Board leaders have opposed three New York City Council bills that would require co-op boards to, among other things, disclose their reasons for denying an application during a hearing before the Housing and Buildings Committee on Tuesday.
“Let’s say this clearly: discrimination happens today, and everyone knows it,” committee chair Pierina Sánchez said in her opening statement. “Secrecy is not a neutral feature of the system. It is the condition that allows discrimination to flourish and go unchallenged.”
The bills are the latest iteration of city and state legislation that seeks to regulate the application process for cooperatives, an endeavor that has long had a reputation for being burdensome, opaque and sometimes discriminatory. Although previous attempts to pass similar legislation in the city have failed, nearby counties such as Westchester, Suffolk and Nassau have passed their own versions of the laws.
Most of the testimony focused on Intro 407, a rule co-proposed by Public Advocate Jumaane Wiliams and dubbed the “Reasons Bill.” If the legislation is approved, boards will have to explain in writing why they rejected a potential buyer’s application to purchase an apartment.
Opponents of the bill argue that a provision would create more liability for co-op board members. As written, they claim that the legislation requires an individual board member to sign the disclosed reasons “under penalty of perjury.” They also expressed concern that the bill would discourage owners from volunteering on boards, which members say is already a tall order.
“In my 28 years on the co-op board, I can count on one hand the number of applications we’ve turned down,” said Will Kwan, who serves on the board of a co-op at 139 East 33rd Street. “Why have I been on the board for so long? Because no one wants to volunteer their time.”
Kwan later added that he felt lawmakers were trying to “stifle the life out of cooperatives” with increasing regulations.
Williams responded, citing existing laws targeting housing discrimination, holding board members accountable for their decisions on applications. He added that he was open to discussions with stakeholders to adjust the language in the law to make compliance easier, although he believed “some version” of the legislation was necessary.
“What we’re trying to do here is make some of the things that already exist more enforceable,” Williams said.
John Curtis, the vice president of a co-op at 370 Riverside Drive, suggested that Williams amend the bill by not requiring an individual member to sign the reasons, but instead having the approval come from the co-op. He also suggested that the board should state the main reason, and not every single reason that would be taken into account.
One of the objections cited by the bill’s opponents was a lack of data related to claims of discrimination in cooperatives. JoAnn Kamuf Ward, a representative with the city Commission on Human Rights, testified that of the 500 housing-related complaints filed with the agency last year, about 10 percent of them were about cooperatives, and of those, only a handful involved cooperative purchasing. (Individuals can also report claims of housing discrimination to government agencies or file their own civil lawsuits.)
Ward’s response prompted outbursts from the audience in a crowded conference room, with one woman saying “no kidding” and later adding “no shit.”
“There’s no data,” said Tanya Arias, an agent with Corcoran and board chair of Tudor City Place 45. She added that the industry’s conventional wisdom is that co-ops have a rejection rate of 3 to 5 percent.
North Brooklyn Councilman Lincoln Restler asked Ward if she believed the low number of complaints was due to potential buyers having no insight into the board’s decision-making process and therefore no documentation or actionable evidence to advance a discrimination claim.
But Ward said that in most cases where discrimination is alleged, alleged victims typically do not have access to documentation when they initially file the claim. Others later testified that cases of discrimination in cooperatives may be underreported because of the burdensome process of bringing these claims forward.
Councilman Eric Dinowitz, who represents a district in the Bronx, suggested that the committee refrain from advancing the bills until more data becomes available, such as the number of applications for cooperative purchasing and the number of denials.
“Discrimination is already illegal,” Dinowitz said, later adding that the bills would likely significantly increase insurance and legal costs for boards. “Wouldn’t it be wiser to just collect more data, get better data before we invariably increase risk to individual board members and increase costs to shareholders?”
Sanchez interrupted the testimony to say that while she understands the objections to the bills, “you are not the actors we are concerned about.”
“You are the good people,” Sánchez said.
Board members also raised concerns about another bill, Intro 1120A, which would require co-op boards to mark an application as complete or incomplete within 10 days of receipt. Once the application is considered complete, the board has 45 days to make a decision, with an option for a 14-day extension.
The legislation was proposed by Majority Leader Amanda Farias of the Bronx, who said the bill was intended to “end the endless wait that so many applicants face.”
Opponents of the bill largely disagreed with a provision in the bill that would allow automatic acceptance of an application if the board did not respond within the timeline.
“That person could be financially unfit or dangerous or just not a good fit, and the board would lose the opportunity to vote on that person,” Rebecca Poole, membership director for the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums, said in an interview before the hearing.
“All other timing laws carry a fine or financial penalty if you don’t meet the deadline,” she said, adding that delays are often due to issues beyond the board’s control. “Automatic acceptance is problematic.”
Not all industry attendees were present to testify against the bill. Michael Kelly of the New York State Association of Realtors, Yvette Clark Watkins of the Long Island Board of Realtors and Crystal Hawkins Syska of the Hudson Gateway Association of Realtors testified in support of the legislation.
Read more
‘Not Our Kind’: How Discrimination Persists in New York Cooperatives
Campaign against cooperative discrimination wins in Westchester
A new bill would force cooperative boards to explain denials
#Cooperative #boards #clash #York #lawmakers #transparency #laws