“This story was originally published by The City Reporter. Sign up to get the latest New York City news delivered to you each morning.”
Popsicles, paletas and now rents: all frozen.
The Rent Guidelines Board on Thursday approved 0% rent increases for about 1 million rent-stabilized apartments, delivering on one of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s signature campaign promises.
The vote took place in front of rows of tenants and advocates chanting in four different languages at the auditorium at El Museo del Barrio in East Harlem. Protesters lamented soaring rent prices and stagnant wages, carrying red “Freeze the Rent!” signs, distributed by the Democratic Socialists of America.
The measure passed 7 to 1, with eight members of the typically nine-member board present. Earlier Thursday, one of the members on the board representing landlords had resigned, protesting what she said was a mandate to “deliver a rent freeze.”
Mamdani has appointed six of the members, while three — including the one who resigned — were appointed under Mayor Eric Adams. Two represent tenants, two represent landlords and the other five, including the chair, represent the general public.
With the vote, tenants of rent-stabilized apartments across the boroughs won’t see a hike on their lease renewals starting Oct. 1.
Thursday’s vote marked the fourth time the board has approved a rent freeze in the city’s history. The three previous times all occurred under Mayor Bill de Blasio. But even then, two-year leases saw increases.
Thursday’s vote marked the first rent freeze ever for two-year leases.
After the decision, Bedford-Stuyvesant resident Darryl Randall thanked the mayor and said “there’s a lot of stress and weight taken off my shoulders.” The 57-year-old is out of work and did not know how he could have coped with more rent to pay.
“I’m on cloud nine. I feel like this is a dream. I’m like, I’m just hoping that this is not a dream,” he said. “If it was not for Mamdani winning, I don’t think we would have had this.”
Last year, the board voted on hikes of 3% increases for one-year leases and 4.5% for two-year leases that began Oct. 1, 2025. At that meeting, members of tenant groups expressed hope for a freeze under Mamdani, the winner of the Democratic primary.
The new mayor, who swept the mayoral election with a pledge to make New York City more affordable, often repeated his platform of fast and free buses, free child care and freezing rents.
In a video shot on New Year’s Day in 2025 — when Mamdani was then a longshot candidate polling in the single digits — Mamdani plunged into the cold waters off Coney Island and made his pledge: “I’m freezing … your rent as the next mayor of New York City,” Mamdani said to the camera.
Once he became mayor, Mamdani backed away from explicitly directing the Rent Guidelines Board’s vote, as the board is meant to be an independent body. Mamdani has still openly supported a freeze as a way to control costs for rent-stabilized tenants, and at the same time has touted the forthcoming city-backed insurance program meant to decrease the cost of insurance for landlords of rent-stabilized buildings.
Landlords of rent-stabilized buildings saw their costs increase 5.3% between 2025 and 2026, outpacing the country’s 2.7% inflation rate, according to research by the Rent Guidelines Board. Previous research showed that between 2023 and 2024, landlords’ income rose 6%, though income and rental growth varied widely across boroughs and for different building types.
Some landlords have said they can’t afford to pay for maintenance of their aging buildings, let alone upgrades, given the climbing costs and limited abilities to increase rents.
In the worst financial shape are owners of older buildings with a majority of rent-regulated apartments. Some of those owners have trouble paying for their mortgages, risking foreclosure. In contrast, owners of newer buildings and those with a mix of market-rate and regulated apartments are faring better, since rising rents help cover the costs across the board.
“Instead of balancing the needs of renters and owners to maintain the health and stability of the city’s rent-stabilized housing stock, Mamdani’s RGB unleashed what will be irreparable destruction on affordable housing, small owners, and the millions of New Yorkers we house,” said Ann Korchak, board president of Small Property Owners of New York, in a statement.
She also criticized the board’s vote taking place without “half its owner representation.”
Meanwhile, tenants and many local groups supporting them maintain that residents can’t accommodate another rent hike, given rising costs they face.
That’s how Sarah Delany felt. The 62-year-old nurse — who has lived in her Highbridge rent-stabilized apartment for 17 years — said she feels it will now be easier to pay for “costs that have been troubling me” like transportation, food and medicine.
