Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Yes, you know that affordable housing was a hallmark of the Mamdani for Mayor campaign. You may be surprised to learn that the Mamdani administration is now facing some sharp criticism from housing advocates on an apparent reversal in one of his campaign promises on housing. Yesterday was the deadline for the Mamdani administration to settle its legal challenge to the CityFHEPS expansion. FHEPS, F-H-E-P-S, is the City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement, which helps low-income New Yorkers pay rent and stay out of the shelter system.

Instead of settling, meaning withdrawing from the lawsuit more or less, or coming to a compromise, the city filed an appeal, meaning they're continuing a court fight that Mayor Mamdani had promised to end during his campaign, a fight that started under Adams. The administration says it can't afford the full expansion, citing a $7 billion budget deficit, but advocates are not satisfied with this argument. It affects a lot of people.

If this already sounds like in the weeds, we're going to get to the human element here in a press release yesterday when the city's largest provider of shelter and supportive housing for families described the reversal as "nothing short of a betrayal." Who's the CEO of Win? It's Christine Quinn, also known as former New York City Council Speaker. Chris Quinn always good to have you on the show. Welcome back to WNYC.

Christine Quinn: Thank you very much.

Brian Lehrer: Would you describe a little more to the uninitiated about what CityFHEPS is and does?

Christine Quinn: Right. Aside from the worst acronym ever, it is a voucher program. If you're in shelter, you are short on resources, you're incredibly low-income, you had to leave your home, maybe domestic violence, or you couldn't afford it, you got evicted. We want to move you out of shelter. The most effective way to move people out of shelter is to give them, let's think of it as a subsidy. You give them a voucher. Every person pays 30% of their income into the rent. The voucher, up to $2,500 for a family of four, pays the rest. We know, based on return-to-shelter data, it is the most successful way to move people not just out of shelter, but to keep them from returning to shelter.

One of the reasons we are still at an all-time high in shelter is the revolving door. People leave without that extra support and come back to shelter. The city's FHEPS program has proved enormously successful, but there are challenges with it. Right now, if you're a family of three, you can make up to $53,000 a year, you qualify for a voucher. If you make a dollar over that, $10 over that, you can't qualify for the voucher, which means you stay in shelter. Some of our longest-term stayers in shelter are people who are just over the income. One of the things this council package of legislation did was say, "Raise that." I won't go into all the acronyms, but to about $73,000 for a family of three a year. We know that would move people out of shelter.

Now issues have been raised about the cost of FHEPS. I have issues with the methodology of the Citizens Budget Commission, but we could talk about that later if people want to. Basically, if you are in a home with a voucher a night, it costs $75 a night. If you stay in a Win shelter for a night, it's close to $300. If you stay in a welfare hotel where you get practically no social services, it's close to $400 a night. Investing in this program has long-run cost-saving reality for the city. The mayor, when he was candidate Mamdani, said on more than one occasion he would drop the city's lawsuit of the expansion of the voucher program on day one.

I was on his transition team for social services. He reannounced that commitment at the transition team meeting. It was the only non-administrative announcement that was made. He said he would do it on day one. Clearly, we were far past day one, and they didn't just not drop it. They have now appealed the court's decision to the highest court in the state. It is just clearly a campaign promise made and a campaign promise broken. I have to say I'm very surprised and extremely disappointed because I believed, and I still believe, even with the setback, he is the mayor who can end the city's family homeless crisis. It's a step backward in that possibility, not a step forward.

Listeners may say, "Well, why do we have to do all this?" One, it's the humane, right thing to do. Two, New York City is one of the only jurisdictions, by a court ruling, that is required to house the homeless. That's how the shelter system is mandated. We want that system to be a transitional stop, not a permanent home for people. Right now, there are more children in shelter than there are seats in Yankee Stadium. 70% of the people in shelter are families with children. The average age of a child in shelter is five years. That's simply not okay. This program and the package of legislation the council had to make it available to more New Yorkers is a humane and cost-effective step forward. I really do want to thank the City Council.

What happened is the council passed this package of legislation. Mayor Adams vetoed it. You would think, based on Schoolhouse Rock! and whatever else, that when a veto is overridden, the law is in effect. No. In New York City, if a veto is overridden, the mayor still has the power to not implement the law. The council, a group, or a person has to take the mayor to court and sue them to force the law to be implemented. That is what the City Council, a Win client, and the Legal Aid Society have done. We've won in round one, we've won in round two. Now the city's appealing to round three, the final court in the state.

Brian Lehrer: I'm glad you explained that last part. Where we are is Mayor Mamdani is continuing the legal defense that Mayor Adams started, but that Mayor Mamdani said on the campaign trail that he would abandon. I'm going to throw the mayor's arguments at you and explain them to the listeners in just a second here. I wonder if anybody out there right now is affected by this CityFHEPS fight. I said FHEPS before I learned from Christine Quinn. Here, you really say FHEPS. On these vouchers has this affected you or someone you know, or do you have a question? 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692. Call or text.

