Metro North Residents at Putnam Rally, photo courtesy of Tenants & Neighbors
In recent years, speculation in the affordable housing market is an accepted fact. Real estate investment targets the homes of low income families with the express intent to make financial profit from exploiting the residents who live in these buildings. This practice has failed. Over and over again. However, this hasn’t stopped the perception that massive profits can be gained by gambling on NYC’s affordable housing stock. The question in front of our policy makers now is how will we respond to this continuing and destabilizing crisis?
Stuyvesant Town is likely the most famous affordable housing complex that was victim to the overleveraging crisis of the early to mid-2000s. This is because both it is the largest housing complex with over 11,000 apartments and the fact that in 2006 it was purchased for an astronomical price of over $6 billion. This deal was in default within 3 years. Due to the complex nature of the financing, the buildings have been in limbo since 2009, but as was reported by the New York Times, the properties are back on their way to auction, and unfortunately, there are already willing bidders preparing to speculate on the buildings again.
Although, Stuy Town is the largest and most recognizable portfolio, it is hardly the only large complex on the edge of another critical moment. The Urban American Putnam Portfolio is a group of five former Mitchell Lama projects in upper Manhattan and Roosevelt Island that comprises nearly 4,000 units of what used to be protected, affordable housing. This portfolio is, similar to Stuy Town, at risk of being flipped again. Last week, Bloomberg News rendered an accurate and clear explanation of the history of the properties and the risk the portfolio is currently facing.
To give a brief history, in the height of the housing boom the portfolio was flipped twice under business plans to remove the affordability from the project, push out lower income residents and raise rents as high as possible. Urban American purchased the buildings for $918 million, taking out an $800 million mortgage financed by Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae also took the opportunity to invest at least $60 million in equity in the portfolio (although they won’t admit it) something which seems to be in direct conflict with their mission to protect affordable housing. It should come as no surprise that this isn’t the only time they’ve invested in these types of deals. To complicate matters further, it was discovered that the City Investment Fund partnered with Urban American in this predatory deal. The City Investment Fund includes money from the New York City and New York State retirement systems; a bitter irony considering many of the residents in these Mitchell Lama projects were public workers.
This $800 million mortgage is now due, which has inspired a flurry of activity around the portfolio. Urban American is looking for a new investment partner that would help them refinance. Brookfield Properties has expressed interest in buying a stake in a $1.1 billion refinancing. This is a $182 million increase over the last purchase price, which has stretched the rents to the highest level and allowed the conditions of the properties to decline. In the event of this refinancing both the City Investment Fund and Fannie Mae would be paid off, fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility at the expense of thousands of New Yorkers’ having an affordable place to live.
It DOESN’T have to be this way. We as a City can decide that we are going to fight to preserve these homes, as well as other buildings that are victims of this crisis. We can do this without creating diminution in value to the bondholders. Here’s what we need to do:
Fannie Mae: The mortgage was due in early May. As a deal has still not been completed, Fannie Mae is in a position as holder of the defaulted debt to push for a quicker preservation deal. Fannie Mae could also commit to finance a preservation deal that would protect the affordability and commit to improving the conditions. Additionally, Fannie Mae should take responsibility for the fact it invested in this portfolio and use its equity stake as additional leverage to push for a better outcome.
City Investment Fund/Comptroller Scott Stringer: The Comptroller should support the tenants and the preservation of affordable housing by taking a stance that doesn’t ignore the impact of his predecessor’s actions. Pension funds should never have been used in a deal that puts low and moderate income tenants at risk of losing their homes. However, there is no reason why the City Investment Fund couldn’t explore the opportunity to remain invested in these properties as long as an owner steps in who commits to affordability and decent housing.
HPD and other City Agencies: This portfolio represents a substantial amount of affordable housing in Upper Manhattan and Roosevelt island, and it should have never been allowed to lose its affordability protections. HPD and the other City Agencies should explore ways to once again tie rent restrictions to these buildings through the use of tax abatements or subsidy that would (a) provide much needed capital towards repairs and (b) add regulatory agreements that would keep the buildings affordable for the residents who call them home.
Mayor de Blasio and other Elected Officials: Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and the other Elected Officials should support the residents of these properties and the need to protect these units of affordable housing, a much needed resource of affordable housing in upper Manhattan and Roosevelt Island. They also could call all the above mentioned parties to the table with the tenants to negotiate how to preserve these properties.
This is not an easy task, in fact it will be difficult and tedious and with no assurances that we can win. However, the tenants are ready to stand up and take on this fight, the only question is who will stand with them?
This is not an easy task, in fact it will be difficult and tedious and with no assurances that we can win. However, the tenants are ready to stand up and take on this fight, the only question is who will stand beside them?