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.

---

So what defines a "Covered Property"?

Quote:

---

NYC's COPA applies only to multifamily buildings with 4 or more units where tenants are at
greatest risk, due to physical distress or expiring affordability restrictions. Buildings with fewer
than four rental units, owner-occupied buildings with five or fewer units, and vacant lots are
entirely exempt from COPA. 902-B additionally exempts 18 categories of property transfers,
including transfers between family members, transfers to heirs after an owner dies, and certain
transfers to avoid foreclosure.

---

Ill add that they also passed a mandatory a/c requirement for all hosuing in nyc

So what developer of multi unit properties is going to build in NYC now ?

Dear socialist dumb asses, this is not how you increase your affordable housing inventory.

SA68AG said:

---

So what developer of multi unit properties is going to build in NYC now ?

Dear socialist dumb asses, this is not how you increase your affordable housing inventory.

---

I don't think this law is why they won't build in NYC. There was no way any intelligent developer would have built in NYC long before this abomination of a law.

SA68AG said:

---

So what developer of multi unit properties is going to build in NYC now ?

Dear socialist dumb asses, this is not how you increase your affordable housing inventory.

---

This is aimed solely at the investor class. But I do have a question. Can an existing multiple unit structure convert to condos? And thus avoid this because single unit are being sold?

I know back in the 90s I handled some investors buying up older apartment complexes and remodeling them for sale as individual condos. Even handled the sales to Lloyd Doggett (azzhole) and Ann Richards (she was a hoot to work with.)

Im sure the NYC building department would squash that

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Im sure the NYC building department would squash that

---

I am not altogether sure that they can. Well not yet anyway.

I found an example:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/510-Ninth-Ave-New-York-NY/37372530/

This building is a multi family, listed as distressed and lsit3d for abiut 6 million.

Probably needs at least 6 million in updates.

So, what sort of non profit/ngo is going to have at least 12 million to take on thsi project. And this is being very conservative with the estimates?

I think that myc will give their preferred ngo a grant, said grant will barely fix up the building, non profit will rent it for cheap and have some sort of buy back to the city.

Just another way to launder tax dollars back to votes for dems

As a builder, I can tell you it sure feels like the development and permit department try and crew you every way to Sunday for whatever reason they need to.

My recollection of Kelo was that it was not about eminent domain, but was about if economic redevelopment was public necessity. Seems like there were similar events happening in College Station at the time when the city wanted to redevelop Northgate behind the Chicken and Duddley's. Some owners refused to sell, so the city used ED to condemn and acquire it. They then sold to Texadelphia, who went out of business less than five years later.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

As a builder, I can tell you it sure feels like the development and permit department try and crew you every way to Sunday for whatever reason they need to.

---

Well since I was an attorney for several builders and developers during the SOS era in Austin, I can feel your pain. Such BS. Until their sole legal representative, Bill Bunch, lost his ever lovin' mind in front of a visiting judge, telling him if he was before a regular Travis County judge, he'd had the advantage because he could remove them from being elected again.

The semi-retired judge from Seguin was not amused and slapped him with monetary sanctions. But the enviroweenies supporting SOS, balked at paying that hefty fine for him.

I was actually in the gallery by invitation of a very close friend, a developer, when Bunch lost his s***. We exchanged looks and leaned forward for the coming fireworks. After so many years dealing with that punk, it was a schadenfreude moment.

SH 45 Southwest was one of his first big losses. TxDOT played the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" game, and hired his experts to do the environmental work. When he tried to sue, his experts were conflicted out and had to use the jv team. He proceeded to lose and spent a buttload of money in the process.

I did a lot of work on SH 45 Southeast and got to deal with the Heep family. This was when Hasty (Heep) Shaffer was more or less in control of things. The stories I could tell about her.

