A price cap and soft caps on increases are not the same thing at all.

Re "perpetual leases": it's worth noting that Landlords could still deny a lease renewal if they wanted to do something other than host a tenant at the same rate, like occupy a unit themselves or have a family member move in. The term "perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

Otherwise, all that the current situation permits is for landlords to not renew a lease and increase the rent significantly: the effect of this Good Cause requirement necessitates that the term be extendable; the cap and extend-ability go hand-in-hand; you can't have one without the other.

If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

All that the lease renewal requiring the landlord's consent does is permit them to hold the prospect of renewal over the tenant's heads, which forces tenants to bend over backwards to not bother the landlord. I've lived in terrible living conditions and not reported a critical and very real safety issue because the landlord threatened to not permit me to renew the lease if I kept insisting that they fixed it. That prospect is serious for renters, especially those who are least capable of moving with ease (disabled folks, undocumented folks, poor folks, etc.).

Internet service provision is very different, for a host of reasons, and implying otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

Look, on a more conceptual level: more people are tenants than they are landlords, so in a democratic society in which the government represents the popular will, laws should side with tenants when their rights are in direct opposition to the wishes of landlords.

There is technically no price cap in the Good Cause bill.

There is a cap on rent increases for market-rate units. This soft cap is at either 3% of the previous rent or one-and-a-half times the local rate of inflation. For example: currently, in New York City, the legislation would allow rent hikes up to just under 10% this year.

(Also note that this is not the same thing as rent stabilization; it creates a soft limit on most lease renewals, but landlords would still be able to, e.g., petition to raise rents beyond the inflation limit if they have substantial expenses on a given year.)

As for the "perpetual lease" claim: that's the point. Using a scarier term to describe it doesn't make it any different. Tenants should be able to continue to live in their home as long as they are in good standing per the lease agreement.

If landlords are going to be the barrier between people having and not having homes, the state should step in to ensure that as long as tenants are being good tenants, they should not be forced to leave their communities.

Anyway, my main point in making this post was because a lot of people on this subreddit were commenting on another thread yesterday about how Good Cause would make it impossible to evict tenants who don't pay rent; but that's not the case.