Below is my column in The Hill on the new housing plan of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to seize the properties of the “worst landlords” and hand them over to tenants or tenant groups. It is a plan that is hardly unexpected given the socialist agenda of the Administration. However, it promises to replicate the failures of socialist systems of the past.
Here is the column:
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani promised in his inaugural address to introduce New Yorkers to “the warmth of collectivism.” It now appears landlords will likely to be the first to feel the heat.
This week, Mamdani revealed an effort to transfer properties to tenants and non-profit groups. Mamdani announced that “through our new citywide campaign, Fix the City, we will focus on the worst landlords in New York City.” For landlords, it has been clear that the fix was in for some time.
Mamdani faced criticism for his appointment of Cea Weaver as the new director of the Office to Protect Tenants. She previously called for efforts to “impoverish the white middle-class” and called homeownership “racist” while demanding the seizure of private property.
Videos of Weaver echoed thread-worn socialist mantras that are the signature of the Mamdani Administration. “I think the reality is, that for centuries we’ve really treated property as an individualized good and not a collective good,” she said. “And transitioning to treating it as a collective good and towards a model of shared equity will require that we think about it differently and it will mean that families — especially white families, but some POC families who are homeowners as well — are going to have a different relationship to property than the one that we currently have.”
Weaver famously tweeted out her beliefs about private property, which are apparently widely shared in the Mamdani administration: “Private property, including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of White supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”
Other socialists on the national level have pursued the same policies to target landlords. In pushing national legislation, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) joined fellow Democrats in calling for the passage of the HELP Act to “crack down” on some evictions and bar the use of evictions on credit reports. Pressley has declared that “evictions are an act of policy violence.”
Mamdani insists that he will be targeting “the worst landlords in New York City.” Yet, who constitutes the “worst landlords” could prove a relative notion to the ardent socialist. Mamdani proposes to transfer their properties to “responsible stewards,” including tenants and nonprofits.
In his 112-page report, Mamdani is again pushing to unleash his “Block by Block agenda for expanded rent controls, promising not to exempt landlords from Rent Guidelines Board limits. He and his allies have previously heralded Cuba and South Africa as models for policy changes.
Mamdani faces a considerable challenge in fulfilling his pledge to build 200,000 new affordable homes, with an additional 200,000 stabilized units over the next decade. There is reportedly only a 1.4 percent rental vacancy rate, with 100,000 New Yorkers sleeping in shelters each night.
Rent controls have generally been a disaster, reducing landlords’ ability to make improvements to their properties. They cannot recoup those investments due to rental limits as costs, particularly insurance, skyrocket.
The result is a type of planned failure. As landlords postpone improvements, they are often cited by the city in housing hearings. When those findings and fines increase, the landlords risk being declared “negligent” and subject to a transfer due to unpaid citations.
There is no argument that the worst landlords warrant the loss of their properties. But transferring such properties to tenants or non-profit groups is a new and costly form of subsidy. Ordinarily, delinquent properties can be sold on the free market to pay off outstanding debts. That allows neglected properties to be put to the most profitable use, which in turn generates more taxes and jobs for the city. If these properties go to non-profits or tenants, that can further reduce the city’s tax revenues.
More importantly, neither tenants nor nonprofit organizations have a proven track record of maintaining properties without substantial city subsidies. It is a mirage created by activists, hiding the true cost to taxpayers.
Mamdani continues to pursue policies that will suppress, not surge, new construction. His administration is requiring construction companies to pay a minimum of $40 per hour for city-funded affordable housing, which will further discourage investors.
He announced a $22 billion subsidy for housing costs, with 25 percent going to the New York City Housing Authority. These increased costs will likely grow as fixed budgetary items for the city.
Although it is economically dubious, it is politically dynamite. Much of Mamdani’s support comes from young people who have no memory of or experience with the failures of socialist policies in the twentieth century. He simply promises things like free buses or city-run grocery stores as if they can be supported by free money without addressing their true costs.
His grocery stores show the same economic sleight of hand. The city is planning to spend $30 million to create the first store — four times what such stores normally cost. On top of that cost, it was discovered that the city had already appropriated $25 million for the improvement of the site. That is $55 million for a site that will not go on the market for the highest bidders, but rather be operated by the city at a loss.
In my book Rage and the Republic, I discuss this trend in Western countries toward socialist policies. It is what I refer to as the “economic factionalism” that has been used in prior years by figures ranging from Huey Long to Bernie Sanders.
With the highest rental rates in the country (with median rents at $3,616) and a shortage of units, there is widespread support for building new affordable housing. But government rent controls, mandatory wage increases and property seizures will inhibit such efforts.
