New York Lawmakers Could Pass the Nation's Strictest State-Level Rent Control Law by the End of the Week
A controversial "good cause" eviction bill that would cap rent increases could be included in a budget bill that must pass by April 1.

New York might adopt the nation's strictest state-level rent control law by the end of the week in the name of preventing unfair evictions.
State lawmakers are currently scrambling to assemble and pass a budget bill before an April 1 deadline. The must-pass piece of legislation is often used as a vehicle for enacting controversial pieces of legislation, like bail reform and congestion pricing.
This year, there's a chance it will include a much-debated "good cause" eviction bill.
A perennial priority for the New York Legislature's contingent of socialist and progressive lawmakers, good cause eviction would require landlords to renew leases with their current tenants. It would also prevent them from evicting tenants for something other than "good cause"—like engaging in criminal behavior on the property, creating nuisances, violating substantive provisions of their lease, or damaging their unit.
Tenants could also still be evicted for nonpayment of rent, but, crucially, only if their nonpayment isn't the result of an "unreasonable" rent increase.
"We hear, each one of us who is a legislator, we hear every single day from constituents, saying, 'I'm facing a rent increase of hundreds of dollars per month.' That is an eviction," said Democratic Socialists of America member and New York state Sen. Julia Salazar (D–Brooklyn), the sponsor of the 2023 good cause eviction bill, when an identical measure was being considered last year.
What's an unreasonable rent increase? According to the current bill text, any rent increase above 3 percent per year or 150 percent of the annual change in the consumer price index would be presumptively considered unreasonable.
Landlords would have to go to housing court to argue a rent increase above that threshold was reasonable. Tenants, meanwhile, could also drag them into housing court by challenging rent increases below that threshold for being unreasonable.
For "small property owners especially, if you're going into housing court, you're already losing money," says Michael Johnson, communications director for the landlord trade association Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP). "All this becomes a mess. Essentially the judge is determining the rent."
This separates New York's proposed good cause eviction bill from other states that have paired rent control with good cause eviction policies. California and Oregon's rent control laws establish annual allowable rent increases of 5 and 7 percent plus inflation, respectively. (California has a maximum 10 percent rent cap.)
That's both more generous and more clear than what's envisioned in New York's bill.
New York's good cause eviction supporters will often point to New Jersey as a model. The Garden State also forbids evictions that result from "unconscionable" rent increases, without establishing in statute what exactly counts as unconscionable.
Judges have generally held that rent increases in the 8–10 percent range are in fact conscionable, reported Slate's Harry Grabar last year. Johnson says there's also case law allowing 50 percent increases provided that the hike was merely bringing rents from below-market to market rates.
So in practice, that means New Jersey's eviction policies give landlords a lot more flexibility to raise rents than what's being envisioned in New York.
The prospect of having to go to court for a routine rent increase all by itself has some landlords worried, given how long it can take for housing courts to process cases.
"I know people that have open housing court cases that predate COVID," says Ann Korchak, board president of the group Small Property Owners of New York, and landlord who owns 20 units in New York City.
She also complains there's a frustrating lack of detail in the four-page bill. "My problems start right there. How monumental this shift would be and how little language is used to address it," she tells Reason.
That brevity creates a lot of unanswered questions, like whether a tenant with guaranteed lease renewal would be able to sublet his unit at uncontrolled market rates in perpetuity and whether landlords would have the freedom to raise rents by an uncontrolled amount after a vacancy.
If the answer to that last question is no, the result could be good cause eviction keeping a lot of older units off the market because owners wouldn't be able to pay for needed repairs with rent increases.
A 2019 law tightening New York's longstanding rent stabilization law—which was co-sponsored by Salazar—limits the ability of landlords to pass on the costs of unit improvements or remove units from rent stabilization entirely.
Korchak says the change has meant she can only raise the rent on one of her rent-stabilized units by about $90 a month. Meanwhile, the unit's last occupant—who Korchak says was a hoarder who occupied the unit for 50 years—left the apartment in need of as much as $300,000 in repairs and renovations.