“Sometimes you have to decide what bill you won’t pay in order to get through,” she said.
On Thursday night after the vote, she said she was “ecstatic.”
“Everybody is energized, everybody’s hopeful, encouraged, not apathetic — voting, paying attention, staying involved counts. It means something,” she said.
Let’s expect more rundown, decrepit buildings as landlords do not have the cash flow or economic incentive to properly maintain their buildings.
Let’s not forget that renters in market rate apartments will see their rents go up in order to subsidize those living in rent regulated apartments (and people living in coops and condos with regulated rental units will likely see their maintenance charges increase as well).
And all those hipsters who voted for Mamdani for his pledge to make NYC affordable will be further priced out of the city.
NYC progressive politics at its best!
Won’t landlords raise market rate apartment rents to whatever the market will bear regardless?
This is generally true for large corporate landlords. It is not universally true for smaller landlords.
This is what I find so odd – there are far more New Yorkers living in market rate apartments than in rent stabilized apartments. However much the rent has been going up, it will get even worse, since market rate ISN’T regulated and building owners will make up their profit somehow. So poor New Yorkers in market rate apartments are going to be in a tough situation.
Landlords who own market rate apartments are not automatically the same who own rent stabilized apartments, this logic makes no sense.
Actually, that is inaccurate. There are almost exactly as many market rate apartments as rent-regulated apartments: about 1 million of each. Look it up.
More will be warehoused. It’s cheaper long-term.
Why does that matter? The issue is still the same. Market rate renters will subsidize the rent freeze. And if there are the same numebr of apartments, the load on market rate renters will be even higher.
No, LL will continue to make millions, just as they did when everyone was under rent control.
Does your nitpicking add value to this conversation or does it just make you feel really smart and good about yourself? I think the point still is 100% accurate.
New York City can’t stop winning!! Promises made, promises kept.
In blind celebration, people are missing a larger point. Mamdani froze the rent by completely shutting out any opposition to the proposal whatsoever, no matter how well reasoned or supported by data. Even if you’re in favor of the outcome, is that how you want city policy to be determined?
That is absurd, since the vote was NOT along “party lines.” Based on the article, it is clear that at LEAST one landlord-friendly member of the Board voted FOR the freeze.
And EVERY Mayor has attempted to “stack” the Board of the RGB in THIER favor (whichever direction that may be). Adams “stacked” it with landlord-friendly members; Mamdani did the opposite when he got the chance. There is absolutely nothing new in this.
The outlier vote is irrelevant. All opposing data wasn’t even reviewed. That’s not how good government works.
Legal challenges incoming on that point. The inadequate data review possibly violated the building owners’ rights
Anyone who has studied economics knows this is very dumb. It is childish politics of giving things away. The world does not work like this. Landlords are entitled to make some money. Their costs are rapidly going up. Property taxes. Heating. basic maintenance. Yes, there are examples of those who are making big profits. But many are not.
So guess what – we now have a housing shortage, right? What incentive to landlords have to fix up and rent out apartments? It will only get worse.
Rather than having a highly political board, rent increases should be pegged either to an inflation index or the rate at which social security goes up. It can even be slightly lower than these – that is fine. But these are good indicators of cost increases. And given that many people in these apartments are on social security, it would align to their revenues – social security payments went up 2.8% this year, so have rent go up 2%? How is that not reasonable?
I personally think the whole system is awful and should be much more limited but it isn’t going anywhere so how about some compromise. This feels very Trumpy – bulldoze your way through everything rather than looking for a win-win.
Is he going to freeze the owner’s property taxes, insurance premiums, mortgage payments, so one’s cost as a landlord stays the same? If not, the only way to lower overhead is to cut maintenance.
NY tried this in the many years ago and it did not end well for tenants! Buildings and neighborhoods became vey run down and abandoned.
NY tried what? A rent freeze? Yes, three time under DeBlasio, and it ended just fine for tenants, thanks you.
“Childish politics of giving things away…” What can you expect from children.? None of them has ever held a real job, they’ve lived off Mommy and Daddy.
