NYC real estate industry asks judge to block new broker fee law
[NEW YORK] A key real estate organisation and other industry groups asked a federal judge to block a New York City law that requires landlords to pay fees for the brokers they hire, saying the rule that goes into effect next month will increase rents and make it more difficult for lower-income tenants to find housing.
The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and others, including the New York State Association of Realtors, sued the city in December over the rule, which forces property owners to pay for their brokers instead of passing those costs to their tenants, a longstanding practice that has perturbed renters for decades.
During a court hearing on Friday (May 2), lawyers for the groups urged US District Judge Ronnie Abrams to halt to enforcement of the rule while the lawsuit proceeds. The ban, which was passed by the city council in November, is scheduled to take effect on Jun 11. The judge didn't say when she'll reach a decision.
Because landlords often sign exclusive contracts with brokers to list their properties and find tenants, the law 'severely and permanently impinges on listing agreements between brokers and landlords', in violation of the Constitution's bar against state laws impairing private contracts, Claude Szyfer, a lawyer for REBNY, told the judge.
The law also would violate the free-speech rights of landlords and brokers who publish real estate listings and then seek to receive compensation from tenants for the cost of the listing service, Szyfer said.
Two lawyers for the city defended the law. They said it will help address the city's housing crisis by making apartments more affordable and easier for renters to move to better properties without having to pay thousands of dollars to brokers they didn't choose.
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights
Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond.
Sign Up
Sign Up
The current rule is 'causing low and middle-income people – especially people of color – it is causing them to leave New York', one of the city's lawyers told the judge.
New York City renters who settle on apartments that have broker fees pay an average of nearly US$13,000 to secure the keys to a property, which frequently includes thousands of dollars in fees for brokers hired by landlords to secure tenants, according to an analysis by StreetEasy released last year. Roughly half of the listings on StreetEasy come with broker fees, which can range from one months' rent to as much as 15 per cent of annual rent.
Lawyers for the city argued that the broker fees add a substantial cost to families who already are shelling out thousands of dollars upfront and a substantial portion of their income on housing. New York University's Furman Center, which studies housing, neighborhoods and urban policy, has found that more than than half of all city households spend 30 per cent or more on rent.
New York and Boston are the only major American cities where rental broker fees are commonly passed to tenants even if they didn't hire them.
But the industry contends the law will make rent-stabilised apartments too costly to operate and force landlords to raise rents to cover the cost of broker fees. They argued tenants usually pay less over the life of a lease when commissions are paid separately. Landlords claim some tenants already are refusing to pay broker fees even though the law hasn't taken effect yet.
The suit alleges the city is simply villainising brokers and the act violates their constitutional right to free speech by not allowing them to publish open listings, and that the state already regulates brokers. It also contends the law violates the contracts clause of the US Constitution by interfering with agreements between landlords and brokers.
'New York City's brokers have built their businesses around the reasonable expectation that they can collect fees from tenants under conditions prohibited by the act,' the groups said in a court filing. 'If the act is permitted to go into effect, brokers will need to retool their businesses to – without publishing an open listing – attract tenants willing to engage them as tenants-side brokers. Or they must compete for a limited number of landlord-side exclusive listing agreements. Some will fail and be driven from the market; all will need to spend potentially unrecoverable sums to adapt to the new regime.'
A state-approved broker fee ban was briefly in place in February 2020 just before the first Covid lockdown brought the rental market to a near halt. By the time renter demand began rising the next year, a court had struck down the state law and brokers were eager to capitalise on what quickly became a very competitive market where prices have continued to rise.
The law could dramatically change the dynamics of the city's highly competitive rental market, where prices have soared since pandemic restrictions began easing in 2021. The median Manhattan rent was US$4,495 in March, just US$5 short of the record reached the previous month, according to appraiser Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman. Prices have also set records in the outer boroughs.
Tenant advocates argued that the large upfront costs are an unnecessary impediment for many renters who want or need to move. While low-income New Yorkers are more likely to face that struggle, no-fee units tend to be in pricier modern buildings. The city's residential brokers counter that eliminating the fees will be much more expensive for tenants in the long run, with landlords adding their marketing costs to rents.
