MSCC, Caitlin Cahill, Aug 3, 2026

Pursuant to HUD’s Annual Plan requirements, I submit this formal challenge to the Draft NYCHA Annual Plan and request that this challenge, its source, and NYCHA’s complete written response be attached to the final Annual Plan as required by federal law.

I write as a longtime resident of Chelsea (since 1984), a Penn South resident, who grew up across the street from Elliott-Chelsea Houses, an Associate Professor of Urban Geography & Politics at Pratt Institute, and a member of the Chelsea Public Housing Coalition. I am actively involved in my community and have commented on the DEIS for Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses, participated in Community Board hearings, and have viewed or attended NYCHA public hearings on it.

I am writing to contest the inaccuracies in the NYCHA Draft Annual Plan, and to correct the record.

NYCHA must these elements before adopting or submitting the Final Plan. If NYCHA refuses, HUD should not approve the parts of the plan that focus on Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses.  

The Draft Plan contains materially inaccurate and misleading information.

NYCHA must correct these elements before adopting or submitting the Final Plan.

1. The renovation-cost increase is not substantiated and at the same time the environmental costs are omitted. 

 The Draft Annual Plan states: “In 2022, building assessments revealed extensive, advanced deterioration that would increase the cost of a renovation project.” This has never been substantiated.

I quote from the public comments submitted May 12, 2025 by David Burney, Visiting Professor Pratt Institute, who served as the Chief Architect and then Director of Design and Capital Improvement for NYCHA from 1990- 2004. David Burney asks:  “why is the Rehabilitation and Infill alternative “financially and logistically infeasible”?  David Burney goes on to argue that “the logistical infeasibility is not explained in the DEIS, so the argument presumably rests on the financial aspect of the Rehabilitation and Infill alternative.

To make this case, the DEIS presents a cost estimate for the Rehabilitation and Infill alternative that defies credibility, suggesting that, somehow, the costs doubled in the space of two years. The cost analysis is presented in a chart (IBO_Fulton Elliott-Chelsea Redevelopment Financing Overview) with the following data on the estimated cost for rehabilitation:

So we are told to believe that between the developer’s response in 2021 and 2023 – in the space of just two years, the cost of rehabilitation doubled. There is, needless to say, no backup provided to substantiate these numbers. It is clear that they are invented to support the argument that demolition and reconstruction is the only “feasible” alternative. “

Let’s get the facts straight:  Related Companies won the 2021 RFP to renovate—not demolish—the FEC buildings. Replacement is now estimated at $2.4 billion, nearly 5 times NYCHA’s first renovation estimate.  The proposed demolition is a no bid contract.  

 This inaccuracy must be addressed in the Draft Annual Plan.

 Finally, as all architects and planners know, demolition should also be a last resort. Rehabilitation is preferred as it avoids the environmental costs of construction waste, carbon and energy.  

 Further, the Draft Annual Plan must account for environmental costs and include a cost estimate taking into account the impacts of embodied carbon, loss of mature trees cut down, and impacts upon air quality and health from both the demolition and contaminated grounds (a Brownfield) that will be excavated. What are the environmental, health and financial costs for the tenants and the adjacent Chelsea community ?

2. Tenants and Community Leaders are against the demolition.  The NYCHA Annual Plan mischaracterizes resident participation and support.

The Draft Annual Plan states: “In mid-2023, following intensive engagement to understand residents’ preferred path forward, a new proposal was announced that would rebuild all 2,056 existing units….”   

First, the NYCHA/ Related demolition redevelopment plan is NOT the preferred path forward and second, there was NOT intensive engagement with residents.  The methods of participation and engagement were selective, confusing and misrepresented the current proposals by NYCHA/Related.

For example, the resident survey conducted in 2023 asked residents to choose between two new-construction options and a renovation option.  The survey was represented as a tenant “vote.” I

First, the survey did not use the word “demolition,” which confused participants.

Only 29% participation and the “new construction with rezoning” option won by a margin equivalent to just 4% of eligible respondents. A timeframe of five years was cited for this option, but none for the “rehabilitation of existing units” option.  In fact, the proposed demolition and redevelopment will take a minimum of 15 years according to the Final Record of Decision.

 In fact, many more residents (over 1000) have signed a petition in opposition to the plan that tenants leaders have presented to elected officials and NYCHA.  This must be included in the Annual Plan to maintain accuracy.

Finally, residents who participated in selecting a development partner did so when rehabilitation—not complete demolition and reconstruction—was presented as the expected path.