With the rent increase limits making financing the repairs difficult, the apartment has sat vacant for 15 months, she says.
The construction of new units could also be imperiled by the bill.
New York's good cause eviction bill also doesn't exempt recent construction from its rent controls. (It does exclude smaller, owner-occupied multifamily buildings.)
That's in contrast to Oregon and California's rent control laws, which both exempt buildings under 15 years old from rent caps.
When St. Paul, Minnesota, voters passed a rent control ordinance with a 3 percent rent increase cap and no exemption for new housing, developers fled town and construction activity collapsed.
New York City isn't a market that developers will give up on so easily. But it's not as if they're receiving a positive incentive to build more units either.
Unlike New Jersey, New York's good cause eviction bill doesn't establish procedures for how a landlord could reclaim a building in order to redevelop it either.
New York's main real estate lobby REBNY is dead set against the good cause eviction bill. The state's main pro-development "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) group, Open New York, has (somewhat controversially) come out in support of it.
"We need to combat discrimination, and we need to come up with ways to actually have the government step in and better provide housing stability," Annemarie Gray, Open New York's executive director, told Curbed last month about the group's support of good cause eviction legislation.
New York Times writer Mara Gay editorialized in favor of good cause eviction last week, in an article that otherwise endorsed new housing supply as a solution to New York's high housing costs.
"Tenant protections alone will not solve the root problem of the crisis, which is the dire lack of housing supply," wrote Gay. Yet those expecting New York to fix its dire lack of housing supply while simultaneously passing the toughest rent control law in the country might end up being disappointed.
Johnson says the question of whether the good cause eviction bill is included in the must-pass budget is "the $1 million question." There's a chance it will be included alongside housing supply reforms. It could also be excluded and potentially passed as part of some major housing bill later in the session.
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
Zzz...
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
This will work out great. I just know it.
The proposals discussed the article are half-hearted half-measures, the retreat of the faint-hearted who wish to signal virtue without actually projecting it.
Simply change property law so that if an owner has a property that is empty, he must under penalty of a civil fine of $1,000/day, provide some worthy, needy person with a place to live in that empty property for no more than $1/month. Further, if a homeowner is now an empty nester and has 1 or 2 unused bedrooms in his residence, he must seek out an illegal alien for each vacant room and offer to house them for free, and may not under anti-discrimination laws discriminate against the tattoo'ed, regardless of the percent of body coverage. It can be debated whether the homeowner must also feed the quartered illegal aliens from the family pantry.
Yeah. That's projecting some real virtue. Come on now Progressives - who's gonna support that?
From another story today:
"In a 1992 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "A Politician's Dream Is a Businessman's Nightmare," McGovern recounted how, as a senator, he didn't realize just how costly regulatory compliance is. He was unaware of how well-intentioned regulations often produce bad outcomes, how taxes dampen investment, and how mandates make it harder to innovate or survive, especially during recessions."
Politicians have no skin in the actual game, so any consequences be they intended or not, do not matter to them. They are much more concerned about appealing to ignorant constituents who clamor to be taken care of and want "equity" because the system is just too unfair to them.
Politicians have lots of skin in the game: every onerous regulation they create is regulatory capture for big corporations: their donors and future employers.
They aren’t doing this out of ignorance, they are doing it out of self interest.
Yes, I understand what they have to gain; just nothing to lose by imposing burdens on others.
McGovern promised to let prohibition victims out of jail, but his party platform demanded gunfire, fines, confiscation and prison terms. Even a CREEP could beat that, right? So... how many electoral votes did that campaign net?
Oh, the bill will address the lack of housing supply: it will make it much worse.
But don’t worry, Government is going to step in and create public private partnerships with select developers to build lots and lots of housing at tax payers expense and at no risk to the developers. And they are going to give everybody section 8 vouchers.
And then kick them out when migrants need a home.
Happening right now with Military families being asked to move off base, usually at higher costs, to make way for camps.
