On October 1, the largest rent increase in ten years went into effect in New York City. In June, the city’s Rent Guidelines Board voted to allow increases of 3.25 percent for one-year leases and 5 percent for two-year leases. Tenants were unhappy, as many had called for a rent freeze. In a written statement, Mayor Eric Adams said, that the current system is “broken, and we cannot pit landlords against tenants as winners and losers every year.”
Adams doesn’t realize that the very nature of rent control pits landlords against tenants. Both fight to influence the Rent Guidelines Board. No matter what the board decides, one party or perhaps both will be unhappy. Landlords will say that the approved rent increase isn’t enough, and tenants will say that it’s too much. Both landlords and tenants fight to influence the Rent Guidelines Board.
The interests of landlords and tenants do not inherently conflict. When both parties are free to act voluntarily, they seek to trade value for value on terms that are mutually beneficial. However, when one party is not free to act voluntarily by rent control or similar restrictions, establishing mutually beneficial terms is impossible. No matter what is decided by the board, the desires of one party or both will be ignored. The parties can only plead with government officials for a ruling that they desire.
For their part, landlords must identify the true nature of rent control. It is a form of theft, in which money is forcibly taken from property owners. They must reject the notion that government officials have a right to dictate how they use their property.
If Adams truly wants to stop pitting landlords against tenants, then he must advocate freedom. Tenants may not always like the terms offered by landlords, but when both parties are free, they can negotiate terms that are mutually acceptable. The solution that Adams claims he wants won’t be found in any compromise over the terms of rent control. The solution can only be found in abolishing rent control.