City Council Poised to Overturn Mayor's Rent Hike Veto on Housing Voucher Program
The New York City Council is expected to override Mayor Eric Adams' veto of a bill aimed at protecting low-income New Yorkers who rely on housing vouchers from skyrocketing rent costs. The measure, which passed with a veto-proof majority last month, would cap contributions from voucher recipients at 30% of their income, regardless of whether they have earned income or other forms of assistance.
The proposed increase to 40% was part of the Adams administration's plan to rein in the program's rising costs, but Council members argue that it would unfairly burden already-strained households. "I was not surprised by the mayor's decision to veto a bill intended to ensure that lower-income workers were not put in a position where they would be seriously rent-burdened," said Council Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala.
The City Council has labeled Mayor Adams' actions as "embarrassing," and is set to vote on overriding his veto this week. The move comes after Adams vetoed several other bills, including measures aimed at increasing salary transparency for private employers and reducing late payments to non-profit service organizations.
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani had previously vowed to expand access to the housing voucher program, and plans to "drop lawsuits against CityFHEPs" once in office. His campaign website notes that he will ensure expansion proceeds as scheduled and per city law.
The decision by the Council comes as many low-income New Yorkers face increasing financial strain due to rising rent costs. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development considers a household to be "cost-burdened" when it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, including utilities.
In contrast, the increased contribution rate proposed by Mayor Adams would leave many voucher recipients with little room for other expenses or savings. Council members argue that the current limits are sufficient and do not pose a burden on those who rely on assistance to afford basic necessities.
The New York City Council is expected to override Mayor Eric Adams' veto of a bill aimed at protecting low-income New Yorkers who rely on housing vouchers from skyrocketing rent costs. The measure, which passed with a veto-proof majority last month, would cap contributions from voucher recipients at 30% of their income, regardless of whether they have earned income or other forms of assistance.
The proposed increase to 40% was part of the Adams administration's plan to rein in the program's rising costs, but Council members argue that it would unfairly burden already-strained households. "I was not surprised by the mayor's decision to veto a bill intended to ensure that lower-income workers were not put in a position where they would be seriously rent-burdened," said Council Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala.
The City Council has labeled Mayor Adams' actions as "embarrassing," and is set to vote on overriding his veto this week. The move comes after Adams vetoed several other bills, including measures aimed at increasing salary transparency for private employers and reducing late payments to non-profit service organizations.
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani had previously vowed to expand access to the housing voucher program, and plans to "drop lawsuits against CityFHEPs" once in office. His campaign website notes that he will ensure expansion proceeds as scheduled and per city law.
The decision by the Council comes as many low-income New Yorkers face increasing financial strain due to rising rent costs. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development considers a household to be "cost-burdened" when it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, including utilities.
In contrast, the increased contribution rate proposed by Mayor Adams would leave many voucher recipients with little room for other expenses or savings. Council members argue that the current limits are sufficient and do not pose a burden on those who rely on assistance to afford basic necessities.
. It's just not fair that they're already living paycheck to paychecks, and then they'd have to chip in even more of their income towards rent? 30% is a big chunk, you know? And now it sounds like the council might override the mayor's veto, which could be a huge win for them 
. It just goes to show that sometimes, experience and common sense trump politics and power struggles 
.
... mayor adams thinks he can just veto bills left and right like his own personal budgeting plan isn't working out 
... council's all up in arms though - gotta respect them for sticking it to the man 
. 30% income cap makes so much sense, especially with rent prices skyrocketing 
. lets hope mamdani comes through on those expansion promises and gets more vouchers out there 
lol he thinks capping it at 30% will solve everythin? its just more politickin 
theyre tryna do whats rite for ppl in need 
what's more important, getting rent control or letting people save money for other stuff? 
i get that the voucher program costs a lot, but can't they just find ways to make it more efficient instead of screwing over the people who need it most? 
this is crazy news, people's lives are gonna be affected by something like 10% but it's still 40% increase 
. It's not right. The Council needs to stand up to Mayor Adams and make sure these people aren't left high and dry 
I think it's kinda weird that the mayor vetoed a bill aimed at helping low-income folks, you know? They're already struggling to make ends meet with rent costs skyrocketing left and right. It's not like they have a lot of wiggle room in their budgets anyway 
. I mean, don't get me wrong, the mayor's got some good ideas, but this one feels like a step back 
.
! It's ridiculous that our mayor is trying to make low-income families pay more for housing, especially when they already struggle to make ends meet 
. It's time we started putting people over profits in this city 
.
It's just not fair. The mayor should be working with the council to find a solution that doesn't leave these families struggling, not pitting them against each other over some bureaucratic red tape 
meanwhile in nyc ppl are literally struggling 2 afford rent rn i feel 4 them lol what's worse tho? having 2 deal w/ all that drama or when u get 2 the point where u just wanna scream but r like "i'm a vegan & i cant even"...
and I saw this news about rent hikes... isn't 30% of income kinda low for rent? like wouldn't that be hard to find stuff else to spend it on 
.
. The mayor's plan would put even more pressure on them and it just doesn't seem fair. I mean, if they're already living paycheck to paycheck, how can they afford to pay 40% of their income towards rent? 
. It's like, we got this, NYC! 
. I'm so glad there are still some decent politicians out there who care about the little guys 
.