CityFHEPS and Pathway Home Rule Amendments

Online comments: 37

• Corey Mann, LMSW

  As a provider supporting families who rely on CityFHEPS to remain housed, I strongly oppose the proposed increase in tenant rent contributions from 30% to 40% of income. Even for families with employment, the CityFHEPS subsidy is essential for managing the high cost of rent in New York City. Raising the rent burden for people using this subsidy risks destabilizing households who are already living paycheck to paycheck, and will ultimately push more families toward housing insecurity and homelessness. This change undermines the very purpose of CityFHEPS—housing stability—and would likely result in higher long-term costs for the city through increased shelter use and crisis services. I urge the administration to prioritize affordable permanent housing over short-term budget relief. Please find another solution rather than weaking a program that supports the most needy among us.

  Comment added May 7, 2025 2:55pm

• Marcus Gray

  As of January I have become a SOTA voucher holder in the shelter care system. Homelessness doesn’t disregard bills to pay and still being the breadwinner for family in need. I work and I am always up to my neck in debt. The proposed rent hike would be impractical as we’re already in a rock and a hard place. Mayor, it seems unfortunate to say. You made this proposal without seeming to be in hard times. Don’t hurt the hurting to please the favored.

  Comment added May 14, 2025 5:11pm

• Jonathan Tavarez

  My name is Jonathan Tavarez, from Bronx, NY. I work as a Program Director at a low-barrier Safe Haven program which temporarily houses people experiencing street homelessness within New York City. For people experiencing street homelessness who could live independently, the CityFHEPS voucher can be a helpful resource to access permanent housing. I am submitting a public comment in opposition to the Administration’s following changes as proposed, to the CityFHEPS Rule: Increasing the tenants rental share from 30% to 40% for households with earned income who are renewing with good cause beyond their fifth year in the program.

  I am extremely concerned by the City’s proposal which would make low to extremely low-income households rent-burdened, forcing them pay 40% of their income towards rent. This will not help households transition off the rental assistance voucher. It will instead make them less able to afford their daily living expenses in one of the most unaffordable places to live in the country.

  Single-person households in shelter must walk a financial tightrope to initially qualify for the program by maintaining their income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Limit. Due to their small household size, they can easily earn too much to qualify for the program. The City’s recent income limit increase for renewals up to 80% of the Area Median Income gives households greater ability to earn more without fear of losing their housing, but this proposed change is a step backwards. Our residents who can work find jobs in retail and the service industry earning minimum wage, and a full-time job working 35 hours a week pays just over $30,000 a year. Taking 10% more of their gross income means they would be left with only $18,000 before taxes to cover all other living expenses for a year!

  I urge the City to reconsider changing the CityFHEPS rule. New York should not rent-burden formerly homeless individuals who rebuilt their lives. In doing so, it will drive them towards debt and financial instability.

  Comment added May 15, 2025 1:12pm

• Annie

  Please do not increase the rent burden on those who need it most. This is not the way to cut costs and it hurts our city. We have a huge affordable housing crisis and this is just making it worse. Please protect the people of this city!!

  Comment added May 22, 2025 8:50pm

• Shani Friedman

  Don’t increase the amount of income required to qualify for FEPS vouchers

  Comment added May 23, 2025 1:16am

• Scott Andrew Hutchins

  All homelessness is caused by the greed of the rich. One need look no further than the April 8, 2025 New York Times article showing that people making $50,000 a year are living in homeless shelters. I myself have a master’s degree, and the last position that told me the salary at the interview was offering only $43,000, and I wasn’t the selected candidate. As a fifth-year CityFHEPS voucher holder myself, for the apartment that HRA put me in to be considered “affordable,” I would have to make $72,000 a year. Positions paying that much related to my employment background demand 20+ years experience doing nearly identical work and being multilingual in languages I don’t speak (I am NOT monolingual), and at $50,000 only ease off a bit on the number of years of experience demanded. Mayor Adams’s decision to raise CityFHEPS clients’ rent burden to 40% of their income is unconscionable, depraved, punitive, and will cost the city more money than it saves. It also violates the 14th amendment in spirit even if I’m not enough of a Constitutional expert to address the nuances of that issue.

