September 8, 2025

It appears affordability in New York is difficult for everyone, not just renters. The state’s “hardship” rent-stabilization program allowed rent increases when a landlord’s operating expenses reached 95% of gross income (“alternative hardship”) or when net operating income fell below a historic baseline (“comparative hardship”). Strict eligibility rules, such as a 36-month ownership requirement, and burdensome filing standards made the program nearly impossible to access. Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) data showed that only 11 hardship applications were submitted over the past five years. Of those, five were decided between January 2022 and April 2024, and all were denials. For landlords, the program offered no real relief as housing affordability became a central issue in New York’s elections.

National research from Pew Charitable Trusts showed that a 10% rise in regional housing supply correlated with 5% lower rent growth. At the ZIP-code level, a 10% increase reduced rent growth by about 1.4%. Low-income ZIP codes with limited new housing saw rent increases nearly 10 percentage points higher than wealthier areas between 2017 and 2024. These figures show lenders and landlords that, in regulated markets, limited supply and rigid policy drive higher rent pressures in communities least able to absorb them.

This record shows a broader imbalance at a time when housing is the defining election issue in the New York mayoral campaign. Programs intended to stabilize ownership costs rarely deliver, leaving landlords without relief and exposing lenders to added risk in rent-regulated portfolios. Uneven housing development pushes rents higher in low-income areas, reinforcing political demands for rent freezes and supply mandates. As election debates shape the policy environment, lenders and landlords should anticipate continued scrutiny of rent-regulation frameworks and recognize how regulatory gaps affect long-term asset performance.