Is NYCHA really “hoarding” thousands of apartments? The short answer is: the truth is more complicated than the headline. As someone who spent years working inside City Hall as the Citywide NYCHA Liaison and before that as a community advocate, I saw both the worst of NYCHA’s deferred maintenance and the reasonable operational choices management must make to fix it. Calling vacant apartments “hoarded” ignores the technical, legal and practical reasons some units must remain out of service while the agency repairs and modernizes an aging portfolio.
Context: scale and the repair reality
NYCHA is massive — roughly 170–180,000 apartments in thousands of buildings across the five boroughs. Decades of underfunding and deferred maintenance created a capital backlog that public reports and audits commonly place in the billions (many cite figures around $30–$40 billion). That backlog isn’t abstract: it shows up as leaking roofs, failing boilers, water-damaged interiors, serious mold, pervasive pest infestations, elevator outages, and lead paint and asbestos that require specialized abatement work.
Why apartments sit empty
When you peel back the “hoarding” charge, several legitimate reasons explain why units sit vacant:
- Repair staging and rehabs: Some units are taken out of service for substantial rehabilitation — sometimes partial gut rehabs, sometimes full modernization. Those projects can take months to years and require multiple trades, permits and capital funding.
- Lead and mold abatement: Units with lead paint, extensive mold, or structural hazards need abatement and clearance testing before they can be reoccupied. That is not a quick fix and requires safe relocation of residents.
- Hospitality/move-off inventory: NYCHA keeps a small pool of “hotel” or hospitality apartments to temporarily house residents displaced while their units are being repaired. Without those units, repairs would be delayed while residents wait for external hotel placements or other arrangements.
- Vacancy for sequencing and logistics: Modernization of buildings is often done in phases. Some units are held vacant to allow crews to move residents within the building or to provide temporary housing during work — an operational necessity to reduce overall project time.
- Demolition/building reconfiguration: In certain properties that qualify for redevelopment, some units are decommissioned ahead of larger site plans.
- Fraud, backlogs and mismanagement: We should be honest — poor inventory management, slow turnover processes, contractor shortfalls and yes, some misuse or underutilization have also contributed to the count of empty units. This is why transparency and oversight matter.
How much repair does a unit need — and what it costs?
Not every vacant unit needs the same level of work. Turnover work (standard cleaning, painting, replacing flooring or fixtures) can range from relatively modest costs and short timelines. But many units require much more:
- Turnover/rehab for a standard unit: a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars, and weeks to months.
- Units needing lead/mold abatement or significant structural work: costs rise rapidly (tens of thousands or more) and remediation can take months.
- Full modernization or gut rehab: can cost well into six figures per unit, depending on scope.
The takeaway: even a “few thousand” vacant apartments represent millions — if not hundreds of millions — of dollars in repair needs and coordination challenges.
Why labeling this “hoarding” is misleading
“Hoarding” suggests intentional, indefensible withholding of housing that could immediately shelter people. But many of the empty apartments are unusable without repair, potentially dangerous if reoccupied prematurely, or are deliberately preserved as temporary housing to speed repairs to other occupied units. Removing those hospitality units or forcing the immediate re-renting of every empty unit without addressing root causes would leave residents in unsafe conditions longer, slow down building-wide rehabs and likely increase long-term costs.
What needs to change
Recognizing legitimate reasons for vacancies shouldn’t be a rubber stamp. Residents and advocates are right to demand better:
- Full transparency: NYCHA must publish up-to-date, granular inventory data — how many units are vacant, why they’re vacant (abatement, rehab, hospitability, demolition), estimated completion dates and projected costs. This dispels rumor and allows public oversight.
- Faster, smarter repairs: Streamline procurement, use modular approaches where feasible, prioritize the worst units first, and improve project management to shorten timelines.
- Protect and expand hospitality resources: If temporary apartments speed repairs and get tenants back into their homes sooner, that should be part of a clear, accountable strategy — not hidden.
- Targeted capital funding: The scale of need requires sustained federal, state and city capital investment, directed toward long-term modernization and life-safety systems that reduce recurring emergencies.
- Resident-centered operations: Residents must be partners in prioritizing repairs, relocation decisions and post-rehab inspections, and must have clear interim housing rights and supports.
Conclusion
We should condemn waste, mismanagement and secrecy. But a blunt “NYCHA is hoarding thousands of apartments” narrative obscures the hard, expensive reality of repairing a half-century of neglect and the operational choices that make that possible. Empty units are not an end in themselves — they are tools. The question we should focus on is whether NYCHA is using those tools efficiently and transparently to return safe, dignified homes to its residents as quickly as possible. Based on my time in City Hall and in the community, the problem is less about an agency sitting on empty apartments and more about underfunding, poor project delivery and a need for better oversight — all fixable, if we align political will, funding and accountability.
