It's not that. It's a taking of the right of first refusal. That's a right in the bundle of sticks of the fee simple estate, and it is indeed an encumbrance to the property. How you would prove damages would be a different story.

Owlagdad said:

---

I bet you could walk around many college campuses and the students would tell you this is good deal for social justice.

---

A better argument is that this is the govt trying to counter all the home purchasing by hedge funds

Not since the hedge funds have been liquidating the SFR holdings.

Would think deportations have impacted this area. HUD / housing assistance funding cuts also contributing.

Good opportunity for SCOTUS to reverse Kelo.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Quote:

---

Before taking any action to sell a Covered Property, an owner must deliver a formal notice of intent to sell to HPD and all certified Qualified Entities. Such notice must include detailed ownership information, unit counts, income and expense data, and a deadline of no fewer than 25 days for Qualified Entities to submit a statement of interest.

If no Qualified Entity timely responds, the owner is free to proceed with a sale in the open market. However, if a statement of interest is submitted, the owner is prohibited from marketing or selling the property outside of the COPA process during the statutory review period.

---

Quote:

---

Once a Qualified Entity submits a statement of interest, the parties must enter into a confidentiality agreement, after which the owner is required to provide extensive due diligence materials, including rent rolls, financial statements, inspection reports, litigation history, and harassment findings.

The Qualified Entity then has 80 days, subject to extension by HPD, to submit a bona fide offer. During those 80 days, the owner may not pursue other offers. If an offer is made, the owner has a limited 10-day period to accept, reject, or counter. An acceptance or counteroffer triggers an additional 30-day window to enter into a contact of sale.

If all offers are rejected, or if a Qualified Entity fails to timely close, the owner may sell the property on the open market to a non-qualified purchaser under COPA, subject in certain circumstances, to a right of first refusal.

---

Quote:

---

If an owner receives an offer it intends to accept from a non-qualified buyer within one year after rejecting a Qualified Entity's offer, the owner must provide notice of that offer to HPD and the Qualified Entity that previously submitted a bona fide offer. The Qualified Entity then has 15 days to elect to match the offer and must close on identical terms. If the Qualified Entity declines or fails to close, the owner's obligations under COPA are satisfied.

---

Quote:

---

COPA expressly provides Qualified Entities with a private right of action to enforce its provisions. Owners found to have violated COPA may be subject to uncapped civil penalties, injunctive relief, and liability for the Qualified Entity's attorneys' fees and expert costs.

---

1. If you want to sell such property, you have to let NYC and its merry group of approved thiev...I mean ngos, know.
2. Then wait for a Qualified Entity to make an offer or not
3. If not, then you can sell it privately...but, if they make an offer and you reject it, but then find a private buyer within the same year, you must let the Qualified Entity match or not

While not confiscation per se, it is socialism wrapped up in a democrat socialist disguise. Qualified Entities are controlled by the govt.

---

Sounds like this will likely delay an owner from selling a property to another private entity by about a year maybe longer. I would expect low ball bids from Govt approved buyers and lots of delays. A lot of owners will be forced to sell to the Govt Approved Buyers at below market price rather than drag out the sale forever.

For NYC, this law targets one group of people over others. That cannot be constitutional.

Yes, 25 day wait to list the property on the market to allow govt/ngos to make a bid

Then, if one does a "statement of interest", not even a bid, then it must go through the copa process.

That means some undetermined amout time for the seller to.submit the required documents, and then 90 days to get a bid back, then 10 more days for back and forth.

Then, if the seller goes to sell said property within a year, the original qualified entity gets am additional 15 days to match the offer. Its unclear to me if the seller must accept that offer or can still reject it.

That's at least 6 months of add bureaucracy

Upon further reading, yea, you must sell to the govt entity/rep if they match the private seller offer. Seems like an end around to eminent domain or just straight up confiscation

The NGOs, non-profits, and government get the funds for these purchases from your tax dollars.

They can buy up entire blocks over time. That's probably their long term plan is to take control specific neighborhoods over time.

And because they get they money from tax payers, there won't be a price they won't be willing to pay.

