Tag Archives: 421a

Albany Agrees to Resurrect the 421-a Tax Exemption

Taxpayers and Tenants Should be Disgusted

Albany has come to an agreement on that includes resurrecting the 421-a real estate tax exemption, with a vote on the full State budget expected today. There is no acceptable reason that everyone except luxury real estate developers should be expected to pay their taxes. Taxpayers and tenants should be disgusted.

We will need the $1.4 billion – and growing – that we spend each and every year on 421-a to fill the holes that will be left in the local budget by Trump’s federal budget cuts for essential services. 421-a does little to actually create affordable housing, with 79 cents of every 421-a dollar spent going to luxury development, and only 11 cents going to support affordability. A growing body of evidence suggests that the 421-a exemption doesn’t even accomplish the most minimal public purpose of incentivizing new market-rate development.

Resurrecting 421-a is also a body blow to tenants because changes in the law, for the first time, include the interests of the construction trade unions, which severely limit the ability of tenant-friendly legislators to use the program as leverage to defend or strengthen rent regulation against and anti-tenant legislators. Rent regulation is New York City’s most effective affordable housing and community-stability preservation program, which is now left far more vulnerable. This is especially true because under the new agreement, 421-a expires in 2022 and rent regulation expires in 2019, stripping tenants of essential leverage.

What is the New 421-a Program?

The new 421-a program, now titled “The Affordable New York Housing Program,” is essentially an expanded and amended version of the expired June 2015 421-a exemption that passed the legislature, but with modifications intended to resolve the conflict created from a trade union wage provision that was inserted at the last minute. This subsequently led to legal complications and suspension of the exemption.

The new 421-a program does not improve the affordable housing requirements passed by the legislature in June 2015, but it does add significant cost to the taxpayer.

The June 2015 version was citywide and would have been used by almost all new residential development projects over 6 units, allowing developers affordability Options A, B, C, and D. (See image below for an explanation of the options) The new program adds Options E, F, and G and requires developers to pay higher construction wage levels. The new Options E, F, and G also extend the length of the tax exemption to an unprecedented 35-year, 100% exemption. This is a major increase in the lifetime value of the exemption to the developer and a major increase in the cost to the New York City taxpayer.

The program currently costs taxpayers $1.4 billion a year – and growing – and the NYC Independent Budget Office have estimated that the changes to the new program will add significant additional cost.

The proposed new REBNY program is citywide, and would widely be used across most neighborhoods. Development of new buildings with 300+ rental units will be required to participate in the program in some areas and eligible to participate in all other areas of the City. The new program is exceptionally generous to the developer, and most will take advantage of this financially generous opportunity.

And the increase in cost won’t just come after year two of the extended tax exemption; it will come immediately. Developers will find the enhanced benefit irresistible since it allows them to not pay taxes for an additional ten years. We will see a rush of developers applying for the new 421-a program and see developments from the last 1.5 years retroactively being granted 421-a, at a great cost to taxpayers.

No additional affordable units, or deeper level of affordability will be generated by the REBNY proposal, and the increase in the length of affordability is minor. The primary beneficiaries will be market-rate and luxury real estate developers, who will have their already substantial public subsidy increased by an estimated 22.5% in each new building. A fraction of the increased value given to the developer will be passed along in the form of higher wages for the short-term construction labor.

How Do the New “Options” Work?

• Option E is allowed within any of the Enhanced Affordability Areas, and requires 10% of the apartments be affordable at 40% of Area Median Income (AMI), 10% at 60% of AMI, and 5% at 120% AMI. The average hourly construction wage must be $60. Additional public subsidy is not allowed.
• Option F is allowed within any of the Enhanced Affordability Areas, and requires 10% of the apartments be available at 60% of AMI, and 20% at 130% AMI. The average hourly construction wage must be $60 an hour. Additional public subsidy is allowed.
• Option G is allowed only within the Brooklyn and Queens Enhanced Affordability Areas, and requires that 30% of the new housing is affordable at 130% of AMI. The average hourly construction wage must be $45 an hour. Additional public subsidy is not allowed.
• Any building with 300+ rental units outside of the Enhanced Affordability Areas can opt-into Option G, which, given the extraordinary value of the 35-year 100% abatement to the developer, is the most likely outcome.

More Evidence That 421-a Can Wait

The important debate around the 421-a tax exemption may come to a head in Albany by Friday, but an article in yesterday’s Crain’s New York makes clear that new development is moving ahead either way, a fact that should change the debate.

Getting the 421-a program right matters. We owe it to our taxpayers and our communities. Legislators who are supportive of tenants know that making decisions about 421-a within the budget process decouples the issue from the push to strengthen rent-regulation, undermining the leverage and importance of crucial tenant concerns.

