Rent Guidelines for October 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027

Online comments: 24

• Nicolas Seunarine

  I strongly oppose any rent rate hikes. New York City’s own Rent Guidelines Board 2026 report shows that operating costs for rent-stabilized buildings rose 5.3%, while insurance costs jumped 10.5% and taxes rose 2.6%, which means owners are already facing major expense pressure without adding more burden through higher rents. Raising rents would also add to inflationary pressure by increasing housing costs for tenants and shifting more cost into the broader economy, especially when landlords are already dealing with higher property taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities, and other unavoidable bills.

  I also oppose rent freezes, because a rigid policy on either end can hurt housing stability. If rents are pushed too high, many properties will not be able to support needed repairs and renovations, which can lead to deferred maintenance and a decline in building quality. Any fair approach should protect tenants while still allowing buildings to remain financially viable and well maintained.

  Comment added May 11, 2026 2:53pm

• Anonymous - small landlord

  Dear Rent Guidelines Board,
  I am a small landlord, 83 years old. My husband, now deceased, worked his whole life to buy and maintain 2 properties in Hamilton Heights (30 units & 17 units). We have already very low rents that barely cover all the expenses of building. Rising oil prices and insurance costs along with the new interest rate makes it almost impossible to cover costs.
  The highest rent I have is ONE apartment that pays a preferential rate of $2384 for a 2 bedroom.
  The lowest is a one bedroom for $429 and a 2 bedroom for $537.
  The operating cost of each apartment is $1100. It was hard enough when DiBlasio froze the rent for 3 years. My interest rate on my mortgage was only 3.65%, but now it’s 6.12%. My mortgage is $36,400 a month!
  Skyrocketing oil prices –$14,000 to fill the tank
  My property taxes for both buildings is $154,525
  and maintenance of this 1912 building is never ending.
  I have a 8 tenants that are behind 3 or more months on their rent.
  I don’t know if I can hold on. I might have to file for bankruptcy because how long can I breath through a straw underwater?

  Comment added May 12, 2026 12:50pm

• Anonymous

  Dear Rent Guidelines Board,

  Restricting rent increase rates to below the increased costs to landlords to maintain their buildings leads to a decline in quality of life to tenants.

  Additionally, real life experiments in Argentina have proven that the best way to eliminate housing scarcity is by eliminating all rent price controls on apartments.

  Hopefully, this board will be so misguided with there proposals to eventually get the Supreme Court to hold rent stabilization rules an unconstitutional taking by the local government.

  Comment added May 14, 2026 3:21pm

• Queens Chronicle Editorial Board

  Modest rent hike is fair to all
  May 14, 2026

  The city is in the midst of an affordability crisis. Much of it is long in the making — the economy is always evolving and while some are at the forefront, others always struggle to catch up. And the problem has been severely exacerbated by the high inflation of a few years ago, the war against Iran and the spike in fuel prices it has caused. All that, and tariffs, is why even cheap tomatoes are now $4 a pound.

  One of the places where the crisis hits hardest is in the rent. It’s been too darn high a long time, for some people double what it was just 10 years ago. One issue that put Mayor Mamdani into office was his promise to freeze rents. And now the Rent Guidelines Board that he controls is seeking to do just that for two years, for those in rent-stabilized apartments. It shouldn’t. The board has kept rents flat for one year in the past, but not for two. It should do so again.

  The problem is that it’s not just tenants facing a financial crisis; it’s landlords, too.

  We don’t mean the big corporations with large portfolios of massive buildings that use economies of scale to keep their own costs down. We mean the small owners, who have, say, a 10-unit building here and there and must pay to keep them in good shape. The needs of the tenants must be balanced with the needs of the landlords, and freezing the rent for two years does not do that.

  That’s to say nothing of the more radical idea some activists and elected officials have: to roll back rents. First off, that cannot be legal. Secondly, what kind of understanding of the economy must you have to propose such a thing? The answer can only be none.

