Prototype lenses can block epileptic-seizure causing wavelengths

Few would argue that New York City is mired in a housing crisis — as defined by high prices and low vacancies. There’s good evidence for that conclusion. The most recent federal New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey reported a vacancy rate of just 1.4%, “a stark contrast to the 4.54 rate in 2021”. Over the same period, median monthly rent rose from $1,500 to $,1641 — and that includes everything from luxury high-rises to public housing. These sorts of figures drive an ongoing search for solutions to the problem — including, most recently, Mayor Adams’ Dec. 12 announcement of a new city Charter Revision Commission to consider, as he put it, how to “deliver as much affordable housing to working-class New Yorkers and their families.” A thorough examination of New York’s housing policy — both at the city and state level — could include a growing body of economic research regarding rent regulation, which affects the 960,000 “rent-stabilized” apartments whose price is set not by the market but by mayoral appointees. Rent stabilization may provide a good deal for those lucky to benefit from it. But as economists from across the political spectrum increasingly concur, it ultimately harms the city’s housing market for many. Research into the impact of rent control has a long history. Back in 1997, the Harvard economists Edward Glaeser and Erzo Luttner described the “misallocation of housing” that rent controls creates. That was their term for a mismatch between what renters might need and what they choose because the price is cheap — such as folks who might only need a small apartment, but live in a big one because they can afford it. More recently, in 2018, the liberal Brookings Institution cited the same problem: “Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, he may not choose to move in the future and give up his rent control, even if his housing needs change.” This “misallocation,” Brookings continued, is not without major consequence, most notably “empty-nest households living in family-sized apartments and young families crammed into small studios.” Last year’s Census analysis of New York housing data suggests that’s exactly what is happening here — as young people crammed into subdivided studios with multiple roommates know well. The difference between rent-regulated and market-rate housing in the Big Apple is stark: Only 94,000 (24%) rent-stabilized tenants had moved (either in or out) in the past year, compared to 221,000 (57%) of market-rate tenants. Rent-stabilized tenants are more likely to stay put — forming a kind of housing blockade for newcomers or households with kids who need more bedrooms. As per the Census, the long-term rent-stabilized tenants were not necessarily low-income: 30% reported incomes above $100,000 a year—in keeping with notorious stories of the actress Mia Farrow and Congressman Charles Rangel enjoying rent-stabilized units. (Farrow inherited hers through her family, as the law permits.) Rent controls, notes the Journal of Housing Economics , lead to a redistribution of income — which can include tenants who become better off at the expense of landlords. As Kenny Burgos, the former Bronx Assemblyman who now heads the New York Apartment Association (NYAA) — which represents the owners of some 400,000 regulated units — notes, the current system “inhibits the natural flow and movement of a normal housing market.” There can be ill-effects on housing quality too, economists are finding, in ways that harm rent-stabilized tenants themselves. In February, 2024, ceonomists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank looked at the physical effects of rent controls. They concluded that “while rent-control policies do restrict rents at more affordable rates, they can also lead to a reduction of rental stock and maintenance, thereby exacerbating affordable housing shortages.” Similarly, new research in the Journal of Housing Economics from March 2024 concluded that “even tenants in the controlled dwellings can suffer from rent control, as maintenance of such dwellings can be reduced, leading to a decreased housing quality.” Once again, the most recent findings from New York reveal these very same market conditions. Its review of “reported housing problems” found that there are more tenant complaints about rodents, leaks, cracks and heating in rent-stabilized units than in the non-regulated. The numbers are striking: 376,000 reports of rodents in regulated units (39% of all), compared to 240,000 in market-rate units (22% of all). The repair needs of older, rent-regulated buildings can even lead to owners simply abandoning them, as Maggie Brunn, president of Brooklyn’s A&E Real Estate, has said . “When an apartment has been lived in for 20 or 30 years, those limits [on rent increases] don’t even come close to the actual costs of rewiring, plumbing and the basic improvements you’d need to rent an apartment that a family would be proud to call home. That means more and more of those desperately needed low-rent apartments are sitting vacant.” That problem has been exacerbated