Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Discussion of Local Law 97 and its impact on property owners
7:57:36
·
6 min
Council member Paladino raises concerns about Local Law 97's impact on her constituents, particularly elderly and working-class property owners. Randy Mastro responds by explaining the legal issues surrounding the law and potential ways to address its challenges.
- Paladino highlights the financial burden of Local Law 97 on middle-class building owners in her district
- Mastro explains the conflict between the city's law and comprehensive state legislation on carbon emissions
- He suggests working with the council to find ways to encourage emission reductions without imposing one-size-fits-all mandates
Vickie Paladino
7:57:36
Let's start with a local law 97.
7:57:39
I come from district 19.
7:57:42
And you were on the Peace triple c.
7:57:46
So I wanna talk about local 97 because in my district, it impacted probably more than any other.
7:57:54
I hear from my constituents every single day who are concerned and worried about not being able to afford their condo or coop anymore due to this law.
7:58:05
These are often elderly retired working class people who don't live in expensive homes by any standard.
7:58:14
In fact, I introduced legislation to delay the crippling fines of local law 97 which which would have bankrupted several middle class buildings in my district.
7:58:27
Unfortunately, this council didn't care enough about the elderly working class constituents and queens They passed on my bill to save these people from bankruptcy.
7:58:40
Some here seem to think they're saving the planet by bankrupting the elderly poor who cannot afford their electric bills anymore.
7:58:50
I heard you mention your work on behalf of improving local law 97.
7:58:55
Could you, would you please explain what it would look like and what the protections you can include for my constituents who simply cannot bear any further increase to their cost of living.
Randy Mastro
7:59:14
Well, after all that, she asked me a really tough question.
7:59:20
Let me just say this.
7:59:24
I appreciate that someone has better silver hair in the chamber than I do.
7:59:29
And I just wanna say how much I respect the entire council, and I will stay here all night to answer any of your questions.
7:59:40
I just feel for the folks who came here and have been here all day on your question council member.
7:59:48
The the issue in the lawsuit, and we said it in the first paragraph of our complaint is not that we don't favor reducing carbon emissions and we don't support global warming initiatives.
8:00:05
It's that there was a comprehensive package of state law that had certain parameters that left some flexibility for localities.
8:00:16
But the governor Cuomo himself described as comprehensive, and it was a system of goals and aspirations and targets.
8:00:27
And the city used to have laws like that, and some of them pushed the city to achieve targets sooner.
8:00:34
In fact, by 2030, it was supposed to be under local law, aspirationally, hitting 30%.
8:00:44
Well, in just a few years without artificial caps and mandates, and really one size fits all no matter what the use of the property, how much density or whatever has done there, that it's still in just a few years, well short of 2030, carbon emissions have been reduced by 19% in the city.
8:01:11
So the initiative that the state started and the additional layers that the city included, which my clients small coops and small condos in Queens and other boroughs you know, they were complying with spending money and reducing carbon emissions.
8:01:33
The plan was working.
8:01:35
Now the the problem with what was well intentioned legislation.
8:01:42
Don't get me wrong, but there's a comprehensive state law.
8:01:46
And there are things that the city can do to try to accelerate the process, to make the aspirations kick in sooner or the targets sooner.
8:01:58
But by imposing, no, you've got one size fits all, even if you're a dense condo or you are a luxury building on Fifth Avenue.
8:02:11
You have the same carbon emissions even if you have many more people living in that same square footage than you do and a luxury coops on Park Avenue.
8:02:21
That was inconsistent with state law and took the city too far.
8:02:27
I would work with this council.
8:02:30
And and and perhaps at the end of the day, the courts will agree that that legislation should survive.
8:02:37
Although the appellate division agreed with our position that we had stated a a viable preemption claim, that decision that issue will go to the New York Court of Appeals.
8:02:48
But if the New York Court of Appeals agrees with our legal position and that the state law covers the landscape and that the city has to act within that landscape, I will help you here on the council figure out how to push the envelope to encourage and incentivize New York property owners businesses and residential to accelerate reduction of carbon emissions consistent with state law.
8:03:21
But it's the artificial caps, the one size fits all, as well intended as it is, that creates the conflict.
8:03:31
This is not a criticism of anyone.
8:03:33
This is a principal legal position on behalf of small condo owners who are suffering and who have complied with the law of reduced carbon emissions, spent money to do so consistent with city law and now they they find themselves going bankrupt and facing draconian penalties for not hitting the arbitrary caps.