I have nothing against James Patchett. Really.
Patchett, the Gilbane Development CEO and former CEO of A&E and the city’s EDC, meant well when he offered housing solutions to Zohran Mamdani.
But one was off the wall:
“The new mayor can upsize pilot programs like ‘Unlocking Doors’ to pay for those renovations in exchange for leasing the apartment to city rent voucher holders,” he wrote.
I’ve had lunch with Patchett and interviewed him on stage, and his wife used to work at The Real Deal. But James must not be reading my column, because I explained the utter failure of Unlocking Doors on Sept. 8.
The headline: “Zero sum game: City program has awarded landlords no grants.”
The subhead: “In 20 months, ‘Unlocking Doors’ has yet to open any.”
Why on earth would Mamdani upsize a program that is clearly not working?
Unlocking Doors is a classic example of government ostensibly trying to solve one problem, then designing a program that tries to solve others and ends up solving none.
The objective was to provide rent-stabilized landlords money to renovate vacant units that were rendered unfixable in 2019 by the state’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act.
But the Adams administration added another goal: helping voucher holders. Making Unlocking Doors exclusive to them scared away countless owners.
“Section 8 = tenants for life and we’re not talking the cream of the crop,” one reader commented on a Gothamist story.
The city also limited the program to low-rent units (no more than $1,200 for a one-bedroom or $1,400 for a three-bedroom) that had been vacant for two years.
It required landlords to first pay for the renovation, which many lack the funds to do, then pray to be reimbursed. That scared away more of them.
If any were still interested, they gave up after seeing that the city would pay no more than $25,000, which is about enough to pull building permits, or maybe to update one bathroom.
The city later upped the amount to $50,000 — still not enough for many apartments — and didn’t alter the other terms that made Unlocking Doors so unloved.
By “upsize,” I assume Patchett meant Mamdani should increase the program’s funding and maximum number of units (initially $10 million for 400 apartments). But what the program really needs are fundamental changes.
My suggestions:
- Offer the money upfront, rather than as reimbursement. Landlords and their contractors don’t trust the city to pay them back in a timely manner, if at all.
- Get rid of the $50,000 limit. Instead, approve applications based on merit. An $80,000 rehab of a deteriorated two-bedroom may be perfectly justified.
- Allow non-voucher holders to rent the units. Voucher holders would still get some of them, and those who don’t would still be helped as the new supply absorbed other apartment seekers.
One pitfall of the two-year vacancy requirement is that owners might warehouse units until they qualify for the program. But if the program were attractive enough, its funding would be used up before anyone unnecessarily holding units empty could apply.
Mamdani will likely try to create viable programs to get vacant, rent-stabilized units back on the market because he opposes rent increases, which are the only other way to pay for renovations.
But scaling up a program that has zero participants would serve no purpose. Unlocking Doors needs an overhaul.
Maybe Patchett meant beef up, not scale up. Maybe an editor changed his copy. Whatever the case, James, thanks for the column idea. Next lunch is on me.
Read more
If COPA is so great, why stop there?
In this city, new apartments cost 4x more than houses
Entering Mamdani’s world: Dire forecast for rent-stabilized buildings
