I was on New York’s rent board. Zohran Mamdani’s ideas aren’t pie in the sky | Leah Goodridge

During the New York City mayoral primary campaign, Zohran Mamdani’s proposal for a citywide rent freeze became a contentious topic. The Democratic nominee says to achieve a cap on annual rent increases for the city’s 1m rent-stabilized apartments, he would appoint members to the city’s rent guidelines board who support it. Critics decry a rent freeze as a pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic proposal.

I served as a rent guidelines board member for nearly four years, appointed by then mayor Bill de Blasio in 2018. And it’s clear this controversy isn’t just about rent freezes – there’s a larger agenda to deregulate rent-stabilized housing, under which rent ceilings prevent landlords from raising the rent too high and tenants must be offered renewal leases (unless the landlord shows legal reason not to).

Rent freezes are lifelines

In 2023, a report revealed that half of New Yorkers couldn’t afford basic needs such as housing, transportation, food and healthcare. This is the New York that I grew to know intimately before I joined the board. I’d been a tenants’ rights attorney for years under the city’s right-to-counsel program, representing hundreds of low-income families facing eviction who could not afford their own attorneys. Each week, I entered housing court to find my clients – families with toddlers, seniors with disabilities and food delivery drivers – anxiously awaiting possible eviction. It’s not just low-income tenants at the mercy of landlords. Over the last 12 years, I’ve listened to thousands of stories and the one common thread is how easy it is for a moderate-income person to wind up homeless. Sudden unemployment, unexpected disability coupled with a rent increase, and now you’re fighting like hell to survive housing court and not join the 350,000 homeless New Yorkers. For these New Yorkers, a rent freeze isn’t some out-of-touch idea; it’s a lifeline.

The people who make that decision are nine board members, all appointed by the mayor – two tenant members (my former role), two landlord members and five public members whom the tenants and landlord members vie to win over to reach a majority vote. We don’t rely on feelings or vibes – we’re poring over reports and hours of public testimony, and engaging in spirited policy debates. In 2020, those reports revealed record unemployment spurred by the pandemic and an already high homelessness rate and rent burden (most tenants were paying 30% or more of their income on rent). Weighing that with landlord operating costs, the board voted to approve a rent freeze that year, and a partial rent freeze (for six months) the following year. In fact, the board voted for a rent freeze four times over the last 10 years under the de Blasio administration (the board votes every summer on these rent levels and they take effect in the fall). This is why criticisms of Mamdani’s rent freeze ring hollow for me – it’s painted as out of touch, yet there’s already a precedent, backed by government reports and data.

Rent stabilization is under attack

It is essential for the public to understand that there is a broader agenda behind the “rent freezes are bad” argument. Undermining freezes is part of a larger goal to weaken rent stabilization, which landlords have consistently sought to do – and they were nearly successful recently.

While I was on the board, landlords sued the rent guidelines board and all of its members (including me!) in federal court, claiming that rent stabilization amounted to an “unconstitutional taking”: if the government tells me how much I can increase my rent by and when I can terminate a lease, then the government is interfering with my private property without just compensation, the argument goes.

For years, there had been whispers that New York landlords were rubbing their hands together, eager to devise ways to get such a case before the US supreme court – and this one came dangerously close. I still remember when I got the call four years after the case traveled its way up the federal appeals court chain: “The court declined to hear the case!”

Supreme court cases aren’t selected in a vacuum – the court often grants certiorari , or agrees to hear a case, when there is a broad public interest, leading some parties to drum up support for their cause strategically. When I was on the board, I often heard the dichotomy of the good landlord versus the bad tenant. It’s become so popular, you’ve probably been inundated with these stories too. “Professional tenants” who sign a lease, then never pay rent. TikToks about tenants leaving an apartment in disarray. Squatters. Rent-stabilized tenants who are secretly wealthy, gaming the system by paying low rent. All designed to lead you to the conclusion that “rent stabilization shouldn’t exist”. You’d never know that the median household income for rent-stabilized tenants is a modest $60,000. Or that eviction rates are so high that the New York City housing court doesn’t have enough judges to handle the volume of cases it sees daily.

Just last year, in yet another case that landlords asked the supreme court to review, the court declined, but Justice Clarence Thomas signaled the court would be interested in hearing a rent stabilization challenge and even provided a legal roadmap for how to bring it. Landlords don’t want to reform rent stabilization – they want it done away with.

At the end of the day, when the goal is profit and power is unchecked, it will be profits over people. Mamdani’s proposals are a threat to the real estate industry because they signal a mayorship that doesn’t ascribe to the tenet that government must sit back and let the market come to its own conclusion – all while millions of New Yorkers are trying to avoid housing court.

• Leah Goodridge is a former member of the New York City rent guidelines board and an attorney who spent 12 years in legal services representing tenants