Public comments for: Mitchell Lama Rule Amendments

Comments

Comment:
I oppose prohibition of lateral transfers. I support requiring that a board hold an informational meeting before an HPD carrying charge increase hearing. I support that election procedures be submitted in detail to the HDP for approval and at least 60 days in advance of an election. I support adding to the rule change that there be mandatory distribution of the procedures at the same time to the shareholders. I support a rule change that requires all votes toward dissolution/reconstitution be funded by cooperator assessments. Thank you.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I favor HPD rule change to 2/3 of vote for Feasability study, Mitchell Lama was created for the middle class, we need affordable homes.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I oppose prohibition of lateral transfers: It is sometimes difficult to find a person on the waiting list willing to move into a less desirable apartment (e.g., on a low floor or just above the laundry room or in a poor "as is" condition). Allowing for lateral transfers can help fill those apartments by those who can have the hope in a short time of making a lateral transfer to a more desirable apartment (e.g., on a high floor). Lateral transfer should be a normal right of all shareholders. I support requiring that a board hold an informational meeting before an HPD carrying charge increase hearing. It is necessary that shareholders have adequate information and hear the board rational for a proposed increase before the HPD hearing so that comments at the hearing can reflect support or opposition to the board's rational. I support that election procedures be submitted in detail to the HDP for approval and at least 60 days in advance of an election. I support adding to the rule change that there be mandatory distribution of the procedures at the same time to the shareholders. And I request that HPD add to the proposed rule change specific guidelines for election procedures. I would support a rule change that requires all votes toward dissolution/reconstitution be funded by cooperator assessments. It is economically irresponsible to take such money out of operating funds. The HPD keeps the expenses balanced by the income. If funds toward privatization come from operating funds, the result will increase pressure toward the next carrying charge increase.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I live in a Mitchell-Lama supervise rental building, and I strongly support the rule change to increase the vote to ⅔ from a simple majority of the residents, to approve the funding of a feasibility study for step one of the 3 step process toward privatization of Mutual Housing companies. In addition I support the use of election companies and proceedures for the vote Affordable housing in New York City is sadly disappearing at an alarming rate. The lotteries for affordable housing are rapidly growing because of this, and any regulation that will help stem the tide of privatization of affordable housing is a welcome change.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
There should be a stricter rule regarding the use of renovations in apartments. Renovations of any kind can not last more than 45 days with no extensions allowed - per year. The tenant must get permission from management and specify what is being done. A card should be given specifying the beginning and end dates. Any days not used could be used and can be used at a later date before the end of the year of when the tenant first began. Tenants must also put on their door that they have permission from management and are allowed to make the necessary noises for that type of construction - along with the beginning and end dates posted. No one can make these types of renovating noises other than those who have those notices on their door. Noises must only be allowed from 9:30 am to 4 pm no exceptions and any disturbance complaints from other tenants must be addressed immediately by management the very next day. This is to allow for peaceful habitation for all and to avoid any tenants using their apartments as workshops who disguise their work as renovations. This rule will also apply to management as well when they send out employees to work on apartments when a tenant leaves and when pertaining to maintenance of any thing involving the need to hammer and use of power tools. Living in NYC is already noisy but the noise should not follow us into our homes as well. Some of these things are included in the lease already, however, I think the need for specificity is important. Since some people try to find loop holes within the agreement. I also want to address loud music or any volume that can be heard through the walls. Music and any other type of recreational noises shall only be allowed from 11 am to 11 pm. And rules should be made to evict those unruly neighbors who consistently violate the rules or imposed fines of some sort. No one should have to deal with disrespectful people who get in the way of those wanting to have a peaceful and considerate fair use of their apartments. And reminders of this rule should be sent out once a year to each apartment.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I’m opposed to the elimination of the lateral transfers. The reason in being is due to frictions between neighbors a transfer would be the best solution. If you want to change the rules how about stricter rules on loud noises from unruly neighbors. Also to eliminate transfers to a larger apt based on family size not and not based on opposite sex. I live with three people we are all same sex but older people who need our space. Also to cut the fees to be based on the vacancy list instead of paying $50,000 to $70,000 plus. We are here because we can’t afford the fair market rent. I hope that this will be taken in consideration.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
