The Paletz Law Blog

Why is There a National War on Landlords While Other Industries Remain Unchecked? It’s Politics.

February 28th, 2026 | By: Paletz Law Press

The national war on landlords isn’t random; it’s a carefully calculated political strategy benefiting some legislators and local officials looking to capitalize on the increasingly negative impression some voters currently have towards rental property owners.   

The Emergence of Renters as a Mobilized Voting Bloc

One of the most important drivers of the anti-landlord movement is the political mobilization of renters as an organized voting force. In New York alone, the State Tenant Bloc, which launched in 2024, now has “organized” 250,000 tenant voters. Their strategy has proven effective. Recent research from Cornell University found that when political candidates campaign on tenant protection issues, the voter turnout gap between homeowners and renters is nearly halved, as renter turnout jumps by more than 5 percentage points. 

However, not every pro-tenant political agenda has succeeded. In Michigan, the “Rent is Too Damn High” coalition attempted to organize tenants through rallies and social media. But the effort soon fizzled because people found that the current majority in the  Michigan House, coupled with the state being #35 in the country in rental housing costs made it difficult for the group to gain steam. That coalition is today focused primarily on City of Lansing rental housing.  Meanwhile, thankfully, many anti-landlord bills introduced in the Michigan legislature over the past year have not reached the floor for a vote.  

The Shift at the Voting Booth 

For decades, homeowners voted at far higher rates than tenants, creating natural political pressure to protect property owners. Now, organized tenant groups across the country are demonstrating they can swing elections. In New York City’s 2025 Democratic mayoral primary, Zohran Mamdani, backed by tenant organizations and running on a rent control/freeze platform, won seven of the ten districts with the highest concentrations of rent-stabilized units. The Mamdani election made it clear that landlords are an increasingly easy target to attack in today’s political landscape. 

Landlords Under Attack While Many Industries Remain Free to Roam

Think about the intrusive focus on rental property owners and landlords and how the U.S., state and local governments have employed a “hands-off” attitude on many other industries. Here’s a detailed comparison showing the stark contrast:

Landlord Regulations vs. Other Industries

Restrictions on Rent Increases:

• Landlords: Many cities have rent control capping increases at 3-10% annually. Some require justification for increases above a certain threshold. Violations can result in fines, rent rollbacks, and lawsuits.
• Auto Insurance: Can raise rates 20-40% with a simple letter, often citing industry-wide “trends.”
• Utilities: Rate increases rubber-stamped by commissions, applied to millions simultaneously. In Michigan, residential electric rates increased 114% over the last 20 years. DTE is now asking for a $574 million increase in 2026.  

Price Transparency:

• Landlords: Must provide written leases that detail all costs, fees, and terms. Security deposit limits are capped. Must itemize any deposit deductions with receipts. And when they embrace market trends are penalized for assumed collusion. 
• Auto Dealers: Can add thousands in hidden “dealer fees,” “market adjustments,” and mysterious charges at signing.
• Payday Lenders: Can bury true costs in fine print; consumers rarely understand they’re paying 400% APR.

Safety and Habitability Standards:

• Landlords: Must maintain properties to strict codes. Failure can result in tenants withholding rent, exercising emerging “repair and deduct” rights, having a unit cited or even scrutinized for possible condemnation on limited support, and incurring substantial fines. Regular inspections can be required in many jurisdictions. 
• Food Industry: Recalls only after people get sick. Minimal oversight of nutritional content, additives, or pricing practices.
• Pharmaceuticals: Can sell medicines at a substantial markup with no government requirement to justify pricing or ensure affordability/access.
• For-Profit Colleges: Some provide substandard “education” at overinflated tuition rates for years before facing consequences, if at all.

Eviction and Termination Protections:

• Landlords: Cannot evict without legal cause in many jurisdictions. Formal eviction requires court proceedings and sometimes months of process. “Just cause” eviction laws in many places have continued to heighten the burden of proof for landlords. Squatters afforded protections abrogating the due process rights of landlords and property owners.
• Utilities: Can disconnect service with 10-15 days’ notice, leaving families without heat or electricity.
• Auto Insurance: Can drop coverage with 30 days’ notice, leaving you unable to legally drive to work.
• Health Insurance: Can deny claims or drop coverage AFTER the procedure or care, potentially leaving you with bankruptcy-inducing medical bills.

Profit Margin Scrutiny:

• Landlords: Regularly demonized for making decisions that provide profit to their investment. Proposals for rent control, additional taxes, and profit caps are part of mainstream political discourse. Some public sentiment often views all landlord profit as exploitation.
• Pharmaceutical Companies: 1,000%+ markups on life-saving drugs called “business strategy.”
• Grocery Chains: Record profits during “inflation” are barely questioned.
• Insurance Companies: Billion-dollar profits while denying claims are treated as normal capitalism.

The obvious irony is that landlords provide housing, which is, by all accounts, a basic human need, while facing increasing and extensive regulation. Yet companies controlling equally essential services like food, utilities, transportation, healthcare, and financial access operate untethered from the same government regulation, often as monopolies and extracting far more wealth from consumers with far less accountability. As an example, a landlord who doesn’t fix a leaking pipe faces legal consequences. A pharmaceutical company charging $1,000 for a $50 medication faces only shareholder adoration. 

Being Anti-Landlord Is a Hot Political Strategy

As tenant organizing becomes more sophisticated and generates support for a few electoral wins, more and more politicians will no doubt adopt anti-landlord platforms. As regulations and government oversight increase, making rental property ownership less profitable, small landlords will continue to exit the market. This will ultimately consolidate ownership among larger institutional players, who are also under attack from both sides of the aisle.  

Meanwhile, as compliance costs and regulatory risks accelerate, the fact is that fewer developers will want to deal with these factors and will just stop building rental housing altogether. This, as we’ve stated many times, will do nothing other than reduce supply, increase prices, generate even more tenant frustration and fuel advocacy group demand for even more unneeded regulation. 

For legislators and local officials, the attack on landlords isn’t just about housing policy; it’s sometimes about electoral math. And right now, for some, that math favors making landlords the enemy.