This story was originally published by THE CITY. Sign up to get the latest New York City news delivered to you each morning.
By Samantha Maldonado, THE CITY
Paying brokers’ fees to rent an apartment might just become a thing of the past for many tenants in New York City.
The City Council on Wednesday is poised to pass a revised bill known as the Fairness in Apartment Rentals Act, which requires whomever hired the broker to pay the fee.
The original bill simply put the hiring party on the hook for the fee. The new version directly states that a broker who publishes a listing for a property for rent is to be paid by the landlord.
The amended version also requires the landlord or broker to disclose all fees tenants pay up front, and stipulates that before a tenant signs a lease, the landlord or broker must provide an itemized list of fees the tenant must pay to the landlord and others. Failure to comply comes with penalties of at least $1,000.
A near veto-proof majority of 33 Council members support the bill, sponsored by Councilmember Chi Ossé (D-Brooklyn), who has promised it will result in more affordability for tenants contending with a red-hot rental market and a historically low vacancy rate. But real estate groups have opposed it, cautioning the measure will ultimately hurt tenants and throw the housing market into disarray.
Landlords often hire brokers to find tenants to rent open apartments, and tenants can also hire brokers to help find them suitable space. But as it stands, even if tenants find an apartment themselves, they may be on the hook to pay the broker fee.
Ossé said he came up with the bill after struggling to find an apartment in his district, which includes Bedford-Stuyvesant and part of north Crown Heights, as he kept encountering brokers representing landlords whose fees he’d nonetheless have to pay before signing a lease.
“For many of the apartments that I was looking at, there would be a broker fee, and no broker would be present, or a broker would be, like, extremely rude, and that was happening more times than not,” Ossé said. “I’m not anti-broker. I’m anti people being forced to pay for something they didn’t hire.”
He decided to hire a broker himself, who secured him an apartment for $2,250 per month with a broker fee of $2,500.
The High Cost of Moving
New York City and Boston are the only U.S. cities where tenants often pay for brokers they didn’t hire.
There’s no cap on what brokers can charge, and fees in New York City typically hover around 10% or 15% of the annual rent (equal to about a month or two of monthly rent). Fees on rent-stabilized stock with monthly rents around $2,000 have been reported as high as $20,000.
In 2024 so far, the average upfront cost for a New York City rental charging a broker fee, and also including first month’s rent and a security deposit, was $12,951, according to Streeteasy data provided to THE CITY. The company also found that in the first 10 months of the year, a renter who paid a broker fee spent an average of 47.7% more in upfront expenses than someone who moved into a no-fee apartment.
Lois Paquette, a paralegal, nearly depleted her savings to cover a broker fee of $6,200 for the $3,100-per-month apartment she moved into with her girlfriend in July. They were the first applicants to the fifth-floor walk-up in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, after more than a month of searching. The high up-front costs made her wary of repeating the experience.
“We’re never moving again,” Paquette, 27, said. “Something big would have to happen in five years for us to move.”
The broker handling the listing — whom Paquette did not hire — informed her she’d need to pay the fee. The broker showed the apartment, responded to emails and liaised with management.
“Is that worthy of $6,000? I’m not sure, but at least they did their job,” she said. During a June City Council hearing where hundreds of people testified about the bill, some renters told stories of brokers who did minimal work, such as merely sending over a video tour.
All told, Paquette estimated she and her girlfriend spent about $15,000 on their move including the cost of movers. But the broker fee was the largest single expense.
Those costs can deter renters from leaving their apartment even when they want or need to move. Paquette and her girlfriend, for instance, were each paying higher rents for separate apartments before they moved in together, but the broker fees and moving costs would’ve been too much for her girlfriend to pay by herself if Paquette couldn’t help cover them — leaving the girlfriend stuck in a more expensive apartment.
While dozens of tenant advocacy and legal groups, including the Legal Aid Society and Make the Road New York, support the measure, the Real Estate Board of New York and many real estate brokers oppose it.
Those in opposition have warned landlords who hire brokers will simply increase rents on market-rate apartments to incorporate the one-time fee. (Already, most no-fee apartments in New York City have higher monthly rents than those with fees.)
“If people are going to cut your salary or cut your livelihood, you’re going to have to cut your services. I’m not going to work nearly as hard as I would for a less amount of money,” said Stephanie Tiboris, who has worked in New York City area real estate for almost 15 years, including as the exclusive agent for one landlord who owns five buildings. “If you’re going to pay this fee, I want to show you how worth it it was. I want to help you. I want to continue to be a part of the process.”
She said her relationships with the tenants she works with continue until they move out, as she handles their complaints about issues such as leaky toilets and requests to negotiate when landlords propose rent increases. She emphasized the fee covers an ongoing service, and tenants can always negotiate fees or opt for no-fee listings.
In a tight housing market, however, both of those can be tough since tenants have less leverage or fewer options. Some tenants may not even realize they’re able to negotiate.
