How I'm voting for mayor, a follow-up, and looking toward November
Follow the yellow-brick road to November
It’s been one week since I published how I was voting in the current New York Democratic mayoral primary. Since that time, I have received hundreds of messages. I haven’t had time to respond to most of them, but thank you to everyone who emailed, commented, and DM’d.
This post is a direct follow up to my previous one. I’m going to explain my thinking a little more, although there is no radical addition to what I originally wrote. My ranking still stands as I originally wrote it.
In short: I rank Cuomo, and not Mamdani, because I have a different view about the degrees of Mamdani’s likely downsides. Relative to those who disagree with me, I believe I place more negative weight on:
His promise of a rent freeze despite his knowledge that this action (the promise itself) is a promise to illegally interfere with the statutorily independent Rent Guidelines Board.
His impact on rent-regulated housing especially.
His impact on public order.
His ability to moderate on many policies, given who his political constituencies are and will be in office.
Comparing myself to others in the abundance/pro-building world. Here are assumptions I have:
I think many other voter guides are written by people who are operating with about the same core information as I am. I don’t think almost anything I wrote was a big surprise to them, and vice versa. And we are generally aligned. To use the Abundance NY guide as a point of comparison: we agree on the same top four candidates, although we ordered them a bit differently. We agree that for slot #5, we’re going to pick Cuomo or Mamdani. We agree that that is an unfortunate thing to have to do. We disagree, ultimately, who to put as #5. That is pretty strong alignment, and it exists between many voter guides floating around right now. It exists between many people doing their best to cast the right vote.
I think we generally agree in our negative assessments of Andrew Cuomo. As I said in my first post: “…as many others have noted (here, here, or here, for example), Cuomo has committed some egregious policy and personal errors. He deserves full scrutiny for all of them, and I excuse none of them.” I generally agree with the other voter guides about the severe drawbacks of Cuomo.
I think we often agree about our negative assessments of Zohran Mamdani; for example, most abundance-aligned voter guides I’ve seen recognize that freezing the rent is a bad policy. Our major point of departure is the expected degree of his downsides, which I think are sufficiently worse for him to limbo under Cuomo’s low bar. This seems to be the source of the difference in #5 ranking, and, as I said in my previous post: “Plenty of people have outlined Cuomo’s drawbacks at length…My goal here is to help give something resembling parity to Mamdani.” In this piece, I will explain more of my thinking about the downsides, and why I believe my thinking diverges from other urbanist/abundance writers—remembering most of us are very aligned.
What causes the difference in Mamdani downside assessment?
#1) “The worst of Mamdani’s policies will be constrained by other levels of government, and other actors in the system” is an incorrect meme
Some bad policies will be constrained, and at least two huge policy nukes will not.
I think an absolutist version of “he can’t do his really crazy stuff, that will be constrained by other players and systems” became a meme for some people. One thing that helped this meme propagate was Mamdani proposing some policies he couldn’t do that were so outlandish ($70 billion extra in city debt, denied by state constitutional debt limits), that many did not pay attention to the more normalized, but still terrible, policies he could do.
The meme is wrong. At least two bad policies he would likely affect as mayor are a rent freeze, and the decay of public order. I discussed these in part 1, but I want to explain them a bit more here.
☢️ Mamdani would likely be able to (illegally, but effectually) freeze the rent on half of our rental stock, presumably for four years in a row.1
Our rent regulated stock is about half of all our rental stock, and at least 200,000 of those units are in financial distress right now, not to mention those on the brink of that designation, or the financial ecosystem that lends to these entities. The Furman Center and the Citizens Budget Commission (CBC), among many others, have been ringing the financial alarm bells.
As the CBC says: “The City should act now to stop the physical and financial deterioration of the rent regulated stock before these problems grow worse and enter the maintenance ‘death spiral’ observed in New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings, where, as a result of deferred maintenance, the cost of repairs nearly exceed the cost of a new building…It is not solely the RGB’s problem to fix, but the RGB plays a significant role by approving rent increases that balance the interests of tenants and landlords.”
Rent regulated housing is so financially distressed that we have seen, among other things, a bank refuse to take back a building when the owner wanted to walk away from it. The owner is now suing the bank to get them to take the building.
Imagine all the tenants who live in those buildings, and what they will live through as their buildings’ financial condition continues to deteriorate (and what they are living through now, too). Either they will just have to take the psychological and physical damage, or someone (the city? the state? the federal government?) will need to infuse an enormous amount of money into these buildings and the banks that support them—and, as the CBC notes with NYCHA housing above, it is still a whole other ball game to get them actually fixed. I believe I place a much stronger negative weight on the accelerated decline of our rent regulated housing stock, not to mention the promised illegal mayoral overreach against the RGB, than others who have evaluated Mamdani. You can consider me one of the people ringing the financial alarm bells about our rent regulated stock. This is also part of why I don’t think Mamdani is as good on housing as others.
[👨⚖️ As to whether a judge would take issue with a rent freeze under a Mamdani administration, given his campaign promise to direct the RGB, I’m not sure. Even if one did, I don’t expect relief would come for the rent regulated stock soon enough. But this is an edge case worth exploring as the campaign continues to unfold, even if unlikely.]
☢️ Mamdani would have a significant impact on public order, not least by his selection of police commissioner and control of other agencies.
As I mentioned in part 1, Mamdani would be a mayor who does not see the problem with entrenching homeless medical treatment centers in the subway. This fits squarely within the thinking of mayors across the country who have subjected their populations to otherwise-avoidable urban disorder. Common-sense pattern matching (by my particular mind), held up against his own policy proposals, says Mamdani would probably go for the same broad approach.
I think an instructive comparison is San Francisco. The recent transition from Mayor London Breed to Mayor Daniel Lurie earlier this year shows a promising turnaround in how government treats public disorder of all kinds (see the fentanyl state of emergency, Lurie’s first 100 days, and Lurie’s administrative reorganization). I want New York to keep moving firmly toward a more orderly public realm, away from COVID-era lows. I do not think Mamdani would continue this trend, and I think he would reverse it.
The sheer systemic and human costs of the degradation of hundreds of thousands of housing units, particularly in the Bronx, and a vast increase in unmitigated anti-social, criminal behavior, are enormous. On a policy level, they are bad. As a New Yorker who must walk around the city, I do not want to live through those policy consequences, nor do I want my loved ones to. Although Cuomo is no public order angel, I simply do not see him experimenting with anarchy-as-welfare in the same way Mamdani intends. I believe I negatively weight the extent of Mamdani’s public order impact more than those who disagree with me about Cuomo/Mamdani.
#2) “Will Mamdani moderate?” is only half the question.
As I mentioned in post 1, the extent to which Mamdani will moderate on things like the importance of market-rate housing has been discussed at length. I don’t think anyone is firmly convinced he will moderate a lot; many people are varying degrees of convinced he will moderate some.
The key question here is: moderate away from what? The “what” here is often the policy platform of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which Mamdani is a highly visible member of. In the case of housing and public order, some of those policies are “no market rate housing,” and “literally defund/abolish the police,” which Mamdani has in the past vocally endorsed (and, on housing, his website still seems to).
So will Mamdani moderate these policies, and if so, how much? Ultimately that’s a harder question to answer than whether he will financially decimate hundreds of thousands of rent regulated units. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone came back from the future and told me “Mamdani won, and he did some zoning reform and helped push Rita Joseph’s single-stair reform bill through the city council.” I would be very surprised if a socialist mayor unlocked much market-rate housing production, which is the heart of our supply solution. I don’t think any of that is surprising.
But “will Mamdani moderate” focuses on how he will change as a result of encountering the political system as mayor. This is only half the picture. How will the political system change as a result of Mamdani’s political apparatus coming to City Hall?
If you drop a concentrated dye into a glass of water, it would fan out in a plume of color before diffusing, turning the water a lighter version of its formerly concentrated color. The dye is becoming more diffuse, but the glass of water is also now a different color.
Perhaps Mamdani might moderate some as a result of encountering the hard constraints of City Hall—but City Hall would also change with him at the helm.
I believe many people are rightly skeptical at what some call Cuomo’s Democratic Machine coming to City Hall, and gaining prominence and power from that position. I am more skeptical of the DSA, and Mamdani’s machine, coming to City Hall, and I believe I negatively weight this more heavily than those who rank Mamdani #5 over Cuomo.
One of the more important questions to weigh when one considers Mamdani’s ability to moderate is who he will surround himself with, who he will hire, and who he will appoint. These people will come from the groups and constituencies he sees as most responsible for his win (probably, like any mayor), and who he does not want to upset. One of those groups, and a big one, is the DSA.
The DSA’s platform is completely permeated with many policies that, by themselves, I would never vote for. As a total collection (purposefully bankrupting privately owned buildings to take their property, literally abolishing police and prisons, centralized economic controls, etc) it is a nonstarter for me.
I don’t think a DSA mayor would wave a magic wand and make all of these things happen. But I do not want to drop the dye of the DSA into City Hall. I do think that would be worse than what Cuomo would bring, even as both would still almost certainly have individually good appointees anyone could point to.
The Democratic Party, Socialism, and Housing Shortages in New York City
This section is a brief historical note—we’ve been here before! In part 1 I wrote about how the housing shortage of the 1920s (which started in earnest in the late-nineteen-teens) was solved through a grand compromise that unlocked massive market-rate housing production. That shortage matched our own and then a bit more, with vacancy rates dropping below 1%.
Then, as now, New York City saw the rise of socialist candidates who built their party on the cost of living, primarily housing. From The Great Rent Wars: New York, 1917-1929:
Hoping to take advantage of the housing shortage [in the 1918 election], the [socialist] party made rent profiteering the centerpiece of its campaign. Its spokesmen stressed that ‘the capitalist party candidates by their very nature are incapable of fight the rent profiteers.’ (113)
As long as the rents continued to soar, [Mayor] Hylan and other politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, believed the Socialist Party would remain a serious threat. As M.M. Fertig, a Democratic Assemblyman from the Bronx, pointed out, “People from all over my district have been coming to me and declaring [that by failing to keeping down the rents] ‘you are driving us [in]to the Socialist camps.’” By early 1919 the disaffection was widespread. As a Bronx tenant whose rent had been raised from $12 to $24 a month wrote, “My family and myself have always been stanch Democrats but I am sorry to say that if we get no relief we will have to look to the Socialist Party.” (114)
This is also what Mamdani is doing, although he is operating inside the Democratic Party, rather than the socialists of the 1920s who had their own party [note: the DSA is a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4, not a political party].
This historical rhyme—housing shortages and socialists—is useful to contemplate, especially if one is trying to divine the future trajectory of the Democratic Party based on what we observe in New York City’s 2025 city elections.
On May 31st Harry Siegel wrote this in the New York Daily News after reporting on an interview with Mamdani (emphasis added):
I wouldn’t bet on Mamdani making it to City Hall, or think that he should be.
But I hope New Yorkers skeptical of what he’s selling or how he’s selling it read what he has to say and consider why he’s bringing new people and fresh air into the city’s often chokingly stale politics.
Siegel makes an excellent point. If someone does not like the rise of Mamdani or read what he says, but will not look into the unfixed problems that facilitate that rise—perhaps they deserve what they get (electoral loss chief among them), in a certain sense. Now, as in the past, we see many people with a version of: “My family and myself have always been stanch Democrats but I am sorry to say that if we get no relief we will have to look to the Socialist Party.”
The solution of the past, though, was a grand compromise at the state level between Governor Al Smith and the state legislature that unlocked our greatest decade of housing production (that still had to be ultimately implemented by city government). What will be the grand compromise in the modern day? That’s a separate post.
What I didn’t really discuss in this piece or part 1
Like everyone writing about the election, I chose to focus on some things and not others. In my case, I focused on housing (especially rent-regulated housing), and public order. I chose those because I think they have received too little focus, and because I think they are vital arenas to analyze.
But just because I didn’t include something, doesn’t mean I don’t care about it, or didn’t weigh it. If you control+f this piece, you will not find “MTA” except for in this sentence. If you search for “public order” (or related terms) in many other voting guides, nothing comes up—I don’t think those writers do not care about public order. And I care a lot about the subways (read how they were approved, read how they were threatened, read notes on how they were built). We each made choices given our perspective, including what we saw others writing about.
But here are some other things people think of as “make or break” issues:
Campaign contributions. From whom? For what?
Position on NYC’s specialized high schools and the SHSAT, and gifted programs more broadly.
Experience in government. What kind of experience? Doing what?
How the two candidates relate to Republicans (this one is particularly interesting to me, and I bet you could write a whole book about it alone. Some people say “Don’t vote for Cuomo, because he worked with Republicans.” Some people say “Don’t vote for Mamdani, because he votes with Republicans.” Meanwhile there’s the background noise of “blue tape” and “Bloomberg was a popular Republican mayor, but is now a Democrat.” If you’re diving into this for the first time, this is the kind of thing that fries the brain!
Middle Eastern politics, and their socio-political ramifications in New York City.
Their ability to “bring people together” in such a diverse city as New York.
Personal flaws and personal behavior.
Who has endorsed who (among celebrities, newspapers, one’s friends, etc).
The list goes on far longer than many wish it did, or could. Any one of the bullets above could serve as a “make or break” for many people, and many have indeed told me as much. And they wonder why I didn’t agree with them. And really, it’s not that I disagree with them—it’s just that, from my perspective, housing and public order on their own are enough to seal the deal, and I want to keep my focus narrow. Other voter guides try to address all of these areas and more. This is a tough problem, and any voter who does their best with it—no matter how they vote—gets a thumbs up from me.
Why I endorsed, and going from here
Maximum New York is primarily a civics school. “Is over ought,” and the other mottos. Some people might wonder why I ventured such an object-level opinion on electoral politics! After all, some great Americans like Dolly Parton stay explicitly neutral, and enjoy adoration from people across political divides. I think we need those people in society, and Dolly is a great example of the archetype. I think we also need the other end—people whose job is constantly trying to have good opinions about electoral outcomes. I have deliberately chosen a lane between the two, much more towards Dolly. I will not venture public opinions on every election, but I’ll do it more on city and state elections when I do it at all.
In this particular city election, I saw that many New Yorkers were fearful. Fearful to discuss their vote with friends, fearful with fellow members of political groups, and especially fearful online. Even many of the usual players in NYC politics, like the teachers union, declined to make an endorsement because of the stark division in their ranks. In the face of this, I think it is important to show that New Yorkers can speak to each other well, and exist productively, even across different ballots. That they are allowed to think out loud through the complex issues. That, beyond technical mastery of government and politics, the psychological and social skills of productively existing with others who are different from you is vital to our self-governing society.
I do not want to exist within a political climate where I have to walk on eggshells all the time, as I’ve seen many doing in this election. For the record, I don’t personally do that now. The social scenes I frequent are broadly tolerant and open to discussion. If I disagree with you on a political take, and someone who nominally agrees with me is heckling you, I’m on your side every time. But it is always vital to reinforce those norms, and to reject—out of hand—the heckler’s veto, bad-faith or low-effort shaming, and the extreme purity test.
This conversation, hosted by
, was a great example of openly discussing NYC’s election between three people with different voting preferences. That’s how most of my discussions go, and it’s a set of norms worth defending and expanding. It is the same set of norms that make a civic school work so well.
Looking toward the future and November’s general election
No matter who wins after polls close tomorrow, it looks like both Cuomo and Mamdani will still be on our general election ballots in November (whoever loses the Democratic primary will run on another ballot line). The city is not done discussing Cuomo vs. Mamdani, and there is a lot of campaigning left to do.
In the meantime, everyone who has voted and revealed their votes publicly will still have to share the same city. I am fully confident that some people will not be swayed one inch by this post or my previous post, and a very small number of people have been turned off of MNY completely (that’s unavoidable with object-level electoral takes, but OK). But I also know that, with most people, I share a general political affinity. We want to build things. We want abundance. We want competent government. We want to do our best to figure out our votes without walking on eggshells.
The public airing of votes, even if you disagree with someone, is an opportunity to see where they’re coming from, and to build better future bridges, and better future coalitions. Regardless of where you came down in the Democratic primary, we have a few months to discuss the general together, using what we learned during the primary.
Further: life will continue to unfold; a lot can happen in a few months. Right before publishing this piece,
released an interview he did with Mamdani, Governor Hochul announced plans for a new nuclear plant in New York (which will enter the conversation about Cuomo and Indian Point), and Peter Moskos seems to have found a Mamdani vote that might change some people’s views. The flow of information will keep coming, and people will keep weighing and reweighing. It is no sin to reweigh your views in light of new information, but rather a virtue.Hold fast to common bonds of citizenship. As I said in my first piece:
My recommendations in this piece are based on my best understanding of the facts. They have led me firmly in one direction. If you are not taken the same way, I still look forward to building a city with you, and working together to make New York greater still. I look forward to welcoming you to my events, and having you in my classes. I look forward to you being open about how you voted with me, trusting that you will be met with a firm handshake and a kind smile regardless.
And, in my view, there are more interesting things on the ballot in November than the mayoral race anyway.
Excelsior.
I’ll note here: a rent freeze can be done legally by the Rent Guidelines Board, in line with city and state statute as I discuss in my previous post. But a mayor may not legally command the RGB to take a certain action, even if, in practical reality, he could get away with it.
I feel like a reporter should probably ask Mamdani if he supports this DSA platform position:
"We seek… decommodifying housing and land. This can be done through canceling rent, closing eviction courts, and, as landlords exit the market, using state action to acquire private property and transform into public democratically controlled housing."
I share your doubts about Mamdani’s policy and am not a socialist, but I still ranked him and not Cuomo. It came down to how they see city living generally. Cuomo’s a suburbanite who drives everywhere, and he’s hated NYC his entire career. For all his faults Mamdani walks places and doesn’t own a car, and his instincts won’t be to increase car speeds or free parking like Cuomo.