Rent Guidelines for October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026

Online comments: 20

• HP

  Each year at the rent guidelines board hearings we hear elected officials and tenants tell us to open our books to prove we are experiencing hardship. As you can see from the attached coverage, the assistance programs at HCR do not offer assistance even when you open your books.

  Comment attachment
  Housing-Agencys-Hardship-Program-Fails-Distressed-Landlords.pdf

  Comment added June 5, 2025 6:36pm

• NYC Housing Provider

  On the campaign trail Zohran Mamdani tells reporters that programs exist to assist distressed housing providers, but no such program can be found when calling his office, HPD or DHCR.

  Comment attachment
  Mysterious-Landlord-Hardship-Program-Cited-by-Zohran-Mamdani.pdf

  Comment added June 5, 2025 6:38pm

• Kafka NY

  Housing providers face extreme hardship due to rising taxes and city driven costs. The few programs that exist for us are a maze of red tape and hidden traps as you can see from this attached article from the real deal about the DHCR hardship program. Please keep this in mind and help us raise the rents to match the rate at which property tax, utilities and labor costs have increased which is 8-30%.

  Comment attachment
  kafka.pdf

  Comment added June 5, 2025 6:43pm

• Envious of Rochdale

  Recently Rochdale Village, a cornerstone of the Mitchell-Lama program, has been pushed by NYS HCR to raise maintenance fees by 22%. HCR determined this amount was required to ensure maintenance was occurring, vendors were being paid, and that sufficient reserves existed for emergencies. Being party of Mitchel-Lama they do not pay property tax and other city fees that private landlords do. So without the largest expense that most buildings face, Rochdale still cannot make ends meet with out a 22% increase. How can private owners who do have taxes and other municipal costs expect to make ends meet with only 3.75-6.75% increases? Please review the data and remember that you are failing NY when you fail to raise the rents to sustainable levels.

  Comment attachment
  rochdale.pdf

  Comment added June 5, 2025 6:49pm

• Audra Bonacki

  The rent increase proposals are not in line with cost of living. And the percentage increases in the last 2 years have been devastating. It is not the burden of renters to line the pockets of landlords. We shouldn’t lose our home at the hands of greed. We all understand rents increase, but at the rates you’re proposing, you will absolutely force people out of their homes and where do you expect us to live? You are literally eliminating true affordable housing in the 5 boroughs. Enough greed. Be reasonable and fair.

  Comment added June 8, 2025 12:17pm

• Daniel Kowalski, Foundation for Economic Education

  Of the approximated 2.3 million apartments in New York City, almost a million of them are rent-stabilized. Unlike rent control, where rent prices are fixed, rent stabilization allows increases at a regulated rate. The politicians behind these price controls aim to make housing costs “fairer” for tenants at the expense of landlords. But the unintended result of these policies, as seen in the 1970s, is that landlords will even abandon properties because the costs outweigh the benefits, with whole neighborhoods suffering as a result. Unfortunately, elected officials and their voters often forget these historical lessons. In 2019, New York City expanded rent stabilization. Now, as we repeat past mistakes, we are also repeating the consequences.

  Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act

  From a renter’s perspective, a rent-stabilized apartment means lower housing costs than what would occur in the free market. From a landlord’s perspective, owning these units was never the best investment, but there were ways to work around the disadvantages. Before 2019, landlords could get their apartment delisted from rent stabilization by performing gut renovations removing almost everything except the exterior walls. This was very expensive, but it offered a way out.

  That changed with the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. This law permanently stabilized apartments, meaning that annual rent increases are to be kept below market rates. It also eliminated the policy of preferential rates, which had allowed landlords to offer discounted rates upon renewal. Now if a landlord offers a lower rent to fill a vacancy, he must continue offering that rate every year.

  Another way for landlords to increase their revenues was through a legal rent increase of up to 20% for new tenants after the old ones moved out. But the 2019 law eliminated that option, too—landlords can only charge the same rent the previous tenants would have paid if they had stayed.