Simply a matter of time before they buy up blocks of housing in low crime expensive areas and fill it with felons and low income families.

Question? Will these government approved buyers have to pay property taxes based upon FMV Assessed Value or is there a tax break for them afterwards?

Yeah this better get shut down by the court.

Depends what kind of organization they are.

northeastag said:

---

This is NOT confiscation, since the owner can simply reject a bid from a "qualified entity" and proceed to list the property for an open market sale.

It is, however, a completely useless and time wasting bureaucratic nightmare that property owners will have to go through to sell their properties. Because of that, I'd sue anyway if I owned a building subject to these restrictions.

---

BTW, note the first and last bullets of his housing policy, especially the last one. This move actually goes further than his last bullet here and is not even limited to "bad landlords".

Mamdani's official mayoral platform and policies emphasize:
- Expanding publicly subsidized, permanently affordable, rent-stabilized housing (aiming for 200,000 new units over 10 years, often union-built).
- Freezing rents on stabilized units.
- Increasing investment in existing public housing (NYCHA).
- Government acquisition of distressed properties from bad landlords, with the city retaining public ownership of the land (while leasing buildings to nonprofits or operators for management).

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Yes, 25 day wait to list the property on the market to allow govt/ngos to make a bid

Then, if one does a "statement of interest", not even a bid, then it must go through the copa process.

That means some undetermined amout time for the seller to.submit the required documents, and then 90 days to get a bid back, then 10 more days for back and forth.

Then, if the seller goes to sell said property within a year, the original qualified entity gets am additional 15 days to match the offer. Its unclear to me if the seller must accept that offer or can still reject it.

That's at least 6 months of add bureaucracy

Upon further reading, yea, you must sell to the govt entity/rep if they match the private seller offer. Seems like an end around to eminent domain or just straight up confiscation

---

FIFY. And yes, that's exactly what it is. The main issue I see is just because you get an offer in a typical private transaction, doesn't mean you have to accept it. If there's not a provision for that, then it's definitely a compulsory sale, and there's protections in place for that (and why this law would be struck by SCOTUS in a heartbeat). I would think you'd have to get to some kind of a signed contract, where both sides agree on the price, for them to be able to get around the eminent domain problem.

Quote:

---

BTW, note the first and last bullets of his housing policy, especially the last one. This move actually goes further than his last bullet here and is not even limited to "bad landlords".

Mamdani's official mayoral platform and policies emphasize:
- Expanding publicly subsidized, permanently affordable, rent-stabilized housing (aiming for 200,000 new units over 10 years, often union-built).
- Freezing rents on stabilized units.
- Increasing investment in existing public housing (NYCHA).
- Government acquisition of distressed properties from bad landlords, with the city retaining public ownership of the land (while leasing buildings to nonprofits or operators for management).

---

I didn't have Cabrini Green 2.0 on my bingo card. That worked out so well.

northeastag said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't see how this isn't a taking of a private property right under the 5th Amendment.

---

You'd have to prove that going through this arduous process to sell decreases your property's value. Probably does, but tough to prove.

---

I don't think you have to go that far. The ability to freely sell property without input or intrusion is being taken. Pretty straightforward.

Want to know the fastest way to increase the housing supply, especially for multi-family? Increase the supply of high-end multifamily properties.

Going to chat with some NY MF brokers I know and see what they think of this. Will report back next week.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

northeastag said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't see how this isn't a taking of a private property right under the 5th Amendment.

---

You'd have to prove that going through this arduous process to sell decreases your property's value. Probably does, but tough to prove.

---

I don't think you have to go that far. The ability to freely sell property without input or intrusion is being taken. Pretty straightforward.

---

Public entities can come along and acquire a property via eminent domain at any time. I've seen it happen, more often than not.

FCBlitz said:

---

I honestly don't understand why common sense adults can't just go in a squash this like a bug.

They are a city, which are subjected to state laws and federal laws. And there is NO NEED to spend unbelievable amounts of city tax money on litigation.

Mandanni and all shoukd be yanked out and shot….

---

Common sense adults already moved out to Florida and Texas.

We like to say they're playing the long game and that's what this is. It's going to suck in the short term for current property owners but eventually this will result in the government owning all qualified properties as eventually government will be the only bidder.

