Public comments for: Mitchell Lama Rule Amendments

Comments

Comment:
I am anti-privatization, these buildings were made for people that can’t afford a pvt market rate coop. These are families, elderly, single ppl that finally can feel like it’s HOME. And by changing that rule, then those ppl are shaken to the core. Many of us come from modest backgrounds who worked hard and caught a break by getting into a ML building. And this vote for Feasibility Studies is a vote to take away that security. I am in Rosalie Manning I say no to privatization and feasibility studies!
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I too am a member of Keep Our Building Affordable. KOBA My home at Rosalie Manning has been the best 22 years, building is well-kept by terrific staff. I could not ask for better neighbors, seniors, young families with children, who will have opportunities to receive the best educations. All of us here, si fortunate, would like to see HPD require 2/3 majority vote re Feasability Study, to allow expenditures of Coop funds for Feasability. Reserve funds, general operating funds should not be used, should come from special assessment.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I support wholeheartedly HPD Proposal re Feasability Study for Mirchell-Lama to REQUIRE 2/3 Majority vote to aiw expenditure if Coop funds for Feasability. Funds should derive from Special Assessment and not from general operating fund nor Reserve funds
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I disagree with the proposed rule change to require a 2/3 majority to initiate a feasibility study. That is a nearly impossible hurdle. Many cooperators don't vote or involve themselves in the building at all. Many are elderly & don't understand what's being voted on. (There are of course many well informed elderly, but sadly it is not all of them.) Some cooperators are simply uninformed & fall prey to false rumors. Many people in my building believe they can not afford to buy their coop were we to reconstitute. Despite the fact that they already own it & would not pay any price. The feasibility study is their 1st chance to get factual information. And the Red Herring, Black Book & final decision to reconstitute already require 2/3 votes. Becoming more informed (through a feasibility study) should not be discouraged.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I strongly oppose the change the rule of a 50% majority to a supermajority of two third to approve a feasibility study. As a resident of a building that is looking into privatization I've become aware of the underhanded tactics that some residents will go to to thwart the majority of residents wishes to look into the pros and cons of staying in the ML program or leaving. As I've told many of my neighbors I have no plan to move. I'm not looking for a financial return. I would like to leave the program because of the government oversight of the building and the arbitrary implementations of the regulations. This new proposal is an example of the reason to leave the program. the opinion and push to change the rules in the middle of the game is ridiculous. Of course, it is in HPD's best interest to keep buildings in the program. We all know that there are many tenants who do not play by the rules. Non residents, but relatives get vacant apartments rather than on the legitimate list. Why hasn't there been follow through on this regulation? I also feel that there is no incentive for tenants to upgrade their apartments if we stay in ML. I have put a substantial amount of money into my apartment and that money can never be recouped under the present rules. If apartments aren't upgraded the building itself will deteriorate. When I moved into my apartment 10 years ago it was basically uninhabitable. I spent years saving the money just to have a kitchen. The asbestos tiles were corroded and dangerous . I was just able to replace them at a considerable cost which cannot be recovered. In addition the basic premise of ML was to upgrade a deteriorating neighborhood. Many original people in the neighborhood were left without homes and had to leave their neighborhood. The people in initially moved into ML have done their job and should be able to follow the original (standing) regulations and vote by simple majority. Once again the government is trying to save their own jobs and standing by kowtowing to the shrinking number of residents who don't want change.There are residents in my building who will go to any lengths to prevent going private and enlist politicians and the agency itself to wear down the residents who want to have more of a say in their homes future.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I strongly support the HPD proposed rule change regarding Feasibility Studies for Mitchell-Lama Coops -- which will require a 2/3 super-majority vote to authorize expenditure of coop funds on a feasibility study. The current 50% simple majority requirement is not at all sufficient to prevent Mitchell-Lama coops from going down the destructive path towards privatization. Also, new HPD rules governing Mitchell-Lama coops should require funds for a feasibility study to come from a special assessment on shareholders. Such funds should not come from general operating funds or reserve funds.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I support the HPD's proposed rule change regarding Feasibility Studies for Mitchell-Lama Coops which will require a 2/3 super-majority vote to authorize expenditure of coop funds on a feasibility study. The current 50% simple majority requirement is not sufficient to prevent Mitchell-Lama coops from going down the destructive path towards privatization. Feasibility Studies are costly. New HPD rules governing Mitchell-Lama coops should require funds for a feasibility study to come from a special assessment on shareholders who vote for the study and not from general operating funds or reserve funds.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
Feasability monies should come from a special assessment, not from building reserves
Agency: HPD
Comment:
Feasability monies should come from a special assessment, not from building reserves
Agency: HPD
Comment:
Having the hearing between the hours of 3 and 5pm during the weekday unfairly prohibits many of who work during those hours and can't take the time off to attend. It would be more inclusive to hold this hearing after 6pm on weekdays or on a weekend so more working Mitchell-Lama co-operators could attend. I support the HPD proposed rule change regarding Feasibility Studies for Mitchell-Lama Coops which will require a 2/3 super-majority vote to authorize expenditure of coop funds. The cost of living in New York continues to skyrocket, and incomes that might be considered high don’t go as far as they used to. In addition to our maintenance fees, many of us have fixed expenses including student loans, transportation/car expenses and rising healthcare costs. I also strongly oppose HPD the proposal to not allow households from internally transferring to larger apartment if the applicant's household income exceeds 125% of the larger apartment’s income limit. I think this regulation will have major effects to the integrity and longevity of individuals and families in our community; especially for those who make slightly more than 125% as we marry and/or grow our families. This proposed rule limits the potential for shareholders to better themselves financially and emotionally in our buildings. I second what Lyndsey Anderson wrote that enacting this amendment will create “a transient community of people who know they will never build families here and not invest emotionally, physically and/or an influx of people on the waiting list to immediately move into large apartments that might not invest in the community in the way that those who have “grown-up here” would… or worst of all, a community who doesn’t aspire to do more and be more, because their higher income would prohibit them from a transfer.” Considering a potential surcharge increase would be a more realistic option. Throughout any given time, an individual’s/family income can fluctuate based on employment status. Our current socio-political climate is one of unease and uncertainty. Many economists and financial experts predict a recession in the coming years. A family that might make slightly more than the income requirements are still outside of the potential for an apartment for market value. The Mitchell-Lama program was created to help keep middle income families in urban areas. By enacting this amendment now, during this time, offers no protection to middle income families who are the most likely to suffer during an economic downturn. I also oppose the amendment limiting the lateral transfer within your existing building. A person might want to move closer to a family member, friend or caregiver within the building or move away from a troublesome neighbor.
Agency: HPD

Pages