Mediaboss Marketing

Every year, the city comptroller issues a report listing all the tax breaks the city hands out. And every year, the 421-a abatement that provides decades of property tax exemptions to rental housing tops the list.

In the year ending last June, 421-a accounted for $1.73 billion in foregone revenue, up from $1.6 billion the year before. Now, with the program expiring at the end of June, lines are being drawn over whether to renew the abatement.

On one side are Gov. Kathy Hochul, who included a renamed version in her budget that makes only modest changes to the current plan, and the real estate industry, which claims that very little new housing will be built without it.

On the other side are progressive politicians especially City Comptroller Brad Lander and housing activists who denounce it as an unneeded subsidy to wealthy real estate developers that costs the city much-needed tax dollars.

The issue has become intertwined with the states leftward shift in Albany, the diminished clout of the real estate industry and the June primaries for governor and the legislature. But the stakes couldnt be higher since New York Citys future depends on building much more housing.

We need more housing supply, the program thats providing that supply needs to be updated, and that update needs to equitably serve New Yorkers, said Matt Murphy, executive director of the NYU Furman Center, which on Wednesday issued a report documenting how important the tax break is to the city.

But renewing it will be an uphill struggle for the governor.

My concern with the Hochul proposal is that it is just minor changes, said Sen. Michael Gianaris (D-Queens), the influential Democratic deputy majority leader in the state Senate, on the Brian Lehrer show Tuesday.

He added: 421-a is a boondoggle. We need more than modest changes. We need to end it and start over.

The 421-a tax exemption was first enacted in 1971, with the citys economy in its most severe post-war economic downturn, to spur developers to build housing. It has continued in various iterations since with occasional periods when the program lapsed amid disputes over its requirements.

It now accounts for the vast majority of new housing. In the 10 years ending in 2020, 421-a accounted for 68% of all new units in buildings with at least four units, Furman reported. Another related program accounted for an additional 21% meaning nine out of every 10 new units benefited from some kind of tax break.

And half of all affordable units since 2014 have been built under 421-a and a locally administered Article XI tax break, according to data from the city.

Historically, the affordable units required in Manhattan and a few other areas were targeted to people with modest incomes. But when the state legislature tweaked the program in 2016 renamed Affordable New York developers were alternatively allowed to set aside affordable units for people earning 130% of the median income in the region more than $155,300 for a family of four.

While intended to create housing for middle-class workers, the decision remains controversial as the housing needs of the lowest-income city residents, including homeless people, become ever more pressing.

Furman highlights another inequity in the program as currently crafted: It estimates half of all affordable studios were targeted to the lowest income groups, but only a quarter of two-bedroom units were available to those renters.

The 2016 revisions also effectively eliminated the ability of condos and coops to qualify for the tax break.

The Hochul plan targets both these issues.

Her proposal, tagged Affordable Neighborhoods for New Yorkers, would continue the 35-year property tax exemption for developers who set aside a percentage of units as affordable but target those to lower incomes.

The middle-income program is gone, while any project with 30 or more units would be required to provide 10% of units to households earning 40% or less of area median income, 10% for those at 60% or less AMI and 5% at 80% or less AMI.

The units must remain affordable even after the tax break expires, a significant change.

Hochul also proposed that condos and coops would again qualify for the tax break if all the units were restricted to New Yorkers earning up to 130% AMI for the full 40 years the tax break is provided.

The condo provision originated not with real estate groups but with legislators outside Manhattan, especially in The Bronx, who want to provide a path to homeownership for their constituents, insiders say.

Lander is vehemently opposed to the change, which he claims will encourage developers to build condominiums instead of rental units in much of the city.

He projects condos costing $600,000 with $4,000 a month payments could qualify under the program.

The proposal trades a small amount of more deeply affordable rental units in Manhattan and brownstone Brooklyn for more market rate condos in the rest of the city, he said.

