The governor and state legislature can bail out the mayor from his promises. The two easy things that would unblock the worst aspects of his housing proposals would be to a) allow modest (greater of 3% or CPI?) increases in stabilized rents, and b) vacancy decontrol. As a sweetener to the mayor that would allow him to declare victory, how about giving him the 2% surtax on incomes above $1 MM that he's asked for? Ideally it would have a time limit (five years?) so that the city and state could figure out if the cost of such an additional tax is too high. Supposedly facing a $12 billion deficit, even a committed socialist should jump at a deal.
Given the great deal that most rent stabilized tenants already get, a modest annual bump would allow landlords to maintain property. Forcing them into foreclosure as a certain housing advisor to the mayor advocated prior to being appointed would lead to the city being their landlord, with no more resources available than what the landlord would have had. Does anyone in their right mind think that civil servants have the willingness or ability to keep them up to their present condition?
Vacancy decontrol is one of the easiest, politically speaking, means by which building owners can not only maintain but upgrade their properties. I've read somewhere (can someone confirm?) that there are 30,000 vacant rent stabilized units remaining vacant because they can not justify fixing them up within the 20% maximum increase allowed for vacant units.
For all its faults, California has a state law requiring vacancy decontrol for all municipal rent control ordinances. This has offset the worst of the effects of such laws. In that bulwark of free market economics, Berkeley, rents on recently rent controlled units that were only recently occupied have actually gone down, due to the construction of 1500 student dorm units, with another 1100 on the way (this in a trade area of perhaps 150K residents). It is possible to have a functioning housing market with rent control just as long as its proponents do not overreach.
Economists dislike price controls for a reason. Controls like rent controls. Yet the supply of housing is a political choice. Controlled by the need to win elections. When running a campaign takes a lot of money. Campaign finance money. Money that typically only comes (year after year, reliably) from the wealthy and special interests. Wealthy that LIKE the zoning laws and building codes. Laws and codes and practices that keep the cost of new housing high. Special interests that don't much mind the high cost of housing.
Yes, Mamdani was able to raise his money this time, but what about the other city council members?
Yes, there are matching funds for donations. Matches used mainly by the wealthy. Same donors, same message inflow into the elected members.
I write about campaign finance vouchers. it is a potential solution to NIMBY (over time). Take a look at Seattle. Caregiving has kept me away from Substack writing for about a year but check out what I got done up until then.
The governor and state legislature can bail out the mayor from his promises. The two easy things that would unblock the worst aspects of his housing proposals would be to a) allow modest (greater of 3% or CPI?) increases in stabilized rents, and b) vacancy decontrol. As a sweetener to the mayor that would allow him to declare victory, how about giving him the 2% surtax on incomes above $1 MM that he's asked for? Ideally it would have a time limit (five years?) so that the city and state could figure out if the cost of such an additional tax is too high. Supposedly facing a $12 billion deficit, even a committed socialist should jump at a deal.
Given the great deal that most rent stabilized tenants already get, a modest annual bump would allow landlords to maintain property. Forcing them into foreclosure as a certain housing advisor to the mayor advocated prior to being appointed would lead to the city being their landlord, with no more resources available than what the landlord would have had. Does anyone in their right mind think that civil servants have the willingness or ability to keep them up to their present condition?
Vacancy decontrol is one of the easiest, politically speaking, means by which building owners can not only maintain but upgrade their properties. I've read somewhere (can someone confirm?) that there are 30,000 vacant rent stabilized units remaining vacant because they can not justify fixing them up within the 20% maximum increase allowed for vacant units.
For all its faults, California has a state law requiring vacancy decontrol for all municipal rent control ordinances. This has offset the worst of the effects of such laws. In that bulwark of free market economics, Berkeley, rents on recently rent controlled units that were only recently occupied have actually gone down, due to the construction of 1500 student dorm units, with another 1100 on the way (this in a trade area of perhaps 150K residents). It is possible to have a functioning housing market with rent control just as long as its proponents do not overreach.
Economists dislike price controls for a reason. Controls like rent controls. Yet the supply of housing is a political choice. Controlled by the need to win elections. When running a campaign takes a lot of money. Campaign finance money. Money that typically only comes (year after year, reliably) from the wealthy and special interests. Wealthy that LIKE the zoning laws and building codes. Laws and codes and practices that keep the cost of new housing high. Special interests that don't much mind the high cost of housing.
Yes, Mamdani was able to raise his money this time, but what about the other city council members?
Yes, there are matching funds for donations. Matches used mainly by the wealthy. Same donors, same message inflow into the elected members.
I write about campaign finance vouchers. it is a potential solution to NIMBY (over time). Take a look at Seattle. Caregiving has kept me away from Substack writing for about a year but check out what I got done up until then.
So let's see how the politics of massive in-fill housing developments ("city of yes") plays out in NYC. Will the stuck support these?