Rule status: Adopted
Effective date: July 20, 2023
Proposed Rule Full Text
Adopted Rule Full Text
Adopted rule summary:
The Department of Housing Preservation and Development is adopting amendments to Chapter 3 of Title 28 of the Rules of the City of New York, which governs City-aided limited profit housing company developments (also known as Mitchell-Lama developments).
Comments are now closed.
Online comments: 20
Peter S Ford
What are the proposed amendments? Why is that difficult to make clear. Public comments solicited to meet obligations but how can citizens weigh in if they don’t know what are you proposing?
Green bd inc
Everything is going good and updated . I think improvement surcharge one time cut like cmt or very phone metershop. Thanks
Page # 3 paragraph # 7 – Require the Housing company to remove any of its onsite employees where any such employee has violated the Private Housing Finance Law and/or applicable rules and directives, consistent with any internal grievance procedures -I questioned whether this includes “Union Employees like 32bj ? ” Many are not familiar or knowledgeable in Private Finance Laws and Procedures including Management. I object to this unless adequate training or information is given to all employees prior to enacting it.
Page# 3 paragraph # 10 Require the Managing agent to notify HPD if the housing company makes payments to and /or incurs charges from any vendor or service provider that in the aggregate equal or exceeds $100.000 in any twelve-month thereafter prohibits further charges to be incurred without the prior written approval of HPD.
” I totally agree with this change and should be enacted without objection. Board Directors and the Managing agent need to be accountable for every expense authorized by them.
Where it reads: Prohibit the housing company attorney or account from serving as the election monitor.
I object to having the housing company’s attorney or accountant monitor the election instead have an independent company handle the election process in its entirety.
Where it reads: In the event that any Director /Officer, Shareholder, employee, or agent of any housing company shall be directly or indirectly connected with any person, firm, or corporation which may submit any bid or to whom any contract is proposed or awarded shall be part of the minutes and submitted to HPD .
In favor without objection to this ruling.
I agree with all Directors go through essential training with HPD
I agree with the insertion to the website of the redacted Board contracts and essential information.
I agree with HPD’s having rate of pay and staffing information.
I welcome this opportunity to comment on the HPD’s proposed rule changes. I also welcome the amendments supporting more democracy at M-L co-ops to the Private Housing Finance Law which became law one year ago in March of 2022.
The limit to 12-month for notification when a housing company incurs charges from any vendor or service provider that in the aggregate equal or exceed $100,000 is too short. Many construction projects take longer than one year. Also, the change order process is a mechanism encouraging low bids and then building the cost by multiple change order additional expenses. HPD should consider extending the limit to 24 months to discourage low bids followed by multiple change orders.
To support and encourage democratic co-op practices, the new HPD rule should be clearer that ALL common spaces should be available for use by cooperators and cooperator groups and organizations. The new rule includes this wording §9(5): “. . .shareholder and/or tenants’ groups, committees or other shareholder and/or tenants’ organizations shall have the right to meet without being required to pay a fee in any location on the premises.”
But the HPD new rule as proposed follows this sentence with a comma which can make it appear that the rule is only eliminating the charge for cooperator organizations to use the community room or other locations for which there has been a charge. In fact the intention of the M-L reform amendment and NYS law RPL 230 is to facilitate and allow full use of all common areas for cooperator organizational purposes. This misinterpretation is clear when in the narrative before the actual proposed rule changes, the HPD wrote: “Prohibit charges to shareholder and/or tenants’ groups, committees or other shareholder and/or tenants’ organizations for the use of a community or social room for organizational events.” That misinterpretation leaves out the right for cooperator organizations to have events and organizational activities in the lobbies, mail areas, backyards and plazas and in front of the buildings. To its credit, HPD has put that use in the new rule in conformity with the M-L reform amendments but the wording should be made clearer to read:
“Shareholder and/or tenants’ groups, committees or other shareholder and/or tenants’ organizations shall have the right to meet for organizational events in any location on the premises of a limited-profit housing company development that is devoted to the common use of all shareholders and/or tenants, including a community or social room without being required to pay a fee, provided that any such meeting or activity shall be conducted in a peaceful manner, at reasonable hours and without obstructing access to the premises or facilities.”
