NYC residents in rent-stabilized apartments hit with increases of 3-4.5 percent
The Rent Guidelines Board approved the increases by a margin of 5 to 4 during a final vote at El Museo del Barrio in East Harlem Monday evening.
The vote comes amid the mayoral election, which has focused sharply on the issue of affordability. Left-leaning Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee after his win over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has pledged to push for a rent freeze should he win.
The nine-person board consists entirely of mayoral appointees, including two landlords and tenant representatives, tasked with deciding the rates for New York's 1 million rent-stabilized units.
Mayor Adams reacted with dismay to the vote.
'I urged the Rent Guidelines Board to adopt the lowest increase possible, as I've done in the past,' he said. 'While the board exercised their independent judgment, and made an adjustment based on elements such as inflation, I am disappointed that they approved increases higher than what I called for.'
Tenants and housing advocates have long called for a rent freeze or rollback to alleviate the burden on New Yorkers amid the city's affordability crisis and housing crunch.
'Tenants are the majority in New York City. And we are pissed off. We are sick and tired of the landlords and lobbyists trying to buy our city. We outnumber them, and we have already shown we can out organize them,' Cea Weaver, director of the New York State Tenant Bloc, said in reaction to the vote.
'Come November, we will elect Zohran Mamdani and win the rent freeze tenants so desperately need,' she said. 'Eric Adams is squeezing in one last rent hike for his real estate donors before tenants show him the door. This will be the last rent hike New Yorkers ever see from a mayor bought and paid for by real estate.'
Mamdani was quick to decry Monday's numbers but promised 'change is coming.'
'This Mayor is once again placating real estate donors rather than serving the working people he once claimed to champion,' Mamdani said in a statement. 'Make no mistake: even a supposedly modest rent hike in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis will push New Yorkers out of their homes.'
At the same time, landlords argue that rent hikes are required to help them offset rising maintenance and other costs, particularly in older and outer-borough buildings.
'While we are disappointed that the RGB once again adjusted rents below inflation, we appreciate that they stood up to political pressure calling for rent freezes that would accelerate the financial and physical deterioration of thousands of older rent-stabilized buildings,' New York Apartment Association CEO Kenny Burgos said in a statement.
Last year the Board approved increases of 2.75% for one-year leases and 5.25% for two-year leases.
In May it took the unprecedented step of lowering the range of potential increases for two-year leases — already decided upon the month before — from a minimum of 4.75% to 3.75% with a maximum of 7.75%. The one-year lease proposal remained unchanged with a span of 1.75% to 4.75%.
Monday's vote came 10 years to the day since the Board approved the city's first-ever rent freeze for one-year leases under Mayor Bill de Blasio. At the time it was composed entirely of de Blasio appointees, a formula Mamdani hopes to replicate if elected.
The only time the board has voted for a total rent freeze was in 2020 during the pandemic. The last rent freeze of any kind was in 2021 for the first six months of one-year leases.
The new rent rates agreed Monday will go into effect on Oct. 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
FDA Commissioner On Drugs, Dyes & Your Diet
The Trump administration continues to advance the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary are leading the initiative. Dr. Makary joins the Rundown to discuss the dangers of energy drinks and gummies containing opioid-like substances, efforts to remove dyes and chemicals from the nation's food, and how the FDA plans to update America's dietary guidelines. He also addresses some of the controversies surrounding HHS Secretary Kennedy and the MAHA movement. Violent crime has made headlines across the country, fueling public concern even as national statistics show a steady decline. Former U.S. Attorney and Executive Director of Right On Crime Brett Tolman joins the Rundown to explain how stronger border enforcement and deporting criminal illegal immigrants have helped reduce crime and argues that empowering law enforcement can further drive down violence across the country. Plus, commentary from Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee Youth Council, CJ Pearson. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
New York Times
3 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Tariffs Kicked In. The Sky Didn't Fall. Were the Economists Wrong?
