Opinion: NYC Needs More Than Tenant Protections—It Needs a Balanced Approach to Housing

posted in: All news | 0

“We absolutely should weed out exploitative landlords, but we also need policies that support responsible owners. Otherwise, small landlords give up, banks take over, and buildings end up owned by large corporations.”

Apartment buildings near Carroll Place and East 165th street in the Bronx. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Lately it seems like “landlord” has become a dirty word in New York City, and all of us, good and bad alike, are being painted with the same broad, hostile brush. I’m a Democrat living in Manhattan, and my husband and I have always believed in fair housing, treating tenants with dignity, and keeping the city vibrant.

Yes, some landlords are greedy and irresponsible. But when policies lump all landlords together, they punish small, community-focused owners like us alongside the worst actors. We need a new approach, one that balances tenant rights while driving landlords to maintain responsible practices.

We don’t own fair-market apartments. We manage 100 units across two buildings in the Bronx, all of which are rent stabilized or occupied by Section 8 tenants. That means we already operate under strict rent restrictions and oversight. New York’s “Good Cause Eviction” law doesn’t directly impact our business, but the mindset behind these sweeping policies is spreading, and it’s setting up the entire housing market for worse outcomes.

People think landlords love to evict tenants. We don’t. Eviction is a nightmare; it means months, often over a year, of paying legal fees and going to court, all while the tenant remains in the apartment without paying rent. Even after court approval, we often wait months for a marshal to enforce it. During that time, we still pay taxes, utilities, insurance, and the mortgage.

From 2014 to 2021, the average annual rent increase for our regulated units was around 1 percent, while operating costs climbed steadily. That left us in a fragile position when COVID hit: tenants stopped paying rent, eviction moratoriums prevented enforcement, and the court backlog meant cases dragged out even longer.

We’re still digging out: the 2025 Rent Guidelines Board study showed Bronx landlords’ net operating income rose only 0.8 percent, far below citywide averages. At the same time, the city keeps layering on good, but costly mandates—we recently replaced an elevator to meet inspection rules and are now making critical roof repairs.

We want to invest more. We often modernize kitchens and bathrooms for long-term tenants, and we’d love to improve common areas and energy efficiency, not just because it’s good business, but because we believe, as Matthew Desmond wrote in “Evicted”: “a stable and decent home is said to be a fundamental requirement for individuals and families to thrive.” Landlords shape communities and support livelihoods in ways often overlooked, by tenants, policymakers, and even landlords themselves.

But how are we supposed to make these improvements if we can’t recover the costs? The nominal rent increases and lengthy eviction process drain time and resources that could otherwise go toward building upkeep. This lack of incentive creates an environment where mediocrity becomes the default, not because landlords don’t care, but because they’re stuck.

That’s where the cascade happens. If fair market landlords see the same constraints coming their way, they won’t invest in their properties. We absolutely should weed out exploitative landlords, but we also need policies that support responsible owners. Otherwise, small landlords give up, banks take over, and buildings end up owned by large corporations. Then everyone wonders where the community-based landlords went and why the sense of community disappeared with them. 

Government ownership isn’t the answer either. Bureaucracies are often impersonal and inefficient. Yes, there’s an inherent tension in a capitalist system where landlords profit from a basic need like housing. But that doesn’t mean the solution is to make it unprofitable. Guardrails should prevent abuse, but they also must allow landlords to run sustainable, successful businesses.

As a Democrat who believes deeply in affordable housing, I’m worried. Housing quality doesn’t improve through punishment alone. It improves when governing policies create the incentives and means for landlords to reinvest. We need to understand why tenants fall behind, offer small but meaningful incentives for maintenance and upgrades, and streamline the eviction process without sacrificing fairness.

Housing policy can’t be one-sided, that’s lazy and shortsighted. It’s not enough to squeeze landlords and hope they do the right thing while their finances collapse. If we keep ignoring these realities, we’ll end up with exactly what we say we don’t want—deteriorating buildings owned by institutions, not neighbors.

I urge our city’s leaders to look at the housing crisis from all sides, not just from the angle that earns applause or political points. Lasting solutions will only come when we acknowledge the challenges facing both tenants and the small landlords who house them.

Kelly Feili lives in New York City and works in cybersecurity, where she has spent much of her career focused on public policy. Her family owns and manages two rent-stabilized buildings in New York City. This is her first op-ed on housing policy, a topic she has grown passionate about through personal experience. 

The post Opinion: NYC Needs More Than Tenant Protections—It Needs a Balanced Approach to Housing appeared first on City Limits.

Amazon ends a program that lets Prime members share free shipping perk with users outside household

posted in: All news | 0

By ANNE D’INNOCENZIO, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Amazon is ending a program that allows members of its Prime membership subscription program to share their free shipping benefits with people who don’t have the same primary address.

Related Articles


What is the ‘coolest thing’ made in Minnesota? You decide from 64 entries.


Nonprofits face a tough funding landscape. They hope better storytelling will bring more donations


Crash victims’ families prepare to make what could be their final plea for Boeing’s prosecution


OpenAI and Meta say they’re fixing AI chatbots to better respond to teens in distress


Kraft Heinz undoes blockbuster merger after a decade of changing tastes

In an update to the customer service section of its website, the online behemoth says it will eliminate the sharing on Oct. 1 and is encouraging users outside the household of the account holder to sign up for their own Prime subscription.

