Landlords Sue Over City-Mandated 15 Percent Rent Cut
Property owners in Kingston, New York, argue the city is vastly underestimating its vacancy rate in order to justify ruinous rent cuts.

To alleviate an alleged housing emergency, officials in Kingston, New York, are mandating a 15 percent reduction in rents. Rental property owners are now suing the city, arguing it failed to meet state requirements for adopting rent control and that the ordered rent reduction amounts to retroactive punishment.
"It's going to bankrupt many [landlords]," Richard Lanzarone, executive director of the Hudson Valley Property Owners Association (HVPOA), says of Kingston's Rent Guidelines Board decision last week to reduce rents by 15 percent for leases signed between August 2022 and September 2023. "If it stands, it'll lead to abandonment, tenant displacement, blight, and the destruction of housing."
In July, Kingston became the first city in the state to take advantage of a 2019 New York law allowing communities outside New York City and its surrounding counties to adopt rent stabilization. That law allows localities to regulate rent hikes in larger multifamily buildings constructed before 1974. About 1,200 apartments in Kingston fall under rent stabilization.
Tenant activists say this is the first time a New York municipality has voted to cut rents. While they pushed for a whopping 30 percent rent reduction, activists still took a victory lap at the 15 percent cut.
"This reduction represents a paradigm shift in how we address the needs of the many over unregulated market conditions," said Michael Tierney, a tenant representative on the board, in a press release.
Property owners are less pleased. Lanzarone says landlords have told him the rent reduction will make their buildings unprofitable or force them into foreclosure.
He tells Reason that today HVPOA is filing an amended complaint against the city in Ulster County Supreme Court, arguing the mandated rent reduction is an arbitrary decision that ignored data showing that operating costs for property owners are rising. Lanzarone also says past case law prevents rent regulations from being imposed retroactively.
That amended complaint is part of an ongoing lawsuit that HVPOA filed in October challenging the legal underpinnings of Kingston's decision to adopt rent stabilization.
New York law allows communities to adopt rent stabilization only if their vacancy rate falls below 5 percent. A city-conducted rental vacancy survey published in June 2022 put Kingston's rental vacancy rate at 1.57 percent.
HVPOA's complaint argues this find is an underestimate produced by a survey that was "deeply flawed, mathematically inexact, factually incorrect, deceptive, and at times embarrassingly unprofessional."
In particular, their lawsuit argues that the 29 percent response rate to the city's survey and the city's practice of counting non-responses as occupied units resulted in a vast undercount of vacant units.
HVPOA's lawsuit says the organization performed its survey with a 100 percent response rate that determined a vacancy rate of 6.22 percent. This matches with a 6.7 percent vacancy rate found by the Center for Governmental Research, a third party the city of Kingston paid to conduct a vacancy survey. The U.S. Census Bureau also found a gross vacancy rate of 10 percent in 2020.
Additional plaintiffs in HVPOA's lawsuit include several apartment owners who claim that they had multiple vacant units that the city nevertheless counted as occupied in its survey. Lanzarone says the city also counted homes it had already deemed uninhabitable as occupied.
The HVPOA lawsuit argues that because the city failed to accurately establish a vacancy rate of less than five percent, the court should strike down its rent stabilization ordinance.
Curbed reports that a judge denied the group's request for a temporary restraining order. Lanzarone says they expect a ruling in the case before the end of the year.
Regardless of the legal outcome, Kingston's unprecedented rent reduction is extreme. New York City's Rent Guidelines Board typically allows rent increases of a few percentage points each year.
Even so, landlords argue that rent-stabilized buildings are being "defunded" by allowable rent increases that don't cover rising operating costs. A September study performed by the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP), a landlord trade association, found that this year's allowable rent increases of 3.25 to 5 percent cover less than half of the increased expenses.
The same 2019 law that allows Kingston to adopt rent stabilization also limits the ability of owners of rent-stabilized buildings to pass along the costs of maintenance and capital improvements to tenants.
A 2021 New York City-conducted survey found that 42,000 rent-stabilized apartments are vacant. CHIP executive director Jay Martin says that many of those units have fallen into disrepair, and the owner has no financial incentive to bring them back online. The same survey found maintenance issues are twice as likely to occur in rent-stabilized buildings.