Real estate industry players say that scenario likely wont happen because making a condo development work is likely be too onerous.

Anyone pursuing a condo project would have to get approval from the citys Department of Housing Preservation and Development, is likely to want to line up financing from a city or state program, and will need go through the arduous process of filing reams of documents with the state attorney generals office, said Erica Buckley, a partner at the law firm Nixon Peabody specializing in such deals.

Affordable home ownership deals are really complicated and difficult. We will be lucky if three or four of every 10 potential developers use it, she added.

Lander is pushing a plan to link the expiration of the tax break to property tax reform. The city keeps property taxes extremely low compared to the suburbs for single-family homes, coops and condos but levies high taxes on rental buildings that now take on average 30% of a landlords operating income.

He says Mayor Eric Adams and the governor should establish a deadline of the end of the year to push through reform to lower rental taxes. If such a plan fails, he said, would reconsider his opposition to some sort of tax break.

Other experts note that property tax reform has been talked about for decades without any action. Taxes also arent the only problem in building rental units, notes Martha Stark, the former city finance commissioner who has been a leader in the fight for property tax reform. She ticks off the high cost of land and construction, which lead to apartments costing more than many New Yorkers can afford.

In any event, the Furman report notes, the current 421-a tax breaks will remain in effect until they expire, the cost is unlikely to change through at least 2030 even if the program ends, and the city will see only small increases in tax revenue for years.

No one disputes that the city needs more housing. We want more product and I am in favor of more market rate development, Lander said.

The city needs 560,000 new units of housing by 2030 to make up the deficit in new construction over the past decade and accommodate expected population and job growth in the post-pandemic city, according to a study by the consulting firm AKRF commissioned by the Real Estate Board of New York.

Insiders say the real estate industry won the first battle by convincing the governor to include her proposal in the budget, a move that came after they emerged as a key contributor to her election campaign. (People would discuss the politics of the tax abatement only on a not-for attribution basis.)

Doing so means the legislators opposed to the tax break will have to decide between eliminating it and other programs they want the governor to support. If voted on alone, the tax break would not pass the legislature, the sources say.

The condo tax break is likely to be shelved, the insiders say, calling it a placeholder for a more extensive homeownership program the governor envisions to meet the needs of the boroughs outside Manhattan.

Other real estate groups with less of a stake in the tax abatement fear a tradeoff where the legislature renews the tax break but passes a good cause eviction bill.

The current good cause proposal would extend a type of rent control to currently market-rate housing, although it is likely to be watered down before passage.

Some insiders put the odds of 421-as renewal at 50-50 and say the building trade unions will need to support the plan. The unions seek to expand a provision that currently requires specific wages for construction and building service workers on projects in Manhattan and some waterfront sections of Brooklyn.

An endorsement from Adams will also be crucial, and insiders note the mayor and governor are trying very hard to be on the same side of important issues.

A statement from City Hall said the mayor has not taken a position:

New York City needs more housing that is more affordable in more neighborhoods, and the administration is absolutely committed to using every tool in our toolbox to achieve that. We are currently reviewing the governors proposal and look forward to participating actively in any discussion about affordable housing in the city.

Sign up and get the latest stories from THE CITY delivered to you each morning

The rest is here:
Progressives and Hochul Battle Over Fate of $1.7B Developer Tax Break - THE CITY

The citizen initiative process that gave Floridians the power to raise the minimum wage and restore voting rights is under grave threat after the states House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday advanced a Republican proposal to dramatically limit the scope of future ballot measures.

Led by state Rep. Mike Beltran (R-57), House Joint Resolution 1127 would alter Floridas constitution to limit citizen initiatives to matters relating to procedural subjects or to structure of the government a restriction that likely would have blocked $15 minimum wage, voting rights, medical marijuana, and conservation amendments.

Having passed out of the GOP-controlled judiciary panel, the proposal is soon expected to receive a vote in the full state House of Representatives. If the Florida Legislature passes Beltrans resolution, voters will have to approve the amendment for it to be added to the state constitution.

