Speaker Menin delivers opening statement on Mitchell-Lama crisis
Speaker Julie Menin thanks the chairs, references her June 25 letter to the administration about Tracy Towers' 30% rent increase, and frames the hearing as examining whether the city is using all available tools before asking tenants to bear costs.
I want to acknowledge that we were joined.
We are joined by Speaker Julie-Menin, and I want to give her the floor.
Thank you so much.
And really, I want to thank Chair Lee and Chair Sanchez for convening this very important hearing.
So I've got an opening statement, and then I'm going to go right into questions and apologize for my tardiness, but we actually have a hearing across the street that I will just say is quite crowded on a very hot topic.
So, first of all, for generations, New York City's Mitchell Lama program has provided, as we all know, affordable and stable homes for working class families, for older adults, and for middle income New Yorkers.
These residents keep our city literally running.
They are our teachers, postal workers, our caretakers, police officers.
Allowing them not only to stay here, but to thrive here is absolutely essential to their future and to our city's future as well.
So today's hearing comes at a pivotal moment.
On June 25th, 2026, I and other elected officials penned a letter to the mayoral administration seeking answers on how the administration plans to address a proposed cumulative 30%
rent increase at Tracy Towers.
This rent increase has brought renewed attention to the financial challenges facing Mitchell Lama developments across the city, rentals and co-ops alike.
The president of the Tenant Association of Tracy Towers warned that if approved, some residents
would be forced out of their units.
Tenants'jobs, families, and homes are at stake.
The tenants'lives literally depend on this response.
While Tracy Towers is, of course, the immediate catalyst for this conversation and for this hearing, the issues before us extend beyond one single development.
They raise fundamental questions about whether New York City is doing everything within its power to preserve affordability while ensuring the long-term financial health of its much-alama portfolio.
No one disputes that these developments are facing real financial pressures.
Rising insurance premiums, labor costs, utility expenses, security costs, debt service, and decades of deferred maintenance have placed significant strain on so many buildings.
At the same time, residents are asking difficult but very reasonable questions.
If tenants are being asked to absorb rent increase approaching or exceeding 30%,
Why do longstanding maintenance issues persist?
Why are buildings still grappling with aging elevators, deteriorating infrastructure, and other conditions that have gone unaddressed?