The $22 Billion Gamble

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has pledged to spend $22 billion over the next five years on a housing plan that promises to build 200,000 new affordable homes and preserve another 200,000.

However, critics argue that the plan is not about affordability, but rather about confiscation – and that the city needs more homes , fewer barriers to building them, and a housing market where supply, not government coercion, brings rents down.

Under the plan, the city will take aggressive legal action to remove negligent owners and property managers, and transfer ownership of buildings that have suffered chronic neglect to responsible stewards, including community land trusts and nonprofits.

The city's buildings department will be used to generate violations and fines, producing an official record to support intervention .. Between escalating penalties, coordinated rent strikes and sustained activist pressure, landlords will find it difficult , not to mention costly, to defend themselves .

The 7A Program: A New Tool for Confiscation?

The mayor's plan also includes the use of the city's 7A Program, which allos the city to place a building under a court-appointed administrator with authority to collect rents and dash the property.

This has raised concerns that the city is using this program as a means of confiscating property from landlords, rather than addressing the root causes of the housing crisis.

The city's largest landlord, the New York City Housing Authority, which owns and operates over 150,000 units, is also set to receive billions of dollars in new spending under the plan.

However, the Housing Authority has been under federal supervision for misconduct involving lead, mold, heating, pests, and broken elevators, and a third-party monitor found that it was still substantially out of compliance on most targets in December.

Austin's Success Story: A Cautionary Tale

The mayor has cited Austin, Texas, as a housing policy success story in his speech, but critics argue that the city's approach is not the right model for New York.

Austin's housing prices were lowered by removing regulations and letting the market meet demand by building more houses, rather than creating a government-run housing company or harassing landlords until they turned over their property to nonprofit organizations.

This approach has been successful in Austin, but it remains to be seen whether it will work in New York, where the housing market is much more complex and the city's regulatory environment is much more restrictive.

Who is the Unnamed Buyer?

The plan also raises questions about who will be the ultimate beneficiary of the city's efforts to confiscate property from landlords.

Will it be community land trusts and nonprofits, or will it be the city itself, using its power to acquire and hold property for the benefit of its citizens?

The answer to this question is not clear, and it is a question that will need to be answered in the coming months and years as the plan is implemented.