Please do away with the gender requirements. If I have 3 boys I should be allowed into a 3br unit. Please take away this discriminatory gender rule for apt size requirements. Also, Please audit move out and equity returns, as property managers are taking big chunks out of equity when moving out. this should be monitored much closely. Fraud is taking place with equity returns at move out.
I have been a tenant of Mitchell-Lama Developments for over 50 years my mother moved here when i was a child i do not agree with some of these amended changes i have attached a copy of my comments on the amendments.Comment attachment
Today, comments signed by 33 RNA House Mitchell-Lama cooperators were set by email to the HPD with copies to Gale Brewer our City Council Member and other government officials so they will all know our testimony on the 2023 proposed HPD M-L rule changes. Our comments begin:
As shareholder/cooperators, we take seriously our responsibility as stewards of a shared equity cooperative. We acknowledge the substantial public investment that has helped to create and sustain our cooperative and the other Mitchell-Lama cooperatives and rentals. We take as our mission as shareholder/cooperators to preserve this important, deeply affordable housing resource for the benefit not only of current residents but also future generations of New York City’s working families. We actively oppose the privatization or semi-privatization of our Mitchell-Lama cooperative. Privatization or even conversion from a Mitchell-Lama co-op to an HDFC co-op would be immoral and a blow to the diversity of NYC. As well it would be a hardship for those who want to continue to live here and those New Yorkers on the waiting lists. The HPD should live up to its middle name, Preservation, and continue to make stronger rules in favor of preserving our and the other Mitchell-Lama co-ops and Mitchell-Lama rentals.
We support increased HPD transparency and oversight of the City’s Mitchell-Lama portfolio. We also welcome the amendments to the PHFL supporting more democracy at M-L co-ops which became law one year ago.
The 10 comments we sent are in the attached file.Comment attachment
I submit the following comments on this proposed rule:
Section 1: Notarization – if the person has to appear in the management office, it is unclear why the statement must be notarized. Notarization can be burdensome and NYS has been moving away from requiring notarization on documents. It should be sufficient to have someone sign an affirmation under penalty of perjury.
Also, the new language makes it sound like the person who shows up in the management office must provide a paper copy of the statement. As more people do work on cell phones and tablets, and since people continue to work remotely, less people, especially younger people and lower income people, have access to printers. In addition, NYS has, for a long time, permitted electronic signatures and now permits electronic notarization. Therefore, I suggest you amend this language to make it clear that a person may submit a signed statement electronically to the managing agent. You could also clarify that the electronic signature must conform to the requirements in the State Technology Law and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Section 1: Number of Occupants – allowing up to three people in a one bedroom apartment should not be allowed. While it may not be a big deal to have a couple and a baby in a one bedroom apartment, it is a big deal to have three adults or a couple with an older children in a one bedroom apartment. What ends up happening is that they put up illegal partitions in the living room or even winterize the balcony to create another bedroom. Two many adults in a one bedroom can result in clutter and create a fire hazard, especially if one or more people in the apartment smoke (I know from experience). I suggest you revise the language to permit up to two adults only.
Section 4: Vendor Payments – I support this change. Too often, property managers and building superintendents hire “preferred” contractors to perform what they consider to be routine maintenance work, such as plumbing repairs, as part of the maintenance budget. However, the fees for these contractors add up and the housing company could end up paying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to this contractor without the board or HPD’s knowledge or consent until it is too late. I ask that you revise this language to also require notice to, and prior written approval by, the board of directors, in addition to HPD.
