Changing the Rules Mid-Game: Why NYC’s New Housing Strategy Might Backfire
Why changing the rules mid-game turns today’s political wins into tomorrow’s housing crisis.
Imagine you are playing a long, intense board game with your friends — something like Monopoly or Settlers of Catan. Everyone has spent hours playing by the rules. You’ve invested your “money,” you’ve made trades, and you’ve built your “houses” based on the rulebook you all agreed on at the start.
Suddenly, halfway through the game, a new person walks into the room. They haven’t been playing, but they have the power to change the rules. They look at the board and say, “I don’t like how much property that person has. From now on, they can’t collect rent, and their houses belong to the players who are currently sitting in them.”
In that moment, the players who were struggling feel amazing. They just got a “free” win. But what happens next?
The people who were investing and building suddenly stop. Why would they keep playing if the rules can change at any moment? More importantly, no one knows who will join the game. If word gets out that the rules are “flexible” and depend on who is watching, people will take their board games and go to another house.
This is exactly what happens when a city government intervenes in private bankruptcy cases to “target” specific groups.
The Bankruptcy “Filter”: Why Restarts Matter
We don’t have to guess what happens when the government tries to “fix” the market by targeting landlords. We can look at Berlin in 2020.
The city government there implemented a “Mietendeckel” (a strict rent cap). It was celebrated as the ultimate pro-tenant move. But within just one year, the results were disastrous. Because landlords could no longer cover the costs of taxes and maintenance, and because the “rules of the game” had changed so suddenly, the supply of rental housing plummeted by over 50%.
The “Seen” people — those already in their apartments — were happy for a few months. But the “Unseen” — the thousands of students, young families, and workers trying to move into Berlin — found themselves in a nightmare. With no new housing being built and current apartments being taken off the market, finding a home became nearly impossible. The “protection” for current tenants became a “barricade” for the rest of the city.
The Minneapolis Miracle: The Power of More
On the other hand, consider Minneapolis. Instead of intervening in court cases or “targeting” landlords, they did something much simpler: they made it easier for everyone to build. They relaxed the rules, ended restrictive zoning, and let the market respond to the need for more homes.
The result? Minneapolis became one of the only major U.S. cities where rent growth actually flattened and, in some cases, fell. When there is a surplus of housing, the power shifts from the landlord to the tenant. In Minneapolis, landlords have to compete for you. They have to offer lower rent and better service just to keep their buildings full.
In New York, by intervening and making the financial process more difficult, the city is doing the opposite. It is making housing scarcer, which ironically keeps the power in the hands of the very landlords the Mayor is trying to target.
The “Unpredictability Tax.”
Every time a Mayor makes a surprise move to intervene in a private contract, he adds what I call an “Unpredictability Tax” to the city.
Investors and builders are not “greedy” monsters; they are risk-calculators. If they see that the rules of the game in New York City can change based on the Mayor’s “Day One” mood, they will conclude that New York is a “high-risk” place to put their money.
They will take their cranes, their lumber, and their jobs to Jersey City, Philadelphia, or Austin.
When those builders leave, who suffers? Not the wealthy. The wealthy can always find a place to live. The victims are the middle-class and low-income families who will never see those “unbuilt” apartments. These are the “Unseen” victims of political intervention.
Why “Zero-Sum” Thinking Fails
The biggest fallacy in housing policy is the idea that the landlord-tenant relationship is a “war” where one person must lose for the other to win.
In reality, a city is a massive, interconnected web.
- The rent pays the Maintenance Staff who live in the outer boroughs.
- The rent pays the Property Taxes that fund the schools and the subways.
- The rent pays the Repair Crews who fix the boilers.
When the government intervenes to break the financial logic of a building, they aren’t just “hurting a landlord.” They are cutting the wires in that web. Eventually, the school loses funding, the maintenance guy loses his job, and the tenant ends up in a deteriorating building that no one can afford to fix.
The Path Forward: A Trowel, Not a Sword
If the goal is truly to help tenants, the most effective tool is not the “sword” of intervention, but the “trowel” of construction. The most “pro-tenant” thing a Mayor can do is make it so easy and predictable to build in New York that landlords are terrified of losing their tenants to the new, better building next door. Competition is the only force that has ever successfully forced landlords to be “better.”
Intervening in bankruptcy cases may win the headlines on Monday, but it doesn’t lay a single brick on Tuesday. In fact, it often ensures that the next brick will be laid in another city entirely.
New York doesn’t need a Referee who changes the rules mid-game. It needs a city that is so easy to build in that the game becomes fair for everyone.
About the Creator
Cher Che
New media writer with 10 years in advertising, exploring how we see and make sense of the world. What we look at matters, but how we look matters more.
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.