by 2019 New York state legislation which sharply limits rent increases even for rising costs such major capital repairs. Burgos of the NYAA estimates at least 10,000 of such “ghost apartments” lie vacant — because their owners “aren’t allowed to recoup their costs. Inflation, property taxes, insurance.” As a result, he says, “banks won’t lend to them.” That’s exactly what Brookings has found. “Rent control can also lead to decay of the rental housing stock; landlords may not invest in maintenance because they can’t recoup these investment by raising rents.” “The system,” says Burgos, “is not working either for owners or tenants.” But how could this deeply established system — existing, in one form or other, for more than 50 years — actually be adjusted? The experience of another major world city, Buenos Aires, Argentina, suggests doing so might not bring on the chaos and price-gouging tenant advocates would suggest. Late last year, libertarian-leaning Argentine President Javier Milei simply “scrapped” rent controls, as reported in The Wall Street Journal. The effect, it reported, is that “the Argentine capital is undergoing a rental-market boom. Landlords are rushing to put their properties back on the market, with Buenos Aires rental supplies increasing by over 170%. While rents are still up in nominal terms, many renters are securing better (or at least fairer) deals, with a 40% decline in the real price of rental properties when adjusted for inflation.” Simply scrapping rent control like in Buenos Aires would be far more difficult in regulation-laden New York, of course. But, as Burgos notes, even permitting the de-regulation of vacant units could lead to significant improvement — without affecting current tenants. What he calls “vacancy control” stands in the way of the rent increases owners need to invest simply to comply with building codes and lead abatement laws — rather than leaving units vacant. The city’s Charter Commission could help by reducing property taxes or water rates for regulated units. But even a rapid deregulation might not be that consequential in much of the city. Census survey reports that the typical market-rate rent ($2,000) is not fantastically higher than the typical regulated rent ($1,500). In The Bronx, the typical rent for all units — including non-rent stabilized — is just $1,200. Market rents, in other words, can be close to regulated rents in lower-cost neighborhoods. Combined with a wave of vacant units coming back on the market and new investments, New York might follow (or at least tiptoe) in the footsteps of Buenos Aires. Such a move would not only benefit renters, it would save the city the expenses associated with an agency most metropolises don’t possess, the Rent Stabilization Guidelines Board, whose staff sets rent increase recommendations and monitors compliance. What’s more, property owners — including mom-and-pop landlords who own just a few buildings — would no longer have to incur the red tape headaches of registering their buildings every year — and either mailing or hand-delivering the required forms and fees, to be paid, for each unit, both to the state ($13) and the city ($20). Failing to do so means a $500 fine — per apartment. There have been attempts, led by the owners’ lobby, the Rent Stabilization Association (now part of the New York Housing Association), to upend the price control regime through the courts — without success. Most recently, the US Supreme Court declined a challenge based , in part, on the argument that rent regulation was effectively a legal “taking of an owner’s property, without compensation.” The fact that property owners sought to overturn rent regulation through the courts makes clear how difficult it is to change the system legislatively. But city and state officials should take notice of the changing leadership in Washington. In the first Trump Administration, a White House Executive Council singled out rent control for criticism, writing that it can lead to “restricted supply [which] ends up hurting some of the lower-income renters they are intended to help.” New York City’s budget relies on Washington for $100 billion in revenue, including from the Department of Housing and Urban Development — which could attach strings to that aid, including revisions to rent regulation or calling for it to end. Once back in office, Donald Trump — as he often does — could prove a wild card and deregulate New York City’s housing market. Howard Husock is a senior fellow in domestic policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

Middle East latest: An Israeli strike on a Gaza hospital kills a teen in a wheelchairDaily Dose of Social Media: Halep and Badosa training in Dubai as Alcaraz steals the show in New York

