New York City Orders Inflation-Adjusted Rent Cuts at Rent-Stabilized Buildings
The country's largest legacy rent-control policy is pushing building owners to the breaking point.

New York City officials have decided once again to allow rent increases at rent-stabilized apartments below the rate of inflation, upsetting both tenant advocates who wanted a total rent freeze and building owners who argue their properties are being "defunded" by persistent real cuts to rent.
On Wednesday, the city's Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) ordered that annual adjustments for one-year leases starting in October 2023 on New York City's roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments could rise by 3 percent and 5 percent for two-year leases.
The board cited rising inflation, which was 6.1 percent in New York City, as a reason for keeping rent increases low for tenants. That level of inflation nevertheless means that real rents are falling for building owners who are also seeing their own costs rise faster than inflation.
An RGB report from earlier this year found that owners' operating costs rose by 8.1 percent.
The board's effort to split the baby on rent increases doesn't seem to have appeased anyone.
Tenant advocates were furious that the board didn't accede to their demand for a zero percent rent increase.
The Rent Guidelines Board just voted by 5-4 to allow rent increases for rent stabilized tenants.
1 year leases: 3%
2 year leases: 2.75% for the first year, 3.2% for the second year.This was the reaction from tenant advocates. pic.twitter.com/DHJg9W7Vqa
— Annie McDonough (@Annie_McDonough) June 22, 2023
Their allies in the Legislature have said that they'll keep up their efforts to pass a Good Cause Eviction (rent control) bill that once again failed in the Legislature this year.
Some elected officials who've been silent on (or opposed to) protecting unregulated renters from high rent increases (what Good Cause would do) are now denouncing rent increases on rent-stabilized tenants
Channel your rage constructively by joining us in fighting for Good Cause.
— Julia Salazar (@JuliaCarmel__) June 22, 2023
Meanwhile, landlord advocates have argued that this year's increase, when matched with past years' increases that were also well-below inflation, is depriving building owners of money necessary for maintenance and renovations.
"Every year, we see the same drama unfold," said Jay Martin, of the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP), which represents building owners. "The RGB puts data out there which is largely ignored, tenant advocates and politicians scream and shout, and rent-stabilized housing gets defunded."
New York's rent stabilization law caps rent increases at units in buildings with six or more units that were built prior to 1974 or which benefited from certain tax abatements. The law covers about 45 percent of rental housing in New York City and a third of the overall housing stock.
Prior to 2019, building owners still had a number of avenues whereby they could "deregulate" (start charging market rates on) units or pass on rent increases above the RGB minimum if there was a vacancy or a significant capital improvement.
Thanks to progressive-led amendments in 2019 to the law getting rid of or restricting those avenues, "the RGB is now the primary, if not sole, driver of income an owner is allowed to realize from rent-stabilized apartments," reads an April 2022 report from New York University's Furman Center.
The report recommends the RGB recognize this reality and start using inflation as a baseline for setting rent increases. Instead, the board is sticking to passing rent increases well below the rate of inflation, which is putting a huge financial strain on buildings that are largely made up of rent-stabilized apartments.
In a September 2022 report, CHIP calculated that the average monthly per-unit return on an 80 percent rent-stabilized apartment was just $24.
As returns fall, the cash and capital necessary to keep buildings in good working order dry up, hence CHIP's complaints that their members' buildings are being "defunded."
Rent control is experiencing a very undeserved reputational resurgence in the past few years. Wonks, politicians, and activists argue that a well-designed rent-control policy can be one solution among many to rising housing costs.
The performance of the country's largest legacy rent-control scheme suggests that the policy will always be a massive impediment to an abundant, quality housing stock.
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
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
"In a September 2022 report, CHIP calculated that the average monthly per-unit return on an 80 percent rent-stabilized apartment was just $24."
Nobody needs 24 different dollars.
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> https://www.Salarybiz.com
TO THE POOR NEW YORK LANDLORDS: Bought real estate in New York City din'tcha? Life is tough, it's tougher when you're stupid. Sucks to be you, dudn'it?
NOTHING is too good for New Yorkers. Dem downtrodden, held-back po' folk tenants oughta be gettin' their apartments (and utilities) for free and call it reparations! The Landlords have lotsa money - take it outa their "stash".
"This building is no longer worth owning. I'm going to be demolishing it in 60 days. Move out. Or don't."
The city would nationalize it at that point.
Which is exactly what the democrats ultimately want. Time to rid ourselves of them.
At least then maybe you could get a federal court to accept a takings clause case.
Those damn Common Good Conservative Christian Nationalists ruining the housing market
The City would simply refuse to issue the demolition permits, then start fining the owner for lack of upkeep, then size the building when he could no longer afford the fines & property taxes.
"no longer afford the property taxes."
In Detroit landlords have found that it is cheaper to not pay the property taxes, allow the property to be seized and purchase it back at the sheriff's sale. Tells us how worthwhile it is to own anything in Detroit.
