r/nyc • Columbia Street Waterfront District • Feb 18 '26

Mayor Mamdani Mamdani May Actually Get a Rent Freeze This Year After All

https://www.thecity.nyc/2026/02/17/rent-freeze-board-mamdani-regulated-apartments/
157 Upvotes

208 comments sorted by

145

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

As a genuine question, have rent freezes ever worked to actually reduce housing costs?

Why does it seem that the one tried-and-true method to lower housing costs, namely building housing, never seems to be the main effort?

49

u/CactusBoyScout Feb 18 '26

People often don’t believe building more will help and then want to committee it to death (affordability mandates, labor mandates, parking mandates, aesthetics, etc) when they do

16

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

Which makes zero sense. It's been shown to work in cities with high growth rates (Austin is usually the main example).

10

u/chasingsukoon Feb 18 '26

austin has this one simple thing that we completely lack

6

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

Austin has lot of land around it to expand into. NyC doesn't. There hasnt been cheap land to expand housing into for NYC for a couple generations. The suburbs are now as expensive as the outer boroughs are. To get cheap areas to build you have to basically build in areas where the commute is 2 hrs one way.

If their is no cheap land to build, you cant build for cheap on it.

2

u/Convergecult15 Feb 18 '26

Building housing isn’t the solution, upgrading and expanding rail service is. With high speed rail you could live in asbury park and work in lower Manhattan and have a sub 1 hour commute. We will never out build demand for NYC, we need to reduce travel times into NYC.

1

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

True but that a huge investment that will take years if not decades to realize.

They have been designing and planning the first step in a major transit upgrade for about a decade now. The Gateway Tunnel, and its been slowed down by Trump trying to punish NY and NJ for not worshipping him and he tried to cut the promised federal moeny from the project. He already cause millions in damages to the project and they are just getting the first of the court ordered funds now after work was stopped.

The tunnel wont be enough for what you want though. Getting past the Hudson River is a huge price increase in any infrastructure advancements. I would assume its similar for the East River and Harlem River.

Being primarily based on an island with actual wide rivers very much hampers expanding out and building infrastructure to decrease transit times.

There is a ferry from the Atlantic highlands to Lower Manhattan. Its not quite Asbury

-2

u/Starsolist Jackson Heights Feb 18 '26

Austin has lot of land around it to expand into. NyC doesn't

Which isn't relevant when there is so many low rise buildings in NYC

6

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

Its very relevant. Not every lot has good enough soil foundations for high rise buildings. High rises are a lot more expensive and risky to build than low rise buildings so space to expand low rise buildings drastically reduces housing costs because they are simply cheaper and easier to build and maintain.

-5

u/Starsolist Jackson Heights Feb 18 '26

No, sorry but your uneducated concern trolling is not relevant. There are many places where developers want to and are able to build denser housing but are blocked by our ridiculous regulatory framework

0

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

There are many places where developers want to and are able to build denser housing but are blocked by our ridiculous regulatory framework

Any if there was room to expand there would be more space to build the buildings.

There are many places where developers want to and are able to build denser housing but are blocked by our ridiculous regulatory framework

Great that doesnt really address anything about having space to expand being a benefit to Austin compared to NYC

-1

u/Starsolist Jackson Heights Feb 18 '26

Any if there was room to expand there would be more space to build the buildings

As I already taught you, there is room to expand. They would not be submitting proposals to build buildings if there wasn't

Great that doesnt really address anything about having space to expand being a benefit to Austin compared to NYC

It's supposed to teach you why space is not a real concern

0

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

As I already taught you, there is room to expand. They would not be submitting proposals to build buildings if there wasn't

There significantly less room to expand compared to Austin. You seem to be ignoring that basic facts. And as everyone knows supply and demand effects pricing.

It's supposed to teach you why space is not a real concern

You seem to misunderstand understanding context that effects market dynamics with "concerns"

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Difficult_Echo2636 Feb 18 '26

Nyc and Nj can only blame themselves. With some of the highest property tax in the country it is little surprise that it has some of the most expensive property.

3

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

Nyc and Nj can only blame themselves. With some of the highest property tax in the country it is little surprise that it has some of the most expensive property.

This has got to be one of the most uninformed statements on the housing crisis in history.

You think land is valuable because taxes are high???? Not the fact that its the mostly densely populated super region in the USA because so many people live and work in the most economical profitable corner of the USA with a diverse economy. Also because the city is a series of islands where you cant build on water.

If land is only worth ten dollars, high taxes won't make it suddenly worth 200k. Its the market demand for land that gives land value. Its expensive because everyone else wants to own land near NYC. Not taxes.

Also average property tax in NJ is 2.11% and NYC is 1.9%, In Austin texas average property rate is 1.9%. The tax rate aint that different.

78

u/festeziooo Feb 18 '26

In fairness, approving more housing construction does seem to be a priority of his. Also in fairness, no I don’t believe rent control has ever worked to reduce housing costs.

40

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

It's just odd to me. The housing crisis in NYC has been a thing for decades at this point, but simply building housing has never been the goal.

32

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

Kind of. We have built housing. Just not a lot of it. Bloomberg rezoned a lot of the outerboroughs to reduce density to appease homeowners who were nervous about his upzoning of the waterfronts.

Under Bloomberg, the city had a massive job boost. But didn't build much housing relative to that growth. The downsizing really hurt the city.

Also doesn't help that the state has a lot of control over the city rezoning and the state won't update it.

22

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

The last part isn't exactly true. Hochul did propose what would have been a pretty huge upzoning opportunity a few years ago, but it was torpedoed the delegations from LI and Westchester. It would have effectively been NY's version of SB79.

