rent control vs. rent stabilization: What’s the difference?

Over the past several months, rent control and rent stabilization have been heavily discussed in housing communities throughout the Northeast.

Rent stabilization became a hot topic here in New York City recently, as incumbent mayor Zohran Mamdani was “exposed” for living in a $2,300 rent-stabilized unit while earning $140,000 as a New York State Assemblyman. Mamdani also ruffled feathers by campaigning on a four-year “rent freeze” for rent-stabilized units.

In Massachusetts, the housing policy community has been advocating for legislation that would allow towns and cities to opt in or out of rent control, since it was previously outlawed in 1994.

In modern law, these terms are often used interchangeably—even within the same state or jurisdiction—though only a handful of states have rent control or stabilization laws. While there is some overlap, the two have distinct historical and practical differences. Language and implementation vary from state to state, but for the purposes of this breakdown, I’ve drawn from the overarching contexts of Massachusetts and New York.

Rent control was originally conceptualized to prevent housing shortages following World War I and World War II. The goal was to stop landlords from exploiting housing scarcity during periods of economic stress. Today, rent control typically limits how much a landlord can charge for initial (or base) rent, how much they can increase rent after the initial lease term, and often provides tenants with protection against no-cause evictions. In most cases, rent-controlled units are found in older buildings, and cities or municipalities may opt in or out of such regulations.

Rent stabilization, on the other hand, was created in New York City in 1969 to address rapidly rising rents for buildings constructed after 1947. Stabilization laws limit how much landlords can increase rent after the initial lease period, but have minimal restriction over the initial rent amount. Like rent control, stabilization extends certain legal protections to tenants against unjust evictions. Unlike rent control, however, it is often enacted statewide—with California, New York, and Oregon being the only three states with statewide rent stabilization laws.

To reduce the distinction between the two to its simplest form:

• Rent control is primarily intended for those living at or below the poverty line. Rent-controlled units are typically older and less maintained, while rent-stabilized apartments can be found in more modern buildings.

• Rent stabilization serves a broader range—supporting lower-income residents as well as members of the working class, such as Zohran Mamdani.

The distinction matters in today’s housing conversation. Reform without understanding only recreates the same cycles we claim to be attempting to fix. Sometimes ideas sound right, but when we look closer, we realize they serve perception more than people.

That’s not to say that’s the case with rent control—but from what I’ve seen, solving these issues means looking at them from all angles. The answers aren’t always in new or refreshed policies—they’re in understanding the realities behind them.

The intent of this space—and of New Era—is to have these conversations, make these examinations, and, as a collective, begin shaping more effective, human-centered solutions towards ending homelessness and housing insecurity.