If you took even one economics class in school, you likely remember this fundamental concept: when demand exceeds supply, prices rise. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall. That’s Economics 101 — the basic law of supply and demand. But when it comes to rental housing in New York City, those textbook rules get filtered through a very real-world maze of legislation, zoning, infrastructure limits, and political promises.
Right now, rents in New York are high — in some neighborhoods, record-breaking. And while it’s tempting to look for a single cause (greedy landlords, inflation, pandemic disruption, or Wall Street bonuses), the truth is far more systemic. We simply don’t have enough rental apartments to meet demand. And when the inventory is tight, competition heats up — and so do the prices.
New York City has added residents far faster than it has added housing units. Between 2010 and 2020, the city’s population grew twice as fast as the housing stock. In a healthy market, new construction helps ease demand. But in New York, construction can take years — and that’s if the financing, zoning, and community board approvals all go smoothly. The result? A persistent shortage of available, up-to-date rental units, particularly in desirable neighborhoods.
Several current mayoral candidates are running on platforms that promise lower rents. It’s an appealing message, especially since many struggling New Yorkers cite rising rents as their number one financial concern. However, unless those plans include meaningful increases in housing supply — which could be accomplished through rezoning, incentives for new construction, and streamlined permitting — it’s hard to imagine any sustainable path to lower prices. In addition, rising rents are also due to rising costs. When real estate taxes, wages, insurance, maintenance, and repairs costs, etc., all rise (which they have), the costs to operate a building effectively compel landlords to raise rents to maintain a viable operation.
There are exceptions, and there are greedy landlords. But are those costs and expenses going to be frozen as well? I don’t think so, which means a rent freeze will negatively impact the upkeep and quality of the buildings. After all, most rental properties across the U.S. (and in NYC) are owned by large corporations who are not going to let their profits slide, especially if they are publicly traded.
The promise of frozen rents reminds me of the recently enacted FARE Act, which I have written about here. The legislation shifted the broker fee burden from tenants to landlords in many rental transactions. Although well-intentioned, I predicted that it would backfire economically, and thus far, it has.
Landlords, now facing additional costs on the front end of a lease, have responded the way most businesses would: by raising rents to absorb the difference. Rents shot up drastically the week after the FARE Act became law. While this doesn’t happen uniformly across all properties, the ripple effect is clear. By trying to protect renters from fees, the Act inadvertently tightened the market further — discouraging some landlords from listing units or offering competitive terms and raising the bar for renters already navigating a pricey market.
A proposed “rent freeze” is not the same as the FARE Act of course, but there will be implications (if it is even possible to pull off). You can’t legislate around supply and demand. You can influence it, shape it, even subsidize or regulate it — but at the end of the day, if more people want to live in New York than we have apartments for, rents will rise. If you truly want lower rents, the answer isn’t just rent caps or broker-fee bans. It’s more housing. A lot more housing.
Whether you are looking to rent, buy, sell, or lease, I am always here to discuss all aspects of it. There is always good inventory for purchase and for rent—if you know where to look. Some neighborhoods have better availability than others, and not every listing is publicly marketed.