Final approval of the resolution would effectively spell the death of the states citizen initiative process, the ACLU of Florida warned in a statement Tuesday evening.

These proposed changes to the citizen initiative process are not about fixing problems they are about interfering with the will of Floridians, said Kara Gross, the groups legislative director and senior policy counsel. Through ballot initiatives, citizens have been able to improve the lives and well-being of Floridians.

Gross characterized the Florida GOPs attack on the citizen initiative process as part of a broader trend of politicians trying to rewrite the rules because they do not like it when voters use their power.

Florida lawmakers should respect the will of the people and Floridians right to participate in our democracy through the citizen initiative process, Gross added. They should vote no on these proposals and end the crusade of sabotaging the right of the people to be heard.

House Joint Resolution 1127 is hardly the Florida GOPs first attempt to gut the citizen initiative process, which empowered voters to enact broadly popular policies that wouldve gone nowhere in the GOP-dominated state Legislature.

In 2020, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill containing a number of new ballot initiative restrictions, including an increase of the signature requirement. Last year, DeSantis signed a measure limiting donations to citizen initiative campaigns a limit that was later blocked by a federal judge.

Aliki Moncrief, executive director of Florida Conservation voters, told a local CBS affiliate on Tuesday that the state GOPs efforts are basically about limiting the power of people to raise important public policies and important public issues that they dont feel the Legislature is considering.

So, its horrible in a word, Moncrief added. If the people really wanted this done, they would have done it.

Read more:
Progressives Alarmed by Florida GOP Plan to Gut Ballot Initiative Process - Truthout

Michael T. Hayes is Professor of Political Science at Colgate University.

Over the past few weeks, Joe Biden has sustained two devastating defeats: the Build Back Better bill and a subsequent attempt to pass voting rights legislation by eliminating the Senate filibuster for that issue. Both these defeats were entirely predictable given the Democrats narrow margin in the Senate and the clearly stated opposition of Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to both efforts.

Biden has more Senate experience than any other U.S. president. How is it possible that he misjudged these two situations so badly, setting himself up for embarrassing defeats? I cannot believe Biden misjudged these two situations; rather, he was boxed in by the unrealistic expectations of the progressive wing of his party.

A distinction between realists and idealists, first drawn by international relations scholar Hans J. Morgenthau, helps us better understand Bidens situation. Realists believe that our clearly imperfect world is a product of forces rooted in human nature, and it is necessary to work with these forces rather than against them. Despite our best efforts, moral principles can never be fully realized because nation-states have conflicting interests and inevitably seek power in order to advance those interests.

By contrast, idealists take for granted the essential goodness and malleability of human nature and sincerely believe that a rational and moral political order can and should be achieved. Where realists believe states have national interests and a legitimate right to pursue them, idealists believe the pursuit of power is immoral and national interests should be subordinated to altruistic values such as human rights or international law.

Applying this realist-idealist distinction to domestic politics, Biden is a realist. He recognizes that all political actors have interests of their own and a legitimate right to pursue them. Because conflict among contending interests is inevitable, negotiation is a normal part of politics and compromise is not a violation of principles understood as sacrosanct.

By contrast, progressives tend to be idealists. They believe solutions to pressing public problems are both urgent and self-evident, and those who oppose their idealistic visions must be immoralor at least willfully blind. For the idealist, transformative policies are not only attainable but the only policies worth pursuing.

In order to get elected in the first place, and to keep his coalition together once in office, Biden has had to pay lip service to progressive proposals that had no realistic chances of passage. To pass bills in the real world, one must taper down bills from the optimal to the acceptable, modifying bills as necessary to obtain the votes needed for passage.

Biden understands this. I am sure the president never expected a social infrastructure bill costing $3.5 trillion to pass, but the only way to convince progressives of this fact was to let them make the attempt and discover for themselves that the price tag was too high. But the negotiations, and the ultimate failure, were conducted in full view of the media, making Biden look weak.

Similarly, Biden surely knew all along that there was no realistic prospect for passing either one of the two voting rights bills favored by the progressives, which is probably why he put off dealing with them for so long. The quixotic nature of this quest was made absolutely clear when Biden went to Georgia to make an angry speech equating opposition to the voting rights bills with racism.

This was out of character for Biden, who (as a realist) normally respects the right of others to disagree with him and pursue whatever they see as their legitimate interests. But this entirely symbolic gesture proved futile in the end, as everyone surely knew it would, when Sinema reiterated her longstanding support for the filibuster.

Politics is the art of the possible. Some policies, however desirable, are simply unattainable with a weak electoral mandate and an evenly divided Senate. Progressives need to absorb this lesson.

Progressives also need to acknowledge that all actors who disagree with them are not depraved. While I believe the filibuster should be abolished for all issues, I recognize that my view may be wrong, and I respect those who disagree with me. Vilifying Sinema and Manchin, whether through censure resolutions or threats of primary challengers, is characteristic of idealists, who believe opposition to their enlightened views must be immoral.

A key moral insight of realism, which idealists seem to miss, is that a nation pursuing its national interest is not necessarily evil just because it gets in your way. This same insight applies in domestic affairs, as well.

Also in Opinion: Editorial cartoons for Jan. 30, 2022: Breyer retires, Ukraine tensions, done with Covid

Read this article:
Progressives unrealistic demands are hurting Biden, the realist (Guest Opinion by Michael T. Hayes) - syracuse.com

Progressive groups are trying to slow the advancement of several bills that could severely limit discussions of race, sex, gender, and history in businesses and public-school classrooms. The measures reflect mostly-conservative backlash to social justice movements and LGBTQ rights and visibility. Theyre part of Governor Ron DeSantis efforts to push back against the so-called woke agenda.

The biggest piece of legislation carrying the most impact is HB7/Senate Bill 148. Both are outgrowths of Gov. Ron DeSantis efforts to curb what he views as the so-called woke agenda. The bill bans certain methods of teaching like Critical Race Theory which supporters say could lead some people to feel bad about themselves. The bills dictate that businesses cant require employees to take certain types of training, and says schools cant teach history and other subjects in a way that might lead students and others to feel bad. Yet, history is fraught with issues that indeed do cause guiltlike slavery, and gender discrimination.

"I have sat, and sat for the last five years and wonderedI could have died for a country that doesnt love me. That doesnt want me to know about my history," said Ranka Milligan Ashcroft with the social justice group Dream Defenders.

Ashcroft stands at the intersection of several issues. She's a veteran. She's Black and she's a woman and a Lesbian.

Ashcroft has listened, as conservatives have lined up at legislative committee hearings to support bills like HB7. Some comments, like those during a recent hearing on a Senate bill that would give parents greater say over what school library books and classroom materials can be used, have been downright hurtful to people who identify as LGBTQ.

We have porn, we have the critical race we have gender confusion in our schools said one woman with a parental rights group as she held up a book aimed at children to teach them about gender identity.

I have a 6-7-year-old who came out to the car, got into her mothers SUVand said, I dont want to have to marry a man when I get big, and the mother was horrified," said another woman who said she is an attorney in South Florida.

When comments like that are spoken people like Ashcroft hear something that says, "you don't matter."

And she's critical of efforts that she believes are aimed at erasing Black history and gender issues from the classroom. An effect of silencing and erasing people like herself.

Nearly all of the people whove spoken for the proposals during public comment have been white. Something not lost on Democratic Rep. Kelli Skidmore of Boca Raton.

Many of these folks are the ones who are like not everyone gets a trophy at soccer. You have to earn it.' [Now] here they go saying we cant hurt any white persons feelings..' Thats not what this country is about.

Skidmore, Democrats, and other progressives see HB7 and other like-bills, as Republican efforts to cater to a small but vocal base of voters who are growing increasingly intolerant of progress being made by minority and other marginalized groups. Arguments in favor of the proposals often have a religious bent, which Skidmore says flies in the face who she believes God is.

If you want to invoke the name of JesusJesus ran into the leper colony. Jesus helped the prostitutes. Jesus made sure people were not stoned," Skidmore said.

The proposals said Skidmoreare the antithesis of what Jesus would do. And yet the bills continue to fly through committees, backed by Republicans whoeven if they may privately express discomfort with the measures continue to support them publicly. Democratic Lawmakers like Skidmore have repeatedly called out their Republican colleagues for backing bills they say foster hate, not hope.

See original here:
Progressives are raising alarms amid Republican-backed bills to roll back teaching on race, history and LGBTQ issues - WFSU

Progressive candidates who lost recent high-profile congressional campaigns launch national comeback bids to reenergize the left after bruising disappointments in 2021.

From the Midwest to the Deep South and Pacific Northwest, these insurgent progressives insist they have the right formula to take on the establishment wing of politicians they argue has politically crippled the country during the Biden era.

Were going to be flooding the streets, said a senior campaign adviser for former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D), who recently announced a second primary challenge to Rep. Shontel Brown (D) in the states 11th Congressional District. This will be a very bottom-heavy campaign.

Turner is not alone in her grassroots-style approach to a rematch.

In Texas, attorney and activist Jessica Cisneros is gunning for another shot against recently embattled Rep. Henry Cuellar (D) in the states 28th Congressional District after losing to him by less than 4 points in 2020. With Cuellar embroiled in a federal investigation, Cisneros has even more of an opening.

And in Oregon, Jamie McLeod-Skinner is running just two years after losing in the general election for the 2nd Congressional District in 2018. This time, shes aiming for the states 5th Congressional District, currently held by Rep. Kurt SchraderWalter (Kurt) Kurt SchraderOvernight Energy & Environment Biden tries to reverse Trump on power plants 23 House Democrats call for Biden to keep full climate funds in Build Back Better House passes bill to strengthen shipping supply chain MORE (D).

To some in the party, the progressive do-overs feel like an unnecessary rehash of recent events. They argue their organizing muscle would be better spent supporting Democrats who are already comfortably in office which is even more critical, they say, with control of Congress hanging on just a few seats.

The climate in Washington is already so polarized that they fear a scattering of challengers to fellow Democrats could further alienate voters who believe the party is falling off the rails and heading for collision in November.

For every progressive that may be challenging a moderate, what does that say about the resources in the end? said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. What does that say about trying to bring this party together and unifying this party?

The real opponent is on the other side, he said.

Progressives believe thats oversimplifying things. To some failed candidates, their bids come as badges of honor: the closeness of their defeats, the energized momentumfrom gains progressives have made in the Houseand, in some cases, the lessons learned from the past are all reasons enough to restart.

We always have known that this isnt a one-time-cycle fight, said Natalia Salgado, the director of federal affairs for the Working Families Party. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBriahna Joy Gray: Biden's Supreme Court promise 'bare minimum' gesture to Black voters Manchin sees best fundraising haul for in nonelection year Biden's 'New Political Order' MORE getting to the top of the ticket and being seen as a viable candidate versus a longtime party leader that is and was President BidenJoe BidenBriahna Joy Gray: Biden's Supreme Court promise 'bare minimum' gesture to Black voters House GOP leader says State of the Union attendance could be capped: report Record enrollment numbers send a clear message about health care affordability, access MORE is a big indication of how far we have come.

With all the stagnation on Capitol Hill, where Bidens legislative agenda has been held hostage, some say, by a few moderates in the Senate and House, more progressives in office could shake things up.