Mamdani’s free buses, city-run stores and this new housing effort will achieve one overriding goal: introducing socialism in New York City, “block by block.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Mamdani is the new model Democrat: a communist and a jihadist. Communist atheism and jihadist religious intolerance might sound like a contradiction, but there you are. The left is chock full of contradictions now–communist/jihadist, globalist/leftist, queers for Palestine, women who claim to be men and vice versa, etc. etc. etc.
These internal contradictions are already leading to tensions. In China, Xi is going after capitalist oligarchs to prevent them from coopting the CCP, and blue states are passing exit taxes so that their Democrat donors can never change their minds. I don’t have to tell you what Palestinians have done for their local gay cohorts. If the revolution eats its own, Saturn has already baked the cake.
Mamdani hasn’t thought through the internal contradictions, but he doesn’t have to. His program of damaging NYC, and thus the nation, is practical, even if his international utopia for browns and blacks is full of crack.
And how did we come to this pass? The radicalization of young women. These radicals, in turn, create the Mamdanis and Khans of the world.
For the first time in history, a large percentage of women are not marrying or having babies. Without the tethering influence of husbands and children, many women become as susceptible to neuroticism as untethered men become to aggression.
It takes a lot of neuroticism to commit and possibly sacrifice one’s life to raising a child, but it was and is a necessary evolutionary trait. When that neuroticism isn’t grounded in a family, it frequently craters in antisocial outlets–just like male aggression. Untethered men become criminals; untethered women become leftwing activists (which, more and more, amounts to the same thing).
Combine this with all the other neurotic influences (globalism, education, media) and you get a $hit $how. The influences feed on each other.
This is how mouse utopia makes the zoonotic spillover to the human species. I don’t have a vaccine for it. Good luck with that. Trying to get a neurotic female to vote sensibly is probably like trying to reform a violent criminal. The recidivism rate is over 80%.
My two cents anyway.
Diogenes –
Communist atheism and jihadist religious intolerance might sound like a contradiction, but there you are.
I believe the commonality lies in the conflict each sees as beneficial to a subsequent end. Jihadism requires global war, especially the Twelver variety, which believes the Mahdi will emerge from worldwide conflict. Communism which failed economically has morphed into neo-Marxism with new lines being drawn for conflict (identity rather than class). The Hegelian dialectic continues, with the goal being the emergence of a stronger leftism after the right-wing grows stronger in reaction to the current state of affairs. Here is a three-minute video on this latter topic:
Yep, identity politics–which is a bizarre perversion of liberalism–has still vastly outperformed class warfare. Who knew??
Mamdani, being an identity warrior, doesn’t want to “reform” America. He believes even white liberals are irredeemably racist and wrecking America will free the black and brown people of the world. Socialism isn’t his reform; it’s his weapon. Nobody can be for Hamas and still be for traditional America in any sense, and he knows it.
wrecking America will free the black and brown people of the world
If that’s his belief, then he lives in opposite world. Black and brown people are clamoring to get into America because of what free markets and the US Constitution’s protections have done to free all people from poverty and discrimination. Compare black and brown people’s plight in the USA versus where many of them live third world countries, with grinding poverty, little fresh water, and deep governmental corruption.
I suspect Mamdani knows this and is cleverly using his constituents’ ignorance to gain power.
Yes, radical white women are among the major targets of his propaganda. Nobody else would be that naive, certainly not blacks and Middle Easterners.
They have a marriage of convenience, and it has an expiration date. In the meantime, destroying whitey is the unifying cause.
Interesting.
Are you old, Diogenes? What was your profession, vocation? I just wonder and should not. Forget I asked.
The idea is I can only be free if you don’t exist? I can have power if you didn’t exist?
Peace
A parallel to seizing property.
The range wars. Cattle barons hired a gunman Tom Horn, who was hanged using the Julian Gallows.
This is why teachers unions are opposed to teaching the history of socialism. If they did, students would understand why if fails every time. New York will find out the hard way – again. As voters, we must insist the federal government not bail them out this time. Let them bear the burden of their stupidity alone.
Jeff: “This is why teachers unions are opposed to teaching the history of socialism.”
Lately they aren’t teaching much history at all.
Young,
I think they call it revisionist history.
A.I. (string: The Future is Now)
It absolutely is. From everyday AI integration and augmented reality to hyper-connectivity, the line between science fiction and reality has completely blurred.
New York City Urban Jungle
NYC’s Augmented Reality:
The line between Governmental Fiction and Reality has completely blurred.
The line between Governmental Capitalism and Governmental Communism has completely blurred.
Mamdani is the trial balloon … if he can get away with confiscating some percentage of other peoples’ property, then he will be able to take anyone’s property, eventually. Liberal academia has dumbed down the U.S. under the ruse of “diversity” so much, that most of our young people can’t think far enough ahead to understand that sooner or later it will be their property that is seized.
