Zohran Rent-Controlled Apartment
Can someone please explain how Zohran, whose combined income with his spouse is around 230,000k, is being criticized for living in a $2,300 rent controlled apartment? I’m struggling to see the controversy here…
I would assume some of the criticism is valid(he's taking that rent controlled apartment away from someone who could genuinely need it) vs invalid(people just finding anything to critique)
I mean, I'm not the biggest Mamdani fan(Zellnor was my pick) but it seems like such a small thing to pick at. I really hate how personal politics has become in recent years. If you want to criticize Mamdani, there's plenty to point out in the policy section. Going after someone's personal life seems odd to me.
It illustrates that the rent control/stabilization system is a farce and not a solution to the affordable housing problem. It’s not means-tested so Mamdani and other nepo babies can enjoy this benefit while a family of four making $100k has to pay twice as much for the exact same, free market apartment.
It worsens the problem in fact. When one million rent regulated apartments are taken off the market and effectively owned by renters who can’t or won’t move, it makes all other apartments that much more expensive.
Are the non-regulated apartments renting for disproportionately higher than they should when you consider in relation to the net negative effect on gross rents from the regulated apartments?
How are you not seeing the controversy? At $230K, you should be able to afford an apartment on your own for $3,500 or $4,000 a month. It's not great but you can do it.
With a $2,300 apartment, you're basically giving a $20K subsidy to someone who can pay their own rent. Government subsidies should go to people who need them....not for people who can now shop at Whole Foods because they have more disposable income.
I happen to agree with you here, but I will point out that one potential argument in favor of universal rent stabilization/control is that it allows households to have the disposable income to buy (for example) healthier food instead of paying more in rent.
It's all moot anyway - the current rent stabilization regime in NYC/NYS is a farce to begin with, and has been since 2019. It was very explicitly passed with wealthy Manhattanites in mind as much as poorer folks in the Bronx.
Half of NYC apartments are rent stabilized. He got the apartment when he made $47k/Yearly, and has continued to live here. It’s pretty unreasonable to expect him to move out just because he’s making more money now
In terms of nepo baby, I get that his family might be well off, but shouldn’t it be commendable that he went out on his own and didn’t use his families money to subsidize his lifestyle.
I feel like if he was making $47k/Annually and living in an appartment with $4k from his parents money, everyone would’ve been complaining that he’s leaching off his parents
https://x.com/LevineJonathan/status/1945133193654342115
Hmmm...
Excuse me....are you serious? Yes, it is absolutely reasonable!!!!!
When I earned more money, it was absolutely reasonable that I paid a higher tax rate too.
If someone was on food stamps and now they earn $230K per year, it is absolutely reasonable that you don't get to collect food stamps anymore.
Same with your apartment subsidy. I'm really apalled by your train of thought here. Like absolutely shocked.
You’re acting like he was paying $500 a month for an apartment, most AN1 and AN2 that I know who make same amount of money as Mamdani pay $2300-2500 for an apartment
What if he likes the place? He should move out just because he can afford more?
He can ask the owner if he can pay the full price and stay. That would be the fairest.
And yes absolutely. If you live in government project buildings, you have to move out past a certain income.....even if you like the place.
If you used section 8 vouchers to pay part of your rent and no longer qualify, you can still stay there and pay full rent. No reason that the same principle shouldn't apply to this socialist jabrone making $230K.
This guy tips his landlord
Your so unserious, ask the landlord if he can pay more 😂. Theres no broader impact to this you're just advocating for the landlord, youre saying he's hypocritical for hurting those in need but your solution doesn't help anyone in need
He did not setup the rules of the game. That would be the people in power before him and the generation before him.
Yes, you are exactly right. That's what people would do and it's a small price to pay for a nice apartment paid by your parents.
This is something every nepo baby has to decide. Do you want your parents to buy things for you and people look down on it or do you want to make your own way?
Sorry, there is not a world where parents pay for all your stuff and make things easy for you and we all pretend you got it by hard work. No one is forcing you to take the money. You can earn it by yourself if it bothers you so much.
When he got the apartment he was making 40-50k. So you think that just because someone increases their income they should have to move out of their and stretch their housing budget to around 30% of Mi? That's not helping anyone, the apartment would just get relisted at market rate and even wealthier person would prob move in
As I noted above, yes absolutely he should lose the subsidy with income. If you're on food stamps, you don't get to keep them once you make $230K per year.