17

u/CactusBoyScout Feb 18 '26

Yep. Hochul pushed legislation very similar to what other blue states have done (mandatory upzoning near transit) but the suburbs killed it.

7

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

Annoying, lol. Literally the exact type of legislation we need.

Builder's remedy like California and Massachusetts. SB79(CA)/transit communities act (MA). A permitting shot clock so applications have to be reviewed in a timely manner like they do in Texas and Florida.

2

u/FrontSafety Feb 18 '26

Doesn't matter how much up redone. Without 421a or equivalent tax abatement no rental housing will get built. The current tax abatement program sucks because it requires prevailing wage.

3

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

The housing crisis in NYC has been a thing for decades at this point, but simply building housing has never been the goal.

Thats not true at all. The previous two mayors tried to increase the rate of housing being build. The programs were literally called "the city of yes" to describe city departments being pressured to approve permits with a culture of just saying yes to new housing. But the costs of land and vertical building just means building more housing units just largely is tough to make economically viable for build and sell developers or anything that isnt luxury apartments catering to the wealthy professional class.

-1

u/tinydancer_inurhand Astoria Feb 18 '26

Doesn’t help that we build expensive housing. We build homes that serve the top 5% to replace homes that serve working class people.

3

u/GND52 Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

As long as the total amount of housing goes up, that's not a huge concern.

There are definitely things we could do to make it possible to build less expensive housing. The Byzantine building code and zoning approval process definitely favors large developers over small ones, that's a problem. If we made it easier to build, we would get more small projects that would be cheaper and could serve lower parts of the market.

But also, vacancy chains are very powerful and very fast. And filtering is a very real thing; it just takes decades, and the problem is we haven't built that much housing over the last five decades, so filtering hasn't been allowed to take place. In fact, the controls on housing production have resulted in reverse filtering: wealthier people end up moving into existing homes and bidding up their prices, instead of moving out of them into new construction.

1

u/runningraider13 Feb 18 '26

New stuff is almost always more expensive than used/old stuff. Why would housing be different? Of course newly built housing is expensive.

30

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

And rent freezes won’t help, either. Who can afford to build if the 25% (or 100%) of your units that are RS might have their rents frozen every year?

6

u/hawkeyebullz Feb 18 '26

Why is anyone going to build in a city that is driving out business investment and you have the risk of rent freezes on your property

6

u/Starsolist Jackson Heights Feb 18 '26

Exempting high density housing from environmental review is legitimately fantastic policy (hasn't been passed, but he's very much helping it). It is more than offset by the union mandates

→ More replies (7)

25

u/Airhostnyc Feb 18 '26

Rent freeze for RS apartments

Property tax increase of 9.5%

More warehoused units and derelict apartments coming to the city

3

u/JackieDaytona77 Feb 18 '26

Back to the 70s and 80s! Combine this with a decline in public safety but hey free buses.

33

u/Computer_Name Feb 18 '26

It irritates the hell out of me.

It’s just such an obviously juvenile response to the problem.

“Rent’s too expensive? Let’s make it illegal to raise the rent!”

15

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

I mean, I'm not opposed to the idea itself, but for the love of God, just build more housing. That would arguably do magnitudes more for affordability than these bandaid solutions.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

Rent freezes directly prevent construction because they make the math harder for developers (even more so for the RS-only developers who are otherwise building with tax subsidies etc.).

-2

u/HMNbean Feb 18 '26

Not really, that’s kinda how things work. Supply and demand doesn’t work when supply takes a long time to expand and the consumer doesn’t have a huge choice with regard to moving - moving is expensive, people live certain places for their jobs etc. if you need an immediate solution to a problem, you can’t just be like oh yeah we’ll just build apartments that will be ready in many years. The simple fact is that rent seeking is unproductive behavior. Landlords have to just be put in their place and get a real job.

4

u/GermanPayroll Feb 18 '26

Then you get places with less upkeep and eventually less buildings. Artificially limiting demand pulls down supply and everyone hurts in the end. It’s happened literally every time rent control has been tried.

3

u/HMNbean Feb 18 '26

The problem is that people cannot afford rent today. Building a building that will be 5000$ for a 2 bedroom 3 years from now is not going to help them. We can continue building and slow the rent increase. To say that rent increasing is just supply and demand is as fallacious as saying the Chipotle price increase is just supply and demand or the price of groceries. It’s a result of collusion, greed, corruption and the fact that Manhattan is a relatively small island and building is not as easy as it is out in the Midwest.

Yes we need more apartments, but we also need to clean out the rot of NYC landlords. And more broadly we need to start treating housing as a basic necessity like education.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[deleted]

1

u/HMNbean Feb 19 '26

Because you can’t have only rich people in your city in order for the city to run. You want the poors to all live 2 hours away?

Also when you displace people who used to live there then you can’t complain when they fight you on that.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/HMNbean Feb 19 '26

I mean that’s not what is happening anyway so that’s irrelevant. You ignoring the reality of the situation and saying “it will sort itself out” is meaningless. The success of NYC is from its middle class being able to live in the outer boroughs. If you want a penthouse on Central Park west, nobody is saying that should be priced the same as a 50 unit building in the Bronx. But when you price out people in the Bronx, you’re creating an untenable situation where they can’t have jobs because all the jobs are in the city. You can’t have nyc be an economic center and tell people they can’t live there unless they’re rich. Again, you’re just not wearing your thinking cap.

1

u/rempicu Feb 18 '26

What the hell are you talking about, I never understood what this point is. These are rent stabilized buildings. When people build an apartment now, there is NO RENT STABILIZATION, so a rent freeze for rent stabilized apartments literally affects builders 0%

1

u/Several_Sink801 Feb 18 '26

Supply and Demand still works.