  The value of rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments has dropped substantially in recent years, in part because of tenant-oriented reforms to the laws, such as the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. That law, among other things, limited how much more landlords can charge to fund building upgrades. What do you think happens when someone can’t afford to fix up a building? All the problems tenants don’t want and shouldn’t have to live with.

  The RGB voted to consider a two-year rent hike from 0 to 4 percent. It should go with 3 percent.

  Inflation alone will top that. It would only be, for example, an $60 hike on a $2,000 rent. Doesn’t that seem fair?

  Comment added May 18, 2026 6:17pm

• Utility Payer

  NYC Department of Environmental Protection is planning to roll out a 6% rate increase. How can we raise rents by 0-4% if water is going up 6%? Who will pay the 2% difference?

  Comment attachment
  fy27-rate-proposal.pdf

  Comment added May 25, 2026 11:33pm

• Anonymous - Good will

  I support Mayor Mandami.
  However, I do recall a personal conversation with former Mayor Ed Koch. I personally attribute his efforts along with HPD and various other companies such as CPC to:

  1) Prevent further burn-out of neighborhoods such as Ft. Apache in the Bronx.

  2) Instill a city-wide & even regional effort to improve the quality of apartment housing in NYC.

  This is a tough issue with no free financial answer. However, the fundamental trade-off is:

  Quality of housing for millions of people vs. the amount we are willing to invest in people’s future.

  As we know, simply fixing up apartments alone does not positively improve many of the social & employment barriers in our Great Melting Pot of NYC.

  But, unchecked deterioration of housing does not help either. It is simply procrastination…

  Water prices have gone up, in a great manner to maintain & sustain the availability & quality of water in our city as well as sewer services.

  But, landlords will run out of money.
  They will be tempted and compelled to cut corners, and this will come at the expense of building maintenance:

  Safety issues.
  Convenience issues: elevators
  Infestation issues.
  Heat & hot water issues
  Water penetration issues
  It’s a long list folks.

  Acceptable housing is a Basic Need that everyone deserves to enjoy, in order to live long & Potentially prosperous & happy life.

  I fail to recognize how a generalized cap on rent increases makes sense.

  The risks are enormous.

  I’m glad Mayor Mandami has found an effective political slogan. I believe it’s now time that he demonstrates effective leadership.

  An overly generalized rent freeze will do more damage than good.

  The exact figure or figures for rent increases can be established in a more granular fashion. I suggest, an abolishment of a city-wide RGB rent increases and, instead, a more granular, or community by community analysis. We have 5 boroughs. They differ immensely.
  We have hundreds of neighborhoods within our boroughs. They differ immensely.

  It’s time community boards & 10-20 different neighborhoods, each with different dynamics, are handled differently. This is not to suggest discrimination in any sense of the word.

  It is to utilize demographics effectively and apply rent increases more fairly.

  Good luck.

  I hope to never witness Ft. Apache burning again. That is not a solution folks. Procrastination will result in more failures than successes.

  Comment added May 28, 2026 4:37am

• Angela Benfield

  Please freeze the rent on two year leases. New Yorkers need time to catch up and one year is not enough.
  Freezing the rent for two years gives families and children a longer span of stability. Freezing for only one year will force tenants to choose a one year lease.
  Please offer landlords tax benefits in lieu of raising rents, as their costs have gone up as well. New York is too expensive for everyone!

  Comment added May 29, 2026 1:40pm

• Barbara Blumberg

  This is a tough subject. Costs are going up for everyone involved in real estate. Whether you own a condo or coop, rent, or own a rental building, all are subject to the same issues. The budget for any building includes, mortgage, real estate taxes, staff, building maintenance, insurance, management, utilities, capital expenditures for aging elevators, boilers, etc. This list of expenditures depends on rent collected, maintenance charges and common charges. As a coop owner I see the building financial statement annually. We are always eking by, even with 6% maintenance increases and assessments. Our building is in good shape because we pay for repairs. If rental buildings need to make repairs they need to have increases. If they are prohibited from raising rent the tenants will only suffer with poorly maintained living conditions. Perhaps, the city needs to look at household income and determine whether stabilized apartments can be unstabilized to market rate. There was a needs test at some point. There are likely quite a few people in stabilized rentals making more than enough money to manage any increase charged.
  It is a challenge.

