Prohibits or limits certain tax exemptions for real property in instances where a pattern or practice of discrimination against occupants has been found based on such occupants' lawful source of income.
A07002 would add a new section to the Real Property Tax Law to tie certain real property tax exemptions to compliance with housing anti-discrimination laws. The bill applies to housing companies, insurance companies, redevelopment companies, and redevelopment corporations that receive state or local tax exemptions and that have been found, through a final determination by the Division of Human Rights, the Attorney General, or a court, to have discriminated against occupants or applicants based on race, color, creed, or lawful source of income.
The bill creates a “pattern or practice” standard based on multiple final discrimination determinations within a five-year period, with thresholds that vary by the size of the landlord or entity. Once that threshold is met, the entity faces escalating consequences for additional violations: a corrective action plan and possible 25% reduction in tax benefits, then a 50% reduction and mandatory audits, and finally full revocation of the tax exemption and a five-year bar on new exemptions unless substantial corrective action is shown. The bill also allows for reinstatement after three years if the landlord can demonstrate no further violations, corrective measures, and certification of good standing.
In practical terms, the bill would not create a new housing discrimination offense, but it would use tax policy as an enforcement tool against repeat offenders. It would affect the tax treatment of certain properties and could reduce or eliminate exemptions otherwise available under the Real Property Tax Law for covered entities found to have engaged in repeated discrimination. The Division of Human Rights would play a central role in approving compliance plans, monitoring compliance, and certifying reinstatement.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening anti-discrimination enforcement and protecting tenants and applicants with lawful sources of income, while imposing financial consequences on landlords and property-owning entities with repeated violations. The main point of contention likely would be whether using tax exemption penalties is an appropriate and effective enforcement mechanism, and whether the pattern-or-practice thresholds and penalty structure are too strict or too lenient for different sizes of property owners.
The bill would amend the Real Property Tax Law by adding a new section that conditions certain existing tax exemptions on a covered entity’s housing-discrimination record. It would affect housing companies, insurance companies, redevelopment companies, and redevelopment corporations that receive exemptions under the tax law, and it would authorize reductions, suspension, revocation, and reinstatement rules for those benefits when repeated discrimination findings are made. The Division of Human Rights, the Attorney General, and courts would be the key bodies whose final determinations trigger the statute’s enforcement provisions.
No committee discussion or voting history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or floor action. The bill’s stated purpose suggests a pro-enforcement, tenant-protection approach focused on combating discrimination based on lawful source of income and other protected characteristics. The structure of the bill indicates support for stronger consequences for repeat violators, but it also suggests an intent to allow remediation and reinstatement for landlords that correct their practices.
The likely areas of contention are the use of tax exemptions as a penalty for housing discrimination, the graduated thresholds for what counts as a pattern or practice, and the severity of the sanctions for repeat violations. Property owners and housing industry stakeholders may object that the bill imposes substantial financial penalties and could affect already-authorized tax benefits, while tenant advocates and civil rights supporters are likely to favor the bill’s focus on repeat discrimination and compliance incentives. Another possible point of debate is the role and discretion of the Division of Human Rights in approving corrective plans, audits, and reinstatement.