“Select Developers”. The U.S. could use a little CCP belt and road projects. Belt and Road has worked so well for Pakistan and despotic regimes around the world:-)
But we can upzone and everything will get better!
"in many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing."
- Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck
There are over 1 million illegals in that city with thousands more pouring in under Biden's insanity. If you can't deport them at least evict them, '...by any means necessary...', the glut of residences that floods the market will help drive rents down - but by all means try and also gut rent control, '...by any means necessary...'.
True, but the Biden insanity causing economic collapse everywhere south of Brownsville is the BIpartisan antidrug "Abuse" law, banning muni coupon bonds, plants, seeds, roots, thinking, speech, consumption, production, trade and requiring invasion, kidnapping, murder and corruption of foreign States. By 1992--as in 1923 Germany--prohibition laws and meddling put inflation over a thousand percent. Small wonder the Brazilian the looter prohibitionists defeated to work this miracle just now got reelected.
'I'm facing a rent increase of hundreds of dollars per month.' That is an eviction," said Democratic Socialists of America member and New York state Sen. Julia Salazar (D–Brooklyn)
So State Senator Salazar has absolutely no idea what an eviction is? I’m sure her constituents will be much better off when their current dwelling is no longer a rental unit. Most economists disagree that prices go down when supply goes down, but they are not as smart as Salazar.
It’s a shame the Fifth Amendment wasn’t subject to state incorporation, because this looks exactly like an unconstitutional takings.
There seems to be a pattern where states can tell property owners that they can't use or develop their property, but leave the property under legal ownership of the deedholder, but the courts won't consider that a taking. You own your property, but you're not allowed to touch it... that's not a "taking".
Literally like Nazi Germany.
if I was paranoid I'd be concerned the Democrat party has a top-down goal of destroying America
If you weren't paranoid, I'd be concerned that you're delusional.
Still a conspiracy theory until 3 years after it happens.
You're in on it, aren't you?
La De De La De Da. Sometimes the younger reason “policy wonks” should take the commentariat advice. Never ever get into bed with the mob or a leftist.
TOLD YOU SO- now go enjoy your investment in paradise
Does anyone else get the impression sockpoop here imagines God's Own Prohibitionists are somehow different from the looter Kleptocracy mob?
What is it about urban population always turning communist?
it's a bizarre phenomenon and seems to be universal.
Article in the paper this morning: Woman griping she can't afford gas. I wanted to ask 'who did you vote for?'
Cities for some reason tend to breed dependency in large institutions, often at the cost of individuality.
This will certainly 'control' rents; killing supply will cause some real increases.
As in SF, the landlords will gain only slightly; the fixers (lawyers handling rental issues) will do very well indeed.
Saw where SF was 24th out of 25 urban areas in post-COVID recovery.
The other day I saw a news video about a building in Chinatown where the entire brick facade was detached and close to shearing off the building. A tenant caught it and called the FD immediately. Imagine what buildings and homes will look like if this is passed. (I know a facade won’t bring down the building or affect the structure but still goes to show what long term neglect of maintenance does & it definitely poses a threat to the people below).
So Noo Yawk will have homes for snail darters and furbish lousewort. Voters there have clearly decided that is better than having girl-bullying mystical bigots rob, shoot and jail people with absolute impunity. Republican policies, now as in 1850, are designed to shift the nation into populist socialism.
The article unfortunately doesn't clarify that the new policy will be statewide. The existing rent control is, I believe, NYC only. So, the roughly 14 million people in the rest of the state will have rent control for the first time.
I hope they enjoy getting what they voted for, good and hard.
Except I'm one of those 14 million. And I sure didn't vote for it.
Best sell your rental properties then.
Check your entire voting record to be sure. Did you vote for any politician, currently sitting in office that supported this?
It's right there in the headline.
I know…………
MORE Gov-Guns will fix it.
Just because the last UM-TEENTH time Gov-Guns didn’t fix it but made it worse doesn’t mean MORE Gov-Guns won’t fix it THIS-TIME! /s
[Gunnar] Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.” 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.”