What's New for Co-ops and Condos Legislative Update for 2011

 As managers, residents, and board members of the city's residential buildings  gear up for 2011, sweeping up the tinsel and cookie crumbs leftover from holiday parties isn't the  only job at hand. From bedbug disclosure rules to a proposed federal ban on  flip taxes, there is also an array of new legislation that promises to have an  impact on managers, boards, and the co-op and condo communities they represent  and serve.  

 Flip Taxes Banned?

 One of the hottest topics being debated among co-op and condo owners is the  Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)’s Proposed Guidance on Private Transfer Fee Covenants, which was published in  August 2010. The rule would restrict Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal  Home Loan Banks from investing in mortgages in buildings with private transfer  fees —better known as flip taxes. Many are objecting strenuously to the proposal,  feeling that as it is currently drafted, the rule would effectively eliminate  flip tax fees—a revenue stream upon which many buildings rely.  

 Critics of this proposed rule say that the FHFA’s ban was developed with the intention of eliminating current provisions that  allow developers to receive revenue long after they have sold all their  ownership interests in a development. In its Proposed Guidance, the FHFA  states: “The typical one percent fee at the time of resale is neither a minimal nor a  reasonable amount; further, such fees may be in excess of one percent. Such  fees increase by a meaningful amount the seller’s and potentially the buyer’s burden at the time of a property sale. Expanded use of private transfer fee  covenants poses serious risks to the stability and liquidity of the housing  finance markets.” Co-ops, critics say, present a unique situation that was not contemplated by the  FHFA, and are not subject to the same abuse.  

 "The [flip tax] fee is not onerous when it directly benefits the community and  individual homeowners by funding reserves, capital improvement projects, and  ongoing co-op association obligations," says New York Congressman Eliot L.  Engel, (D-17) of the U.S. House of Representatives, serving the Bronx,  Rockland, and Westchester counties. "This enables monthly maintenance fees for  co-op dwellers to remain affordable. In its absence, co-op boards would need to  substantially increase rates to afford improvements and daily upkeep. It is  unfair that the vast majority of developers, investors and the hard-working  families who live in co-ops suffer due to the shady methods by some to ‘game the system.’ As our housing market struggles to recover from the devastating effects of the  past three years, we must not add to the problems and hinder both resale prices  and current living expenses. FHFA needs to understand the critical and  necessary role transfer fees play for millions of Americans who benefit from it  daily.”  

 Upon FHFA’s publication of the proposed rule, the federal agency invited public comment.  Many co-op shareholders, in New York especially, responded by sending emails  and letters, and by responding through the Federal eRulemaking Portal located  at www.regul ations.gov. These letters are available to the public on the FHFA’s website. One letter on behalf of a New York cooperative corporation, states, "Without  transfer fees, our board would have to substantially increase monthly carrying  charges in order to maintain our building. This will inflict financial hardship  on our shareholders/unit owners and could result in defaults, displacement for  individuals and, poorer quality of lives. We urge FHFA to protect the right of  housing cooperatives and condominiums to preserve affordability by continuing  to collect transfer fees.”  

 Bed bugs!

 The press has been crawling with reports over the last year about the growing  issue of (and attendant hysteria around) bedbug infestations in not just  apartment buildings, but movie theaters, clothing stores, and other unexpected  places. To allay fears—and hopefully curb the invasion—bedbug infestations in apartments and buildings must now be disclosed, according  to New York City Administrative Code § 27-2018.1, which Governor David A. Paterson signed into law on August 31, 2010.  The code also requires that new residential tenants in New York City be given a  one-year bedbug infestation history before signing a lease.  

 Moving from pests to pets, dogs and other companion animals are also the subject  of new legislation in New York City. The Association of Riverdale Co-operatives & Condominiums (ARCC) has voiced its objection to the proposed New York City  Intro 0392-2010, a local law which would permit tenants in the city who live in  multiple dwellings and who “openly and notoriously” harbor pet(s) to continue to do so, even if their lease prohibits pets. These  tenants would be allowed to keep their pets in their apartments only if the  owner or his or her agent has knowledge of the pet, and such owner fails within  this three month period to commence a summary proceeding or action to enforce a  lease provision prohibiting the keeping of such household pets. The lease  provision prohibiting the pet(s) would be deemed waived for the duration of the  tenant's occupancy in such multiple dwelling for each species of household pet  or pets that is harbored or was harbored in such multiple dwelling, Intro 0392  states.  

 In opposition to this proposal, ARCC states on its website that “Dogs are NOT the issue. We cooperators are facing an ever-increasing onslaught by legislators to  diminish our rights and liberties as independent and legally constituted  organizations; and our rights to set the parameters for a way of life in our  buildings that is tailored to, preferred by and acceptable to our shareholders.”  