  My name is Scott Andrew Hutchins, and I am a member-leader with several organizations including Picture the Homeless, VOCAL-NY, and Neighbors Together. I lived in the shelter system from 2012-2020. I was denied Disability by the Social Security Administration on the grounds that I can work a desk job, and the Department of Social Services system makes no effort to help people get any kind of work except retail/food service, parks janitor, security guard, and home health aide. The latter, as we know, is a slave labor job where people are forced to work 24-hour shifts and be paid for only 13 hours. I am technically not even eligible for CityFHEPS—the 4,083 job applications to which I applied led to only nine temporary positions (most of my 33 interviews on which I went were the entry-level marketing scam or trying to get me to pay for training to something I didn’t particularly want to do nor had the funds to do)—but the Safety Net Project at Urban Justice Center fought for me to get an apartment when the Department of Homeless Services got an in-house doctor to declare me mentally ill and in need of supportive housing after multiple independent mental health evaluations, including from Montefiore, Mount Sinai, Project Renewal, and Family Services of New York, found no chronic mental illness, only stress and mild depression as a direct result of my adverse situation.

  I can only assume that Adams is of the old mindset that homeless people are all drug addicts, which is easily debunked by the simplest of research. SAMHSA noted that only 16% of homeless people are substance abusers, so the desire to be punitive here is collective and immoral. As someone whose extra money usually goes to books and other media, I doubt too many formerly homeless people could afford much of this, since I do most of my media buying out of the bargain bin and still end up with a nearly empty bank account each month. As it currently stands, I have to pay $238.53 for my apartment, $235 for an out-of-state storage unit containing things I left behind when I came to New York for graduate school that I want back when my situation improves (it recently went up $25), the cost of my internet access has gradually doubled from $60 to $120 since the demise of the Affordable Connectivity Program (the only way to make it less expensive is to buy cable TV and phone service, which means spending more overall). The switchover from MetroCard to OMNY nickels and dimes us—they eliminated to 30-day unlimited card. Four seven-day unlimited cards is $68 for 28 days vs. $66 for 30 days, and we can only expect MTA fares to increase. I’m trying to survive on an unpredictable dividend that has been anywhere from $430 to $900 a month from the investment of my share of the sale of my family’s Midwestern suburban house after my mother passed away. Since I have to use the toilet a dozen times a day, I’m spending close to $30 a month on a 20-pack of toilet paper, and laundry costs me around $20 a month, in addition to the fact that I have to by things like detergent and Drano once a quarter.

  I haven’t even addressed the issue of food. The last SNAP increase was a single dollar from $291 to $292. The cost of food is skyrocketing, and I’m usually stuck with no way to buy staple foods like milk and bread at the end of the month because my bank account is completely drained by the last week of the month. I had to stop tithing to my church even though it’s in a pretty dire financial situation itself because so much of my income already goes to necessities. A friend asked me to let her use my SNAP to buy eggs until I told her how much I get each month. She said that if she had known how little I get in the first place that she would not have thought it appropriate to ask.