Just read the article.

25 days notice, plus 80 days for NY to make an offer, 10 days to accept or reject, and if rejected another 30 days for NY to offer a counter.

That ~5mo process, and no telling how many paperwork screw-ups made by NY to possibly extend it further.

mm98 said:

---

Just read the article.

25 days notice, plus 80 days for NY to make an offer, 10 days to accept or reject, and if rejected another 30 days for NY to offer a counter.

That ~5mo process, and no telling how many paperwork screw-ups made by NY to possibly extend it further.

---

This effectively limits and greatly harms the private market.

It's the same type of tactic the left tries to use to gut 2A. You don't have to repeal 2A; you just have to make it hard to operate everything that makes 2A relevant - eg lawfare against ammo and gun manufacturing, extreme legal restrictions on ownership, etc.

Further, if seller rejects a bonafide offer from a qualified entity, then moves to sell to a private buyer, the seller must allow the qualified entity to match the private offer

HTownAg98 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

northeastag said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't see how this isn't a taking of a private property right under the 5th Amendment.

---

You'd have to prove that going through this arduous process to sell decreases your property's value. Probably does, but tough to prove.

---

I don't think you have to go that far. The ability to freely sell property without input or intrusion is being taken. Pretty straightforward.

---

Public entities can come along and acquire a property via eminent domain at any time. I've seen it happen, more often than not.

---

I could very easily imagine a scenario where NYC declares housing a public health emergency and starts taking property

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Destined for scotus.

---

I hope some day they overturn Kelo

Who?mikejones! said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

northeastag said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't see how this isn't a taking of a private property right under the 5th Amendment.

---

You'd have to prove that going through this arduous process to sell decreases your property's value. Probably does, but tough to prove.

---

I don't think you have to go that far. The ability to freely sell property without input or intrusion is being taken. Pretty straightforward.

---

Public entities can come along and acquire a property via eminent domain at any time. I've seen it happen, more often than not.

---

I could very easily imagine a scenario where NYC declares housing a public health emergency and starts taking property

---

They don't even have to do that. Public housing is a public use, and thus is an acceptable use of the power of eminent domain, according to existing case and statutory law.

Burdizzo said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Destined for scotus.

---

I hope some day they overturn Kelo

---

This won't be the case that does it. Different fact issues.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Destined for scotus.

---

I hope some day they overturn Kelo

---

This won't be the case that does it. Different fact issues.

---

But is it really? One thing for a state agency but is an NGO truly a state entity?

That's not what Kelo was about. The question in Kelo was if a "public purpose," in this case, economic development, was a "public use"? The court said yes. This case would revolve around the question of is the city and its partners sidestepping the eminent domain process entirely.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Destined for scotus.

---

I hope some day they overturn Kelo

---

This won't be the case that does it. Different fact issues.

---

But is it really? One thing for a state agency but is an NGO truly a state entity?

---

They would certainly not have the power of eminent domain. An entity with the power of eminent domain can't step in the shoes of someone that doesn't have that power and acquire the property and then transfer it.

YouBet said:

---

northeastag said:

---

This is NOT confiscation, since the owner can simply reject a bid from a "qualified entity" and proceed to list the property for an open market sale.

It is, however, a completely useless and time wasting bureaucratic nightmare that property owners will have to go through to sell their properties. Because of that, I'd sue anyway if I owned a building subject to these restrictions.

---

As with all things Democrat, it's incrementalism towards confiscation. Give it a little time.

---

Sorta like:

1. Please take this shot to save yourself
2. Please take this shot to save members of your family
3. Please that this shot to protect the public
4. Take this shot or lose your job

NY real estate has just entered Phase 1.

HTownAg98 said:

---

That's not what Kelo was about. The question in Kelo was if a "public purpose," in this case, economic development, was a "public use"? The court said yes. This case would revolve around the question of is the city and its partners sidestepping the eminent domain process entirely.

---

That was my question whether this is a "taking" such as eminent domain. Seems to me that would be a threshold question which would direct the rest of the analysis.

I don't see how it isn't.