How Hochul played the “good cause eviction” game, and won

After five years of fighting for the strongest version of “good cause eviction” in America, New York socialists emerged with the weakest.

In their opinion, at least.

The build-up to good cause, its passage and the aftermath made for fascinating political drama. The saga revealed how the sausage is made in New York — and how it’s served.

Anyone in New York real estate or in the advocacy community should have been paying close attention.

The Cliff Notes version is that the most passionate supporters and opponents of good cause both claimed defeat, which is not typical in politics, while the governor and the legislature declared victory.

The biggest losers, by their own admission, were the Democratic Socialists of America.

DSA had urged state legislators to reject the state budget because its version of good cause was so diluted from the one they began pushing in 2019. When it passed Saturday, the DSA was apoplectic.

Real estate lobbyists “effectively defeated it by watering it down,” DSA said in a press release.

The socialists saw the outcome as a missed opportunity rather than an expansion of tenants’ rights on which they could build. Despite getting legislators to hold Gov. Kathy Hochul’s housing agenda hostage, they emerged with a “good cause” law that doesn’t meaningfully limit rent increases in free-market properties and excludes millions of tenants entirely.

It could be 2034 before the far left has leverage to strengthen good cause. That’s when 485x, the tax incentive to build mixed-income multifamily projects in New York City, expires. Even if socialists add to their Gang of Six in the 213-member legislature, their colleagues will be loath to revisit this divisive issue until they absolutely have to.

Legislators and Hochul knew upstate and suburban landlords were adamantly opposed to any form of good cause eviction. So they put in a buffer: Localities outside of New York City must opt in if they want good cause. That was equivalent to banning the policy, proponents had warned — revealing their lack of confidence that upstate towns and cities would adopt it.

But anyone with even passing knowledge of New York politics should have expected this. In what world does Albany impose a policy championed by left-wing, New York City legislators on the whole state? Even the radical 2019 law that made rent stabilization possible statewide had an opt-in clause.

The six socialists who voted against the budget — Sens. Kristen Gonzalez and Jabari Brisport and Assembly members Marcela Mitaynes, Phara Souffrant Forrest, Sarahan Shrestha and Zohran Mamdani — “stand in stark contrast to Governor Hochul, who is bought out by the real estate lobby,” DSA declared.

Were the 96 percent of Democrats who voted for the budget — including Sen. Julia Salazar, sponsor of the good cause bill that DSA favored, and socialist Emily Gallagher — also “bought out” by the real estate lobby? Or might they actually see the housing package as a clear benefit for tenants?

Not only will the legislation add critical supply to the market, but it gives renewal rights to most free-market tenants in New York City and essentially limits rent increases to 10 percent or inflation plus 5 percent, whichever is lower. It also gives tenants leverage to extract buyouts from landlords who want to renovate their units and raise the rent.

One downside for renters is that good cause will make nuisance tenants harder to evict. No one wants a bad neighbor. Another drawback is that it incentivizes tenants to stay put, which will make vacant units harder to find.

The policy implications of good cause will become clearer over time. 

What’s apparent today, though, is that on the politics of good cause, Hochul played the game better than anyone: She employed spin that was probably disingenuous, but surely brilliant.

Rather than making excuses for weakening the version of good cause, she focused on taking credit for enacting new tenant protections. After all, she noted in interviews, in five years the legislature had never put a good cause bill on her desk. Had there been support for the original bill, she posited, wouldn’t it have passed?

Moverover, having never taken a public position on good cause, despite being asked about it repeatedly, Hochul was not blamed for the version she passed.

Except by DSA, of course. It was a small price to pay.

Read more

New York

The benefits and costs of “good cause” eviction

New York

Tenants seek opportunity to purchase. Landlords: Go for it

New York

City rescues struggling affordable co-op in Brooklyn Heights