The Mitchell–Lama Housing Program is a non-subsidy governmental housing guarantee in the state of New York. It was sponsored by New York State Senator MacNeil Mitchell and Assemblyman Alfred Lama. It was signed into law in 1955 as The Limited-Profit Housing Companies Act (officially contained in the Private Housing Finance law, article II titled Limited-Profit Housing Companies and referring to not-for-profit corp., whereas article IV titled Limited Dividend Housing Companies refers to non-Mitchell–Lama affordable housing organized as business corp., partnerships or trusts from 1927 on).
The program's publicly stated purpose was the development and building of affordable housing, both rental and co-operatively owned, for middle-income residents.[1] Under this program, local jurisdictions acquired property by eminent domain and provided it to developers to develop housing for low- and middle-income tenants. Developers received tax abatements as long as they remained in the program, and low-interest mortgages, subsidized by the federal, state, or New York City government. They were also guaranteed a 6% or, later, 7.5% return on investment each year. The program was based on the Morningside Gardens housing cooperative, a co-op in Manhattan's Morningside Heights neighborhood that was subsidized with tax money.[2]
The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), was merged with the New York State Housing Finance Administration in 2010 to create the New York State Housing and Community Renewal agency. The new agency provided financing, maintenance and supervision of mortgages to developments as long as they remained in the Mitchell–Lama program.[1]
According to the New York State Homes and Community Renewal (formerly DHCR), "A total of 269 Mitchell-Lama developments with over 105,000 apartments were built under the program."[3]
Landlords generally may remove the developments from Mitchell–Lama by prepaying the mortgage, which usually happens 20 years after the project is developed. However, in some cases, special land use agreements specify more time.[4] Between 1990 and 2005, Mitchell–Lama housing lost "22,688 units, over a third (34 percent) of its stock."[5] That pace has now increased with the real estate market for rental buildings. When a building is privatized, it loses its tax abatement, the owner generally must refinance the mortgage, and the owner loses the right to a 6% annual return on investment.
What happens to the tenants in those buildings depends on when they were built and public policy.
Tenants who do not qualify for enhanced vouchers, including all tenants in post-1973 buildings that were not federally subsidized, must pay the rent set by the landlords.[9] The buildings that are no longer in a rent-regulation program pose a particular problem for tenants who were receiving special subsidies such as subsidy programs because of poverty[10] age,[11] and disability.[12]
Housing co-operatives
After a certain period of years, owners of Mitchell–Lama limited equity housing co-operatives may decide according to their co-op voting rules to "privatize" or demutualize their building as well. That may permit owners to sell their apartments, often at a high profit, but it can potentially increase the maintenance fees of remaining residents since the building loses its tax abatement and may have increased payments for a non-subsidized mortgage. Flip taxes on resales can be used to mitigate such increases, but that is up to the co-op boards. There is some effort to require them by legislation, but that has so far been unsuccessful. Such demutualization thus simultaneously diminishes the stock of affordable housing in a given area and increases tax revenue.[13]
Policy
Legislation
Some politicians have proposed bills[14] to the New York State legislature that would put all buildings leaving or that have left Mitchell–Lama into rent stabilization upon privatization. The Rent Act of 2011[15] signed into law on June 24, 2011, did not mention Mitchell–Lama rentals or co-operatives.
Division of Housing and Community Renewal lawsuit
In November 2007, the State's Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) - now NYS HCR - adopted regulations stating that just removing a pre-1974 Mitchell–Lama from the program is not a "unique or peculiar circumstance" justifying a substantial rent increase.[16] Several landlords challenged that policy in court, asserting that it contradicts a court decision, KSLM-Columbus Apts. v. NYS DHCR,[17] and a lower court's reference to DHCR policy letters.[18] Justice Schlesinger of the New York State Supreme Court ruled[19] that the regulations are legal, and one of the owners (Steve Witkoff, owner of 95 W. 95th Street, now called "Columbus 95") appealed to the state's mid-level Appellate Division. On December 28, 2010, the Appellate Division, First Department (covering the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx) unanimously upheld DHCR's regulation.[20] The owner of Columbus 95 failed to pursue judicial permission to appeal to New York State's highest court.[21]
^"houseingnyc.com". Archived from the original on 2013-01-26. Retrieved 2013-01-26.
