Mamdani Gets His Rent Freeze

From the very outset of his mayoral campaign, Zohran Mamdani promised to “freeze the rent” for tenants in the 1 million apartments subject to New York City’s rent stabilization law. After taking office, he appointed a majority of the city’s Rent Guidelines Board (RGB), the body that sets annual “adjustments” in rents for stabilized units. Last night, the board voted to fulfill his pledge.

One of Mamdani’s early campaign videos captured the then little-known assemblyman running the November 2024 New York City Marathon. He ran through the five boroughs wearing a “Zohran Will Freeze It!” shirt, proclaiming, “As mayor, I will freeze the rent every year that I’m in office. That’s a guarantee.”

On New Year’s Day 2025, Mamdani plunged into the ocean off Coney Island, immersing himself in the freezing water to promote freezing the rent. In the accompanying video, he explained that, as mayor, he would control the appointments to the Rent Guidelines Board. He touted the fact that the terms of eight of the RGB’s nine members were about to expire and pledged to appoint “only those who understand that landlords are doing just fine.” He closed with a toast: “Here’s to a new year, a new mayor, and the same rent!”

In May 2025, the Mamdani campaign released an ad entirely dedicated to the rent freeze. “I’m Zohran Mamdani and I am running to freeze the rent for every rent stabilized tenant.” “It’s true. As your next mayor, I will freeze your rent.”

By a 7-1 vote of the eight members present, the board has now enacted a rent freeze that, for first time in its 56-year history, prohibits any rental increase on both one- and two-year leases. True to his Polar Plunge promise, Mamdani was able to appoint six of the board’s nine members, and his appointees redeemed his “guarantee,” just as he said they would. The lone dissenting vote came from NYU Stern Professor and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Arpit Gupta, who soon afterward explained in City Journal why rent control “produces deteriorating assets and, eventually, public bailouts and takeovers.”

The mayor’s RGB triumph, however, sets the stage for the defeat of his most famous policy. As I pointed out in these pages last summer, contrary to Mamdani’s gleeful proclamations, the mayor has no power to set rents. While he appoints its members, the RGB is an independent, “quasi-judicial” body required to act in a manner similar to that of a court.

The RGB is mandated to make its determinations based upon objective evidentiary factors set forth in §26-510(b) of the city’s Administrative Code. The board is required to review “the economic condition of the residential real estate industry” by examining “(i) real estate taxes and sewer and water rates, (ii) gross operating maintenance costs (including insurance rates, governmental fees, cost of fuel and labor costs), (iii) costs and availability of financing (including effective rates of interest), (iv) over-all supply of housing accommodations and over-all vacancy rates,” and other relevant “data.”

Upon the RGB’s review of the appropriate factual information, the law requires the board to file “findings” with the city clerk on or before July 1, annually, to justify its decision on rental adjustments. There is no such thing as a four-year-long rent freeze.

Neither popular opinion nor political promises should factor in the board’s deliberations. The mayor may no more influence the RGB’s decision on rents than he may sway the decisions of the judges whom he appoints to the city’s criminal and civil courts. Just like parties appearing before a judge, landlords and tenants affected by the board’s determinations have a right to a fair and impartial decision-making process untainted by actual or perceived bias.

“It is beyond dispute that an impartial decision maker is a core guarantee of due process, fully applicable to adjudicatory proceedings before administrative agencies,” New York’s highest court held in 1616 Second Ave. Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority.

Since his election, in apparent recognition of the legal problem created by his campaign promise, Mamdani has substantially shifted his rhetoric. As the board’s annual review process commenced earlier this year, Mamdani suddenly discovered its “independence.” 

The press release announcing the appointment of the six new board members described the RGB “as an independent body.” In place of his guarantee, Mamdani expressed confidence only in “a clear-eyed look at the complex housing landscape and the realities facing our city’s two million rent-stabilized tenants,” which would “help us move closer to a fairer, more affordable New York.”

Last month, a city hall spokesman insisted that the mayor has always recognized the board’s independence and the need to adhere to the mandates of the law. “As the mayor has made very clear: the Rent Guidelines Board is an independent body, and he is confident that they will review all of the appropriate information and make an independent decision.” 

Yesterday, the day of the vote, Mamdani again invoked the board’s independence in an interview with News12. “It’s an independent board; we trust them to make the decision they will make,” he said.

The mayor’s newfound respect for the RGB’s independence, however, does not erase the repeated, central promise that launched and defined his campaign, especially given that his appointees have now fulfilled that pledge—suggesting, at the least, an appearance of prejudgment and political interference in an adjudicatory process that Mamdani himself has repeatedly characterized as “independent.” 

In an extraordinary development, RGB member Christina Smyth resigned in protest just hours before the vote. Appointed by Mayor Eric Adams to one of the two board seats designated for the representation of the interests of property owners, Smyth issued a blistering resignation letter in which she alleged that the board’s determination “was decided last year on the campaign trail” and called the RGB “a body that starts with an answer and vibe codes its way backward to justify it.”

Smyth’s apparent willingness to proffer evidence of actual bias would make a legal battle against the freeze unusually strong. “There may be some legal challenges taken up by owners aggrieved by the way this process has played out,” Smyth told the Daily News. “If so I will do everything I can to assist them in being successful.” Instead of a situation where challengers must rely on circumstantial evidence and inferences of bias, Smyth’s testimony could set forth credible, direct proof of a process corrupted by prejudgment and political pressure. When supported by sufficient evidence, a “determination based not on a dispassionate review of the facts but on a body’s prejudgment or biased evaluation must be set aside,” the Court of Appeals held in Warder v. Board of Regents of University of State of N.Y., 53 N.Y. 2d 186 (1981).

The rent freeze carries implications beyond its impact on the finances of landlords and tenants. If it stands, the board’s action could be viewed as blurring the line between political considerations and what is intended to be an independent process, an encroachment of popular influence into decisions that are meant to rest on objective criteria.

The mayor’s freeze may cost more than any rent increase that the board could impose.