilitation Loan”
      5. Expediting Additional Affordable Home Ownership Development Projects
      6. Extending Property Tax Exemptions
      7. Revising the Definition of "Mortgage"
   2. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (HPD)
      1. Increasing the Housing Development Corporation’s Bonding Authority
      2. Extending Authority to Restructure Rents for Multiple Dwellings
      3. Extending Authority to Restructure Initial Rents in Certain Multiple Dwellings
      4. Extending Authority to Restructure Rents for Buildings with Municipal Rehabilitation Loans
      5. Extending Authority to Establish Initial Rents in Residential Buildings with Low Interest Loans
      6. Enabling Continued Financial Viability
   3. PUBLIC HOUSING
      1. Permitting the Restructuring of Rockville Centre Housing Authority Projects
      2. Expanding the Rights of Public Housing Tenants
   4. NEIGHBORHOOD AND RURAL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS
      1. Increasing Annual Contract Amounts
      2. Creating an NPC and RPC Administrative Advisory Committee
      3. Facilitating Rural Area Revitalization
   5. COOPERATIVES AND CONDOMINIUMS
      1. Ensuring Equitable Payments for Common Expenses in Restricted-Income Condos
      2. Protecting Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons
      3. Requiring Notification of Rights
   6. MITCHELL-LAMA HOUSING
      1. Encouraging Continuation in Mitchell-Lama via Incentives
      2. Extending Rent and Eviction Protections of the Rent Stabilization Law
      3. Ensuring Early Notification of Mitchell-Lama Buy-Outs
      4. Safeguarding New York State’s Mitchell-Lama Housing
      5. Requiring Proof of Maintenance of Essential Services
      6. Protecting Former Mitchell-Lama Tenants
      7. Protecting Tenants from Rent Increases Based on Unique and Peculiar Circumstances
      8. Providing Additional Protections in Voting
   7. LOFT LAW
      1. Insuring Continuation of Services
      2. Providing Additional Oversight and Remedies for Loft Dwellings and Residents
      3. Expanding Loft Law Coverage
   8. RENT REGULATION
      1. Urstadt Law Repeal
   9. BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE CODES
      1. Increasing the Minimum Heating Requirement
   10. OTHER
       1. Establishing an "Access to Home" Program
       2. Providing Funding for Projects on Former Brownfield Sites
       3. Authorizing Housing Preferences for Police Officers
       4. Ensuring Housing Protections to People with Disabilities
       5. Creating an Accessible Housing Registry
       6. Assisting the Need for Affordable Housing in the Peconic Bay region
       7. Assisting the Need for Affordable Housing in Nassau County
       8. Facilitating Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence

3. 2006 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

   1. EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING
   2. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM FUNDING

5. OUTLOOK FOR 2007

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

The New York State Assembly Committee on Housing is composed of twenty-seven members. The Committee is responsible for legislation concerning housing development and preservation. Its purview includes rent regulation, as well as legislation that amends the following volumes of the New York State Consolidated Laws:

•  Multiple Dwelling Law, which encompasses health and safety standards for buildings with three or more families living independently of each other in New York City and Buffalo;

•  Multiple Residence Law, which covers health and safety standards for buildings with three or more families living independently of each other in all localities other than New York City and Buffalo;

•  Private Housing Finance Law, which governs the following State programs: Mitchell-Lama; Limited Dividend Companies; Redevelopment Companies; Housing Trust Fund; Affordable Home Ownership Development; Turnkey; Permanent Housing for Homeless Families; Infrastructure Development Demonstration; Mobile Home Cooperative Fund; Housing Development Fund; Neighborhood Preservation; Rural Preservation; Rural Area Revitalization; Rural Rental Assistance; Special Needs Housing; Urban Initiatives; Permanent Housing for Homeless Families; several New York City programs; and the administration of the State Housing Finance Agency and New York City Housing Development Corporation; and,

•  Public Housing Law, which covers the safety, management, and financing of local public housing authorities throughout the State.

In addition to bills regarding these laws, the Committee has jurisdiction over legislation amending the following sections of the Unconsolidated Laws: the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law; the Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Law; the New York City Rent Stabilization Law; the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974; sections of the New York City Administrative Code and the City of Buffalo Administrative Code; sections of the General Business Law that relate to the conversion of real property from rental to cooperative (co-op) or condominium (condo) status; and sections of the Executive Law, Real Property Law, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, and the Public Authorities Law.

