I have voted for Cuomo because I do not like the message that Mamdani's election sends nationally, which is that an anti-Israel stance is a winning tactic.
That said, I love NYC, my wife and I have lived here my whole life, and my kids and grandkids live here. So I hope ZM will be a good mayor. Why would I root against him?
As for his proposals, many of them are bargaining chips. I support an expansion of the universal Pre-K and 3's program. The right near term expansion would be to try for 2s and to phase it in over time. it will not cost close to $7 bn. That's just an anchoring number for negotiation in my opinion.
As for taxes, the question for NYS and NYC is what change in the tax system would make people or corporations not want to be in NYS or NYC. NYS has to compete with other states for businesses and residents. NYC has to compete with the areas that are within commuting distance. It's a delicate balance.
As for the income tax, if something gets passed, any increase would be marginal if it was to make any sense at all. So if you make $1 more than $1 mm, you wouldn't pay $20,000.02 more in taxes but $0.02. So someone making $2 mm would pay $20,000 more in taxes. That shouldn't make people move. If you are wealthy and rational, you understand that one of the privileges of wealth is to live where you want to live.
it's the rare politician who actually is fluent with numbers!
If you really believe that anti-semitism is a rising risk, then the smartest view is to stop the genocide. Israel is creating a grave moral sin and a breech of international law, and if we can stop it, the Israel is just a country and Jews are people who live there and elsewhere and range from ordinary to exceptional.
You say tomato, I say the eradication of a people and the murder of 10s of thousands of innocent children by a terminally ill society backed by an only slightly-less sick one that also happens to be the richest in the world.
w/r/t the free bus idea: haven't a fair number of experts (Sam Schwartz is coming to mind) long suggested that public transit in NYC should be free? It's surreal to me to see pundits who should know better arguing that this is a brand-new policy proposal that's never been suggested before.
Look forward to your articles about the free buses. Homeless and criminals will live on them. This will result in many Iryna Zarutskas, but the Zohrantifada won’t care how many people suffer in his pursuit of a fake utopia. Islam is right about women and lgbtq. The real victims of 9/11 are the ones who faced Islamophobia afterwards.
The "buses will become rolling homeless shelters" argument rests on a fundamental (and probably in your case willful) misunderstanding of why the homeless tend to cluster where they do. To wit:
1. If they liked MTA buses, they could already be hanging out there. Some studies estimate ~50% of current riders don't pay their bus fare. Tracks with what I've seen lately. The driver certainly won't stop you.
2. Being on an MTA bus for an extended period is physically uncomfortable. There are no benches to (antisocially) stretch out on / pass out on. They jostle up-and-down and side-to-side, stopping and starting abruptly, subject to road vibrations like any motor vehicle. If you're looking for a place to crash out, they are not near the top of the list.
3. One advantage of the subway for the homeless is that when trains reach the end of their line, they just start back in the other direction. You can sleep through this in a fentanyl haze. Not so with most MTA bus routes; you often can't stay on the bus as it re-starts its route. I know this because I had the bright idea to "read on the bus all day" one summer, but kept getting kicked off at the end of the route when they often switch drivers, or even switch the bus itself for refuelling or maintenance purposes.
Right. People who think buses will house homeless do not understand New York at all and don't take public transit. They will always prefer the subway system. You can't comfortably camp out on a bus for hours or days at a time. Whereas a subway car is perfect if you want to sleep for hours and hours, and keep your stuff.
Setting aside your irrelevant bigotry Yuri, I agree that it's going to be vital to keep the buses clean and safe even when free. But that's not impossible. Having lots of riders on the buses will help and having (and enforcing) rules against vagrancy will be vital as well. But once that culture is set, it will become easier and easier to maintain it.
Meanwhile, I'm interested in seeing this experiment tried because there is an important advantage that free buses have compared to a paid system in terms of service quality: not having to deal with fare collection can make the system run faster.
And making the buses truly fast would be a huge quality of life win for New Yorkers:
Rent freeze for 44% of the housing rental stock (no, wait, the entire housing rental stock ...) ... Does this go hand in hand with freezing the amount that contractors are allowed to charge to repair the structure, to repair the plumbing, to maintain the heating, to comply with Local Law 11 (facade maintenance), and so on? Because if it doesn't (and I don't see Mr. Mamdani proposing that), then it makes it increasingly unprofitable for landlords to rent out buildings, and encourages them to do the absolute legal minimum (or less, if they can get away with it) to keep the building properly maintained.
Which in turn means that landlords have every incentive to remove buildings from the rental stock wherever possible, which in turn leads to fewer options for renters, which leads to people not wanting to leave their apartments, which leads to higher prices on owner-occupied building combined with the degradation of the stock of rental buildings, with no new rental buildings coming onto the market (because it's unprofitable). Mr. Mamdani can streamline as many new units as he likes, but he needs someone to build them, and they won't if they can't make a profit.