Section 7: Board Training – Requiring a newly elected board member to complete training within 12 months of being elected is far too long. I think a board member should instead be required to complete the training within 60 or 90 days after being elected so they know the rules at the beginning of the member’s term and not a year into the member’s term. I also ask that HPD allow this training to be offered online and for free. Many board members have full time jobs so they can’t attend in-person classes during the day and need to do it at night or on weekends. Also, since board members are volunteers, neither the member or housing company should have to pay to take the training.
Section 7: Feasibility Plan – I disagree with changing the approval from 2/3 (66.66%) to 80%. This change and other changes in this proposed rule regarding privatization appear to make it harder for co-ops to go private. While I am not for privatization currently, I think essentially making it impossible for co-ops to ever go private is incredibly short sighted. These buildings are now over 50 years old and they were cheaply and poorly constructed to begin with. It is getting more and more costly to keep up the maintenance of the aging buildings and grounds, especially since NYC keeps imposing more and more onerous and costly requirements, such as Local Law 97. There may come a point in time when it makes more sense financially for a co-op to go private so that residents can stay in their homes. I don’t see how it benefits anyone, including HPD or NYC, to limit a co-ops options and force people to stay in the ML program if the buildings and grounds cannot be sustained in the ML program and they start falling down around residents. What you will be left with is a NYCHA housing project as people paying surcharges who have money flee old buildings falling into disrepair and leave behind the poorest people with nowhere else to go and no money to contribute to necessary improvements. This will also adversely impact the entire neighborhood in which these co-ops are situated.
Section 8: Managing Agent Removal – I support this change. Too often, certain board members get too cozy with a property manager and cover up certain abuses. It should be made clear that board members have a duty to remove a managing agent violating the law or regulations.
Section 9: Community Room Use – While I understand the intent of this new language, I think it is overly broad and should be narrowed. The new language refers to “shareholder and/or tenants’ groups, committees or other shareholder and/or tenants’ organizations.” I think this language should be amended to make clear that the group, committee, or organization must be organized for a purpose relating to the housing company and also cannot be organized for a purpose that promotes discrimination or hate speech. Based on the way this language is currently written, if residents wanted to form a Ku Klux Klan group, a housing company would need to allow the group to use the community room for free for its meetings and events.
Section 9: Suggested clearer wording for Rule 3-17(9)(d)(5):
A secret vote should be an anonymous vote. The rules should be clear. Ballots should not have a connection to the name or apartment number of the person voting. Sadly, there are cooperators who fear retaliation if how they voted were known.
There is no need for a control number or code on any ballot nor should there be one. Before being opened, the signed outer envelope of all those who vote by absentee ballot can be checked against the voting list with names (signatures?) of all those who voted by in-person ballot. If the absentee voter also voted in person, their absentee ballot would be discarded.
To ensure anonymity, I urge this wording be included in the appropriate Rule 3-17(9)(d)(5):
“Only upon request, an absentee ballot must be delivered or mailed only to the primary residence address of the shareholder entitled to vote. Such absentee ballot shall have no control number or code on it. The absentee ballot shall be cast by sealing it within two envelopes and shall be mailed or delivered to a neutral third party not running for a position nor on the board of directors. The outer envelope containing the absentee ballot shall instruct the shareholder to affix their signature to the outer envelope only, and further instruct the shareholder not to sign the absentee ballot itself.”
Thank you for considering adding this wording to Rule 3-17(9)(d)(5).
Joan Levenson Cohen
Testimony concerning the 20223 proposed rule changes
To Julie Walpert and all,
Thank you for proposing updated rules to improve the governance of our developments.
As a former board member of my coop–St Martin’s Tower–in Manhattan, I welcome these.
There are a few things that need additional attention.
Firstly, the requirement that children of the same sex must share a bedroom is onerous.
Each child should be able to reside in their own separate bedroom. This change is long overdue.
Also, Section 5 (h) requires clarity on how documents should be posted. In our co-op, while I was secretary, we posted all motions, whether passed in executive session or not, and I agree that this is necessary.