  The 2019 law also makes it more difficult to evict tenants. A landlord’s business depends on cash flow, and eviction is seen only as a last resort. Tenants are ejected when they cause disturbances or they stop paying rent. But courts can now stall the process for a year. The law also dismantled the Tenant Blacklist, making it harder to vet potential tenants.

  Unintended Results
  In 2022, 176 rent-stabilized apartment units in New York City were foreclosed on, and that number has doubled every year. As of April 2025, over 2,000 units are in danger of defaulting on their mortgages. As in the 1970s, many owners face operating costs that outweigh their revenues. The Rent Guidelines Board estimates that 10% of rent-stabilized units lose money for their landlords.

  If an owner sells his building, the new owner must keep the stabilized units at the same regulated rent. That makes these buildings unattractive investments, guaranteed to keep bleeding cash. Should the properties go into foreclosure and the banks be unable to find new buyers, tenants could ultimately be evicted. This huge win for tenants at the expense of landlords turns out to be a lose-lose situation for everyone.

  What Happens Next
  Property owners are limited: they can’t increase revenues to cover costs, and they can’t remove tenants who won’t pay rent. Even for a profitable building, one or two tenants not paying their rent can change the operating numbers into a loss. Every month spent fighting to get them out is another month without rent.

  During the 1970s, building owners ignored basic maintenance because they could not afford it. Property taxes stopped being paid, buildings were abandoned, and entire neighborhoods declined. Some owners even torched their buildings because insurance payouts were the only value that could be extracted.

  As the negative results continue to accumulate, there will hopefully be people with the wisdom to reverse these policies before bad becomes worse. But one of the frontrunners to be the city’s next mayor is the same former governor who signed the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act into law.

  Comment attachment
  Rent-Stabilization-Proponents-Hate-to-Learn-from-the-Past-FEE.pdf

  Comment added June 8, 2025 1:13pm

• Ms. Luz Robert

  I am writing to express my support for a rent freeze. I believe this is an important issue, especially for those who are low-income tenants. The current rent percentage increase being proposed is simply too high and will place an undue burden on many tenants.

  Tenants face various financial challenges, and a significant rent increase would exacerbate these difficulties. A rent freeze would provide much-needed relief and stability, allowing tenants to allocate their limited resources toward other essential expenses.

  I kindly urge you to consider the impact of the proposed rent increase on low-income tenants and support the implementation of a rent freeze. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for considering my perspective.

  Comment added June 9, 2025 6:41pm

• Rafael E. Cestero via Crains

  “At the Community Preservation Corporation (CPC), one of the largest mission-driven lenders and servicers in the country dedicated solely to multifamily housing, we have a unique window into the financial and physical health of the city’s rent-stabilized housing. The data we collect tells a troubling story.”

  “Since 2020, operating expenses across our portfolio have
  increased by 21%, including a 6% increase in the past year
  alone. Meanwhile, rent collections plummeted during the
  pandemic and have yet to recover. Collections in our rent-
  stabilized buildings average around 92%, meaning owners are
  still losing nearly 10 % of their anticipated income. That might
  not sound like much, but when your margins are already
  razor-thin, it can be the difference between keeping the lights
  on and falling into financial distress.
  The signs of distress are everywhere. In our permanent
  servicing portfolio, the percentage of loans delinquent by 60
  days or more tripled in the last year from 3.7% of unpaid
  principal balance to 9% in 2024. That’s $109 million in unpaid
  principal tied to 2,043 homes. As a result, enforcement
  actions like foreclosures are on the rise. As of December
  2024, 16 loans in our permanent portfolio were undergoing
  enforcement.”

  Comment attachment
  cpc.pdf

  Comment added June 11, 2025 11:37am

• Dont Defund housing

  “A crucial fact almost always missing from the “freeze the rent” conversation is that rent-stabilized rents, adjusted for inflation, have been going down for years.

  How many years? The answer might surprise you: 10.

  The last time an RGB increase outpaced inflation was at the beginning of the de Blasio administration, before the new mayor filled the board with his own appointees (who froze rents three times). The streak has continued under Mayor Eric Adams.