I suppose Mr. Mamdani CAN do that if he wants to ... but that (with other similar things) is why I am (holding my nose and) voting for Andrew Cuomo, even though I think it is very unlikely he will win.
(Note, by the way, that Mr. de Blasio's rent freezes were in 2015 and 2016, but then nothing more until 2020. You say that "He did this because Michael Bloomberg spent twelve years hiking rents on stabilized units quite dramatically" - but more relevant is that Mr. de Blasio was operating in years where the national rate of inflation was extremely low - those are three of the four years with the lowest annual inflation rates in the last 25 years. A rent freeze in a higher inflationary environment, which is where we are now, is something else. But linking rent increases to the inflation rate is another thing which I haven't heard Mr. Mamdani talking about, even though it is pretty basic economic sense.)
My hope is that Mr. Mamdani is sane and practical enough that most of this is just talk, and will only be implemented in the most token fashion (if that). A one-year rental freeze won't break the bank for many landlords, not least because they can push off making a lot of repairs to a future date. Two or more years, especially in a higher inflationary environment, is another matter.
The actually useful thing Mr. Mamdani could do, if he wants to make housing immediately cheaper for everyone (not only those in rent-stabilized apartments), would be to repeal things like Local Law 11 (the facade inspection law that is the reason for those endless sheds in the city). Most other US cities don't have anything comparable, and it is honestly really truly possible to walk around Chicago or Houston without being injured by bricks falling off building facades. If he did THAT, then a lot of landlords would be thanking him (because it is hugely expensive), and a rent freeze, even a multi-year one, would be a fair trade-off. But again, I haven't heard a word from him about it.
"Does this go hand in hand with freezing the amount that contractors are allowed to charge to repair the structure, to repair the plumbing, to maintain the heating, to comply with Local Law 11 (facade maintenance), and so on?"
Exactly. A "rent-freeze" is actually a "revenue-freeze", and unless the revenue-freeze is accompanied by a "cost-freeze", it will lead to unprofitability for landlords, putting the city into a tailspin of units taken off the market, lack of maintenance of existing units, and greatly decreased new construction.
Which would be great - EXCEPT that he only did so for "modern buildings" because standards of engineering have changed since Local Law 11 was introduced. He didn't clarify what precisely that meant, but the original version of Local Law 11 was passed in 1980, so he can only mean buildings built much more recently than that.
And here's the practical reality: only something like 10% of the housing units in NYC postdate 2000, and 80% predate 1975. So Mr. Mamdani's proposal is going to make little difference to the costs of most people living in the city, and provides no justification for blanket rent freezes.
Ross- I usually find you thoughtful and at least partially agree with your posts.
But this post appears so anxious to support Mamdami that you seem to have left reality behind. He is a soiled rich brat who has never held a productive job in his life and has never shown any evidence that he is capable of governing NYC or has competent advisors.
And you apparently agree with his far left proposals, which rely on being able to repeal the basic law of economics. Very disappointed in your column , NYC will survive Mamdami but his mayoralty is likely to inflict long lasting damage on the city.
Barack Obama (first elected to IL senate in 1996) had twice as much political experience as Mamdani has when he became a US senator, and three times as much when he became President. Your conflation of his record with Trump's and use of the word "limited" is doing a lot of work for you.
What kind of "evidence" are you looking for here? Looking back at the last five mayors, I don't see much correlation between having previously held elected office and popularity as mayor. Giuliani and Bloomberg had less experience in elected office than Mamdani when they were elected, and they were each re-elected.
Seems to me that the ideal mayor is someone who'll hire/appoint knowledgeable people, something I'd say both Bloomberg and de Blasio did. And I'm left with similar feelings about what Mamdani might do as mayor, at least based on his comments thus far.
Being Zohran Mamdani's hype man is Ross Barkan's whole beat right now. Mamdani was the campaign manager for Barkan's own failed campaign for a State Senate seat. Barkan, to his credit, acknowledges this connection at least obliquely every time he writes about him. I still think NYMag shouldn't let him cover Mamdani and make him save all his fanboying for his Substack, but that's on them more than Barkan.
What about the charter schools, though? I understand he does not support them and that could be disastrous for lower income inner city kids. Just wondering why you didn’t cover that anxiety that many have written about in regard to M’s policies.
When it comes to progressive policy, first they ignore it, then they claim it should not be done, then they claim it cannot be done, then they claim it will not be done, then you win.
Campaign promises and actually running the city are quite different.. as a regular bus rider at least half the riders skip paying …T can deprive the city of billions … mayors appoint 300 commissioners and ther top staffers, a huge patronage pool, will M payoff his DSA bros with jobs? Will Albany jump on board? Or fear he will drag down as across the state? Cuomo emasculated de Blasio, will Hochul attempt the same with M?