In May, the Committee held a public hearing to discuss the proposed rent increase at the projects of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and explore the effects such proposal would have on the tenants and the composition of the population living at these projects. On May 20, NYCHA announced a seven-point plan to preserve public housing in New York City. One key aspect of the plan was a rental increase of up to forty percent for certain tenants. Other aspects of the plan included an allocation of $100 million from the City of New York, federal Section 8 funding to subsidize 8,400 State and City units, acceleration of exterior building repairs and infrastructure improvements, management and technological improvements, and diversification of revenue streams.

The Committee heard from the Commissioner of NYCHA, various elected officials, tenants, and tenant advocacy groups regarding the proposed plan. NYCHA outlined the budget gap it is currently facing and their challenge to close the gap while continuing to serve the lowest income group in New York City. One tenant representative expressed concern that NYCHA formulated the plan without tenant input. Some witnesses requested more governmental assistance to close the budget gap and others pointed out that the federal government should do more to support public housing.

In conjunction with the Real Property Tax Committee, the Housing Committee held a public hearing in June on Section 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law and its correlation to affordable housing. The Committees heard from the Comptroller of the City of New York, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, several elected officials, users of the 421-a tax exemption program and affordable housing advocates. The hearing sought testimony from the various parties regarding whether the 421-a program has outlived its usefulness. Some argued that the tax exemption program has simply become a means by which to subsidize the creation of luxury apartments.

The hearing reviewed the merits as well as the need for the 421-a program. The hearing also sought input on viable proposals to enhance the 421-a program in such a way as to address the affordable housing crisis and/or to find alternative solutions for this serious problem. Some proposals included requiring a higher percentage of affordable units in each subsidized project(currently 20%); eliminating the certificate program and requiring all affordable units be built on site or requiring funds be set aside for a dedicated affordable housing fund; expanding the exclusion zones; and requiring all 421-a projects include some affordable units.

The Housing Committee convened this public hearing in July to examine whether intimidating tactics are being used to harass tenants for the purpose of forcing tenants to vacate rent regulated units and what the legislature could do to discourage this practice. The Committee heard from numerous elected officials, tenant organizations and individual tenants. Tenants and tenant representatives testified repeatedly to experiencing various forms of harassment from their landlords. Witnesses recounted examples of landlords who denied basic services and repairs; landlords claiming Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases for work not performed; and being brought to court for petty reasons. Another problem identified is that only approximately 10% of tenants are represented in housing court, while approximately 98% of landlords are represented. Many witnesses suggested repealing the Urstadt Law and allowing New York City regulated its own rent system. Other suggestions included raising the threshold for vacancy decontrol and amending the MCI rent increase process.

In conjunction with the Subcommittee on Mitchell-Lama, the Housing Committee held a hearing in August to explore solutions for keeping units in the Mitchell-Lama program as well as possible improvements to the program. The Committee heard from elected officials, Mitchell-Lama tenants’ associations, tenants’ organizations and individual Mitchell-Lama tenants regarding their concern for the future of the Mitchell-Lama program. All agreed that the program has been extremely successful in providing moderate income families with rental and cooperative housing. There is widespread concern, that as building owners leave the program, the number of affordable units in the City will be lost forever. Some suggestions for improvements to the program included: incentives for keeping owners in the program; applying rent protections after a Mitchell-Lama buys out; creating and funding a uniform Landlord Assistance Program to assist tenants in negotiations with landlords; and initiating and funding a Capital Repair Relief Program so that building owners have a source of low cost financing to do needed capital improvements.

In September and November, the Cities, Codes and Housing Committees held hearings to examine the powers, duties, obligations and accountability of New York City’s regulatory system for construction, development and zoning enforcement. Over the course of two days, the Committees heard testimony from the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), elected officials, professionals who use the services of the Department, neighborhood association representatives and individuals who have concerns about the workings of the Department. The concerns that recurred at the hearings were whether the DOB is taking all steps necessary to ensure that construction taking place in the City of New York is being overseen at a level such that safety exists for the neighbors of the construction and what improvements could be made to the permitting and regulatory process such that construction continues efficiently, but within the scope of existing regulations. A number of witnesses testified that the self-certification process for professionals who apply for work permits is ineffective in that there are too many plans that are certified which do not meet existing regulatory requirements. Another criticism is that the fines levied against developers need to be higher in order to compel them to follow the rules.

