Mamdani’s Rent Guidelines Board plan deemed ineffective for addressing NYC’s housing affordability crisis, highlighting the limitations of a proposed rent freeze.

In a recent discourse surrounding New York City’s housing affordability crisis, the debate over whether to implement a prolonged rent freeze for rent-stabilized apartments has intensified. As a member of the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), the longest-serving member appointed by former Mayor Bill de Blasio, I am compelled to weigh in on the implications of such a measure.

While acknowledging the urgency of addressing the city’s affordable housing challenges, I express deep concern regarding proposals, specifically those by advocate Zohran Mamdani, which call for a four-year freeze on rents for all rent-stabilized housing. Although Mamdani’s intentions are rooted in a commitment to affordability, the potential consequences of such a policy threaten the viability of countless rent-stabilized buildings, many of which benefited from public investment.

Mamdani and supporters of a rent freeze underscore the contrast in rent increases authorized by RGB under current Mayor Eric Adams compared to de Blasio’s tenure. Between 2014 and 2021, rent increases during Adams’ administration averaged 12.5% for one-year leases, substantially higher than the 5.5% witnessed during de Blasio’s eight years, which included multiple rent freezes in 2016, 2017, and 2020. While objective data support these assertions, they obscure critical changes introduced by the 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, which significantly curbed landlords’ ability to raise rents through mechanisms such as vacancy increases and Major Capital Improvement (MCI) charges.

Under the new regulations, landlords’ capacity to expand rents is tightly controlled, thereby making them increasingly reliant on the RGB’s annual adjustments. In the current economic climate, exacerbated by rising inflation rates averaging 4.2% from January 2022 through September 2025, the RGB has allowed increases that, when adjusted for inflation, can be viewed as minimal or, in some cases, negative.

A rent freeze, particularly one lasting multiple years as proposed by Mamdani, poses grave risks—not merely for landlords but, crucially, for the very buildings housing vulnerable residents. Without sufficient rental income, landlords may struggle to manage their properties effectively, leading to deteriorating conditions and potential financial insolvency. This dilemma is exacerbated by escalating costs for essential services—insurance, repairs, utilities, and maintenance—which do not align with the proposed freeze.

Considering that over 9% of all rent-stabilized buildings—with 1,563 identified—currently operate in distress, the ramifications of freezing rents would deepen the crisis. Many of these buildings, predominantly built before 1974 and concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods, lack opportunities to mitigate losses through unregulated units upon which more affluent areas rely.

Moreover, a significant portion of affordable housing in New York City—numbers exceeding 290,000 units—derives from substantial public investment, amounting to more than billion since the late 1980s. Such housing is imperative for accommodating low and moderate-income households, yet many face financial challenges exacerbated by high operational costs outpacing customary revenue. Research from housing coalitions indicates that over half of city-subsidized units currently experience losses, emphasizing the precarious financial condition that a rent freeze would only worsen.

Rather than a rent freeze, a more constructive approach would involve expanding the existing rent subsidy programs to alleviate the burden on low-income tenants. Enhancements to programs like CityFHEPS could empower more residents to afford their housing costs without jeopardizing the financial health of the city’s existing housing resources.

Ultimately, while acknowledging the validity of the housing affordability crisis faced by many New Yorkers, a multi-year rent freeze is a miscalculated approach that risks undermining decades of progress in maintaining a sustainable and affordable housing structure. New York City’s housing future must pivot toward solutions that balance the needs of tenants with the necessity of preserving viable, safe housing stock for generations to come.