In March, 57.3 per cent of StreetEasy's listings were no fee, up from roughly 54.2 per cent from last year. BLOOMBERG
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
6 hours ago
- Straits Times
Trump says again he will set unilateral tariffs in two weeks
US President Donald Trump had initially suggested he would engage in talks with each partner but has moved away from that idea. PHOTO: DOUG MILLS/NYTIMES Trump says again he will set unilateral tariffs in two weeks WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said he intended to send letters to trading partners in the next one to two weeks setting unilateral tariff rates, ahead of a July 9 deadline to reimpose higher duties on dozens of economies. 'We're going to be sending letters out in about a week and a half, two weeks, to countries, telling them what the deal is,' Mr Trump told reporters on June 11 at the John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts in Washington where he was attending a performance. 'At a certain point, we're just going to send letters out. And I think you understand that, saying this is the deal, you can take it or leave it,' he added. It is unclear if Mr Trump will follow through with his pledge. The president has often set two-week deadlines for actions, only for them to come later or not at all. The president on May 16 said he would be setting tariff rates for US trading partners 'over the next two to three weeks'. Mr Trump in April announced higher tariffs on dozens of trading partners only to pause them for 90 days as markets swooned and investors feared the levies would spark a global downturn. Yet despite the ongoing negotiations, the only trade framework the US has reached is with the UK, along with a tariff truce with China. But even the truce with China was threatened after Washington and Beijing accused each other or reneging on the terms, leading to marathon talks earlier this week in London on how to implement their agreement. Mr Trump earlier said on June 11 that the trade framework with China had been completed and would have Beijing supply rare earths and magnets, with the US allowing Chinese students to study at American colleges and universities. Asked on June 11 at the performance if he would extend the deadline for nations to cut deals with his administration before higher levies take effect, Mr Trump said he would be open to it. 'But I don't think we're gonna have that necessity,' he added. Mr Trump had initially suggested he would engage in talks with each partner but has moved away from that idea, prioritising talks with some key economic partners and acknowledging that the administration lacks the capacity to negotiate dozens of individual deals. Mr Trump's team is also working to secure bilateral deals with India, Japan, South Korea as well as the European Union. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said earlier on June 11 that the European Union is likely to be among the last deals that the US completed, expressing frustration with conducting talks with a 27-nation bloc. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
8 hours ago
- Business Times
Nvidia marks Paris tech fair with Europe AI push
[PARIS] Drawing high-powered tech CEOs and a presidential visit, the Vivatech trade fair opened in Paris on Wednesday with a bang as Nvidia boss Jensen Huang announced a major push into Europe. 'In just two years we will increase the amount of AI computing capacity in Europe by a factor of 10,' Huang told a packed hall in a southern Paris convention centre, striding around the stage wearing his trademark leather jacket. He also announced a multi-billion-dollar partnership with French AI champion Mistral AI. President Emmanuel Macron hailed the Nvidia-Mistral tie-up as a 'historic' opportunity for France and Europe, urging other local firms to climb aboard. He had arrived late on Wednesday afternoon for a tour of the show and meetings with European startups about technological sovereignty, a subject dear to his heart. 'We want AI... that's secure, sustainable, humanist,' Macron said. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up People from around the globe thronged the halls of Vivatech, crammed with stands in blaring colours showing off the latest innovations from startups, tech giants and more traditional firms and patrolled here and there by gesticulating robots. Around 14,000 startups and more than 3,000 investors were expected in Paris, while organisers forecast total visitor numbers to at least equal last year's 165,000 people. Nvidia headlining Nvidia's Huang took top billing with an opening presentation of almost two hours that drew bouts of rapturous applause from attendees. The US firm's tie-up with Mistral will see the companies build a cloud computing platform powered by 18,000 of Nvidia's 'Blackwell' high-end chips worth billions. Speaking in a panel discussion with Huang and Macron, Mistral chief Arthur Mensch said the offering would be 'completely independent' in a nod to the president's sovereignty drive. 