Way back in April, when President Trump unveiled his plans for steep tariffs against the United States' trading partners, some Democrats were publicly gleeful about what they thought was the beginning of a Trump recession. Some of his supporters were privately worried about the same thing. That sure seems like a long time ago now. Nearly four months later, with the economy still largely intact, the poles are reversed: Mr. Trump's camp is publicly gleeful, while some Democrats are secretly disappointed. Financial markets have been on the same roller coaster. So were the models wrong? Was the concern misplaced? Should the economists who sounded the alarm — the same people who got so many high-profile predictions wrong in recent years — be sitting down to eat another course of humble pie? Well, it's not that simple. Just as the models predicted, growth has indeed slowed, and inflation has risen. If you look at the first half of the year as a whole, there is more than a hint of stagflation, that dreaded combination of slow growth and inflation. In fact, this chart shows that reality has fallen short of the predictions that economists made late last year, when Mr. Trump inherited an economy that was on track for continued solid growth and diminishing inflation. The economy slowed and inflation rose more than predicted Annual growth rates for 2025 November forecast Actual Growth in G.D.P. 2.1% 1.2% Growth in inflation 2.2% 3.0% 1% 0% 3% 2% Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Note: Inflation measure excludes food and energy prices. Data estimates are based on the first half of 2025. The economy slowed and inflation rose more than predicted Annual growth rates for 2025 November forecast Actual 2.1% Growth in G.D.P. 1.2% 2.2% Growth in inflation 3.0% 0% 1% 2% 3% Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Note: Inflation measure excludes food and energy prices Data estimates are based on the first half of 2025. Not all of the slower growth and higher inflation is the result of tariffs. Many factors are at play, including substantial reductions in immigration. But the latest forecasts from the Yale Budget Lab (where I have an advisory role), like many other such analyses, see a 0.5-percentage-point reduction in growth this year and a gross domestic product that is persistently 0.4 percent lower than it would have been without the tariffs. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
Are Trump's tariffs unlawful? A court case kicking off this week could reshape his trade strategy
For months President Donald Trump has been slapping higher tariffs on practically every country's exports to the United States, citing emergency economic powers. Now, just as he's about to enact a new round of tariffs, a federal appeals court could render them void. Oral arguments are scheduled Thursday for an appeal in a case alleging Trump overstepped his legal authority to impose many of his sweeping tariffs. Five small business owners and 12 Democratic states are arguing that Trump can't use a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to enact those import duties. The US Court of International Trade sided with those states and businesses in May but the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is taking on the case, allowed Trump's tariffs in question to remain in place while the case is being challenged. It could take them weeks, or even months, to reach a decision. And the appeal could eventually make it to the Supreme Court as well. But the federal appeals court's decision could still significantly reshape Trump's trade strategy – even as it won't stop Trump from imposing higher tariffs altogether. Trump has cited IEEPA to impose country-specific tariffs. That includes the 10% universal tariffs that have been applied to most countries' exports to the United States since April as well as tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada aimed at curbing the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants to the United States. On Wednesday, he cited the law again to increase tariffs on most Brazilian exports to the US by 40 percentage points to 50%, and he's expected to do so again on Friday, the self-imposed deadline he set for trading partners to make trade agreements or face higher tariffs. Even trading partners that reached trade agreements with Trump, including the European Union and Japan, are set to face higher tariffs compared to rates since April. The new rates they face are also being backed by Trump's use of IEEPA, which means if the court rules against him, the trade agreements he announced could face an uncertain fate. The Trump administration likely believes they can find other legal avenues to back those trade agreements, even if they lose the IEEPA fight in court, said Patrick Childress, international trade and disputes attorney at Holland & Knight and former US Trade Representative attorney. And starting over on trade talks carries risks as well, said Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank that filed an amicus brief siding with the plaintiffs. 'I suspect most nations will not want to provoke the administration by reopening negotiations,' he added. Economists at JPMorgan aren't as convinced. 'If the IEEPA is deemed inadmissible, the legal status of the trade deals themselves could come into question,' they said in a note earlier this week. Trump has made tariffs a centerpiece of his entire economic policy; don't expect that to stop any time soon. But Trump hasn't just been using IEEPA to levy tariffs. All the sectoral tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term, most recently a 50% copper tariff, have used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. It can only be used to target specific sectors and requires an investigation to be launched before tariffs can be imposed. There's also Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the US Trade Representative to investigate countries potentially violating other nations' trade agreements or practices in a way that is 'unjustifiable' and 'burdens or restricts' US business. Trump used Section 301 during his first term to hike tariffs on several Chinese imports, along with aircraft and other European Union goods. There are a slew of other levers he can pull to enact higher tariffs, too, which, like Section 232 and 301 tariffs, aren't being legally challenged.