The Crain’s article reports on plans for a big, new $160 million privately-built market-rate rental development in the South Bronx, saying:

“[The developer] will wait until the end of the year before breaking ground on the projects in the hopes that the 421-a program…will be reinstated by then. [But the developer] was able to purchase the development sites inexpensively enough to allow them to build the projects without the benefit, as well.”

This makes it clear; 421-a is about increasing the projects profits, not about whether or not the project moves forward. And it further confirms ANHD’s recently released white paper, which found the surprising fact that new rental development has not slowed in the past year since the 421-a exemption was suspended. We could have saved ourselves the trouble. The Crain’s article illustrates our point just as succinctly and clearly as the charts in our white paper.

The big real estate lobby (REBNY) is trying to rush approval of an even more costly 421-a exemption through the Albany budget process by April 1^st. The program is widely understood to be bloated and inefficient. Bloated because is costs taxpayers $1.4 billion a year. Inefficient because for every $1 spent on the program, only 11 cents supports affordable units while 79 cents subsidizes luxury units.

But REBNY is arguing that we must get the exemption back quickly because the market absolutely will not build new rental housing anywhere in the City without it, housing that our growing city needs.

The data clearly shows that the sky is not falling – new building construction permits are back up to their recent average, especially in the softer outer-borough markets, in part because the cost of development sites quickly came down without the artificial stimulation of the 421-a program.

An opinion piece in the New York Daily News last week by State Senator Parker and Assembly Woman Walker exposes the history that the worst elements of the 421-a program were created by Donald Trump when, as a real estate developer, he sued Mayor Koch because he didn’t want to pay taxes on Trump Tower. They argue we are now facing an unprecedented crisis because of President Trump’s Federal budget cuts, and make the case that Albany should not rush to include the 421-a program in the April 1^st budget.

“It’s time for us to say no to Trump. His real estate tax exemption shouldn’t be rammed through the Albany budget process, but instead should be negotiated separately and apart from the budget, which is due April 1. We must take the time to get the details right.”

We agree with Senator Parker and Assembly Woman Walker. If you care about new housing development – if you care about construction jobs – it is not necessary to rush into a bad 421-a deal with REBNY that cost taxpayers even more and gives us even less.

Dump Trump’s unaffordable N.Y. real estate tax break, aka 421-a

By Latrice Walker and Kevin Parker, New York Daily News

Latrice Walker is a Brooklyn assemblywoman and Kevin Parker is a Brooklyn state senator. They authored this article, which originally published March 23, 2017 on the New York Daily News.

Understanding REBNY’s New 421-a Tax Exemption Proposal

What does it do? What does it cost?

In January 2017, a revised 421-a Tax Exemption, rebranded and given the title “The Affordable New York Housing Program,” was introduced and inserted into the proposed FY18 New York State budget. This version of the 421-a Tax Exemption is essentially an expanded and amended version of the expired June 2015 exemption that passed the legislature but with modifications intended to resolve the conflict created from a trade union wage provision that was inserted at the last minute, which subsequently led to legal complications and suspension of the exemption.

What is REBNY’s Proposal?   

REBNY’s proposed 421-a program does not improve or change any of the affordable housing requirements passed by the legislature in June 2015.

The June 2015 version was citywide and would have been used by almost all new residential development projects over 6 units, allowing developers affordability Options A, B, C, and D. (See image below for an explanation of the Options) The new REBNY proposal adds Options E, F, and G and requires developers to pay higher construction wage levels. The new Options E, F, and G also extend the length of the tax exemption to an unprecedented 35-year, 100% exemption. This is a major increase in the lifetime value of the exemption to the developer and a major increase in the cost to the New York City taxpayer.

The proposed new REBNY program is citywide, and would be widely used across most neighborhoods. Development of new buildings with 300+ rental units will be required to participate in the program in some areas, and eligible to participate in all other areas of the City. The new program is exceptionally generous to the developer, and most will take advantage of this financially generous opportunity.

What is the Cost of the REBNY Proposal?

The NYC Independent Budget Office recently reported that the current “421-a remains the city’s largest tax expenditure at $1.4 billion this fiscal year.”

New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) has stated that the REBNY’s proposed changes will increase the overall cost of the program by yet another 22% on top of the billion-plus dollars we are already spending on the program every year.

And the increase in cost won’t just come after year two of the extended tax exemption; it will come immediately. Developers will find the enhanced benefit irresistible since it allows them to not pay taxes for an additional ten years. We will see a rush of developers applying for REBNY’s 421-a program and see developments from the last 1.5 years retroactively being granted 421-a, costing tax payers an estimated additional $820 million in the first ten years, according to HPD.