 Tenant Screening Disclosure

 In a move that will merit the attention of any condo owner wishing to lease out  their apartment, Local Law 002 of 2010 went into effect in July, requiring any  owner or  

 agent who requests lease application information from a prospective tenant to  disclose whether or not the tenant’s information may be used to obtain a tenant screening report, and must include  the name and address of the consumer reporting agency or agencies which will be  used. In addition, the disclosure must include information that states pursuant  to federal and state law:  

 (1) If the person requesting the information takes adverse action against a prospective tenant or tenants on the basis of information contained in a tenant screening report, such person must notify the tenant that such action was taken and supply  the name and address of the consumer reporting agency that provided the tenant  screening report on the basis of which such action was taken;  

 (2) Any prospective tenant against whom adverse action was taken based on information contained in a tenant screening report has the right to inspect and receive a free copy of the report by contacting the consumer reporting agency;  

 (3) Every tenant or prospective tenant is entitled to one free tenant screening  report from each national consumer reporting agency annually, in addition to a credit report that should be obtained from www.annualcreditreport.com ; and  

 (4) Every tenant or prospective tenant may dispute inaccurate or incorrect information contained in a tenant screening report directly with the consumer reporting agency.  

 More on Deck in Albany

 At the state level, pending legislation for co-ops and condos is continuously on  the docket. Some bills have been lingering for years with little (if any)  movement in the legislature. There are approximately 35 bills pending in the New York state Assembly and  state Senate directly pertaining to co-ops and condos.  

 A few bills in the pipeline propose to create new resources for co-op and condo  owners, some of which have also been met with criticism.  

 New York State Senator Liz Krueger, (D-26) authored legislation, which was  referred to the New York State Finance Committee in May 2010, and referred to  the New York State Assembly Housing Committee in June 2010, which proposes to  create a Co-op and Condo Ombudsman office. The proposed legislation is intended  “to help co-op shareholders and condominium owners understand their rights and  responsibilities and reduce the need for litigation.” The bill, S07958/ A11452, known as the “Cooperative and Condominium Ombudsman Act,” proposes to amend the tax law to require cooperative corporations and  condominium owners associations to pay six dollars per unit per year. This six  dollar residential unit fee, collected by the Department of Taxation and  Finance would be paid to the State Comptroller, would supply the funding for  the Office of the Cooperative and Condominium Ombudsman.  

 Aside from conflict resolution, the office’s other responsibilities would be “to prepare educational and reference materials, to organize and conduct meetings  and public hearings, to...offer monitors and vote counting services to assure  fair elections for board membership, and to provide advice to the Governor and  Legislature regarding new and existing legislation which affects cooperative  shareholders or condominium owners.”  

 Opponents of the bill say that there is no need for this office because  appropriate mechanisms are already in place to handle building issues, and  others object to the annual fee.  

 Housing Court Subpart and Co-op/Condo Bill of Rights  

 A bill introduced in 2009 by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, (D-81), A00871,  proposes to create a separate subpart of the housing court devoted to  proceedings involving cooperative and condominium buildings falling within the  jurisdiction of Housing Court. The bill states that the cost to implement this  subpart would be negligible and would expedite cases relating to cooperatives  and condominiums because they would be heard by judges more knowledgeable in  this area. The drafters of the bill hope that that subpart would “result in better-honed and fairer decisions.”  

 Another bill on the state legislature’s docket proposes to enact a “Bill of Rights” for apartment owners. Resolution 0405-2010, which refers to legislative bills  S04725/A04948 is being considered by the New York City Council. The proposed resolution introduced in August 2010, would call upon the New York  State legislature to implement a bill of rights for cooperative shareholders  and condominium unit owners, and would direct the Attorney General to  promulgate a handbook summary of these rights and the procedures available to  enforce them.  

 Co-op-to-Condo Conversion Legislation

 Co-op to condo conversions is an issue being given special attention by  legislators in Albany, and several regulations are being proposed. A bill  pending in the Housing, Construction, and Community Development Committee of  the New York State Assembly, S01659/A00537, would require that the board of a  converted cooperative or condominium must be comprised of a majority of members  elected by shareholders or owners in occupancy so that control of the building  is turned over to the unit owners as soon as possible. This regulation would  apply only to plans of 20 or more units.  

 Other co-op and condo conversion-related pending legislation include: A05610,  which would protect non-purchasing senior citizens threatened by  conversion-related eviction; A06096, which relates to vacancies and illegal use  and occupancy during conversions; and S01013, which provides for omnibus co-op  or condominium conversion requirements, including existing tenants’ right to purchase and capital replacement reserve fund, among others.  