When I was a child, I remember asking my parents, who both worked hard, if I could have ANOTHER doll (believe me, I had plenty of dolls.) My mother explained that she didn’t have the money to buy one. “Charge it!!” I replied. She had to sit me down and explain that she would still have to pay at the end of the month.
That shocked me. I had no idea how “charging” something worked.
Wish my mom were still alive. She could’ve explained to these DSA people how putting off something still has to be paid for eventually.
And when all the landlords abandon these buildings and Mamdani wants to pay for everything, he will have to do it with other people’s money,. When the “other people” leave NY, as they have been, then what will he do?
Next up: building lots of market rate housing to give the rest of us a rent freeze
What are you doing right now to push for ending historic district landmarking on the UWS?
I am really confused by this language: “Protesters lamented soaring rent prices and stagnant wages, carrying red “Freeze the Rent!” signs.” Does this mean they are protesting freezing the rent for only rent stabilized apartments, and want it for market rate apartments as well? Otherwise what are they protesting? They are agreeing with what Mamdani wants.
But I really wish they would discuss what this means for poor and middle class New Yorkers who have market rate leases, and how much it costs to run a building, and what this rent freeze means for small building owners
I am a small landlord on the UWS – own one building. The real estate taxes have gone up to 140k and insurance, water bill, Con Ed, repairs and water bill have dramatically escalated over the last 45 years. I haven’t made any profit on the building in at least 10 years and have been losing money every year. Maintaining these old buildings is a constant and super expensive headache and with a 140k real estate tax bill its impossible. If NYC wants rent freeze they need to Freeze the Real Estate tax bills and stop the insane 8%+ yearly increases. So many buildings will fall into disrepair with these policies.
Well said and not enough people know this
I feel for you.
Sell it
So serious question, why are you retaining ownership of a building where you’re losing money every year as you say?
It’s a business and an asset, just like a coffee shop.
Who would want to buy in such conditions? Value of asset goes down.
While the landlords and their supporters on this comment thread make the same comments they always make about rent freezes, I think what is being missed is that it WASN’T a “party line” vote, given that at LEAST one landlord-friendly Board member voted FOR the freeze.
Yes, this will hit market rate renters – but it is absurd to suggest that most of them will be unable to take the “hit.” It is also inaccurate that there are MORE market rate apartments than rent-regulated apartments: the number is almost equal; there are ~1 million of each.
But the people who live in the 1 million rent-regulated apartments are the working and lower middle classes, while those in the market rate apartments are largely the upper middle class and “wealthy.”
So the Mayor’s focus on “affordability” is once again at work, and another campaign promise is fulfilled.
“Yes, this will hit market rate renters – but it is absurd to suggest that most of them will be unable to take the “hit.”
I live in a market rate apartment. For the last 2 years my rent has gone up 8% or more, to the maximum the new rent laws allow (inflation+5%). I’ve absorbed the hit for now, but it has an impact on my other spending. So while my landlord gains, my local restaurant and local clothing store and other local places lose.
And my so-called “deep pockets” have limits. I’ve lived in NYC almost my entire life. The last time I moved was the first time I moved because the rent was too much. I think I may have one more move within NYC limits, and the next move after that will be away from NY.
For all the people who think the rent freeze is a positive, here’s some very simple math and a question at the end.
Year 0
Rent $1000/month
Landlord costs (taxes, insurance,, utilities, maintenance, etc.) $950 (very little profit for the landlord, no control on major costs like taxes, insurance, utilities)
Profit $50 (about 5% … this is actually high, Rentiing usually provides a 3-4% return)
Year 1
Rent $1000 (frozen)
Landlord costs increase by 5% (conservative) $997.5
Profit $2.50
Year 2
Rent $1000 (frozen)
Landlord costs increase by 5% $1,047.37
Loss: $47.37
What would you do as a landlord? Maintain the apartment?
Large corporate and institutional landowners overwhelmingly dominate the NYC rental housing and rent-regulated markets, controlling over 88% of all rent-stabilized units . In contrast, small “mom-and-pop” landlords hold a disproportionately tiny fraction of the market.