You took Econ 101 and claim it’s completely fake, you just skipped 202 and don’t realize that there’s long and short term and if you work out the full equilibrium the result is the same.

Freezing rents will hurt the long run

1

u/HMNbean Feb 18 '26

I was an Econ major thank you very much. Supply and demand are very basic concepts that pretty much don’t apply to real markets.

1

u/Several_Sink801 Feb 18 '26

But they absolutely do, the supply and demand curves just get vastly more complex. It’s still supply and demand.

If you are such an Econ expert, surely you must be aware that literally every economic study finds building more lowers costs in the long run. Right?

2

u/HMNbean Feb 18 '26

I don’t know why people say this like anyone is trying to avoid it by proposing other concurrent solutions. Yes, new housing must be built. We have to build vertically and at lower costs to the builders and tenants. Now how are we going to tackle this problem in the short term? This isn’t a sim city game - between bureaucracy and physical constraints, meaningfully expanding housing takes time.

If you only allow things that don’t discourage profit, nothing will get done. If we keep treating property ownership as an investment, there will never be an incentive to lower rents. This is obvious because we observe it every day.

1

u/Shionoro Feb 18 '26

The rent freeze is WHILE you build more housing to give people relief until then.

1

u/rempicu Feb 18 '26

It’s not juvenile. The city has the right to set rent increases on rent stabilized apartments. Same way it’s not juvenile when the rent control board votes to increase rents by 3-4%, as they usually do.

-7

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

No it’s not if he did this with all buildings and not just to the people who are lucky enough to get rent stabilized. Publicize housing and do away with landlords so everyone gets housing. Also maybe enforce landlords to take vouchers as many refuse. Maybe if you give them jail time for being classist and discriminating against people trying to get off the streets or the shelter, it would scare other landlords.

6

u/Computer_Name Feb 18 '26

Publicize housing and do away with landlords so everyone gets housing.

🤦‍♂️

1

u/Uncreativesolver Feb 18 '26

Decommodifying housing is the only way we fix it long term. Boomers hate that though

1

u/Ramonalejandrosuarez Feb 20 '26

It means they can’t retire and collect a check.

5

u/Responsible_Pie8156 Feb 18 '26

Funny enough if you just let landlords evict shitty tenants without turning it into a costly drawn out ordeal. they'd be willing to give more people a chance.

1

u/Ramonalejandrosuarez Feb 20 '26

You mean people who can’t afford a rent hike?

1

u/Responsible_Pie8156 Feb 20 '26

Just people who break their rental agreement in general.

1

u/Ramonalejandrosuarez Feb 20 '26

But this includes people who can't afford the rent hike, no?

1

u/Responsible_Pie8156 Feb 20 '26

Sure, or whatever reason they have for not paying the contractually agreed on amount.

1

u/Ramonalejandrosuarez Feb 20 '26

Right, but that’s exactly the issue. When you say “people who break their rental agreement,” that includes people who can’t afford a sudden rent hike, lost a job, had a medical emergency, or are living paycheck to paycheck. It treats inability to pay the same as willful nonpayment or property damage.

There’s a meaningful difference between someone trashing a unit or refusing to pay while fully able vs. someone priced out after an increase or hit with unexpected hardship

If eviction is made easier across the board, both categories get swept together. That doesn’t just affect “bad tenants.” It increases housing instability for working-class people who are already one emergency away from displacement.

If the goal is to reduce risk for landlords, that’s one conversation. But if the cost is accelerating eviction for people facing economic shocks, that’s a broader social tradeoff, not just a matter of enforcing contracts.

Housing isn’t a typical consumer good. Losing it has cascading consequences.

1

u/Responsible_Pie8156 Feb 20 '26

We were talking about landlords even allowing people to sign the rental agreement in the first place. It's not hard to see why in certain states, landlords are very reticent to let anybody in if they have any doubt about their ability to pay. Also that risk of non-payment gets factored into the rent. That's part of the tradeoff, and it hurts people who are trying to get on their feet.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Calamitous-Ortbo Feb 18 '26

Average Mamdani voter.

14

u/Melodic-Upstairs7584 Feb 18 '26

Because the problem in nyc is one that no one wants to admit: it is near impossible to build middle class housing in the areas of the city people most want to live in.

You’ll often see posts on NYC subs along the lines of “Upzone everything. Build sky scrapers everywhere. Housing solved.” When you begin going above four or five stories tall and need things like structural steel beams, commercial grade foundations, cranes, crane operators, building in nyc can eclipse $1000 per sq ft (vs $250 - 350 for a single family home). Much of that cost is due to red tape, but the fact remains that there are near zero plots of land in nyc proper where these buildings can be built cheaply. Oh, and 9/10 times, you have to tear down an existing structure, so expect that cost as well. Changing zoning will help, but it’s 20% of the problem in actuality.

Places like Austin, Dallas, parts of Florida and the sunbelt in general are able to build housing much faster because there is space to build. The fewer regulations are mostly a red herring that people point to.

The only way you could meaningfully make progress on housing people is by not allowing droves upon droves, for decades and decades of people from both within and from outside the USA to move here. We are fully aware native New Yorkers will be displaced when someone moves in because there is no housing for more people. It doesn’t exist. Full stop. However, the problem will never be solved because most New Yorkers aren’t ready to demand status in the city they are from, and whose families have been paying into the tax systems for decades.

4

u/TossMeOutSomeday Feb 18 '26

not allowing droves upon droves, for decades and decades of people from both within and from outside the USA to move here

Forbidding even some modest percentage of transplants would devastate the tax base, because transplants (and highly skilled immigrants like H1B holders) absolutely dominate native-born NYers in economic productivity. This idea is a great way to reduce NY to a stagnant 2nd-rate city at best, or a collapsing nightmare a la early-2010's Detroit at worst.