  A chart posted on X by newly appointed Rent Guidelines Board member Alex Armlovich, a senior housing analyst at the Niskanen Center, tracks the difference between the Consumer Price Index and the increases allowed by the Rent Guidelines Board back to October 2000. The fifth column shows the RGB increase minus the CPI for that period.”

  Comment attachment
  Rents-Have-Been-Falling-for-10-Years.pdf

  Comment added June 13, 2025 3:54am

• Joe

  Sub-inflation increases from the RGB are hurting the NYC budget. The Real Deal is reporting that Clipper Equity just dumped an Upper West Side rent stabilized building at a 42% discount bringing it back to 2008 values. These distressed sales at depressed rates will only serve to reduce the property tax roll for the city. Given property tax is the single largest revenue source for NYC – accounting for 44% of all New York City tax revenue – this is a big deal. Stop devaluing NY. Start seeing reasonable rate increases that cover costs.

  Comment attachment
  rbg-destorying-nyc.pdf

  Comment added June 13, 2025 5:15pm

• Jake Russo

  As the landlord in. New York City. and five boroughs. The proposed increases for one year and two year. are insufficient. to say the least. The board has to keep in mind. that landlords are Required to pay commitment. to brokers, which usually ends up being a one month rent. that already sets them back on a one year lease where they’re actually getting. eleven months. of rent and one. month of security deposit that is usually refundable.. On top of all this. building operation costs. throughout New York City and the five boroughs have increased dramatically especially in terms of insurance coverage which increased. approximately by. 52% as well as increases in utilities. and. Superintendent. and other payroll. The measly increase. for one year. of 2.75% or even three percent is non sustainable. to landlords. and may create the situation where landlords will simply abandon. buildings. which will bring the entire city of New York and the. five boroughs back into the 1970s. since tenants. are making more than they used to. through other means. which working from home. that board must increase. drastically the one year and two year. rent in order. to allow landlords. to survive and keep the city and five boroughs from. falling into. depression as there are no other alternatives for landlords. This is a sentiment expressed by many landlord. s for mid size apartment buildings. Thank you for the consideration.

  Comment added June 18, 2025 10:03am

• Daffodil Edwards

  We cannot have tenant paying very low rent with high income. We need to go back to deregulating rent when income is at a certain threshold.

  Comment added June 18, 2025 10:42am

• KMA

  The “rent freeze” rhetoric has been loud and alarming, as almost every candidate for office needs to be part of the battle cry. The sad part is that while they scream for a “rent freeze” for the stabilized units, they pass higher costs onto the free market units. Housing has costs, and they are high in the most expensive city in the country. Rents must rise to meet those higher operating costs. ConEd is looking for an 11-13% increase on electric and gas. The city is raising water and sewer almost 4%. Commercial insurance packages are growing over 30%, and the umbrella liability policies are increasing triple digits (if you can even get a policy, as so many carriers have exited the market).
  As was stated at an earlier RGB meeting. It’s MATH! we need the board to tune out the cancel rent rhetoric and raise rents to meet the PIOC, 6.3%

  Comment added June 22, 2025 6:27pm

• Ilan

  Honorable Members of the Rent Guidelines Board:

  Thank you for he difficult work you do. I’m a small property owner responsible for a 4-unit brownstone—majority rent-stabilized. I write not to ask for sympathy, but for honesty.

  My building’s rent roll doesn’t even cover basic costs. Property taxes and insurance alone exceed total rental income. Add utilities, maintenance, and mandated compliance—and I operate at a significant loss. This is not a question of reduced profitability. It is full-on insolvency.

  To put it plainly: my stabilized units rent for an average of $1,300 per month. My 2024 property tax bill alone will be $75,000. The math isn’t complicated.
  Where Is the Help?

  It took 3 years before I eventually found DHCR’s Comparative and Alternative Hardship Program [1]. It purports to offer a one-time 6% rent increase—if you can prove your Net Operating Income is below 5%. Mine is well below zero. I have net operating debt, not income. This should be easy I thought.

  But my experience was quite different.