This chapter amends Section 2407 of the Public Authorities Law to increase tax-exempt bonding authority of the State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA) to a total of $7.670 billion, an increase of $200 million. This increase is expected to provide SONYMA with sufficient bonding authority to cover its activities for the next year. In addition, this chapter extends SONYMA’s authority to purchase mortgages and issue taxable and tax-exempt bonds until July 16, 2007.

The New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) was created as a public benefit corporation in 1960 to finance the development of low income housing by providing low-cost mortgage loans to both for-profit and not-for-profit developers. In its forty-five year history, the Agency has issued more than three billion dollars in bonds used to finance affordable housing developments. These developments include multi-family rental housing, senior housing, staff housing for educational and medical institutions, congregate care facilities, adult homes, and other special-needs housing.

This chapter increases HFA’s tax-exempt bonding authority by $1.1 billion from $10.18 billion to $11.28 billion. This increase will enable HFA to continue to meet the demand for below-market financing among both for-profit and not-for-profit housing developers for another year.

This chapter qualifies community residences and similar residential facilities for SONYMA mortgage insurance that would not otherwise meet the construction or rehabilitation requirement under the current SONYMA statute.

This chapter extends from July 23, 2006, until July 23, 2008, the definition of "rehabilitation loan" within statutory authorization of the Mortgage Insurance Fund to require that at least twenty percent of the loan be used for the cost of rehabilitation.

This bill would permit qualifying not-for-profit housing organizations involved in affordable home ownership development programs to apply up to ten percent of the program or project cost they are awarded for the organization’s operating expenses, including expenses related to the administration of the contract.

This bill would authorize municipalities to enter into contracts with redevelopment companies to exempt the real property of such companies from local and municipal real property taxes for a term commensurate with the term of the mortgage on such property made by the New York State HFA, instead of the current term of twenty-five years. It would also give the municipality the option of entering into a contract that will be co-terminus with the Agency’s permanent financing.

This bill would allow SONYMA to issue and insure second mortgages for down payment and closing cost assistance to potential home owners. This bill would define the term "mortgage" to include a loan owed to a bank secured by a second lien (under certain limited circumstances) if the second lien secures a loan purchased by the agency and is made at the same time as a first lien securing a loan purchased by the agency.

New York City’s housing needs are among the largest in the nation. As a result, the Housing Committee works closely with New York City’s Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD) to ensure that those needs are met. The following are summaries of bills supported by HPD that were acted upon by the Assembly.

This chapter allows the City of New York Housing Development Corporation ("HDC") to increase the maximum aggregate principal amounts of its outstanding notes and bonds by $600 million from $5.65 billion to $6.25 billion. HDC uses this bonding authority to refinance existing Mitchell-Lama mortgages in exchange for a commitment to remain in the program for an additional fifteen years, to restructure HUD loans used to finance the construction of low-income housing for the elderly, and to finance new construction and the conversion of non-residential buildings to housing in the Congressionally designated Liberty Zone and in other areas throughout the city.

This chapter extends the existing authority of HPD to restructure rents for housing development fund companies that have purchased and are rehabilitating occupied multiple dwellings under Article 11 of the Private Housing Finance Law from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2010.

This chapter extends the ability of the HPD in the City of New York to restructure initial rents in multiple dwellings that are receiving loans pursuant to Article 8-A of the Private Housing Finance Law from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2010.

This chapter extends New York City’s authority to restructure rents of dwelling units in buildings that have received municipal rehabilitation loans and are part of urban development action area projects, from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2010.

This chapter extends from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2010, HPD’s authority to establish initial rents in residential buildings that have received low-interest, municipally-financed rehabilitations loans under Article 8 of the Private Housing Finance Law ("PHFL").

This bill would enable projects funded with loans issued pursuant to Article 8 of the Private Housing Finance Law to remain financially viable by extending HPD’s authority from September 9, 2006, to September 9, 2009.

