"Rent control is the second-best way to destroy a city, after bombing." —Lawrence H. Summers
Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City, clearly ran a good campaign. He used social media and short-form videos to find his audience and win with the message that the city has become unattainable to most.
But it is also clear that the stock market really does not like his message. Shares of firms with exposure to New York City's real estate market reacted immediately: Vornado Realty Trust, SL Green, Equity Residential, Empire State Realty Trust, LXP Industrial Trust, and others, were all down. At the same time, the wealthy vowed to leave New York for places like Florida, as they so often do these days.
One of reasons for this negative reaction was Mamdani's commitment to not just cap rent increases, but freeze rents in rent-stabilized units for the entire duration of his term. We've spoken a lot about rent control over the years (here, here, here, and other places) but, at a high level, the problem with rent controls is that they create a strong disincentive for landlords to invest and maintain their homes and for developers to build new homes. So what ultimately happens is that you get a more rapidly aging inventory of existing homes and a reduced amount of new supply.
A full-out rent freeze takes this even further. A rent freeze does not mean that utility costs will also be frozen, that insurance and taxes will be frozen, that interest rates will be capped, and that all other landlord operating expenses will be restricted from inflating. (If this were the case, we really wouldn't have market economy.) So what a rent freeze does is ensure that, in real dollars, a landlord is able to collect less money from tenants, while operating costs continue to increase under the line.
The same is true in condominiums and other ownership structures. Whenever somebody talks about frozen maintenance or common element fees, I immediately remind them that this is a bad thing, not a feature. It means the condominium corporation is on an unsustainable path and will eventually run out of money. Something is being sacrificed in order to keep up with rising operating and capital expenses. At the very least, you need to keep up with inflation.
I can appreciate that rents are too high. As a developer, I would love to be able to build to lower rents. It reduces absorption risk and it's better for the city. But rather than just freeze rents, a more productive and sustainable approach would be to attack the underlying root causes for the problem. A rent freeze is a short-term political fix that will have second and third-order consequences. Problems for a different day and for a different mayor, perhaps. But problems nonetheless.
Cover photo by Daryan Shamkhali on Unsplash
There is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in New York called the Citizens Budget Commission (or CBC). And this week they launched Competitive NYC. The intent is a kind of dashboard that provides insights into NYC's overall competitiveness — specifically its ability to attract and retain both residents and businesses. I won't summarize all of the findings; if you'd like to take a look, you can do that here. But I did want to point out one finding.
Here's a chart showing the top 10 states for people with incomes greater than $1 million:
"Rent control is the second-best way to destroy a city, after bombing." —Lawrence H. Summers
Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City, clearly ran a good campaign. He used social media and short-form videos to find his audience and win with the message that the city has become unattainable to most.
But it is also clear that the stock market really does not like his message. Shares of firms with exposure to New York City's real estate market reacted immediately: Vornado Realty Trust, SL Green, Equity Residential, Empire State Realty Trust, LXP Industrial Trust, and others, were all down. At the same time, the wealthy vowed to leave New York for places like Florida, as they so often do these days.
One of reasons for this negative reaction was Mamdani's commitment to not just cap rent increases, but freeze rents in rent-stabilized units for the entire duration of his term. We've spoken a lot about rent control over the years (here, here, here, and other places) but, at a high level, the problem with rent controls is that they create a strong disincentive for landlords to invest and maintain their homes and for developers to build new homes. So what ultimately happens is that you get a more rapidly aging inventory of existing homes and a reduced amount of new supply.
A full-out rent freeze takes this even further. A rent freeze does not mean that utility costs will also be frozen, that insurance and taxes will be frozen, that interest rates will be capped, and that all other landlord operating expenses will be restricted from inflating. (If this were the case, we really wouldn't have market economy.) So what a rent freeze does is ensure that, in real dollars, a landlord is able to collect less money from tenants, while operating costs continue to increase under the line.
The same is true in condominiums and other ownership structures. Whenever somebody talks about frozen maintenance or common element fees, I immediately remind them that this is a bad thing, not a feature. It means the condominium corporation is on an unsustainable path and will eventually run out of money. Something is being sacrificed in order to keep up with rising operating and capital expenses. At the very least, you need to keep up with inflation.
I can appreciate that rents are too high. As a developer, I would love to be able to build to lower rents. It reduces absorption risk and it's better for the city. But rather than just freeze rents, a more productive and sustainable approach would be to attack the underlying root causes for the problem. A rent freeze is a short-term political fix that will have second and third-order consequences. Problems for a different day and for a different mayor, perhaps. But problems nonetheless.