Was reading the NYT I believe and they noted that 70% of people living in these units make ~$100K per year. So, the 30% like Mamdami making $230K are not exception not the norm but still a lot of them out there. If he left his unit, someone making less would likely take it who has a much tougher time affording the same unit on their disposable income.
Yes. The purpose of subsidized housing is to help those who need it. Obviously that hasn't been how it has worked in practice, but we should try to hold to the spirit of these things when we can. Mr Mamdani doesn't need the subsidized apartment anymore, and others do. He absolutely should move out and allow someone with a greater need to move in.
No, that isn't how it works. You shouldn't fucking run your mouth if you don't understand the subject. People like you should sit down, close your yapper, listen for once, and learn something.
You are the problem.
He doesn’t live in a rent controlled apartment. He lives in a rent stabilized apartment.
Rent stabilized apartments are not tied to income limits. 421a buildings are an example of where you’d have rent stabilization for an entire building and literally anyone can move there.
those 421a buildings you're talking about are "market-rate" stabilized which have a much higher starting rent (i.e market when that building was built). Those buildings often have actual rent stabilized units where tenants can only apply if they meet certain income thresholds (~40-60% AMI). The later half is what Zohran is in.
It’s baffling that you don’t see the controversy. By same logic I guess everyone in IB below associate should have rent controlled apartment? Not sure these were designed for people who make a qtr mil a year but then again all of this stuff is a scam anyway.
Roughly half of ALL apartments in NYC are are rent controlled. An IB Associate starts as an Analyst making 120k base + bonus, so they wouldn’t ever qualify for it.
Mamdani started his career making $47k/ year and that’s is when he got the apartment he lives in which is rent controlled, and as his salary went up, he stayed in the apartment.
I genuinely don’t see the big deal here
My guess is people view it as hypocrisy since there are many others who would benefit from it more than he would at a qtr million a year comp.
In a legal sense, this is OK post-2019 and the passing of HSTPA. Prior to that, there were supposed to be income limits for people living in rent stabilized apartments (and probably rent-controlled? I don't think you know what you're talking about, rent-controlled is a very specific term in this context and Mamdani isn't in one), but that was thrown out thanks to political pressure from wealthy constituents living in RS apartments.
Ethically, I tend to disagree with you - this is a farce and helps expose the rot at the heart of NYC's rent stabilization/control structure. It's not a great look to be living in an (expensive, to be fair) rent stabilized apartment when there are a lot of New Yorkers who genuinely need a cheaper place to live.
Wait which part do I specifically not know what I’m talking about?
Mamdani doesn't live in a rent controlled apartment. He lives in a rent stabilized apartment. I understood what you were talking about, but those are two very different concepts in NY and are treated differently from a legal/regulatory perspective as well.
Rent control / stabilization being a good or bad thing is a separate issue, but the fact that he was paying $2300 rent and somehow that is a controversy is baffling
It's not what the rent is, it's that he's advocating for a system that not only is he taking advantage of, but that isn't meant for him. It seems both hypocritical and self-dealing in a way that liberals in 2025 aren't allowed to be
People love a good outrage headline. Rent control doesn’t magically disappear if you get a raise, that’s not how the law works. If folks want income caps on it, that’s a policy change, not a scandal
Exactly
What I'm finding more disturbing than Mamdani's rent control is the amount of people on here who cannot distinguish the difference between right vs. wrong and legal vs. illegal.
It is absolutley frightening that most on this forum are in the business world where you will often be presented with the option of doing something wrong but legal.
Most on here do not believe it is wrong to put your interests and your family interests first. I do not gift additional money to pay down the public debt, but I could. I do not give $3 to presidential election, but I could. I do not give to the dozen or so groups on NYS income tax from, but again, I could.
Rent control (including its weaker cousin, rent stabilization) is competely idiotic as a concept and has a crystal clear track record of failing everywhere it's been tried.
So I have a hard time criticizing a guy for taking advantage of a scam he didn't create. Everyone who can get their hands on a rent-stabilized or rent-controlled apartment should go ahead and do it.
It's no different than any other policy designed to entrench privilege for an existing interest group.
Acting unethically is bad no matter whether the action is legal or illegal, or how the "scam" came to be. It's a little disconcerting that you don't understand this very basic concept, but I guess it tracks with some of your other views.