Demolish? Many times the building burns down instead. And sometimes the residents have advance word of it and move their valuables out. And fire loss tenants get into the public housing waiting list ahead of others. - Of course, people and insurance companies are getting wise to this sort of gaming and abusing the system.
From the December, 2008 issue
Well, that aged poorly...
Rent-stabilisation is a ridiculous policy and has a horribly distorting effect on the NYC apartment market. If NYC's government wants to do something about keeping rents affordable, then consider lightening zoning regs as a start.
Why not both?
I mean, it makes sense to these guys!
Woodchippers for the lot of them.
Dem Landlords be so bad, bad, bad. Take dey houses and dey buildin's and give'em to the Anti-Fa folks to distribute. I'm sure other developers will rush in to build replacement apartments for the taken properties.
The problem is, from a legislator's standpoint, rent-control is an entirely reasonable policy, socializing benefits while privatizing costs.
Rent control is experiencing a very undeserved reputational resurgence in the past few years. Wonks, politicians, and activists argue that a well-designed rent-control policy can be one solution among many to rising housing costs.
Oh, and as I proved in a previous thread with about a half hour of research, many of the rent-control advocates that get pimped here as part of the "YIMBY" movement, upzoning advocates are not just at the edges of the demand for increased rent-control, but in the dead center of it.
"a well-designed rent-control policy" LOL. God (or whatever) save us from the technocrats.
Those would be the left-YIMBY's. I'm not sure they count as real YIMBYs. Beyond rent control, many of these support destructive policies like inclusionary zoning and strict environmental regs on new construction, both of which tank new housing production.
Has NYC now reached Nazi-style governance? They have semi-nationalized some private enterprises and banned others, and made it clear that any business that remains must toe the line. They have a strict and comprehensive party that infiltrates every aspect of life. They have identified favored and enemy races. And they don't hesitate to act with ruthless vengeance.
When you vote for fascists, you get fascism.
Shocking, I know.
"But this time, the Fascists will get it right."
Economic Fascism - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)
When people hear the word “fascism” they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ‘30s as “corporatism,” that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.
...
The Italian corporative state, The Economist editorialized on July 27, 1935, “only amounts to the establishment of a new and costly bureaucracy from which those industrialists who can spend the necessary amount, can obtain almost anything they want, and put into practice the worst kind of monopolistic practices at the expense of the little fellow who is squeezed out in the process.” Corporatism, in other words, was a massive system of corporate welfare. “Three-quarters of the Italian economic system,” Mussolini boasted in 1934, “had been subsidized by government.”[28]
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is exactly the result of agricultural subsidies, the Export-Import bank, guaranteed loans to “preferred” business borrowers, protectionism, the Chrysler bailout, monopoly franchising, and myriad other forms of corporate welfare paid for directly or indirectly by the American taxpayer.
Another result of the close “collaboration” between business and government in Italy was “a continual interchange of personnel between the . . . civil service and private business.”[29] Because of this “revolving door” between business and government, Mussolini had “created a state within the state to serve private interests which are not always in harmony with the general interests of the nation.”[30]
This article below makes a statement "Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics." But to me it just highlights the slippery slope that is between interventionism and fascism. Read the piece below and ask your self where are we on that slope?
Fascism - Econlib
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.
Aww, the "scientists" that have repeatedly lied to us are now whining that they're "leaving twitter" because of all the vile rhetoric.
Maybe they will all go to Facebook. Win win.
I'm surprised they haven't gone full derp and require building owners to pay tenants.
...because; of course, only Gov-Guns can Rent. /s
So sell the buildings to someone else.
Everyone with enough money left New York two years ago.
Who would buy?
What sane person would buy a rent stabilized apartment building in NYC under these conditions?
New York's rent stabilization law caps rent increases at units in buildings with six or more units that were built prior to 1974 or which benefited from certain tax abatements. The law covers about 45 percent of rental housing in New York City and a third of the overall housing stock.
Find me another city where 45% of the rental housing is at least 50 years old.
Anywhere that has had rent control for over 50 years?
Only an idiot would build rental housing in a city that has decided to take it from the owners a little bit at a time.
Only bombing would be worse than rent control
adamsmith.org:
Not only does rent control stop new construction, but by putting a stranglehold on supply it destroys neighbourhoods. Real-life experience with rent control has been predictably awful, with entire neighbourhoods in New York City becoming decayed and abandoned. Because demand outstrips supply, there is little incentive for landlords to keep their properties in a decent state, especially in poor parts of town:
Paul Niebanck found that 29 percent of rent-controlled housing in the United States was deteriorated, but only 8 percent of the uncontrolled units were in such a state of disrepair. Joel Brenner and Herbert Franklin cited similar statistics for England and France.
Block quotes Gunner Myrdal, an architect of Sweden’s welfare state who was given the Nobel Prize in economics as the left-wing balance to his co-winner FA Hayek:
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.”
Remember Assar Lindbeck: There are two ways of destroying cities -- aerial bombing and rent control.