Cover photo by Daryan Shamkhali on Unsplash
There is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in New York called the Citizens Budget Commission (or CBC). And this week they launched Competitive NYC. The intent is a kind of dashboard that provides insights into NYC's overall competitiveness — specifically its ability to attract and retain both residents and businesses. I won't summarize all of the findings; if you'd like to take a look, you can do that here. But I did want to point out one finding.
Here's a chart showing the top 10 states for people with incomes greater than $1 million:
Nationwide across the US, transit ridership is only at about 70% of where it was in 2019 before the pandemic. But this is not the case in all cities around the world. According to this recent Bloomberg article, Madrid, Hong Kong, and Paris are all above their 2019 ridership levels. Seoul and Shanghai are also close at just over 90%, and London is at 85%.
So this problem of fewer people riding transit seems to be a North and South American phenomenon. Rio de Janeiro is at 73%, Mexico City is at 70%, and San Francisco is somewhere near or at the bottom at 44%. The obvious explanations for this are that Europe and Asia are generally denser and less car-oriented, their return-to-office patterns have been much stronger (less WFH), and their governments probably care more about transit (and spend more money on it).
Broadly speaking, I think this is all true, but I'd love to know more precisely what's driving these differences. Because it's not exactly obvious. Consider, for example, Paris and London. Paris is at 103% of its 2019 levels, whereas London is only at 85%. Why is that? Both cities share a lot of similarities. They have a river that weaves through the middle, they're dense, they have lots of trains, and both are alpha global cities.
So why the delta? What exactly is Paris doing that is encouraging more transit usage?
Charts via Bloomberg
The number of "millionaires" in New York state increased from 35,802 in 2010 to 69,780 in 2022, but its share of US millionaires declined the most. Previously it was 12.7%, and in 2022 it had dropped to 8.7%. On the other end of the spectrum, the state with the biggest share gain was Florida.
The tracker goes on to suggest that high taxes may be a factor for households moving out of New York City. Here's a chart showing taxes per $1,000 of personal income:
New York state is the highest and is 56% above the US average, whereas Florida is 31% below the average. Florida also has the sunshine thing going for it. This migration trend aligns with what was talked about a lot during the pandemic. Between April 2020 and July 2022, NYC lost nearly half a million residents, a chunk of which went to Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties.
It's a reminder not to take competitiveness for granted, especially when there's a clear trend toward places with warmer weather. People can and will vote with their feet.
Cover photo by Andre Benz on Unsplash; charts from CBCNY
Nationwide across the US, transit ridership is only at about 70% of where it was in 2019 before the pandemic. But this is not the case in all cities around the world. According to this recent Bloomberg article, Madrid, Hong Kong, and Paris are all above their 2019 ridership levels. Seoul and Shanghai are also close at just over 90%, and London is at 85%.
So this problem of fewer people riding transit seems to be a North and South American phenomenon. Rio de Janeiro is at 73%, Mexico City is at 70%, and San Francisco is somewhere near or at the bottom at 44%. The obvious explanations for this are that Europe and Asia are generally denser and less car-oriented, their return-to-office patterns have been much stronger (less WFH), and their governments probably care more about transit (and spend more money on it).
Broadly speaking, I think this is all true, but I'd love to know more precisely what's driving these differences. Because it's not exactly obvious. Consider, for example, Paris and London. Paris is at 103% of its 2019 levels, whereas London is only at 85%. Why is that? Both cities share a lot of similarities. They have a river that weaves through the middle, they're dense, they have lots of trains, and both are alpha global cities.
So why the delta? What exactly is Paris doing that is encouraging more transit usage?
Charts via Bloomberg
The number of "millionaires" in New York state increased from 35,802 in 2010 to 69,780 in 2022, but its share of US millionaires declined the most. Previously it was 12.7%, and in 2022 it had dropped to 8.7%. On the other end of the spectrum, the state with the biggest share gain was Florida.
The tracker goes on to suggest that high taxes may be a factor for households moving out of New York City. Here's a chart showing taxes per $1,000 of personal income:
New York state is the highest and is 56% above the US average, whereas Florida is 31% below the average. Florida also has the sunshine thing going for it. This migration trend aligns with what was talked about a lot during the pandemic. Between April 2020 and July 2022, NYC lost nearly half a million residents, a chunk of which went to Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties.
It's a reminder not to take competitiveness for granted, especially when there's a clear trend toward places with warmer weather. People can and will vote with their feet.
Cover photo by Andre Benz on Unsplash; charts from CBCNY
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
