Andrew Cuomo’s recent attack on fellow mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani for living in a rent stabilized apartment plays on one of the oldest tropes detractors use to criticize the policy: that it should only benefit specific households. For decades, this disingenuous misrepresentation of both the policy’s intention and its possible outcomes has served as powerful ammunition for landlord lobbyists and their allies, who seek to repeal, prevent, or undermine rent control and rent stabilization across the nation.
As Eliza Shapiro chronicled in her recent review of a new exhibit about the history of the tenant movement in New York City, freezing or regulating rent increases has been the objective of tenant activism in the city for well over a century. In 1918, tenant unions collaborated with the Socialist Party on a campaign of widespread rent strikes in response to low vacancy rates and resulting landlord price gouging, which led to the state and city’s first rent control laws in 1920. The laws expired in 1929, but they permanently established rent regulation as a part of the city’s rental housing landscape and culture.
[RELATED ARTICLE: Photos: New York’s Rich History of Housing Activism]
The Emergency Rent Laws of 1920 differed from modern rent stabilization in several key ways. Unlike contemporary rent regulation policies, the 1920 law did not set specific limits on rent increases. Instead, tenant households had the option to challenge a rent increase in court on the grounds that the increase was unreasonable, and landlords were required to provide accounting. However, then as now, means testing (using income thresholds to restrict eligibility to low-income households) was not part of the policy.
That’s because rent regulation is not designed to produce affordable housing or serve low-income households exclusively. Rather, the intention is to give residents stability and financial security so they can put down roots in their communities and make a home where they live. In order to do this, rent increases need to be predictable and fair for all tenants, with protections against lease terminations without cause. Though obviously those with the least resources have the fewest choices, this basic principle applies to households across the income spectrum. The exception is the rare wealthy household that can afford its pick of luxury accommodations (like an apartment that rents for $8,000 a month and contains a pet spa).
Today, there are two systems that regulate rent in the city. Rent control applies only to a select few homes (about 16,400 of them, today) with tenancies that began prior to July 1, 1971. Landlords of these tenants can only charge them a set dollar amount, updated biennially. Rent stabilization applies to about 1 million homes and limits rent increases to a fixed percent, determined annually by a board.
Due to a complex web of interlocking factors (market rates, property condition, location, length of tenure, maximum legal rent, etc.) rents in New York City’s rent stabilized homes may range from dirt cheap for long-time tenants to near or even beyond market rates for newer ones. At $2,300, Mamdani’s apartment is barely under market. It’s over $700 more than the average rent stabilized Queens apartment and only a couple hundred dollars less than the average market rent in his Astoria neighborhood.
With a gross income of about $92,000 a year needed to not be rent-burdened in this apartment, the rent is hardly “affordable.” But without getting too far into the weeds about what counts as “rich” in New York or what can be considered “affordable” when the rent is too damn high across the board, Cuomo’s attack wrongly conflates two different types of housing policy: homes that have designated affordability covenants (usually housing that has some kind of federal or local funding, such as public housing) and homes that have restrictions on rent increases.
Ultimately, Cuomo taps into the rich tradition of real estate investment industry rhetoric about who deserves to live in a rent stabilized home, and who is unjustly “hoarding” a public resource at the expense of the greater good. For example, in 2019, a Los Angeles landlord trade organization magazine called Apartment Age published a message by the president that cited the apparently scandalous allegation that the then-mayor of San Francisco lived in a rent-controlled apartment. This argument is usually deployed to delegitimize the policy by claiming it isn’t performing as intended. Of course, the premise itself is a fallacy. Ironically, tying rent stabilization to income wouldn’t necessarily benefit landlords, who may be forced to rent to people who have a more precarious relationship between their rent and income than they otherwise would.
The details of Cuomo’s proposed “Zohran’s Law”—which would means-test new tenants of rent stabilized housing—are fuzzy. The press release says that means testing will only take place when a new household moves in. But if the intended effect is to lock in the relationship between rent and income, it will fail as soon as a household’s income rises, for example when a partner moves in. But even if testing were to be conducted routinely, as in public housing, it would guarantee forced moves for tenant households whose incomes increase over time. This constant upheaval would take a toll on the social fabric of apartment buildings, schools, and neighborhoods. On the flip side, it would also make any household whose income isn’t right at or around the 30 percent mark rent-burdened. Most concerning, the proposal is rooted in a critical lack of understanding about the ways rent stabilization supports renter households and communities.