Please address in the Draft Annual Plan:

• When residents specifically voted to approve demolition of Fulton Houses and Elliott-Chelsea Houses.
• When residents approved removal of their homes from Section 9.
• When residents approved years of demolition, excavation, relocation, and reconstruction.

3. The Plan inaccurately claims that no bedrooms will be lost

The Draft Plan shows identical bedroom distributions before and after conversion at Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea. HUD’s own Phase I RAD-PACT Conversion Commitments show otherwise. Which is true? 

The number of RAD -PACT apartments remains the same, but 250 bedrooms disappear. The loss is concentrated in family-sized housing. 

Three-bedroom-and-larger RAD apartments fall from 282 to 107, a loss of 175 family-sized apartments.

NYCHA cannot describe this as a one-for-one replacement without disclosing that it is counting apartment doors rather than housing capacity.

Bedrooms—not simply apartment doors—represent the actual capacity to house families.

This is concealing the elimination of hundreds of bedrooms, in so doing, NYCHA creates the false impression that family-sized public housing capacity is being preserved but it is not.

Please correct the inaccurate bedroom tables and identify the loss of family-sized apartments, and notify Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea tenants of the inaccuracies and the correct facts about the redevelopment proposal.

Finally, NYCHA must reopen public comment after the corrected information is distributed to the tenants and media.

4. The NYCHA Annual Plan fails to disclose how RAD-PACT conversion impacts residents and tax payers.

The Plan does not adequately explain that the RAD-PACT conversion and privatization changes the governing housing program, transfer system, rent rules, grievance procedures, management structure, and residents’ ability to participate in future decisions.  Section 8 is note the same as Section 9 for both tenants and taxpayers.

A promise of long-term affordability is not the same as preservation of Section 9 public housing.

Please address and include comparison of Section 9 and Project-Based Section 8 covering:

•     transfers;
•     rent and flat-rent consequences;
•     grievance procedures;
•     recertification and succession;
•     eviction protections;
•     reasonable accommodations;
•     resident participation;
•     management complaints; and
•     enforcement rights.

 Further, we request that this information must be distributed to tenants in plain language and all of the language the tenants speak.  And that NYCHA must give tenants standing and the right to enforce, challenge, or litigate contracts between NYCHA and the PACT partner 

 Tax payers need to understand where our funding is going. Please also include a table estimating how much tax payer funding will be transferred to Related per apartment as a result of Section 8 and PACT conversion.

5. The Draft Annual Plan does not include a completion plan for the demolition and redevelopment of Fulton and Elliott Chelsea

What happens if :

•     construction costs rise;
•     financing fails;
•     a lender refuses to refinance;
•     the developer defaults;
•     a project entity enters bankruptcy;
•     development-rights proceeds fall short; or
•     a later replacement phase is delayed or abandoned.

Please address the details of the timeline, including:

•     the expected and outside completion date for every phase;
•     the full-campus completion date;
•     completion and cost-overrun guaranties;
•     the financing committed to each phase;
•     the procedure for replacing a developer or manager;
•     the source of relocation funding during delays;
•     the resident remedy if a phase misses its deadline; and
•     a commitment that no additional occupied building will be demolished until financing and replacement capacity for that phase are irrevocably secured.

Finally, why wasn’t the Subordinate Market Rate Revolving Term Loan (SMRRT) financing included in the NYCHA Annual Plan? This must be addressed in the final annual plan.

The omission prevents residents and the public from evaluating how the demolition will be financed, how the debt may grow, who bears default risk, and whether NYCHA may ultimately purchase the loan interests using development-rights proceeds.

The SMRRT financing carries an 8 percent interest rate; unpaid interest will accrue; payments are limited by project cash flow;  and NYCHA is expected to repurchase the loan, principal and interests, using proceeds from the sale of development rights; and

We ask that NYCHA address the following questions in the final Annual Plan.

•     the final SMRRT amount for each Phase I project;
•     the borrower and lender;
•     the interest rate and term;
•     the projected loan size at maturity (principal and interests)
•     the repayment source and projected balance over time;
•     NYCHA’s purchase or repurchase obligation, as well as consequence in case NYCHA defaults on the obligation;
•     the development-rights proceeds expected to fund that obligation;
•     the consequences if those proceeds are insufficient
•     the outcome if the borrower (Related subsidiary) defaults on the loan, or restructures; and
•     every other major source of public debt, private debt, equity, subsidy, and HAP-supported revenue supporting Phase I.

 The Annual Plan must be updated with the actual costs of rehabilitation, financing, impact and a correction of the many inaccuracies.

 With many thanks,

 Caitlin Cahill