On the preservation front, he discussed subsidized housing, public housing, rent regulation, and code enforcement. He seemed to emphasize habitability, dwelling on bad building conditions and how to get landlords to maintain their properties, while glossing over the question of affordability. “When you pay that much rent [in New York City] you should get something habitable,” he declared, adding that “failure to maintain” housing was the biggest problem we face. (Details of his remarks are below.)

Spitzer also described his proposals for housing creation, which he had previously rolled out at a housing conference on Long Island. “There are two things we control,” he stated, “lots of state property, and capital” – and he pledged to use them both to increase the housing supply.

Spitzer was accompanied by several campaign staff members including Priscilla Almodovar, his chief housing policy analyst.

Following the Attorney General’s remarks, four tenant leaders made presentations and asked questions of the candidate, who responded. The following is intended as a brief summary of Spitzer’s remarks, presentations by tenant leaders, and the ensuing discussions between Spitzer and the tenant leaders. Other participants might have a different memory of some of this, and some of what Spitzer said could be open to interpretation.

Rent controls:

Spitzer announced that he thought it was time to look at the $2,000 threshold for vacancy decontrol, and adjust it upwards by some unspecified amount, then apply a cost of living adjustment to the threshold for future years.

We knew in advance that this would be his position, that he would not say he supports repeal of vacancy decontrol, nor would he say he supports repeal of the Urstadt Law that would restore full home rule powers to the Mayor and New York City Council. Some had warned that if we raised these issues, Spitzer would say he opposed them both.

But when pressed by Loretta Burns of the Coalition for the Homeless on the issue of home rule, Spitzer did not say he opposes it. He stepped around the issue, stating that he did not believe home rule will be dealt with until 2011, the next time the rent laws come up for renewal in Albany. (A failure of imagination, or an artful dodge?)

Burns expressed approval of the proposal to raise the threshold, but said what is really needed is outright repeal of vacancy decontrol and restoration of home rule. “Lack of home rule is killing us,” she stated. She stated that rent control and rent stabilization constitute the largest supply of affordable housing in NYC and suburban counties, the program is being phased out through vacancy decontrol, and shelter residents such as herself will never be able to find a rent-stabilized apartment as long as we have vacancy decontrol.

One thing is for sure: if he did not know it beforehand, Spitzer saw and heard how seriously housing advocates are about home rule and repeal of vacancy decontrol. Everyone in the room was nodding in agreement with Burns.

Spitzer made a forthright pledge to enforce the rent laws, and was quite critical of the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal for failing to “live up to the rules.” He stated that he will not put up with “manipulations” by landlords to get units out of rent regulation illegally. Spitzer also said that he wants stiffer penalties for code violations, as a means of creating an incentive to make repairs.

The Daily News story the next day (see below) stated that Tom Suozzi, Spitzer’s primary opponent, supports repeal of the Urstadt Law.

There was also coverage of the event on New York 1 News, News 12 Bronx, and WNYC radio. On Friday an opinion piece appeared in the New York Post, and an editorial in the New York Sun, slamming Spitzer for proposing to raise the threshold for vacancy decontrol. [The Post op-ed article acknowledges that the purpose of vacancy decontrol is to phase out rent regulation over time, something the real estate lobby has never admitted.]

Subsidized housing:

Spitzer announced that his administration will look to implement a state program for refinancing state-supervised Mitchell-Lama developments, as a means of persuading the owners to stay in the program, similar to the program being implemented by the NYC Housing Development Corp. for city-supervised buildings. This will involve low-interest loans, funds for upgrading of buildings, and a commitment by the landlord or co-op to stay in the program for another period of years (he mentioned 15 years, the standard in the HDC program). Again, we knew beforehand that this would be his proposal.

Patricia Lewis of NYS Tenants & Neighbors complimented Spitzer for this initiative to preserve Mitchell-Lama, but noted that it is voluntary and provides no protections for project-based Section 8 buildings and tenants. She told Spitzer that rent stabilization should be amended to cover both Mitchell-Lama and Section 8 buildings when landlords take them out of government subsidy and supervision, regardless of when they were constructed.

Spitzer replied, “We will look at all options,” and said that his goal was to prevent displacement. He made a reference to the “contract” between government and developer, possibly indicating that he feels it would be unfair to landlords to “change the rules” by putting these buildings under rent regulation. (In fact, such changing of the rules has often occurred, more often to benefit landlords than to benefit tenants. In terms of subsidized housing, the legislature and governor “changed the rules” in 1974 by moving forward the cutoff for rent stabilization coverage, to December 31, 1973.)

Code enforcement:

Spitzer announced support for legislation to allow municipalities to establish an administrative tribunal (or “repair enforcement board”), similar to the NYC Parking Violations Bureau, that would end the current ability of slumlords to thumb their noses at government and avoid paying fines and penalties for years. We knew beforehand that this was his proposal.

Jamie Johnson of the NW Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition thanked Spitzer, and asked if the candidate would commit to passing this legislation in the first one hundred days of his administration. Spitzer laughed, said that the bill language was being parsed, and that New York City must be a partner in the endeavor. He promised to move on it quickly.

Public housing:

Here, Spitzer actually went farther than his staff had indicated in pre-meeting discussions. In response to a presentation by Ethel Velez of the NYC Public Housing Residents Alliance about the lack of state money for operating subsidies for state-sponsored public housing (zero since 1998), Spitzer replied that the state “should contribute,” and that he will look very hard at it.

But he added that the New York City Housing Authority has been keeping many apartments empty, which not only denies housing to people who need it but also helps create a budget deficit. “The state should carry its share,” he declared, but he also said that he wants to make sure that NYCHA is well managed.

In pre-meeting discussions, Spitzer’s staff had refused to commit to any restoration of state funds for public housing operating subsidies.

Throughout this short event (slightly less than an hour) Spitzer was charming, friendly and very, very good on his feet. It was an impressive performance, showing a command of the issues including some knowledge of the details of the various programs, and an ability to listen and learn.

Most significantly, and he sounded as if genuinely means it, Spitzer committed to an ongoing dialogue between his administration and tenant advocates. We had made it clear to his campaign staff that we have been frozen out for the last 12 years of the Pataki regime.

More work to do, yes. But a good start. While Spitzer is not where we need him to be on our issues, there seems a possibility that the new administration might be ready to move in our direction and away from the last twelve years of Pataki and his real estate cronies.

Among the groups represented at the roundtable (in addition to those mentioned above) were:
Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development
Center for Community Change
Community Service Society
Community Voices Heard
Legal Aid Society
Met Council on Housing
New York City AIDS Housing Network
New York Immigration Coalition
Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation and
Tenants Political Action Committee.
(Apologies to any group inadvertently omitted.)

Respectfully submitted,

Michael McKee
Treasurer
Tenants Political Action Committee
mmckee@tenantspac.org