This all tracks with longstanding predictions that limiting rising rents to less-than-market rates will lead to a decline in housing quality and, eventually, supply. That seems to be coming true in New York City. The odds are Kingston's even more extreme policies will produce even more extreme results.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
LOL the 'leaders' are going to crash everything.
They really are. They're really trying as hard as they can to break everything.
"This reduction represents a paradigm shift in how we address the needs of the many over unregulated market conditions," said Michael Tierney, a tenant representative on the board, in a press release.
All your apartment are belong to us!
Just like your bodies. Except for your snatch, and any internal squatters.
Why'd they only push for 30%. Don't they care?
Officials in Kingston New York are actually being honest here. They know that simply building some new housing, throwing out a few social justice terms and tweaking policy won't lower housing costs. So mandating it is literally the only way to go.
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart.
OPEN>>
https://www.pay.hiring9.com
Property owners in Kingston, New York, argue the city is vastly underestimating its vacancy rate in order to justify ruinous rent cuts.
If the city had NOT underestimated its vacancy rate, would the mandated rent cuts be less ruinous or justified?
No. But as the article points out, if the city had not underestimated its vacancy rate, it would have been completely without statutory authority to make this change even if by some miracle it was a good idea.
Is having statutory authority to unilaterally cut rents (ie, apply price controls) justified if vacancy rates fall below (or above) a certain rate?
Gah
Is having statutory authority to unilaterally cut rents (ie, apply price controls) justified if vacancy rates fall below (or above) a certain rate a good idea?
No, it's a terrible idea, but it's popular with people who think that all landlords are billionaires and that rental properties require no labor - or financial risk - of any kind.
The vacancy rate is the only legal basis that the landlords have to legally fight this with in Kingston.
In a just world, the city would be required to purchase these properties from any landlord who wants to sell once they impose price controls like this.
In July, Kingston became the first city in the state to take advantage of a 2019 New York law allowing communities outside New York City and its surrounding counties to adopt rent stabilization.
Kingston is pretty frickin' far from NYC (90 miles), but the census says they're part of the NY Metropolitan Area, so I guess that makes it all just fine.
Vote for communist, get communism.
Good and hard.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.
Every person easily do this job by just.........>>> onlinecareer1
WTF? Time to amp up the insurance and hire some Jewish lightning.
(Just how rude is that?)
I have made $16498 in one month by telecommuting. At the point when I lost my office employment multi month prior, I was disturbed and an ineffective go after a quest for new employment I was secured this online position. what's more, presently I am ready to win thousands from home. Everyone can carry out this responsibility and win more dollars online by follow this link...,.
OPEN>http://pay.hiring9.com/
They should instead argue that the government has no legitimate authority over their property.
If the city wants rent to be lower, they should cut property taxes.
I guess you really never own anything, some government can take it.
It's outrageous any government believes it has the authority to do this.
I conducted a study to determine which position was more likely to keep city officials in their cushie lucrative government jobs: paying off renters who want to pay less rent; or paying off landlords by letting them decide how to optimize income versus costs. Screwing landlords was clearly the winner for politicians, even if it ends up being counterproductive in providing adequate housing for the renters.
"If it stands, it'll lead to abandonment, tenant displacement, blight, and the destruction of housing."
Which the bozos that came up with this idea will blame on the greedy landlords and skate on taking any responsibility for.
In an unrelated matter, my car has been making a funny noise lately so I broke all the windows out with a sledgehammer but it's still making the funny noise. Do you think I should slash the tires or set the upholstery on fire as a next step?
Try ejecting the Mariah Carey Christmas CD.
So when supply gets too low you mandate the price goes down? That’s the opposite of a solution.
Right. I’m trying to get my head around this but I’m lost. They seem to believe that it’s totally fine to raise rates as much as you want as long as there’s no one who actually wants to rent the place.
And there’s more: the city counted “uninhabitable” units as “occupied”. Why are they counting those at all?
The idea is that a lack of supply puts upward pressure on prices, so that's where the law steps in to lower them.
And they don't seem to have thought about it any further than that. That's going to do nothing about the supply problem and probably make it worse.
