In American sports, fans love a good upset story. From Buster Douglas’ upset over Mike Tyson to the 1980 Olympic Miracle on Ice, Americans root for the underdog and cheer them on to victory. Perhaps no politician has benefited more from the underdog mentality than New York City’s mayor, Zohran Mamdani. Just over a year ago, Mamdani was a mostly irrelevant local assemblyman, but now, he is one of America’s most notable politicians. Mayors may generally rank low on the totem pole of political power, but not New York City’s mayor. As fictional politician Frank Underwood grimly stated in House of Cards, political “power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location.” Mamdani now runs America’s most populous city, has built a huge social media following, is recognized by 80% of Americans, and has emerged as a leader for American democratic socialists and the progressive left.
A large part of Mamdani’s appeal comes from his social media gimmicks, like selling $50 World Cup tickets and participating in a name-spelling remix trend. His frigid plunge, however, might just be his boldest stunt. In the midst of his mayoral candidacy, he ran into the freezing Atlantic Ocean in a full suit and tie to campaign for rent freezes. The video drew over 100 thousand likes and kickstarted support for the movement that culminated in his shocking upset victory over Andrew Cuomo. Though economists widely consider rent control counterproductive, New York Democrats have celebrated his rent freeze movement, and frankly, it is not hard to see why. Median rent in New York City is $8,079 a month, almost five times the national average housing cost. Since becoming mayor, Mamdani has made every effort to put his controversial rent control policy into practice, even if that means pushing critical viewpoints out of the picture.
In February, just a month after assuming the mayor’s office, Mamdani “stacked” New York’s Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) by appointing the chair and filling six vacancies on its nine member board. The RGB is designed to follow a similar model to the Fed; board members serve for 2-5 year terms and are supposed to deliver independent decisions on New York City’s rent policy. In June, the committee voted 7-1 to freeze rents for one- and two-year lease agreements across the city’s million rent-stabilized apartments from October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027. Mamdani and the nation’s progressives immediately celebrated the ruling.
Despite the left’s prompt declaration of victory, the outlook for the policy is, at best, suspect. Only eight of the typical nine members voted on the policy because board member Christina Smyth abruptly resigned prior to the ruling. In a scathing report, she asserted that the “Rent Guidelines Board has stopped being a fact-finding body. This rebuilt board was required to deliver a rent freeze. Everything since has been theater. The hearings, the reports, the public comment, the data. None of it was ever going to change the result.” While Mamdani insisted that the board remained independent, the evidence suggests that illegal policy activism took place. Throughout his campaign, he “committed to delivering a four-year rent freeze” and promised to “only appoint those [to the RGB] who understand that landlords are doing just fine.” These statements indicate Mamdani specifically constructed and pushed the Board to fulfill his agenda by ruling in favor of a rent freeze, undermining the principle that the RGB’s function as an independent political and economic body. Because of these factors, landlords have challenged the ruling, and the judge overseeing the proceedings has ruled that the mayor’s office must share all communication it had with the RGB.
Aside from its potential illegality, Mamdani’s rent freeze is simply poor policy. Economists from both the left and right on the political spectrum have maintained for decades that rent control creates negative externalities and leads to inefficiencies in the housing market. The policy, for example, misallocates resources. Since rent freezes only stay in effect if you stay in the same apartment, tenants are discouraged from moving. One problem is that empty nesters stay in family-sized apartments to lock in low rent, making it difficult for families with children to find units that fit their needs.
However, rent control’s biggest issue is that in the long-term, it often achieves the opposite of its goal: it makes housing less available and less affordable. Ultimately, the housing market is two-sided: there are renters and landlords, and while rent control is attractive for renters, it erases many of the incentives for landlords to do business. With profits suddenly capped, landlords are not encouraged to pour high intensities of capital into buying land and building apartment complexes in New York City. Data shows that after strict rent control policies are implemented (as in New York, where raises on a million specified apartments are prohibited), 70% of housing providers make plans to scale down or leave the market, meaning fewer units become available. In San Francisco, the supply of available units fell by about 15% after rent control was implemented. With New York City’s population growing by more than 100,000 people annually, this would place an enormous strain on the system. Additionally, under the basic economic law of supply and demand, if demand increases and supply decreases, rent prices will rise over the next few years for the other 2.7 million apartments in the city and for the rent-controlled apartments whose tenants leave.
Not only will rent control worsen long-term supply and cause inflation, it will also hurt the lower-income constituents Mamdani crafted the policy to help. The RGB’s ruling only freezes rents on a million rent-stabilized units, and of that stabilized stock, over 75% of the apartments are in buildings built before 1974. Because of their age, these stabilized units require far more maintenance from landlords than the average New York apartment. Pre-1974 units average 1.76 maintenance deficiencies a year–79% more than the market standard–making these units expensive for landlords to maintain. Additionally, as the buildings continue to age, costs will only increase, further cutting into landlord margins. By prohibiting landlords from raising rents at all, Mamdani and the RGB are forcing landlords into a dilemma: either they put less money into upkeep and risk punishment from the city in “Rental Ripoff” hearings (a Mamdani policy that punishes landlords for poor renting conditions), or they are forced to operate at a loss in the interim and eventually shutter some units. By freezing rents, Mamdani either worsens living conditions for lower-income renters or removes their ability to rent entirely.
It is easy to see how Mamdani went from zero to hero. He ran a charismatic, innovative campaign on social media and followed a strategy that has made other progressive politicians, like AOC, popular in the past. Unfortunately, unlike the fictional upset story Rocky, his policies do not have the merit to “go the distance.” Mamdani might have the admirable goal of making New York housing more affordable, but he is prioritizing short-term relief over solutions to structural problems that alleviate the issue in the long term. Just like the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Mamdani is paving the road to a disastrous long-term housing crisis with short-lived relief.
Image Credit – Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.