My dad grew up near Creedmoor, and I still have family on the area. I remember stories of Hatsy. She sounded like an eccentric, entitled, bch. That's too bad because Herman Heep sounded like a cool dude.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

It’s actually happening

New York passed The "COPA Act” and will force sales of certain personal properties to the government and NGOs

New York Councilwoman Vickie Paladino actually speaks out against it and confirms they will steal homes

“Absolutely ridiculous and shameful,… pic.twitter.com/SzlbuS1V1N

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) December 29, 2025

Own a multi family house or building in NYC? Dont plan on selling it to a private party. NYC has just passed the copa act which give approved ngos or govt the 1st right of refusal
…,,,

---

Seems kind of in contradiction to the United States Constitution, but then again IANAL.

torrid said:

---

They way I see it, certain connected individuals will be certified as NGOs. They will be allowed to steal personal property with government backing and effectively become the new slumlords.

edit - Found this. Sounds like Kelo on steroids.

https://www.coleschotz.com/copa-changes-the-game-for-nyc-multifamily-transactions/

Quote:

---

Qualified Entities may include joint ventures between community organizations and private developers, provided the community organization maintains a controlling interest. Upon a sale to a Qualified Entity, HPD and the Department of Finance will be required to waive certain municipal charges, taxes, and fees associated with the transaction.

---

---

The Somali refugees need some place to invest their billions.

Assuming it passes constitutional muster, which I think is a big challenge, doesn't this just force everyone to put property into a separate entity so that the entity can be sold? That's what most developers would do anyway, but this makes it completely idiotic to hold something individually.

YouBet said:

---

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).

---

Please define a "bad" landlord. Is it someone who insists you pay your rent on time?

Pinochet said:

---

Assuming it passes constitutional muster, which I think is a big challenge, doesn't this just force everyone to put property into a separate entity so that the entity can be sold? That's what most developers would do anyway, but this makes it completely idiotic to hold something individually.

---

This is extremely common with all business owners that own their real estate even if it's just one building their actual business occupies. Unless it's a not-for-profit that entity still has owners and can be bought and sold so I'm thinking it won't effect this law. They'll try to block you from selling the business if its sole purpose is holding that real estate. It could get interesting if you didn't separate the property from the operating company and wanted to sell the entire operation but splitting it out makes it easier for them.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

It's not confiscation in the same way a mandatory gun buy back isnt confiscation

---

Agree it's not confiscation but expedition is the difference between this and a gun buyback. All of those procedures take time. Buying a property now is already not as simple as going to the store and walking out with a gun in 15 minutes. The goal is to get sellers to just take the offer to avoid the hassle, not to mentioned its questionable as to how many buyers will waste their time making genuine offers knowing they can just be overridden.

doubledog said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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).

---

Please define a "bad" landlord. Is it someone who insists you pay your rent on time?

---

When there are no slumlords, we are all slumlords

LOYAL AG said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

Assuming it passes constitutional muster, which I think is a big challenge, doesn't this just force everyone to put property into a separate entity so that the entity can be sold? That's what most developers would do anyway, but this makes it completely idiotic to hold something individually.

---

This is extremely common with all business owners that own their real estate even if it's just one building their actual business occupies. Unless it's a not-for-profit that entity still has owners and can be bought and sold so I'm thinking it won't affect this law. They'll try to block you from selling the business if its sole purpose is holding that real estate. It could get interesting if you didn't separate the property from the operating company and wanted to sell the entire operation but splitting it out makes it easier for them.

---

I know it's common and that's really my point. Idiots typically don't think about practical issues when they vote for dumb **** like this. That makes this a virtue signal at best if all I have to do is drop my property into an LLC and sell the LLC.

Pinochet said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

Assuming it passes constitutional muster, which I think is a big challenge, doesn't this just force everyone to put property into a separate entity so that the entity can be sold? That's what most developers would do anyway, but this makes it completely idiotic to hold something individually.

---

This is extremely common with all business owners that own their real estate even if it's just one building their actual business occupies. Unless it's a not-for-profit that entity still has owners and can be bought and sold so I'm thinking it won't affect this law. They'll try to block you from selling the business if its sole purpose is holding that real estate. It could get interesting if you didn't separate the property from the operating company and wanted to sell the entire operation but splitting it out makes it easier for them.

