The New York City Council rejected Mayor Eric Adams’ plan to raise housing costs for thousands of low‑income families relying on the CityFHEPS voucher program. The proposal would have required these families to pay 40% of their income toward rent, up from the current 30%.
Over 60,000 families depend on CityFHEPS for rental assistance. Council members argued that raising the payment share would force many into financial distress and possibly trigger widespread rent increases. They called the proposed hike “unfair and dangerous” for vulnerable households.
Mayor Adams had vetoed the Council’s earlier rejection of the increase, defending the move as necessary to manage the program’s rising cost, which exceeded $1.25 billion last year. He urged the Council to support the hike for fiscal sustainability.
Council leaders pushed back, overriding the veto and declaring that protecting rent affordability takes priority over budget concerns. The override was part of a larger legislative agenda that also includes new requirements for large employers to report pay‑data by gender and race and the creation of a new Office of Contract Services to improve city procurement transparency.
Supporters of the Council praised the move as a win for social equity and fairness — shielding low‑income households from unjust rent burdens, promoting wage transparency, and streamlining city contracting. Critics — including officials from the mayor’s office — described the actions as undermining executive authority and placing undue burdens on businesses and nonprofit service providers.
Many housing advocates cheers the Council’s move, saying the veto override sends a clear message about protecting low‑income renters at a time when housing affordability is at a crisis point in New York City. Tenant groups and community organizations warned that forcing CityFHEPS recipients to pay a larger share of their income toward rent could have triggered widespread evictions as families struggled to keep up. By preserving the 30% income rule, the Council avoided a threatened wave of displacement.
Meanwhile, the Council’s broader legislative effort — expanding pay transparency and creating an Office of Contract Services — was hailed as part of a sweeping push for equity and accountability in city government. Supporters argue the measures will shine light on pay disparities, boost fairness in hiring and contracts, and protect public funds from mismanagement. Opponents, however, say the bills overreach and risk burdening businesses and nonprofits with onerous requirements. The standoff underscores a larger battle over how New York balances social support, regulatory oversight, and economic growth.
