Public comments for: Mitchell Lama Rule Amendments

Comments

Comment:
I agree with the lottery for the units that become available through the opening of a waiting list must be advertised through the New York City Housing Connect/Mitchell-Lama Connect lottery system or any successor program administered by HPD to market vacant Mitchell-Lama units.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I'm a member of Keep Our Building Affordable, KOBA, which was formed by concerned shareholders of the Rosalie Manning Mitchell-Lama cooperative in response to the threat of privatization and I want to express my support for the HPD proposed rule change to the Mitchell-Lama rules, Section 3-14 (i) which would require a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of approval by shareholders before a Mitchel-Lama housing company could expend funds to investigate privatization. Since two-thirds (2/3) majorities are required to both approve an offering plan and to proceed with dissolution and/or reconstitution, it makes sense that money should be spent on the process only if it enjoys the overwhelming support of the shareholders. I want to thank you for proposing this change. It will certainly help us in our struggle to keep Rosalie Manning available for middle income New Yorkers.
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.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I strongly support the HPD Proposal regarding Feasability Study for Mitchell-Lama coops to require a 2/3 majority vote to authorize expenditure of Coop funds on a Feasability study. Funds should derive from a special assessment on shareholders and not from general operating funds or reserve funds.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I am strongly for this change. Two thirds majority should be needed to change a Mitchell-Lama to a private building. This program benefits so many families by providing affordable housing and we should not be able to change over so easily. People need this program and end up on the street when they can no longer afford their home after privatization. Please help us keep our homes affordable!!
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I support the proposal 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 feasibility study ad also expressly require that such a study include financial estimates comparing privatization with conversion to an Article XI housing development fund company development.
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 sufficient to prevent Mitchell-Lama coops from going down the destructive path towards privatization. Additionally, new HPD rules governing Mitchell-Lama coops should require funds from a feasibility study to come from a special assessment on shareholders and not from general operating funds or reserve funds.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I oppose HPD the proposoal not to allow households from internally transferring to bigger apartments if the applicant's household income exceeds 125% of the bigger apartments income limit. I think this regulation has potential devastating effects the integrity and longevity of individuals and families in our community for those who make nominally more than 125% as those of us marry, or grow our families. I think this proposed rule has the potential to result in 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 immediately 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. Overall, I think this new rule would damage the longevity of families who are still moderate income remaining in the buildings in which they reside if their family size changes.
Agency: HPD
Comment:
I oppose HPD the proposoal not to allow households from internally transferring to bigger apartments if the applicant's household income exceeds 125% of the bigger apartments income limit. I think this regulation has potential devastating effects the integrity and longevity of individuals and families in our community for those who make nominally more than 125% as those of us marry, or grow our families. I think this proposed rule has the potential to result in 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 immediately 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. Overall, I think this new rule would damage the longevity of families who are still moderate income remaining in the buildings in which they reside if their family size changes.
Agency: HPD

Pages