Matt Turner on a Rent Freeze
The world usually only holds their breath for an American election when the White House is on the line, but last week millions of people around the world watched in awe of how one man faced off against oligarchs and corporations to win the 2025 New York City Mayoral election. Zohran Mamdani is relatively new to the limelight of politics, after being elected to the New York State Assembly in 2020, he now has his work cut out for him through a long list of campaign promises which led him to victory last week.
Affordability was at the center of his campaign, highlighting how millions of New Yorkers are struggling to pay rent, afford groceries, and even utilize public transit. In an age where top politicians are so far removed from the average person, it is refreshing to see a candidate focus on the people, rather than Trump throwing a lavish Gatsby-themed Halloween party on the same day SNAP funding is frozen.
Under the affordability umbrella is his “contested” rent freeze policy, which would freeze annual increases on New York City’s rent-stabilized apartments by appointing a Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) majority that votes for 0% hikes—an approach used under Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2015, 2016 and again during 2020. The freeze targets ~1M stabilized units housing and ~2M+ New Yorkers. For some reason, the rent freeze is frowned upon—those who are against it likely can be found in their multi-room, million-dollar, family home in one of the five boroughs, or in their cozy Highrise apartment. Thankfully New Yorkers showed up and voted, and the numbers spoke. More residents were in favor of having room to breathe when it comes to their monthly expenses.
The real question is whether the rent freeze is possible and realistic. We already know the negative stance that many voters have on this “radical” idea, and the unfairness of taxing earners of 1M+ Annual Income— an amount of people less than 1% of NY’s population. I think it is completely fair, and these earners would not have this paycheck if it wasn’t for the labors of hundreds of thousands of people. Now if we get down to the feasibility of this, it’s technically completely possible. If the board successfully votes for a 0% increase, voila! But this is simply a band-aid solution for a much wider affordability crisis. Once the rent is frozen is when the real action begins. During this period, housing developments will need to be built in order to justify keeping rents frozen, while also appealing to landlords and developers so that business keeps flowing and the rental market in NY doesn't dry-up—something that seems impossible right now.
But let’s be real, a worst-case scenario, where a rent freeze gets blocked, or leads to property devalue through lack of developer interest, is still better than locals slowly getting squeezed out of their living spaces by the hand of landlord and capitalist greed. Realistically the two points excluding a blocked rent freeze would never come to fruition. Someone always wants to move to NY, and someone always wants to develop there.
It seems crazy to have to defend a basic standard of living, something that should never even be on the table to begin with. The amount of poverty in the richest city in America is astounding, and for the first time in what feels like forever, we have a politician who wants to walk in the shoes of an average person instead of being stepped on by the shoes of oligarchs and corporations. If everyone voted as if they were the most at-risk demographic, everyone's quality of life would be raised.