  That brings me to the fact that many people will not be able to afford the increase at all and be sent back to the shelter system, which costs a fortune in comparison to what the city is spending on CityFHEPS voucher, often as much as $4,000. The purported savings is only supposed to be $11 million. I believe that all that cost will be eaten by the return of people to the shelter, which is a needless trauma that benefits no one except the shelter providers who often pay themselves more than half a million dollars a year out of taxpayer money. The first shelter I was put in after the Bellevue intake, Eddie Harris Men’s Shelter, is (or was at the time) run by the Bushwick Economic Development Corporation. I accused them of embezzlement on my blog when they would consistently run out of food before the serving period was over. In 2016, executive director Frank Boswell paid himself $651,292 and was indicted for embezzlement in December 2019, and the NYC Department of Investigation determined that the city was the sole source of the organization’s income. When a Picture the Homeless research team on which I personally served investigated its Business of Homelessness report (2018), we found that half-million dollar salaries for shelter executives were the norm. We had hard data that CAMBA was doing this (more than half of what they received from the city was going to executive compensation) but omitted it from the final report because we didn’t want to give the impression that it was just a few bad actors but a system-wide problem, and we did not have hard data for every shelter provider in the city.

  Finally, I believe that forcing CityFHEPS clients to pay a greater percentage of their income in rent than Section 8 clients seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” because it effectively renders the formerly homeless as second class citizens to NYCHA residents. As Mayor Adams should know, the new HAVP voucher at the state level is equivalent to Section 8, which would also make us second class citizens to HAVP recipients, even though no one has yet received HAVP as of this writing because it has not been implemented, but the fact that it passed should make Adams concerned that he is unlawfully singling us out. This is all about selectively gouging the most vulnerable people for the benefit of his shelter-running cronies. I am not a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional lawyer, but the very constitutionality of Adams’s proposal seems questionable at best if not outright illegal. It may be worse still if Andrew Cuomo becomes mayor considering his involvement with Help USA shelters. The guidelines defining affordability from HUD, at least until Trump and MAGA Republicans manage to change them, are that rent should be no more 30% of your income (it used to be 25%, but was revised upward). A better way to describe what Adams is doing would be putting homeless people into unaffordable housing and deliberately exacerbating the affordability crisis.

  I implore the city to drop the proposed rule change requiring CityFHEPS recipients to pay 40% of their income in rent. This mayor’s extreme urge to increase homelessness in the city, as demonstrated by his repeated actions throughout his term, is repugnant, and anyone who becomes homeless as a direct result of this new policy should hold Adams directly responsible for their situation. I am terrified of becoming homeless again since education most certainly offers no reliable escape from homelessness. This is a real pitchforks moment for the citizens of New York.

  Comment added May 24, 2025 1:44am

• Kimberly

  I am opposed to the proposed rule change. This change threatens the already-tenuous “stability” of low-income households that are struggling to make ends meet under the existing 30% income requirement. Such households are ill-equipped to handle a 10% rent hike and are at high risk of food insecurity, medication insecurity, inability to pay for childcare, inability to pay for transportation, and other burdens that could lead to homelessness. The households affected are already deeply low-income, even those with earned income. These households would see whatever stability they’ve achieved from earnings erased by a 10% rent hike.

  Comment added May 24, 2025 10:08pm

• Chris Mann

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.

  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:

  One-shot deals through HRA

  Right to Counsel legal support

  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Sincerely,
  Chris Mann

  Comment added May 27, 2025 4:47pm

• Erica

  I strongly oppose this increase. In a city as rich as NY, with thousands of vacant properties, we shouldn’t have people, let alone children, homeless at all.

  Comment added May 28, 2025 11:17am

• Jasmine Marrero

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.
  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 28, 2025 4:02pm

• janet c miller

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working. Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness. Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  • One-shot deals through HRA
  • Right to Counsel legal support
  • Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS

  Comment added May 28, 2025 4:03pm

• Nadja Diaz

  Hello,

  the rent cost increase does not help families who are already dealing with high inflation costs or potential health care costs. Please do not increase.

  Comment added May 28, 2025 4:09pm

• Arisleyda Garcia

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:

  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 28, 2025 4:22pm

• Shermaine Gilyard

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.
  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  • One-shot deals through HRA
  • Right to Counsel legal support
  • Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.”

  Comment added May 28, 2025 5:01pm

• Kadisha Davis

  The changes to the voucher program will have a devastating impact on many families and individuals. Countless people depend on this support to improve their quality of life, and this increase will have the opposite effect. We must explore alternative ways to generate revenue for the city without placing this burden on those who need help the most.