'You're no longer relying for your AI workload on certain of the US providers,' he promised the audience. Macron dubbed the Mistral-Nvidia collaboration a 'game-changer, because it will increase our sovereignty and it will allow us to do much more' with AI. Europe 'has put its ability to produce things in danger' and 'become more and more dependent on the rest of the world,' he warned. Aside from Mistral, Nvidia will also intensify work with existing partners like Germany's Siemens and France's Schneider Electric, Huang said. And it will help build multiple data centres in seven European countries. Europe is well behind competitors like the United States and China in building up the computing power needed to power generative artificial intelligence. The continent hosts 'less than five per cent of global computing power, whereas we consume 20 per cent,' Macron's office said in a press briefing ahead of the leader's visit to Vivatech. Trade war Nvidia has seen export restrictions slapped on its top-performing chips by Washington, with American politicians leery of ceding their country's lead in generative AI. Remaining high-tech controls on China are at issue in high-stakes trade talks with Beijing. Huang has warned that the US' superpower rival is nevertheless making swift strides to catch up. There was little sign of impact from export restrictions on Nvidia's chip sales in its May earnings release. But the company has warned the braking effect may be larger in the current quarter. US politics also preoccupies many European tech leaders and policymakers. Concerns range from Trump's mercurial tariff policy to the continent's ability to stand on its own without US tech giants - and the massive gap in funding for AI development between the two sides of the Atlantic. 'Sovereignty, which wasn't as important in the conversation just a year or two years ago, has become an absolutely strategic priority,' Vivatech managing director Francois Bitouzet told AFP. Macron's hammering on tech sovereignty followed on from his hyping of French and European openness to AI at a Paris global summit in February. Macron, Mensch and Huang were set to dine together behind closed doors at the president's Elysee Palace residence on Wednesday evening. AFP
Business Times
10 hours ago
- Business Times
Factory work is overrated. Here are the jobs of the future
TRUMPIAN types are unanimous: America needs factories. The president describes how workers have 'watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream'. Peter Navarro, his trade adviser, says that tariffs will 'fill up all of the half-empty factories'. Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, offers the most cartoonish pitch of all: 'The army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones – that kind of thing is going to come to America.' For years, politicians and some economists have linked manufacturing's long decline to stagnant wages, hollowed-out towns and even the opioid crisis. In the 2000s alone America shed nearly six million factory jobs. Such work often offered high-school leavers a route to a stable, quietly prosperous life. It sustained entire cities, earning Pittsburgh the moniker 'Steel City' and Akron that of 'Rubber Capital of the World'. Little surprise, then, that politicians across the spectrum want the jobs back. Indeed, president Joe Biden shared the same dream as his successor, even if he hoped to achieve it by different means. 'Where the hell is it written', he asked, 'that we're not going to be the manufacturing capital of the world again?' Yet there is a problem: even if industry returns, the old jobs will not. Manufacturing produces more than in the past with fewer hands – a transformation much like that undergone by agriculture. Accessible, middle-class work of the sort that once drew crowds to the factory gates in America's Fordist heyday has all but vanished. According to our analysis, the most similar work to the manufacturing jobs of the 1970s is not to be found in factories, which are now automated and capital-intensive, but in employment as an electrician, mechanic or police officer. All offer decent wages to those lacking a degree. Whereas almost a quarter of American workers were employed in manufacturing in the 1970s, today less than one in 10 is. Moreover, half of 'manufacturing' jobs are in support roles such as human relations and marketing, or professional ones such as design and engineering. Fewer than 4 per cent of American workers actually toil on a factory floor. America is not unique. Even Germany, Japan and South Korea, which run large trade surpluses in manufactured goods, have seen steady falls in the share of such employment. China shed nearly 20 million factory jobs from 2013 to 2020 – more than the entire American manufacturing workforce. Research from the IMF calls this trend 'the natural outcome of successful economic development'. As countries grow richer, automation raises output per worker, consumption shifts from goods to services, and labour-intensive production moves abroad. But this does not mean factory output collapses. In real terms, America's is over twice as high as in the early 1980s; the country churns out more goods than Japan, Germany and South Korea combined. As the Cato Institute, a think-tank, points out, America's factories would, on their own, rank as the world's eighth-largest economy. Even a heroic reshoring effort eliminating America's US$1.2 trillion goods-trade deficit would do little for jobs. In the production of that amount of goods, about US$630 billion of value-added would come from manufacturing (with the rest attributable to raw materials, transport and so on). Robert Lawrence of Harvard University estimates that, with each manufacturing worker generating around US$230,000 in value added, bringing back enough production to close the deficit would create around three million jobs, half on the factory floor. That would lift the share of the workforce in manufacturing production by barely a percentage point. Assume this was achieved by levying an average effective tariff rate of 20 per cent on America's US$3 trillion of imports, and it could push up prices by around US$600 billion, or US$200,000 per manufacturing job 'saved'. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 3 pm Thrive Money, career and life hacks to help young adults stay ahead of the curve. Sign Up Sign Up It is a high price for jobs that are not as attractive as in the past. Seven decades ago, factories offered a rare bundle: good pay, job security, union protection, plentiful employment and no degree requirement. By the 1980s manufacturing workers still earned 10 per cent more than comparable peers in other parts of the economy. Their productivity was also growing faster. Today factory-floor work lags behind non-supervisory roles in services on hourly pay. There has also been a collapse in the manufacturing wage premium, which compares earnings for similar workers by controlling for age, gender, race and more. Using methods similar to the Department of Commerce and the Economic Policy Institute, we estimate by 2024 the premium had more than halved since the 1980s. For those without a college education, it has gone entirely, even though such workers still enjoy a premium in the construction and transport industries. Productivity growth has fallen, too: output per industrial worker is now growing more slowly than per service-sector worker, suggesting wage growth will be weak as well. A crucial component of the 'manufacturing jobs are good jobs' argument no longer holds. And a job in industry is harder to attain, too. Modern factories are high-tech, run by engineers and technicians. In the early 1980s blue-collar assemblers, machine operators and repair workers made up more than half of the manufacturing workforce. Today they account for less than a third. White-collar professionals outnumber blue-collar factory-floor workers by a wide margin. Even once obtained, a factory job is far less likely to be unionised than in previous decades, with membership having fallen from one in four workers in the 1980s to less than one in 10 today. To find the modern equivalent of such jobs, we looked for employment with the same traits. What offers decent pay, unionisation, requires no degree and can soak up the male workforce? The result: mechanics, repair technicians, security workers and the skilled trades. Over seven million Americans work as carpenters, electricians, solar-panel installers and in other such trades; almost all are male and lack a degree. The median wage is a solid US$25 an hour, unionisation is above average and demand is expected to rise as America upgrades its infrastructure. Another five million toil as repair and maintenance workers – think HVAC technicians and telecom installers – and mechanics, earning wages well above the factory-floor average. Emergency and security workers also show similarities; over a third are union members. Still, these jobs differ from manufacturing in one way: there is no such thing as an HVAC company town. Factories once powered cities, creating demand for suppliers, logistics and dive bars. The new jobs are more dispersed and, as such, less likely to prop up local economies. Yet, although the benefits are diffuse, they are almost as large. Nearly as many people are employed in such categories as held manufacturing jobs in the 1990s. With better wages, less credentialism and stronger unions, they look more attractive than modern factory jobs to working-class Americans. The future is drifting even further from factories. Skilled trades and repair workers should see growth of 5 per cent over the next decade, according to official projections; the number of manufacturing jobs is expected to fall. The fastest-growing categories for workers without degrees are in healthcare support and personal care, which are expected to grow by 15 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively. These include roles such as nursing assistants and childcare workers, and do not look anything like old manufacturing jobs owing to their low pay. The task, as Dani Rodrik of Harvard puts it, is to boost the productivity of the jobs that are actually growing. Perhaps that might include ensuring the adoption of AI, whether for managing medication or diagnosis. In the late 18th century, Thomas Jefferson viewed farming as the foundation of a self-reliant republic. Influenced by French physiocrats who saw agriculture as the noblest source of national wealth, he believed that working the land was the path to liberty and abundance. By the 20th century, factory work had inherited that symbolic role. But like farming before it, manufacturing employment fades with rising prosperity and productivity. The heart of working-class America now beats elsewhere. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