The State of New York continues to play an important role in regulating and supporting the operation of public housing. Currently, over 18,000 units of state-regulated public housing are operated by thirty public housing authorities. In New York City alone, state-supervised public housing developments provide housing to over 30,000 people.

Despite the importance of these developments to the State’s efforts to provide affordable housing, public housing authorities desperately need additional assistance in order to make long overdue capital improvements. However, due to the inadequate level of funding provided through the State’s Public Housing Modernization program, many essential improvements and repairs continue to languish for lack of available funds. Increased funding for modernization remains one of the Committee’s top priorities.

This chapter authorizes the Rockville Centre Housing Authority to restructure its housing project known as Rockville Centre Apartments to ensure its continued operation as a source of housing for persons and families of low income.

This bill would allow public housing tenants to conduct meetings free of charge in common areas owned by their housing authority.

The Neighborhood and Rural Preservation programs (NPP and RPP) provide grants to cover the administrative costs of not-for-profit community groups engaged in a variety of housing activities ranging from housing development and rehabilitation to homebuyer counseling and tenant assistance. These not-for-profits are known as neighborhood and rural preservation companies (NPCs and RPCs). Since 1990 alone, NPCs and RPCs have played an instrumental role in the creation of over 32,000 units of affordable housing. According to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), for every dollar invested in NPCs and RPCs between $13 and $18 is leveraged from private and other public sources for affordable housing.

This chapter increases the limit that NPCs and RPCs can receive annually. A statutory increase would allow companies to receive an annual award that would compensate them for the $32,500 cut in funding they received in State Fiscal Year 2004-5 in addition to the traditional $65,000 annual contract award. This bill increases the allowable annual contract award for NPCs and RPCs by $17,500, from $80,000 per year to $97,500 per year.

This bill would create an advisory committee to identify areas of concern for Neighborhood and Rural Preservation Companies and DHCR related to the administration of the Neighborhood and Rural Preservation Programs and to propose policies to address those concerns.

This bill would permit qualifying not-for-profit housing organizations involved in certain rural area revitalization projects to use up to ten percent of the program or project cost they are awarded for the organization’s operating expenses, including expenses related to their operating support and the administration of the contract.

The purchase of a cooperative or condominium is viewed by many as an alternative to home ownership. However, buying a co-op or condo is often a complex process requiring a substantial investment of time and money on the part of the purchaser.

Upon purchase, a co-op shareholder or condo unit-owner holds an interest in the cooperative or condominium corporation and has a tremendous stake in the management of the property. But unlike owning a home, where an individual owner has the final say as to property management decisions, an elected board has these responsibilities in a co-op or condo. Condo unit-owners elect a board of managers, while co-op shareholders elect a board of directors.

Many of the financial problems associated with cooperatives and condominiums resulted from the tremendous conversion boom that took place in the 1980s. As the economy declined, a soft real estate market hurt both the sponsors who had invested huge sums of money to convert buildings and the shareholders who had purchased shares in troubled buildings.

Because a rental building can be converted with as little as fifteen percent of the tenants wishing to purchase, many sponsors converted under less than ideal financial circumstances. Trouble resulted when sponsors had difficulty selling vacant units. Unable to meet mortgage payments and sustain building services, some sponsors defaulted on bank loans, souring the investment for shareholders and placing building residents at risk.

This chapter allows owners of restricted-income condominium units to be charged less for common expenses than owners of the other units, and requires that the combined common expenses, mortgage, and other household costs paid by owners of such units not exceed thirty percent of the household limit.

This bill would expand the definition of "eligible senior citizen" and "eligible disabled tenant," in regards to cooperative and condominium conversions, to include family members of tenants who have resided within the housing accommodation for at least one year.

This bill would require sponsors of cooperative or condominium conversions to notify cooperative shareholders or condominium owners of their right, as provided by federal law, to terminate a sponsor’s self-dealing contract.

Since the 1950s, the Mitchell-Lama program has provided affordable housing to moderate-income New Yorkers. More than 400 Mitchell-Lama developments, housing approximately 150,000 families, are scattered throughout the State. The continued viability of this housing remains a critical part of New York State’s effort to ensure the availability of affordable housing for each of its citizens.