  Comment added May 28, 2025 5:33pm

• Neiva

  Yes thks im interested

  Comment added May 28, 2025 5:43pm

• Kaylah

  “I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.
  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 7:13am

• Kristin Miller

  Homeless Services United (HSU) strongly opposes the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6. The people served by HSU’s nonprofit homeless shelter and services provider members would be negatively impacted by this rule change.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design. The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working. Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress. The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness. Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up. The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  – One-shot deals through HRA
  – Right to Counsel legal support
  – Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family
  If even just 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  We urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 8:43am

• Maya Jasinska

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:

  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS!

  Comment added May 29, 2025 10:19am

• Ailia H Rizvi, MSW

  As a social worker who supports homeless families in NYC, I am a witness to the traumatic impact of homelessness across every aspect of people’s and children’s lives and I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design. The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working. Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress. The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  IT INCREASES THE RISK OF HOMELESSNESS! Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family
  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 11:43am

• Jennifer hadlock

  All other housing programs require 30% of income paid. The goal for livability is 30% of income.
  Raising this is punishing the wrong people.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 1:45pm

• Nailah Abdul-Mubdi

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.
  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 3:24pm

• Catherine Trapani

  I strongly oppose the proposed rule to rent burden formerly homeless New Yorkers by forcing them to contribute 40% of their income towards rent. This proposal is structured in such a way that hardworking New Yorkers will receive a substantial rent hike just as prices for consumer goods are skyrocketing and other benefits like Medicaid and SNAP are at risk of being curtailed. Worse still, because the increase is based on taking an outsized share of their earned income, tenants will have no way practical of avoiding an outsized rent burden because, the more you make the more the City will take. Those who try to pick up an extra shift to cope with rising costs will not be able to keep that extra money in their pocket because 40% of it will have to go towards rent leaving no way to catch up.

  Given the economic precarity and stress this policy will cause, any modest savings generated do not appear to be in the overall public interest, particularly since those savings are potentially going to be offset by returns to shelter, housing court or other costs.

  Please reject this proposed rule and focus energies on strengthening the safety net to prevent people being forced to return to homelessness.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 4:58pm

• Jade Vasquez

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6. This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design. The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working. Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress. The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness. Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up. The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family
  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 5:20pm

• Yamile Almanzar

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6. This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family
  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS

  Comment added May 29, 2025 5:31pm

• Shakeya Benjamin

  Good day, my name is Shakeya Benjamin, from Manhattan, New York. I work as an Associate Program Director at a shelter for families with children within New York City, and the CityFHEPS voucher is the most effective resource we have to help families move out of shelter and into permanent housing. I am submitting a public comment in opposition to the Administration’s following changes as proposed, to the CityFHEPS Rule: Increasing the tenants rental share from 30% to 40% for households with earned income who are renewing with good cause beyond their fifth year in the program.
  I am extremely concerned by the City’s proposal which would make low to extremely low-income households rent-burdened, forcing them pay 40% of their income towards rent. This will not help households transition off the rental assistance voucher. It will instead make them less able to afford their daily living expenses in one of the most unaffordable places to live in the country.
  Families in shelter must walk a financial tightrope to initially qualify for the program. The City’s recent income limit increase for renewals up to 80% of the Area Median Income gives households greater ability to earn more without fear of losing their housing, but this proposed change is a step backwards. Our families find work in retail and service industry positions earning minimum wage, and a full-time job working 35 hours a week pays just over $30,000 a year. Taking 10% more of their gross income means they would be left with only $18,000 before taxes to cover all other living expenses for a year! If our goal is to end homelessness this program will not work, it will only increase the homelessness. I express this concern because our residents are struggling now to find proper employment to survive with their families. And when they move out into permanent housing, they will have to pay rent which may be more then they can afford. And with this change happening the residents will not be able to afford the new rent increase and will result they will return to shelter.