  In late 2023, I submitted my first application—hundreds of pages: leases, mortgage statements, canceled checks—all in triplicate, via USPS. Seven months passed with no word. Finally, I was rejected—because DHCR’s own Small Owners Assistance Unit had given me incorrect guidance about submission deadlines.

  I reapplied in 2024. Our financial situation now significantly worse. Months go by: another rejection. This time, because one document was submitted in duplicate, not triplicate. Rather than request another copy, they rejected me again. I corrected it and resubmitted.

  Next up, I was rejected because I had refinanced in 2022 and transferred the deed from my name to an LLC I wholly own, with myself as guarantor on the mortgage. DHCR called this a change in ownership, resetting the required 3-year ownership clock.

  I appealed. I submitted proof of my 2020 purchase, 100% ownership, and continuous control. Five more months passed. Then came a final rejection. They agreed it wasn’t a sale—but claimed they couldn’t locate the proof of purchase in my packet. It was there, just misplaced by DHCR. Instead of asking for a copy or checking public records, they denied me again and said I had no further right to appeal. If I disagreed, I could bring the matter to court.

  Let’s be clear: a 6% increase on a $1,300 lease equals $936 per year. An Article 78 proceeding would cost orders of magnitude more. This is not a viable path to relief. The program costs more than the maximum benefit it could legally provide.

  The types of hardships we are talking about here cannot afford to wait this long. It only puts our residents at risk.

  You face an impossible task. The data shows buildings aren’t nearing insolvency—they’ve already crossed that line [3]. But rent increases large enough to stabilize them would crush tenants. Unfortunately, no other path to assistance exists for owners.

  The burden of this housing crisis cannot continue falling solely on your shoulders. A solution has to come from outside this Rent Guidelines process. But unless you call for it, no one will step in I know the RGB doesn’t control DHCR or HPD. You can’t fix these broken programs yourself, just like you cannot change inflation or the rising cost of insurance. But you can speak honestly and loudly.

  You can say what we all know: no functional assistance exists today for distressed owners.

  Your voice carries weight and such a statement will have a huge impact.
  The public and our elected officials listen to your statements. If you acknowledge this failure, City Hall and Albany will be forced into action.

  In your 2025-2026 rent order announcement, I urge you to clearly state: help is not available to distressed owners. That truth matters. And your voice can drive the change we need.

  [1] https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/11/fact-sheet-39-06-2019.pdf
  [2] https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2024/06/28/housing-agencys-hardship-program-fails-distressed-landlords/
  [3] https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/testimony-of-nyu-furman-center-senior-fellow-mark-willis-before-the-rent-guidelines-board

  Comment attachment
  fact-sheet-39-06-2019.pdf

  Comment added June 23, 2025 12:23am

• A Grateful Tenant, But a Realist Too

  To the Rent Guidelines Board,

  I live in a rent-stabilized apartment I was fortunate to receive through the housing lottery, and I’m deeply grateful for the stability it provides. But I’m writing today because I’m concerned about the long-term viability of rent-stabilized housing—both for existing buildings and future ones.

  The Rent Guidelines Board’s own data shows that operating costs have increased by more than 6%, yet the proposed rent increases fall well below that. The math simply doesn’t add up. Expecting landlords to absorb rising expenses without appropriate adjustments is not sustainable, and it risks pushing well-maintained buildings like mine into disrepair. No one benefits from that—not the tenants, not the landlords, and certainly not the city.

  As a small business owner, I know what it means to try to cover growing costs while providing a quality product. Housing is no different. If property owners can’t maintain their buildings because rent increases don’t match inflation and costs, tenants like me end up living in deteriorating conditions.

  Beyond that, these overly restrictive rent increases send a message to would-be developers that investing in stabilized or affordable housing isn’t worth it. If we want to actually address high rents in New York City, we need more housing—especially affordable and stabilized units. Discouraging the people who might build that housing only makes the problem worse.

  I urge the Board to consider the long-term consequences of these decisions. We need balanced policies that protect tenants while also supporting the creation and maintenance of stable, high-quality housing for the future.

