
Freezing rent is easy. Making NYC housing affordable isn't.
The mayor chooses the nine members of the city's Rent Guidelines Board, which every year determines the allowable rent increase for the city's nearly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments. The members' terms are staggered, so a new mayor can't replace them all immediately, but with the two tenant representatives certain to favor a freeze, it would take only three of the five members appointed to represent the public to get to a majority (there are also two owner representatives, who would, of course, oppose a freeze). During Bill de Blasio's tenure as mayor, the board voted for no rent increases on one-year leases in 2015, 2016 and 2020 — as well as 0% for the first six months and 1.5% for the last six in 2021.
So, yes, Mamdani could deliver a rent freeze. Whether he should requires a longer answer.
This year's Rent Guidelines Board deliberations, which resulted in a vote earlier this month to allow a rent increase of 3% on one-year leases starting from October 2025 to September 2026, and 4.5% on two-year leases, provide a fascinating window (which one can gaze through on YouTube) into the crosscurrents buffeting tenants and landlords in New York. On average, New York's rent-stabilized landlords appear to be raking it in, with net operating income up 12.1% — 8% after adjusting for inflation — in 2023, the most recent year for which the board's staff has compiled income and expense data. But those averages mask a lot of variation and testimony about the struggles of nonprofit affordable housing providers since the pandemic seems to have been crucial in bringing about the 3% increase. The appointees of the next mayor, whoever he turns out to be, will confront the same dilemma.
New York City rents have been regulated since 1943, with the rent-stabilization system — and Rent Guidelines Board — dating to 1969. As of the most recent New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2023, rent stabilization covered 779,000 occupied rental apartments in buildings constructed before 1974 (apartments covered by the pre-1969 system of rent control pass into rent stabilization when the tenant moves out or dies) and 181,700 in newer buildings that accepted rent regulation in exchange for tax breaks or other subsidies. Together that amounts to 48% of the city's occupied rental apartments and 28% of occupied housing units overall. This makes rent stabilization by far the city's (and the nation's) biggest affordable-housing program, with almost six times as many rent-stabilized units as there are apartments in the New York City Housing Authority's public housing projects.
A 2023 study by economists Ruoyo Chen, Hanchen Jiang and Luis E. Quintero estimated that the monthly rent-stabilization discount in New York City averaged $450 a unit in 2017. Multiply by 960,700 apartments, and that's a $5.2 billion annual subsidy from New York City's landlords to its rent-stabilized tenants. That has surely grown since 2017 as market rents have outpaced stabilized rents.
This is, economically speaking, an extremely inefficient way to keep housing affordable. By reducing the return on housing investment, rent regulation reduces investment in housing. Politically, though, it has proved much more achievable than the outright subsidies that economists recommend. The city's annual contribution to its second-biggest affordable-housing program, NYCHA, is not much more than $200 million (the federal government has been chipping in close to $3 billion a year, but that is likely to fall).
The job of the Rent Guidelines Board, then, is to balance affordability for rent-stabilized tenants with enough income for landlords to keep their buildings in good condition. Avoiding the fate of NYCHA, where decades of underinvestment have left buildings in grave disrepair, is an oft-mentioned priority.
For owners of many rent-stabilized buildings in affluent parts of the city, bringing in enough rent revenue to cover costs became a lot easier after the state legislature voted in 1993 to remove apartments from rent stabilization when the rent passed a threshold ($2,000 at the time, higher in subsequent years) and the apartment became vacant or the tenants' household income exceeded $250,000 (later dropped to $175,000). Over the next 27 years, this deregulation removed 177,048 apartments from the rent-stabilized rolls, 69% of them in Manhattan.
High-rent deregulation came to an end with the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019, approved by a state legislature that Mamdani had not yet joined (he was elected to the state Assembly in 2020) and signed into law by none other than the governor at the time, Andrew Cuomo, who after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic mayoral primary announced that he would run as an independent in the general election. The bill's passage (and especially Cuomo's decision to sign it) came as a shock to real estate investors who had been piling into rent-stabilized buildings in hopes of cashing in as more apartments were deregulated — Bloomberg's Patrick Clark and Prashant Gopal did a great job last year of depicting the market turmoil that has resulted. The deregulation of the previous three decades, meanwhile, left the city's rent-stabilized housing stock bifurcated between a bunch of buildings concentrated in Manhattan south of Harlem ("Core Manhattan' in Rent Guidelines Board parlance) where most of the apartments are market rate and the 50% of rent-stabilized buildings citywide where 100% of the apartments are regulated.
Which brings us back to the dilemma faced by the Rent Guidelines Board. Over the years, the board has tried to keep rent increases in line with increases in operating costs, which generally rise with inflation. Rent was frozen in 2015 and 2016 because costs weren't rising — the nonshelter consumer price index for the New York area actually fell both years. But the increases approved by the Rent Guidelines Board in 2021 and 2022 fell far short of inflation and the increases since then have only more or less kept up.
Rents on market-rate apartments in the city have risen faster than inflation since just before the pandemic, in part because the 2019 rent law cut off what had been a steady stream of newly unregulated apartments coming on the market each year. As a result, rent-stabilized buildings in Core Manhattan — most of which, remember, are majority market rate — experienced a whopping 23.1% gain in net operating income in 2023. In the Bronx, where 75% of rent-stabilized buildings have only rent-stabilized units, net operating income rose just 0.8%, a decline in inflation-adjusted terms. On average, even the 100% rent-stabilized buildings in the Bronx still turned a monthly operating profit of $325 a unit, but 476 buildings there, 12.7% of the total, reported negative net operating income in 2023.
These financial struggles are accompanied by increasing signs of physical decay, with the average number of maintenance deficiencies in pre-1974 rent-stabilized buildings up 45% since 2017, according to the Housing and Vacancy Survey. This is not just a tale of greedy landlords: Representatives of two large affordable-housing nonprofits, the Community Preservation Corporation and Enterprise Community Partners, told the Rent Guidelines Board that the New York City buildings they're involved with are increasingly struggling to keep up. Nearly 60% of the 160 buildings in Enterprise Community Partners' New York City Low-Income Housing Tax Credit portfolio were "cash-flow negative' in 2023, senior director Tania Garrido said, up from 20% in 2019.
One big reason these buildings are struggling is that, while insurance costs are up for real estate owners nationwide, for less-than-clear reasons they rose a shocking 103% from 2019 to 2023 for owners of affordable housing in New York City. Another is that the share of tenants paying their rent on time fell in 2020 and 2021 and hasn't fully recovered. The COVID-19 pandemic hit working-class New Yorkers especially hard, with employment in construction, retail, leisure and hospitality in the city is still below pre-pandemic levels. Raising rents doesn't seem like the optimal solution to a problem caused in part by people not being able to afford the rent. But it's the only arrow the Rent Guidelines Board has in its quiver.
The city and state have more arrows. In his campaign literature, Mamdani stresses reforming New York's property tax system, which taxes apartment buildings much more heavily than single-family homes but also gives inexplicably large tax breaks to some high-end condominiums and coops. He wants to "put our public dollars to work' building 200,000 new rent-stabilized apartments over the next decade, offering a set of wonky suggestions for how to fund this and has some interesting ideas for pooling rental assistance funds currently distributed as vouchers to tenants (or not distributed; utilization rates are quite low) to support struggling affordable buildings directly.
None of these is as catchy or easy to deliver as freezing the rent. It's understandable why Mamdani chose this as a campaign pledge, and probably inevitable that the Rent Guidelines Board will deliver at least one 0% annual rent increase if he is elected. Whether he succeeds in making housing more affordable in New York City, though, will depend on what else he does.
Justin Fox is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business, economics and other topics involving charts.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Times
5 hours ago
- Japan Times
With federal funds frozen, wealthy U.S. universities capitulate to Washington
As a growing number of the wealthiest U.S. colleges capitulate in their battles with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, the strain from lost and frozen federal funding is putting pressure on the remaining holdouts to cut a deal. Universities targeted by Trump's crackdown on diversity programs and other policies he says show a liberal bias are essentially bleeding at the negotiating table after taking on debt, laying off hundreds of staff and slashing spending. As the fall semester approaches, they may be increasingly eager to ink accords that will stanch the flow. Cornell and Northwestern, both of which announced steps to address major budget shortfalls this year after the federal government suspended research funds, are now close to agreements with the White House. Brown, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania reached accords over the past month. But amid those settlements, new universities are being targeted. Most recently, the University of California at Los Angeles and Duke joined Harvard, Northwestern, Princeton and others in losing access to federal grants that are the financial lifeblood of large research institutions. It all adds up to an unprecedented pressure campaign that's roiling the world of higher education, reverberating through faculty, student and alumni groups and clouding the outlook for the type of medical and scientific research that takes place at the colleges. The multitrillion-dollar tax law signed last month also hikes the tax on income from endowments for some of the wealthiest private schools. As the Trump administration gains leverage, colleges' bruised budgets could drive them toward making agreements quicker. "It seems like they want to get deals done now,' said Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who focuses on the political economy of higher education. "It's almost like a dam is broken. I would not be at all surprised if we saw a cascading set of agreements.' The Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on July 2 | Sophie Park / The New York Times Federal funding has been used as a cudgel by the Trump administration, which has criticized what it says is a failure by academic institutions to crack down on antisemitism during campus protests over Israel's war in Gaza. The moves also come amid a broader campaign against diversity efforts and accusations of political bias. The fallout has already started. Northwestern said it would cut more than 400 jobs to save 5% on labor costs, with university officials calling the past few months some of the most difficult in its 174-year history. The Trump administration in April paused $790 million in research funding for the Evanston, Illinois-based school because of claimed potential civil rights violations. At Cornell, leaders in June warned that drastic financial austerity measures were on the table after hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research contracts were terminated or frozen. "The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education,' they wrote in a letter to students and staff. "We have been using institutional resources to try to plug these funding holes in the short term, but these interim measures are not sustainable.' Late last month, the government froze $108 million in research funding to Duke University, or about 20% of its federal revenue, three Trump administration officials said. Duke is in talks with government officials on a settlement, according to an administration official. Duke's press office didn't provide a comment on the funding loss or the status of government talks. A Duke official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said the school is reconsidering its budget amid the funding loss, but that it hopes an end to the freeze will come soon. Cornell and Northwestern have declined to comment on any settlement talks. On July 23, Columbia University agreed to pay $221 million in a deal that was promptly criticized for infringing on academic freedom at the school. Brown announced a deal on July 30, agreeing to give $50 million over 10 years to workforce development organizations in its home state of Rhode Island in exchange for the reimbursement of at least $50 million in unpaid federal grants. Shortly before reaching the deal, Brown took out a $500 million loan — a sign of how strained the school's finances had become. Brown, the least wealthy of the Ivy League schools with an endowment of $7.2 billion, had previously warned in June of "significant' cost-cutting measures to offset the federal funding. U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington on July 30 | REUTERS The Trump administration's higher-education crackdown has exposed just how dependent some of the elite, research-focused universities are on the government. They're essentially "major federal contractors' and stopping the stream would be catastrophic for many of them, according to Cantwell. "Think about Booz Allen or Raytheon,' Cantwell said. "If they said, 'All your federal funding will be frozen for 9 months,' you can imagine how those firms might react.' The Trump administration has dealt a harsher financial blow to Harvard than any other university in its crosshairs, freezing billions of multiyear research grants and contracts. The school estimates that the moves by the administration, as well as the endowment tax increase, will cost about $1 billion annually. Harvard's Kennedy School already cut staff. "The unprecedented challenges we face have led to disruptive changes, painful layoffs, and ongoing uncertainty about the future,' Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a letter to the campus. Garber has told faculty that a settlement with the government isn't imminent and the university is considering resolving its dispute through the courts, the Harvard Crimson reported Monday. Larry Ladd, who served as Harvard's budget director and now advises schools at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, said he can't criticize any college for coming to a deal with the Trump administration given what's at stake for their campuses. "Schools are likely facing pressure to use endowment and tuition revenue, which are typically used to support students, to support some of their research enterprise instead,' Ladd said. "They don't want to do that because they want to continue to support students. There's that pressure as well.' Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said campus leaders are being put in an "untenable position' and worries that federal funds will continue to be weaponized by the Trump administration, even if schools make deals. "The concern is the more we capitulate through making these agreements, the more the administration will be empowered to continue along these lines,' she said.


