Will Zohran Kwame Mamdani eventually restore Constitutional Equal Protection to New Yorkers?

NYC landlords aren’t big fans of almost-certain-to-be-incoming-mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani. In particular, Mamdani’s promise to “freeze the rent”. “NYC Developers Gripped by Hysteria After Mamdani’s Sudden Rise” (Wall Street Journal):

New York City’s developers and landlords are in a mad scramble to block from City Hall the socialist who wants to freeze rent.

Mamdani is pushing for a host of housing changes to try to ease costs for renters. While he seems to have softened his stance toward working with private developers more recently, at the top of his list is still a controversial rent freeze on the city’s roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments.

I can’t figure out how the U.S. patchwork of government-controlled housing prices meets the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. American A chooses to refrain from work and lives in public housing and pays $0/month. American B chooses to refrain from work and lives in rent-stabilized or rent-controlled housing and pays whatever housing cost back before 80 million migrants were invited into the U.S. (60 million through 2015). American C chooses to refrain from work and is forced to pay market rates, i.e., fight with over 300 million humans for scraps. What’s “equal” about the government giving these three equally idle humans radically different housing options and prices?

It looks like Mayor Mamdani’s first act, after a huge Queers for Palestine rally, will be to freeze the rent on apartments that are already absurdly cheap compared to the market. But I wonder if that could just be a first step toward government control of all residential rents in New York City. If the government did step in to control rents on all NYC buildings that would be a tremendous step toward the Equal Protection that Americans are supposed to receive from their government.

We live in a democracy, otherwise known was “mob rule”. There are way more tenants than landlords. Nearly every American city is divided into those who are blessed by the government with free or cheap rent and those subjected to cruel market forces. Maybe suburban homeowners would feel some sympathy for landlords, but wouldn’t we expect a majority of voters in nearly every city to vote for government-set (low) rents? It seems like the kind of simple decision that voters in Maskachusetts earning less than $1 million/year were asked to make regarding raising tax rates on those earning more than $1 million/year (the constitutional amendment passed and, supposedly, the fatcats didn’t move).