  Respectfully,
  A concerned NYC tenant

  Comment added June 23, 2025 8:32am

• Budra Aonacki

  The rent increase proposals are not in line with cost of living. And the percentage increases in the last 2 years have been devastatingly low. It is not the burden of landlords to line the pockets of tenats. We shouldn’t lose our home at the hands of greedy tenants who want someone else to subsidize their living expenses. At the low rates you’re proposing, you will absolutely force the destroy the homes we have and where will people live when owners go bankrupt or buildings collapse? You are literally eliminating true affordable housing in the 5 boroughs by not raising rents. Enough greed. Be reasonable and fair.

  Comment added June 25, 2025 9:28am

• Ruz Lobert

  I am writing to express my opposition to a rent freeze. I believe this is an important issue, especially for those who are low-income tenants. The current rent percentage increase being proposed is simply too low and will ruin the affordable housing we wish to have in NYC.

  Owners face various financial challenges, and such an insignificant rent increase would exacerbate these difficulties. A rent freeze will destroy our housing leaving us no where to live. Owners have limited resources and cannot keep subsidizing the lives of tenants.

  I kindly urge you to consider the impact of the proposed rent increase on the housing you claim to preserve and support the implementation of a rent increase. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for considering my perspective

  Comment added June 25, 2025 9:31am

• Keep the Crumbs

  To My Fellow Hardworking New Yorkers—
  Nurses. Bus drivers. Home health aides. Retail workers.
  Stop asking for crumbs.
  Start demanding real policies that help us break free from poverty—not keep us shackled in it.
  Rent freezes sound nice. But let’s be honest:
  What are you really saving on a stabilized unit? $25–$50 a month?
  What’s that doing to help you survive this affordability crisis?
  Don’t let the politicians fool you.
  They hand you a rent freeze and call it a win—while chronic non-payers walk into housing court and walk out with $10,000–$30,000 in rental assistance—every single year.

  Ask yourself:
  Would you rather save $50 a month…
  Or get a $500/month rental voucher that actually helps with affordability ?
  We should be demanding:
  $500 monthly vouchers for working-class tenants earning under $45,000
  Assistance based on contribution—not on court bailouts for the same tenants each year.
  Millions is spent on bailing tenants out each year, and its the same old tenants, how about we spread that out to everyone.

  The truth is, it takes the same energy to fight for a rent freeze as it would to demand something that actually helps us.
  Last night’s NYC primaries proved it—
  A rent freeze promise is enough to catapult a politician into office.
  So let’s flip the script.
  Let’s make rental vouchers the new litmus test.
  If you want our vote—deliver rent vouchers to working New Yorkers – Not rent freezes.

  Comment added June 25, 2025 2:56pm

• NY Post

  When the city’s Rent Guidelines Board votes Monday on adjustments for one- and two-year leases of rent-stabilized apartments, it must tune out the politics — and increase rents at the highest end of the preliminary range they set last month.

  The math, and the health of New York City’s housing stock, demands it.

  The RGB’s own research data and reports show that a minimum rent increase of 6.3% is necessary for small-property owners to meet their increased operating costs and expenses.

  But the board ignored its own math last month when it set a preliminary adjustment range of 1.75% to 4.75% for a one-year lease.

  They have a chance to make it right — by voting for the higher number.

  Independent housing policy experts at the Citizens Budget Commission and NYU Furman Center warn that decades of rent adjustments failing to keep pace with inflation and rising costs have taken a heavy toll, and the pattern is no longer sustainable.

  Too many buildings, they say, are in economic distress.

  Just look at the staggering number of mom-and-pop, family-owned buildings in last month’s Department of Finance lien sale.

  Those buildings are now in danger of foreclosure, abandonment or takeover by corporate landlords and predatory profiteers.

  It’s simple math.

  When property taxes, water and sewer rates, insurance, utilities, labor, construction materials and every other cost needed to maintain and operate rent-stabilized housing go up, rents should increase commensurately.

  But with a cap on rent increases, and no ceiling on taxes and expenses, small rent-stabilized building owners are pushed off the cliff — leaving less affordable housing for NYC families.

  Our lawmakers have worsened the problem.

