SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rent
A Win for Mamdani Is a Win for Renters Everywhere
Mamdani is the antidote to the corporate landlord dominance we see in cities across the US. He doesn’t just speak on behalf of rent-stabilized tenants; he is one.
Nov 12, 2025
Zohran Mamdani, a tenant who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment and made affordable rent the primary issue in his campaign, has been elected mayor of New York City.
To be clear, a win for Mamdani is a huge win for renters—not just in New York, but across the country. Mayor-elect Mamdani has shown that a populist mayoral candidate with a bullhorn can ground a winning campaign in issues that impact constituents just trying to get by and have a decent place to live.
During the campaign, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo repeatedly attacked Mamdani for living in a rent-stabilized apartment and supporting a rent freeze. It was a display of character and courage that Mamdani never backed down. Instead, he doubled down. And the attacks against him continued through the last mayoral debate, where Mamdani stated emphatically, “You’ve heard it from Andrew Cuomo that the number one crisis in this city, the housing crisis, the answer is to evict my wife and I. He thinks you address this crisis by unleashing my landlord’s ability to raise my rent. If you think that the problem in this city is that my rent is too low, vote for him. If you know the problem in this city is that your rent is too high, vote for me.”
Mamdani understands the debate comes down to a very basic question: With rents so high, where are people supposed to live? The Starbucks barista, McDonald's worker, and Lyft driver are experiencing what most candidates are afraid to talk about—that they are one rent increase away from losing their apartment.
With over 2.3 million renters in New York City, it’s about time they elected a mayor who would put affordable rents front and center.
Too often, the dialogue around rent has been dominated by investors and corporate landlords. They seemingly have a bottomless pit of money to get their message out and line the campaign coffers of candidates who offer them carte blanche to raise rents and undermine tenants. As Mamdani stated during the race, “The same landlords who said they didn’t have enough money to freeze the rent, gave Cuomo $2.5 million dollars, the single largest check in this entire race.”
Mamdani is the antidote to the corporate landlord dominance we see in cities across the US. He doesn’t just speak on behalf of rent-stabilized tenants; he is one. And that makes all the difference.
Rent control is not new. It has been around since 1919. As real estate became more corporatized, multi-family buildings became a commodity—a line on a balance sheet. It’s less about the people and more about the building as an asset whose value is based on rents. In the 1990s, Apartment Associations led a nationwide campaign to curtail or ban altogether rent control. Currently, 37 states have banned it and states like California only allow rent control in buildings built in 1996.
Cash-strapped tenant organizations have done their best to move the needle on rent stabilization efforts, but they often face a deluge of money from the real estate industry, expensive lawsuits, and elected officials willing to reverse their progress.
Mamdani’s win as mayor signals new hope for campaigns that address the need to control skyrocketing rents. It sets in motion a new model nationwide centered on the needs of constituents, rather than corporate-dominated policies that have no tangible benefit to constituents and fail to improve the quality of life for low-income people.
With over 2.3 million renters in New York City, it’s about time they elected a mayor who would put affordable rents front and center.
Leaders across the country are watching what is happening in New York. The rents are so high that even someone working two full-time jobs can still be rent-burdened, paying over 30% of their income in rent. That is not sustainable.
New Yorkers reached a tipping point and found in Mamdani a leader who provided a platform of solutions, not more excuses for why they cannot get the relief they need. And hopefully, other cities will follow suit, attracting candidates that want to solve problems rather than kowtow to rich donors.
Let’s face it: Stabilizing housing costs is a reasonable practice, which is why most homeowners pay the same amount every month in mortgage payments. Mortgages don’t go up 17% every year to line the pockets of lenders. That would be ridiculous, and it is for renters too. Giving renters stability is not just a reasonable ask; it is a necessity.
As a lifelong renter, I believe we are on the precipice of policy change in the US. Renters and low-income communities are rising up to demand that the government acts in their interest.
Mamdani serving as mayor of America’s largest city, while living in a rent-stabilized apartment, is a game changer. More of this in other cities is desperately needed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Gillibrand, New Yorkers Counting on Affordable Housing Need Your Support
We need Sen. Gillibrand to come meet with us, listen to our stories, and then take them back to the negotiating table in Washington.
