Co-op board members in New York City are voicing opposition to a set of proposed city council bills aimed at increasing transparency and reducing discrimination in the co-op apartment application process.
During a hearing before the council’s committee on housing and buildings, board leaders criticized three bills that would require co-op boards to provide written reasons for denying an application and impose new deadlines for reviewing applications.
“Let’s say this plainly: discrimination is happening today, and everyone knows it,” said committee chairperson Pierina Sanchez. “Secrecy is not a neutral feature of the system. It is the condition that allows discrimination to flourish and go unchallenged.”
The proposed measures follow earlier unsuccessful attempts at similar legislation in New York City, although counties such as Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau have already enacted their own versions of these laws.
Most testimony focused on Intro 407, known as the “Reasons Bill,” which was co-proposed by Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. The bill would obligate boards to explain in writing why they reject an applicant. Opponents argue this requirement increases legal risks for board members since it calls for an individual member to sign off on the reasons under penalty of perjury. Board leaders also worry that such regulations could further discourage residents from volunteering for board service.
“In the 28 years I’ve been on the co-op board, I can count on one hand the number of applications we have rejected,” said Will Kwan, a board member at 139 East 33rd Street. “Why have I been on the board so long? Because no one wants to volunteer their time.” Kwan also expressed concern that lawmakers were trying to “choke the life out of co-ops” through increased regulation.
Williams responded by referencing existing anti-discrimination laws that already hold boards accountable for their decisions. He stated his willingness to work with stakeholders on possible changes but emphasized that “some version” of this legislation was needed. “What we’re trying to do here is make some of the things that already exist more enforceable,” Williams said.
John Curtis, vice president of a co-op at 370 Riverside Drive, suggested modifying the bill so approval comes from the entire corporation rather than an individual member and requiring only disclosure of primary reasons for denial.
Opponents also cited insufficient data supporting claims of widespread discrimination in co-ops. JoAnn Kamuf Ward, deputy commissioner at the city’s commission on human rights, testified that about 10 percent of 500 housing-related complaints filed over five years concerned co-ops; only a few involved purchase denials. Audience members reacted vocally during her remarks.
“There is no data,” said Tanya Arias, agent with Corcoran and president at 45 Tudor City Place, noting industry estimates put rejection rates between three and five percent.
Council member Lincoln Restler questioned whether low complaint numbers might be due to lack of documentation or insight into decision-making processes by applicants. Ward responded that alleged victims often lack access to documents when making initial claims; others noted cases may be underreported due to burdensome reporting requirements.
Bronx council member Eric Dinowitz recommended delaying action until more comprehensive data—such as total applications and denial rates—could be gathered. “Discrimination is already illegal,” Dinowitz said. He added concerns about higher insurance and legal costs if new rules are implemented: “Wouldn’t it be more prudent to just get more data, get better data before we invariably increase the risk for individual board members and increase the costs for shareholders?”
Sanchez acknowledged objections but clarified her focus: “You are not the actors we’re worried about… You are the good folks.”
Another proposal under debate was Intro 1120A from majority leader Amanda Farias (Bronx), which would require boards to mark applications complete or incomplete within ten days; once complete, boards would have forty-five days—with a possible fourteen-day extension—to issue a decision.
Farias explained her intent was to address prolonged waiting periods: The bill aims “to put an end to limitless waiting so many applicants endure.”
Opponents objected most strongly to automatic acceptance if deadlines were missed by boards—a provision not typically found in similar timing laws elsewhere—which they argued could allow unqualified buyers through without review or vote.
“That person could be financially unqualified or dangerous or just not a good fit, and the board would lose the opportunity to vote on that person,” said Rebecca Poole, membership director at Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums. She noted other delays are often beyond boards’ control: “Automatic acceptance is problematic.”
Some real estate professionals spoke in support of greater transparency measures during testimony—including Michael Kelly (New York State Association of Realtors), Yvette Clark Watkins (Long Island Board of Realtors), and Crystal Hawkins Syska (Hudson Gateway Association of Realtors).
