Silly people, calling for a free market to set all rents. We have in New York City what is called a market failure. Unregulated, rents would not be set by the market at the "right" level. Because there is a cap on supply, market prices would lead to artificially high rents and windfall profits for landlords. In a functioning market, supply would be drawn to the market until the windfall disappeared and prices dropped. That may work in cities where there is excess housing capacity, but not in NYC. Hence, we need regulation to correct the market failure.
Furthermore, we as a city value neighborhood stability and recognize the cost of frequent market-driven upheavals.
Finally, as all rent-regulated buildings are either pre-1974 or the result of the landlord accept tax benefits, except for a few owners, rent regulation was something the landlords got into with their eyes open. In other words, if you don't want to be a rent stabilized landlord, don't buy a regulated building. Get into some other business!
Silly people, calling for a free market to set all rents. We have in New York City what is called a market failure. Unregulated, rents would not be set by the market at the "right" level. Because there is a cap on supply, market prices would lead to artificially high rents and windfall profits for landlords. In a functioning market, supply would be drawn to the market until the windfall disappeared and prices dropped. That may work in cities where there is excess housing capacity, but not in NYC. Hence, we need regulation to correct the market failure.
Furthermore, we as a city value neighborhood stability and recognize the cost of frequent market-driven upheavals.
Finally, as all rent-regulated buildings are either pre-1974 or the result of the landlord accept tax benefits, except for a few owners, rent regulation was something the landlords got into with their eyes open. In other words, if you don't want to be a rent stabilized landlord, don't buy a regulated building. Get into some other business!