  Comment added June 3, 2026 12:36pm

• Anonymous

  As a renter, I am strongly for a rent freeze as New York is expensive. However, because New York is expensive, I also believe that landlords should get tax breaks if there is a rent freeze so they can maintain their buildings.

  Comment added June 5, 2026 9:19am

• Anonymous

  Life needs to be fair all around. I remember the 1970s as a kid where buildings in the bronx were abandoned some set on fire. Empty lots all over the bronx with garbage. Drug addicts living in abandoned buildings. I never understood why as a kid but now I do. When a group of individuals push for one side to unfairly take advantage of another thats what happens. Landlord went bankrupt and could no longer afford to manage there properties so they said good luck chuck you deal with it. Today, the city is full of agency leaches sucking the blood out of landlords and small family run businesses. Health Dept goes around looking for a tiny hole in a sidewalk and issues a landlord a $600 violation. Pigeon shit on the sidewalk $1,000 dollars. Sanitation issues violations not because a landlord did something wrong but because a tenant or passerby decided to litter. DOB, HPD, DEP etc you get the picture. Every year round the clock shedule to extort from a source for there operations. Taxes that are paid yearly should take care of this but it not enough so they take where they can. Now lets look at building costs. Insurance not only doubled but can’t even get it anymore because of slip and fall fraud or tenant fraud. Oil prices thanks to the moron running the country has been a nightmare for landlords. God forbid a mechanical breakdown happens to a boiler or hot water tank which is expected. The tenant don’t call the landlord they call 311 and the Landlord before having a chance to correct is hit with heavy fines. This is the system they created to make everyone expect the world to be perfect and nothing can go wrong. There are elderly tenants on fixed income which is understandable but then there are young tenants not working who inherited rent stabilized apts and are paying will below a fair rent or who are working and can afford to pay more but don’t believe in fairness. Because there is no checks and balances on tenants to know there actual income, there is no real way to make a fair assessment. In any case the rise of building maintenance due to material and labor costs, fuel charges,insurance, taxes, new city requirements, higher fines and fees etc. You need to be fair to landlords most of which are small. Please think of the 1970s and let history be an example of what will happen when you listen to ridiculous people who want to pay nothing and no increases. That is not the way the world works.

  Comment added June 5, 2026 10:18am

• Diamond Dayking

  Hey, this is diamond

  Comment added June 6, 2026 9:02pm

• Mitchell Lama

  Tracey Towers is being told they must raise rent by 30% to cover skyrocketing operating costs. We private owners have the same expense growth. Why are we being told to operate on 0-4%?

  Comment attachment
  coop.pdf

  Comment added June 6, 2026 10:01pm

• W S

  I support a rent freeze, especially on 2 year leases. NYC only gets more and more expensive and unlivable every year and a freeze would greatly help alleviate that strain on everyday New Yorkers.

  Comment added June 8, 2026 10:42am

• Anonymous via John Ketcham - Piratewire

  Mamdani’s Plan to Seize Property, Explained

  Last month, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that he will take “aggressive legal action to remove negligent owners and property managers,” transferring buildings “that have suffered chronic neglect” from bad landlords to “responsible stewards” — a coalition of nonprofits and tenant groups aligned with his base.

  He neglected to mention that, five decades ago, New York City tried something very similar, taking possession of abandoned properties and eventually turning many of them over to nonprofits. Public control didn’t make them viable; instead, the city became the state’s largest slumlord.

  But Mamdani sees a political opportunity in moving ownership out of private hands and into the nonprofit sector — so he’s trying it again.

  Mamdani’s plan calls for using the Article 7A program, enacted in 1965, which allows housing-court judges to appoint administrators to operate “effectively abandoned” buildings. These city-appointed administrators collect rents and redirect them toward repairs — but these rents tend not to cover all of a building’s expenses. Administrators often can’t pay property taxes, so they accumulate substantial tax arrears.

