Zach Steinberg (REBNY) expresses COPA concerns and opposes Intro 649
Steinberg acknowledges COPA improvements but says additional revisions are needed on lawsuit limits, timeline clarity, and administrative extensions. He strongly opposes Intro 649, arguing existing law already requires ownership disclosure and the bill raises privacy concerns by requiring public disclosure of beneficial owners including minors and passive investors.
Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez.
My name is Zach Steinberg, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Real Estate Board of New York.
Thank you.
I'd like to focus my remarks on Intro 905 and Intro 649.
First, Intro 905, the Community Operative Purchase Act, or COPA.
REBNY appreciates our ongoing dialogue with the sponsor and appreciates the significant improvements that have been made to the legislation since last year.
The current version applies to a narrow universe of properties, modifies the distress criteria, shortens the transaction timeline, and limits HPD's authority to extend deadlines.
These are meaningful changes that make the bill more targeted and reduce the risk of disrupting transactions.
However, COPA remains a significant intervention into private property transactions, and additional revisions are needed to provide certainty for owners, lenders, and affordable housing investors.
We urge the Council to establish reasonable limits on lawsuits and penalties, clarify the timelines governing the right of first refusal process, and place firm limits on administrative extensions.
We also urge the Council to ensure that future expansions of COPA scope occur through legislation rather than agency rulemaking, and to ensure that buildings that have remedied the conditions that triggered COPA coverage have a clear path to exit the program.
These changes would help ensure the bill is predictable, administerable, and does not unintentionally discourage investment in housing.
Second, Rebney has serious concerns with the 649.
Existing law already requires building owners to disclose ownership and management information in building lobbies, ensuring that tenants know who owns and manages the building and who to contact when issues arise.
Intro 649 goes much further by requiring the public disclosure of beneficial owners and other individuals behind ownership entities.
This raises significant privacy concerns.
and could expose owners and their families to harassment or other unwanted contact.
In some cases, the bill could require disclosure of individuals with no operational role in the property, including minors or passive investors.
The city already has mechanisms to obtain ownership information for legitimate government and law enforcement purposes.
We do not believe the additional public disclosure required by this bill is justified by any corresponding public benefit.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to working with the council and administration to advance policies that increase housing production, preserve existing housing, and improve outcomes for New Yorkers.