The Blackstone Group is widely recognized as the largest owner of rent-stabilized apartments in New York City. They accumulated the biggest portfolio through the massive 11,250-unit Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village complex in Manhattan, which holds over 8,600 rent-stabilized units.
Other massive corporate and private landlords dominating the stabilized market in NYC include:
The LeFrak Organization: Owns nearly 10,000 regulated units, with their flagship property being LeFrak City in Corona, Queens.
A&E Real Estate: Holds thousands of rent-stabilized apartments dispersed across the five boroughs.
Cammeby’s International Group:
Owns one of the largest portfolios of rent-regulated apartment buildings by sheer volume.
Approximately 42% to 44% of all rental apartments in New York City are rent stabilized, representing roughly 960,000 to 1 million units. They make up about 26% to 28% of the total residential housing stock citywide.
Distribution by Borough
The Bronx: About 61% of occupied rentals
Manhattan: About 44% of occupied rentals
Brooklyn: About 42% of occupied rentals
Queens: About 41% of occupied rentals
Staten Island: About 17% of occupied rentals
General Guidelines
Building Rules:
Found mostly in buildings with six or more units built before 1974.
There are no income limits or restrictions for renting a general rent-stabilized apartment in New York City. The stabilization status is tied entirely to the apartment unit itself rather than the tenant who lives inside it.
Key Facts About Rent Stabilization and Income
No Maximum Income: Anyone at any income level can legally rent and live in a rent-stabilized apartment.
Historical Changes: High-income deregulation (where units could become market-rate if a tenant earned over $200,000 for two consecutive years) was entirely eliminated by the New York State Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019.
Standard Leasing Rules Apply: While there is no government income cap, landlords still evaluate prospective tenants using private market screening standards, such requiring household income to equal roughly 40 times the monthly rent (i.e., if the rent is $2,000/month, the applicant needs to make $80,000/yr – that’s not unreasonable.)
.
Exceptions for Rent Freeze Programs: While the apartment itself has no income limit, low-income seniors or disabled tenants living in rent-regulated units may separately qualify for rent-freezing benefits through programs like SCRIE (Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption) or DRIE, which do enforce household income thresholds of $50,000 or less.
Not surprising. You don’t think a wealthy elite doesn’t get a heads up on rent stabilized apartments coming up for rent.The ruling class has its privileges.
“Market rate” was a bargain when I lived in Houston (1981-2006) because of all the new construction – which kept rents low. But apparently few people did the arithmetic.
There are certainly issues with the program…but I’m not sure the thread title is correct.
Clicking through to the underlying article, it appears that fewer than 10% of the rent-stabilized apartments are occupied by the wealthy:
Upper-income households occupy about 10% of the total rent-stabilized housing stock, according to an analysis of 2023 data by the Citizens Budget Commission. More than 86,700 of those households earned over $200,000 a year.
That’s out of a million units. Whether someone who earns $200K in New York City is “wealthy” is an exercise for the reader - but with those numbers, it’s not accurate to say that the wealthy occupy most of the rent-stabilized apartments.
My mom had an aunt that lived in a rent CONTROLLED apartment in Brooklyn Heights for more than 50 years (maybe even more than 60) until she and her husband died. I think their rent was something like $273.46/mo. (I don’t know the exact number, but it began with a 2 and had only 3 digits before the dot) They never had any kids so their relatively small apartment was sufficient for them all their married life. It even fit their two pianos comfortably. They were not wealthy, but they were happy there, and they managed to live on their incomes, and later pensions+social security, and save a small bit of money over their lives. I think their only extravagance was their annual membership to the opera and tickets to Broadway shows that they really enjoyed (especially musicals).
Yep. $200K is the threshold for a little more than 15%. If a household isn’t even in the top 15%, are they “wealthy”? Again, an exercise for the reader…
My husband grew up in the 2 bedroom rent controlled apartment his parents rented upon his demobilization from WWII. It was considered a rough neighborhood….Had a dreamscape big window overlooking Central Park, stands at the corner of W.82nd and Central Park West. His Dad died, Mom got bought out by owner in 2012 for some astronomical sum.
No doubt. And I can guarantee you that someone in a country like Haiti thinks that the family in the 30th or 40th percentile in the U.S. is “rich” as well.
But would such a household within the relevant context actually be “wealthy”? They certainly wouldn’t occupy “most” of NYC’s rent stabilized apartments (apparently they occupy less than 9% of them), but would New Yorkers consider someone earning $200K per year “wealthy”?
How about we forget the word “wealthy” for this discussion and change it to “about three times median household income”? Should rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments be for people earning 3 times the median income or should they be more for people earning median or lower?
I imagine it depends on the apartment. The rent controlled/stabilized apartments can theoretically be up to any level of rent, and some of them are in very expensive neighborhoods with very expensive rents. The article mentioned people paying $5K, $6K, $8K rents in stabilized/controlled apartments in some areas. So those apartments are certainly going to be inhabited by folks earning more than three times the median.
Also, it’s 2.5x the median (median household income in NYC is $80K, so $200K is 2.5x that amount). And in Manhattan, where around 25% of the total of these apartments are located, the median household income is about $110K. So $200K is not even twice the median income.
Critics of rent control claim it leads to substandard housing. Landlords avoid maintenance, repairs, and improvements, and the apartments become run down and undesirable. If wealthy people are happy to live in rent stabilized apartments that torpedos this concern. After all, if the apartments were that bad they have the means to live elsewhere.
At the end of the day, in almost every example in the US and in other parts of the world, it basically provides greater affordability for a select few. It doesn’t solve the issue of cost for the larger community but actually makes the problem worse for those unable to find one of these rare rent controlled units.
The fact that many of these units are occupied not by the most in need but by those that were their first, is just another example of how it doesn’t really address the issue.
New York has right now more than 60,000 units sitting vacant. Because of the rent controlled rate, and now the subsequent two year freeze, it is financially untenable to put capital into upgrading the units to rent them at rates that lose money.
What does the current Mayor plan to do somehow bend the economic laws? He plans to seize the properties and then have the taxpayer subsidize the shortfall between rents and operational costs. What will happen as a result? Capital will go elsewhere to avoid caps on revenue and the risk of seizure. Building activity will slow, supply will shrink and what isn’t rent controlled will become all that much more expensive.