Is 421-a an Affordable Housing Program?

Although the current 421-a Tax Exemption includes some requirements for affordable housing, it cannot be accurately described as an affordable housing program. It was designed in the 1970s to incentivize the creation of private, market-rate, and luxury housing at a time when the City economy was stagnant. The affordability benefits were a minor, late add-on the program. In fact, a 2014 analysis of the annual cost by ANHD shows that the exemption cost the City over $1.1 billion in lost tax revenue and covered 152,402 residential units, but only 12,700 of those units were affordable. That’s $11 of affordable housing benefit taken for every $100 given away to subsidize luxury development. That’s not an affordable housing program.

Who Will Benefit from the REBNY Proposal?

No additional affordable units, or deeper level of affordability will be generated by the REBNY proposal, and the increase in the length of affordability is minor. The primary beneficiaries will be market-rate and luxury real estate developers, who will have their already substantial public subsidy increased by an estimated 22.5% in each new building. A fraction of the increased value that is given to the developer will be passed along in the form of higher wages for the short-term construction labor, but this will be a minor amount.

Additional beneficiaries of the REBNY proposal will be landlords and politicians who oppose rent stabilization laws. The New York State Assembly, which tends to support rent stabilization laws, has often used the threat of not renewing 421-a as leverage to prevent the weakening of rent stabilization laws by the New York State Senate, which tends to support the 421-a Exemption. Since this version of 421-a included a higher construction wage for the first time, the Assembly – which tends to also be pro-organized labor –will find it far more difficult to use the threat of not renewing 421-a as leverage.

How Do the New “Options” Work?

• Option E is allowed within any of the Enhanced Affordability Areas, and requires 10% of the apartments be affordable at 40% of Area Median Income (AMI), 10% at 60% of AMI, and 5% at 120% AMI. The average hourly construction wage must be $60. Additional public subsidy is not allowed.

• Option F is allowed within any of the Enhanced Affordability Areas, and requires 10% of the apartments be available at 60% of AMI, and 20% at 130% AMI. The average hourly construction wage must be $60 an hour. Additional public subsidy is allowed.

• Option G is allowed only within the Brooklyn and Queens Enhanced Affordability Areas, and requires that 30% of the new housing is affordable at 130% of AMI. The average hourly construction wage must be $45 an hour. Additional public subsidy is not allowed.

• Any building with 300+ rental units outside of the Enhanced Affordability Areas can opt-into Option G, which, given the extraordinary value of the 35-year 100% abatement to the developer, is the most likely outcome.

New data suggests 421a is less necessary than anyone thought.

The 421a Developers’ Tax Exemption is the most important and most expensive New York City tax incentive that most people have never heard of, and has been an underlying fact of real estate development for the past 40 years. Something surprising happened this past January when the tax exemption was temporarily suspended, an unexpected causality of the struggle between big real estate and construction trades unions.

(This tax abatement is now being referred to as “The Donald Trump Real Estate Tax Exemption” because Trump used the program early and often, and “reaped at least $885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels, and office buildings in New York.“)

The suspension of the 421a Exemption was expected to have a major and immediate impact on the real estate market, with the big real estate lobby predicting dire consequences. In the past few months, we have been learning some new facts about what is happening in some new-construction markets, and the impact may not be what we were told it was going to be.

Policy makers have argued over the exact role the exemption plays in generating new housing across all types of neighborhood housing markets. But there is one thing the real estate lobby has asserted unequivocally: “It was not feasible to build rental housing in New York City without the 421a subsidies.” Some local newspaper editorial boards have accepted this as a principal reason to support the revival of 421a.

However, new trends suggest this may not be correct. In the past few months, there has been increasing evidence of new market-rate rental private construction in exactly the types of low-cost housing markets where the real estate lobby insisted would never happen. A few recent examples include Brownsville, Ocean Hill, Kingsbridge, Fordham, Flatbush, and Bedford Stuyvesant.

To be clear, these examples show a specific type of small-scale walk-up rental housing development where land and potential property taxes are relatively low, where the developer has kept construction costs low, and where market rents are starting to increase. These are important examples of new construction, but it is hard to know what the overall market impact is. But, the fact is new private rental construction is happening without 421a in neighborhoods where the real estate lobby asserted it would not happen. This assertion has been the centerpiece for the argument that 421a should be revived, a logic which should now be called into question.

The 421a exemption is well-understood to be an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient program, costing City taxpayers over $1 billion a year in lost tax revenue, and puts the “b” in “boondoggle” by padding the bottom line of big private real estate developers, while at the same time generating very little public benefit in return.