Despite this, to date owners of thousands of apartments have ended rental or sales restrictions that cover their buildings by repaying loans issued under the Mitchell-Lama guidelines. In fact, forty-three developments with 17,000 units of affordable housing have left the program. These "buy-outs" can have a devastating impact on the families living in these buildings as rents may double or triple when existing leases expire.

Since 1999, the Assembly has responded by passing packages of bills to protect Mitchell-Lama tenants. The Committee continued to pursue a package of legislation in 2006.

This bill would authorize municipally aided Mitchell-Lama rental developments in New York City to pay dividends or interest in excess of six percent per year. It would also provide rent stabilization protection for tenants in Mitchell-Lama developments that still choose to buy out of the program. The legislation would also exempt developments where the tenants and owner have executed a settlement agreement regarding their respective rights and obligations.

This bill would extend the rent and eviction protections of the New York City Rent Stabilization Law to Mitchell-Lama developments occupied on or after January 1, 1974.

This bill would require Mitchell-Lama housing companies that intend to dissolve to provide notice of such intention to all their lease holders at least six months prior to the anticipated date of dissolution. The bill specifies certain information that must be included in the required notice.

This bill would extend from twenty years to fifty years the period of time a company must continue in operation before limited-profit housing companies may dissolve and leave the Mitchell-Lama Program. This legislation would preserve Mitchell-Lama housing as an affordable housing resource for the future.

This bill would ensure the delivery of essential services (as defined) in Mitchell-Lama housing by conditioning the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) approval of rent increase applications on the delivery of those services and the correction of any hazardous conditions that might exist.

This bill would provide rent and eviction protection to the tenants in former Mitchell-Lama buildings. The bill would authorize municipalities in Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland counties to declare a housing emergency for former Mitchell-Lama buildings that have voluntarily dissolved.

This bill would protect tenants in Mitchell-Lama developments in New York City that become subject to Rent Stabilization or the Emergency Tenant Protection Act, by ensuring that the rent is stabilized at the level of the prior rental amount and prohibiting a rent increase based on the characterization of past participation in the Mitchell-Lama program as a unique and peculiar circumstances when a project withdraws from the program.

This bill would authorize mutual companies to require a standard form and procedure for the casting of proxies or absentee ballots in any matter requiring a shareholder vote, prohibit the use of absentee ballots or proxies in votes to authorize the dissolution or reconstitution of a mutual company, and would also provide that a mutual company may not dissolve or reconstitute except by an affirmative vote representing two-thirds of the dwelling units, with one vote counted for each dwelling unit.

Originally passed in 1982, the Loft Law provides a mechanism for legalizing commercial lofts in New York City that have been converted for combined commercial and residential use; many of these units are occupied by artists. The law, which in 2006 the legislature renewed until May 31, 2007, provides tenants who became residents of loft buildings in the early 1980’s with protections against arbitrary evictions and rent hikes. However, these tenants, long-term residents of the City who provide strong support for its prominence in artistic fields, are threatened by changing demographics and need greater protections.

Currently it is estimated that in Brooklyn alone, 10,000 people who live in buildings zoned for commercial or manufacturing use are not protected by the existing Loft Law. When the Assembly became aware of the large number of tenants threatened with eviction, it developed a package of bills to address the situation. By expanding the Loft Law, the Assembly seeks to increase the number of residents who would be covered under the existing statute and to provide important tenant protections for residents whose loft apartments are not currently covered.

This bill would prohibit interruption of services in "would-be" interim multiple dwellings if the unit is used for residential purposes with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Essential services that have customarily been provided could only be interrupted for repairs, which would be required to be performed in a reasonably expedient manner or in the case of an emergency or by order of a court or other governmental organization. The bill would further provide that if the services have been interrupted or discontinued, the owner must restore such services for so long as residential occupancy continues.

This bill would extend the Loft Law until May 31, 2010. It would also provide additional oversight for interim multiple dwellings, and would provide for additional remedies for residents of such dwellings. It would protect tenants who have occupied their lofts for twenty years or more from eviction due to an owner’s claim that he or she wants to use the unit or let a family member use the unit. This bill would further make additional provisions relating to the financing of such dwellings and the applicability of various provisions of the law to such dwellings.