^[According to Community Service Society housing analysts, no more than 15% of tenants in post-1973 buildings taken out of Mitchell-Lama are eligible for such vouchers.]
^. Archived from the original on 2006-08-14. Retrieved 2006-08-31.
^. Archived from the original on 2006-10-05. Retrieved 2006-08-31.
^(PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2006-08-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Affordable no more: New York City's Looming Crisis in Michell-Lama and Limited Dividend Housing
February 10, 2023
mitchell, lama, housing, program, this, article, rely, excessively, sources, closely, associated, with, subject, potentially, preventing, article, from, being, verifiable, neutral, please, help, improve, replacing, them, with, more, appropriate, citations, rel. This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable independent third party sources June 2016 Learn how and when to remove this template message The Mitchell Lama Housing Program is a non subsidy governmental housing guarantee in the state of New York It was sponsored by New York State Senator MacNeil Mitchell and Assemblyman Alfred Lama It was signed into law in 1955 as The Limited Profit Housing Companies Act officially contained in the Private Housing Finance law article II titled Limited Profit Housing Companies and referring to not for profit corp whereas article IV titled Limited Dividend Housing Companies refers to non Mitchell Lama affordable housing organized as business corp partnerships or trusts from 1927 on Co op city in the Bronx a Mitchell Lama development The program s publicly stated purpose was the development and building of affordable housing both rental and co operatively owned for middle income residents 1 Under this program local jurisdictions acquired property by eminent domain and provided it to developers to develop housing for low and middle income tenants Developers received tax abatements as long as they remained in the program and low interest mortgages subsidized by the federal state or New York City government They were also guaranteed a 6 or later 7 5 return on investment each year The program was based on the Morningside Gardens housing cooperative a co op in Manhattan s Morningside Heights neighborhood that was subsidized with tax money 2 The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal DHCR was merged with the New York State Housing Finance Administration in 2010 to create the New York State Housing and Community Renewal agency The new agency provided financing maintenance and supervision of mortgages to developments as long as they remained in the Mitchell Lama program 1 According to the New York State Homes and Community Renewal formerly DHCR A total of 269 Mitchell Lama developments with over 105 000 apartments were built under the program 3 Contents 1 Removing properties 1 1 Rentals built before 1974 1 2 Rentals built since 1974 1 3 Housing co operatives 2 Policy 2 1 Legislation 2 2 Division of Housing and Community Renewal lawsuit 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksRemoving properties EditLandlords generally may remove the developments from Mitchell Lama by prepaying the mortgage which usually happens 20 years after the project is developed However in some cases special land use agreements specify more time 4 Between 1990 and 2005 Mitchell Lama housing lost 22 688 units over a third 34 percent of its stock 5 That pace has now increased with the real estate market for rental buildings When a building is privatized it loses its tax abatement the owner generally must refinance the mortgage and the owner loses the right to a 6 annual return on investment What happens to the tenants in those buildings depends on when they were built and public policy Rentals built before 1974 Edit Tenants in rental buildings built before 1974 go into rent stabilization upon leaving Mitchell Lama That means their rents increase according to the New York City Rent Guidelines Board orders for each new lease 6 as well as according to orders by the New York Office of Rent Administration for among other things major capital improvements 7 and landlord hardship 8 Rentals built since 1974 Edit Tenants who do not qualify for enhanced vouchers including all tenants in post 1973 buildings that were not federally subsidized must pay the rent set by the landlords 9 The buildings that are no longer in a rent regulation program pose a particular problem for