>
Step 1, get rid of Air B&B.  Step 2, allow denser buildings along transportation corridors that allow more people to bypass the need for a car. Step 3, Give owners of buildings tax incentives for buildings with rent below the average rent. Step 4, Encourage new construction to be less square footage and more affordable single family homes with tax breaks for smaller houses. >

I don't know why Democrats always reach for rent control. It doesn't work. 
The solution is more housing. Not artificially tilting the market towards people who already live there >

all rent control does is give some stability to renters and it works pretty well in nyc. the problem with market based housing solutions is we more or less have that going on and its failed. the only real solution seems to be for cities to build and operate housing for the poor, disabled and elderly. we need both, rent control for the current and future residents and more housing under the control of the cities. >

The entire reason you can't build housing in NYC and Cali is NIMBY bullshit. Developers would love to build more housing, because money. 
Rent control fucks up the market everywhere it's been tried. People hold onto their rent controlled apartments for generations in NYC, often not even living there. Opting to rent it out at market rate and make thousands a month. >

there are new building going up all the time, i'm not sure what you're talking about. one of the big issues is there are height restriction in the outer boroughs that keep things from getting denser. 
those are right wing talking points regarding rent control in the city. sure, people might stay in the same apartment for decades, heaven forbid you have a stable housing situation. even if the examples are true the benefits for hundreds of thousand of renters way our weighs the shitty actions by a few. i'd say the market is way more fucked by real estate developers that only want to build high end apartments and condos. there's a ton of new housing in manhattan in the last few years, it's just not affordable to 99.99% of us. how do market forces fix that problem? >


are height restriction in the outer boroughs that keep things from getting denser.

This is the exact NIMBY bullshit I'm talking about. 

people might stay in the same apartment for decades

But they don't. It's an open secret that a huge portion of people with rent controlled apartments rent them out at market rate. Why wouldn't you? It's thousands of dollars free money a month. 

there's a ton of new housing in manhattan in the last few years, it's just not affordable to 99.99%

It's extremely expensive because building have to do things like trade their air rights to get anything built. Then they have to be pencil thin, also because of NIMBY rules, which also increases cost >

the height restrictions in the outer boroughs are a relic of the past and only very broadly could be called NIMBY, since they all predate any public housing.  when the last administration proposed removing those restriction and putting up 20 story apartments it was only in the poorest part of brooklyn and the residents very rightly felt like they were once again getting fucked.   
the open secret you talk about is completely unsupported by facts. its more of this welfare queen shit from the 80s. the idea that people are on waiting lists for years only to turn around and illegally sublet that apartment is a fantasy. 
the expensive housing going up in ny isn't reflective of the cost, its just simple, naked greed. which is why cities have to become directly involved in housing. we can't leave it to the tender mercies of developers. >

Not to dox myself but I know subletting rent controlled apartments is common because I lived in one.
Look it up, subletting rent controlled apartments is extremely common, at least in NYC. Some estimates are less than 60% of rent controlled apartments are occupied by the legal tenant. Thousands of dollars a month for free is very lucrative, and the punishment for getting caught is just a fine. Part of the reason the wait list is so long is that rent controlled apartments are widely seen as a cash cow among NYC residents, some fully intend to rent them out from day 1. 

only in the poorest part of brooklyn and the residents very rightly felt like they were once again getting fucked. 

Developers want to build where the land is cheap. This is how the market works >

i refuse to believe that 40+% of rent controlled apartments are illegally sublet. you're living in one does not mean they were common, just that you found one. i lived there for 20 years and never came across one for rent and i've never know anyone doing it. actual numbers would be helpful. and there is no such thing as cheap land in nyc. >

I love the way the governor dismissed this bill because it won't do something that rent control has never done, create more housing stock. it's frustrating when a politician willfully conflates 2 unrelated issues. All rent control can do is stop the 15%, 20%, 25% year over year increases. and since we now all know more than 75% of rental housing is owned outright, the talking points about market rate are complete bullshit. the governor wants "market based" responses to the housing crisis without acknowledging that the housing crisis is a prefect example of a market failure. if we leave it up to the real estate developers all we're going to get is more of the same, "luxury" apartments and designer lofts.