  New York saw this happen during the 1970s and ’80s, when rent regulations, rapidly rising heating-oil costs (which quadrupled in just 10 years), the outmigration of wealthier residents, and an influx of lower-income newcomers left many owners unable to maintain their buildings. They deferred repairs, collected rents, and stopped paying property taxes for as long as they could. Then, they walked away.

  With tax arrears piling up and a humanitarian crisis brewing, the fiscally strapped city seized ownership through in rem tax foreclosure. The newly established Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) acquired tens of thousands of apartments from insolvent owners who’d abandoned their buildings.

  The program was a massive money pit. A 1995 HPD-commissioned study found the city had taken over these properties after an average tax delinquency of $36,000. It held them for an average of 19 years and spent an average of $2.2 million each to acquire, manage, repair, and dispose of them — not to mention an additional $209,000 per property in forgone taxes. A 1995 study estimated the program’s total cost at $10.6 billion ($22 billion in 2026 dollars).

  Rents stayed low for tenants, and even with billions in public money, building conditions were deplorable. In a 1991 survey, rodents were present in 77 percent of city-managed units. In 1993, an overwhelmed city declared a moratorium on taking title. By then, it owned 5,458 buildings and roughly 51,672 units, about three-quarters of them occupied. Nearly all rented for less than $600 in 1996 (about $1,250 today), and 80 percent for under $400. At those rents, the buildings couldn’t generate enough income to sustain adequate maintenance, no matter who held title.

  In 1996, the city created the “Third Party Transfer Program” to get these buildings into more responsible private management. Tax foreclosures moved buildings to neighborhood entrepreneurs and nonprofit housing operators, backed by private financing. This took years — and, once buildings were finally transferred out of city ownership, many continued to fall behind on their payments. A 2000 audit by the state comptroller of 258 buildings that had been transferred found a quarter were behind on real-estate taxes, and over half on water and sewer charges.

  In 2019, the city paused the Third Party Transfer Program following backlash for dispossessing minority owners who owed only modest tax arrears. Now, Mamdani seems poised to revive its core logic against private owners for the benefit of a nonprofit sector ultimately dependent on public assistance to keep buildings afloat.

  But the reality remains: buildings deteriorate, and it costs money to run and rehabilitate them. Transferring ownership does nothing to change buildings’ underlying needs — or their economics.

  New York’s progressive left either doesn’t know or hasn’t acknowledged the lessons of 50 years ago. Regulated buildings are in distress and disrepair today as a predictable result of the 2019 state overhaul to rent stabilization, which sharply limited rent increases. Owners cannot reset rents between tenancies or recoup renovation costs enough to warrant the investment. The Bronx faces the steepest decline — including for nonprofit operators — given its aging housing stock, where the median rent of $1,154 in stabilized buildings cannot cover operating costs and repairs.

  Now that these changes have effectively broken the regulated housing market, Mamdani wants to place buildings into 7A administration, ultimately transferring their ownership to quasi-public housing NGOs to build his electoral base.

  To help achieve that, on May 14, leftist councilmembers reintroduced the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA), which would require owners selling certain distressed and affordability-restricted buildings of four or more units to first notify HPD and a select group of housing nonprofits. The bill would give those NGOs an exclusive window to bid before any private sale can proceed, along with a right of first refusal for the first nonprofit bidder (which would be given an opportunity to match a private offer afterward).

  These added delays and costs would pressure already financially strained landlords to sell to city-approved nonprofits at depressed prices — the real point of the law.

  NGOs anchor New York City’s progressive political ecosystem. As my colleague Stephen Eide noted in December, expanding the nonprofit sector serves the administration’s interests well beyond housing. It creates jobs for political allies — free of the pension and benefit costs that come with public employment — and cultivates a constituency that reliably votes and lobbies for government expansion.

  But when nonprofits and tenants take over distressed buildings, they’ll face the same economic pressures as their supposedly “bad” private predecessors. They’ll ask Mamdani for subsidies, ensuring their dependence on him. He doesn’t have the money to bail them out, so he’ll likely ask Albany for more funding and tax hikes.

