Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Affordable housing, eviction protections and vacancy tax take center stage in Bronx debate
Summary
Dinowitz highlighted past wins—eviction moratorium sponsorship and targeted capital funding for co-ops—while Evers pressed for proactive preservation of Mitchell‑Lama and low‑equity co‑ops, proposed a vacancy tax on long-empty commercial spaces and alleged real‑estate influence blocked passage.
Housing affordability and tenant protections were a sustained focus in the BronxNet debate for New York’s 81st Assembly District.
Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz pointed to a legislative record he said favors tenants: he cited authoring the eviction moratorium during the pandemic and said his work on rent-policy issues and capital funding has helped local affordable housing. “I was the author and the prime sponsor of the eviction moratorium during the pandemic,” Dinowitz said, adding that he brought funds to local developments including “$10,000,000” to the Amalgamated Houses and additional millions to other co‑ops and housing projects.
Challenger Morgan Evers said her experience as a teacher and community organizer leads her to prioritize preventing privatization and preserving existing affordable housing. She proposed more investment in Mitchell‑Lama and low‑equity co‑ops and support for pathways to homeownership and building maintenance. Evers also supported a vacancy tax aimed at landlords who keep commercial spaces empty: “To help small businesses, I would … bring in programs like the minority and women business enterprise program,” she said while clarifying the vacancy tax targets landlords rather than small businesses.
Evers accused the real‑estate lobby of influencing outcomes. “I feel he can't get it passed because of the donations made by the real estate lobby to his campaign,” Evers said of Dinowitz’s efforts to pass vacancy‑tax legislation; Dinowitz declined to offer a rebuttal during the exchange.
Both candidates noted a gap between funding promises and on‑the‑ground access. Evers said many co‑op boards and management struggle to navigate programs and tap promised taxpayer dollars; Dinowitz countered that buildings are receiving money and argued that professional management matters to successful capital deployments.
The debate clarified differences in emphasis: Dinowitz highlighted a record of enacted measures and secured funds, while Evers focused on proactive preservation, easier program access for co‑ops and stronger local oversight of development.
