Co-op board members in New York City are voicing opposition to a set of proposed City Council bills that seek to increase transparency and reduce discrimination in the co-op application process. The debate took place during a hearing before the committee on housing and buildings.
The primary focus was on Intro 407, also known as the “Reasons Bill,” which would require co-op boards to provide written explanations for rejecting a prospective buyer’s application. The bill, co-sponsored by Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, aims to make the decision-making process more transparent.
Committee chairperson Pierina Sanchez opened the hearing by stating, “Let’s say this plainly: discrimination is happening today, and everyone knows it. Secrecy is not a neutral feature of the system. It is the condition that allows discrimination to flourish and go unchallenged.”
Opponents argue that such requirements would expose individual board members to increased liability since they would have to sign off on rejection reasons “under penalty of perjury.” They also expressed concerns about discouraging volunteers from serving on boards.
“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, who serves on the board of a co-op at 139 East 33rd Street. “Why have I been on the board so long? Because no one wants to volunteer their time.” Kwan added his belief that lawmakers were attempting to “choke the life out of co-ops” through regulation.
Williams responded by noting existing laws already hold board members accountable for discriminatory decisions and indicated willingness to discuss adjustments with stakeholders but maintained that “some version” of the 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 shifting responsibility from individuals to corporations when providing reasons for rejections and limiting disclosure to only primary reasons rather than every consideration.
A lack of comprehensive data regarding discrimination claims in co-ops was highlighted during testimony. JoAnn Kamuf Ward, deputy commissioner at the city’s commission on human rights, stated that about 10 percent of roughly 500 housing-related complaints over five years involved co-ops, with only a few related specifically to purchases. Audience members reacted strongly, expressing skepticism about these numbers.
“There is no data,” said Tanya Arias, an agent with Corcoran and president at 45 Tudor City Place. She cited industry estimates suggesting a rejection rate between three and five percent for co-ops.
Council member Lincoln Restler questioned whether limited documentation prevented buyers from filing complaints. Ward explained that alleged victims typically lack access to documentation initially but can still report suspected discrimination through other means or legal action. Others testified that underreporting may result from barriers in bringing forward such claims.
Council member Eric Dinowitz recommended delaying any legislative action until more information could be gathered about application volumes and denial rates. He argued that new regulations could increase insurance and legal costs for boards without sufficient supporting data: “Discrimination is already illegal,” Dinowitz said. “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 addressed objections by distinguishing between responsible actors present at the hearing and those whose conduct prompted legislative concern: “You are not the actors we’re worried about… You are the good folks.”
Another proposal discussed was Intro 1120A from majority leader Amanda Farias. This bill would require boards to mark applications as complete or incomplete within ten days; once complete, they would have forty-five days (with an optional fourteen-day extension) to issue a decision. Failure by boards to respond within this timeframe could result in automatic acceptance—a provision critics called problematic due to potential risks associated with unvetted applicants.
Rebecca Poole of the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums commented: “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.” She added concerns over delays often being outside board control: “Automatic acceptance is problematic.”
Some industry representatives supported greater transparency measures; 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) all testified in favor.