It should be a clear directive from HPD that all meetings other than executive sessions are open and that only meetings concerning the specified triggers should be in executive session. There should be publicly posted minutes for every open and executive session meeting, Minutes of each executive session should be publicly posted as summary decisions (not as visibly redacted narratives.) E.g.”The board discussed arrears. The following motion was voted on (if any)” or “The board discussed various contract bids for our facade work. The following motion was voted on (if any).” Thus there are posted minutes of every meeting and the board chronicles their work without compromising any confidentiality.
In addition to addressing the rule changes, I wish to make further comments pertaining to the new law and how HPD can instruct boards on how it should be implemented.
With regard to how meetings are to be conducted, I urge HPD to mandate that boards publicize board meeting agendas in advance and set up procedures for shareholder input on issues the board debates. All meetings need to be conducted in an orderly and constructive environment. Shareholders need to know how to communicate and have a way to be heard.. At this point, shareholders are continuously frustrated about how to raise issues, and are often blindsided by information that is sprung upon them. How to organize for and conduct both open and executive session board meetings must definitely be a central part of all required board training going forward.
Thank you again for your efforts on our behalf.
St. Martin’s Tower
65 West 90 Street #23E
New York, New York 10024
Dear Ms. Walpert,
As current Mitchell-Lama cooperators with a young family with 2 girls (ages 3 and 7), we are strongly in favor of the amendment to allow cooperators with two children of the same gender to be able to live in 3-bedroom apartments. We are thrilled to see the amendment on the table. As our society has progressed into its current social moment to be more gender neutral in our thinking on many issues, we believe that the gender of the children in a family should not in any way have any bearing on the size of the apartment the family qualifies for. Every person has the same need for an adequately spacious home to grow up in, in order to thrive, no matter the gender. The need for adequate space for a family is gender neutral and the family composition requirements for 3 bedroom apartments should be as well.
As I think back on my own personal story growing up in a small tenement apartment in NYC in a family of four: two parents and two children—one boy and one girl, what stood out to me as the basis for my desperate desire for more space had nothing to do with the fact that I shared my bedroom with my sister and we were different genders. It had only to do, and everything to do, with a need, a desperate desire, for more space, period. I shared my bedroom with my sister and the gender was irrelevant to me. I didn’t want more room because we were different genders. We just needed a bigger, more civilized apartment to be happier. Healthier and happier children means healthier and happier families and brighter futures. PLEASE approve of the amendment! We are so blessed to live in a Mitchell-Lama and are very hopeful that with the passage of this amendment, we will be able to raise our children in a more healthy and happy home! Thank you very much for your consideration.
ADELE NIEDERMAN, PRESIDENT CU4ML
Cooperators United for Mitchell-Lama (CU4ML)
March 14, 2023
Dear Ms. Walpert:
Cooperators United for Mitchell-Lama is a grassroots advocacy organization working to protect and preserve Mitchell-Lama cooperatives as deeply affordable, democratic, not-for-profit housing for residents of New York State.
CU4ML was formed in 2008 to oppose privatization of Mitchell-Lama cooperatives.
We work on governance and financial issues that confront Mitchell-Lama cooperatives. CU4ML members assist neighbors in other Mitchell-Lama cooperatives and urge them to run for their Boards of Directors and serve their communities.
We lobby legislative leaders to change laws and rules to improve the functioning of our developments by making sound financial decisions planning for major rehab and renovation.
We reach out to the supervisory agencies and apply our experiences to improve rules that govern our communities.
Thank you for hearing and reading our testimony on the Proposed Changes to the Mitchell-Lama rules (23023).
Testimony from Cooperators United for Mitchell-Lama on proposed changes to Mitchell-Lama Rules, 2023
Posting of documents to the cooperative’s website that is accessible to all shareholders and residents.
• All documents, contracts with vendors and professionals for building services and repairs must be posted.
• All resolutions and motions of the Board of Directors, including the full names of the Board members and how they voted on the motion, must be included in the minutes.