Amazon is replacing the so-called Prime Invitee program with Amazon Family, which lets account holders share the free two-day shipping perk as well as a broad range of other perks like exclusive deals and movies with only one other adult in their household, up to four teens (who were added before April 7) and up to four profiles for children, according to Amazon’s website. Amazon said that the adult could be a spouse, family member or roommate.

Prime members pay $14.99 monthly or $139 annually.

The news comes as the Seattle-based company is making big investments in expanding its network to bring faster delivery to customers in less densely populated areas across the U.S. The service is available in 1,000 of the more than 4,000 smaller cities, towns and rural communities targeted by year-end, the company said in late July.

Trump says he will order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore despite local opposition

posted in: All news | 0

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he will direct federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition from state and local officials in both cities.

Asked by reporters in the Oval Office about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, Trump said, “We’re going in,” but added, “I didn’t say when.”

“I have an obligation,” the president said. ”This isn’t a political thing.”

Trump has already sent National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., and federalized the police force in the nation’s capital. More recently, he has said he plans similar moves in other cities, particularly those run by Democratic officials.

The president praised Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser for working with federal forces, but criticized Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who has said crime in Chicago doesn’t require federal intervention.

Trump said he’d love to have Pritzker call and say, “Send in the troops” — even though the governor has repeatedly said he won’t be doing that.

“If the governor of Illinois would call up, call me up, I would love to do it,” Trump said. “Now, we’re going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it.”

Pritzker deemed Trump’s comments to call him for help as “unhinged.”

“No, I will not call the president asking him to send troops to Chicago,” he said at his downtown Chicago office. “I’ve made that clear already.”

Related Articles


Trump says US has carried out strike against drug-carrying vessel that departed from Venezuela


The 150-year-old law that governs military’s role in local law enforcement


Pentagon authorizes up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges


Final preparations for the trial of the man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump in Florida


Appeals court backs EPA action terminating billions in ‘green bank’ grants

Trump also said he has an “obligation to protect this country, and that includes Baltimore.” Local officials there have joined Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore in similarly opposing federal law enforcement intervention.

Trump said his efforts in Washington have ensured it “is now a safe zone. We have no crime.”

The White House announced separately Tuesday that more than 1,650 people have been arrested since the Trump administration first mobilized federal officials on Aug. 7.

“And this city was really bad,” Trump said. He said, “we’re really proud of” federal efforts to curb crime in Washington.

Another rebuke for prosecutors: Grand jury refuses to indict woman accused of threatening Trump

posted in: All news | 0

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal grand jury has refused to indict an Indiana woman accused of threatening to kill President Donald Trump, another sign of a growing backlash against Trump’s law enforcement crackdown in the nation’s capital.

Nathalie Rose Jones was arrested on Aug. 16 in Washington, D.C., on charges that she made death threats against Trump on social media and during an interview with Secret Service agents.

But a grand jury composed of Washington residents refused to indict her based on evidence presented by Justice Department prosecutors, according to her attorney, assistant federal public defender Mary Manning Petras.

“Given that finding, the weight of the evidence is weak,” Petras wrote in a court filing. “The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed and no indictment is likely.”

It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to refuse to return an indictment, but that has happened in other cases prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office since Trump ordered a surge in patrols by federal agents and troops in the District of Columbia.

A grand jury refused to indict a government attorney who was facing a felony assault charge for throwing a “sub-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent — a confrontation captured on a viral video.

Three grand juries voted separately against indicting a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent outside the city’s jail in July, where she was recording video of the transfer of inmates into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

A grand jury also rejected an indictment against a man who was arrested on an assault charge by a U.S. Park Police officer with the assistance of National Guard members.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, so the reasons for their decisions don’t become public. But the string of rebukes has fueled speculation that residents serving on grand juries are using their votes to protest against the White House’s surge.

Related Articles


American kids are less likely to reach adulthood than foreign peers


The 150-year-old law that governs military’s role in local law enforcement


Nonprofits face a tough funding landscape. They hope better storytelling will bring more donations


Crash victims’ families prepare to make what could be their final plea for Boeing’s prosecution


Final preparations for the trial of the man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump in Florida

“Grand juries, judges, we will not simply go along with the flow,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said during a hearing last week for a surge-related criminal case.

A spokesperson for Pirro’s office didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Pirro posted a comment on Jones’ case two days after her arrest.

“Threatening the life of the President is one of the most serious crimes and one that will be met with swift and unwavering prosecution. Make no mistake — justice will be served,” Pirro wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Prosecutors said Jones, 50, of Lafayette, Indiana, posted a Aug. 6 message on Facebook that she was “willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea.” When Secret Service agents questioned her on Aug. 15, Jones said she hoped to peacefully remove Trump from office but “will kill him out at the compound if I have to,” according to prosecutors. Jones was arrested a day later in Washington, where she joined a protest near the White House.

Petras said Jones repeatedly told Secret Service agents that she had no intent to harm anyone, didn’t own any weapons and went to Washington to peacefully protest.