I had to go back and read it twice, because that's pretty much precisely the wrong time to be "stabilizing" prices, when you have no fucking supply. Not that there's a good time for the government to stick it's shit covered hand in the communal stewpot, but that's just dumb even by government standards.
Shit, is that how it works? I assumed it was the opposite. If vacancy rate is too high, they will limit rents. At least that makes some sense, even if it's dumb and probably unnecessary as landlords would lower rent on their own in that case.
Someone should propose a maximum wage law, and see how well THAT goes over...
Under 5% vacancy in buildings over 45 years old?
They must be meticulously maintained or all the rentals are crap.
> To alleviate an alleged housing emergency, officials in Kingston, New York, are mandating a 15 percent reduction in rents.
So to combat shortage they force a price reduction.
"No more toilet paper! Toilet paper now on sale! By decree of his kingship!"
Okay, granted, most people are utterly ignorant of basic economics, especially those dweebs running things. But here's how it goes: there is a supply and demand curve, and when you cap prices you get shortages. Prices is a signal, and the mandated rent reduction signals that there is supply. But there is no increased supply.
In a free market, landlords set rents based on supply and demand. Too many rental units and they lower their prices. Too few and the raise them. Too many renters and they raise them (to be able to pick better renters from the pool), too few renters and they lower prices. It's all orbits around an equilibrium.
The rent reduction WILL NOT help renters. It will harm new renters as it will reduce the supply of units. It will harm existing renters as landlords will reduce maintenance to compensate. You can see this in any rent controlled city.
Those politicians don't care. To them it's all about wielding power. Fuck Joe Biden. Fuck Donald Trump. Fuck all politicians.
While I agree with your sentiment of fuck all politicians, you have to blame the correct party for this misguided policy.
You don’t see Trump, or the Republicans, interfering with the contract between tenants and landlords.
That is 100% a democrat policy
In fact, rent control constrains future supply because it reduces the incentive to build more housing. This was the case in Minneapolis where new building permits rose 65 percent, while across the river in St. Paul, they fell 61 percent due to rent control being implemented.
https://reason.com/2022/06/15/the-dangers-of-rent-control-on-display-in-the-twin-cities/
So to combat shortage they force a price reduction.
“No more toilet paper! Toilet paper now on sale! By decree of his kingship!”
This is exactly why "price-gouging" laws fail on the face of it.
How about a 15% pay cut for the city council too?
I ass'u'me the City can regulate rent because the lease payments are being subsidized by the City.
I'd tell the landlords to "go galt", but the problem is that if you have real property as opposed to just your skills and a few shekels in your purse, it's a pretty big loss to just walk away.
Still, finding some poor sap stupid enough to think he can make money and be a good communist at the same time, and selling him the building at break even price, could be a nice way to get out.
Anyway, I'm sure glad I'm not a landlord!
Actually, the traditional way of handling this problem has been to make sure the insurance is paid up before the firetrap catches fire, then pocket the payout & set the plot of land with the burnt out shell of the building. When the building is worth more destroyed, then...well...don't be the tenant.
THE INCREASE HOMELESS ACT.
I would expect to see a lot of apartment fires in Kingston if this holds.
“In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”
---------
Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”
http://www.econlib.org
Is this "The Rent Is Too Damn High Party" led by Jimmy McMillan?
New Yorkers, keep voting for the same people and expecting different results. There is a name for that.
So the response to a supply shortage is to impose price controls that lower prices? How does that make any economic sense?
Joe Biden's America!
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Democrats. Constantly pandering immoral and dumbshit ideas to benefit their base of losers, unemployed, drug addicts, and criminals, who are constantly in need of "sympathy." And so Democrats are ready and willing to provide them sympathy in the form of legislation, in exchange for the votes.
And it's working great. As we increase the number of losers and degenerates in the US, by democrat policy, and by democrat policies such as those that impoverish the common American, so too does their voter base increase, and their party becomes more successful. Soon the process will be complete. The USA will be a cesspool of untalented, incompetent losers with their hand out expecting the government to take care of them. And the democrats will gladly oblige, as long as they get the votes that keep them at the top.