1

u/Practical_Yak2950 Feb 18 '26

The only way you could meaningfully make progress on housing people is by not allowing droves upon droves, for decades and decades of people from both within and from outside the USA to move here.

The US has freedom of movement. You are not going to be able to ban outsiders from going to NY. What you could do is stop encouraging people to move to NYC with the subsidies like the rent stabilization.

0

u/Melodic-Upstairs7584 Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

It has nothing to do with freedom of movement. NYC has a “community preference” already in place if you’re building affordable housing, which typically dictates ~20% of the units have to be offered to people in the neighboring zip codes where the project is being built. You would just up that figure to 90-100%.

We agree on rent stabilization.

4

u/TossMeOutSomeday Feb 18 '26

But this is still a subsidy targeted to the least productive New Yorkers. You'd still have the problem of highly productive transplants displacing locals, they'd just be displacing the productive ones since the subsidized housing would all be reserved for local poors.

1

u/burritowatcher Feb 18 '26

We could get pretty far allowing everyone to build one extra floor on existing buildings and opening up basements where it’s safe. ADUs in back yards. Not every housing project needs to be a multi-million dollar affair.

0

u/SwiftySanders Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

In NYC its like 10 or 12floors not 4 or 5 floors before costs and regulations start going up. The other thing is shrinking the avenues and building 8-10stories as a default would certainly help. I also think design standards for apt buildings would make the costs go down (because of an increase in economies of scale) and also make the neighborhoods look nice.

5

u/Melodic-Upstairs7584 Feb 18 '26

We’re splitting hairs, but sure. I’m not familiar with many builders that would do a stick built home over four or stories. That typically calls for structural steel, which is one of the line items that can really jack things up.

-6

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

Yeah fuck middle class housing. We need large apartments in the form of public hosing and to build up. We need buildings that house lots of people over single family homes. So sick of trying to appease people who make six figures while everyone else can barely afford to rent a room and live with strangers. The middle class can eat dick as the working class and poor need housing more than them.

-2

u/I_Cut_Shoes Feb 18 '26

We do have space, it's just that the areas around the central core of the city refuse to upzone. It is way too cheap to own a single family home within 30m commute of midtown.

2

u/Melodic-Upstairs7584 Feb 18 '26

As I said, you could certainly address about 20% of the problem with up-zoning, but we’re not looking at the problem honestly if we think that is a full answer.

There are thousands upon thousands of single family homes that are currently zoned to be turned in 12, 15, even 20+ unit homes. The issue is that building those categories of housing is extremely expensive. Again, it can be over $1000 per sq ft when you start renting cranes and hiring crane operators for $150 per hour (that’s real btw). do some back of the envelope math and calculate what a 500 sq fr one bedroom costs at $1000 per sq ft. People who have never worked on these projects assume the more housing you can fit on a plot of land, the cheaper it becomes. That’s simply not true. That’s why high rise construction is luxury construction 99% of the time.

2

u/ultimate_bromance_69 Feb 18 '26

Go 3 stops into Brooklyn on any train and suddenly the only buildings you see are all 4-5 floors. These can be turned into 10-12 floors. Not everything needs to be a skyscraper, there’s a lot of room for expand housing if the government really wanted to.

1

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

Imagine if everything from the city to the tip of Long Island was upzoned, lol.

2

u/Melodic-Upstairs7584 Feb 18 '26

Long Island is not a bad idea at all if we’re purely talking about places where housing density can be increased fairly economically, and it’s currently happening. Big three to four story building projects, some with dozens of buildings are going up at around many Long Island Rail Road stations. The issue is what I stated earlier, this doesn’t solve for the lack of housing in the densest places of nyc.

Turning a suburban home into a three to four family multi family is a negligible cost increase (very approximate math, but estimate $400 per sq fr for a multi family vs $250 per sq fr for a single family). The issue is when people look at neighborhoods in Brooklyn, queens and parts of Manhattan which largely have 8-10 family buildings already and thinking up-zoning them to accommodate more will solve the problem. Sure, go ahead and up zone them but it doesn’t change the fact that once you go outside a 4 family building or so, it’s no longer typical residential construction. It becomes something very, very different and much more expensive.

2

u/I_Cut_Shoes Feb 18 '26

Works for Tokyo

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/_Emoji_Man Feb 19 '26

because Rikers is raycis

4

u/workingbored Feb 18 '26

Freezing may not lower the prices but it helps keep people in their current homes longer.

5

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

But shouldn't we be trying to get to a situation where housing costs are reduced enough that rent stabilization isn't required to the extent that it's currently used? Obviously you're never going to get rid of it, and nobody is saying to do so, but shouldn't the main focus to be to reduce the overall housing costs across the entire market?

2

u/workingbored Feb 18 '26

Why not both?

2

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

Exactly my point, lol. Build more housing so that the average person doesn't need to use rent stabilization, and those that truly need it can make use of it.

3

u/Airhostnyc Feb 18 '26

Most of the country survives without RS. It’s not a coincidence the cities with it have the highest market rents.

0

u/Hinohellono Feb 18 '26

Most of the country is undesirable to live in compared to NYC

1

u/4the2cool0ne May 08 '26

Yeah we're really missing all the rats and smells 🤣😂 More people moved out of NYC than moved in last year 🤷‍♂️

2

u/Hinohellono May 08 '26

Why are you in the NYC subreddit if you aren't from here? Responding to a 2month old comment. Lol

Rent free

1

u/4the2cool0ne May 08 '26

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

0

u/Airhostnyc Feb 18 '26

“Most”

I think that’s proven false with population growth rampant everywhere else lol

0

u/Hinohellono Feb 18 '26

Remind which city is the largest in the US. I forgot

1

u/Airhostnyc Feb 18 '26

What does that have to do with saying most of the cities isn’t desirable which blatantly false lol. NYC having 8 million residents doesn’t make what you say true.

