Oversight Hearing on Implementation of Pied-à-Terre Tax – August 18, 2026

Joint Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation and Finance – Chair Gale A. Brewer and Chair Linda Lee presided over an oversight hearing on the rollout of the Pied-à-Terre (non-primary residence property) surcharge. The New York City Department of Finance (DOF) declined to appear, citing pending litigation, but submitted written testimony that was read into the record. The council heard from over 20 public witnesses and announced it will send written questions to the administration.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kyle Bragg (union leader) expressed support for taxing the wealthy but criticized the unclear rollout, noting that a retired friend with a long-time brownstone is unsure if he owes the tax. He called for clarity.
• Jason Haber (American Real Estate Association) called the publication of 959,710 names and addresses a “doxing” that invites fraud and scams. He argued the burden of proof should be on the city, not homeowners.
• Mary Ann Rothman (Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums) stated that requiring co-ops to collect the surcharge from shareholders is unprecedented and could destabilize building finances. She urged DOF to collect directly from non-resident owners.
• Tor Thors (co-op owner) said the published list exposed personal property values and felt like a “socialist” attack on homeowners.
• Rebecca Poole (CNYC) noted that the $1 million imputed market value for co-ops/condos often does not equal a $5 million sale price, and that the retroactive nature of the tax penalizes long-term owners who left the city after retirement.
• Charles Diamond (former city employee, personal capacity) condemned the release of over 98% irrelevant PII, calling it unprecedented and warning that the administration’s absence sets a dangerous precedent for oversight.
• Anna Champerney (Citizens Budget Commission) criticized the compressed timeline, insufficient public vetting, and poor communication, but noted that the underlying data is already public. She recommended evaluating the tax’s impact.
• Leonard Steinberg (real estate) argued the tax messaging is inaccurate because DOF’s market values do not reflect actual sale prices, and urged an apology and clarification to New Yorkers.
• Heather Domey (real estate broker) highlighted unintended consequences for retirement, trusts, renovations, and rental properties, and called for more nuanced exemptions.
• Beverly Solo (resident) supported the tax, urging revenue go to schools and child care, and noted public support for taxing the rich.
• Isabel Peñaranda Curry (researcher) defended the tax as economically sound, arguing that property values are socially produced and that the wealthiest should contribute more. She criticized references to the list as a “hit list” as ideological.
• David Backer (parent and professor) supported the tax, noting the effective tax rate disparity between single-family and multifamily homes, and argued that the wealthy “doth protest too much.”
• Lala Peñaranda (CUNY worker) urged the council to stand with public sector workers and implement the tax to fund public services.
• Lucy Sexton (New Yorkers for Culture and Arts) asked for an exemption for Joint Live-Work Quarters (JLWQA) used by artists, citing a case of a $90,000 surcharge on a nonprofit rehearsal space.
• Ed Lee (Republican) said he supports the spirit of the tax but questioned spending priorities and noted that the tax unfairly targets real estate over other assets.
• June Barwick (co-op treasurer) argued that co-ops are valued at only 20% of single-family homes, causing unfair surcharges, and asked for an exemption for co-ops under $2 million.
• Ken Fisher (resident) described a personal case where his apartment was listed on a notice sent to a neighbor, and the online portal would not accept his proof of residency. He called the process “botched.”
• Jamel Henderson (Citizen Action of New York) supported the tax, noting that $500 million could fund after-school programs, seniors, and public housing. He urged the council not to let the wealthy dictate policy.
• Bravan Runga (Invest in Our New York) supported the tax as a step toward progressive revenue, arguing the ultra-rich are fighting back with bad-faith attacks.
• Robert Bertania (homeowner) received a $52,000 surcharge notice for his 30-year primary residence. He called the presumption of guilt “socialist” and urged the council to check executive overreach.
• Valerie Mason (resident) condemned the administration’s absence and called for subpoena power to ensure accountability.
• Christopher Leon Johnson (public speaker) opposed the tax, calling it a “scam” by nonprofits and the DSA, and argued it penalizes success.
• Elizabeth Valdez, Shannon Richter, Bakari Champ, and Alison Klemp (disability and education advocates) supported the tax, urging that revenue be used for affordable/accessible housing, child care, and services for people with disabilities.

Discussion Items

• Chair Brewer opened by noting that DOF published a list of ~900,000 properties even though the controller estimated only ~13,000 are subject to the tax. She emphasized that the tax is supported but the rollout caused confusion and placed an unfair burden on homeowners to prove primary residence.
• Chair Lee reiterated support for the tax and highlighted the extension of the exemption deadline to September 18, 2026, due to litigation.
• Councilmembers Narcisse, Carr, Wong, Hanks, Morano, Dinowitz, Zwang, Paladino, and others expressed frustration at the administration’s absence. They questioned the accuracy of the published list, the privacy and security risks, the inversion of burden of proof, and the lack of cross-checking with existing city records (e.g., STAR, co-op/condo abatement).
• Councilmember Morano called the administration’s refusal to testify “outrageous” and noted that city agencies routinely appear during litigation. He demanded to know the error rate and why the city did not use existing data.
• Councilmember Hanks said the publication of names and addresses showed disrespect and created a “scarlet letter.”
• Councilmember Carr challenged the legal necessity of publishing the full list and criticized DOF’s flawed property valuations.
• Councilmember Wong noted that the mayor’s Charter Revision Commission showed disregard for council checks and balances, and that the administration’s absence reinforces that pattern.
• Councilmember Dinowitz supported the tax but expressed concern about unintended costs for co-ops, including legal fees for lease amendments and potential insurance issues.
• Councilmember Zwang raised concerns about homeowners in Italy, military members, and the difficulty of proving residency. He asked how the 17,000 were identified and what happens if deadlines are missed.
• Councilmember Mealy asked about the options for those who received letters, noting that many are not truly wealthy and face high legal costs.
• Chair Brewer and Chair Lee read the 20 written questions that would have been posed to DOF, covering: the discrepancy between the 900,000 published list and 17,000 notices; the failure to use existing residency data; the burden on co-ops; privacy and security; the appeals process; and more. The council committed to sending these questions to the administration.

Key Outcomes

• The hearing was held with no testimony from the administration due to pending litigation. Council members unanimously condemned the absence.
• The council will submit written questions to the Department of Finance, including those from the co-op/condo council and other stakeholders, and expects answers.
• The deadline for homeowners to file exemptions was extended to September 18, 2026, but the council expressed concern that this may still be insufficient.
• The council will continue oversight and may consider next steps, including potential subpoenas, if the administration does not respond adequately.
• No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and aimed at gathering public input and preparing formal inquiries.