Corporate entities—including mega-landlords, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), and Private Equity (PE) firms—control the vast majority of New York City’s rental apartments .
Landlords with 100 or more units own 88% of all rent-stabilized housing . Staggeringly, the top 0.3% of landlords (portfolios over 1,000 units) control nearly 56% of all rent-stabilization-protected apartments .
Landlords with ten or fewer units own only 13.2% of the city’s total rental stock and a tiny 1.2% of all rent-stabilized apartments
So the fact that corporate entities would lose money is ok to you? Explain how sustainable that would be please.
Sure, these 1000 plus unit landlords are losing money on their NYC real estate. Be serious, please.
No but they will cut their cost with units not profitable. You obviously never ran a business in your life. You progressive people cant comprehend business, mathematics or economics.
They may lose money on each unit, but they make it up in volume. (Henry Ford)
No, because unlike car factories, single cost remains the same per apartment/unit…. (again, sigh…..)
I live a market rate apartment and I’m not wealthy…..partially due to that market rent I’m paying. I’d be able to bank a whole lot more if someone stabilized my rent
Ian, how do you know “the people who live in the rent-regulated apartments are the working and lower middle classes”? There are no income requirements for rent stabilized apartments. Getting one is a matter of luck. Every New Yorker knows people who benefit from below market rents who have a country home in Connecticut or the Hamptons. I wouldn’t be as against rent stabilization as I am if we limited this benefit to those who truly need it.
Thirty-year NYC resident here and never met a single person who has the second CT/Hamptons country home. What an urban myth. People also assume that rent-stabilized rents are absurdly low. In fact, our stabilized rent has doubled in the past 25 years, routinely increasing by 5-8% for 1-2 year leases during the Giuliani/Bloomberg administrations while annual salary increases stagnated at around 2-3% per annum, not to mention the impact of inflation on other expenses.
Every rent stabilized person I know has a second (one has a third) home.
I have! Rent stabilized in the west 90s, house in the Berkshires
If you don’t know anyone who is rent stabilized with a second home then you live in a bubble. I know several. I don’t know why people are so opposed to weeding out those who abuse the system. If this was done, a lot more people would be supportive. Isn’t that good?
Also, rent doubling in 25 years really isn’t that bad. Particularly since it was likely doubling off a very low base so in terms of absolute dollar growth, the increase was probably much less than how much a comparable market rate apartment went up. And you are doing selective math because rents barely went up at all under deBlasio – there were several freezes and most others were 1-2% – not going to mention that?
This whole situation is proof of why everyone should be required to take basic economics and stats classes.
LOL, come on now. It’s a one-party election, in a one-party city, by a one-party hand-picked Board,, taken further left by “democratic” socialists. Take the putative win and promise kept and move on. You can’t convince anyone that this is somehow supported by however many Republican voters may exist in this town, or that the landlords somehow support it.
The one vote that you are referring to had ZERO impact on the result And neither you nor I know if that voter was pressured into the vote, or simply voted with the majority because there was nothing he/she could do or genuinely approved the measure. You don’t know and neither does anyone else.
And you forget to mention the one voter who resigned ahead of the formal vote who stated very clearly that the whole process was a charade. The vote was pre-determined according to this person and she had the guts to resign and state the obvious.
The one appointed by the corrupt Adams administration who was in the pocket of several big real estate companies, corrupt police officers, state agencies, and investment companies? That one voter? If you argue that Mamdani appointed biased voters who were going to fulfill his agenda, you have to take into consideration that Adams did the same but with much less ethical intentions. Mamdani is trying to make a difference in working class New Yorker’s lives, something Adams and Bloomberg never cared about. Landlords had three terms of Bloomberg to harass and render stabilized apartments uninhabitable, sell off large swaths of newly redistricted neighborhoods, and lavishly line their pockets. It’s time the tenants had a turn to receive some consideration.
I’m not arguing one way or another, Ian picked out one landlord voter who voted for the freeze and extrapolated that to mean the vote was not along party lines. I was just point out the fallacy in his argument and also added that another voter resigned under protest.
We can all agree the vote was a charade with the composition of the board.
