I heard a law professor on radio discussing NYC rent control, meaning primarily 'rent stabilization' (he opposes it), & would like to verify some of the issues he raised.
First, he noted the zero RGB rent increases this year in NYC, but not that they applied only to 1-year leases. So that assertion was a half-truth.
Second, he said that tenants of regulated apts. can easily pass them on to family members. However, aren't there prior live-in requirements to be able to do that -- at least two years of prior co-occupancy if I recall correctly?
Third, he suggested that it's easy for well-off tenants of such apts. to hold onto them while living primarily, e.g., in the Hamptons. But isn't it the case that if they don't spend at least 183 days of the year in their NYC apt. they can lose it if the landlord sues for eviction based on non-primary residency?
Fourth, more generally, he sought to make the case for non-regulation in part because of the inequities it results in (diff. people paying sometimes vastly diff. rents for similar accommodations), and such related issues as immobilizing RS tenants in their apts. forever (or at least until they die) because they lack any practical option to move -- an option that he said exists in non-regulated rent markets such as Chicago (where he lives) but has been eliminated from NYC and San Francisco specifically because of regulation.
Interested in any tenant.net feedback about any of these points.
Thanks.