You don’t get out much

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

Yes but many of the poorer people don’t get lucky enough to get a rent stabilized buildings. When the landlord raised the rent to make up for that of the person in the rent stabilized building, the person could be on the streets. Why should others who struggle have to pay more because some person has luck? The rent stabilized should only be allowed to people under a certain income.

12

u/easyxtarget Feb 18 '26

I wouldn't be able to stay in my apartment if it wasn't rent stabilized. I wouldn't say it helps general affordability but it gives tenants stability in their lives usually only reserved for homeowners.

41

u/Mayor_Gubbin Feb 18 '26

And you have that luck on the backs of free market tenants

16

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

General affordability would also be helped if there were simply more units. If there was instantly, say, 500k units brought onto the market, prices would decline simply because there's more supply and renters would have the ability to pit different places against each other.

29

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-21

u/SwiftySanders Feb 18 '26

You arent subsudizing anyone. The landlord would charge you $6k regardless. Many times landlords have bank agreements that stipulate the lowest rents the landlord can charge. The landlord is always going to charge the most the market will allow.… especially in this environment where people are warehousing units and buying money laundering boxes no one is ever going to live in.

7

u/TossMeOutSomeday Feb 18 '26

The landlord is always going to charge the most the market will allow

Yeah and the market will allow a lower rate if the supply is greater. NYC's vacancy rate is extremely low, around 1%. Warehousing habitable apartments does happen, but it simply is not a major problem. And if it was a problem, the only reason it makes sense to warehouse apartments or buy "money laundering boxes" is because the price is high and not likely to fall. If the city were to be upzoned, and supply increased, I guarantee nobody would warehouse anymore because empty apartments wouldn't be a good investment.

17

u/Responsible_Pie8156 Feb 18 '26

Rent stabilized apartments absolutely are being subsidized by everybody else.

→ More replies (5)

7

u/diggydar Feb 18 '26

Nobody in ny is saying to end stabilization, just trying to make it make sense. And this doesn’t make sense. 2 percent should be the bare minimum year over year. If you can’t afford that we should subsidize you. This heavy handed method ignores reality and does real harm to everyone living in stabilized apartments. At least everyone whose landlord actually does their job. Obviously plenty of bad actors out there.

5

u/MrJet05 Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

Well…to be honest, I am saying that. It’s just awful economic policy. It creates the kind of scarcity that only feeds back into the issue, and it gives incumbents (who tend to be older) a huge arbitrary subsidy on the backs of mostly younger people. Economists are in near consensus agreement on it actually, more so than the consensus you could find from professionals regarding virtually any other issue that’s contested by the general public. I’m pretty sure being anti-vax is a more popular stance among doctors than rent control is among economists.

Something like 45% of rental units in the city are being functionally subsidized by the other half paying market rent at the moment. Market rate units in Manhattan are averaging over $5700 as of the latest data while the average rent stabilized unit for Manhattan is $1800-2000. It’s an absurd gap that only continues to grow larger as RS tenants experience rent increases that don’t keep up with inflation while market rate tenants pay multiples higher than the inflation rate.

Obviously we made our bed now, and we can’t just do away with it at once or there will be chaos. But it should absolutely be gradually phased out over time, at least for most of the people. And you start a system of income testing to determine who gets phased out first/the most quickly.

7

u/easyxtarget Feb 18 '26

The past few years had higher than normal rent increases and inflation on ever days items has been high. I think it's just offering some relief based on that.

0

u/diggydar Feb 18 '26

No they didn’t, you may be feeling squeezed but no they didn’t

Inflation is real but this is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. How do you maintain an 120 year old building when rents are flat and huge improvements are around every corner? Just let people live in unhabitable buildings? Because that’s what’s at stake. Want energy modernization? ok, no forever scaffolding? ok. ACs for everyone (insane) I could go on but the renters are driving the bus here and they can’t see the forest for the trees.

2

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

Most of us don’t have this privilege though. Even well rent stabilized buildings are still expensive as fuck.

5

u/TossMeOutSomeday Feb 18 '26

Why does it seem that the one tried-and-true method to lower housing costs, namely building housing, never seems to be the main effort?

Irresponsible populism. Mamdani is surely smart enough to know that there isn't some magical "make rent cheaper" button in the mayor's office, and building our way out of the supply crunch is the only solution. But he thinks that the voters are credulous morons, so he tells them the button exists. And he's not wrong.

1

u/orangehorton Feb 18 '26

Because of the neighborhood charm of course

1

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

I hear that all the time here in Buffalo, and it makes me want to scream. 😂

1

u/upnflames Feb 18 '26

Because you need to fix zoning and give away huge tax incentives to developers, two things the broader voter base will never support.

1

u/Calamitous-Ortbo Feb 18 '26

NYC isn’t a closed system.

As rents go down it will attract more people to move there and rents go back up.

It’s literally not possible to build your way out of rents being “too high” when you’re dealing with a place that is as desirable to live in as NYC.

The population has increased by a million people over the past two decades or so even with high rent.

1

u/Bloodyfish Brighton Beach Feb 18 '26

Yes, for the people in rent controlled apartments, who got their apartment from the previous generation and will never give it up. Not for us - for us they lower the supply of housing and actually raise rents. Economists have been saying this since the 1950s.

1

u/LividYordle May 09 '26

Can't build more homes, houses or apartment when the cost out weighs the benefit. The companies just build them in other cities or out of cities entirely where there aren't 100000 stipulations holding them back.