In the end this will backfire as it will force landlords to take this to SCOTUS and rent controls will be abolished.
On what grounds could landlords take this to SCOTUS?
a “regulatory taking.” SCOTUS has regularly declined to hear cases regarding rent regulations, but in 2024, Justice Thomas (issued a statement in denying cert to a particular rent regulation case) expressed concern that strict rent control and forced lease renewal requirements (like those in New York City) may cross the line into unconstitutional regulatory takings, as they significantly limit a property owner’s control and financial return.
It’s only a matter of time (and the right litigants) before this ends up in front of SCOTUS
Perhaps not scotus right away but it will be challenged. Building owners could argue their rights to due process were violated by the board making this decision without adequately reviewing rising costs first
On the grounds that private property owners have the right to manage their assets as they please.
The fact is that there are far more renters than landlords. This is a popular proposal and proves that democracy does work.
Those who oppose the rent freeze are likely the same folks who would be criticizing Mamdani for not fulfilling a campaign promise if this did not happen. I don’t think it is good economics to freeze rents entirely but Mamdani did run on it and I give him credit for making it happen. The guy has guts and I am enjoying watching him use his skills and personality to shake things up. Unlike many other politicians of both parties Mamdani doesn’t do this for his own financial gain.
All rents should be stabilized or controlled
Mark, Are you in favor of your salary being “stabilized or controlled”?
If I remember correctly, nurses get paid north of $150K per annum according to the latest contract. How is a 62 year old nurse is having trouble paying bills when living in a rent stabilized apartment?
This worked out so well for the South Bronx in the 1970s
Talk about non-sequitor.
Total disregard for the notion of what private property even means. Unamerican.
So that means rents and fees going up for everyone else.
My aunts husband. Rent controlled apartment. On East 86th St. And has a couple of million in the bank.
The fundamental problem in NYC is that there is far too little housing for the number of people who want to live here.
Everything else is downstream. Every method of rationing – market prices, rent control, waitlists for public housing – have downsides. There is one solution. Building more housing.
You can’t fit the entire world into one city.
The fundamental problem is that there aren’t more cities like New York. And the answer to that isn’t to overpopulate NYC until it becomes undesirable. We don’t need 9+ million people here.
Who says? Tokyo is an extremely desirable city with a city proper population of over 14 million. Instead of putting an arbitrary top-down constraint on the size of NYC, just let people build housing.
There’s plenty of low hanging fruit to increase the density in NYC while utilizing existing public transportation infrastructure, eg Hells Kitchen, much of Brooklyn and Queens. And don’t get me started on the abysmal land use directly next to LIRR/Metro North stations!
The heart of the issue is that forcing more housing near LIRR and Metro-North stations do not do anything to reduce “car dependency” and a person that lives in an apartment near these stations and either works in Manhattan or has social connections in Manhattan or Brooklyn is at a social disadvantage to those who live on the UWS or the UES or the West Village or Murray Hill. I know people who live in apartment buildings in Westchester who are younger and there’s a lot of peer pressure on them to move to a neighborhood like the UWS.
The better solution in my opinion is less companies who are Manhattan based and have more housing in Midtown. At least you sort of force someone living on the UWS to get out of the gentrified NYC bubble and in turn it makes it easier and more affordable to live elsewhere. What we really need to do is reduce Manhattan dependency. The person living near an LIRR or Metro-North station is more likely to have a car than the UWS reverse commuter using the LIRR or Metro-North to go to the office a few times a week.
NASA says.
Tokyo is becoming increasingly difficult to live in during the summer because of extreme heat. According to NASA, several factors contribute to this:
The “concrete jungle” effect: Dense urban development creates a strong urban heat island effect. Dark, hard surfaces such as asphalt, steel, and high-rise buildings absorb heat throughout the day and continue releasing it long after sunset, significantly increasing temperatures.
Disrupted Airflow: Towering skyscrapers and dense building layouts block natural sea breezes that would otherwise cool the city center.
I don’t want New York to suffer the same fate because of overdevelopment. Unfortunately, it is heading in that direction because of feckless urbanist zealots.
Yes–Building housing at any price point would help.