  Comment added May 29, 2025 6:13pm

• Marie M Pierre

  Good day,

  My name is Marie M. Pierre, from Queens. I work as an Associate Program Director at a shelter for families with children within New York City, and the CityFHEPS voucher is the most effective resource we have to help families move out of shelter and into permanent housing. I am submitting a public comment in opposition to the Administration’s following changes as proposed, to the CityFHEPS Rule: Increasing the tenants rental share from 30% to 40% for households with earned income who are renewing with good cause beyond their fifth year in the program.
  I am extremely concerned by the City’s proposal which would make low to extremely low-income households rent-burdened, forcing them pay 40% of their income towards rent. This will not help households transition off the rental assistance voucher. It will instead make them less able to afford their daily living expenses in one of the most unaffordable places to live in the country.
  Families in shelter must walk a financial tightrope to initially qualify for the program. The City’s recent income limit increase for renewals up to 80% of the Area Median Income gives households greater ability to earn more without fear of losing their housing, but this proposed change is a step backwards. Our families find work in retail and service industry positions earning minimum wage, and a full-time job working 35 hours a week pays just over $30,000 a year. Taking 10% more of their gross income means they would be left with only $18,000 before taxes to cover all other living expenses for a year!

  Comment added May 29, 2025 6:52pm

• Taysha Milagros Clark-Reid

  Volunteers of America-GNY would like to express concerns regarding client choice and informed consent in the Project CRIB evaluation design. While the program itself will likely benefit participants, the methodology and underlying research questions for the evaluation remain unclear. While we understand that persons selected to participate in Project CRIB can opt out, the evaluation design may detract from its ability to be truly voluntary and adhere to informed consent principles. For example, if persons are placed into the randomly assigned an intervention (Project CRIB, Pathway Home or control/the regular PATH application process) prior to being informed that they are being selected for a study and are only told after the fact that they can choose not to participate after being informed of their selection, this would not seem to be truly voluntary. The following questions speak to our concerns, and we hope you will consider them as you continue with the design and implementation of the project.

  Client Choice Questions:
  • Are people put in the randomizer first before being selected to participate in the evaluation? If so, the study is not truly voluntary and may not be ethical
  • At what point in the process are selected individuals able to opt-out?
  o If clients are only informed of the evaluation after being assigned to an intervention and then invited to opt out, this design may have an unintentionally coercive effect
  o Can those that are selected for a particular intervention choose to not participate and also opt-out of outcomes tracking?
  Informed Consent Questions:
  • Will all applicants to shelter be notified of the project?
  • What information is shared with selected participants? Is all information about each potential intervention (Project CRIB, Pathway Home, control/regular PATH process) shared with participants so that they adequately understand the program and what participation entails and what would be different if they opted in to the randomizer?
  • Is any information omitted as part of the project design?
  o Material missions would not result in true informed consent and therefore present ethical concerns.

  Comment attachment
  CityFHEPS-Rule-Change-Comments.pdf

  Comment added May 30, 2025 9:28am

• Rudilania Gil

  A real impact will be made. It is important to assist the homeless population.

  Comment added May 30, 2025 10:09am

• Stacy Ballard

  I vote no to the forty percent of income increase. This is just another way to make New York City’s most vulnerable suffer in plain sight. The systematic breakdown is egregious at best. It is not enough to have people who want to and work to establish independence, but they have to incur higher cost in order to do so.

  Comment added May 30, 2025 11:19am

• Virginia Shubert

  Please see the attached comment from Housing Works.