Well, you already have a clue to one of your rhetorical questions in his announcement that he wants to reappoint Tisch, about as far from a DSA bro (sis?) than you can imagine. I expect most of his significant appointments to walk a similar line, people with experience who have shown they are competent at bureaucratic management.
I know mostly men are commenting here but it’s wild that Andrew Cuomo harassing 13 women isn’t a dealbreaker, considering that their careers have been compromised and their medical records are taken into court, all at a cost to taxpayers that could be slated elsewhere (hunger?). The audacity of these men to run and the careless misogyny of American voters …
I'm surprised more isn't made of his stated intention to arrest someone without any legal authority to do so whatsoever. That is exactly the kind of thing the DSA is usually happy to call fascist. And yet his media cheerleaders get away with ignoring it completely.
Ross, you praise Mamdani's "talent and vision". Can you cite his accomplishments, particularly those during his time in government (the only thing close to a real job that he has had), that give evidence to this talent and vision? I agree that he is an energetic deliverer of promises, looks great on TikTok, and of course has a wonderful smile, but how does that give you so much confidence that he can be an effective executive of one of the world's largest and most important cities?
Is it his hatred of Israel and Jewish statehood, evidenced by his refusal to support the disarmament of Hamas, his celebration of the Intifada, his goal of arresting the prime minister of Israel, and his general coziness with known anti-Zionists and even full-blown anti-Semites, that gives you such confidence? I didn't see much of that mentioned in your piece, so not sure. I also didn't see much mention of his hostility toward the police, which he has only recently done a complete 180 on with no real explanation for this sudden epiphany (other than a cynical and disingenuous move to the center to grab votes).
I'm worried that with his complete lack of professional accomplishments and tangible executive skills, combined with his core anti-Semitism (in a city that has the largest Jewish community outside of Israel) and hatred of the police and antipathy to law and order, that he will do as well at mayor as he did trying to bench press 135lbs.
“Just a week after the October 7th attacks, while rockets still rained down on Israeli civilians, Mamdani accused Israel of genocide — a slander he continues to repeat. He will not condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” and he’s proudly appeared with antisemites like Hassan Piker, who once said: “America deserved 9/11.”
This kind of rhetoric fuels the hatred that has led to violent demonstrations and deadly attacks. It is unthinkable that the city with the world’s largest Jewish population could elect someone who refuses to understand this.” Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz’s full commentary on Jewdicious: https://tinyurl.com/5589hrh5
Spot-on take, pointing out that achievability of Mamdani’s agenda in Albany isn’t as remote as it looks on the surface.
Narcissism of small differences looms large in NY Democratic politics, where candidates as different as Mamdani, Adams and Cuomo all decry one another yet are pursue very similar progressive outcomes by way of similar means, but via very different styles. See Mamdani’s recent parroting of Adams’s sidewalk shed policies, or Cuomo as Governor signing off on tax increases similar to what Mamdani is selling.
Obviously policing and Israel are wedges, but they aren’t on any of the buttons the Zohran canvassers wear.
Great piece Ross, completely agree on not understanding the push-back on the fare free buses. That’s not a new concept, and it helps private industry just as much as it helps regular people.
If Zohran were to win, and get his fare free bus idea off the ground just think of the possible economic (tax) growth you’ll see. Locals will save time and money, employers don’t have to give transit allowances or worry about employees commuting, and the government gets a policy that will outlast their admin. Win win win
Here's the problem with free buses. If you reduce the price of something to zero, then you incentivize more people to take it. Since buses only have limited capacity, that means that in a highly dense city like NYC, at peak hours of the day (and quite a lot of other hours) the buses will already be full by the time they reach a stop. This in turn leads to time, and sometimes money, being wasted for many people rather than saved, since they will have to wait for the next (possibly full) bus, or else take less convenient and/or more expensive forms of transport (I'm sure Uber is rubbing its hands with glee at the prospect of free buses). And the city can't afford to lay on more buses as well as making them free - or at least, if they wanted to, that significantly adds to the base cost.
This is unlikely to lead to most employers saving money, either, since there is no plan to make the subways or PATH trains or Metro North free, and so anyone whose commute does not depend solely on buses will still have to receive exactly the same transit allowance.
So definitely not a win-win-win. Free buses CAN work in a city with excess transport capacity and low density. But - as you may have noticed - that is not NYC.
Honestly, this comment reflects exactly what Ross is talking about re the pundit class and not understanding the local dynamics of NYC. The bus is always going to be a second choice just given how unpleasant it is to ride, not because of the people on it, but because it is physically unpleasant to be on a city bus. Making them fast and free benefits people (both in time and money) who have take them because other options are completely geographically inconvenient (mostly people living beyond Manhattan and inner boroughs), it’s not going to produce some huge flood to the buses such that they get overwhelmed to save $3.