  Almost a half-century ago, New York City spent tens of billions of dollars to learn that public control doesn’t magically make distressed housing solvent. The city escaped that trap. Mamdani is resetting it for the benefit of his political allies.

  Comment attachment
  piratewires.pdf

  Comment added June 8, 2026 7:47pm

• Wendy Dominguez

  Operating costs for rent-stabilized buildings have continued to rise, yet the proposed increases do not adequately reflect these economic realities. Current and prior rent adjustments have consistently fallen short of covering the cumulative increases in DEP water and sewer charges, heating oil and fuel costs, insurance premiums, labor expenses, maintenance costs, and real estate taxes that landlords are required to pay.

  Without adequate rent adjustments, many landlords are unable to cover their monthly operating expenses, let alone invest in necessary repairs, building improvements, and long-term property maintenance. A fair and balanced rent policy must recognize both tenant affordability concerns and the financial realities faced by property owners who are responsible for maintaining and preserving New York City’s housing inventory.

  Comment added June 10, 2026 4:07pm

• RGB Victim

  I sat at your Brooklyn hearing as tenants spat in owners faces, hit them and shouted them down as they tried to testify. It is no wonder more owners don’t show up to your hearings.

  As I listened to hours and hours of complaints about heat, mold, or other issues I wondered if I had walked into the rent rip off hearings instead of the Rent Guidelines Board. Not a single tenant testimony focused on the real costs of housing.

  Comment added June 12, 2026 2:17pm

• Matthew L.

  I hope the rent guideline will take into account how many landlords of rent stabilized units have had violations reported. I know landlords are fond of crying poor, but mine is absentee and when he lived here in NYC he would occasionally stop by the building in a Porsche convertible wearing a few huge gold and platinum chains. When I had concerns about windows that won’t open and/or lock, and a front door lock that stopped working (which eventually led to a break-in, at which point I paid to replace the lock), he claimed those were my problems because “everything worked when (I) moved in” — it was decades before I found out those are actually the landlord’s responsibility. Someday hopefully the window issues will be resolved.
  When I first moved in, the apartment got painted every other year; later, since the super was so sloppy a few pieces of furniture got damaged, the landlord allowed me to paint a room here and there myself and would reimburse me for the paint. Now he won’t even do that. I’m on my own again.
  There are electric outlets that don’t work in my apartment, more holes than I can count — some of which are impossible for me to reach to even stick in some steel wool to keep pests out (because the ladder won’t fit to give me access to them)— additionally the hallway and entryway of the building are never cleaned; my neighbors, some of whom are in rent stabilized units and some of whom are not — though we’re learning at least one unit may have been illegally brought to market rate— have told me about crumbling walls, ceilings with extensive water damage, lead paint testing results the landlord refuses to share, the strong possibility that the building has lead pipes throughout, more non-functioning windows and electric outlets — and this is just the beginning.
  The same landlord has at least one other building that a person who has visited and been in many apartments describes as a haven for rats and roaches.
  I take excellent care of my apartment to the extent I can — the super has told me repeatedly I keep my place cleaner than any other tenant.
  I’m an artist. My wages have gone down and down again over the past ten years, so I’ve had to work harder. I’ve been working 7 days a week with just one day off per month for the past five years — that’s just to tread water, and yes, it’s incredibly unhealthy. Yet the rent, the subway, utilities, food, health care — all those costs have soared.
  I’d like to second the Mayor’s proposal that rent stabilized units have their rent frozen — though I strongly believe a more appropriate response would be a decrease in rent for those units.
  New York City can’t remain a capital of the arts if artists can only afford to live here by overworking to the point that they have zero time to create the songs, plays, films, dances, stories, novels, poems, photographs, paintings, and sculptures that move and inspire people and keep the city growing and vital.
  I urge you to decrease the rent on stabilized units — or at the very least freeze it.
  Thank you.

  Comment added June 13, 2026 1:07am

• I

  Every rate-making body in New York acknowledges when costs rise and adjusts prices accordingly.

