I think the idea around succession rights has been a polarizing issue especially for rent-controlled apartments. In New York City, it’s defined that “for rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments throughout New York State, a ‘family member’ of the tenant may have the right to a rent stabilized renewal lease or protection from eviction in an apartment under rent control when the tenant dies or permanently leaves the apartment.”

I’m not a big fan of this rule. I don’t think that the successor should be essentially guaranteed to have subsidized housing just because his/her grandfather (or any other family member) had subsided housing beforehand. I think that each apartment should be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis and see if the new tenant essentially needs a stabilized apartment and will truly reap benefits from it. Otherwise, the new tenant maybe potentially very lucky and secure very cheap rent in New York City when in fact he/she truly don’t deserve or need it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/realestate/aging-and-rent-stabilization.html

For example, in the case above, it is well-documented that the spouse has been living with the husband for nearly 30+ years and, as a senior citizen herself, it will be very difficult to have a stable means for income. Thus, it is a clear brainer that the old lady in the article should have access to the rent-stabilized apartment after the passing of her husband. On the contrary, I think the succession policies would be bad if, for example, a grandfather passes away and his grandson, who his earning a 6-figure salary, can essentially inherit that new rent-stabilized apartment.