Rent Regulation Summary

699 Words3 Pages
The New York Times article “The Perverse Effects of Rent Regulation” by Adam Davidson takes a hard look at the rent regulation in Manhattan. Public Policy is driven by many factors that benefit and cost people. To determine the effects of the rent regulation and eliminating rent regulation, all factors must be considered. The major factors in this decision are the reactions of stakeholders involved, the costs and benefits and the practicality of getting rid of rent regulation. Lesser circumstances to consider are the health considerations, elected officials and their staff and the ethics and morality. The real issue with rent regulation is what kind of Island Manhattan will become, a wealth driven and operated one or a socioeconomically…show more content…
The public in manhattan, more specifically the poor and middle class who live in rent regulated areas could no longer afford to live where they do. This could cause public outrage, in turn affecting the media and public opinion of this area. Businesses in Manhattan would need to cater more to wealthy people and their rent would increase. Costs and benefits of rent regulation are extremely important. In the model Davidson discussed, it might be win-win-lose, profit for developers and landlords but no benefit to the poor. Should the taxes get raised and more money go to social services, the poor could in turn be helped, causing a win-win-win. However, when developers and landlords stand to make so much money, why would helping the poor be a priority for policy makers? If rent regulation was gone, poor would move to outer boroughs, the apartments they used to be in would get upgraded and charge higher rent for. Then the landlords would have to pay higher taxes. Practicality is another issue, considering how these measures could be put into place. Davidson predicts that eventually rent regulation will not exist. Congress could also cut funding for public housing, forcing rent regulation to end sooner than predicted. Who are the parties trying to invest in the poor? Who is looking to…show more content…
At the beginning of Davidson’s article he talks about Alejandro Suarez’s bodega and the way it has changed since a more diverse socioeconomic group shops there. Suarez used to carry products such as beans and rice, and now has vegetarian options and protein bars. What is the access to healthy food if bodega’s like Suarez’s cater to the wealthy with more expensive options? Conversely, assume Suarez’s healthy options are affordable to all, but because rent regulation is eliminated, he must go out of business. Suarez’s new store in the outer borough only contains the same rice and beans he used to sell, because he doesn’t have the same customers he cannot afford to stock healthier options. This kind of scenario is a reality for many people, their access to certain healthier options is only because of proximity and availability. Another circumstance to consider is the reactions of elected officials and staff. Should rent regulation be eliminated, the taxes would increase and they stand to make more money and have a bigger budget. From a business standpoint, their stake would be in no rent regulation. Ethics and morality, while important, don’t have as much of a steak in business. Billions of dollars that developers could make completely changes the issue, what is worth more, helping poor live in manhattan or getting more money in taxes to help them elsewhere? Rent regulation helps poor and middle class live in

More about Rent Regulation Summary

Open Document