  Only at the RGB do we spend months calculating operating costs through the PIOC, publish the results, and then ignore them. This year it was over 5%, but you voted on a preliminary rate of 0-2% and 0-4%.

  ConEd demonstrated higher costs and received PSC-approved rate increases of 15.8% for gas and 9.8% for electric service. Why? Because courts have long held that regulated businesses must have a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on their investments. Apparently that principle applies everywhere except housing, where regulators openly acknowledge rising costs but then ignore them year after year. (https://www.thecityreporter.nyc/2026/01/22/coned-bill-electric-rate-gas-price-hike/)

  The Water Board is proposing a 6% increase because water and sewer costs increased—due in no small part to Mayor Mamdani taxing the system by over $300 million. State law requires the Water Board to set rates sufficient to cover the system’s operating costs, debt service, and other obligations. (https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nycwaterboard/downloads/pdf/rates/fy27-rate-proposal.pdf)

  Every other rate-making body recognizes a simple reality: if costs go up, rates must go up.

  Since 2021, the PIOC has shown a cumulative operating cost increase of 30%, yet only raised rents by 12%.

  Only at the Rent Guidelines Board do we study, identify and acknowledge rising costs – then deny housing providers the ability to recover them. I guess housing providers don’t have the same rights as ConEd, despite also being regulated.

  Comment added June 14, 2026 3:29pm

• Tery Shore

  NYC Rent Control board is considering freezing the rent. Can someone explain to me how Rent Control/Rent Stabilization is not a form of Socialism/Communism? Think about it logically, Socialism and communism are both left-wing economic philosophies advocating for public ownership of the means of production and a more equitable distribution of wealth. The primary difference is that socialism focuses on restructuring economic production within democratic systems, while communism envisions a final, stateless society where all private property is eliminated.

  Many things are changing in NYC, for example, Trash Containment. Is it time make change and start taking steps to eliminate Rent Control/Rent Stabilization? It has never been a fair system whereby one tenant pays $1,000.00 per month and the tenant next door is paying $3,000.00.

  Why are rents so high? The three big reasons are operating costs (property tax & insurance) supply & demand and non-payment/eviction cost/repairs.

  It really is time to abolish this Socialism/Communism type system.

  If abolished the market will stabilize. People will move out and other people will move in. The person paying $1000.00 will need to pay $2,000.00 and the person paying will end up paying $2,000.00. Free market will work!

  Comment added June 16, 2026 8:22am

• anonymous

  A rent freeze is only seriously harmful to landlords who own only rent-stabilized buildings. The city can issue a separate decision once it identifies those landlords and give them a greater increase than other landlords, most of whom own some market-rate apartments.

  Comment added June 16, 2026 8:49am

• Eric

  Last year’s rent increase was the largest in decades. Can we give our rent stabilized tenants some relief?

  Comment added June 16, 2026 12:20pm

• Jen B.

  As a New Yorker, I am asking city leaders to consider freezing rent increases for renters across New York City (ESPECIALLY on 2 year leases). The cost of living has risen dramatically, with housing, groceries, transportation, childcare, and everyday necessities becoming increasingly difficult to afford. Many working individuals and families are doing everything they can to keep up, yet each rent increase pushes them further behind on bills and financial obligations. For countless residents, stable and affordable housing is the difference between remaining in their communities and being forced to leave the city they call home. A rent freeze would provide much-needed relief, help prevent displacement, and give hardworking New Yorkers an opportunity to regain financial stability while continuing to contribute to the vitality and diversity that make New York City unique.

  Comment added June 16, 2026 1:21pm

• Anonymous

  I am a rent-stabilized tenant at 4215 Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10457. This is a 256-unit affordable housing development financed with $78.2 million in public funds from HPD and HDC. I am submitting this testimony in support of a rent freeze.

  I want to address the argument that rent increases are necessary because operating costs rose 5.3% this year. That comment is appearing repeatedly in the comment section of this board. That argument assumes owners are spending those operating dollars on their buildings. The owner of Tremont Renaissance LLC, Radame Perez, is not using the revenue on the building even though he used public money to build it.

