Click on "read more" below for why ending vacancy decontrol is an important issue for those in current and former Mitchell-Lamas.

Under vacancy decontrol, when an apartment becomes vacant the landlord tries to raise the rent to $2000 or more - in order to permanently take the apartment out of rent regulation.

To do that, the landlord considers the original rent, adds a 20% automatic "vacancy" increase to that, and then adds 1/40 of the cost he claims of any improvements to the apartment. (Rarely is the amount claimed challenged; only the next tenant has the legal right to challenge it.)

If that brings the rent up to $2000, the apartment can be taken out of rent stabilization.

Why does this matter to those in current and former Mitchell-Lamas?

When a landlord takes a development out of Mitchell-Lama, it either goes into rent stabilization (if it was built before 1974) or to market rate (if it was built later).

So rent stabilized tenants will care about what happens to other apartments in their building.

But even those in later buildings should care: Tenants are campaigning for the Andrea Stewart-Cousins / Gary Pretlow bill to pass the state legislature - and that would put all developments leaving Mitchell-Lama (and project-based Section 8) into rent stabilization upon leaving the program.

(1) The city needs affordable housing, and has been losing rent stabilized apartments at a galloping rate. Ending vacancy decontrol will keep tens of thousands of apartments affordable.

(2) In any specific development, if 15% or more of the apartments become market rate, the landlord can try to change the building to a condo or co-op. While rent stabilized tenants are protected, costs for major capital improvements (since market rate tenants tend to like "fancy") could be very high.

So sign onto the letter!