---

I know it's common and that's really my point. Idiots typically don't think about practical issues when they vote for dumb **** like this. That makes this a virtue signal at best if all I have to do is drop my property into an LLC and sell the LLC.

---

That's not going to work. You own that LLC and they'll say you can't sell that company when it's only purpose is owning that real estate. That's what I tried to say.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Marxism sucks.

---

This is not Marxism, this is designed replacement of Americans with foreigners. That's all it is and all it will ever be.

The grand fraud in virtually every industry should tell you the real story here.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

Assuming it passes constitutional muster, which I think is a big challenge, doesn't this just force everyone to put property into a separate entity so that the entity can be sold? That's what most developers would do anyway, but this makes it completely idiotic to hold something individually.

---

This is extremely common with all business owners that own their real estate even if it's just one building their actual business occupies. Unless it's a not-for-profit that entity still has owners and can be bought and sold so I'm thinking it won't affect this law. They'll try to block you from selling the business if its sole purpose is holding that real estate. It could get interesting if you didn't separate the property from the operating company and wanted to sell the entire operation but splitting it out makes it easier for them.

---

I know it's common and that's really my point. Idiots typically don't think about practical issues when they vote for dumb **** like this. That makes this a virtue signal at best if all I have to do is drop my property into an LLC and sell the LLC.

---

That's not going to work. You own that LLC and they'll say you can't sell that company when it's only purpose is owning that real estate. That's what I tried to say.

---

What if you put the property into a trust?

YouBet said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

Assuming it passes constitutional muster, which I think is a big challenge, doesn't this just force everyone to put property into a separate entity so that the entity can be sold? That's what most developers would do anyway, but this makes it completely idiotic to hold something individually.

---

This is extremely common with all business owners that own their real estate even if it's just one building their actual business occupies. Unless it's a not-for-profit that entity still has owners and can be bought and sold so I'm thinking it won't affect this law. They'll try to block you from selling the business if its sole purpose is holding that real estate. It could get interesting if you didn't separate the property from the operating company and wanted to sell the entire operation but splitting it out makes it easier for them.

---

I know it's common and that's really my point. Idiots typically don't think about practical issues when they vote for dumb **** like this. That makes this a virtue signal at best if all I have to do is drop my property into an LLC and sell the LLC.

---

That's not going to work. You own that LLC and they'll say you can't sell that company when it's only purpose is owning that real estate. That's what I tried to say.

---

What if you put the property into a trust?

---

Not a lawyer but it's my understanding that a trust can't be sold. Assets in a trust can be sold but now you're back in their crosshairs.

Without speculation, what's the stated reasoning for this?

To address the cost of living crisis in nyc

Do these people realize how many times the terms technically change on a transaction between the original acceptance and inspections and throughout negotiated repairs? Do all of these changes need to be also refused by the NGO's?

This may be the largest grift machine ever conceived. It is almost like it is designed for driving wealth towards governmental decision makers.

Squadron7 said:

---

Do these people realize how many times the terms technically change on a transaction between the original acceptance and inspections and throughout negotiated repairs? Do all of these changes need to be also refused by the NGO's?

This may be the largest grift machine ever conceived. It is almost like it is designed for driving wealth towards governmental decision makers.

---

Especially in commercial transactions. Hell, the closings alone can take a few days.

Best i can tell, theres no specific language in the copa laws that restrict city politicians from benefitting from the rules they passed.

So, id expect for those folks to be a part in some way of the ngos that end up doing all the buying of these properties

I wonder if this might also include hotels where Dems like to warehouse imported sex pests.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Best i can tell, theres no specific language in the copa laws that restrict city politicians from benefitting from the rules they passed.

So, id expect for those folks to be a part in some way of the ngos that end up doing all the buying of these properties

---

These NGO's will be a perfect place for pols to place relatives to help focus the graft funnels.

Regardless, whoever wants to buy the property is going to pay market rate. Just reject their low-ball offers, find a legitimate buyer, and force them to pay market or **** off.