I'm sure you'll agree, and you said you were on his transition team, that Mayor Mamdani is 100% earnest in trying to really do something about affordable housing. He would say the cost of this program has exploded. It was $25 million in 2019. Now it's nearly $1.8 billion. The new comptroller, Mark Levine, warns full expansion could add $20 billion over five years. Mamdani, as mayor, is facing a $7 billion budget deficit, along with the City Council, facing that. If you don't contest this math, one could ask, doesn't it make sense to pump the brakes right now, given the city's dire immediate financial circumstances and medium-term circumstances?

Christine Quinn: Let me say a couple of things. One, I do believe Mayor wants to address affordable housing. I believe he wants to address the affordability crisis, and that is the unfortunate foundation of the affordability crisis is the lack of affordable housing. Even though he broke a promise, I want to say I do believe that's the truth in his heart and soul. This is a mistake. I actually do disagree with some of this math, and we at Win have met with the comptroller and made that clear. We've met with the Citizens Budget Commission and made that clear. The Citizens Budget Commission, and that's one of the documents that people are referencing and basing things on, they, one, computed their model believing that homelessness is a one-time occurrence.

For better or worse, and is clearly worse, homelessness is not a one-time occurrence. Our clients, by the time they come to Win, have, on average, been in shelter or unhoused three times. Two, in a lot of this math, they're only computing the city tax levy and not adding in the federal money that is in there. Another acronym, TANF. That is skewing what is more effective. Beyond that, I am not surprised, though I disagree on the numbers. I am not surprised that the trajectory of vouchers is going up. That's a good thing. It means we're moving people out of shelter. The math is not hard to understand when you accept we have more people in shelter right now than we've ever had before.

We want to move them out of shelter. When you have the most in shelter, and you're moving them out, and your best tool is this FHEPS voucher, of course, the amount of FHEPS vouchers are going to go up. Otherwise, we're going to keep people in shelter longer, which in the long run is going to cost the city more. I'm mindful of that, whether it's going to be $7 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion, the deficits are going to be a B number, in the billions, and that's a big lift. I've faced deficits myself as speaker. I am enormously sympathetic, but if--

Brian Lehrer: You ran for mayor in 2013. You could find yourself in the same position. I wonder, would you be on the other side of this if you were the mayor?

Christine Quinn: The would've, could've, should've. I hope I wouldn't have been because the math really shows that this increase, for example, the amount of income increase I was just talking about, would cost, not just for families, but the entire system, including singles. We compute that it would cost $15.8 million, call it $20 million, say we're a little off, in a budget deficit in the billions. That's barely a rounding error in math and in finances, but a massive amount of good that could be done. I think when you look at the number, it really shows this is doable.

Look, do I think that if there is a settlement, we might not have to compromise and tweak? No. Of course, we'd have to compromise and tweak. The offers that were out there are just simply ones that did not go far enough, particularly to recognize the needs of those in shelter.

Brian Lehrer: On one of the numbers you gave, a listener writes, "How many people would be eligible for housing vouchers if they can earn up to $73,000? That's more than the median New York City income. The numbers seem impossible." The person writes.

Christine Quinn: It's not more than the median income for a family of three, but certainly for an individual. We think in the family side, and I have those numbers more than the singles, it would be in the single thousands.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a call from Megan in Manhattan, a tenant defense attorney. Megan, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Megan Ryan: Hi, how are you? I represent people in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn who are getting evicted. I actually have a number of aging New Yorkers that I represent who are not eligible for CityFHEPS, which is the related program for single or adults without children, who are not eligible under the current guidelines, but would be eligible under the guidelines passed by the City Council. Many of them are paying up to 70%, 80% of their income in rent, which means they're extraordinarily rent-burdened, or considered rent-burdened if you pay 50%. These people are paying 70% to 80% of their very meager income for their rent, but it's for homes that they've lived in for decades.

I have a woman who's lived in her apartment for 60 years who would otherwise qualify for CityFHEPS and would be able to get her housing costs significantly down, making her eligible to stay in her home, and she's not able to. I campaigned for Mamdani. I did a bunch of Know Your Rights trainings for him when he was a new assembly person in Astoria, where I used to live. It's really disappointing. Everyone in the legal services community was really excited that he was going to step back from Mayor Adams' position on this.

It's super disappointing to have an advocate for poor people really renege on an incredibly important program for not only poor people, but for people that work and call the city home. If you're trying to make New York City more affordable, this is a program that is imperative to exist. I think that Ms. Quinn, you totally understand that, but I just wanted to bring some light to a demographic that is not often talked about in this context, and it's aging New Yorkers.

