Skip to content

Month: September 2023

A Storm is Brewing for Rent Stabilized Owners

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there was this urban oasis perceived by the world as the epicenter of capitalism where people flocked from all over to realize their professional and personal dreams. Capitalism was embraced and upward mobility was not a slogan but a truism of what was possible for anyone willing to work hard for it. That place was called New York City and the year was 2018.

The Rules Governing Rent Regulation in NYC Turned Upside Down

In 2019, the legislative Armageddon commenced from headquarters in Albany. New York State passed the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) and, overnight, the economic incentive to maintain or improve rent stabilized properties evaporated. It even stopped making sense, in many cases, to rent out recently vacated units. Best to leave the units vacant and hope for the laws to change than receive a nominal rent and an endless parade of 311 complaints. The consequences were foreseeable to all except those in government so it seemed. Your humble author wrote this piece the day the law came into effect in June 2019 (link here) and I’m no genius just an astute observer.

Rent Stabilized Properties are Distressed and it’s just the Beginning

Now some four years later with elevated interest rates, the entire asset class is at risk. Expect a tsunami of defaults in the coming months, especially from those owners who purchased properties just before the HSTPA came into effect and capitalization rates were below 4%. Sugar Hill Capital Partners was the first notable group to fall, defaulting on most of their assets in 2022. Many are now concerned that the Sugar Hill “foreclosure cases may be the proverbial tip of the iceberg.” So far, politicians remain on the sidelines unwilling to modify HSTPA and may even be gleeful by what they are witnessing if, as they must believe, it assures their re-election.

Distressed sales of rent stabilized buildings are ramping up. Two institutional players, Taconic Partners, and Clarion Partners, sold a 14-building Bronx portfolio in April 2023 at a 40% discount to what they paid in 2018. The 550-unit Dunbar Apartments in Upper Manhattan sold for a bit over $86 million, or just enough to cover the adjustable rate loan. One broker active in this space lamented that despite pricing these assets so low, he “still isn’t getting any bids.” According to The Real Deal, there are $161 million in foreclosures on rent stabilized buildings in NYC and many more in default. City Skyline Realty has at least $76 million in delinquent debt and $10 million in foreclosure in connection with one of their Bronx buildings.

Owning Rent-Stabilized Buildings: Reckless Decision Making or Unfortunate Circumstances?

Were all these groups—many institutional owners—reckless or just unfortunate? Hard to say and perhaps it’s a bit of both. One could argue that it’s a risky game to own a highly concentrated portfolio of rent stabilized properties in a few select neighborhoods. That said, Vornado Realty Trust and SL Green Realty—both led by well-regarded industry legends—suffer from a similar fact pattern the only difference being they operate in the office market. In fact, it is quite common for owners to stick to an asset class they know well and in markets they specialize in.

Albany didn’t tweak the rent laws with the HSTPA, they changed the game entirely throwing owners overboard into shark-infested waters with little warning and the most meager of provisions. Perhaps they didn’t understand the full impact of the law on owners at the time but they certainly do now. Without the ability to renovate apartments and increase rent rolls, these buildings and their owners were doomed the day the law passed. Inflation isn’t helping either. According to real estate attorney, Sherwin Belkin, “if the costs are going up and the income stream is substantially reduced, that’s going to put a lot of folks underwater or close to it.” So, where do we go from here?

What can Owners do to Survive and Keep their Assets?

For certain borrowers and types of loans, kicking in more capital may result in an extension of the loan allowing ownership to live to see another day. Government agency loans (which are amongst the biggest lenders for rent stabilized buildings), however, are less forgiving and generally don’t have the appetite for so-called workouts. Furthermore, many borrowers don’t have the ability or willingness to add more equity in the current environment only to lose the building at a later date. Why throw good money after bad the thinking goes.

The industry is bracing for the worst. With mass foreclosure sales on the horizon, who takes back the buildings, the banks, or the city? Either way, “you end up with a housing stock that does not get attended to, and that has both short- and long-term negative ramifications for the city,” according to Belkin. It’s too early to call whether we return to the urban decay of the 1970s and 1980s—marked by high crime rates and abandoned buildings—but there’s nothing to suggest the situation is improving. A rollback or significant watering down of the 2019 HSTPA law may be the only meaningful salvation for distressed owners but there isn’t even a whisper of that coming from Albany.