Hmm. I think you must be riding different buses from the ones I take in NYC. I take buses several times a week, and don't find them unpleasant at all, even when (as is often the case) they are very crowded. They are clean, as fast as the traffic allows them to be, and I feel safer than I do on the subway, because of the presence of the driver. I know very few New Yorkers who actively dislike the bus, and I even know a few who actively choose it over other options.
The one thing I do dislike, though, is when the buses are too crowded for me to get on them after I have waited 10 or 15 minutes. That happens occasionally even now; it is liable to happen a LOT more if they become free. As I said to Stephen, this is only a mild inconvenience to me, because I simply book an Uber if I can't get on the bus; but I know that this is not the response of most of the other people waiting who can't get on.
Good, you WANT the buses to be full. This isn’t a for-profit business, that increased demand has legitimate economic value for the city broadly. Also, using your logic every road should be a toll road because a “free” service induces more demand creating more congestion (like your concern about overcrowded busses).
If the only thing not making this proposal a “win” to you is that too many people might ride the bus…your opinion might not be needed here.
The problem is not that the buses are full per se. The problem is when buses are full AND there are large numbers of people waiting at bus stops who can't ride them because they are full. That isn't actually much of a problem for me personally - I can afford to call an Uber if I need to be somewhere and I can't get on the bus. It's more of a problem for people living on tighter incomes than mine, for whom the marginal extra cost of relying on Uber, especially on a regular basis, is prohibitive.
A moderately priced bus fare, such as we have now, is much more effective at balancing need to travel against capacity to pay than free buses would be.
As to your suggestion of universal tolling of roads, we've actually introduced a version of that in NYC, with the congestion charge - which I thoroughly support, and I would also support it being extended more widely. There is a broad problem in the US that drivers do not contribute sufficiently economically to the communal costs of driving, Most of the time that is an invisible subsidy to drivers, but in very crowded places like NYC, it is definitely worth making the drivers pay up front towards that.
As far as I know, Mr. Mamdani supports the congestion charge: that is something I think he has gotten right, but I wish he would extend the same reasoning to public transport.
I’m glad you’re in a financial position to be able to afford Uber. Not everyone can, and the “moderate” bus fares inherently limit the labor force because not everyone can afford the travel costs.
That’s why it’s a win-win-win, jobs get more workers with reliable transportation, those workers get incomes, governments get the resulting income tax. I also wasn’t describing congestion pricing, I’m trying to explain to you why induced demand by reducing costs isn’t always a bad thing. (And it’s significantly cheaper to get a new bus than it is to build a new lane of traffic).
You are avoiding the issue I raised: the problem with people not being able to get on the bus because of overcrowding. The only thing you say is a hand-waving mention of "getting a new bus", without noting that Mr. Mamdani's proposal, and Ross's argument endorsing that proposal, does not refer to (let alone factor in the cost of) the major additions to the bus fleet and personnel that would be required in order not to have unacceptable overcrowding.
And yes, I am in a financial position to afford Uber, and not everyone can - that was precisely my point! But a lot - most - of those who can't afford Uber regularly CAN afford a $2.90 bus fare. THOSE are the people who would be disadvantaged under the "free bus" proposal.
So, to summarize: free buses benefit those who are so poor as not to be able to afford the $2.90 bus fare, at the expense of the much larger number of people who can afford the $2.90 bus fare but can't afford to hire forms of private transport when the buses are too crowded, with the well-off people more or less unaffected. You may think that's a good trade-off, but you need to be aware that it IS a trade-off, and hence not a win-win-win.
Also, you may not have THOUGHT that you were describing congestion pricing - but the thing you presented, apparently to show me the irrationality of objecting to free buses, is actually functionally identical to congestion pricing. And note that the (true) objections that were raised to congestion pricing are remarkably similar to those that you are raising with regard to keeping bus fares: that it would disadvantage poorer people in the NYC metropolitan area who are car-dependent. The city decided that was still a worthwhile trade-off, and I think they were right to do so. Do you?
So you admit it would help the poorest people in society, but it might inconvenience the middle income riders. The same riders who, in New York City, could just ride the subway…you doing okay?
I have voted for Cuomo because I do not like the message that Mamdani's election sends nationally, which is that an anti-Israel stance is a winning tactic.
That said, I love NYC, my wife and I have lived here my whole life, and my kids and grandkids live here. So I hope ZM will be a good mayor. Why would I root against him?
As for his proposals, many of them are bargaining chips. I support an expansion of the universal Pre-K and 3's program. The right near term expansion would be to try for 2s and to phase it in over time. it will not cost close to $7 bn. That's just an anchoring number for negotiation in my opinion.
As for taxes, the question for NYS and NYC is what change in the tax system would make people or corporations not want to be in NYS or NYC. NYS has to compete with other states for businesses and residents. NYC has to compete with the areas that are within commuting distance. It's a delicate balance.
