Emergency housing voucher program in jeopardy of ending in 2026
NEW YORK (PIX11) – Nearly 8,000 New Yorkers may lose their emergency rental assistance in the coming months because the feds say the program is running out of money.
Newly appointed Housing Preservation and Development Acting Commissioner Ahmed Tigani talks about how the city will address the issue on PIX11 Morning News.
Watch the video player for the full interview.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York renters will save a ton of money on moving starting today
The FARE Act shifts broker fee responsibility to landlords, reducing upfront costs for renters. New York City renters have faced high upfront costs, with broker fees adding thousands to expenses. Critics argue the FARE Act may lead to higher rents, but economists see minimal impact on prices. In the summer of 2023, New Yorker Josh Magpantay was in a hurry to move. The price tag for a new spot — not including rent or a security deposit — was $7,000. That's because Magpantay's apartment came with a broker's fee. Since he moved, he's felt locked in — even though he thinks the rent is too high — because of how much it would cost to move elsewhere and pay a similar fee. Magpantay is far from alone: Fees paid to landlord-hired brokers as part of the upfront costs of signing up for a new apartment in New York can range from about one month's worth of rent to 15% of annual rent, which can add up to thousands of dollars paid out even before moving in. But that might change soon for Magpantay and renters like him. As of June 11, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act — known as the FARE Act — makes landlords responsible for paying brokers' fees, unless prospective tenants hire their own broker to assist them with their search. "The law is clear. Whoever hires the broker pays the fee," Jackie Vazquez, a 29-year-old realtor in New York City, said. She added: "I think that sounds fair." In 2024, around 47% of New York City rentals had a broker's fee. Between the fee, first month's rent, and a security deposit, upfront moving costs averaged almost $13,000 in New York City between January and April of this year. Under the FARE Act, the average cost of moving into an apartment that previously charged the tenant a broker fee is expected to fall by 41.8%, per a report by the online renting platform StreetEasy. That means the average upfront lease cost, which includes the first month's rent, a security deposit, and the broker fee, would fall to $7,537, down from $12,951. "The FARE Act won't necessarily bring a monumental shift in the rental market, but it's going to be a substantial win for renters, especially for affordability," Kenny Lee, an economist at StreetEasy and the author of the report, told Business Insider. The law will also put New York City in line with most of the rest of the country, where brokers are paid by those who hire them. In the short term, the law could open up pent-up demand from renters. Some in the industry expect a wave of New Yorkers who've postponed their apartment search until after the Act goes into effect to return to the market. "Renters have been sitting on their hands, waiting for this thing to pass," Allia Mohamed, CEO of the leasing and landlord review platform openigloo, told Business Insider. "They're gonna get back in the market right when June 11 passes." Before online rental listing platforms like StreetEasy and RentHop became ubiquitous, some renters hired brokers to help them find apartments. But these days, tenants can do a lot of that work themselves simply by scrolling the listing platforms. Opponents and critics of the FARE Act argue landlords will simply raise rents to cover the brokers' fees, thus turning a one-time fee for tenants into a permanent upcharge. The Real Estate Board of New York, a major industry group, has sued to block the law, arguing it would increase costs and cause rental market chaos. A spokesperson for the group, Kay Sarlin Wright, pointed BI to talking points arguing the law would also hurt real estate agents and rob tenants of their expertise. "For future moves, I'm worried about the increase in rental prices because I can definitely see landlords lumping the brokerage fee into the rent prices to recoup this cost," Lexis Xia, a 29-year-old finance director and lifelong resident of New York, said. But economists have found that the impact on rent is minimal, and that rents are primarily determined by supply and demand rather than landlords' expenses. Lee found that properties that dropped broker fees in April of this year saw rent increases of 5.6%, compared with a 4.6% increase in rent in the rest of the market. "This small difference tells us that property managers are already absorbing much of the costs associated with bringing the leasing activity in-house or compensating the brokers themselves, and the data really tells us that they'll continue to do so," Lee said. For four years, Dante Fiallo, a 29-year-old actor in New York City, was locked into an apartment where the rent continually increased. Every year, he said, his landlords kept hiking the price, and he just had to swallow it because he couldn't afford broker fees. "We would've left sooner or we would not have renewed if we could have gone to another place," Fiallo said. "But we never had enough money upfront to do that." Landlords who significantly raise rents might have trouble competing for tenants. Mohamed suspects that landlords who choose to use brokers going forward will ultimately negotiate lower fees. Vazquez, the broker, thinks it's an overall positive shift. She said the value is clear: A landlord gets value from hiring a listing agent or broker to aid in renting out the apartment. A tenant choosing to hire a broker receives value from someone representing them and weeding through the apartment market on their behalf. "It's the power of choice, and I think that's very empowering for someone navigating the most intimidating real estate market in the world," she said. "So I think it gives so much clarity and power back to the renters." There are also landlords who say they won't post their units online and will instead rely on word of mouth to fill their apartments, in order to avoid doing the legwork brokers have traditionally done for them. Mohamed doesn't buy that. "At the end of the day, landlords want to fill their apartments," she said. "If posting and advertising the apartment online is what's going to get them a renter faster, that's what they will continue to do." Are you a renter or broker with a story to share about fees? Contact these reporters at erelman@ and jkaplan@ Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