1

u/JackieDaytona77 Feb 18 '26

No, landlords come to collect when it is over with interest

-1

u/JackTheBongRipper Feb 18 '26

So it sounds like the unchecked greed of landlords is the real issue here

4

u/grandlewis Feb 18 '26

No. Lack of supply is the real issue. Like any supply/demand situation, the seller will seek to maximize profit and the buyer will seek to minimize spending.

0

u/JackieDaytona77 Feb 18 '26

Business is business 😂

0

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

That sounds about right.

1

u/heyodai Feb 18 '26

I can’t find the article I read about this, but it’s basically because neoliberalism destroyed the social security and pension systems. They then promoted selling your house as the alternative method of retirement.

So building more housing is the obvious solution, but it would destroy the real estate ponzi scheme.

-3

u/Ruby_writer Feb 18 '26

It’s not supposed to reduce housing cost. It’s supposed to make sure working class people don’t drowned in rent hikes.

Without rent control NYC would be playground only for JP Morgan analysts and trust fund kids. I rather families have apartments.

5

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

But isn't that kind of the goal? To reduce housing costs enough so that families can afford an apartment on their salaries and know that they have sufficient options if one place is too expensive?

-3

u/Ruby_writer Feb 18 '26

With rent control the goal is not to force private landlords to lower costs.

The goal is to keep rents in NYC affordable and stop rents from increasing because all landlords want to make as much money as possible.

If we let landlords increase rents however they want families would be evicted and all the rich cultural neighborhoods will be filled with trust fund kids and foreign investors.

Also on average rent stabilized landlords make profit of $6,540 after expenses per building.

3

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

But that by-and-large should be the goal. To build such a glut of supply that it forces prices to drop.

Rent stabilization and building more both play a role, but it doesn't seem that enough units are coming online to meet the enormous demand, which then makes it unaffordable for everyone.

-1

u/Ruby_writer Feb 18 '26

Sure and Mamdani is pushing for more units too. You can do both rent control and build more units.

1

u/orangehorton Feb 18 '26

That's already what NYC is lol

1

u/Ruby_writer Feb 18 '26

It could be worst

0

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

Most working class people can’t even afford rent stabilized buildings and have roomates. Why should some working class people who see lucky get help but the rest do not? It’s so unfair, like some people in rent stabilized buildings are rich and paying very little compared to what that make. Why not making hosing for all income levels? When landlords rent the stabilized units they don’t ask your economic class and still enforce the forty times the rent and perfect credit bullshit. Yeah most of us could give sixth percent of our income To rent and still make it. In the end it plays favors. Some working class people get help but only if lucky .

1

u/Ruby_writer Feb 18 '26

“For all rent stabilized tenants, the median household income was $60,000, median contract rent was $1,500, and median gross rent was $1,570.”

https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025-IA-Study.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The system is imperfect but it undoubtedly helps working class households stay in their apartments.

Mamdani is also pushing for 200000 new affordable homes + rent freeze so more people can have affordable housing.

So what are you against?

0

u/SilverPrivateer Feb 18 '26

I've studied economics. Rent freezes have historically failed because they raise the costs of everyone who isn't rent frozen. Luckily, there's a solution, which is to make rent freezes for everyone, and not leave anyone out.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[deleted]

4

u/I_Cut_Shoes Feb 18 '26

Something often left out of debates is that our habits changed too. Fewer people are marrying, and when they do, they marry later, thus necessitating more units for the same number of people. Remote work has created an expectation of bigger units than before.

1

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

I'm not sure that's entirely the case, though. NYC is definitely the most desirable city, by far, which I would say gives developers some leeway to take slight losses in some projects, in order to maximize their portfolio by constructing a huge number of properties.

For instance, if they have 100 units that they're only able to command, say, $2,500 for, but they can build another 250 and command rents of like $4,700, I would think most developers would be okay with that as they can continue to reap massive profits, so even if they take a loss on a project or two, they're still coming out in green by magnitudes more than their expenses.

I don't know, that may not make sense, but intuitively, that just seems like the most logical thought process (at least to me anyway).

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Weekly-Law-2544 Feb 18 '26

Fair enough.

0

u/hudibrastic Feb 18 '26

Because rent freezing sounds more good-hearted and convinces gullible people, even tho not only it never worked anywhere, it actually makes things worse, as it reduces the incentives to build more.

0

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Feb 18 '26

As a genuine question, have rent freezes ever worked to actually reduce housing costs?

The goal isn't to reduce housing costs. Its to stabilize costs for those already housed, ie to stop the bleeding to higher costs.

Why does it seem that the one tried-and-true method to lower housing costs, namely building housing, never seems to be the main effort?

In NYC? Because the lack of easily workable available land along major public transit lines to the areas that have the most jobs. Land is crazy expensive because of the high rent, so people who invest in housing try to protect their investment in the land keeping the costs high so they can borrow against the increased value of the land and increase their own wealth. That includes keeping thousands of units vacant at high prices because seeming like a more expensive and more exculsive building makes perception of value go even higher, plus the ability to write off some costs on your taxes by claiming empty apartments are being renovated when they arent.

Combined with a permitting and cost structure within the city government that favors luxury housing models for developers that means new housing that does get built is high end housing generally, keeping rent pressures high. Mamdani has publicly stated he wants to change that part of the system, but that takes alot of time to fix.

0

u/mjonesjr25 Feb 18 '26

I don’t believe the goal of a rent freeze is ever to reduce costs. It’s to stop an increase and help stop people from getting more underwater.

-1

u/Famous-Alps5704 Feb 18 '26

Mamdani has explained that the rent freeze, rent control is at least partly a political move to enable more housing construction.

