A pending City Council bill to grant nonprofits the right of refusal when a multifamily building is put up for sale is a lousy idea that should not be passed, and especially not so in the waning hours of this session as the current Council wraps up on Dec. 31.
Speaker Adrienne Adams, whose term ends in 16 days, and incoming new Speaker Julie Menin, who starts in January, should jointly act to sideline this legislation, which sounds pretty unconstitutional to us, as it interferes with the rights of private property owners to dispose of their holdings as they best see fit.
Council members running for other public offices, like Eric Bottcher (running for Congress) and Keith Powers (running for state Assembly) should vocalize their opposition to this measure, which will not do what the sponsors claim.
The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, called COPA, is supposed to give nonprofits a chance to buy residential properties when they come on the market, but those nonprofits have always been able to buy properties. This legislation interferes with normal fluctuations of buying and selling, distorting the market.
And since everyone agrees, from outgoing Mayor Eric Adams to incoming Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that New York needs to create much more housing, mucking around with the private housing market can only run counter to that.
There are some very excellent nonprofits that own and manage apartment buildings, but that doesn’t mean that such ownership should be preferred in law. Neither for-profit nor nonprofit landlords should be favored.
The bill adds a new layer of government bureaucracy in the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development, with its guaranteed slowness and general incompetence, into the sale and purchase of residential properties, slowing everything by months. That the measure is filled with problems is clear since it has been amended over and over to make it less onerous. How about dispensing with all the onerousness and just forgetting the bill?
If passed, landlords looking to sell may change their minds and the same for those looking to buy, as any deal they agree on can always be upended by a nonprofit jumping in to match the price. Again, that creates more inefficiencies in the market, the opposite of what is needed.
Property sales, with tons of paperwork covering restrictions and deeds and mortgages and taxes, are already complicated proceedings. Why make it even more complicated by inserting additional limitations and oversight?
As two housing experts, one of them a former HPD commissioner, wrote in our op-ed pages this month: “Across the board, COPA as proposed will reduce the pool of buyers and lenders and make it harder to recapitalize aging buildings or refinance maturing debt. In a deepening supply crisis, the parameters of this bill will constrain development, further constrain supply, and exacerbate the housing crisis.”
This COPA bill has been kicking around the Council for many years, never passing as it has too many defects and drawbacks. Passing it now, as this present Council heads about the door, would be putting the new Council and new mayor, elected in large part to alleviate the housing crunch, in a very bad spot. That is a legacy that departing Speaker Adams should not want for her and her colleagues.
