State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal combined units to create his Manhattan co-op
State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal has long spoken out about the need for more units to address New York City's affordable housing crisis — but has consolidated multiple homes in a pricey co-op to create a multi-million dollar apartment for himself.
Between 2006 and 2016, Hoylman-Sigal and his husband combined three Greenwich Village apartments to form their 2,000-square-foot pad. There is no market value listed for the apartment, though with three bedrooms and three baths, the sale price would likely be in the millions.
Hoylman-Sigal is an advocate for tenants' rights, slamming rent increases for rent-stabilized tenants and speaking out about the city's low vacancy rate. He is currently running for Manhattan borough president against Keith Powers, a current city councilmember.
On a 2019 podcast, Hoylman-Sigal, who represents much of the west side of Manhattan, talked to host Jason Haber, a real estate entrepreneur, about the city's affordable housing problem. Haber said that consolidating units chips away at the city's housing stock and brought up an example of a wealthy New Yorker who combined nine apartments to form a single huge luxury home.
Hoylman-Sigal agreed, explaining it makes financial sense for ultra-wealthy Manhattanites to buy multiple occupied units and merge them into mansions. He lamented this practice would force more rent-stabilized tenants out of their homes.
'On my block alone, on 10th Street, there's a software entrepreneur who's combining not one, not two, but three townhouses,' Hoylman-Sigal said, in an apparent reference to Sean Parker, a Facebook co-founder.
'It may be one of the largest townhouses in the Village by the time he's through with it. And I can't imagine to think how many families were pushed out of that residence over the years when he assembled this massive property. So it's a sad reality.'
Parker's combination of the three mansions made headlines in 2016, although it does not appear he pushed any tenants out with his purchases.
Hoylman-Sigal told the Daily News this week he had been referring to so-called 'Frankensteining,' or loopholes in rent stabilization laws that allowed landlords to combine or change apartments in order to hike rents up or push tenants out. That loophole was closed at the end of 2023 with the passage of legislation in Albany.
Caroline Crowell, Hoylman-Sigal's campaign manager, cited his record on housing.
'In 2024, he helped secure more than 500 additional units of supportive and affordable housing in his senate district — in that same period, his opponent secured a paltry nine units in his council district,' Crowell said. 'The idea that the apartment he and his husband own in the Village has anything to do with Brad's record on increasing affordable housing is an absurd political hit.'
The state senator also said he does not currently reside in the apartment, as he moved last year due to redistricting that shifted the bounds of the 47th District, which he represents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
New Mexico appeals court rejects lawsuit against oil and gas regulators
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico appeals court rejected a lawsuit alleging that the nation's No. 2 oil-producing state failed to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas industry pollution, in an opinion Tuesday. Environmental advocates vowed to appeal the matter to the state's top court. A panel of three judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that it was beyond the judiciary's authority to weigh whether the pollution controls are adequate, writing that they'll defer to the Legislature to balance the benefits of environmental regulation with natural resources development. The 2023 lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups was the first to invoke the constitution's pollution-control clause, a 1971 amendment requiring that New Mexico prevent the contamination of air, water and other natural resources. 'While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the 'Land of Enchantment,' the state's beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders,' the panel wrote, invoking the state motto. 'If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.' Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead counsel on the case, said Tuesday's opinion would dismiss the case entirely if unchallenged and 'displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.' She said plaintiffs intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,' Evans said. The court challenge comes as New Mexico's state government rides a wave of record income from development in the Permian Basin, one of the world's most productive, oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections underwrite a considerable amount of the state's budget, including public education. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration is policing the industry with regulations that target methane and other emissions. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. Attorneys for the Democratic-led Legislature and environmental regulators said the lawsuit threatened their constitutional authority. Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued an additional concurring opinion, expressing further limitations of the pollution control clause.
