Rent-stabilization is a flawed, lottery-based system that helps out a select few while sometimes having the unintended effect of helping out the wealthy:
A more equitable system would involve direct tax credits to all in need instead of relying on an antiquated system that helps out a few lucky enough to win the rent lottery.
No matter what system you pick, there will always be edge cases that slip through. Some wealthy people will be able to "take advantage" of any system that can be devised, even a tax credit based system. ("How is income defined? How are savings handled? How long do you get the credits for?")
The way you throw that link out there in conjunction with "helps a select few," would let an uninformed reader think that rent-stabilization is an even split between people "milking the system" and "worthy recipients". I find that hard to believe. New rent-stabilized units have strict income limits during the application process [1] , and individual existing units have income limits. When that income level reached by the occupants, that unit falls out of the rent-stabilized category. Furthermore, looking at that link suggests that the "luxury exclusions" are working as intended: all of the requests for deregulation due to income were approved and the rents returned to market rate.
By no means is the current system perfect, but the sentiment here seems to be "kill it with fire."
Sincere question: bad from whose perspective? How do you balance these perspectives?
Real estate regulation in its current form, especially in NYC, derives from the legacy of over-crowded tenements and massive blocks of slums. Sure, the overall quality of life has improved in NYC due to building codes and public sanitation, but totally removing rent "controls" (the general term, not the NYC term) seems like a slide towards poorer living conditions for the lower and middle classes.