 Still, more assorted co-op and condo-related legislation is pending in Albany. These bills include A01128, which would exempt cooperative and condominium board  members from criminal liability for building and multiple dwelling law  violations except where they had knowledge; S01659A/A00537, which governs  election of board by residents of cooperatives and condominiums; A03553, which  would requires applications to purchase condominiums or cooperatives to be  acted upon within forty-five days, with failure to do so resulting in automatic  approval; and S3132/A01211, the “written rejection” bill, which would require cooperative housing corporations to provide a  prospective purchaser with a written statement of reasons when withholding  consent to a purchase.  

 Only time will tell whether these pending bills will move ahead in Albany. “I’m hoping that co-op legislation will become more of a priority in the  legislature than it has been in the past because there really hasn’t been a whole lot of legislation that’s been passed recently,” says Assemblyman Dinowitz, who has sponsored several co-op related bills now  pending in the statehouse. “What I’m going to attempt to do in this legislative session is I’m going to try to work with some of my colleagues in districts that have a lot  of co-ops, and at least try to get more attention put on co-op issues” and to “make a larger effort than we have in the past.”    

 Elizabeth Ilene Robbins is a freelance writer and a June 2010 graduate of the  Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

 

Related Articles

Removals, Ejections, & Evictions in Condos & Co-ops

When an Owner Has to Go

Real Estate Industry Applauds Biden Admin's Recovery Efforts

Calls to End Eviction Moratorium by End of June

Dealing With Disruptive Residents

Empathy & Education vs. Enforcement & Eviction

Q&A: Getting Hassled over Revising My Proprietary Lease

Q&A: Getting Hassled over Revising My Proprietary Lease

Co-ops Authorized to Charge 8% Late Fee

Proprietary Lease Must Allow for Fees, Says Gov

Removing a Condominium Owner

A Complex Legal Process

 

5 Comments

  • I'm a strong supporter of the Bill set forth by Senator Liz Krueger. Most people cant afford the legal fees and shouldn't have to. As a single mother purchasing a co op in Suffolk County, I had no idea of how much control a Board has over one's life. I have a Board run a muck, shareholder's talk of unethical conduct, been harassed and fear this board. Hard working people with limited resources to protect themselves, where do they go, who do they turn to? Perhaps the Cooperator might considering publishing some stories to get the awareness that is needed, no one should be violated and have to accept it because they dont have money for legal fees. Perhaps publish who ever endorses the last statement in that article, "Opponents of the bill say that there is no need for this office because appropriate mechanisms are already in place to handle building issues, and others object to the annual fee". Where are these resources, awareness is key!
  • I totally support the Bills set forth by Senator Liz Krugeger and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz. Co-Op shareholders are often hard working class with little financial or legal resources to fight the dictatorship of the corrupted/unethical board. Our board is corrupted and unethical without apprehension over the consequences because we don't have the resources for investigation and lawsuit. Our board illegally monopolizes the board memberships for as long as 20 years; and it gets kick back from the Management Company and contractors through expansive but unnecessary projects yearly. This results in heavy burden on shareholders via unreasonably high maintenance and flip tax. We understand our rights but it is very difficult to protect our rights without fair legislations and legal enforcement. We have been paying our real estate tax dutifully. We hope for government’s intervention to stop the board taking advantage of the shareholders.
  • Suffering coop owner on Sunday, June 5, 2011 9:28 AM
    I too support Liz Krueger's Ombudsmans Bill. I have had no success dealing with my Board, its lawyer, the management, govt agencies as my upstairs neighbor harasses me with no action taken by coop. Lawyers are expensive and this law would help the regular guy. All the agencies and regulations have not helped me so far. This law is essential to coop and condo owners.
  • Business Corporation Law, Leases, House Rules and Bi Laws are great rules but no one to enforce them!!! Board membership and management is a great position, this a free ticket to steal, violate, harass and supersede all laws that others would be punished for. I live in a small cooperative community, I had no clue until I attempted to address an issue of concern, this board is not a board of professionals, they are a "gang". They literally came passed my home, stalked, harassed and I learned sooo much after speaking to people that have been violated, they cant afford lawyers, so they are sitting pigeons of these actions. Am I living in New York, USA? This is unbelievable!!! They make their own rules, do what they want, omg, I support this bill and I support the Alliance for Co op and Condo Owners! A six dollar fee for this office is nothing, the big issue is they want to protect their rights to continue to do what they want, by all means, if that were me, yeah, hey, I dont want this, Im lining my pockets from all the kickbacks, legally!!!!!
  • WHAT NYS AGENCY IS RESPONSABLE FOR COMPLAINTS REGARDING CO-OPS