This bill would expand the existing Loft Law to people who lived in illegal lofts for a period of at least one year, from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2005. The bill would also extend the Loft Law to May 31, 2010.

New York’s rent regulation laws provide protection to over 2.5 million tenants throughout the State. The basis for both rent control and rent stabilization is a housing emergency, defined as a vacancy rate below five percent, which still exists in many areas of the State. Due to the existence of this emergency, government intervention is critical to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases and evictions.

This bill would amend the Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act by removing the provision that prohibits cities of one million or more from strengthening rent regulation laws to provide more comprehensive coverage than provided by state laws.

This bill would provide that certain multiple dwellings must be heated to a minimum temperature of sixty-two degrees Fahrenheit from October 1st to May 31st between 10 pm and 6 am. The current minimum temperature requirement is fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit.

This chapter creates an "Access to Home Program," administered by the Housing Trust Fund Corporation ("HTFC"), to better enable low-income seniors and persons with disabilities to remain in their homes by providing financial and technical resources to assist renters and property owners to make dwelling units accessible.

This bill would direct the Commissioner of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal and the Affordable Housing Corporation to grant preference in the award of Housing Trust Fund and Affordable Homeownership Development contracts to economically feasible projects that are located on brownfield sites, provided that the brownfield site has received a certificate of completion from the Department of Environmental Conservation.

This bill would provide police officers in cities with a population of 100,000 or more an incentive to take up residency in such cities by offering preferential access to Mitchell-Lama and public housing, provided the city adopts a local law authorizing the preference and the police officers otherwise qualify for admission. The bill would also require applicants who receive awards from the Affordable Housing Corporation to provide a preference to homebuyers who are members of a police force in these same cities.

This bill would ensure that housing protections provided to people with disabilities under Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act are also guaranteed by state law and therefore enforceable by state agencies.

This bill would create a New York State housing registry containing up-to-date information regarding accessible housing statewide for people with disabilities.

This bill would assist in easing the need for affordable housing in the Peconic Bay region by creating the Peconic Bay Region Housing Opportunity Act, which would establish a community housing opportunity fund to provide loans to eligible residents.

This bill would assist in easing the need for affordable housing in Nassau County and would give the local governments of Nassau County the authority and resources needed to establish community housing opportunities.

This bill would create a mechanism to permit a victim of domestic violence, for whose benefit an order of protection has been issued, to terminate his or her lease or rental agreement.

In 2006, the Assembly negotiated a budget that will help alleviate the housing crisis in New York State. After the Governor proposed funding the Neighborhood and Rural Preservation Companies at fifty percent of their traditional level, the Assembly worked with the Senate in conference committees to pass a budget that included restorations for these important programs as well as a significant increase to housing capital programs. The Assembly continued its commitment to the Neighborhood & Rural Preservation Companies by overriding the Governor’s vetoes of the restorations.

Legislative Appropriation

NPP and RPP provide grants to cover the administrative costs of not-for-profits engaged in a variety of affordable housing activities. According to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, for every dollar the State invests in NPP and RPP, between $13 and $18 is leveraged for affordable housing from other public and private sources.

The Governor originally proposed $5.465 million for NPP, and $2.355 million for RPP, both of which represented no change from SFY 2005-06 and half of what had been provided in previous years. The Assembly was successful in adding $5,041,500 to the Neighborhood Preservation program for a total appropriation of $10,506,500, and supported the addition of $2,370,000 to the Rural Preservation Program for a total appropriation of $4,725,000 million. The Assembly views this amount as essential for maintaining adequate funding for all existing groups in good standing. The Assembly joined the Senate in overriding the Governor’s vetoes of these additional appropriations.

The Homes for Working Families program uses a combination of tax-exempt bonds, low-interest loans from the State, and federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits to finance the development of housing for households earning between fifty percent and sixty percent of median income. By providing developers a vehicle to access otherwise unused federal four percent Housing Tax Credits, Homes for Working Families offers an opportunity to produce high quality, affordable housing at a lower cost for New York State’s taxpayers. The $7 million enacted represents a continuation of last year’s budget appropriation.