The 421a exemption is hard to defend on policy grounds, but it has been renewed year after year. Why?

• Decision makers assumed it was a political inevitability because of the power and influence of the real estate lobby. The circumstances this past year are unusual, but it turns out it is not inevitable.
• The real estate lobby told us the entire New York City new-construction private housing market would grind to a halt without the program. This has clearly turned out not to be the case, as new construction in neighborhoods with strong real estate markets has barely been affected.
• Finally, the real estate lobby told us new private rental constructions in the weaker markets of the outer boroughs would never happen without 421a. This is also not true.

The de Blasio Administration – with all good policy intentions – has supported a reformed 421a as a necessary, underlying element of the Mayor’s laudable affordable housing production goals. It may be time to reconsider how true that is, and whether the trade-offs are worth it.

We know that the 421a Developers’ Tax Exemption is inexcusably expensive and inefficient, and now we know that it may not be necessary for even the most minimal level of public benefit. Decision makers should take their time and fully consider this program’s true impact on real estate markets before being rushed into renewing the program by the real estate lobby.

The background of the 421a Exemption shows why it is so expensive and inefficient.  

The Exemption gives developers a 100% real estate tax break on the value of any new residential building. The 421a Exemption was created in 1971, at a time when the City was in an economic crisis and the private housing development market was frozen. It was designed not as an affordable housing program, but as an incentive to build anything at all.

Over time, as the City’s real estate market changed, the incentive was no longer needed to spur development in many parts of the city; instead, attempts were made to use it to leverage affordable housing out of market-rate development. Affordability requirements were put in place in the highest-rent areas of the city, eventually including all of Manhattan below 96^th Street, and more recently parts of Brooklyn and Queens. But affordable housing requirements always lagged far behind when neighborhood rents were high enough to give real estate development a guaranteed high profit margin. Even where some affordability was required, the abatement was very inefficient, since the value transferred from unpaid taxes to the developer’s profit margin far outweighed the value transferred to the community in the form of affordable housing.

An ANHD 2015 Analysis of the 421a Program shows that in fiscal year 2013-14 the program covered a total of 152,402 residential units, and granted $1.1 billion in tax abatements. But, only 12,748 of those units had affordability restrictions. That translates very roughly to about $86,000 a year that taxpayers are transferring to private developers to subsidize each affordable unit, making 421a by far the most inefficient affordable housing program on the books.

The 421a abatement is so valuable to developers that when it has been mentioned in the news, it has usually been because of a corruption allegation when a developer was paying for the favor of being granted an exceptional 421a benefit. This includes the most recent high-profile convictions of State Assembly Speaker Silver and Senate Majority Leader Skelos.

The latest version of 421a was passed in Albany in June 2015. The revised law included affordability requirements throughout the City, but it also substantially increased the length of the tax abatement, and thus the benefit to developers and cost to taxpayers. ANHD’s analysis of the revised 421a exemption passed in June 2015 and a Furman Center analysis of the reform’s impact on developers and taxpayers shows why even the revised program is highly flawed.

The legislation passed in 2015 also included a highly unusual, last minute provision regarding possible labor requirements for 421a developments. The provision stated that the new 421a model would only become effective if and when the Construction Trades Council and the Real Estate Board of New York came to an agreement on attaching new labor requirements to the law. To the surprise of most observers, no agreement was reached, and 421a was suspended.

How 421a actually impacts the construction of new market-rate housing should be understood neighborhood-by-neighborhood because local market-rent determines how 421a is utilized. Housing markets are complex and difficult to predict, but here is ANHD’s understanding of how many housing policy experts expected the suspension of 421a to affect new construction:

• In Very Strong Markets (e.g.,below 96^th Street in Manhattan), the suspension of 421a has little impact on new housing development. Most developers in these markets forgo taking 421a in order to build condominiums, which are ineligible for the tax abatement.
• In Strong Markets (e.g., Williamsburg waterfront, downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, parts of Manhattan from 96^th – 110^th Streets) where rents are high, developers can generally profit on new residential development with no tax benefit, but access to 421a may affect whether a developer chooses to build condominiums or rental apartments.
• In Middle Markets (e.g., Astoria, Flushing, Clinton Hill), rent levels have been seen as high enough to support new development with no tax breaks, but it was assumed that the loss of 421a would soften the market and slow the pace of new development. Given all the evidence, this may or may not be the case.
• In Moderate and Weak Markets (e.g., Flatbush, Crown Heights, Bushwick, Jamaica, East New York, Brownsville, Kingsbridge Heights), it had been understood that market rents generally cannot support unsubsidized development, even with 421a. Given recent evidence, how much this is actually the case may need to be reevaluated.