City Comptroller Wants Stabilized Rents Stabilized

I find it disappointing that someone elected to be in charge of the city's financial health, displays such a lack of economic knowledge. Rent control is bad for affordable rent, except for renters who already have it. For those who still think rent control is good, let me share an analogy.

Rent control is in some ways similar to concert tickets (of course there are differences, but bear with me). When concert tickets go on sale, especially popular concerts or sporting events initially sell at artificially low rates (for many reasons, but most importantly the PR problem for bands "gauging" their fans). Think of this as rent control – an artificially suppressed price. However, scalpers inevitably get tickets and resell them, which are equivalent of market prices. For these limited in quantity tickets, scalpers get incredible prices, such as the $11,000 seats for the Police concert (who knew?). Clearly, all tix couldn't sell for $11,000, but since the limited availability of the remaining tickets can't match demand, prices spike. If the entire concert were set to market, all of those suppressed (controlled) prices would be higher, but those $11,000 seats would be a lot lower, as well. The same is true for rent control versus market prices for apartments.

Here's another way to look at it – I know of a rent controlled tenant paying $1000/month for a classic six in the Ansonia on the Upper West Side. Now, let's say you are looking for a 3-br apartment on the UWS, and there are only two, the Ansonia apartment and one other, at market. Since the family paying $1000 will never leave, that only leaves the other apartment. The landlord of that remaining apartment does not have to compete on price, since there is no competition. This simplifies the problem, but is representative as you scale it up to a city scale. If you are a market tenant looking for an apartment, you have fewer choices because of rent control, and because you have fewer choices, landlords have more power to raise prices. If you banned rent control (impossible bec/ it is morally and politically unpalatable to kick out grandmothers), all of that new supply will push down prices for the market people.

If you have rent control, you have a great price. If not, you get screwed. And that's how your opinion should be framed on the subject. If you were born here, you get a better price, but if you moved here, you're screwed.

rent control = more black people in nyc.
No rent Control = Less black people in NYC.
Which do you prefer?

There's plenty of affordable housing in the outer boroughs and Jersey. There's also the rest of our extremely large and diverse country, all of which is cheaper than here.

NYC's massive welfare state fosters blight and crime, and drives up costs for productive people who actually contribute to the economy. This city really is run by morons, reflecting its populace.

Tell me what isn't political posturing? they're politicians.
Perhaps they gotta learn from the master, Rudy.

NYCHA properties are not subject to rent stabilization regulations. The rents are fixed at a percentage of income with a minimum.

In any event, there IS no difference between rent control and rent stabilization. Both guarantee the right of renewal for tenants, effectively granting them a perpetual leasehold interest in a property. Both limit how much a landlord can raise the rent, effectively creating a rent ceiling.

The only difference is legislative naming conventions. Rent control was a legislative act passed by the state during World War II, basically to keep war wives from losing their homes due to the rising rents in the city as workers flooded the various factories of that era. Rent stabilization was passed around 1970 by the City of New York, ostensibly to combat the high inflation of that time.