Christopher Atheneos (SPONY) opposes COPA as government-created distress mechanism
Atheneos argues that government policies (frozen rents, rising expenses, housing court delays) create the financial distress that triggers COPA eligibility, then the government uses that distress to justify transferring properties. He urges preserving the economic viability of small property owners rather than regulating them into distress.
So next up we have Christopher Athinaos, Ilan Rabinovich, Mohamed Kouroum, Matthew Dunbar, and I'm so sorry for all my mispronunciation.
Thank you.
Whoever is ready can begin.
Sure.
Good afternoon.
My name is Christopher Atheneos.
I'm with the small property owners of New York, and we're here today to continue to oppose any version of the COPA bill.
We're operating in an environment where policies increase the cost of owning and maintaining regulated housing, which can potentially increase the number of buildings that meet the distress criteria that trigger COPA.
In other words, the government can create the conditions of distress and then create a mechanism to transfer the distressed properties to qualified entities.
New York City's small property owners are not simply investors.
Many are families who have owned buildings for generations and have provided housing through economic downturns, recessions, the pandemic, and decades of changing regulations.
They're an essential part of New York City's housing infrastructure.
For small owners, the problem is cumulative, and a small owner can simultaneously experience frozen regulated rents, higher operating expenses, less money.
available for capital repairs, deferred repairs or inability to complete work immediately, more violations, complaints, higher legal and compliance costs, reduced building cash flow and value, difficulty refinancing or obtaining insurance,
all of which leads to financial distress and placement in the AEP and other city programs, which could trigger COPA.
The city should not create a system in which small owners are squeezed financially, become distressed, and then told that their distress justifies greater government intervention in the disposition of their property.
If New York wants to preserve affordable housing, it must preserve the economic viability of the buildings that provide it.
Don't regulate responsible small property owners into distress and then use that distress as the justification for taking their buildings out of the private market.
Thank you.