have lived in Mitchell-Lama for almost 30 years and currently serve as a board member. While most of these new rules seem positive, I strongly urge you to reconsider the following two as their unintended consequences may outweigh their benefits: 1. Specify that current tenant/cooperators will always be given priority to move to a smaller unit, but that current tenant/cooperators will now only get priority for the first three out of every four apartments that become available for moving to a larger unit. - This rule will result in overcrowding. Our complex has very few 3br apartments and families often wait longer than ten years for an internal transfer. This rule change would add several more years wait time for these families. I do not oppose this rule for transfers up to a 1br or 2br, as there are many more units of those sizes available. Disclosure: I have two children but am not on the list for a 3br as they are both of the same sex. 2. Prohibit individuals convicted for crimes involving theft from serving on a mutual housing company’s board of directors. - This seems like a well-intentioned rule but it is both a privacy issue and is an inefficient and ineffective use of limited resources. Who conducts these background checks? Who has access to the results? Why specifically only theft and not violent or other serious crimes? Mitchell-Lama is already highly regulated with checks and balances between the board, management, audits, and HPD. A background check is an additional barrier for people to serve on the board, even for people with 100% clean records. This rule equates Petit Larceny with Grand Larceny. It would apply to anyone who got caught stealing gum or jumping a turnstile, and given our criminal justice system's propensity to target minorities for minor infractions, this rule will have an unjust impact on some Mitchell-Lama residents.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
HPD should not implement the proposed rule to "increase the requirement from a majority to two-thirds of the dwelling units to approve the proposed expenditure of funds for the preparation of a mutual housing company’s feasibility study." While requiring a super-majority vote to withdraw from the Mitchell-Lama program arguably makes sense to protect minority shareholder rights, a super-majority vote should not be required to obtain information upon which to make an informed judgment. It should be the goal of HPD to provide tenants with information they desire where a majority of the tenants express an interest in obtaining it, not to use restrictive voting procedures to maintain their ignorance. I am not aware of any other voting procedure at any level of government where multiple super-majority votes are required to take action. Such biased voting requirements essentially disenfranchise tenants and are highly inappropriate.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
Why should there be a 2/3 rule rather than just a simple majority for all three necessary votes toward privatization? In general, 2/3 or supermajority rules are adopted by political bodies and organizations to ensure that major changes like constitutional amendments are only taken with great care and with substantial support. In the US, changing the constitution, overriding a president's veto or ratifying a treaty all require supermajority votes in favor. Changing the structure of a corporation can have major consequences. The 2/3 rule is a precaution that such a major change should not be taken lightly or easily. But also, changes may affect stockholders or shareholders differently. A supermajority rule is considered necessary when an action might alter the rights of a minority. Everyone living at a M-L co-op has chosen to join a limited equity co-op, which means a not-for-profit co-op. That was known when they put themselves on the waiting list and all the time they lived at their co-op. Acceptance at a M-L co-op is on the premise that this is what you are offered and are getting into. For many, cooperative living together not based on money or profit considerations has worked well. Changing that reality for those who do not want to change their limited equity, not for profit way of life would be a major blow to those people. Their right to continue to live as they and their neighbors chose should not be taken away easily or to satisfy some or even half of their neighbors. The 2/3 rule is there to insure that at least that many of their neighbors are willing to make the change despite the sacrifice it will be for those who prefer living without considerations of profit. All three votes are part of the same process toward privatization so I support adding to the HPD M-L rules that the first step require an affirmative vote of 2/3 or more of the dwelling unit occupants, 1 vote per unit.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
At the RNA House M-L co-op in the UWS, in recent votes, the cooperators who favor staying in the M-L program numbered more than 1/3 while those who favor considering privatization numbered less than 2/3. Those who favor staying in M-L will likely be enough to defeat any red herring allocation vote. But up until now that number would not necessarily be enough to defeat a feasibility study allocation vote. Without the proposed change, RNA might have annual allocations for a feasibility study followed by annual defeats of allocations for a red herring. That would be a waste of co-op money but also the source of continuous tension among the the RNA cooperators. RNA House is not the only M-L co-op that has such a division of sentiment. A rule that uses the same required 2/3 majority to pass all three necessary dissolution votes is likely to remove the possibility of multiple feasibility studies in close succession. But also requiring a 2/3 super majority is justified because the change toward which the votes are going would be an involuntary major structural change for those who want to stay in a M-L co-op. I support changing the rule so that all three votes, to allocate money for a feasibility study, to allocate money for a red herring and to dissolve and reconstitute should require 2/3 or more affirmative votes to pass.
Agency: HPD

Pages