In 2021, I researched residents’ experiences living in rent-controlled housing in Santa Monica, California. Local rent control laws in California differ from New York’s rent regulation laws in several ways, most notably because of state-mandated vacancy decontrol, which gives landlords the option to raise rents to market rates between tenancies. What I found was an array of positive outcomes that have received very little attention in academic inquiry and popular discourse about this policy. Participants were rooted and attached to their homes, neighborhoods, and city. Their tenancy gave them more discretionary income, increased capacity to pursue interests and obligations, expanded career and educational opportunities, more time and motivation to volunteer with community and civic groups, and the willingness and financial resources to invest in maintaining or improving their apartments.
Having predictable, manageable housing costs means not having to live in survival mode for participants who are low-income—particularly seniors living on fixed incomes. This includes being able to plan for retirement at a reasonable age, rather than working into one’s golden years. For higher earners who are paying rents that are close to market rate, knowing housing costs will increase modestly over time and they are protected from “no-cause evictions” has supported them in making important life decisions and long-term plans. Even for younger, upwardly mobile people who would hypothetically be able to afford a market rent, the dramatic loss of income with a much higher rent may prompt them to leave the city. A few participants experienced temporary income reductions related to COVID-19, but their reasonable rent meant they didn’t have to worry about losing their home or cutting back on essentials, even with a diminished income.
The value renters in rent-controlled or stabilized housing create when they invest time and resources in community-based organizations and other volunteer endeavors is virtually ignored in discussions about the policy.
Our modern lives are complex, unpredictable, and always changing. Jobs are never guaranteed, the social safety net continues to unravel, and many Americans are saddled with credit card debt, tuition, student loans, health care co-pays, childcare costs, supporting parents or other relatives, and other expenses beyond basic overhead. With so many things in life beyond our control, knowing that at least one’s housing is secure and that housing costs are predictable in the long term provides a safe harbor. This contributes to what sociologist Anthony Giddens called “ontological security”: a sense of constancy and predictability that supports daily life. Its opposite, existential anxiety, can lead to a deterioration of mental and physical health, relationships, and job performance.
The residential stability afforded by rent control and other tenant protections in Santa Monica has enabled renters to put down roots and fully engage in their communities on a level more typical of homeowners in most parts of the country. Benefits spill over beyond the individual household, to neighbors, friends, schools, and employers. Participants in my study described how longevity of tenure creates social stability in the apartment building and neighborhood, with many identifying good neighbors and a positive social atmosphere in the building as important elements in feeling at home. Several long-time tenants described the sense of community that comes with knowing everyone on their block, at least by sight. Conversely, a few people mentioned that apartments that are vacation rentals or have frequent turnover detract from their sense of security and comfort.
Many renters said that housing stability is partly why they are interested in and able to participate in volunteer activities and community-building. With regulated rent and other tenant protections, they could expect to stay in their homes for a long time. And having a healthy work-life balance (instead of working three jobs just to pay the rent) means they have the time. When we spoke, Vanessa had lived in her home for four decades. “I’m invested in the community,” she said, “and part of that, yes, is because I know that I can live here.” Similarly, another resident, Nate, said that his reliable housing meant he was keeping up with local politics and volunteering at his son’s school and sports. His son was able to make friendships without the threat of a move.
This contrasts with stereotypes about renters as transient and disengaged, which is underpinned by the unspoken assumption that renters should move whenever life circumstances change. Yet the value renters in rent-controlled or stabilized housing create when they invest time and resources in community-based organizations and other volunteer endeavors is virtually ignored in discussions about the policy.
Ironically, many of these outcomes (a stable social fabric in the building, self-actualization, ontological security, community engagement) are part of the rationale behind the federal government’s long history of programs that promote and support homeownership. And there’s a reason fixed-rate mortgages are the standard lending option. In New York City, where almost 70 percent of people rent their homes and many are permanently priced out of ownership, rent stabilization is a commonsense policy that benefits renters at virtually all income levels. It is a lever to tip the scales of power—however imperfectly and incompletely—between the real estate investors who benefit from community-created value and public investments and the people who live in and shape places every day. These people include janitors, nurses, teachers, baristas, students, and yes—even middle-income elected officials.
About the Author
Comments