Today’s “progressive” City Council is now coming up with proposals to protect retailers and commercial tenants from paying higher rents and getting booted from their spaces at the end of their leases.

For anyone else, these actions would be considered tortious interference with real estate business decisions. Put them into a leaning-toward-Communist city law (there, I said it) and it becomes a “small business lease program for establishing an environment for fair negotiations in the commercial lease renewal process in order to determine reasonable lease terms.”

Blame councilmembers Annabel Palma, Ydanis Rodriguez, Margaret Chin, Vincent Gentile, Deborah Rose, Karen Koslowitz, Daniel Dromm and Public Advocate Letitia James for this “progressive” action that, if passed, will prompt immediate For Sale signs and destroy commercial property values along with the city’s tax base before Mayor de Blasio can even wield his pen.

“This is the kind of bill that would send a terrible message to the business community about having arm’s-length transactions between two parties,” said Steve Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, who has seen variations of this proposal pop up over the years. “City Council attorneys have suggested in the past, and we still believe, it is not within the scope of the powers of the City of New York, and if it moves ahead, it will be subject to legal challenges.”

The bill memo for Intro. 402 states: “The present commercial rental market provides no means for tenants to mediate disputes between tenants and landlords to arrive at fair and reasonable lease renewal terms. The absence of legal protection for the interests of commercial tenants in the lease renewal process has unnecessarily accelerated the closing of small businesses and resulted in lost jobs, tax revenues and community instability.”

The loss of tax revenues is an outright lie — a business paying higher rents creates more income for the building owner. Thus there is a higher assessed value and more city tax income to pay for schools and cops.

There are many clues in the proposed legislation that show its roots and likelihood of its being turned into an entire residential rent control/stabilization-like system.

These include an agency to administer the resulting mess, rents based on “rental guidelines as set forth by the administering agency,” and expected caps on lease payments suggested as “the cost of leasing similar premises within a one-mile radius … over the last five years.”

Lease terms are set at 10 years unless the tenant wants a shorter term and the owner agrees.

There are many other questionable provisions in the bill that are too numerous to list here.

Prominent building owner Richard Cohen of Capital Properties doesn’t think the law is needed or that it would work. “It makes sense to negotiate deals with our existing tenants so any quality landlord recognizes the mainstay of their building is a good relationship with their current tenant,” Cohen said.

The bill’s lead sponsor, Councilmember Palma of the Bronx, is still trying to gather support and so far, there are no hearings scheduled.

This proposal should be deep-sixed before it bursts the city’s economic bubble.