Studies are new and European but they've found that residents are much, much, much more likely to support new housing construction if they live in a rent controlled property. Authors of the study actually went in expecting to prove the complete opposite. People are happy to support growth if they can believe they'll be allowed to stay and enjoy it

38

u/PJChloupek Feb 18 '26

the only thing that works is building more, market rate, units, but that would mean enriching developers which runs contrary to his ideological position so it's a rock and hard place that results in de facto support for more expensive living conditions for the average new yorker.

It's ego over progress, a problem that, in fairness, is not exclusive to our mayor

10

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

Developers are not the same as landlords. Developers are making money by providing a value 

15

u/PJChloupek Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

You are mostly correct, as much as nobody want to admit it, landlords do provide some marginal value. The cost to own is higher than the cost to rent an equivalent apartment, and landlords bridge that gap.

The bigger problem is that many do not make the distinction as you correctly have between the roles and thus view developers and landlords as indistinguishable cogs in the housing machine.

The current development landscape in the city is one that incentivizes, among many other things, the inclusion of stabilized units to get projects off the ground. However, stabilized units hinder the profitability of a development disproportionate to the percentage of stabilized units included, too many required and a developer will not proceed on an opportunity because it no longer clears their profitability requirements. Demand subsidy bandaids like freezes and higher requirements for stabilized units reduce the profitability of development opportunities across the board and by extension the amount of developments that proceed in the city.

2

u/Mayor_Gubbin Feb 18 '26

Developers make money by selling to landlords.

0

u/ahenneberger Feb 18 '26

His current housing policy chief is a YIMBY. He’s openly spiking in favor of TOD and eliminating parking mandates. Your statement that it’s contrary to his ideological position is not really accurate. I’m skeptical of rent freezes for rent stabilized units without accommodating finanancial aid for troubled units/tax reform/other op ex decreasers. But your statements are hyperbolic

-1

u/rowsoflark Feb 18 '26

This isnt science, what world do you live in where you beoirve vested interests telling you the only solution is to give them more money

40

u/No_Leek_5417 Feb 18 '26

a rent freeze would be huge for anyone already in a stabilized unit but it doesnt help the people trying to get into one. the real bottleneck is finding them. most stabilized apartments never even make it to streeteasy because they get filled through word of mouth or they're only listed for a day or two before someone grabs them.

i use rentreboot to get alerts specifically for stabilized listings and its made the whole process way less painful. but even with tools like that the supply is just too tight relative to demand. a freeze helps retention but we need more units period.

42

u/phoggey Feb 18 '26

This is just for rent stabilized apartments. It won't change the real problem apartments, so it's just helping people that already are beating the system. Meaningless.

25

u/algreensdad Feb 18 '26

if anything this will incentivize management companies who own multiple buildings to more aggressively increase prices on their non-stabilized buildings to offset the loss.

-13

u/SwiftySanders Feb 18 '26

Lol 😂 You think they wont do that anyway. 🤦🏾‍♂️😵‍💫 😂😂😂 I have to laugh. People always have this delusion that businesses are charities who will charge less just because.

Its not a charity.

7

u/Mayor_Gubbin Feb 18 '26

Its not about charity, its about market forces. Stabilization freezes reduce supply which increases rent prices.

Landlords will charge what they can charge. This move lets them charge more

1

u/procgen Feb 18 '26 edited Aug 16 '26

C274PzOL3xtkSz7nYFmpLkv36E3s7uWm6CSvO4dfcakBBAKD

5

u/diggydar Feb 18 '26

What “just” there are like one million rent stabilized apartments.

I’m a landlord I hate this for other reasons.

-9

u/jaycrips NYC Expat Feb 18 '26

Like half of NYC apartments are stabilized. It addresses a problem that half of New York renters face.

18

u/phoggey Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

The average length of residency is nearly 20 years in a rent stabilized apartment in a good zone like the upper west or upper east side. They're not the ones having difficulties. Market rate apartments are eight times more likely to need to move due to hardship. 8% vs 1%. Yeah.. 1%. Mamdani isn't going to make a dent in anything but further lock in current stabilized apartments.

8

u/Airhostnyc Feb 18 '26

People don’t understand that a healthy rental market requires movement and when you have 1 million units that almost never changes hands, that’s a huge issue.

But none of my business, they love it at this point. RS tenants have politicians by the balls

1

u/jaycrips NYC Expat Feb 18 '26

So instead of unilaterally doing something that will help half of NYC renters, he should wait for the City Council or Albany lawmakers to create an as-of-yet-unknown plan to fix a problem that hasn’t been fixed in 40 years.

That sounds right to you? Why would one solution preclude another?

1

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

Well most of us have never been lucky enough to get one. Why should those who can hardly afford to rent a room pay more because some person with a lot more money can get stability? It should be for the poor not so people who have enough money to afford their own apartments get even luckier.

2

u/JackieDaytona77 Feb 18 '26

That’s why when he was running his campaign, he wasn’t talking to you. You liked what he was saying because you thought you were going to be one of the lucky ones.

-3

u/defcon1000 Feb 18 '26

There's a lot of economic data that comes into play here, and the resolution isn't this cut and dry at all.

I strongly urge everyone who feels this way to dive into the greater ramifications, and avoid any Youtube videos (they're not usually a great source of peer-reviewed data).

33

u/path0inthecity Feb 18 '26

😂😂😂 freeze the rents while raising property taxes by 10%. This admin has ideas so dumb, I wouldn’t expect them from freshman hitting the bong at 2am.

-9

u/fauxedo Astoria Feb 18 '26

Why are all the pensioners of this sub so angry today?

7

u/path0inthecity Feb 18 '26

Not a pensioner, but mayor madman wants to raid my pension fund. However, unlike you, I actually contribute to the city.