This program provides grants and loans of up to $35,000 per unit (plus an additional $5,000 in high-cost areas) for rehabilitation and new construction of one-to-four-family dwellings for middle-income New Yorkers. The Governor’s proposed appropriation of $25 million represented no change from SFY 2004. The Assembly worked with the Senate, however, to fight for an additional $5 million for this program.

This program provides grants for emergency transitional and permanent housing for the homeless through acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation. This year’s budget appropriation is the same level as was enacted last year for the development of permanent, emergency, or transitional housing for homeless persons. The $30 million appropriation includes $5 million to be set aside for the Homeless Persons With AIDS Program.

This program provides funding to modernize state-aided public housing projects and to address structural problems that threaten the safety of tenants. The Executive did not propose any increased funding for this vital program.

This program provides grants of up to $7,500 to low-income elderly homeowners in one-to-four family homes to correct conditions that threaten their lives, health, or safety and that would otherwise force them from their homes. As such, HOPE grants enable older New Yorkers to maintain their independence and avoid more costly housing alternatives. Funding for HOPE/RESTORE remained level at $400,000 in the Governor’s proposed budget. The Assembly fought in the Conference Committee process for an additional $1 million for this important program.

The Trust Fund provides funding to not-for-profits, localities, and private developers for the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing that is affordable to low-income households. Funding for this program in the Executive’s proposal was maintained at the level enacted for the previous four fiscal years. Through the Conference Committee process, the legislature was successful in adding $10 million for this program.

In an effort to address the affordable housing crisis that has made New York State one of the least affordable places to live in the country, the Assembly fought to infuse $25 million new capital dollars into capital programs. Additions, as noted in the text above, were made to the following existing programs.

Several programs that had been funded in the past were also funded out of this infusion of capital. They include:

The challenge of providing safe and affordable housing in New York State is larger than ever given continued budget shortfalls. The Committee seeks to achieve this goal by developing policies that leverage private resources, encourage individual home ownership, lead to the creation of new housing opportunities, and lower the cost of affordable housing development. The Assembly’s commitment to housing remains strong and the committee is eager to work with the new Executive to foster this commitment and develop new policies to ease the statewide housing crisis.

One of the top priorities for the Housing Committee in the upcoming session will be the extension of the Loft Law beyond its sunset date of May 31, 2007. Protecting tenants who currently reside in lofts designated as interim multiple dwellings units is an important piece in the affordable housing puzzle. Thus, the Committee will seek not only to extend the existing law but also to protect long-term tenants in lofts and to expand the law to cover unprotected loft tenants in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and other areas of New York City who are not covered because they were not in residence by the date required under the Multiple Dwelling Law.

The Committee will also focus on continuing the Service Contract Obligation Revenue (SCOR) Bond program to ensure an uninterrupted flow of state resources to affordable housing development. Since 1991, the SCOR Bond program has financed the rehabilitation and/or construction of over $1 billion of affordable housing throughout New York State.

Another priority for the Committee is to ensure that both the Housing Finance Agency (HFA) and the State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA) have sufficient funds available to them so that they may continue to finance affordable housing throughout New York State.

In addition, the Committee will continue to seek the establishment of a revolving loan fund to help working families purchase and rehabilitate homes. Many of these families can currently afford monthly mortgage payments, but are unable to buy a home due to high down-payment and closing costs. By assisting families with these costs, as well as the cost of necessary repairs, this initiative could make the dream of owning a home a reality for thousands of New Yorkers.

Finally, the Committee will continue to fight to ensure that the State budget provides adequate funding to assist in the development of affordable housing, the rehabilitation of existing units, and the expansion of housing opportunities for the homeless, the elderly, and those with special needs.

I look forward to my fourteenth year as chairman with enthusiasm and will make every effort to uphold the Assembly’s commitment to quality, affordable housing for all of New York State’s citizens.

APPENDICES

2006 Summary Sheet
Summary of Action On All Bills Referred to the Committee On Housing

To Floor; Not Returning to Committee

To Floor; Recommitted and Died

To Ways & Means

To Codes

To Rules

Substituted

Recalled

Held in Committee

Died in Committee

Bills That Passed the Assembly

Bills Signed By The Governor