In last week's New York Times, I found a fascinating article about Congressman Charles Rangel and newly released information about his home in New York. I was particularly interested because Rangel's home actually consists of four rent stabilized apartments in Harlem.

As many of you may not know what rent control and rent stabilization is, here is a quick primer. From Wikipedia: "Rent control refers to laws or ordinances that set price controls on the renting of residential housing. It functions as a price ceiling." Actually the original premise of rent control is founded upon good intentions; the idea being that in a city, we should be able to provide a stock of affordable housing for lower income families. If only good intentions won the day!

So let's consider a number of things. How likely is it that Congressman Charles Rangel heads a low income family? Well, according to the NYTimes article, his net worth is somewhere between $566k and $1.2 million. Not Bill Gates worthy but certainly not low income. How did Rangel come to acquire not just one rent-stabilized apartment, but FOUR? Certainly there is some sort of income requirements in order to qualify for rent stabilized apartments? Nope. Actually there isn't. So how does one acquire one of these coveted apartments? According to my friends that live in New York City, there are three ways that one acquires a rent stabilized apartment: inheritance, by knowing someone, or by paying what is referred to as "key money" (which, while illegal, is not uncommon). And so how likely is it that low income families acquire rent stabilized apartments through these means? Almost never.

Unfortunately, there is rank hypocrisy throughout this latest story about Rangel. According to the Times article, the market rate for the four units that Rangel occupies should be close to $8,000 a month, whereas Rangel is only paying $3,894 a month. And what is Rangel's explanation for this? Firstly, he says that what he is doing is legal. What??? Of all people to claim that what is legal must be right!!! Rangel also said the following:

"the protection afforded by the New York rent-control law to residents like myself from the escalation in market price that is pressuring so many of us to leave a community we can no longer afford.”

It is sickening that a man who claims to want to help the poor is actively harming the poor. By taking up four rent stabilized apartments, Rangel is removing four units that could be used by low income families. These are four fewer affordable housing units in Manhattan that this wealthy influential politician has chosen to occupy for his own use. It's not like Rangel can't afford market rent in Manhattan.

Unfortunately the Times doesn't get this issue any more than Charlie Rangel does. While the Times admirably exposed Rangel's hypocrisy, it is obvious that the Times doesn't really understand the real injustice here. In an editorial on Sunday, the Times excoriates Rangel for taking advantage of this situation. But it misses the forest for the trees. The real injustice is the institution of rent control. While originally well intentioned, can you think of a less affordable community than Manhattan? Ah, maybe San Francisco, you say. Coincidentally, San Francisco is one of the few other communities in the United States with rent control.

What exactly does rent control do? It removes housing units from the market. Any time supply is decreased, demand increases. And whenever demand increases, price increases. This isn't opinion; it is the law of supply and demand. What else does rent control do? It removes any incentive that a landlord might have to provide proper upkeep and maintenance on a building.

Do you live in New York and believe in social justice? If so, you should do everything you can to oppose this perverse law that provides wealthy Congressmen with housing assistance at the expense of the poor.