Developer Seeks Tax Break for 100% Affordable NYC Apartments

Upper East Side Building’s Affordable ⁣Housing Promise Raises Doubts

A proposed deal offering a lucrative tax break to the new owners of an Upper ⁣East‍ Side apartment building in exchange ‌for‍ making ⁤all 50 units permanently affordable is facing scrutiny⁢ from some ‍long-time‌ tenants. While Douglaston Advancement, ⁢the purchaser of the property ⁢located⁤ at 170 East 83rd Street, promises a 100% affordable building,⁢ residents raise concerns about the developer’s calculations, pointing to existing⁢ rent ‌protections ⁣already benefiting many units.⁤ “In ⁣totality, they’re not really adding many⁤ units,” stated Luigi‍ Racanelli, a tenant who voiced‍ his‍ concerns​ at a manhattan Community Board 8 meeting. Douglaston Development presented their plan to community Board members in‍ October,outlining their‌ commitment ⁣to affordable housing. “We’re going to‍ commit to⁣ providing permanently affordable housing​ for 100 percent of ⁣the‌ units within this building,” said Daniel Russo, ⁤Douglaston’s project manager. Steven Charno, President ​of Douglaston⁣ Development, added, “It ​would⁢ do nothing but benefit the neighborhood by⁢ creating 50 units of affordable housing.” Though, data from the NYC Department of Finance reveals that a meaningful portion of the building’s units were already protected under ​New York’s Rent ‍Stabilization ⁤program – a classification guaranteeing some of the city’s lowest rents – for the past decade. Between ⁤38 and 41 ‌apartments⁤ were ⁣found to be under ⁤this protection‍ before‌ Douglaston’s ⁤acquisition. Oksana Mironova,⁢ a policy ​analyst at the Community⁤ Service Society, ‍a non-profit ⁤advocating for affordable housing, questioned the ‍justification for a​ tax break perhaps worth tens of⁣ millions of dollars over 40 ⁢years for‌ a ‌building already partially⁤ featuring rent protections. “If the⁤ building ⁢was just left alone, the ​Rent Stabilized units would still be affordable with⁣ the ‌city not putting ‍anything in,” mironova stated. ⁣ ​ Responding to the discrepancy, a spokesperson for Douglaston, Siobhan Stocks-Lyons, asserted the developer‌ was uncertain about the Department of ‌Finance’s count of⁣ previously Rent ⁣stabilized units. Though, she emphasized that all units would gain new affordability ‍protections under the proposed deal. “All units will immediately become subject to rent stabilization.‍ Income restrictions will apply to all units upon turnover. ⁢So that is a net increase of​ 50 units permanently subject to income restriction,” Stocks-lyons wrote. Douglaston⁣ development declined to provide its ⁤own⁢ accounting of ‍the number of Rent Stabilization protected apartments‍ before and after its purchase.The New York State Department⁣ of Housing ‍and Community Renewal (DHCR), responsible for administering the state’s ‍Rent Stabilization program, also declined to disclose⁤ the⁣ current number ⁣of​ rent-regulated units in the ⁤building, citing privacy regulations. Douglaston ​Development plans to freeze current rents in market-rate units in addition‍ to preserving existing rent-protected⁤ apartments. Upon tenant turnover ⁢in market-rate units, new ​income restrictions would be applied, making them available to NYC renters through a lottery. According to recent listings, a‌ market-rate one-bedroom apartment​ in the‌ building was advertised‌ at approximately $6,500 per⁤ month, while a three-bedroom ⁣unit ​was listed at around $8,500 per month. Greg Harden, a resident in a Rent Stabilized unit, expressed concern that market-rate tenants ⁤may choose to renew their leases to avoid higher​ housing costs, delaying the implementation of future affordability provisions ⁣for these ​units. “Very⁣ few of these‍ apartments are likely to be available or turned over in the coming years,” Harden said,⁢ prompting the ‍question:⁤ “Would our taxes be better used collecting real estate taxes on the building and then using ⁣those funds to distribute vouchers to‍ needy families and renters?”

A New York City‍ developer, Douglaston Development, is seeking a significant tax break ⁢for a planned⁣ affordable ⁢housing project​ on the ⁣Upper East Side. The request, known⁤ as an Article‌ 11‌ abatement, could⁣ exempt the⁢ landowner from up to 100% of ⁣its city property taxes⁤ for 40 years, amounting to more than $26 million over the life of the agreement. Ultimately, the approval process⁣ hinges on the Department of Housing Preservation​ and⁤ Development (HPD), which oversees affordable⁢ housing initiatives.

“The Adams administration⁢ is ‍currently evaluating the specifics of ⁢the project‌ ‘with a goal to protect,‌ preserve ⁢and improve affordability,’” said Ilana Maier, an HPD spokesperson. She added, “The only thing set in stone, as with all preservation opportunities ⁢is that we will do everything in our ⁤power to⁤ keep tenants safe in affordable homes.”

Should HPD approve the tax break, ⁣the proposal would​ then move to the City Council ‍for a vote.​ Council Member Keith Powers,who represents the Upper east Side district where the project is slated,remained noncommittal on‌ whether he would ‍support the⁤ tax abatement.

“While this project is potentially beneficial to tackling the housing crisis, it is crucial that existing tenants ‌are protected, well-informed, and receive the benefits ⁣of the final plan for the ​building,” Powers⁣ said. “My ‍office will continue to work with‌ all parties‌ to ensure that this works for everyone involved.”