Fast Company
28 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Business leaders must prioritize employee well-being
As I've been watching deep cuts unfold across the federal government and nonprofit sectors, I can't help but feel deeply sad for the work that is at risk or has been cancelled, the knowledge that will be lost, and for the people who did the work. I know firsthand what it means to be on both sides of the equation. I've been the leader tasked with executing layoffs, and I've also been the one laid off. Both experiences gutted me. They made me reflect on what leadership really means and what we should be measuring when we define success. The problem is that we often gauge success by revenue, efficiency, and productivity while completely overlooking a key factor:the well-being of the people doing the work. A 2024 Gallup report revealed that only 21% of employees strongly agree that their organization cares about their overall well-being. While I agree that there are inefficiencies in every bureaucracy and organization, leaders have a responsibility to balance financial performance with other measures of success. At Catapult Design, a social impact design firm, we've made well-being a non-negotiable metric—on equal footing with financial performance and creative excellence. Because if an organization's work is meant to improve lives—whether in social innovation, government services, or private enterprise—how can we ignore what's happening inside our own walls? Well-being is the missing metric I worked at one consultancy that had indicators for measuring the quality of work and the financial health of the company. I thought that was amazing. It really kept the company on track because both were reported quarterly. The work was consistently good by many measures, and the company was very healthy from a financial perspective. When I left there to take a CEO position, I suggested to my new board that we measure the quality of our work and financial health but also add another indicator around team well-being. At first, this was around ensuring that we had the best benefits that a small business could offer. We were thoughtful around vacation time, sick leave, training days, and professional and personal stipends. But over time, we realized that well-being isn't just about benefits or hours worked—it's about how people experience their work. We started paying closer attention to overwork—not as the cause of burnout, but as an early signal. Research shows that burnout is less about working too many hours and more about things like lack of clarity, autonomy, or alignment with values. Still, sustained overwork often points to deeper systemic issues. We use it as a 'check engine' light of the well-being of the team. That's why we've built a practice that if anyone is consistently working more than 45 hours a week, they message me directly. Then we talk about why. Is it a broken process? Poorly scoped projects? Is someone quietly drowning? We bring those issues to the board and leadership meetings, treating them as seriously as financial projections. As we've deepened our approach to well-being, we've also learned it's shaped just as much by leadership behavior as by organizational policy. A few months ago, my team asked to formally review me. Their feedback was honest, thoughtful, and generous. One thing they shared was that when something seems obvious to me, I tend to move forward without discussion. But what's clear to me isn't always clear to others—and they wanted more transparency and space for shared decision making. That feedback was a gift. One small but meaningful change I made was to begin sharing my weekly board emails with the entire team. It's helped remove ambiguity and reduce stress about what's happening behind the scenes. We all know at Catapult Design that we are not immune to what is happening in the U.S. government right now. While I'm happy to see efforts for efficiency in financial performance, I worry about what's being lost in the process. As budgets shrink and priorities shift, how will the quality of government services be measured? And what happens to the well-being of those providing—and relying on—those services if we fail to track what really matters? 4 ways to prioritize employee well-being Prioritizing well-being isn't just a leadership philosophy; it's a strategic decision. We're always refining what this looks like, but here's how organizations can make it real: Make well-being a key performance indicator. Measure engagement, workload balance, and psychological safety as rigorously as revenue. Normalize feedback loops. If leaders aren't being reviewed by their teams, they're missing critical data about what's working (and what's not). Recalibrate workloads. If overwork is the norm, the problem isn't employees—it's leadership. Project scoping must align with reality, not just ambition. Champion transparency. When teams understand the organization's financial health and strategic direction, they feel more invested—and less anxious. Well-being matters more than ever We're in a moment of reckoning. Layoffs are making headlines across industries—from tech to media to government—and many organizations are under pressure to do more with less. It's not surprising that burnout and questions about leadership are surfacing more often in the process. In a world where talent is mobile and exhaustion is widespread, the best organizations won't just be those that survive financially—they'll be the ones that create workplaces where people want to stay, grow, and thrive. I've learned the hard way that leadership isn't about having all the answers. But I do wonder, if we don't prioritize the people who make the work possible, will anything else matter.
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Iran-U.S. Nuclear Talks: What's at Stake?
After weeks of tense negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the Trump administration has offered a concession that may open a path to a compromise. Over the weekend, the United States proposed the outline of a deal that would seem to allow Iran to temporarily continue enriching uranium. That has been a sticking point in the talks, which have been at an impasse. President Trump has consistently berated Iran's leadership, and the countries have been at odds for many decades. But shifts in geopolitics and Mr. Trump's wish to secure a legacy-making deal have sent his aides back to the negotiating table. Failed talks could lead to a destructive regional war. Under the proposal, which Iranian and European officials described on the condition of anonymity, Iran could produce enriched uranium temporarily while the United States facilitates building nuclear power plants for Iran. A consortium of countries in the region would manage uranium enrichment facilities to provide nuclear fuel for the plants. Iran would then have to stop all enrichment within its borders once it begins receiving any benefits from those facilities. Here is what you need to know. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