  Albany saddled small rent-stabilized buildings with the 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, which effectively made upgrades unaffordable by severely limiting rent increases to recoup costs.

  The City Council continually adds burdensome and costly government mandates — most recently the broker-fee law that will likely force many owners to keep apartments empty.

  The backlog in eviction proceedings in Housing Court allows deadbeats to skip without making good on arrears after living rent-free for months, sometimes years.

  No cavalry is on the horizon for economically distressed small rent-stabilized building owners — the largest providers of affordable housing to millions of New Yorkers in low-income, brown, black and immigrant neighborhoods.

  Their only hope — the only hope, really, for the families we house and for the very preservation of affordable housing — is the RGB, which must deliberate amid an irrational rent-freeze chorus from shouting activists.

  Message to the Democrats’ mayoral candidate: Freezing rents without freezing property taxes and operating costs doesn’t work. Bill de Blasio’s eight years of rent mismanagement have caught up with us.

  In its vote on Monday, the RGB must send a clear message to all candidates and politicians: That it’s an independent board not swayed by political pressure.

  Housing policies that punish small building owners — who are mostly people of color and generational owners of immigrant backgrounds — also punish the families they house, shaking the foundation of the city’s affordable housing landscape.

  Anti-owner policies are anti-tenant policies.

  We don’t expect the city to freeze property taxes, water bills and other government-driven costs.

  And if Zohran Mamdani becomes our next mayor, his platform points to an anti-small-property-owner scenario worse than the one de Blasio created.

  That leaves the RGB as the first, last and only champion for small rent-stabilized building owners.

  Will this panel be able to shut out the background noise and abide by its own math, so that small-building owners can provide safe, affordable housing to the New Yorkers counting on them every day?

  And what if this RGB panel blazed its own trail and did some thinking outside the box?

  For example, the board could try to rescue the most deeply distressed buildings by considering separate, higher rent adjustments for apartment leases in such situations.

  It would be a sensible first step in keeping small owners off the city’s next lien sale — and walking the affordable housing crisis off the ledge.

  Does the RGB have the courage to proceed where other panels in the past have failed?

  Comment attachment
  NYC_s-rent-board-must-ignore-the-politics-—-and-OK-a-hike-copy.pdf

  Comment added June 25, 2025 10:33pm

• IR

  I own a 135-year-old, four-unit building on the Upper West Side—nearly all of it rent-stabilized.

  Because legal rents lag far behind expenses, I lose mid-six figures every year. Mayor Adams touts homeownership as New Yorkers’ path to generational wealth, but for owners of rent-stabilized housing it has become generational debt.

  Low RGB-approved increases and soaring costs leave us permanently in the red. This is not mismanagement; it is the consequence of running a small business whose prices are fixed while costs are not.

  Cost increases (past two years):
  * Property taxes: +16 %
  * Property insurance: +300 %
  * Water & sewer: +12 % (with more hikes pending)
  * ConEd: +11% (with more hikes pending)

  Unexpected expenses (past year)
  * Replaced aging roof: $11,000
  * Damages after police and EMTs broke a tenant’s door to save their life
  * Basement flooding due to frequent storms and climate change: >$50,000 in repairs and drainage

  New City mandates taking effect this year also come with a cost:

  – Local Law 152 gas inspections: $600
  – Local Law 157 gas detectors: ≈ $300
  – Monthly fire-sprinkler inspections: $1,260/yr
  – Local Law 31 XRF lead testing (excluding abatement): $1,000
  – DSNY-mandated trash bins: ≈ $300

  These examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. If we to see affordable rents, we need to stop driving up the costs of providing housing like this.

  I want to keep providing safe, well-maintained housing in NYC. I am committed to my neighborhood and my residents, but rents come nowhere near covering operating costs.

  The RGB’s own data show that an increase of at least 6.3 % is required just to maintain the current level of financial struggle, forget what we’d need to to to breaking event.

  Since HSTPA, the RGB is our sole avenue for rent adjustments. Please do not fail the small owners who keep New York’s historic housing standing.

  Comment added June 27, 2025 12:26am