Christine Quinn: Thank you, Megan.

Brian Lehrer: Meg, thank you very much for calling in. We're going to go from her, who is a tenant defense attorney, to John in Brooklyn, who's the landlord, he says, calling in. John, you're on WNYC. Hello.

John: Hi, Brian. Thank you for taking my call. I'm a landlord. I don't have a problem with "programs" per se, be it FHEPS, Section 8, whatever. There's flaws, including with FHEPS, that don't make it enticing enough for landlords like me to accept it. It's not that they don't pay. The voucher amount is very good. I have to be fair. The problem is that they don't help you if the tenant doesn't pay the other 30%. It'll take you a year to get them out in court. It could even take longer. The other thing is that all these inspections that they do, and some stuff, to be honest with you, I'm glad the law was struck down recently. I hope it sticks. I have Section 8 tenants. I know what I'm talking about. It's so incredibly burdensome. They--

Brian Lehrer: What could they do at the level of government to make taking voucher-bearing tenants more attractive to you, John? What could they do?

John: The sum is very good, as I said. If the tenant can't pay the 30%, they would help out in some way, be it help the tenant get a job or help the landlord get the tenant out if they can't pay it, something like that. The number sounds great. You're like, "Wow, I could get this for a one-bedroom." Three months later, the person can't pay. A good deal turns into a bad deal.

Brian Lehrer: John, thank you for your call. We appreciate it. Really, that's on a different issue, but Christine Quinn, one that probably also upsets you, this recent New York State Court of Appeals ruling that it's okay for landlords to discriminate based on means of payment. In other words, they don't have to take a tenant who's paying with vouchers.

Christine Quinn: That's a ruling obviously I disagree with, and thank goodness it's narrow and only in parts of Section 8. It doesn't apply to FHEPS, but it's a bad precedent, no question. The landlord who just called in is right. There's tremendous administrative problems with the way FHEPS is administered. If it was administered better, I also believe there would be cost savings. Interestingly, the problems on how it's administered are, as the caller just said, issues for homeless advocates, homeless people, tenants, and for landlords. That's why one of Win's strongest allies in the fight to have vouchers and make them more effective is the Real Estate Board of New York.

Listeners could go to our website and see a report we released with REBNY on how to reform FHEPS. Just yesterday, we had meetings with the administration to their credit on how to reform the inspection process, which the caller just mentioned. There is, won't go into all the weeds, but a pilot program right now on how to make the inspection program more streamlined. We'll look for those results to try to take reforms across the system. That's just one example of how we could streamline the system, make it better for everybody, including the landlords.

Brian Lehrer: We're running out of time. There are various directions where you could go to finish up. A listener texts, related to the landlord caller, "Is it possible that the vouchers given to people in shelters actually has the unintended effect of raising rents as landlords can rely on this public subsidy to keep rents high?" A related one says, "FHEPS should go directly to tenants as a direct deposit. The mistake is relying on landlords to take any role in CityFHEPS." There's also the fact that, unlike Section 8 vouchers, which have some federal money behind them, FHEPS vouchers are entirely a city program. There's no state or federal. Is that correct?

Christine Quinn: There is federal.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, there is? Okay.

Christine Quinn: There is federal money in FHEPS. That's why some of the things we might want to do, say offer them to undocumented, you can't do, so there is federal money.

Brian Lehrer: How do you see this winding up to finish up? I imagine Mayor Mamdani wants to come to some-- maybe settlement didn't just withdraw from the lawsuit, but maybe some settlement with you and others that does more for potential FHEPS recipients than he's set to do now, or as the budget crunch eases. Where can this go?

Christine Quinn: I believe the mayor does want a settlement. I believe that Steve Banks, who was one of the creators of the FHEPS program, is a person of incredibly high integrity, and I think they do want a settlement. That's fair. What was presently offered did not go far enough. We want a settlement that includes people in shelter who were cut out, but also includes, as the other caller said, members of the community, and also some folks on, say, the youth housing shelters, who, for technical reasons, don't qualify for FHEPS vouchers. In a perfect world, I would love the whole exact what the council passed.

Do I recognize that, realistically, being a pragmatic progressive, that we might have to have a settlement? Yes. I think one is there. The city needs to expand what they're thinking, though, to get to a place where we deliver a true amount of reform to people in shelter and to members of the community. Then, as things get better financially, we can go back and look at the parts we weren't able to do. This first offer did not go far enough.

Brian Lehrer: That's why Christine Quinn has called it in her group's press release nothing short of a betrayal by Mayor Mamdani-

Christine Quinn: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: -compared to his campaign promise. Christine Quinn, president and CEO of Win, the largest provider of shelter and supportive services for homeless families in New York City. Thank you for joining us.

Christine Quinn: Thank you, Brian. Take care.

Copyright © 2026 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.