If you believe that everyone should act their worst simply because others do, then the world will be a pretty grim place indeed. We should hold people, and especially leaders and those with power, to a higher standard than that. Mr Mamdani is committing no crime, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to form a more negative opinion of him given his actions in this instance.
Agree with your first point.
"Acting unethically is bad" is circular.
"Zohran, whose combined income with his spouse is around 230,000k"
230,000k is 230,000,000
How much would it be acceptable for him to pay for rent?
If he makes $230M probably not.
He can pay any amount he wants at a market rate.
He has a big compound in Uganda
And? Are you listening to yourself?
He has a. Big. Compound. In. Uganda???
Rent controled appartements don't change the amount of flats, if anything it reduces their availability and maintenance landlords are willing to do.
Demand always vastly exceeds supply, leading to a selection criteria based on opaque and confusing "applications" instead of raw rent being the transparent one.
They only beneficiaries are nepos and people who get "help" securing the flats while everyone else is fucked.
Yes, but how is this Mamdanis fault?
So Mamdani is purporting himself to be a principled socialist correct?
Is it principled to take advantage of an apartment rent intended for people who can't afford it?
He's either a fraud who is happy to take advantage of the system when it benefits him or he is a principled compassionate guy only thinking about the poor. Which is it?
Whether it is legal or not or whether other people are doing it or not, doesn't really matter. That's not how you judge a person's actions. If you truly brand yourself as a principled person who cares about the poor and the system to help them, you would not be living in a rent controlled apartment when you could afford one on your own.
It is Mamdani's fault in that he chooses every day to live in that apartment versus it going to someone else who might really need it. This is not an accident that just happened to him.
He is the typical parasitic POS that his own policy is NOT designed for : The connected well off guy.
These are the biggest beneficiaries of rent controled flats, they could have paid market rent, but don't
Him living in a $2,500 apartment is not the issue. The issue is that it's considered "cheap". NYC has created such a "we pay big bucks because this is the Big Apple" mentality that I get brain cancer thinking about it. I would kill to live in a 2,500 apartment, but the fact that he got it does not make me lose sleep. The city needs more affordable housing for EVERYONE, even the one's making 120k+.
The 2019 HSTPA proves again and again to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever devised. IYKYK.
Depends on your perspective. For any one of the millions of people who live in a rent stabilized apartment, it's one of the best pieces of legislation ever devised.
It's no different than any other legislation that entrenches privilege for a special interest group at the expense of the community as a whole... and unfortunately, that is most legislation
Eh, I stand by what I said. The system prior to the 2019 HSTPA was horribly broken and ill conceived from the get go. But, Mamdami's success is tied to the fact that those millions of people living in a rent regulated unit are still not happy with the new system and the current rent burden. It may have been a step, but was certainly not viewed as an outright win.
Landlords for obvious reasons hate the law and lenders are not happy with it either.
Even the City had to change their methodology for calculating the annual IREM figures because they were not liking the results and did not want to report multiple years of declining NOI figures.
Again, the prior framework was horribly flawed - allowing landlords to self certify IAI renovation costs was beyond stupid - but when a piece of legislation solves zero problems for any special interest groups, I don't think that's a matter of perspective, I think it's just a bad piece of legislation.
Maiores pariatur aperiam reprehenderit. Consequatur est aliquam quis at voluptatibus et perspiciatis nihil.
Modi aut ipsum id nihil nulla ratione odit in. Maiores repellendus omnis nesciunt quis eum est. Accusamus nemo sunt non accusamus in. Reiciendis est iure maiores. Nihil ullam aut delectus voluptas non a ut.
Explicabo accusantium explicabo et quia quia. Aut omnis sed vero nihil voluptatem. Quisquam est iste perferendis officiis eum sunt itaque.
Occaecati voluptates dignissimos reiciendis maxime. Cumque quasi cumque voluptatem ad voluptas necessitatibus. Eos voluptatem dolore illum ipsa non.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sapiente perferendis deleniti voluptas. Eum eius eos quis maiores. Consequuntur quam aut perspiciatis eos.
Molestias repellendus et asperiores sed voluptatibus. Ab quas velit labore harum aliquam corrupti ex. Assumenda sunt aut qui hic maiores.