Oversight Hearing on Implementation of Pied-à-Terre Tax – August 18, 2026
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.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon, good afternoon. Welcome to the New York City Council hearing on the Committee on Governmental Operations, State and Federal Legislation joint with finance at this time. Please silence all electronics and do not approach the dais. If you're planning on testifying, please ensure you fill out a testimony slip with the sergeants at the back. You may do so online at testimony at council.nyc.gov. That is testimony at council.nyc.gov. Thank you for your cooperation, chairs. You may begin. Thank you very much. I am Gail Brewer, the chair of the committee on governmental operations, state and local, state and federal legislation. I want to thank all the members of the public who have joined us today, as well as colleagues, the indomitable fabulous chair of finance, the Linda Lee, Councilmember Jay Sanchez, Hank Swong, Narcisse Car Morano, and I think on Zoom we have Paladino. Today it's a very strange sort of hearing, but we'll be we will conduct oversight of the rollout of the pied de terre tax. The most recent state budget included a surcharge on property that does not serve as a primary residence, but is more commonly referred to as a pied de terre. There has been a lot of confusion around the city's rollout of the pied de terre tax. First, the Department of Finance published on its website a list of around 900,000 residents that it said could potentially be subject to the tax, even though the controller estimated in June that less than 14,000 properties would be subject to the tax. No estimate of the number of pieditaires in the city comes even close to 900,000. Yet the city still published the list with the small caveat that the properties on the list may be subject to the charge. The list published by the Department of Finance was so overbroad that it even included my name. And I don't mind my name and my home address, but I've been in that damn home for 365 days a year since 1994. I don't leave the city, and I don't have a second home. We want to know today how all of those names ended up on the list and why the Department of Finance published a list of property owners when admittedly they knew that the vast majority of the properties on the list were not in fact used as a peer de tier. Finance ultimately only sent notifications to around 17,000 property owners notifying them that they would be subject to the tax. That number is still larger than most estimates. We have received calls from constituents who received these letters, even though the property listed is their primary residence and has been for many years. Homeowners who believe that they received the letters in error initially had only a short window to contest the surcharge. Although the deadline was ultimately extended by four weeks, this still puts a burden on property owners, which upset people tremendously. They have to prove, not the city, that the property in question is their primary residence rather than, as I said, the onus being on the city to ensure that only properties being used as the pied de terre are subject to the tax. For example, the co-op and condo abatement already requires that property owners submit documentation showing that the units are owner-occupied. So DOF should already know that these units are not pied de terre. DOF should have use of the information they already had before publishing people's names and addresses and requiring them to affirmatively prove again that they reside in the city. Not only does this create a burden for tax-paying New Yorkers, but now finance needs to spend time and resources processing every application for an abatement and collecting and verifying documentation that already has collected and verifying, in my opinion, wasting public resources. Because either they are using the property as their primary residence or because they are eligible for some other exemption. Both the mayor and finance commissioner Richard Lee, for whom we have great respect, have already acknowledged that the records that they were using to identify properties subject to the tax were outdated, and that they knew when they posted the initial list that included a large number of properties that would not be subject to the tax. I think we all want to know why the city published a list that it knew was not accurate. Like many of my constituents, I have a lot of questions about this tax that we are hoping to get answers to. I do want to thank the council staff members who made this possible from Government Operations Committee, Johari Frazier, Erica Cohen, and Sigma Halmid and from the Finance Committee, Brian Sarfo and Owen Kutowski, and Cynthia Hornick from my office and everybody else. I do want to also say I do thank the Department of Finance because they have been helpful for those constituents who need help. I don't want people to think that has not happened because it has. Now I'm going to turn to the wonderful Chair Lee. Great. Thank you so much, Chair Brewer. Um, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome again to today's oversight hearing on the implementation and rollout of the city's Pieditaire Tax, also known as the non-primary residence property surcharge. The Pieditare Tax was enacted as part of the state's fiscal year 2026-27 budget and took effect on July 1st, 2026. The surcharge applies to one to three family homes valued at 5 million or more, as well as condominium and cooperative units valued at 1 million or more that do not serve as the owner's primary residence. Properties that serve as the primary residence of the owner, an immediate family member or a qualifying uh tenant are not subject to the surcharge. Since implementation began, uh Department of Finance has mailed notices to approximately 17,000 property owners identified as potentially subject to the surcharge and has published a supplemental role listing more than 900,000 properties that may fall within the taxes scope. Given the scale of this rollout and the number of New Yorkers who have been affected, it is crucial that this council conduct oversight of how the administration is planning on implementing this new tax. Following litigation initiated by a group of city homeowners, the administration extended the deadline for property owners to file exemptions from late August to September 18th. Still, even with the extension, we seek greater guidance for those impacted to ensure that this rollout is smooth.
openpublica.com