  Comment attachment
  Housing-Works-Comment-on-Proposed-CityFHEPS-rule-change.pdf

  Comment added May 30, 2025 11:27am

• Ethel Brown

  I strongly oppose the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6.
  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design.
  The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working.
  Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress.
  The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness.
  Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  One-shot deals through HRA
  Right to Counsel legal support
  Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. I urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 30, 2025 12:33pm

• Frantz Desir

  My name is Frantz Desir, from Brooklyn. I work as an Associate Program Director at a shelter for families with children within New York City, and the CityFHEPS voucher is the most effective resource we have to help families move out of shelter and into permanent housing. I am submitting a public comment in opposition to the Administration’s following changes as proposed, to the CityFHEPS Rule: Increasing the tenants rental share from 30% to 40% for households with earned income who are renewing with good cause beyond their fifth year in the program.
  I am extremely concerned by the City’s proposal which would make low to extremely low-income households rent-burdened, forcing them pay 40% of their income towards rent. This will not help households transition off the rental assistance voucher. It will instead make them less able to afford their daily living expenses in one of the most unaffordable places to live in the country.
  Families in shelter must walk a financial tightrope to initially qualify for the program. The City’s recent income limit increase for renewals up to 80% of the Area Median Income gives households greater ability to earn more without fear of losing their housing, but this proposed change is a step backwards. Our families find work in retail and service industry positions earning minimum wage, and a full-time job working 35 hours a week pays just over $30,000 a year. Taking 10% more of their gross income means they would be left with only $18,000 before taxes to cover all other living expenses for a year!
  One former client, a single parent with two young children, had to enter the shelter system after losing their job and falling behind on rent. The family was also dealing with medical bills, which made it even harder to keep up with the cost of living. Eventually, they were evicted. With help from the CityFHEPS program, the family was able to find a safe and stable apartment. This gave the parent a chance to focus on finding a job and taking care of their children. Even though the housing voucher covered most of the rent, the family still struggled with paying for things like utilities, food, and transportation.
  CityFHEPS made a big difference by helping the family move out of the shelter and into a home. It gave them a fresh start and showed how important rental support can be for families trying to get back on their feet.I urge the City to reconsider changing the CityFHEPS rule. New York should not rent-burden formerly homeless families who rebuilt their lives. In doing so, it will drive them towards debt and financial instability.

  Comment added May 30, 2025 12:39pm

• Israel Sanchez

  The proposed rule change put forth by the Adams administration to raise the tenant contribution for City FHEPS vouchers from 30 to 40 percent of their household income will have detrimental eff ects on their lives and will only serve to exacerbate our homelessness crisis. CityFHEPs has been a critical tool in reducing shelter stays by enabling families to remain housed while contributing a reasonable portion of their income towards rent.
  Tenants who are subject to this increase will have to choose between paying their rent and being able to aff ord other essential costs such as food, childcare, healthcare, etc. This change undermines the core purpose of CityFHEPs and destabilizes the very households the program is meant to support. Moreover, the proposed increase is unlikely to generate meaningful savings for the City and instead shifts fi nancial burden onto those least able to bear it. We urge the Mayor to reverse their decision and instead focus on implementing the expansion of the City FHEPS vouchers that were passed into law two years ago. Balancing the City’s budget must not come at the expense of working class and low income New Yorkers.

  Comment attachment
  City-FHEPS-Voucher-Increase-Comments.pdf

  Comment added May 30, 2025 2:28pm

• Eric Lee

  My name is Eric Lee, Director of Public Policy for Volunteers of America-Greater New York (VOA-GNY).

  VOA-GNY, as a provider of both homeless services and affordable housing, strongly opposes the proposed rule change to CityFHEPS to increase the tenant rental share from 30% to 40% for households with earned income who are renewing with good cause beyond their fifth year in the program. New York City should not rent-burden low and extremely low-income households, forcing them to pay 40% of their gross income towards rent, to save the city an estimated $11 million per year.