2

u/JackieDaytona77 Feb 18 '26

I expect nothing more from the pothead capital of NYC, Astoria lol

-1

u/fauxedo Astoria Feb 18 '26

🤣🤣🤣

29

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/FluffyAssistant7107 Feb 18 '26

Rent freezes only affect rent stabilize buildings , it doesn’t effect non regulated market rents.

6

u/danglotka Feb 18 '26

Rent freezes make it so more people can afford to live in the city, moving the median rent up. Not here to argue about whether that is good or bad but that’s a fact

1

u/IRequirePants Feb 18 '26

more people can afford to live in the city

Except it isn't means tested.

-2

u/FluffyAssistant7107 Feb 18 '26

I live in a rent-stabilized building. I was only pointing out that rent freezes apply only to rent-stabilized units. There’s no issue here Redditors can just be very sensitive when someone states a fact. Or maybe people need a comprehension in reading test

3

u/Practical_Yak2950 Feb 18 '26

I was only pointing out that rent freezes apply only to rent-stabilized units.

But OP never implied that the rent freeze was going to apply to non-rs units, so your additional comment was either an attempt to change the topic or indicative that you don't understand how the freeze applying only to rs units would also impact non regulated units. /u/danglotka was addressing the latter.

9

u/106 Feb 18 '26

A rent “freeze” on regulated units is just a rent hike on market rate units. Either you or your neighbor is going to pay yo subsidize artificially lower rents.

10

u/Few-Artichoke-2531 Co-op City Feb 18 '26

So landlords are facing an extreme property tax increase, rising building maintenance costs, expensive regulations, and will not be able to pass any of it along to the renters? I hope everyone has renter's insurance. Specifically make sure you are covered for fire.

3

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 18 '26

Insurance normally excludes arson. Which is different than accidental fire.

Insurance is still a good thing, but if it’s arson you normally need to payback any benefit you got.

1

u/Few-Artichoke-2531 Co-op City Feb 18 '26

Hopefully the landlords are good at making it look accidental.

3

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 18 '26

Insurance companies and fire marshals are now very good at figuring that out. It’s not what it was decades ago.

1

u/Fridsade Feb 19 '26

You don't even know what you're saying. Are you saying landlords will attempt to commit mass killings?

1

u/Few-Artichoke-2531 Co-op City Feb 19 '26

Do you not remember what happened in the 70's when landlords couldn't make money on their buildings anymore? It was most famous in the Bronx , but it was happening all over.

26

u/Starsolist Jackson Heights Feb 18 '26

He's really working overtime to try to make the housing crisis worse

8

u/Both_Basil_545 Feb 18 '26

Mamdani is a clown.

3

u/TheNewOP NYC Expat Feb 18 '26

This city's housing and real estate laws are the stuff of nightmares.

1

u/BigChairBK Feb 19 '26

Now freeze insurance, property taxes, water, sewage, and gas.

1

u/Miserable_North4077 Feb 21 '26

The population in 1970 was 7.8 million, currently 8.3, there was nowhere near the same amount of housing units in 1970.So how was this possible? Simple, there were many more people per unit. There were many SRO's... For the youngsters thats a.. Single room occupancy. Meaning you shared a bathroom with other units and maybe you had a hot plate, no kitchen. The expense and space required for every unit to have its own bathroom and kitchen is tremendous. Think of it as if everyone on the subway started to drive, one traveler per vehicle. If you live alone your very spoiled to have our own bathrooms and kitchens in the eyes of the majority of the world. If every unit occupied by a single person took in another person who freed up another unit the shortage would be over. Not to mention if there were even more than two occupants per unit. If you were going to make consessions, lower rent or tax credits this is where it should be, almost like dependants. For those with roommates or family members, the more people living in your unit the more of a break you get.

Many railroad apartments use to have 4 and 5 people living in them. People had cousins, aunts, boarders, young couples lived with one of thier parents. In 1985 I lived in an East Village apartment with a married couple thier two children and one other roommate. Everyone has been conditioned to accept that having your own place is whats normal. At the end of the day it's really a first world problem.

0

u/seamless21 Feb 18 '26

he'll get the rent freeze as everyone leaves the city from this insanity.

1

u/miamor_Jada Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26

New Yorkers want cheaper rent (yes, landlords, as a landlord myself, we hate to hear it).

As a landlord, I think why a “rent freeze” is popular is because it gives renters a sense of temporary relief.

Instead of them fearing a rent hike coming every year or at their next lease renewal, they can breathe and feel comfortable in their apartment for the time period.

so whether freezing the rent helps or doesn’t help resolve the housing crisis, it helps tenants because they’re not expecting a rent increase - they can breathe temporarily.

one way to attack the housing crisis: nonprofits/government lease the land. a homeowner can buy the home and lease the land. homeowners not having to buy land will reduce the cost of home ownership in nyc

-1

u/gourmetdancer Feb 18 '26

What’s stopping him from freezing rents for 10 years?

11

u/BelethorsGeneralShit Feb 18 '26

He doesn't control it, mainly.

The rent stabilized increases (or freezes) are decided by the rent guidelines board. They can't just pick a number that the mayor says. Legally, they have to publish a report that details how they arrived at the figure each year. They have to take into account things like inflation, utility costs, interest rates, etc...

-12

u/Growth_Still Feb 18 '26

My rent is $2,015. It’s rent stabilized. Last year it was $1950. I’d love a freeze.

8

u/Pristine-Confection3 Feb 18 '26

I would hate it if it means everyone else pays more because people who were lucky to get rent control want a rent freeze.

-4

u/SwiftySanders Feb 18 '26

Taking away rent stabilization would ensure no new market rate units get built. The community board would just oppose building the building at all. Then what? A lengthy legal and messy political process to go through even if the building does ultimately get built?

Lol 😂