(from wikipedia)

1. rent control is a specific, technical term which represents about 24k units

2. rent stabilized representing about 1M sets limits on rent increases in exchange for tax breaks for the building

3. corruption

When you have to argue semantics by defining a new term ("it's not rent control, it's rent stabilization") that's a pretty good sign that you've fucked up and you're trying to hide it.

What's next, "these people are technically not in poverty, they're income challenged"

>When you have to argue semantics by defining a new term ("it's not rent control, it's rent stabilization") that's a pretty good sign that you've fucked up and you're trying to hide it.

It's not "defining a new term."

In New York City, "Rent Control" is the official name of a specific program/set of laws and "Rent Stabilization" is the official name of a different specific program/set of laws.[0]

And since we're talking about New York City housing laws/policies and that Mamdani is proposing a rent freeze for units in one of those two programs, being specific about it isn't semantics at all.

The all-encompassing term that you thought you were using a gotcha on is "rent regulation."

Please! Put some knowledge on, your ignorance is showing. Sheesh!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regulation_in_New_York

Edit: Added ">" to identify the section I quoted.

Two of these things are orthogonal to freezes on rent controlled units, so I don't understand your point here.

I agree that 3. Is a problem. I'm not convinced mamadani is against reconsidering zoning and regulation to increase supply. Nothing I've heard suggest he would be.

No it doesn't. There are about 25,000 rent-controlled units, less than 1% of units in the City.

You are thinking of rent stabilization, but that's not close to the same thing.

They are both price controls on rent. The eligibility criteria are different, and the terms by which rent may increase are different, but they seem pretty close to the same thing to me.