Is it immoral to leave the Mitchell Lama program?

As a candidate seeking to be re-elected to the board I attended the meet the candidates night on 10/22. An interesting question was raised by a shareholder who basically asked is it immoral to leave the Mitchell Lama (ML) program. The implication is that one has an opportunity to make a windfall profit from a subsidized apartment that was not originally intended to be on the private market, and simultaneously depletes middle income housing from an already dwindling supply. In order to answer that question honestly I need to ask a few first to get some perspective.

Is it immoral that a person puts their name on the affidavit of an elderly relative the last couple of years of their life to gain succession rights while those on the list wait for decades?

Is it immoral that a person who doesn't meet current family requirements keep their apartments. For instance a single individual with a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment when families need them? I acknowledge that I fall in this category, and never considered downsizing.

Is it immoral that the Doe family are struggling to pay $3,000. a month rent while someone with a $60,000. SUV in the VV parking lot is being subsidized? What's interesting is the car loan, insurance, and parking lot fee total would be greater than the standard maintenance charge for a 2 bedroom co-op.

Is it immoral that my cousin who is a millionaire lives in a 2 bedroom Southbridge Towers ML co-op by himself? Would it be immoral if he paid market rate real estate taxes instead of being subsidized?

Is it immoral that I retired at 53 and most people will have to wait until they're in their 60's or possibly never retire?

You're probably wondering what that last question has to do with the subject, but it has everything to do with it. The 25 year Civil Service retirement program was established at a time when people didn't live to a ripe old age. You could say they got rotten sooner. It is now no longer in effect. I'm sure the person who was hired 6 months after me, but needs to wait at least an additional 10 years to retire believes that change was immoral. The same is true with ML housing which was signed into law in 1955. The buy out clause allows developments to leave, but there is no provision to replace those units. As a result no new ML housing has been built in over 40 years. It's as if the writers of the law knew that once it served it's purpose it would eventually cease to exist just like my retirement plan. Rivercross in 2013 and Southbridge Towers in 2014 both voting to go private is further evidence that like all good things in life ML will come to an end sooner or later. It may not be moral or fair, but neither is life.

Additional thoughts: If you've lived here over 30 years it's like you've paid off a low interest, low down payment government approved mortgage, but without the benefits.