New York renters will save a ton of money on moving starting today
In the summer of 2023, New Yorker Josh Magpantay was in a hurry to move. The price tag for a new spot — not including rent or a security deposit — was $7,000. That's because Magpantay's apartment came with a broker's fee. Since he moved, he's felt locked in — even though he thinks the rent is too high — because of how much it would cost to move elsewhere and pay a similar fee. Magpantay is far from alone: Fees paid to landlord-hired brokers as part of the upfront costs of signing up for a new apartment in New York can range from about one month's worth of rent to 15% of annual rent, which can add up to thousands of dollars paid out even before moving in. But that might change soon for Magpantay and renters like him. As of June 11, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act — known as the FARE Act — makes landlords responsible for paying brokers' fees, unless prospective tenants hire their own broker to assist them with their search. "The law is clear. Whoever hires the broker pays the fee," Jackie Vazquez, a 29-year-old realtor in New York City, said. She added: "I think that sounds fair." In 2024, around 47% of New York City rentals had a broker's fee. Between the fee, first month's rent, and a security deposit, upfront moving costs averaged almost $13,000 in New York City between January and April of this year. Under the FARE Act, the average cost of moving into an apartment that previously charged the tenant a broker fee is expected to fall by 41.8%, per a report by the online renting platform StreetEasy. That means the average upfront lease cost, which includes the first month's rent, a security deposit, and the broker fee, would fall to $7,537, down from $12,951. "The FARE Act won't necessarily bring a monumental shift in the rental market, but it's going to be a substantial win for renters, especially for affordability," Kenny Lee, an economist at StreetEasy and the author of the report, told Business Insider. The law will also put New York City in line with most of the rest of the country, where brokers are paid by those who hire them. In the short term, the law could open up pent-up demand from renters. Some in the industry expect a wave of New Yorkers who've postponed their apartment search until after the Act goes into effect to return to the market. "Renters have been sitting on their hands, waiting for this thing to pass," Allia Mohamed, CEO of the leasing and landlord review platform openigloo, told Business Insider. "They're gonna get back in the market right when June 11 passes." A small win for affordability Before online rental listing platforms like StreetEasy and RentHop became ubiquitous, some renters hired brokers to help them find apartments. But these days, tenants can do a lot of that work themselves simply by scrolling the listing platforms. Opponents and critics of the FARE Act argue landlords will simply raise rents to cover the brokers' fees, thus turning a one-time fee for tenants into a permanent upcharge. The Real Estate Board of New York, a major industry group, has sued to block the law, arguing it would increase costs and cause rental market chaos. A spokesperson for the group, Kay Sarlin Wright, pointed BI to talking points arguing the law would also hurt real estate agents and rob tenants of their expertise. "For future moves, I'm worried about the increase in rental prices because I can definitely see landlords lumping the brokerage fee into the rent prices to recoup this cost," Lexis Xia, a 29-year-old finance director and lifelong resident of New York, said. But economists have found that the impact on rent is minimal, and that rents are primarily determined by supply and demand rather than landlords' expenses. Lee found that properties that dropped broker fees in April of this year saw rent increases of 5.6%, compared with a 4.6% increase in rent in the rest of the market. "This small difference tells us that property managers are already absorbing much of the costs associated with bringing the leasing activity in-house or compensating the brokers themselves, and the data really tells us that they'll continue to do so," Lee said. For four years, Dante Fiallo, a 29-year-old actor in New York City, was locked into an apartment where the rent continually increased. Every year, he said, his landlords kept hiking the price, and he just had to swallow it because he couldn't afford broker fees. "We would've left sooner or we would not have renewed if we could have gone to another place," Fiallo said. "But we never had enough money upfront to do that." Landlords who significantly raise rents might have trouble competing for tenants. Mohamed suspects that landlords who choose to use brokers going forward will ultimately negotiate lower fees. Vazquez, the broker, thinks it's an overall positive shift. She said the value is clear: A landlord gets value from hiring a listing agent or broker to aid in renting out the apartment. A tenant choosing to hire a broker receives value from someone representing them and weeding through the apartment market on their behalf. "It's the power of choice, and I think that's very empowering for someone navigating the most intimidating real estate market in the world," she said. "So I think it gives so much clarity and power back to the renters." There are also landlords who say they won't post their units online and will instead rely on word of mouth to fill their apartments, in order to avoid doing the legwork brokers have traditionally done for them. Mohamed doesn't buy that. "At the end of the day, landlords want to fill their apartments," she said. "If posting and advertising the apartment online is what's going to get them a renter faster, that's what they will continue to do."