As for the income tax, if something gets passed, any increase would be marginal if it was to make any sense at all. So if you make $1 more than $1 mm, you wouldn't pay $20,000.02 more in taxes but $0.02. So someone making $2 mm would pay $20,000 more in taxes. That shouldn't make people move. If you are wealthy and rational, you understand that one of the privileges of wealth is to live where you want to live.
it's the rare politician who actually is fluent with numbers!
If you really believe that anti-semitism is a rising risk, then the smartest view is to stop the genocide. Israel is creating a grave moral sin and a breech of international law, and if we can stop it, the Israel is just a country and Jews are people who live there and elsewhere and range from ordinary to exceptional.
It's not a genocide, it's a war.
You say tomato, I say the eradication of a people and the murder of 10s of thousands of innocent children by a terminally ill society backed by an only slightly-less sick one that also happens to be the richest in the world.
Justifying antisemitism due to actions of a foreign country
Not seeing how you got there from what I wrote.
Yes you do, don’t play dumb
The number one cause of child mortality is Israel.
We are so far past clever that one can’t even see it in the rear-view mirror.
Not accurate nor relevant to a conversation about antisemitism in the US
w/r/t the free bus idea: haven't a fair number of experts (Sam Schwartz is coming to mind) long suggested that public transit in NYC should be free? It's surreal to me to see pundits who should know better arguing that this is a brand-new policy proposal that's never been suggested before.
Look forward to your articles about the free buses. Homeless and criminals will live on them. This will result in many Iryna Zarutskas, but the Zohrantifada won’t care how many people suffer in his pursuit of a fake utopia. Islam is right about women and lgbtq. The real victims of 9/11 are the ones who faced Islamophobia afterwards.
The "buses will become rolling homeless shelters" argument rests on a fundamental (and probably in your case willful) misunderstanding of why the homeless tend to cluster where they do. To wit:
1. If they liked MTA buses, they could already be hanging out there. Some studies estimate ~50% of current riders don't pay their bus fare. Tracks with what I've seen lately. The driver certainly won't stop you.
2. Being on an MTA bus for an extended period is physically uncomfortable. There are no benches to (antisocially) stretch out on / pass out on. They jostle up-and-down and side-to-side, stopping and starting abruptly, subject to road vibrations like any motor vehicle. If you're looking for a place to crash out, they are not near the top of the list.
3. One advantage of the subway for the homeless is that when trains reach the end of their line, they just start back in the other direction. You can sleep through this in a fentanyl haze. Not so with most MTA bus routes; you often can't stay on the bus as it re-starts its route. I know this because I had the bright idea to "read on the bus all day" one summer, but kept getting kicked off at the end of the route when they often switch drivers, or even switch the bus itself for refuelling or maintenance purposes.
Right. People who think buses will house homeless do not understand New York at all and don't take public transit. They will always prefer the subway system. You can't comfortably camp out on a bus for hours or days at a time. Whereas a subway car is perfect if you want to sleep for hours and hours, and keep your stuff.
I'm amazed and actually jealous you are able to read on a bus without getting violently nauseous
I never get motion sickness for some reason. (The much more foolish endeavor was trying to *write* on the bus, haha.)
Setting aside your irrelevant bigotry Yuri, I agree that it's going to be vital to keep the buses clean and safe even when free. But that's not impossible. Having lots of riders on the buses will help and having (and enforcing) rules against vagrancy will be vital as well. But once that culture is set, it will become easier and easier to maintain it.
Meanwhile, I'm interested in seeing this experiment tried because there is an important advantage that free buses have compared to a paid system in terms of service quality: not having to deal with fare collection can make the system run faster.
And making the buses truly fast would be a huge quality of life win for New Yorkers:
https://nathannewman.substack.com/p/the-revolution-will-arrive-on-time
I don't know if it work, but I'd love to see this idea given a real shot.
Rent freeze for 44% of the housing rental stock (no, wait, the entire housing rental stock ...) ... Does this go hand in hand with freezing the amount that contractors are allowed to charge to repair the structure, to repair the plumbing, to maintain the heating, to comply with Local Law 11 (facade maintenance), and so on? Because if it doesn't (and I don't see Mr. Mamdani proposing that), then it makes it increasingly unprofitable for landlords to rent out buildings, and encourages them to do the absolute legal minimum (or less, if they can get away with it) to keep the building properly maintained.
Which in turn means that landlords have every incentive to remove buildings from the rental stock wherever possible, which in turn leads to fewer options for renters, which leads to people not wanting to leave their apartments, which leads to higher prices on owner-occupied building combined with the degradation of the stock of rental buildings, with no new rental buildings coming onto the market (because it's unprofitable). Mr. Mamdani can streamline as many new units as he likes, but he needs someone to build them, and they won't if they can't make a profit.
I suppose Mr. Mamdani CAN do that if he wants to ... but that (with other similar things) is why I am (holding my nose and) voting for Andrew Cuomo, even though I think it is very unlikely he will win.
