No? The policy is to freeze the rent in rent-controlled units for his entire term, which is as long as he can. The long-term solution is of course to build more units.
The freeze will have the same effect that rent control has always had, for the past decades in NY and elsewhere: make the situation worse. It being "temporary for his entire term" just means that the negative consequences will be "temporary for his entire term"; is that supposed to be a selling point?
It will have the same effect it always had if we proceed to do the same thing. i.e. fail to build more affordable housing.
How about this time we actually do it and stop blaming glue for not being a welding mold? Rent controls aren't supposed to be long term. Mamdami realizing that is already a good sign. So I'll see if he can get housing projects off the ground next.
The NYC Rent Guidelines Board is already tasked with keeping rents lower for rent stabilized tenants, except with long term sustainability in mind. A pledge to put your thumb on the scale to freeze rent for 4 years is a clear sign of prioritizing short term political optics. The clever part about this is even if tenants suffer, he can just blame any negative effects on "greedy landlords."
I think the core of the critique against rent control is that it mostly is a wealth transfer to the already wealthy, and that doesn't seem sensible. Or very leftist.
It is worse for anybody looking for an appartment. Of course the person already living in one isn't worse off, but that has never been the issue that rent control creates. It disincentivises repairs and new constructions.