Website Credit:
Tuturice, V. (2023, September 5). Distress in rent-stabilized buildings rises to surface. The Real Deal. https://therealdeal.com/magazine/national-september-2023/distress-in-rent-stabilized-buildings-rises-to-surface/

Zaveri, M., & Bensimon, O. (2023, June 22). Rents to Rise for 2 Million New Yorkers This Year. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/nyregion/rent-stabilized-apartment-homes-rise.html 

Mays, J. C. (2023, August 10). Mayor Adams Said Migrant Influx Will Cost NYC $12 Billion. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/09/nyregion/adams-nyc-migrants-cost.html#:~:text=375-,Mayor%20Adams%20Says%20Migrant%20Influx%20Will%20Cost%20New%20York%20City,them%20and%20provide%20other%20services.
31
Leave a Comment

Local Law 97 Adds to Already Burdened Landlords in NYC

Going Green in NYC Don’t Come Cheap

Going green in NYC is turning into red ink for property owners. For those unfamiliar, Local Law 97 requires buildings larger than 25,000 square feet to meet emissions (with stricter limits in 2030).  Failure to comply means a $268 fine for every metric ton of CO2 emitted, a jaw-dropping amount when considering all eligible buildings.

To illustrate, the Wall Street Journal analyzed 128 properties that would be subject to $50 million in tax liabilities (for failure to comply) for the first enforcement period (and $214 million for the following period). To appreciate the scale and scope of the law, some 50,000 properties fall under the purview of local law 97. 

The law lands at a particularly challenging moment for office landlords who are already navigating a trifecta of woes, including stubbornly elevated vacancy rates, plummeting property values, and less optionality in the debt markets. As buildings represent 68% of CO2 emissions in NYC, a path towards a cleaner city inevitably must focus on the largest polluters but the timing couldn’t come at a less opportune moment for owners.

227 Park Avenue Epitomizes the Troubles Ahead

Perhaps the 51-story office skyscraper located at 277 Park Avenue best illustrates the challenges landlords currently face and how the law adds to their troubles. The property has a vacancy rate of 25% (up from 2% in 2014), according to Trepp. Worse still, the largest tenant occupies 50% of the building and plans to relocate to newly built 270 Park Avenue when their lease expires in 2026.

More troubling, the $750 million mortgage originated in 2014 matures in August 2024 when rates will be much higher than they were in 2014. Add the cost upgrades required under local law 97 and one wonders if the cost to carry for ownership is sustainable. This all spells trouble for The Stahl Organization, the owners of 277 Park Avenue, and other NYC landlords in a similar predicament. Local Law 97 could end up being the tipping point that pushes owners over the edge.  

Website Source:
Shifflett, S. (2023, September 2). Buildings are empty, now they have to go green. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/buildings-are-empty-now-they-have-to-go-green-7739f6c5?mod=hp_major_pos1#cxrecs_s 
17
Leave a Comment

Developers Rejoice as NYC’s Sliver Law may be on the Chopping Block

The emaciated heroin chic look may have been a thing among the fashionistas in the early 1990s but NYC officials were having none of it when it came to the look it wanted for its buildings. I am referring to the zoning resolution that included the so-called “sliver law,” limiting building heights on lots less than 45 feet wide. In short, the city decided in 1983 that tall and narrow, or sliver, buildings sprouting from small lots didn’t “blend in with the surrounding buildings” and were therefore prohibited. The oft-cited example is 211 Madison Avenue which rises 32 stories on a 33-foot-wide lot and towers above nearby four and eight-story buildings on the block. Today, a building like 211 Madison Avenue could never be built, as long buildings are only okay if they have the girth to match under the sliver law (and 33 feet of width simply doesn’t measure up under current rules).

Careful observers, including attorney Frank Chaney of law firm Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. (a.k.a. The Zoning Guy) wrote a convincing essay last year with the unambiguous title, “The Sliver Law Must Die,” where he asks why a 45-foot-wide lot could go up 120 feet but a 44 foot wide in the same zoning district (on the same city block even) would be contextually inappropriate and be limited to a much lower height restriction. As he puts it, a building should be considered “too tall regardless of whether it is wide or narrow. If it’s too tall, it’s too tall.” Of course he is right in pointing out the absurdity of the rule, which has now been in place for four decades. Ironically, the sliver law often mandates the construction of short narrow buildings on city blocks filled with high-rise skyscrapers creating a significantly “out of context” development. Foolish rules that miss the mark are nothing new in NYC of course, but repealing them is often a challenge. That said, the city—more than ever—needs more apartments as developers have shelved new projects and more than 100,000 migrants (who have a legal right to shelter) have flooded the city putting immeasurable pressure on an already limited housing stock. The Adams administration is therefore looking to repeal the sliver law, which could pave the way for up to 65 million square feet of development, or 95,000 housing units, according to a study conducted by Rosenberg & Estis. If repealed, expect those long skinny buildings to be back in vogue.

Website Source:
Brenzel, Kathryn. “The Daily Dirt Delves into NYC’s Sliver Law.” The Real Deal, 7 Sept. 2023, therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/09/08/the-daily-dirt-delves-into-nycs-sliver-law/. 
13
Leave a Comment