July 15, 2025
With affordability still a top concern in New York City, the idea of a rent freeze is back on the table — and this time, it’s being pushed hard by several Democratic mayoral candidates.
The goal? Stop the bleeding for over a million rent-stabilized tenants struggling to keep up. But like many things in NYC real estate, this proposal has sparked a fierce debate.
Here’s what a rent freeze would actually look like: no increases for tenants in rent-stabilized apartments for the 2025-2026 term. That means about half the city’s renters — those in units covered by rent-stabilization — would see 0% increases, if the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) agrees.
Advocates say this would offer breathing room to renters barely scraping by. Critics argue it’s a ticking time bomb for building maintenance, small landlords, and the city’s long-term housing stock.
Let’s break it down.
From a tenant’s point of view, things are tough. Rent-stabilized tenants tend to earn less than those in market-rate apartments, and many are already behind on rent or cutting back on essentials just to keep a roof over their heads.
For these New Yorkers, even a small increase could be the difference between stability and eviction. That’s why advocates are pushing for a freeze — not just to cap rent, but to avoid a bigger crisis.
But as a realtor who works with both renters and landlords, I can tell you the other side of this isn’t so simple. A lot of the buildings in this category are older, and they need regular upkeep — roof repairs, boiler maintenance, electrical work.
And that’s before we even talk about rising insurance, fuel costs, or mortgage payments. Most small landlords aren’t sitting on piles of cash. Their income is the rent roll, and if that stays flat while costs keep climbing, something has to give.
In many cases, what gives is the property itself.
We’ve already seen signs of distress in buildings that can’t keep up with rising expenses. Paint starts peeling, pipes don’t get replaced, and tenants — the very people the freeze is meant to protect — are left living in deteriorating conditions. And when that cycle starts, it’s hard to reverse without outside investment.
So what’s the solution?
Some are calling for a bigger public investment in housing — a shift away from private landlords toward public or non-profit models. That’s a long-term vision, though, and the question remains: can the city afford to take on that responsibility?
In the meantime, the debate continues: keep rent low and risk building quality, or allow modest increases and risk affordability?
There’s no perfect answer here. But as someone on the ground, I can tell you this — whatever direction the city takes, it needs to consider the full picture: renters, landlords, buildings, and the long-term health of the housing market.
A freeze might sound like a short-term fix, but without structural solutions, the pressure will build elsewhere.
Disclaimer: This content is meant for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed as financial, tax, legal, or insurance advice.