  The CityFHEPS voucher is an essential tool for VOA-GNY’s homeless services programs, which we use to help families with children, single adults, and survivors of domestic violence move to permanent housing. Our residents work hard to earn enough to qualify for CityFHEPS and pay for their necessities, while trying to keep their income under 200% of the Federal Poverty Limit to qualify for the voucher. Single-adults particularly, due to their small household size, can easily earn too much to qualify for the program. The City’s recent income limit increase for renewals up to 80% of the Area Median Income gives households greater ability to earn more without fear of losing their housing, but this proposed change is a step backwards. Our residents who can work find jobs in retail and the service industry earning minimum wage, and a full-time job working 35 hours a week pays just over $30,000 a year. Taking 10% more of their gross income means they would be left with only $18,000 before taxes to cover all other living expenses for a year!

  While it’s heartening to hear that the City is granting good cause extensions to 90% of working households beyond year 5 in the program, that means there will be a significant number of households impacted by this rental share increase. This rule change will not help them to transition off the program. It will instead take a significant amount of money out of the pockets of households who are already struggling to meet their daily living expenses and make it more difficult for them to maintain their housing and avoid homelessness. Rent-burdened tenants must make hard choices which expense to pay, rationing their prescriptions or food to make do with less, or falling into debt either because of unforeseen healthcare or other unplanned expenses or simply not earning enough to cover necessities.

  This rule change does not make sense, either from a humane or a cost-savings perspective. Maintaining stable housing is fundamental to so many other critical health outcomes including managing physical and mental health needs, maintaining stable employment, and higher school attendance and graduation rates. If just one percent of households using CityFHEPS for five or more years returns to shelter, in addition to retraumatizing the household and disrupting multiple facets of their lives, the projected cost-savings would also be cancelled out by the cost to shelter them.

  I urge the City to reconsider changing the CityFHEPS rule. New York should not rent-burden formerly homeless families and individuals who rebuilt their lives. In doing so, it will drive them towards debt and financial instability.

  Comment attachment
  VOA-GNY-CityFHEPS-public-comments-5-20-25.pdf

  Comment added May 30, 2025 2:42pm

• Khaliyl Mayes

  I oppose the devastating CityFheps proposed rule change!!!!!!!

  Comment attachment
  CityFheps-Proposed-Rule-Change-Testimony-By-Khaliyl-Mayes.pdf

  Comment added May 30, 2025 3:35pm

• Nathalie Interiano

  Care For the Homeless strongly opposes the proposed CityFHEPS rule change that would raise the household rent contribution from 30% to 40% of monthly income for families with earned income renewing their voucher for good cause in Year 6. The people we serve in both our shelter and health center programs would be negatively impacted by this rule change.

  This policy is deeply harmful and undermines the purpose of CityFHEPS as a tool for housing stability and long-term self-sufficiency.

  This rule would impose rent burden by design. The 30% income cap exists to ensure housing remains affordable. Increasing it to 40% for working families intentionally pushes low-income households into rent burden—reversing a core principle of housing support.

  This rule punishes families for working. Households that have followed the rules, secured jobs, and maintained housing stability would now face a sudden and unaffordable rent increase. This is the opposite of what a supportive housing policy should do.

  It undermines family stability and economic progress. The 30% cap allows families to save, attend school, and stay employed. A 40% burden will erode those gains, pushing families closer to eviction, instability, and back into the shelter system.

  It increases the risk of homelessness. Many households surviving under the current formula cannot withstand a 10% rent hike. Forcing this change will inevitably lead to evictions and re-entries into shelter.

  Fiscal arguments for this policy don’t hold up.
  The City claims the change will save $11 million—just 0.01% of the budget—but it ignores downstream costs like:
  • One-shot deals through HRA
  • Right to Counsel legal support
  • Emergency shelter stays, which cost $6,000/month per family

  If even 1% of the impacted families fall back into homelessness, those “savings” evaporate entirely.

  This policy is not just short-sighted—it’s cruel. We urge the City to withdraw this proposal and uphold the integrity and purpose of CityFHEPS.

  Comment added May 30, 2025 8:07pm