Japan Times
6 hours ago
- Japan Times
Bain's Japanese plane seat-maker sees U.S. hub as shelter from Trump tariffs
A newly acquired Bain Capital company in Japan that makes airplane seats, toilets and galleys is betting its U.S.-based manufacturing hub will give it an advantage under President Donald Trump's tariff regime. Armed with private equity cash, Jamco's new management is rebooting its aircraft seat business, chasing market share from rivals RTX's Collins Aerospace and France's Safran, Executive Chair Kate Schaefer said in an interview. Supply chain issues that have seen wait times for cabin fittings blow out to as long as three years — forcing the likes of Delta Air Lines and American Airlines to ground newly delivered jets as they await seats — also present an opportunity to fill, Schaefer said. "Right now with everything that's going on with tariffs, it appears to be an advantage in manufacturing and assembling these seats in the U.S.,' she said. The company is also promising to deliver products in as little as six months. Jamco's main production line is located near Boeing's largest assembly line in Everett, just outside Seattle. The U.S. has rolled out a raft of tariffs on global trading partners, with Japanese and European Union goods being levied at 15%, and up to 25% for India and 39% for Switzerland. Across the industry, carriers from Singapore Airlines to British Airways are spending hundreds of millions of dollars revamping seats as they upgrade cabins to lure more high-end travelers. Jamco plans to focus on higher-margin first-class and business seats, which can cost from $80,000 to $160,000 each depending on materials used and the level of customization required. Jamco's seat-making business struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic as global travel bans and border closures hammered the aviation industry. It paused research and development during the pandemic, but is restarting that under new management. Schaefer said the business has a slim order book but a factory and a workforce ready to go. Previously, Jamco counted the likes of Singapore Airlines and Dutch carrier KLM as top customers for its seats. Its other business units continue to make components and equipment such as galleys for Boeing and Airbus jets. Jamco was bought by Bain in a $700 million buyout earlier this year. Like Virgin Australia Holdings, which delivered Bain a 3.5 times' return on its initial investment when it listed the airline in June, the private equity firm says it aims to pursue an initial public offering of Jamco in a five-year time frame. Bain is also actively looking for smaller complementary acquisitions to expand on Jamco's current line of work. Bain's Tokyo-based leadership who led the deal, Masa Suekane and Nick Gattas, sees Jamco as a "bet on the industry,' bolstered by the decadelong waiting list for new planes. Jamco aims to take advantage of the challenging ramp-up in wide-body production by Boeing and Airbus as an "attractive' five-year window to win new business.


Japan Times
8 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump to sign order creating Olympics task force ahead of 2028 games
U.S. President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Tuesday creating a White House Olympics task force to handle security and other issues related to the 2028 Summer Olympic Games, an administration official said. The task force, made up of members from Trump's cabinet and government agencies, will coordinate federal, state and local government work on transportation, the official said. It also will "streamline visa processing and credentialing for foreign athletes, coaches, officials, and media," the official said in an email. The United States will host the Olympics in Los Angeles in three years. Trump, a Republican who lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, has expressed pleasure that his second term will coincide with the Olympics and the 2026 soccer World Cup, which is being held across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. "During his first term, President Trump was instrumental in securing America's bid to host the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The president considers it a great honor to oversee this global sporting spectacle in his second term," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Monday. Last month organizers of the Los Angeles games released the first look at the Olympic competition schedule. The city also hosted the Olympics in 1932 and 1984. "The creation of this task force marks an important step forward in our planning efforts and reflects our shared commitment to delivering not just the biggest, but the greatest Games the world has ever seen in the summer of 2028,' Casey Wasserman, the chair and president of LA28, said in a statement.