Prohibits persons whose income is greater than one hundred twenty-five percent of the area median income from occupying certain housing accommodations.
This bill would impose a means test on certain rent-regulated housing in New York City and other housing covered by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 and the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law. In general, it would make any person whose income exceeds 125% of area median income ineligible to occupy covered housing accommodations. The bill also directs the Division of Homes and Community Renewal and the Department of Taxation and Finance to adopt implementing regulations, and it requires those rules to hold owners and their agents harmless for violations of the new income-eligibility rules.
The bill includes enforcement provisions for tenants who willfully violate the income limits, including by submitting false income documentation, with civil penalties of up to $500 per day of illegal occupancy. At the same time, it creates transition protections for current tenants: a tenant already lawfully occupying a unit would not be evicted or penalized during the term of the most recent lease executed before the bill’s effective date, or before the tenant’s income rose above the threshold, but continued over-income occupancy after that lease term could become grounds for eviction. The bill also applies the same income-eligibility standard to succession rights, requiring heirs or successors to meet the threshold to take over a regulated tenancy.
In addition to amending state rent regulation laws, the bill adds a new section to the New York City Administrative Code requiring that, beginning January 1, 2028, certain rent-regulated dwelling units be rented only to persons with adjusted gross income below 125% of area median income. The measure is structured to take effect immediately, but the New York City-specific provisions would remain tied to the duration of the underlying rent regulation emergency and statutory expiration dates.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship is restrictive and reform-oriented, aiming to reserve regulated housing for households below a defined income ceiling. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to tighten eligibility and reduce access by higher-income households while preserving existing tenancies for a transition period.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether income-based exclusion is appropriate for rent-regulated housing, especially given the bill’s impact on current tenants, succession rights, and the administration of eligibility determinations. Supporters would likely view the measure as a way to target scarce regulated housing to lower- and moderate-income households, while opponents may argue it could displace tenants, complicate enforcement, and alter longstanding rent stabilization and rent control protections.
The bill would amend the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, and the New York City Administrative Code to add a 125% of area median income eligibility cap for covered housing. It would also create new civil penalties for willful violations, require state agencies to promulgate implementing rules, and bar succession to regulated tenancies unless the successor meets the income test. In practical terms, it would narrow access to certain rent-regulated units and change how landlords, tenants, and courts handle occupancy eligibility and succession disputes.
The bill’s text reflects a clear policy preference for means-testing rent-regulated housing and limiting occupancy by higher-income households. Because no committee discussion or vote record is included, there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the provided materials. The available context suggests a proposal intended to be restrictive and enforcement-oriented, with transitional protections added to soften immediate effects on existing tenants.
The likely points of contention are the income cap itself, the effect on current tenants whose incomes rise above the threshold, and the denial of succession rights to over-income family members or household members. Another likely dispute is enforcement: the bill shifts implementation to state agencies but also seeks to hold owners harmless, which may be seen as protecting landlords while placing the burden on tenants and agencies. Critics may also object to the civil penalties and the possibility of eviction after a lease term ends, while supporters may argue these provisions are necessary to preserve scarce regulated housing for lower-income residents.