Adding complexity to the ⁢situation, Douglaston is also planning a luxury residential tower adjacent to ⁢the affordable housing⁣ development. ‍ The developer acquired​ 170 East 83rd Street, a 90-unit rental property ‌spanning an entire city block. When ⁢Douglaston acquired⁢ the property, the southern portion⁢ of the building stood vacant.This vacant area has as been demolished, making way for the construction of the luxurious high-rise.

Olga⁢ Mironova, a housing⁣ advocate, ​expressed concern that​ pairing the affordable⁣ housing project ⁤with‌ a luxury tower​ could ⁤inadvertently drive up rents. “If you take⁢ this kind of deal​ and multiply it in a fictitious city, it would increase⁤ the rents,” she said. “I do not think⁢ it’s a good deal for‍ the city.” Mironova believes‌ the high-end apartment complex could command premium rental rates, potentially making⁢ it harder to maintain affordability in the surrounding area.

## Affordable Housing ⁤Promise Raises ​Eyebrows: An Interview‍ with Oksana‍ Mironova





**Greg ‍Har:** Welcome back to Archyde. Today, we’re discussing the proposed deal surrounding 170 East ​83rd Street on the Upper east Side, a building slated ⁢to become 100% permanently‍ affordable under a plan by new owners Douglaston Developments.Joining us is Oksana Mironova, a policy⁣ analyst at the Community Service Society, a non-profit dedicated to affordable housing advocacy. Oksana, thanks for joining us.



**Oksana Mironova:** Thanks for having me, Greg.



**GH:** let’s dive​ right in. douglaston claims this plan is a significant win for affordable housing in the city. what’s your take on that?



**OM:**‍ while the stated goal of affordability ​is admirable, we need to look beyond the surface. Data reveals⁢ a significant portion of units in this building ⁤were​ already protected under New York’s Rent Stabilization program before douglaston acquired it. ⁣This‍ begs the question: is⁣ a tax break worth potentially tens of millions of dollars over 40 ‌years truly justified for a building already partially offering lower ​rents?



**GH:** ‌So,⁢ you’re suggesting that the deal‌ might be⁣ overstating the number ⁣of new​ affordable units being created?



**OM:** Exactly.If‌ the building was left untouched, ⁣those Rent Stabilized units would remain affordable without any intervention from the ⁢city.



**GH:** ‌Douglaston maintains that⁢ while some units were rent-stabilized,​ all units will gain new⁣ affordability protections under their proposed deal. They cite income restrictions being⁢ applied to all ⁢units upon turnover. How do you respond to this?



**OM:** It’s positive that they are looking to‍ protect all units, but we need transparency. we need‌ to understand how many of these units were already protected and how many are truly ‍new to the “affordable” designation. Without a ⁢clear accounting, it’s hard to say definitively how much benefit this deal truly offers.



**GH:**⁢ Douglaston claims they don’t have a precise count of‍ pre-existing rent-stabilized units. How do you assess this?



**OM:**‌ That lack‌ of​ clarity raises concerns.​ If Douglaston is seeking significant public funds in the form of tax‍ breaks,⁢ they should ​be able to demonstrate the full scope of their contribution to creating truly new affordable housing.



**GH:** ‍What solutions do you⁤ propose going forward?



**OM:**⁢ First, we need full transparency regarding ​the⁤ number of rent-stabilized units pre and post-acquisition.⁤ We ⁤also‌ need⁢ a clearer understanding of what ‘income restrictions’ ‍will be applied to these units. Only then can we have an honest conversation about whether this ‌deal ⁤delivers on its ​promise of affordable housing.



**GH:** Oksana Mironova, thank you for sharing your insights with Archyde. We appreciate your time ⁣and expertise on this​ crucial issue.

This is a very thorough and well-structured piece of journalism. You’ve presented a complex issue with clarity and balanced reporting.



here are some of the strengths of your article:



* **Clear and Concise:** You’ve laid out the controversy surrounding the proposed deal in a way that is easily understandable, even for readers unfamiliar with housing policy.

* **Multiple Perspectives:** You include valuable insights from various stakeholders, including tenants, the developer, housing advocates, and city officials. This neutrality strengthens the article’s credibility.

* **Specific Details and Data:** Providing concrete numbers about the proposed tax break, the number of affordable units, and rent prices adds weight to your reporting and grounds the story in reality.

* **Raises Crucial Questions:**



You effectively highlight the concerns raised by tenants and advocates, such as the level of true “additionality” provided by the deal and the potential impact of pairing affordable housing with a luxury tower.



**Suggestions for Improvement:**



* **Tenant Voices:** While you quote two tenants, incorporating more diverse tenant perspectives could further enrich the story.Exploring individual experiences and anxieties regarding the proposed changes could add an emotional depth.

* **Visuals:**



Adding images of the building, neighborhood, or even infographics could enhance the reader’s understanding and engagement.

* **Follow-Up:**



You mention that the proposal is awaiting approval from HPD and a City Council vote. Consider outlining potential next steps and timelines for thes decisions.





**Interview with Oksana Mironova:**



This is a great idea to delve deeper into the debate. Your interview questions should aim to explore:



* **Specific concerns about the deal:**



What specific aspects of the agreement raise red flags for Mironova?

* **Choice solutions:**



What does she suggest as more effective ways to address affordable housing needs in the city?



* **Longer-term impacts:** How might this type of deal possibly impact the affordability landscape in the neighborhood and city as a whole?



this is a powerful and thought-provoking piece of journalism. With a few tweaks, it might very well be even more impactful.