Lottery apartments change from rent-stabilized to market rate? (Albany, York: low income, leases)

[JazzGuy]

I noticed this comment in another thread:

I heard these housing lotteries usually last 15 or 25 years before it goes to market rate right?
If so, let's say you move into an apartment where someone has lived there for 5 years and it is going to be market rate in 15 years, Do you the 15 years or the remaining 10?

I've been under the impression that if you win one of these units, they will remain rent-stabilized as long as you occupy them.

Is that not true?

Is it the case that after 15 or 25 years your rent will change from rent-stabilized to market rate while you still occupy the apartment?

[macnyc2003]

It should be spelled out in the lease. Read it before you sign. Different financing programs have different requirements. In my friend’s lease, it said 25 years.

[WildAboutHarry]

Yes, as a post above expressed, examine the lease.

In cases where changes are allowed after many years, there are examples where negotiations, political and government influence have been factors result in less than market rate outcomes. The government might extend tax breaks in exchange for keeping units from going market rate, hypothetical scenario. It can be many years from now so it’s anyone’s guess.
###
In the affordable housing zoo there are different animals. Mitchell-Lama, and HDFC are examples. These are relatively rare animals. Some of these can change their own rules, it’s not easy to do or fast because the changes can be challenged. Recently in the last year or so, the NYS gov rules about changing rules have been changed for Mitchell-Lama, the hurdle is now higher.

Stuytown/Peter Cooper Village has a complex history over its many decades which includes lawsuits and negotiations with government. The rules have changed is a short answer.

Turin House, aka 609 Columbus Avenue (built ~1970) changed its status but some affordable housing rules are in place.

Waterside Plaza (1970s) is former Mitchell-Lama which still has some affordable housing features in place. Some of its rents are regulated but not by the rent control board. Instead the shift in the AMI allows for rent increases, and this has meant larger increases than the rent control board.

At Cadman Towers (~1971) a Mitchell-Lama coop, there is a faction of residential owners that want to shift from Mitchell-Lama to another form of affordable housing.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by Jennbrazil

I have no dog in this fight, so just out of curiosity why do some Cadman residents want to switch?

I know of other Mitchell Lamas where some owners want to switch to private, and that seems a little selfish/greedy. Again looking from the outside for now.

Read and learn:

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/r...o-private.html

https://cooperatornews.com/article/t...ll-lama-debate

https://www.villagevoice.com/saving-mitchell-lama/

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...28&context=ulj

Cadman Towers like Penn South, Rupert Towers and host of other Mitchell-Lama properties were specifically developed with plans that one day in future they could leave program and go to some version of free market.

There are various reasons why landlord or shareholders would want out of Mitchell-Lama. Some of them certainly are based upon financial gain. However there are other practical reasons as well.

Thanks to liberal democrats in Albany recent actions all but have ended more developments leaving Mitchell-Lama. https://www.habitatmag.com/Publicati...0market%20rate.

[randomperson2]

For many leases, the unit will remain RS (or RS-equivalent) until the last tenant who moved in during the RS period moves out. However, it varies. Read your lease carefully.

[JazzGuy]

Thank you, everyone.

So my takeaway from all comments is to read the lease to find out.

Best case scenario is "the unit will remain RS (or RS-equivalent) until the last tenant who moved in during the RS period moves out."

Worst case scenario implied by the quote in my original post would be that the rent stabilization for a re-rental could land anywhere depending on how long the previous tenant lived there, i.e., rent-stabilization for 25 year, previous tenanat leaves after 20 years, only five years of stabilization left.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by JazzGuy

Thank you, everyone.

So my takeaway from all comments is to read the lease to find out.

Best case scenario is "the unit will remain RS (or RS-equivalent) until the last tenant who moved in during the RS period moves out."

Worst case scenario implied by the quote in my original post would be that the rent stabilization for a re-rental could land anywhere depending on how long the previous tenant lived there, i.e., rent-stabilization for 25 year, previous tenanat leaves after 20 years, only five years of stabilization left.

You have to read the lease and or look up information on city's website (DCHR IIRC) because over course of many decades 421-a and other programs that created incentives for "affordable" or 'low income" housing changed.

Things range from being under RS for "X" years and that's that to "Y" years but unit will not leave RS until there is a vacancy.


Under first method units are RS say for 25 years. Once that clock times out regardless of tenant's situation when current lease expires so does RS, apartment moves to market rate and loses all protections of rent regulation.

Starting with B de B if not bit before things were switched up to either unit remains RS even after tax abatement period expires until current tenant vacates, or is permanently "affordable" meaning it never will leave rent regulation.

Length of tenancy may or may not affect affect things much or at all.

If unit is RS for 25 years under whatever scheme and becomes vacant sometime around 20 years, absent a statutory requirement LL rent apartment at once, he can merely wait out the clock. When 25 year mark passes unit will leave rent regulation regardless.

[randomperson2]

When they end up passing an anti-warehousing law, you landlords (or your clients, if you're one of Debbie Riegel's people) are only going to have yourselves to blame. So damn greedy.