IPN Tenants and Owner in Negotiations by Ronald Drenger The owner and tenant leadership of the Independence Plaza North apartment complex met for three negotiating sessions last month, hoping to avoid a long court fight over the development’s planned exit from a government housing program. Participants would not discuss details, but there was one hint that the talks, which began in December, might be bogging down. “These negotiations will end very soon,” Neil Fabricant, president of IPN’s tenant association, said late last month. He declined to elaborate, but when asked if he meant a resolution or a stalemate, Fabricant said, “There are significant unresolved issues.” On the most critical issue, the rent increases that some tenants will face, the owner, Larry Gluck, had yet to offer a proposal, his lawyer said. But a person close to the talks on the tenant side said that the parties “have made reasonably good progress” on other matters. Some of the issues being hammered out include building improvements, parking and utility charges, succession rights for apartments, and how to handle tenants who qualify for vouchers but are “overhoused”—living in apartments bigger than they need, according to government rules—and have to move to smaller units. The two-hour meetings took place at the offices of City Council Speaker Gifford Miller and included about a dozen people, including Gluck, Fabricant, Lynn Walsh, the tenant association’s treasurer, lawyers and lobbyists for each side, and representatives from Miller’s office. Gluck is withdrawing the complex from the state Mitchell-Lama program, which keeps rents below market levels. The required one-year waiting period for the withdrawal process, known as a buyout, ends in June. After the buyout the owner will be free to charge market-rate rents. The tenants, many with low or moderate incomes, are worried that they will be forced out and are seeking protections. Gluck and the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) have said that about two-thirds of IPN tenants will be eligible, based on their incomes, for “sticky vouchers,” federal subsidies that will allow them to continue paying rents equal or close to what they pay now. The government would cover the difference between those amounts and market rates. Gluck has also pledged to negotiate “fair and reasonable” rent increases for tenants who don’t qualify for vouchers. This is the proposal he had yet to put on the table, despite repeated requests from the tenants. Hanging over the talks, in addition to the June buyout date, is a bill that the City Council is expected to pass soon. The legislation would make buyouts tougher and more expensive for building owners who cannot work out agreements with their tenants. Fabricant has also said that IPN tenants will consider filing a lawsuit to try to block or stall a buyout if Gluck does not negotiate an acceptable deal. IPN’s tenant association says it is skeptical that the sticky voucher program will provide long-term protection for most residents. Braving a heavy snowfall, about 200 tenants walked to P.S./I.S. 89 on Jan. 27 to hear representatives of HPD and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development explain how the program works. The officials distributed flyers laying out the income limits for eligibility—for example, $41,750 for a single person, $59,650 for a family of four—and said applications will be circulated in the next couple of months. Tenants originally deemed eligible don’t lose their vouchers if their incomes rise, the officials said, and the owner cannot take an apartment out of the program as long as it remains a rental and the tenant is “in good standing.” Some tenants questioned the fairness of certain rules and raised doubts about future government funding for the vouchers. When one resident expressed concern that Gluck would try to skirt the program’s requirements, Stephen Meister, an attorney for the owner who was sitting in the front row, stood up and faced the audience. “The landlord is definitely accepting the voucher program,” he said. “We don’t believe you, or him,” a man yelled from the back of the room.