Part I - When Ownership Becomes Conditional: How NY City's COPA Tests a Constitutional Boundary
A 3 Part Series on NY City's Slide Into Communism by Danielle Cassase and Kim Hermance, Co-Founders & Co-Director's of Project CIVICA
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
— James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788)
On December 18, 2025, the New York City Council passed the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA). Marketed as a tenant-protection and affordability measure, COPA would fundamentally alter who controls private property transactions in New York City by inserting government-approved nonprofit entities into the sales process and restricting an owner’s ability to sell freely.
This is not a narrow housing regulation. It is a structural shift in how property rights function—one that raises serious constitutional concerns for homeowners, small landlords, and business owners alike.
What COPA Would Change
COPA would have amended the New York City Administrative Code under Title 26 (Housing and Buildings). It would have applied initially to certain multifamily residential properties and established a mandatory process that must occur before an owner may sell on the open market.
Under COPA, covered property owners would be required to:
- Notify the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) before listing a property for sale;
- Allow HPD-approved nonprofit entities an exclusive opportunity to submit an offer;
- Grant those entities a statutory right of first refusal to match third-party bids;
- Delay private transactions for government-mandated timelines;
- Face civil penalties for noncompliance.
COPA does not regulate safety, habitability, or building conditions. It regulates disposition—the right to decide when, how, and to whom property may be sold.
COPA Was Vetoed — But the Constitutional Question Remains
Following passage by the City Council, Mayor Eric Adams vetoed COPA, citing concerns about government overreach, market disruption, and the long-term consequences of inserting the City into private property transactions. That veto temporarily halted implementation of the law.
The veto, however, did not resolve the underlying constitutional question, nor did it eliminate the policy framework that COPA represents. Authority once asserted over the disposition of private property rarely disappears; it reappears in revised form, expanded scope, or administrative reinterpretation.
With the inauguration of Mayor Zohran Mamdani on January 1, 2026, New York City entered an administration that has publicly framed collectivism as a moral alternative to individual ownership and elevated tenant-movement leadership into senior policymaking roles. In his inaugural address, Mayor Mamdani explicitly contrasted what he described as “rugged individualism” with the “warmth of collectivism,” signaling an openness to policies that subordinate private property control to government-directed outcomes.²
COPA’s structure, mandatory notice, restricted exit, government-approved priority buyers, and delayed private transactions,fits squarely within those stated goals. Whether revived verbatim or reintroduced in modified form, the framework remains very much alive.
The constitutional issue, therefore, is not whether COPA is currently in effect. It is whether New York City may lawfully condition private property ownership on government approval and policy preference, even temporarily, even procedurally, and even with good intentions.
Historical print depicting British soldiers (redcoats) inside a colonial household — a powerful cultural image associated with the grievances that led to the Third Amendment.
Property and the American Constitutional Design
American resistance to government control over property did not begin with modern housing policy. It was one of the central causes of the American Revolution.
Among the most inflammatory abuses imposed by the British Crown were the Quartering Acts, which required colonists to house and accommodate British soldiers in their homes, often without consent and sometimes without compensation. These laws asserted the principle that government could commandeer private property to serve state objectives, regardless of the owner’s will.
The Founders responded by embedding property protections into the Constitution. The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent, and the Fourth Amendment secures people against unreasonable intrusion into their houses and effects.
James Madison later explained that property includes not only physical possessions but the rights attached to them—including use, enjoyment, and disposition. Property was treated not as a privilege granted by government, but as a safeguard of liberty.
“Portrait of James Madison, fourth President of the United States and key drafter of the U.S. Constitution.”
Indirect Coercion and Conditional Ownership
COPA does not seize property outright. Instead, it compels owners to open transactions to government-approved entities, restricts their ability to choose buyers freely, delays lawful private sales, and channels ownership toward favored institutional actors.
Ownership technically remains, but control becomes conditional. History shows that liberty is not lost only through violent confiscation. It is lost through gradual, lawful, administrative encroachment—the precise danger Madison warned against.
Accountability Without Transparency
COPA also creates a structural accountability problem. Public power initiates the process, but the most consequential decisions occur between private nonprofit entities and property owners, outside meaningful public oversight or open-records laws.
This diffusion of power mirrors the kind of indirect, insulated authority the Founders sought to dismantle—power exercised without transparency, accountability, or genuine consent of the governed.
Conclusion
COPA is not simply a housing policy debate. It is a constitutional question about whether property ownership in New York remains a meaningful safeguard of liberty or is becoming contingent on government approval.
A government that can dictate who you must offer your property to today can dictate how you live tomorrow.