tenants who were receiving special subsidies such as subsidy programs because of poverty 10 age 11 and disability 12 Housing co operatives Edit After a certain period of years owners of Mitchell Lama limited equity housing co operatives may decide according to their co op voting rules to privatize or demutualize their building as well That may permit owners to sell their apartments often at a high profit but it can potentially increase the maintenance fees of remaining residents since the building loses its tax abatement and may have increased payments for a non subsidized mortgage Flip taxes on resales can be used to mitigate such increases but that is up to the co op boards There is some effort to require them by legislation but that has so far been unsuccessful Such demutualization thus simultaneously diminishes the stock of affordable housing in a given area and increases tax revenue 13 Policy EditLegislation Edit Some politicians have proposed bills 14 to the New York State legislature that would put all buildings leaving or that have left Mitchell Lama into rent stabilization upon privatization The Rent Act of 2011 15 signed into law on June 24 2011 did not mention Mitchell Lama rentals or co operatives Division of Housing and Community Renewal lawsuit Edit In November 2007 the State s Division of Housing and Community Renewal DHCR now NYS HCR adopted regulations stating that just removing a pre 1974 Mitchell Lama from the program is not a unique or peculiar circumstance justifying a substantial rent increase 16 Several landlords challenged that policy in court asserting that it contradicts a court decision KSLM Columbus Apts v NYS DHCR 17 and a lower court s reference to DHCR policy letters 18 Justice Schlesinger of the New York State Supreme Court ruled 19 that the regulations are legal and one of the owners Steve Witkoff owner of 95 W 95th Street now called Columbus 95 appealed to the state s mid level Appellate Division On December 28 2010 the Appellate Division First Department covering the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx unanimously upheld DHCR s regulation 20 The owner of Columbus 95 failed to pursue judicial permission to appeal to New York State s highest court 21 See also EditRiverside Park Community Housing Development Fund CorporationReferences Edit a b New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal DCHR now merged into the NYS Housing and Community Renewal 1 History Mitchell Lama Residents Coalition Mitchell Lama Housing Program New York State Homes and Community Renewal 2015 04 01 Archived from the original on 2019 02 12 Saving Mitchell Lama organization Archived 2009 08 08 at the Wayback Machine website with news notices and legislation Community Service Society s Report Closing the Door NYC Rent Guidelines Board 2013 12 12 Archived from the original on 2014 01 22 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint unfit URL link http www dhcr state ny us rent factsheets orafac24 pdf bare URL PDF houseingnyc com Archived from the original on 2013 01 26 Retrieved 2013 01 26 According to Community Service Society housing analysts no more than 15 of tenants in post 1973 buildings taken out of Mitchell Lama are eligible for such vouchers HPD Residential Tenants Section 8 Information Archived from the original on 2006 08 14 Retrieved 2006 08 31 SCRIE Made Easy Archived from the original on 2006 10 05 Retrieved 2006 08 31 Archived copy PDF Archived from the original PDF on 2006 08 24 Retrieved 2006 08 31 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint archived copy as title link Cooperators United for Mitchell Lama Save Mitchell Lama Omnibus Rent Bill Is your Elected Sponsoring it Save ml org Bill Search and Legislative Information New York State Assembly Save Mitchell Lama New Regulations in Place Save ml org KSLM Columbus Apts v NYS DHCR Susman Sue Summary of Cases Feb8 09 doc PDF http save ml org files Schlesinger 20Decision 20Nov 2025 202009 pdf bare URL PDF Columbus 95th St LLC v New York State Div Of Hous amp Community Renewal 2010 NY Slip Op 09569 Tenants have won the U or P caseExternal links EditAffordable no more New York City s Looming Crisis in Michell Lama and Limited Dividend Housing 2004 Annual Report Mitchell Lama Housing Companies in New York State Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Mitchell Lama Housing Program amp oldid 1129386878, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