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge
If there is a single point of agreement among all the Democrats running for mayor, it's that New York is too damn expensive. They uniformly call it an 'affordability crisis' and pledge to do something about it if elected. They are largely correct — the cost of living in New York has become absurdly high. Advertisement Although part of the trend grew out of the inflation sparked by massive spending by federal, state and local governments during the COVID era, there is also a long history of Gotham being one of most expensive places in the nation to live. A study shows that, in comparison to the national average, food prices in the five boroughs are about 22% higher, while housing is 278% more expensive. Making ends meet The United Way finds that basic costs for city households have risen twice as fast as the median income and estimates that about half of them need help from the government, friends or family just to make ends meet. Advertisement As Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani recently told The New York Times, 'There are far too many New Yorkers who do not know if they will be able to call themselves that next year, who do not know if they will be able to afford their rent, or their child care, their groceries, or even their MetroCard.' True to his socialist affiliations, Mamdani is promising the longest list of freebies, but his rivals have all joined the spree. Even Andrew Cuomo, often regarded as the most centrist of the bunch and the leader according to polls, is no shrinking violet in the giveaway games. The candidates' promises to address the problem sound very nice — until you realize that nearly everything they are offering would ultimately drive the sky-high cost of living even higher. Advertisement Already that burden is one of the top reasons why New York City and state lead America in losing residents to lower-cost jurisdictions. Congestion pricing is the latest example of how and why the cost of living here keeps rising. If the candidates all want to raise prices even higher, they should support a joint slogan: 'Dear Voters, If you're not broke yet, just wait.' The problem is that government compassion doesn't come cheap. Advertisement In fact, it's outrageously expensive. That's certainly true in the case at hand. The candidates' 'solutions' are just promises to give away more stuff to more people, such as free bus service, free child care, free this and free that. It's all wrapped in the language of compassion for the poor and working class. But what the lefty Dems leave out of the conversation is an honest explanation about where the money would come from to pay for all their added goodies, and what the impact would be of an expanded redistribution scheme to deliver them. Don't be fooled by the lack of details. That's intentional because the numbers would be frightening. Take away to give away But hiding the truth doesn't change the fact that because City Hall can't print money, it will first have to take more from residents and businesses if it is going to give away more. Advertisement Consider the obvious impact on businesses. If they are taxed more, most will make up for it by raising prices on their customers, cut the pay of their workers or reduce the number of workers. When a business goes broke, the city gets no taxes and the workers have no income. Because higher taxes always impose a trickle-down cost on some people, a similar outcome is true if the government raises income taxes on individuals, sales taxes or property taxes. Advertisement Somebody somewhere along the line is going to feel the pinch of every added dollar the city takes to give away to someone it declares more deserving. For those forced to pay more, the 'solution' to the problem means their cost of living is going to get even higher. That's why the candidates' plans need to be seen in light of the current budget. As it stands, City Hall will raise and spend a whopping $112.4 billion this year — nearly as much as the entire state of Florida. Advertisement New York state, meanwhile, will raise and spend $255 billion, with much of that money coming to the city. Additional agencies, such as the MTA, have their own budgets, which spend tens of billions more. Clearly the problem isn't a shortage of money to spend. Advertisement The problem is a shortage of responsible spending. Thus raising spending for 'new needs,' as the politicians call their freebies, by hiking taxes and fees at this point is almost certain to create as many problems as it solves. There is still time for the Dems to lay out a plan to actually reduce government costs. The first debate was little more than a bidding game to see who could promise more new giveaways and most vehemently denounce Donald Trump while pledging to 'resist' his presidency. The second and final mayoral debate, required by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, will take place Thursday, with primary day falling on June 24. It's incumbent on the moderators to demand that Mamdani and all the others explain, with specifics, where they would get added funds and who would pay them. Glib lines like taxing the 'top 1%' mean nothing because those families already pay inordinate amounts of the city's personal income tax. According to a city comptroller report, in 2021 the top 1% — about 6,000 families who reported incomes of $1 million or more — paid a whopping 48% of the city's total income tax haul. It's neither fair nor sensible to demand they pay more, when packing up and leaving altogether is proving to be so popular. Leftward lurch Unfortunately, we haven't heard much of a different message from other candidates in the race, including Mayor Adams, who is running as an independent. With GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa widely considered not viable, there is so far no check and balance on the Dems' leftward lurch. The vast majority of their spendthrift City Council candidates and those seeking other offices on the ballot are proving to be automatic supporters of larger and more expensive programs. National conversations about cutting taxes and reducing government waste, fraud and abuse have yet to find meaningful support in New York. That must start to change this week. Libs' stupidity taking a toll There they go again: Another major media outlet is confusing victimhood with the consequences of wrongdoing. The bleeding heart Boston Globe writes, 'Unpaid fees jeopardize thousands of Mass. driver's licenses,' saying, 'Thousands of Massachusetts drivers each year face the possibility of losing their legal authority to drive unless debts unrelated to road safety are paid in full.' Among the debts it cites are tolls the drivers evaded. Here's a crazy idea: The drivers could pay the tolls and keep their licenses. Why is that so hard?