(Note, by the way, that Mr. de Blasio's rent freezes were in 2015 and 2016, but then nothing more until 2020. You say that "He did this because Michael Bloomberg spent twelve years hiking rents on stabilized units quite dramatically" - but more relevant is that Mr. de Blasio was operating in years where the national rate of inflation was extremely low - those are three of the four years with the lowest annual inflation rates in the last 25 years. A rent freeze in a higher inflationary environment, which is where we are now, is something else. But linking rent increases to the inflation rate is another thing which I haven't heard Mr. Mamdani talking about, even though it is pretty basic economic sense.)
My hope is that Mr. Mamdani is sane and practical enough that most of this is just talk, and will only be implemented in the most token fashion (if that). A one-year rental freeze won't break the bank for many landlords, not least because they can push off making a lot of repairs to a future date. Two or more years, especially in a higher inflationary environment, is another matter.
The actually useful thing Mr. Mamdani could do, if he wants to make housing immediately cheaper for everyone (not only those in rent-stabilized apartments), would be to repeal things like Local Law 11 (the facade inspection law that is the reason for those endless sheds in the city). Most other US cities don't have anything comparable, and it is honestly really truly possible to walk around Chicago or Houston without being injured by bricks falling off building facades. If he did THAT, then a lot of landlords would be thanking him (because it is hugely expensive), and a rent freeze, even a multi-year one, would be a fair trade-off. But again, I haven't heard a word from him about it.
"Does this go hand in hand with freezing the amount that contractors are allowed to charge to repair the structure, to repair the plumbing, to maintain the heating, to comply with Local Law 11 (facade maintenance), and so on?"
Exactly. A "rent-freeze" is actually a "revenue-freeze", and unless the revenue-freeze is accompanied by a "cost-freeze", it will lead to unprofitability for landlords, putting the city into a tailspin of units taken off the market, lack of maintenance of existing units, and greatly decreased new construction.
Just a follow-up: I see that a couple of days ago, Mr. Mamdani DID address Local Law 11 (https://www.amny.com/new-york/manhattan/mamdani-scaffolding-removal-nyc-property-proposal/): he proposed increasing the period for inspections under Local Law 11 from 5 years to 10 years.
Which would be great - EXCEPT that he only did so for "modern buildings" because standards of engineering have changed since Local Law 11 was introduced. He didn't clarify what precisely that meant, but the original version of Local Law 11 was passed in 1980, so he can only mean buildings built much more recently than that.
And here's the practical reality: only something like 10% of the housing units in NYC postdate 2000, and 80% predate 1975. So Mr. Mamdani's proposal is going to make little difference to the costs of most people living in the city, and provides no justification for blanket rent freezes.
Ross- I usually find you thoughtful and at least partially agree with your posts.
But this post appears so anxious to support Mamdami that you seem to have left reality behind. He is a soiled rich brat who has never held a productive job in his life and has never shown any evidence that he is capable of governing NYC or has competent advisors.
And you apparently agree with his far left proposals, which rely on being able to repeal the basic law of economics. Very disappointed in your column , NYC will survive Mamdami but his mayoralty is likely to inflict long lasting damage on the city.
There is no "law" of economics. And 2 of the last 3 American presidents had limited or nonexistent political experience
Barack Obama (first elected to IL senate in 1996) had twice as much political experience as Mamdani has when he became a US senator, and three times as much when he became President. Your conflation of his record with Trump's and use of the word "limited" is doing a lot of work for you.
What kind of "evidence" are you looking for here? Looking back at the last five mayors, I don't see much correlation between having previously held elected office and popularity as mayor. Giuliani and Bloomberg had less experience in elected office than Mamdani when they were elected, and they were each re-elected.
Seems to me that the ideal mayor is someone who'll hire/appoint knowledgeable people, something I'd say both Bloomberg and de Blasio did. And I'm left with similar feelings about what Mamdani might do as mayor, at least based on his comments thus far.
Being Zohran Mamdani's hype man is Ross Barkan's whole beat right now. Mamdani was the campaign manager for Barkan's own failed campaign for a State Senate seat. Barkan, to his credit, acknowledges this connection at least obliquely every time he writes about him. I still think NYMag shouldn't let him cover Mamdani and make him save all his fanboying for his Substack, but that's on them more than Barkan.
What about the charter schools, though? I understand he does not support them and that could be disastrous for lower income inner city kids. Just wondering why you didn’t cover that anxiety that many have written about in regard to M’s policies.
When it comes to progressive policy, first they ignore it, then they claim it should not be done, then they claim it cannot be done, then they claim it will not be done, then you win.