Oct 07, 2025
The cost to keep a roof over our heads is the highest recurring expense for every family. Yet, the primary source of support for people who need help with housing is on the chopping block in Congress right now.
When Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) launched her presidential campaign, she attended our Follow Black Women town hall with 100 Black women. At the time, the rent was already too damn high, and homeownership was already out of reach. Fast-forward five years and rent is up nearly 20% overall, with some boroughs in the city seeing twice that increase. It has been over five years since we last heard from her. But given what’s happening in the federal government right now, it’s urgent that she come home and hear from us right away.
Community Voices Heard (CVH) member Fabiola is a mother of two who has lived in Housing and Urban Development-funded housing in Newburgh, New York for more than 20 years. She has dealt with health issues that are exacerbated by black mold, poor ventilation, and years of disrepair. She stays because there is literally nowhere else she can afford in Newburgh. She is not alone.
In 2023, the New York State comptroller reported that 2.9 million New York households were cost burdened, spending 30% or more of their income on housing costs. The NYC comptroller found in January 2024 that over half of all renter households—52.1%—were rent burdened.
We need each elected official at every level—DC, Albany, and City Hall—to get the message and prioritize housing policy that centers affordability, dignity, and opportunity for all Americans.
CVH member Dolores has lived in Wagner Houses in East Harlem since 2000. Before that, she was illegally evicted from her apartment in Washington Heights with her 6-year-old, and ended up homeless for nearly four years. NYC Housing Authority Section 9 has provided her and her son safe housing for 25 years. That's now under threat. She is not alone.
The number of New Yorkers aged 55 and older in the city's shelter system increased by approximately 250% between 2004 and 2017. As of 2024, more than 520,000 New Yorkers are on a wait list for affordable senior housing. Across the country, the national population of people over 65 experiencing homelessness is projected to triple by 2030. Regardless of who we voted for in 2024, I’m sure none of us voted for our seniors to spend their golden years on the streets.
Gillibrand is the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. She knows better than anyone that Republican congressional leaders have been working nonstop to unleash hell on working families. First they passed a 10-year budget plan that steals our healthcare, safety net, and public dollars and gives everything we’ve got away to greedy billionaires and corporations. And now they’re coming for the roofs over our heads—forcing us into homelessness if we can’t pay more, just to lock us up when we’re left with no choice but to sleep in cars or camp on sidewalks.
This isn’t a tall tale. It’s where we are headed—unless Gillibrand proposes a different path and uses her position to turn things around. For years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has helped get and keep Americans with low and fixed incomes housed. Donald Trump’s White House pushed for a 43% cut to rental assistance and housing vouchers. Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) House of Representatives passed an appropriations budget that cuts HUD’s fair housing activities by 67%. These nightmarish proposals are the starting point for negotiating a final appropriations budget. So we need Sen. Gillibrand to come meet with us, listen to our stories, and then take them back to the negotiating table in Washington.
Around 74% of Americans believe the current economic situation is making housing less affordable. And the current economic situation is hitting some of us especially hard. Black women lost 319,000 jobs in the public and private sectors between February and July, more than any other group. Yet despite being hit with the worst of it, Black women overwhelmingly want solutions for everyone. Regardless of race, gender, or zip code, we know that more affordable housing means stronger, safer, more stable communities.
We need each elected official at every level—DC, Albany, and City Hall—to get the message and prioritize housing policy that centers affordability, dignity, and opportunity for all Americans. That said, it’s long past time for Sen. Gillibrand—who ran for president on a platform revolving around a Family Bill of Rights—to step it up.
If she doesn’t fight for us today, it won’t matter if she comes calling to ask for a donation, an endorsement, or a vote tomorrow, because we will have lost our homes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Landlord Doublespeak and the Rise of the 'Housing Provider'
What drives the preference of landlords to call themselves “housing providers” is a desire to euphemize the landlord-tenant relationship and to obscure some of its basic and most important features.
Jul 30, 2025
Landlords want to be called “housing providers.” Industry organizations in California, Washington, Rhode Island, and elsewhere are proudly claiming the label. Equal to this craving to be called “housing providers,” it seems, is the wish among landlords to no longer be called landlords. The term is antiquated, they say, and has a negative stigma that doesn’t reflect reality. The industry is not particularly secretive about these desires or the reasons behind them, which have to do with image and narrative.
