“Two of Mamdani’s executive orders directly address that latter goal. One creates a Streamlining Procedures to Expedite Equitable Development (SPEED) task force dedicated to identifying and removing bureaucratic barriers to new housing construction and leasing.
The second creates the Land Inventory Fast Track (LIFT) task force that will identify city land that can be used for housing construction.
Both are fine ideas. They’re also not exactly novel.
Mamdani’s predecessor, Eric Adams, likewise convened task forces to speed up the city’s permitting process and to identify city-owned land that could be used for housing.
…
Perhaps a Mamdani administration will be able to squeeze more juice out of new task forces.
But as the Manhattan Institute’s Eric Kober details in a new report, substantially increasing new supply will require more comprehensive legislative changes to city zoning and permitting laws.
The end goal of those reforms, like many of the zoning reforms the City Council passed under the Adams administration, is to induce private developers to add more units to the housing-starved city.
Several of Mamdani’s other initial housing moves may well make them less likely to do that.
On his first day in office, Mamdani appointed Cea Weaver, a tenant activist and one of his campaign advisers, to lead the city’s Office to Protect Tenants.
A few days later, the New York Post reported on Weaver’s long history of hard-left social media commentary. She’s called for seizing private property and derided homeownership as a “weapon of white supremacy.”
…
In addition to appointing Weaver, Mamdani has directed city agencies to host a series of “rent ripoff” hearings, in which tenants will be given a public forum to complain about conditions in their buildings.
Mamdani, beginning his administration by appointing communists and scheduling housing struggle sessions designed to demonize landlords, might not be the most surprising development. It’s not entirely unprecedented either. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio liked to talk about seizing private property from time to time.
It’s nevertheless worrisome for anyone who does care about private property protections. It’s also maddeningly hypocritical.
Weaver was a primary proponent of New York’s 2019 rent stabilization law that made it much more difficult for landlords to fund maintenance and building improvements through higher rents.
As recent lawsuits and reports have highlighted, the result has been declining housing quality and a growing number of units sitting empty because their owners cannot finance needed, often city-mandated repairs.
Neither Mamdani nor Weaver can expropriate private housing all by themselves. The U.S. Constitution provides some protection against that. They can, however, scapegoat landlords for problems that are caused by overbearing regulation.
…
Housing production has plummeted in Montgomery County, Maryland, which borders Washington, D.C., following the implementation of a local rent control ordinance.
In 2023, the county council approved a rent control policy that caps annual rent increases at the lesser of inflation plus 3 percent or 6 percent.
…
multifamily housing permits have fallen by some 96 percent since the implementation of rent control. County planning officials report that the multifamily projects that are getting permitted are generally for-sale units.”
“On one of their units, the Lulgjurajs are able to charge monthly market-rate rents of $2,600. For an identical unit that became vacant in 2019 after a long-term tenancy, they can only charge $710 per month.
The costs of legally mandated repairs to that unit—which would include replacing the kitchen and bathroom, performing lead abatement, and leveling the floors—exceed $100,000. Yet the 2019 law permits them to reclaim less than half of these costs, let alone raise rents to something approximating market rates.
Without the ability to recover the costs of legally mandated repairs, the unit currently sits empty.
In addition to alleging a taking, the property owners’ lawsuit also argues that the wildly different rents allowed on units, dependent solely on how old the unit is and when it became vacant, is arbitrary and irrational.”
“Freezing the rent: Mamdani’s signature campaign promise was to freeze the rent for more than 2 million tenants living in rent-controlled housing. But the city’s cost of living has grown unabated despite decades of rent control—which, coupled with restrictive zoning, has made the city’s housing shortage worse.
$30 minimum wage: There’s good reason for New Yorkers to be skeptical of Mamdani’s plan to raise the minimum wage. When the city raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018, the predictable result was increased unemployment and black markets in labor. Nearly doubling the current minimum wage of $16.50 by 2030 would produce similar consequences.
“Free” buses: On the campaign trail, Mamdani promised to eliminate the fare on every city bus to make them “fast” and “free.” The plan would cost taxpayers $600 million–$800 million annually and likely result in slower speeds, which is what happened when the city piloted five fare-free bus lines in 2023 and 2024.
Government-run grocery stores: Mamdani has proposed not-for-profit, government-run grocery stores—subsidized to the tune of $140 million a year—to reduce prices at the checkout counter. New York’s grocery stores, like others across the country, operate on razor-thin margins. The profit motive isn’t to blame for high grocery prices; inflation and supply chain disruptions are.
…
$5 billion corporate tax: Naturally, Mamdani promises that you won’t pay for his multi-billion dollar programs—greedy corporations will! If Mamdani manages to convince state lawmakers to increase the city’s corporate tax rate from 7.5 percent to 11.5 percent, New Yorkers should expect companies to reduce salaries, benefits, and headcount to remain in business. Some might opt to abandon the city altogether, leaving the taxpayers of the People’s Republic of New York to foot the bill for their socialist utopia.”
“The city has the nation’s most regulated housing sector and the largest stock of government-owned and subsidized housing, and yet progressives blame its real estate troubles on the free market.
…
These buildings are falling apart, with an estimated $78 billion repair backlog, including “non-functioning smoke detectors, antiquated electrical components, damaged interiors, missing child guards…deteriorated roofs, deteriorated pumps, and leaking pipes,” according to a recent report. The system for making repairs in New York public housing is rife with corruption. Heat and hot water service are routinely interrupted. The elevators, which are crucial in multistory buildings housing elderly residents, are constantly breaking down.
When public housing was created, it was assumed that the residents would be two-income, working families whose rents would cover upkeep. That plan failed as stable families opted for home-ownership. Today, only 2 percent of New York public housing households include two adults with children, and just a third of households report income from wages.
The perverse incentives of public housing help explain why the city is perennially plagued by shortages. According to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), fully 30 percent of the city’s public housing residents are “overhoused,” meaning single adults are living in 3- or 4-bedroom apartments. About 10 percent of residents have lived in their units for more than 40 years.
This problem also applies to rent-regulated units: Artificially cheap rents mean tenants don’t vacate after their kids grow up and move out, leading to inefficient use of a limited stock.
…
The “affordable housing” program championed by Mamdani will likely take the form of new private apartment buildings setting aside units for lower-income families, whose rents are subsidized by the federal government. These programs require developers to navigate extensive red tape, which adds cost and slows housing production. The system allocates units via lottery, so it’s based on luck.
Similarly, rent-regulated units in Manhattan go to tenants lucky enough to get them, or, in some cases, inherit them from their parents or grandparents. Since New York lawmakers have made it so hard to evict tenants for nonpayment of rent, landlords are incentivized to pick high-earners to inhabit this scarce resource.
As mayor, Mamdani would select the members of the Rent Guidelines Board, which sets price increases on nearly 1 million apartments. According to Census data, turnover in rent-regulated units is half that of market-rate units, which is one of the reasons the city’s overall turnover is 46 percent lower than the national average.
…
thanks to a 2019 law that made New York’s rent regulation laws far more stringent. Some 200,000 rent-regulated apartments, many in need of ongoing maintenance, don’t generate enough income to cover basic operating expenses, according to Mark Willis of New York University’s Furman Center. He also noted that “such rent shortfalls are likely to continue to grow over time, potentially exponentially, jeopardizing the long-run economic sustainability of these properties.””
“The biggest housing issue on the California ballot was rent control. Proposition 33 would have repealed all state-level limits on local rent control policies, thus giving cities and counties a free hand to regulate rents however they pleased.
The measure went down in flames on Election Day, with roughly 60 percent of voters casting a “no” ballot.
That result is good news for the availability of rental housing in California, given rent control’s well-documented history of reducing rental housing supply and quality.
It is nevertheless a somewhat surprising result. California has a much higher proportion of renters than most other states and polls consistently find that rent control is supported by a wide majority of respondents. Dozens of cities already have rent control policies on the books.”
…
“Prop. 36 asked California voters if they wanted to increase legal penalties for certain drug and theft crimes. With roughly 70 percent of ballots counted, some 70 percent of voters said yes they do. Prop. 36 has earned majority support in every single county in the state.”
“Last fall, Milei eliminated what The Wall Street Journal termed one of the world’s “strictest” rent-control laws. Per its report: “The Argentine capital is undergoing a rental-market boom. Landlords are rushing to put their properties back on the market, with Buenos Aires rental supplies increasing by over 170 percent. While rents are still up in nominal terms, many renters are getting better deals than ever, with a 40 percent decline in the real price of rental properties when adjusted for inflation.”
With price controls, businesses flee the market because they cannot get a sufficient return on investment. As a result, supply for whatever is controlled falls even as demand stays steady or rises. That’s why price controls on gasoline lead to long lines at gas stations. If prices can’t adjust to reflect supply and demand, then people simply can’t get the items they want.
Sure, removing controls initially raises prices—but then new businesses jump into the fray to capitalize on the market and the boost in competition then reduces prices. By contrast, tightening up government price controls just leads to increasing levels of scarcity and misery.”
“Argentina’s 2020 Rental Law, intended to protect tenants, ended up making housing unaffordable for the average Buenos Aires resident. The issue isn’t unique to Argentina—rent control measures have had similar outcomes elsewhere. In San Francisco, expanded rent control laws led to in a spike in evictions. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, rent caps have prompted property owners to sell their buildings and exit the rental market, according to Reason’s Christian Britschgi.
Argentina’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale for policymakers: Well-intentioned policies aimed at protecting tenants can sometimes backfire, causing more harm than good.”
“Trump fans applauded when he said he’ll eliminate taxes on tips. Then Harris proposed that, too. Her audience applauded. Trump then proposed not taxing overtime. More applause.
But narrow tax exemptions are bad policy.
In my new video, economist Allison Schrager explains how they create nasty, unintended consequences.
“No one likes tipping,” says Schrager, “but all of a sudden, you’ll have to pay tips for everything.…More people will be paid in tips.””
…
“Trump’s proposal to eliminate tax on overtime would reduce hiring.
“Employers may hire fewer people so they can give more overtime to employees they have already,” says Schrager.”
…
“rent control is destructive. “Sounds really good,” says Schrager. “But all it means is that people are less inclined to rent to you.”
“Why would you enter a market where it seems like the government is actively trying to hurt you?” Adds Mercatus Center economist Salim Furth. “You’re providing an essential service, something human beings need to live, and the government views you as a hostile outsider. I wouldn’t want to bring any service into a market like that.”
Argentina’s new libertarian president just scrapped rent controls. The supply of rental apartments doubled, and prices declined by 40 percent! That’s good policy.
But Harris proposes the opposite!”
…
“Trump’s (and Joe Biden’s) tariffs don’t just punish China, they reduce choice and raise prices in America.
“Free trade is good!” says Schrager. “It brings lower prices, making our own industries more dynamic, raising our income.”
“But trade does take away some Americans’ jobs,” I point out.
“But it creates a lot of other new jobs,” she replies.
It sure does. More and better jobs than those lost through trade.”
…
“She proposes giving “first-time homebuyers” $25,000. Again, her fans applaud.
Schrager explains, “free” money from government doesn’t increase the supply of homes. When every buyer has $25,000 more, “they just bid up prices even higher!””