Campaign promises and actually running the city are quite different.. as a regular bus rider at least half the riders skip paying …T can deprive the city of billions … mayors appoint 300 commissioners and ther top staffers, a huge patronage pool, will M payoff his DSA bros with jobs? Will Albany jump on board? Or fear he will drag down as across the state? Cuomo emasculated de Blasio, will Hochul attempt the same with M?
Campaigning exciting, running the city drudgery
Well, you already have a clue to one of your rhetorical questions in his announcement that he wants to reappoint Tisch, about as far from a DSA bro (sis?) than you can imagine. I expect most of his significant appointments to walk a similar line, people with experience who have shown they are competent at bureaucratic management.
I know mostly men are commenting here but it’s wild that Andrew Cuomo harassing 13 women isn’t a dealbreaker, considering that their careers have been compromised and their medical records are taken into court, all at a cost to taxpayers that could be slated elsewhere (hunger?). The audacity of these men to run and the careless misogyny of American voters …
Of course everyone overlooks his record of sexual misconduct -- he's a Kennedy!
I'm surprised more isn't made of his stated intention to arrest someone without any legal authority to do so whatsoever. That is exactly the kind of thing the DSA is usually happy to call fascist. And yet his media cheerleaders get away with ignoring it completely.
Ross, you praise Mamdani's "talent and vision". Can you cite his accomplishments, particularly those during his time in government (the only thing close to a real job that he has had), that give evidence to this talent and vision? I agree that he is an energetic deliverer of promises, looks great on TikTok, and of course has a wonderful smile, but how does that give you so much confidence that he can be an effective executive of one of the world's largest and most important cities?
Is it his hatred of Israel and Jewish statehood, evidenced by his refusal to support the disarmament of Hamas, his celebration of the Intifada, his goal of arresting the prime minister of Israel, and his general coziness with known anti-Zionists and even full-blown anti-Semites, that gives you such confidence? I didn't see much of that mentioned in your piece, so not sure. I also didn't see much mention of his hostility toward the police, which he has only recently done a complete 180 on with no real explanation for this sudden epiphany (other than a cynical and disingenuous move to the center to grab votes).
I'm worried that with his complete lack of professional accomplishments and tangible executive skills, combined with his core anti-Semitism (in a city that has the largest Jewish community outside of Israel) and hatred of the police and antipathy to law and order, that he will do as well at mayor as he did trying to bench press 135lbs.
“Just a week after the October 7th attacks, while rockets still rained down on Israeli civilians, Mamdani accused Israel of genocide — a slander he continues to repeat. He will not condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” and he’s proudly appeared with antisemites like Hassan Piker, who once said: “America deserved 9/11.”
This kind of rhetoric fuels the hatred that has led to violent demonstrations and deadly attacks. It is unthinkable that the city with the world’s largest Jewish population could elect someone who refuses to understand this.” Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz’s full commentary on Jewdicious: https://tinyurl.com/5589hrh5
Spot-on take, pointing out that achievability of Mamdani’s agenda in Albany isn’t as remote as it looks on the surface.
Narcissism of small differences looms large in NY Democratic politics, where candidates as different as Mamdani, Adams and Cuomo all decry one another yet are pursue very similar progressive outcomes by way of similar means, but via very different styles. See Mamdani’s recent parroting of Adams’s sidewalk shed policies, or Cuomo as Governor signing off on tax increases similar to what Mamdani is selling.
Obviously policing and Israel are wedges, but they aren’t on any of the buttons the Zohran canvassers wear.
Great piece Ross, completely agree on not understanding the push-back on the fare free buses. That’s not a new concept, and it helps private industry just as much as it helps regular people.
If Zohran were to win, and get his fare free bus idea off the ground just think of the possible economic (tax) growth you’ll see. Locals will save time and money, employers don’t have to give transit allowances or worry about employees commuting, and the government gets a policy that will outlast their admin. Win win win
Here's the problem with free buses. If you reduce the price of something to zero, then you incentivize more people to take it. Since buses only have limited capacity, that means that in a highly dense city like NYC, at peak hours of the day (and quite a lot of other hours) the buses will already be full by the time they reach a stop. This in turn leads to time, and sometimes money, being wasted for many people rather than saved, since they will have to wait for the next (possibly full) bus, or else take less convenient and/or more expensive forms of transport (I'm sure Uber is rubbing its hands with glee at the prospect of free buses). And the city can't afford to lay on more buses as well as making them free - or at least, if they wanted to, that significantly adds to the base cost.
This is unlikely to lead to most employers saving money, either, since there is no plan to make the subways or PATH trains or Metro North free, and so anyone whose commute does not depend solely on buses will still have to receive exactly the same transit allowance.
So definitely not a win-win-win. Free buses CAN work in a city with excess transport capacity and low density. But - as you may have noticed - that is not NYC.
Honestly, this comment reflects exactly what Ross is talking about re the pundit class and not understanding the local dynamics of NYC. The bus is always going to be a second choice just given how unpleasant it is to ride, not because of the people on it, but because it is physically unpleasant to be on a city bus. Making them fast and free benefits people (both in time and money) who have take them because other options are completely geographically inconvenient (mostly people living beyond Manhattan and inner boroughs), it’s not going to produce some huge flood to the buses such that they get overwhelmed to save $3.
Hmm. I think you must be riding different buses from the ones I take in NYC. I take buses several times a week, and don't find them unpleasant at all, even when (as is often the case) they are very crowded. They are clean, as fast as the traffic allows them to be, and I feel safer than I do on the subway, because of the presence of the driver. I know very few New Yorkers who actively dislike the bus, and I even know a few who actively choose it over other options.
The one thing I do dislike, though, is when the buses are too crowded for me to get on them after I have waited 10 or 15 minutes. That happens occasionally even now; it is liable to happen a LOT more if they become free. As I said to Stephen, this is only a mild inconvenience to me, because I simply book an Uber if I can't get on the bus; but I know that this is not the response of most of the other people waiting who can't get on.
Good, you WANT the buses to be full. This isn’t a for-profit business, that increased demand has legitimate economic value for the city broadly. Also, using your logic every road should be a toll road because a “free” service induces more demand creating more congestion (like your concern about overcrowded busses).
If the only thing not making this proposal a “win” to you is that too many people might ride the bus…your opinion might not be needed here.
The problem is not that the buses are full per se. The problem is when buses are full AND there are large numbers of people waiting at bus stops who can't ride them because they are full. That isn't actually much of a problem for me personally - I can afford to call an Uber if I need to be somewhere and I can't get on the bus. It's more of a problem for people living on tighter incomes than mine, for whom the marginal extra cost of relying on Uber, especially on a regular basis, is prohibitive.
A moderately priced bus fare, such as we have now, is much more effective at balancing need to travel against capacity to pay than free buses would be.
As to your suggestion of universal tolling of roads, we've actually introduced a version of that in NYC, with the congestion charge - which I thoroughly support, and I would also support it being extended more widely. There is a broad problem in the US that drivers do not contribute sufficiently economically to the communal costs of driving, Most of the time that is an invisible subsidy to drivers, but in very crowded places like NYC, it is definitely worth making the drivers pay up front towards that.
As far as I know, Mr. Mamdani supports the congestion charge: that is something I think he has gotten right, but I wish he would extend the same reasoning to public transport.
I’m glad you’re in a financial position to be able to afford Uber. Not everyone can, and the “moderate” bus fares inherently limit the labor force because not everyone can afford the travel costs.
That’s why it’s a win-win-win, jobs get more workers with reliable transportation, those workers get incomes, governments get the resulting income tax. I also wasn’t describing congestion pricing, I’m trying to explain to you why induced demand by reducing costs isn’t always a bad thing. (And it’s significantly cheaper to get a new bus than it is to build a new lane of traffic).
You are avoiding the issue I raised: the problem with people not being able to get on the bus because of overcrowding. The only thing you say is a hand-waving mention of "getting a new bus", without noting that Mr. Mamdani's proposal, and Ross's argument endorsing that proposal, does not refer to (let alone factor in the cost of) the major additions to the bus fleet and personnel that would be required in order not to have unacceptable overcrowding.
And yes, I am in a financial position to afford Uber, and not everyone can - that was precisely my point! But a lot - most - of those who can't afford Uber regularly CAN afford a $2.90 bus fare. THOSE are the people who would be disadvantaged under the "free bus" proposal.
So, to summarize: free buses benefit those who are so poor as not to be able to afford the $2.90 bus fare, at the expense of the much larger number of people who can afford the $2.90 bus fare but can't afford to hire forms of private transport when the buses are too crowded, with the well-off people more or less unaffected. You may think that's a good trade-off, but you need to be aware that it IS a trade-off, and hence not a win-win-win.
Also, you may not have THOUGHT that you were describing congestion pricing - but the thing you presented, apparently to show me the irrationality of objecting to free buses, is actually functionally identical to congestion pricing. And note that the (true) objections that were raised to congestion pricing are remarkably similar to those that you are raising with regard to keeping bus fares: that it would disadvantage poorer people in the NYC metropolitan area who are car-dependent. The city decided that was still a worthwhile trade-off, and I think they were right to do so. Do you?
So you admit it would help the poorest people in society, but it might inconvenience the middle income riders. The same riders who, in New York City, could just ride the subway…you doing okay?
Also, just to mention in passing that anyone too poor to afford a $2.90 bus fare is not going to be earning enough money to pay income tax ...
Gang database. Sanctuary City. Policies that will increase population of homeless sent from other cities.
“ it’s simply that they continually misunderstand how it is policy is achieved in the city and state.”
Edit needed? “How it is THAT policy is achieved” maybe?
Signed,
Your friendly Neighborhood Grammar Nazi
PS- “Requited?