• All Agendas for Board meetings must be posted in advance of the meetings conforming with the four triggers of confidentiality. Confidential issues are listed with a general description to shield individuals. Four points that trigger an executive session: employee personnel issues, matters concerning individual shareholders, advice from the corporate attorney, and contract negotiations (though the results of the final contract must be posted to the website.)
• All Minutes must be posted, in a timely fashion, after adoption by the Board of Directors. Confidential issues, and matters discussed in executive session, are mentioned without confidential details thus avoiding the need for redaction of the minutes. Any motions passed in executive session must be posted and the Board meeting must exit executive session for the proper passage of motions.
Controversial matters are not necessarily confidential unless the issue is triggered by one of the four points mentioned.
• Transcripts of Hearing for maintenance or carrying charge increases must be posted to the website in a timely manner.
• All documents provided in the application for a maintenance or carrying charge increase must also be posted to the website as they are forwarded to HPD.
• All candidate biographies as well as all election and voting documents must be posted to the website so that shareholders are aware of the best procedures for conducting the vote.
• ALL documents, communications, deficiency letters, financial reports, financial offers from supervisory government agencies and even private banks relating to:
o Privatization: dissolution and reconstitution: (Feasibility Study, Red Herring, Offering Plan, Black Book, deficiency letters and communications between the Board of Directors and the Agencies and the NYS Attorney General’s office);
o Semi-privatization: conversion from an Article II to Article XI (of the PHFL) to an HDFC. (Feasibility Study and Proxy Statement, deficiency letters, communications between the Board of Directors and the Agencies and the NYS Attorney General’s Office) MUST be posted at the cooperative’s website.
o All documents involved in changes in the cooperative’s structure must be fully accessible to all shareholders and posted to the cooperative’s website.
o All financial records relating to privatization or semi-privatization must also be posted at the website and available to shareholders.
The goal is transparency and lots of sunshine to encourage shareholder participation. There are too many examples of Boards, and by direction, Managing Agents, procrastinating and refusing to release information to shareholders. Too much time and energy has been spent to overcome Board secrecy. Frequently, it appears the Board is acting out of pique and not to protect vital, confidential information.
Currently, shareholders at Cadman Towers are expected to vote on a Proxy Statement that is missing vital information. How can shareholders be expected to make an informed decision without the Regulatory Agreement? Throughout the Proxy Statement shareholders are reminded to read the Regulatory Agreement even though HOPD has failed to provide the document.
HPD has doubly failed by encouraging an Article II to XI conversion and not protecting Cadman Towers.
HPD must demonstrate its commitment to the Mitchell-Lama program and deeply affordable housing. We need better reporting methods to ensure the Boards are fulfilling their responsibilities to the shareholders by releasing information crucial to individual decision-making.
Our intent is not to penalize or hamstring the Board.
We need to devise ways to avoid poor decision-making by the Boards that lead to disastrous construction and rehab events that damages individual cooperators. Increasing secrecy does not lead to better decisions but, rather, cynicism and lack of community participation essential to the well being of a not for profit cooperative.
Board Member Training:
Board members, both new members and incumbents, must attend and participate in Board member training. Training is especially important to stay up-to-date on changes in the rules and laws, and the complex requirements of Local Laws. Training is essential so Board members learn to avoid bad decision making. Boards need to seek out good professional experts to guide them.
Privatization and Semi-Privatization Efforts and Frequency:
• All efforts to dissolve the Mitchell-Lama cooperative: dissolution and reconstitution as a market rate cooperative, or conversion from Article II to Article XI HDFC must require a voting threshold of 80% of the total units in the development.
• HPD must not favor one method of altering the governing structure over another. Both dissolution/ and reconstitution or conversion to an HDFC are changing the corporate structure and moving the ML cooperative out of the Mitchell-Lama program. Both methods must require an 80% voting threshold.
