Mamdani Has Few Good Options to “Freeze the Rent”

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s “freeze the rent” pledge for New York City’s 1 million rent-stabilized apartments was his best-known campaign initiative. But making good on that promise may require him to remove members of the Rent Guidelines Board just appointed by outgoing Mayor Eric Adams.

Mamdani is vowing to plow ahead with his plans anyway. But, as I explain in a new Manhattan Institute brief, a careful analysis of his legal options suggests that the mayor-elect’s words are more bluster than reality.

Freezing rent on the city’s rent-stabilized units requires action by the nine-member Rent Guidelines Board, which votes annually on whether to adjust rents on stabilized units. The board enacted three “rent freezes” during the Bill De Blasio administration, but has approved rent increases each of the past four years under the Eric Adams administration.

Currently, six of the nine members of the Board are serving on expired terms (terms usually last from two to four years). This allows the outgoing mayor to appoint up to six new members to the board—and late last week, he followed through on appointing four new members.

Mayor Adams vocally opposed Mamdani’s rent-freeze plan, so his appointees are not likely to approve it. This would delay any potential action through at least the first year of the Mamdani administration.

Unfortunately for Mamdani, there are few promising options for contesting Adams’s appointments. Perhaps the most straightforward approach would be to object to their qualifications—arguing, for example, that they fail to possess the requisite experience prescribed under law for serving on the board.

For example, members are not allowed to serve as officers in owner or tenant organizations, or in other positions that involve a conflict of interests. A member appointed in violation of these qualifications and restrictions, in theory, could be subject to removal by a court.

But past attempts to contest board-member qualifications have failed to gain traction in the courts. Moreover, a challenge would likely require what’s known as a quo warranto action by the state attorney general—a lawsuit asking a court to rule on whether the newly appointed board members are legally entitled to hold their seats. The involvement of another political office would rapidly complicate Mamdani’s path forward and ultimately put the final say in the hands of the state.

Another option would be to seek the removal of board members “for cause,” as is allowed under the New York City Administrative Code. But this would also be an uphill legal battle. Past state-court decisions have clarified that “for cause” removal requires showing substantial misconduct or malfeasance, not mere political disagreements over issues like freezing the rent.

Alternatively, Mamdani could work with the New York City Council to amend the administrative code and eliminate the “for cause” removal standard for Board members, rendering them at-will appointments. Ironically, this would align Mamdani with the Trump administration, which is currently arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that the president should be able to remove federal officials at will.

But it’s hard to see why the City Council would go along with such an effort to increase mayoral power. It would be more likely to use any revisions to the code to reduce mayoral influence and control over the board, since political bodies usually seek to accrete power rather than willingly give it away.

As my report details, none of the available options offer much hope for the incoming mayor, and all involve substantial downside risks, both legally and politically. Ultimately, Mamdani’s best bet might be simply to accept any new appointments to the Rent Guidelines Board and bide his time before attempting to enact his rent freeze.

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images