To that end, REBNY previously proposed its own version of the FARE Act, as The Real Deal reported, that would not have changed who pays the broker but instead mandates brokers give prospective renters a “tenant bill of rights.” The paperwork would list the fees the tenant is responsible for, state they do not have to work with a broker and specify that the broker fee is negotiable.
This week, the group began a last-minute advertising blitz on social media and on cabs against the bill, with some ads claiming the new version of the FARE Act would make apartment-hunting more difficult.
Sarah Saltzberg of Bohemia Real Estate said brokers who used to being paid by tenants would be disincentivized from listing apartments on places like StreetEasy or Zillow where prospective tenants who aren’t paying them could see those listings.
“If there’s a fee and we have an agreement with a landlord, then we can put it up,” Saltzberg said. Otherwise, “The tenant will have to hire us … to have access to those listings, where they never had to do that before. They go online and they take their time, get a sense of the market. All of that will be gone.”
How Valuable?
Michael Corley, a Brooklyn-based broker and president of Corley Realty Group, was one of the few real estate professionals to support the bill.
“Most brokers are concerned about not being able to extract a certain percentage of the lease,” he told THE CITY. “It’s understood that an agent is brokering lease value. If they believe that the amount of money they’re annualizing for the owner is that valuable, the owner should pay it… but the owner won’t pay something like that.”
Mayor Eric Adams has expressed concerns about how the measure would affect small, struggling “mom-and-pop property owners” who may not be able to absorb the cost of a broker.
“Anything that we can do to defer costs from everyday renters without hurting small property owners is important to me,” he said in October. “So we’re going to read over it and make the determination of what the next steps are on it.”
The FARE Act is not the first attempt to legislate restrictions on broker fees.
In 2020, the New York Department of State issued guidance banning brokers hired by landlords from charging tenants as an interpretation of the 2019 rent law, which strengthened protections for tenants. But in 2021, a state court overturned the ban after the Real Estate Board of New York sued.
In 2019, Councilmember Keith Powers introduced a bill capping broker fees to one month’s rent, to which the industry responded with fierce opposition. The Council never voted on it.
Our nonprofit newsroom relies on readers to sustain our local reporting and keep it free for all New Yorkers. DONATE to THE CITY
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
The idea that broker fees are driving housing unaffordability is pretty nonsensical. This will shift the cost of showing an apartment elsewhere, but it won’t go away.
Gale Brewer is one of the few council members who is not yet supporting this bill. If you have ever paid a fee for a broker you didn’t choose, then call her and let her know to support the bill!
-this will not raise rents. The data from the temporary pause on brokers fees in 2020 is clear
-the most affordable units are more likely to have these fees, according to existing data
-brokers fees especially harm working parents who have to move when they have kids. We’re struggling to afford rent and childcare as it is!
-the UWS Council Member Abreau has proven himself a champion of everyday New Yorkers with his support of this bill. Gale Brewer remains silent on how she will vote. Another sign that she is disconnected from the cost of living and affordability concerns of her constituents!
2020 is not a valuable data point on brokers fees; the city saw historically high vacancies. Market rents declined for basically the first time since WW2. Landlords offered many concessions.
This whole thing is classic City Council at its worst. Legislate something, without thinking of who will pay for what.
The difference is that we had a defacto pause on broker fees because of the pandemic too. The legal pause on broker fees was stopped too quickly to make any difference in 2020.
The way this impacts the UWS is that the larger UWS landlords will pay the broker fee to the brokers and be just fine. It is the individual apartment owners on the UWS that would feel the most pain as many of them will have a hard time finding a broker that will be willing to show their property if they are not willing to pay the fee, which most of them are hard pressed to afford. Also smaller landlords outside of Manhattan will have a hard time finding a broker willing to show their property. It is these non large landlords that cannot afford paying a fee to brokers and have a limited ability to spend copious amounts of money and time sifting through clients and paying Streeteasy, which has an over 80% market share in Manhattan, $7 per listing per day to advertise on there. Streeteasy also requires brokers to only post exclusives there.
This will also hurt other industries such as the arts since many brokers are also actors, dancers and in other creative professions who take on being a real estate broker in order to pursue a career which would be impossible to do otherwise.
Apparently small landlords in nearly every other city in the country figure out how to do this just fine.
In practice in NYC, what will happen is that the larger landlords with over 100+ UWS buildings will be just fine and will have an advantage over smaller property owners. Also I do not think prospective renters want to go door to door the old fashioned way to look for an apartment. Not every city has streeteasy, which owns most of the other named advertising websites such as zillow, trulia, hotpads, naked apartments and has such a huge market share not only in Manhattan, but in other gentrifying neighborhoods, that having a situation where not having access to that platform hurts a landlord.
Then landlords will of course have to make a business decision about where to list their apartments themselves or whether hiring a broker provides real value for them, same as every other business.
In the current system, brokers are usually extracting ~15% of the annual rent from tenants and providing very little in terms of value to the tenants.
They can charge a 15% broker fee, that is normally negotiable and deals get done regularly on the UWS with only a month’s broker fee, because that is what the market is here. In Queens it is usually less, in the Bronx it is usually less, but the UWS is one of those neighborhoods where no matter how much more housing you build, people are head over heels wanting to live here.