The late Liam Payne 's partner Kate Cassidy has shared a heartfelt post about experiencing grief at Christmas . It comes two months on from the news that Liam had died, aged 31. Last month, Kate was among the loved ones who gathered at a funeral for the One Direction member. She's now shared a post about grief ahead of Christmas Day . Kate, whom Liam had been dating since 2022, shared the post on her Instagram Story on Tuesday night. The post included a few lines about the holiday season, reminding her followers that it can involve "sadness and grief". The post read: "As the holidays are here, I realize it is a time for happiness and joy, but it is also a time of sadness and grief for so many. Be gentle with those around you this time of year, as the holidays can feel different for everyone." It continued: "Sending all my love to those carrying grief this holiday. I hope the seasons bring you comfort and peace." The post that was shared by Kate concluded: "Wishing everyone a love-filled and healthy holiday season this year." Just days ago, Kate appeared to unveil a tattoo tribute to Liam, which featured a pair of angel wings. She has made references to angels since his death, like mentioning the number 444 , which is described as the "angel number". Kate paid tribute to Liam just days after his death in October. She wrote at the time: "Thank you for all of the kind words and love that has been sent my way. I have been at a complete loss. Nothing about the past few days have felt real. I ask and pray that you'll give me the grace and space to navigate this in private. Liam, my angel. You are everything. I want you to know I loved you unconditionally and completely. I will continue to love you for the rest of my life. I love you Liam." She later told fans that Liam had planned to propose to her within the next year. As previously reported, she wrote in a post on social media: "Your energy was contagious, lighting up every room you walked into. [...] You had the kindest soul and the most fun-loving spirit. It feels like I've lost the best part of myself. I can't imagine a day without your laughter and love. You brought so much light into my life." Kate added: "A few weeks ago, we sat outside on a beautiful evening manifesting our lives together. I keep your note close, even though you told me not to look at it. It said 'Me and Kate to marry within a year/engaged & together forever 444.' Liam, I know we'll be together forever, but not in the way we had planned. You'll always be with me. I've gained a guardian angel." Follow Mirro r C elebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .In late December, Donald Trump suggested the United States should retake control of the Panama Canal in his second term. He claims Panama is imposing “ridiculous” fees on ships passing through this vital waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Panama Canal is a man-made waterway that cuts through central Panama for 51 miles, using a system of locks and reservoirs to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This route saves ships from traveling an extra 7,000 miles around South America’s Cape Horn. “The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump said on Truth Social on Dec. 21. “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S. This complete ‘rip-off’ of our Country will immediately stop,” he added. Trump repeated these claims during a speech at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest in Arizona on Dec. 22. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full quickly and without question,” he said. Following Trump’s comments, Google search data shows there’s been a spike in searches of people asking which country — the U.S. or Panama — has authority over the Panama Canal. THE QUESTION Does the U.S. have any authority over the Panama Canal? THE SOURCES Panama Canal Authority The Embassy of Panama U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Historian U.S. Census Bureau The Library of Congress Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino GovInfo , a service of the United States Government Publishing Office that provides free public access to official publications from all three branches of the federal government Jorge Luis Quijano, the Panama Canal administrator from 2014 to 2019, Benjamin Gedan, Ph.D. , director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. THE ANSWER No, the U.S. does not have any authority over the Panama Canal, but it used to. Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts daily Newsletter! WHAT WE FOUND The U.S. does not have any authority over the Panama Canal. The waterway, which was built by the U.S. in the early 1900s, opened in 1914 and remained under U.S. government control until treaties signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter set terms for its eventual transfer to Panama. The two countries jointly operated the canal until December 1999, after which Panama assumed full control. On Dec. 22, in response to Trump’s comments, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino posted a video on X declaring that “every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to belong” to his country. Without mentioning Trump by name, Mulino addressed the president-elect’s complaints over rising fees for ships crossing the canal, saying they are set by experts who take into account operational costs, and supply and demand factors. “The tariffs are not set on a whim,” Mulino said. He noted that Panama has expanded the canal over the years to increase ship traffic “on its own initiative,” and added that shipping fee increases help pay for improvements. “Panamanians may have different views on many issues, but when it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag,” Mulino said. A little over an hour later, Trump responded to Mulino’s remarks on Truth Social, saying: “We’ll see about that!” He also posted a picture of a U.S. flag planted in the canal zone under the phrase, “Welcome to the United States Canal!” The Panama Canal’s history An effort to establish a canal through Panama began with the French in 1880, but financial troubles made the initiative fail after nearly nine years of little progress, according to the Embassy of Panama in the United States . Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases devastated a workforce that was already struggling with especially dangerous terrain and harsh working conditions in the jungle. These conditions eventually cost more than 20,000 lives by some estimates, the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Historian says on its website . At this time, Panama was a province of Colombia, which refused to ratify a subsequent 1901 treaty licensing U.S. interests to build the Panama Canal. President Theodore Roosevelt responded to Colombia’s refusal by dispatching U.S. warships to Panama’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The U.S. also pre-wrote a constitution that would be ready after Panamanian independence, which gave American forces “the right to intervene in any part of Panama, to re-establish public peace and constitutional order.” In part because Colombian troops were unable to traverse harsh jungles, Panama declared an effectively bloodless independence within hours on Nov. 3, 1903. The newly-declared Republic of Panama soon signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 , which provided the U.S. with a 10-mile wide strip of land for the canal, a one-time $10 million payment to Panama, and an annual annuity of $250,000. The U.S. also agreed to guarantee the independence of Panama, according to the Office of the Historian. After more than a decade of construction, the U.S. finished building the canal on Aug. 15, 1914. Almost immediately, some Panamanians began questioning the validity of U.S. control of the canal, which led to what became known in the country as the “generational struggle” to take it over. The U.S. annulled its right to intervene in Panama in the 1930s. By the 1970s, with its administrative costs sharply increasing, the U.S. government spent years negotiating with Panama to cede control of the waterway. The Carter administration worked with the government of Omar Torrijos, and the two sides eventually decided that their best chance for ratification was to submit two treaties to the U.S. Senate , the “Permanent Neutrality Treaty” and the “Panama Canal Treaty.” The first, which continues in perpetuity, gives the U.S. the right to act to ensure the canal remains open and secure. The second stated that the U.S. would turn over the canal to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999. Both were signed in 1977 and ratified the following year. “At noon on December 31, 1999, Panama took over full operation, administration and maintenance of the Canal, in compliance with the Torrijos-Carter Treaties negotiated with the United States in 1977,” said the Embassy of Panama. “The waterway is now managed by the Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous government entity.” Jorge Luis Quijano, who served as the Panama Canal’s administrator from 2014 to 2019, says the neutrality treaty does give the U.S. the right to act if the canal’s operation is threatened due to military conflict — but not to reassert control. “There’s no clause of any kind in the neutrality agreement that allows for the taking back of the canal,” Quijano told the Associated Press. “Legally, there’s no way, under normal circumstances, to recover territory that was used previously.” Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., agrees. “There’s very little wiggle room, absent a second U.S. invasion of Panama, to retake control of the Panama Canal in practical terms,” Gedan said. The Associated Press contributed to this report . Related Articles Yes, an Italian village is offering $1 homes to Americans following the election Yes, it is unconstitutional to deport U.S. citizens No, Trump can’t legally withdraw the U.S. from NATO by executive order The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so that you can understand what is true and false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter , text alerts and our YouTube channel . You can also follow us on Snapchat , Instagram , Facebook and TikTok . Learn More » Follow Us YouTube Snapchat Instagram Facebook TikTok Want something VERIFIED? Text: 202-410-8808

AmpliTech Group Announces Closing of $1.4 Million Registered Direct OfferingMutodi Sued for US$1,500 in Child Maintenance

Debt Ceiling Drama: Trump's Take on Political MisstepsMiddle East latest: An Israeli strike on a Gaza hospital kills a teen in a wheelchair

Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’