Skip to main content

The Tax Liens Program in New York City

Giuliani's Tax Lien Program Continues Today
During the Giuliani reign, the mayor created a tax lien program in which homeowners and landlords could easily lose their homes and apartment buildings. If a homeowner fell behind in his tax payments, the finance department would notify the homeowner and after waiting a short period of time, the finance department would sell the tax lien to a private corporation, a trust, created by the mayor that would charge additional fees and 18 percent interest and attempt to collect the long, overdue taxes. If unsuccessful, the trust would foreclose on the homeowner. The city would have one more homeless family or families.

Loss of Low-Income Housing
There is another consequence to foreclosure. Homes are often bought by developers and renovated into market rate housing. This means that such homes are no longer available to low-income families.

Of course, it is isn't just homeowners who find they can no longer pay their property taxes but it is landlords of large buildings. the consequence of foreclosure for tenants in this buildings is often disastrous since no one is in charge of maintaining the building.

The Scope of Tax Lien Programs
Based on the City’s best data, it is estimated that $350 to $400 million is received annually during the period between the 90-day notice and the lien sale as payments on delinquent tax, water, and sewer, and other municipal liens during that period.

From 2008 to 2016, the number of liens sold to the Trust has averaged about 4,600, or 18.3 percent of the liens noticed in the 90-day notice.
Atempt to End the Tax Lien Program
In 2017, Letitia James, the Public Advocate, introduced new legislation to stop homeowners and landlords from losing their homes and to keep homes available to the low-income market. She has asked the city council to create a preservation trust that would purchase the tax debt and sell the buildings to nonprofits that would preserve the housing as affordable. Although her model needs to be examined, it clearly makes more sense than the disastrous program established by former Mayor Giuliani.

James' Legislation
In 2017, James put forth legislation before the City Council (Int 0218-2018). The summary reads that it would require "the Department of Housing and Preservation and Development (HPD), in conjunction with the Department of Finance (DOF), to promulgate rules establishing a preservation trust program which would allow for the sale of negotiated sale of tax liens on distressed properties to a trust created for the purpose of rehabilitating and preserving affordable housing. The legislation would also authorize DOF to sell such tax liens to a trust eligible under the preservation trust program and expand the definition of distressed property."
And there it sits assigned in the Committee of Finance.


  1. I wonder if Latishia James will be able to move this issue forward at AGs office?

  2. I hadn't known about the tax lien program. Thanks, Lynne.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I LIke Mike Bloomberg by Lynne Weikart

Bloomberg took office two months after 9/11. The results of 9/11 - the city lost over 100,000 private sector jobs in one year. The city was devastated. Corporations were fleeing the city as were residents. Bloomberg created an economic development machine that roared through all five boroughs and brought over 400,000 new jobs.    Just about the time the city recovered from 9/11, there was a national recession and Bloomberg guided the recovery. That recovery was cushioned by the fact that Bloomberg had raised taxes twice and the city had surpluses to help navigate the recession. Very early in his mayoralty, Bloomberg made it very clear that he would not tolerate discrimination against Muslims. In 2002 shortly after Bloomberg became mayor, he announced he was against a city council bill that would ban the Palestine Authority from their offices in the city. A few years later in the hysteria surrounding the proposed building of an Islamic Community Center a few blocks from the deva

Federal Abandonment of Public Housing

Public housing began during the Roosevelt years. In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt signed the United States Housing Act, known as Wagner-Steagall, to support building low-rent public housing. In the wake of  President Truman‘s surprise reelection in 1948, Congress passed the bill now known as the Housing Act of 1949 and re-authorized the public housing program. The GI Bill after World War II supported veterans in securing low-interest loans to own their own homes. In the 1950s Congress passed a second Housing Act focused on conserving and rehabilitating low-income housing. All these laws favored white people. The 1950s were famous for "urban renewal" which meant that the federal government provided grants for slum clearance that often meant cities would choose the poorest section of town to abolish residences and build new construction.  In the 1960s, public housing became less discriminatory with Kennedy's Equal Opportunity in Housing Act. President Johnson eleva

Federal Government and the Lack of Affordable Housing

The federal government hasn't built public housing since the 1960s. President Johnson pushed Congress to pass the 1968 Housing Act that became a major time of construction of public housing almost doubling such units across the country. In addition, Bobby Kennedy and Senator Jacob Javits pushed through a 1966 amendment to the Economic Development Act that provided private developers with incentives payments to invest in poverty areas.   Once the Reagan era began that was the end of public housing. Instead, Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which slowed building of low-income housing further. First, the act repealed accelerated depreciation and the use of depreciation deductions to offset other ordinary income, precipitating a sharp drop in multifamily housing production. Second, the law placed a cap, for the first time, on states’ authority to issue tax-exempt bonds for multifamily housing and imposed income limits on eligible households. Third, the act created the Low In