Brokers do provide a real value by doing all the dirty work that landlords do not want to do themselves. Individual apartment owners especially.
It’s not really negotiable – if you don’t want to pay 15% they pick the next person on the list.
….if brokers are providing value to the LANDLORDS by doing the dirty work that LANDLORDS don’t want to do themselves… then shouldn’t the landlords be the ones paying them? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Go look for a UWS rental apartment and tell us how many apartments insist on 15% or accept a substantially lower fee. The answer might surprise you.
Brokers provide value to everyone, tenants because a broker’s relationship with the landlord is strong enough that they can push an application that is not as solid. Many of those brokers who can do that are landlord’s exclusive broker. Landlords especially smaller ones as well as co-op and condo apartment owners are not going to stick their neck out and pay a broker fee to have a tenant with 695 credit and a misunderstanding that led to a reduced credit score or someone who uses Insurent as their guarantor.
The correct policy response would have been to only subject apartments subject to good cause eviction to the broker fee restrictions while leaving small property owners and co-op and condo owners alone.
It’s hard to say “that’s just the market” when the person paying the broker never actually hires them or has a chance to negotiate with them. If brokers provide value to the person who hires them then they are welcome to continue paying them.
You will need to hire one if your budget for a UWS 1 bed is like $3000-$3400 and you are not interested in seeing a Brusco or Tauber building, just to name a couple large UWS landlords. You may have fewer brokers, but the bread and butter of those fewer brokers out there will be those large UWS landlords or others with large holdings. Already as it is on the UWS, if you contact a large brokerage and you want to see UWS stuff within a certain budget you will be shown Brusco unless you specifically ask not to see them and that will also make it harder for smaller landlords.
Get rid of all broker fees. This is an insane extra expense money grab.
What does that even mean? I don’t personally value real estate brokers highly, but there are surely people who need them. And if I want to pay someone to help me market something, or find me something, why would you “get rid” of that option?
That said, noone but the hiring party should be paying a fee to a broker. It’s their problem how they price/value the apartment in question, and how they negotiate the fee, etc. etc.
One thing perplexes me. Do they not realize the landlords are simply going to raise the rent to cover the cost of paying the agents. Landlords are not coing to absorb this. cost.
It seems to me terribly naive.
It may happen that landlords pass the cost on via rent. But it may also be easier for a tenant to afford slightly higher rent because it’s spread out over 12 months instead of having to come up with a large broker’s fee up front (at the same time as first month’s rent, security deposit, and movers).
Smaller landlords will raise the rent but have a harder time getting it on the market, while larger landlords will outcompete them. Historically much of the prewar UWS rental market prices their apartments based on what Brusco prices their apartments at, since their family combined has over 100+ buildings between them. If Brusco absorbs the cost and can afford to lower rents, then the individual apartment owners are going to have a hard time.
NYC housing is not like most things we buy because of the severely limited supply. Landlords do not set the price of their apartments at their costs plus a little bit more for profit – they charge as much as they can and still find someone to rent to. If a grocery store tried that, people would just go down the block and shop somewhere else. But because New York has a 1% vacancy rate, there isn’t really anywhere else for people to go. That’s why you see long lines for apartments and bidding wars between people looking to rent. So there won’t be any “passing through” of the higher costs for landlords because they are already charging as much as the market will bear.
It’s so simple – if you hire someone, YOU pay them.
Not one mention of the actual brokers job based purely on commission, the hard working career broker. They too have families, insurances to pay both home and personal health, homes to support both maintenance and rents, licensing fees children’s schools and after school activities. To work as brokers they pay to pay to advertise ( hefty fees) and schlep people around for free ! Pay for cabs until someone rents or buys,- this will kill the broker industry and hard working brokers will have to move out of their homes, not one thought about these jobs, no empathy or consideration for this profession. It IS a profession. Also the Mom and pop landlords no way will they be able to pay for a broker for these hard to find townhouses and single unit ownership.
This probably will lead to fewer brokers in NYC but the ones who remain will be the ones who are providing real value to landlords and tenants.
You will also have basically destroyed an income stream for a lot of arts professionals to keep themselves afloat in NYC. A lot of the folks actually showing you apartments are not people who intend on a long term career in real estate.
Most agents make only about $50-60k a year. When you pay a $5,000 broker fee, odds are the agent that showed you the apartment only sees about $1,000 of that, maybe $2,000 tops.
About time. It is absurd that renters have to pay exorbitant fees for services they did not even want/hire.
To those who says “landlords won’t be able to absorb these costs” – if renters can absorb them, I don’t see why landlords can’t. If they can’t afford a broker, put it on craigslist. Apartments in NYC practically rent themselves.
The broker I had to pay $5000 for my current UWS rental (15% of $2800/mo) was horrible at communicating and couldn’t even spell “lease” correctly. I spent countless hours finding my own place, there is no good reason why I should have to pay a broker I didn’t hire.