On Housing, All New York Politicians Are Socialists
Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in the New York Democratic Mayoral Primary on Tuesday puts the self-proclaimed socialist one step closer to enacting his far-ranging left-wing agenda.
At the top of the candidate's list, as Reason's Liz Wolfe covered this morning, is his call to freeze rents on New York's roughly one million rent-stabilized housing units.
Relative to free market orthodoxy, a rent freeze is indeed an extreme policy proposal. In New York politics, it's a solidly mainstream idea.
Mamdani's socialism has gotten a lot of attention, thanks in no small part to his aggressively charismatic social media presence. But when it comes to housing policy, everyone in New York is effectively a socialist, even the allegedly sane, centrist candidates running against Mamdani.
When then-Mayor Bill de Blasio called for a rent freeze back in April 2020, a loud supporter of the idea was then-Brooklyn Borough President (and current Mayor) Eric Adams, who'll face off against Mamdani in the general election.
The city's mayor-appointed Rent Guidelines Board obliged and voted in June 2020 to cap rent increases through October 2021 on one-year rent-stabilized leases.
Coinciding with that rent freeze was New York's eviction moratorium, which in effect made paying rent optional by preventing landlords from removing delinquent tenants. The author of that eviction moratorium was then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani's main—and now defeated—Democratic primary rival.
Both Adams and Cuomo have since come out against the idea of a rent freeze in 2025.
Yet Adams has also criticized the top-line rent increases currently being considered by the Rent Guidelines Board as excessive.
The board voted back in April to back rent increases of between 1.75 percent and 4.75 percent for one-year leases (and 3.75 percent and 7.75 percent for two-year leases). The board will approve a final number next week.
Landlords have been harshly critical of those rent increases, which they say don't come close to making up for rising operating costs and the mounting maintenance needs of aging rent-stabilized properties.
They say that years of low single-digit allowable rent increases have only compounded the problems created by the state's 2019 rent law, which eliminated or restricted property owners' ability to raise rents on vacant apartments or to cover maintenance and renovation costs.
That 2019 law, signed by Cuomo, has been repeatedly challenged in court by property owners who argue that the law's restrictions on their ability to choose their tenants and remove their property from the rental market amount to an uncompensated physical taking.
(Last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear several of these cases.)
Meanwhile, the 2019 law's limits on rent increases and elimination of avenues by which landlords could remove units from rent control continue to push more and more rental properties into insolvency.
As Eric Kober noted in City Journal earlier in the campaign, none of the Democratic or independent candidates are contemplating serious reform of New York's rent stabilization law.
Mamdani's proposed rent freeze would certainly aggravate the problems of New York's rental housing stock. But it's not a radical departure from the current system.
New York politicians of all stripes are on board with capping rents and regulating rental housing into the ground. Mamdani is just a little more openly enthusiastic about the idea.
The post On Housing, All New York Politicians Are Socialists appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'
New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
No more LGBTQ brainwashing — SCOTUS school smackdown revives parents' rights
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a sweeping victory for parental rights and religious freedom — and dealt a devastating blow to the progressive zealots bent on brainwashing America's children. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Montgomery County, Md., parents fought their local school board over a policy requiring young children to read books centered on LGBTQ+ identity. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents, who sought the right to opt their kids out of lessons that undermine their religious beliefs. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito let the books speak for themselves via color reproductions of their pages. There was no better way to demonstrate that these were not books promoting tolerance and acceptance, but radical attempts at indoctrination. 'Pride Puppy,' part of the district's kindergarten curriculum, includes a word search listing topics detailed in the book's illustrations: drag king, drag queen, high heels, lip ring, lace, leather. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Another book, 'Born Ready,' features a very young child who identifies as transgender. In it, the character's older brother protests, 'This doesn't make sense. You can't become a boy. You have to be born one.' Their mother scolds him: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' The message is clear: If you want issues of sex and gender to make sense, you aren't a loving person. The school board, Alito wrote, 'encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being 'hurtful' when they express a degree of religious confusion.' They use the books to do it. At the heart of the case was the claim that parents' religious rights were being violated. But the deeper reality remained unspoken: The school-district progressives weren't simply undermining the beliefs of Muslim, Christian and Mormon parents. They were trying to induct the children of these families into their own ideology — one that dismisses biological reality and enshrines 'love,' as they define it, as the only acceptable truth. The conflict also exposed a stark divide between the progressive activists who run the county school system and the religious, largely immigrant families the district serves. Accustomed to lockstep minority support, leftist county officials were blindsided when the communities they claim to represent pushed back. And when the minority parents protested, the progressives lashed out. The curriculum dispute 'puts some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,' Montgomery County Council member Kristin Mink complained in one contentious public meeting. School board member Lynne Harris disparaged a Muslim student who testified at another meeting, telling the press she felt 'kind of sorry' for the girl and speculating she was 'parroting dogma' she'd learned from her parents. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded apologies from both officials. When progressives rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, speaker after speaker insisted the district's policy was about teaching tolerance to children of supposedly bigoted parents. After the ruling came down, the district declared in an email to staff, 'This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system.' But if tolerance and inclusivity were truly its goals, the county would have sought to respect the values of religious families. No, the objective was ideological control over every child in the county's schools. The progressive activists' message was brutally simple: Our way or the highway. This is what we do in public schools. If you don't like it, you can pay to educate your kids privately, or homeschool them yourself. Alito flatly rejected that argument. 'Public education is a public benefit,' he wrote, 'and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.' In addition, he observed, 'since education is compulsory, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.' This case laid bare the hypocrisy of progressive ideology — and the flimsiness of those convictions when challenged. Progressives in Montgomery County had a choice: To respect the religious beliefs of minority families, or to force them to abandon those beliefs and cave to leftist views on gender and sexuality. Or, of course, the district could have dropped its leftist indoctrination mission altogether. Rather than offering an unbiased public education to these low-income, immigrant religious families, school officials told them to leave if they wouldn't comply. Mahmoud v. Taylor revealed the left's true colors on tolerance and privilege. But with its decision, the Supreme Court sent an unmistakable message: Parents' rights are not subject to the whims of progressive activists — and they don't evaporate at the schoolhouse door. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
When Liberals Hated National Injunctions
Liberals are fuming over the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, which curtails universal injunctions. 'With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on President Trump's Power Fades,' declared a New York Times headline. Au contraire. The ruling merely means a single judge can't block a government policy nationwide. Democratic administrations could benefit as much as Republican ones. It wasn't all that long ago that liberals were raging against overreaching orders by Republican-appointed judges.