• Require an 80% threshold for all votes for authorization of special assessments to fund Feasibility Study and Proxy Statement. Requests for additional funds to the Article II to Article XI conversion must also require a special assessment vote of 80%
• All documents involved in the dissolution or conversion must be posted in a timely fashion on the cooperative’ website. Feasibility Study, Red Herring, Offering Plan, Black Book, deficiency statements from the NYS Attorney General’s office, communications from HPD to the Board of Directors or the cooperative’ attorney, financial offers from private banks an the NYC HDC and NYS HFA, financial reports from the cooperative’s attorney.
• HPD must impose strong financial record keeping and shareholders must have access to these records without procrastination by Management.
• Boards, Management, Attorneys and supervisory Agencies must all be transparent during this period and provide information and documents to the cooperative’ website.
• Impose five-year waiting period after each failed attempt to change the cooperative’s governing structure before a new attempt. Be it from ML cooperative to a market rate cooperative, ML cooperative to an HDFC cooperative, or failed attempt at dissolution to an attempt to convert to Article XI. All of these scenarios consume much energy and money from the shareholders. This time and money would be better spent on keeping the building in good shape without repeated divisive attempts to leave the Mitchell-Lama program.
• Shareholders that oppose either method of withdrawing from the Mitchell-Lama program must be recognized and information must flow freely by posting at the cooperative’s website. These privatization efforts should not be private meetings between the corporation attorney and the supervisory agency.
Elections and Voting:
• Prohibit attorneys and accountants from serving as election monitors on privatization votes, special assessment funding and voting for candidates for the Board of Directors.
• Absentee ballots may be mailed only upon shareholder request. Absentee ballots are then mailed to the shareholder. The election company shall not mail absentee ballots to all shareholders.
The recent amendments to the law banned proxy voting. Mailing of absentee ballots to all shareholders is a swap of the name from proxy to absentee ballot and a misunderstanding of the intent of the new amendment to the PHFL. There should be no option of proxy voting. No proxy voting and no wholesale mailing of absentee ballots.
HPD must encourage in person voting. Taking the elevator to the lobby or community room is one our community values. Despite handicaps and frailties, many residents insist on in-person voting and balk at putting their ballot in a box – even a box with a lock and a key. American citizens, especially us New Yorkers, take our voting responsibilities seriously and are distrustful of procedures that do not parallel those of the general elections in our city.
• CU4ML supports the double-envelope method of casting ballots as an excellent method to insure both confidentiality and anonymity.
• All election documents, candidate biographies, procedures and time lines for completion of voting tasks, must be post in advance on the cooperative’s website. Managing agents must allow adequate time and file their plans in advance with HPD to avoid delayed elections.
CU4ML celebrates the success of Mitchell-Lama cooperatives and rentals.
We expect the supervisory agencies to be pro-active in defending Mitchell-Lama and support rules and regulations that protect our homes. Neutrality, in the face of poor decisions by the Boards of Directors, is a false option and ends up reducing the affordable housing in NYC.
Submitted on behalf of Cooperators United for Mitchell-LamaComment attachment
Adele Niederman, President
March 14, 2023
Dear Ms. Walpert:
As a Mitchell-Lama advocate and long time member of CU4ML I am shocked by events at Cadman Towers and their battle against semi-privatization by conversion from an Article II to Article XI HDFC.
It is shocking that the shareholders are being asked to vote on a Proxy Statement that is missing an important part of the proposal. It is outrageous that the sponsors, with the are moving forward with an incomplete Proxy Statement.
HPD has appears to have misunderstood the intent of the recent amendments to the PHFL. It appears that they have allowed an election at Cadman Towers to send absentee ballots to all shareholders by mail. Shareholders are instructed to return ballots to the locked box or by mail to the election company.
The purpose of adding to the amendment the prohibition on proxies was to ban the abuse of ‘harvesting ballots’. Individuals collected proxies from shareholders, filled in their preferred candidate names, and cast the ballots and influenced the final vote tally. Supposedly, the person knocking on doors was doing a favor for a shareholder. In effect, it was a corrupt transaction. The collector was acquiring ballots and the voter was gaining approval from the person, or group, that would be in charge of the cooperative. This is not the way a democratic election is supposed to take place.
