The implications of rent regulations extended far past what I could have ever imagined. The current dilemma we as a city are facing is plummeting housing stock coupled with population growth. We are the only major American city to be facing this type of problem and the reason seems to be New York City’s housing policies.
Regulated rents (which often go to people savvy enough to get them- generally not the poor who need them the most), discriminatory taxes, current zoning laws, environmental laws along with other over-regulations disincentivized the production and maintenance of our housing stock, a good portion of which is set to retire. The result is that our housing stock is falling faster than it is increasing- yielding a net decrease.
In class we discussed that New York City has the power to put rent regulation into effect when there is a “housing crisis”- a term defined to be when vacant housing falls under 5% (if I remember correctly). Given that we are now somewhere in the 3%, and that housing stock is plummeting due to discouraging regulations, we have effectively placed ourself in a viscous cycle in which we are further digging ourself into a housing crisis with policies implemented only during a housing crisis. I think the time horizon of rent regulation has become distorted to the point where it will no longer benefit us in the long term.
Will the housing crisis be the detriment to the city? Or will the city continue its shift towards a city of commuters, remaining otherwise unfazed?
The five-pronged solution that Peter Salins provides in his excerpt is potentially a good way to move forward. However, I do not believe that it could ever be implemented, not because it’s a flawed and impossible plan, but because there are too many political roadblocks in the way. I have a hard time believing that regulations will loosen enough for our net housing stock growth to finally be in the green. For that to happen, I think something drastic needs to occur.