The energy right now is for surviving this existential moment for our planet and democracy. That means progressives flipping red seats and winning open seats more than primarying incumbents, said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The giant exception is for people like Henry Cuellar and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaDurbin says 'several' Republicans could be open to Biden court pick Manchin hired security detail amid threats and protests Manchin 'anxious' to confirm Breyer's Supreme Court successor MORE, who occupy blue seats and actively block the Democratic agenda, which is why theres so much energy around Jessica Cisneross House campaign and even a 2024 Primary Sinema campaign.

In Texass 28th District, which has been one of Democrats biggest targets for the past several seasons, the contest between Cuellar and Cisneros has garnered national attention due to an FBI raid on Cuellars home, which is part of a broader investigation between U.S. businessmen and Azerbaijan. The investigation has subsequently drawn more eyes to his district, which many speculate benefits Cisneros.

Yet Cuellar still appears to have a fundraising advantage. He raised $700,000 during the last quarter of 2021, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Cisneros raised $362,000 during the same period.

But Cisneros has been making what she believes is a more compelling case to voters, keeping in line with other progressives firmness in bucking corporate donations in favor of small dollar contributions. And shes gotten some top media figures to take notice, including going door-to-door with MSNBC as she literally introduced herself to her would-be constituents.

Cuellar and Schrader were among the moderate House Democrats who faced blowback during negotiations surrounding Bidens infrastructure package and a sweeping social spending bill known as Build Back Better. While the two moderate congressmen ultimately voted to pass Build Back Better in the House, progressives have slammed them along with seven other moderate Democrats for voting to pass infrastructure separately from the social spending package.

The fight around Build Back Better really clarified who within the Democratic caucus is really a progressive and who is not, said Joseph Geevarghese, national director of the Sanders-aligned group Our Revolution. In the case of Kurt Schrader and Henry Cuellar, the contrast is clear and I think theres more energy that will be generated as a result.

Turner and Brown are in a different spot. The two candidates, both Black women, last faced off in an August special election to fill Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia FudgeMarcia FudgeEquilibrium/Sustainability Robots to explore Greenland's glaciers HUD opens access to B in climate, disaster resilience grants Nina Turner launches new campaign for Congress, setting up likely rematch with Shontel Brown MOREs seat. The primary turned into a bitter fight between the partys establishment and progressive factions.

Top party figures like House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and progressive icons like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOmar seeking third term in Congress Manchin hired security detail amid threats and protests Democratic rep tests positive for COVID-19 upon return from Ukraine trip MORE (D-N.Y.) traveled to the district to campaign with their respective candidates. Brown ultimately defeated Turner by roughly 5 points.

Now, Turner is throwing it all back into the rematch, proclaiming in a very on-brand launch video last week that our leaders cant settle for just enough.

The senior adviser helping shape Turners messaging strategy pointed to several factors that the campaign believes will work in the progressive firebrands favor, including a soon-to-be-announced new congressional map.

What we know for certain is that up to a third of the district will be brand new and that it will be greater Cleveland that will be the anchor of the district, the adviser said.

This is going to be a Cleveland district ... which is good for Nina.

More than 2,000 miles away from Cleveland, in the greater Portland area, McLeod-Skinner is challenging Schrader, with many of her supporters citing Schraders initial skepticism over Bidens social safety net plan.

The Working Families Party cited Schraders role in those negotiations in their endorsement of McLeod-Skinner last week.

But Democratic strategists maintain that the stalling of Bidens agenda is not the fault of Democrats in the House, but rather the partys moderates in the Senate.

The reality is the House is doing its work and theyre delivering results for the American people, Seawright, the Democratic strategist, said. Theres a clog in the wheel in the United States Senate.

Progressives brushed off this notion, citing what they said were the ties between moderates in both chambers.

They very actively worked against Build Back Better and I think those of us on the left have the receipts to show it, the Working Families Partys Salgado said.

See the original post here:
Progressive candidates seek comebacks after disappointing year | TheHill - The Hill