  What makes this more troubling is that 4215 Park Avenue generates revenue beyond residential rent. The building’s commercial spaces include a NYC Health + Hospitals clinic, a parking garage, and a 16,000-square-foot CTown Supermarket. The supermarket belongs to the Perez family. They have operated since Jose Perez, Radame’s father and Mastermind’s CEO, opened his first CTown. Highbridge, the managing agent, has stated on record that they have no oversight or control over commercial spaces, which fall under the owner’s direct purview. Tenants have repeatedly asked whether commercial lease revenue could be directed toward residential maintenance to preserve the City’s $78.2 million investment. Those requests have been dismissed every time.

  Our building has 338 open HPD violations as of June 2026, including 63 classified as immediately hazardous. On May 28, 2026, Bronx Housing Court Judge Krzysztof Lach issued an Order to Correct against our landlord, Radame Perez of Tremont Renaissance LLC on default because no one appeared on his behalf.

  Our lease states heat is included in rent. We pay for it anyway through PTAC units drawing from our own electricity. Four elevators regularly fail. Manned security, fitness center, rooftop terraces, and a computer room were all advertised in the HDC-approved Housing Connect lottery listing. None have been consistently provided in seven years of building operation.

  With the support of Bronx Community Board 6, whose District Manager attended and facilitated our meetings with management, the executive team of the tenant association organized the tenants of this building into a formal Tenant Association. We have documented every failure, attended every meeting with management, and are now in active HP litigation through the Legal Aid Society. Public resources meant to support communities like ours are working exactly as intended. The owner’s resources are not.

  Several comments suggest that rent freezes lead to building deterioration. Our building deteriorated under rent increases. The question is whether owners are using rent revenue to meet their obligations. When they are not, increasing that revenue rewards the failure.

  Please vote for a rent freeze on June 25.

  Regards,
  Tenant at Bronx, NY, 10457
  4215 Park Avenue Tenant Association

  Comment attachment
  Supporting-Sources-for-RGB-Testimony-4215-Park-Avenue-Tenant-Association.pdf

  Comment added June 16, 2026 1:49pm

• Stephanie Dawson

  After many years of sharing an apartment, I was finally able to move into a one-bedroom apartment – when I was 45 years old!

  In the four years I have lived in that apartment, the rent went up 12%, but my salary went up 3%. With COVID and the uncertainty in the economy, my job is not raising salaries, while the city continues to raise my rent.

  I took the time to read some of the other responses to this open call and see an abundance of landlords crying poor and arguing against rent freezes. I read a couple tenant comments that took the rising prices of fuel and insurance for landlords into consideration. But I don’t see any landlords considering the concerns of tenants. One post said that a rent hike would only be $60. They failed to note that is $60 PER MONTH. That is $720 PER YEAR. My rent has gone up over $210 PER MONTH ($2,520/year). I cannot squeeze any more blood from this stone.
  As a tenant who lived crammed into sharing small apartments for many years to finally get my own place – I cannot take another rent hike and stay in this city.

  In terms of reform, I would agree with one respondent who suggested dividing up the city so the rent board could better respond to the needs of specific areas instead of a blanket increase or freeze. I would also agree that large corporate landlords should be considered in a different manner than individuals who own one or a few buildings.

  I also see comments about building fines that hit landlords for actions that may have been a careless tenant or even a passerby. I would advocate for reducing fines, or providing outreach, education and support to buildings with repeat fines and tackle the underlying issue.

  As for building improvements – can the city reduce property taxes, encourage building improvement grants, or other opportunities for building maintenance so the tenants are not the only source of their income?

  Everything in the city is expensive. And I accept a certain amount of sacrifice so I can remain in the city. But I strongly push for a two year rent freeze until wages catch up with inflation. I think this city should prioritize residents who could literally lose their homes over landlords who are losing margin on their businesses.

  PLEASE FREEZE THE RENT for 2 years! SAVE THE TENANTS!

  Comment added June 16, 2026 8:47pm