Sending absentee ballots to all shareholders is discouraging in person voting and encouraging voters to hand their ballot to an unauthorized third party. In person voting with a double envelope absentee ballot, sent only to those that request, reduces possible intimidation of voters and corruption of the election. We want to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of all votes.
If you want an absentee ballot in NYC you have to request it by telephone, or by applying online to the Board of Elections. New Yorkers prefer, and are more comfortable, with rules followed by the Board of Elections. There are no proxies in NYC elections. No one gives their ballot to a third party much less another resident in their building.
Please revise the rule on absentee ballots to be in accordance with the new amendment to the law.
St. Martin’s Tower
65 West 90th Street apt. 26G
New York, N.Y. 10024
I submit the attached comment for inclusion and consideration by the agencyComment attachment
As a current cooperator/shareholder in a Mitchell-Lama building of 6 years, I fully support all amendments to current rules that preserve Mitchell-Lama developments in perpetuity, and provide for greater affordability and transparency for current and future tenants/shareholders as well as applicants.
I fully support all currently proposed amendments, especially the removal of gendered language and family composition regulations in the occupancy standards, except for the following proposed amendments:
– Regarding the amendment requiring applicants surrendering their applications for Mitchell-Lama housing company developments to an eligible spouse, sibling or child to appear in person at the housing company’s management office and provide a signed and notarized surrender statement: I believe this places an unnecessary barrier to transfer of an application to those already listed on an application as household members. I believe this amendment should be changed to a requirement to EITHER appear in person to sign a statement of transfer, OR provide a notarized statement (by mail or hand delivery) to the mangament office.
– I do not support allowing for 2/3 vote for dissolution and/or
reconstitution of a Mitchell-Lama housing company in the case of conversion to a housing development fund company, but rather the threshold for ANY dissolution/reconstitution of a Mitchell-Lama development should require an 80% approval vote, in order to support and maintain the affordability that is so deeply needed for residents in this city.
In addition, I believe any required training for board members be provided by and paid for by the city, with no cost for required training accruing to M-L developments.
I am the spouse of a deceased Vietnam Veteran and want to voice my strong objection to the proposed rule change that would prohibit veterans and their surviving spouses from using the veteran’s preference more than once for admission to Mitchell-Lama housing.
If, as you state in your rule change, veterans used the preference to obtain housing for others, then it seems to me that someone (HPD, management, or the Board) wasn’t doing their due diligence in permitting this fraud to occur. Because of the lack of oversight by others, Veterans and their families should not be penalized.
I live in Cadman Towers in Brooklyn. Cadman Shareholders will likely vote within the next few months either to stay in the ML program or reconstitute as a much less affordable Article 11. Because of this misguided and short sighted attempted reconstitution, I’m concerned that my once affordable housing will eventually become unaffordable to me. If this rule is passed, I would not be allowed to use the veteran’s preference to seek housing in another Mitchell-Lama coop.
I think rather than taking benefits away from Veterans, HPD should be investigating ways to increase benefits for those who have served our country, especially during times of war. I have contacted James Hendon, Commissioner of NYC Department of Veterans Affairs regarding your misguided proposed rule change.
This proposed rule is unfair:
Require the Housing company to remove any of its onsite employees where any such employee has violated the Private Housing Finance Law and/or applicable rules and directives, consistent with any internal grievance procedures.
Non-unionized management office staff follow the instructions given to them by their supervisors. IF let’s say, a supervisor instructs an office staff member to do something and that something turns out to be a violation of the PFHL, just who do you think will be blamed, not the supervisor that’s for sure. How hpd would permit a worker, without benefit of a union behind them, to possibly suffer such drastic consequences is nothing short of cruel. Thankfully, Local 32BJ will be there to protect their members but the non-unionized are vulnerable. Please do not pass this misguided rule.
See attached.Comment attachment