The dictionary definition of landlord is precise enough, however, and, in fact, couldn’t be plainer: “The owner of property (such as land, houses, or apartments) that is leased or rented to another,” according to Merriam-Webster.com. The definition identifies the essential feature of any residential landlord—that they engage in a financial transaction to lease living space. This seems straightforward enough and noncontroversial. The motivation of the industry is thus not related to any mismatch between our common understanding of the word and its most essential attribute.
Instead, what drives the preference of landlords to call themselves “housing providers” is a type of Orwellian doublespeak intended to euphemize the landlord-tenant relationship and to obscure some of its basic and most important features. What does the phrase obscure? For one, it elides the basic extractive nature of landlording, the fact that landlords expect, in fact, rely upon the relationship to be monetarily profitable to them. This is the critical fact of landlording, that it is done in the main to make a profit.
Granted there are some instances of landlords renting to family members or others without expectations of profit, but these exceptions are merely that—exceptions. The English language routinely makes distinctions between services rendered for a fee and those provided on other bases. The difference between “housing provider” and landlord is the difference between a date and a paid escort or sex worker, it is the difference between the volunteer and the mercenary, between a financial gift and an interest-bearing loan. The English language is not unique in containing words that make clear the monetary exchange and profit that define some relationships. We use these words because the information they contain is consequential.
If the landlord industry truly wants to do something to burnish its public image, it might consider publicly rejecting or sanctioning members of its community who hiked rents in Los Angeles County by 20% in the aftermath of the fires of January 2025.
This attempt to obscure the profit motive in landlording is all the more problematic because those who would call themselves “housing providers” in one breath, will, in the next, argue against rent stabilization, tenant protections, and other regulations on the basis that these policies make their business unprofitable, or less profitable than they would prefer. This is wanting it both ways—attempting to hide the profit motive while simultaneously insisting on it.
“Housing provider” is also meant to conceal the power dynamics of the landlord-tenant relationship, one in which landlords hold the privileges associated with property ownership, the ability to define the terms of acceptable behavior and limits of property use available to tenants, and the ultimate power of eviction. Moreover, at a time when corporate landlords are extending their reach into the market, and we see the spread of price-fixing algorithms to maximize rents and profit, AI-driven tenant screening algorithms to perform background checks, and greater concentration and market power at the industry scale, the insistence on the phrase “housing provider” is an obvious attempt at happy-faced distraction.
Just as important as the attempt to disguise profit motive and landlord power is the effort to dodge whatever negative connotations attach to the term landlord. “Housing provider” is meant to avoid images of rapaciousness and greed, or to conjure images of benevolence and even charity, or to do both. The use of the phrase is, in other words, an attempt, acknowledged by the industry, to control a narrative. As such it is a political act, an effort to persuade and to establish a particular understanding of who landlords are and what they do, all in the service of influencing public debate and public policy. This is not to argue that tenants don’t also try to influence the public narrative; of course they do. It is merely to note that this phrase, “housing provider,” is a calculated bid to construct meaning in a highly contested policy area and it needs to be recognized as such. Those who choose to adopt the phrase choose to adopt the narrative.
If the landlord industry truly wants to do something to burnish its public image, it might consider publicly rejecting or sanctioning members of its community who hiked rents in Los Angeles County by 20% in the aftermath of the fires of January 2025. It might help to police property owners who evicted tenants during the pandemic in violation of federal and local laws. It might take action to address sexual harassment of low-income women by landlords, or address any of a number of discriminatory or exploitative practices that haunt the industry. Those wishing to hide behind the “housing provider” label will argue that not all landlords are bad, which is of course true. They will say only a portion of landlords engage in the practices that give landlord its stigma. But, if the only response by the industry is to stop using the word landlord, it betrays a self-serving concern that does little to improve negative public perceptions and, in fact, largely confirms them.
We don’t call Exxon an “oil provider,” nor do we call GM an “automobile provider.” We don’t even call the corner mom-and-pop store a “grocery provider.” There is no reason to accept the kind of politically motivated doublespeak behind the rise of “housing provider.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular