The proposal is an attempt to seize momentum on one of the campaign’s top issues — the housing crisis — and could affect nearly one million homes, or about 40 percent of the city’s rental market.
It’s also part of a continuing attack on the front-runner in the race, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who pays $2,300 a month for a rent-stabilized one-bedroom apartment in Astoria, Queens.
Means testing kills socialist programs. Thats why its insisted upon.
Universal socialist programs work. Means tested programs don’t.
"It’s also part of a continuing attack on the front-runner in the race, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who pays $2,300 a month for a rent-stabilized one-bedroom apartment in Astoria, Queens.
Mr. Cuomo has said that Mr. Mamdani, who earns $142,000 a year as a lawmaker, should give up his apartment so a homeless family can move in."
So he wants an entire family living in a 1 bedroom? 🤔 Homeless families can afford $2,300 for rent?
Right?? What the fuck??
And Cuomo probably lives in a luxurious condo
https://nypost.com/2025/03/07/real-estate/andrew-cuomo-lives-in-daughters-former-8242-nyc-rental/
“Andrew Cuomo lives in an $8,200-a-month NYC rental — inside the swanky digs with retro arcade, dog spa”
Can’t find a better source on this. :(
8200 dollars? Most people can’t even make more than half of that.
And you figure a rental shouldn’t be more than 1/3rd your income… Cuomo is pulling down $24,600 a month?
Doing… WHAT exactly?
Doing… WHAT exactly?
Being a sex pest.
Who would pay him? No way
That’s true. Andrew Cuomo doesn’t need to be paid to be a sex pest; he does it for free.
All apartments should be rented stabilized. Any of that aren’t, the landlord should have to pay 50% of the rent as a tax to the city.
I know a landlord in a longtime rent stabilized area who would happily pay 50% to the city if he could charge market rates. Some long term tenants are paying a small fraction of the true market rates
Rent control is bad public policy because it makes new tenants subsidize the ones who have lived there longer.
Subsidize what? Profit?
Rent control causes newer tenants (read: young people) to pay higher rates than older tenants ( old people) because the old tenants are shielded from market rates.
It’s a policy which enriches old people who never move at the expense of new renters.
So you are saying it subsidizes old people? I guess you can feel like that is a bad thing.
But once in, the new people become the old people and benefit as well. Where as without rent control they would pay the same price on move-in, then higher and higher as time goes by. All while the landlord is paying the same mortgage, and gaining equity as the value of the property goes up.
Without rent control, old people would be forced to move out of the city, taking thier income (social security, pension and what not) with them. The amount of jobs in the city won’t have changed, so there will be less money overall. Vacancy will go up, Rent will stagnate as will property value. Properties will not be maintained and close down. Small businesses won’t have as many customers, so they will shut down. Urban decay will set in. City services will get a lot more expensive due to all the dead areas and the people laft will have to pay for it. But it won’t be enough. So they will move out too.
Sounds like rent control is working as intended, and actually benefitting both sides.
If forces young poor people to subsidize rich old people.
How is that a good thing?
I need you to explain why you think it’s bad. What is the harm you’re perceiving. that other person explained why they think it works. you haven’t explained why you think it doesn’t, you just say “it’s not a good thing.” that’s not good enough. clearly i either don’t agree with whatever morality you’re waving at or i dont see its application to the situation. dont be lazy, defend yourself. what if you’re right and all i see is that guy attempting a point and you being like, ‘nuh-uh.’ what am i supposed to think.
edit: downvote and ignore not the clap-back you think it is
I need you to explain why you think it’s bad. What is the harm you’re perceiving.
Building takes $xxxx dollars to maintain. The profits from that building need to exceed that in order for you as an owner to even want to do anything with the building like repair it…
Let’s take an obviously fictitious example of a 2 apartment building that needs $1000 to break even for taxes, mortgage/loan, common utilities, etc.
If one apartment is rent controlled and you’re only allowed to rent it at $250, then the other must get rented at $750 in order for you to just break even on the property.
This would be their logic. And it’s not “bad” logic.
When without rent control you’d see closer to $500 split evenly between both units.
Now obviously you’d see overhead for things like repair and maintenance, but that once again disadvantages the “new” people even more. $1000 might break even, but you need to charge extra for renovations and such. Since $250 unit is capped, that falls all on the “new” owners which may see $950 or even more in rent costs.
Where in an “even” world… maybe $600 each unit.
clearly i either don’t agree with whatever morality you’re waving at or i dont see its application to the situation. dont be lazy, defend yourself. what if you’re right and all i see is that guy attempting a point and you being like, ‘nuh-uh.’ what am i supposed to think.
This is why they ignored you. This is bad faith and disingenuous as fuck it doesn’t take all that much to come to the conclusion of how “new” rented would be subsiding the old ones. You didn’t have to act like an ass. You are allowed to use your brain.
But once in, the new people become the old people and benefit as well.
This simply kicks the can down the road and makes it impossible for the “new” generation to actually get in to begin with which stagnates the whole neighborhood (less new people to come start business, or work jobs that the “older” folks aged out of). In the meantime, units stay vacant, building gets less income overall making it infeasible for the landlord/building owner to actually renovate and fix shit.
Edit:
Without rent control, old people would be forced to move out of the city, taking thier income (social security, pension and what not) with them.
Which is not competitive to actual paying jobs at current market rates typically. The old person moving out to the suburbs where things are more affordable typically means the space becomes available and can be filled with new blood that can go and work which is a much bigger boon for the economy than someone strictly drawing retirement.
“rich” old people are not living in rent controlled apartments. The landlord is far more likely to be the rich old person you are thinking of. But rent control does help protect them from urban decay destroying their investment. So there is that. But it protects the renters as well. So win win. You clearly have no actual logic behind your argument. Just a short sited opinion.
Nah. That’s false and you’re a liar.
LOL sorry facts hurt your feelings.
Sure 😎
Fucker wants to mimic Houston, that just kicked 17,000 people off the housing waiting list for similar reasons with the approval of fascists
How about this asshole can go cram it?