Too true. It’s like the man said, “You can’t fix stupid.”
But what makes this even worse is when you get someone like professor Turley making the truly ignorant statement that, “There is no argument that the worst landlords warrant the loss of their properties.” The “worst landlords” are self-liquidating, if we will let the private markets operate freely.
-g
I wonder whether Mamdani’s goals to transfer private property to the public for the “public good” are impacted by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part: “(N)or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It limits the power of eminent domain, ensuring the government cannot force individuals to bear public burdens alone. He wants the property of “the worst landlords” (which he doesn’t define, probably because he wants ALL the properties of ALL the landlords) but he fails to realize these landlords will have to be compensated for these takings . . . only after the landlords have litigated the snot out of each and every attempted taking.
Nope, he is going to take the property of SMALL landlords – there is not a chance he touches larger landlords – they have the resources to fight back.
But ultimately he will have to pay market prices for anything he confiscates.
Next – whether that is “The Plan” or not ultimately the properties he confiscates will end up in the hands of wealthy and powerful businesses that have supported him.
Why ? First, no one gave him millions to get elected for nothing. I doubt there was any quid pro quo,
but still they fully expect a return on their investment.
But even if he Stiffs them – SOMEONE is getting a windfall.
Ultimately he MUST do something with the property he confiscates.
The worst landlord in existence is government. Public housing is the $hittiest housing there is.
In the 50’s and 60’s we tore down more private units than we built and replaced them with places like Cabrini green that are h311holes and crime ridden.
Another choice is as he claims to give these to non-profits and tenants groups.
To be clear I am ALL FOR getting rid of all public housing and giving it to the tenants for $1.
But I am absolutely opposed to confiscating more private housing.
With respect to non-profits – there is not a non-profit on earth that is run as efficiently as a for profit.
Why does that matter ? Because efficiency means lower cost. Transfer these properties to non-profits – rent will go up, maintanence will go down. Things will get worse. Probably not cosmically worse – but worse.
If he does not turn these properties over to big political contributors – they will still go to making Some Crony or other rich.
One of the other things that is not taught in school is how socialism Always devolves into power and profit for the connected.
The Castros are worth billions.
Where do people think Russian Oligarchs came from ? Most are former Soviet Apparatchiks.
Nor is this specifically a flaw of socialism – it is just the way BIG GOVERNMENT of all flavors works.
The bigger government is the more connected people profit from it.
That is true without regard for ideology.
Agree
Agree and his true effort is to spread Islam, JS.
Davy Crockett lost a Tennessee election and said “you may all go to hell, and I’m going to Texas”. Recently Jamie Diamond told Mamdani there are more J.P. Morgan Chase people in Texas than in New york City. I would submit that the real problem is too many people trying to live in the same place at once. Sheer density. Vertically. Those of us who value Adam Smith might see the problem as the law of diminishing returns. His invisible hand is already at work to reduce the density with exodus. Mamdani and kindred think they can stop the exodus with the warmth of the collective socialist hand. The one that has left its fingerprints of failure all over this country and its history. I think the answer belongs to Steve Martin: “NAH!”
Nothing more than Rats…
“There is no argument that the worst landlords warrant the loss of their properties. But transferring such properties to tenants or non-profit groups is a new and costly form of subsidy.”
So Turley agrees with Mayor Mamdani at least on principle.
But he’s wrong about the transferring of properties as something new. There are NYC laws that allow this and they have been on the books for a long time.
According to NYC Administrative Code § 11-401 et seq., the city defines a “distressed property” based on strict financial and physical violations, rather than political ideology:
“…any parcel of class one or class two real property that is subject to a tax lien… with a tax delinquency period of at least three years… [or] an average of five or more hazardous or immediately hazardous violations of the housing maintenance code per dwelling unit…”
Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) Title 28, § 8-04, the direct transfer of title is explicitly detailed;
detailed:%E2%80%9C…HPD%20may%20request%20the%20Commissioner%20of%20Finance%20to%20execute%20a%20deed%20to%20a%20Third%20Party%20selected%20by%20HPD…%20Such%20notice%20will%20advise%20tenants%20of%20the%20foreclosure%20action…%20and%20advise%20Tenants%20of%20an%20opportunity%20to%20apply%20for%20eventual%20ownership%20of%20such%20property%20under%20the%20sponsorship%20of%20a%20Third%20Party.
These statutes prove that the law requires a lengthy pattern of code violations, emergency conditions, or extensive tax delinquency. Property cannot be “seized” arbitrarily based on mayoral discretion or political definitions of “worst landlords.”
Mamdani, is referring to these kinds of landlords. And ironically Turley does agree they deserve to have their properties confiscated. It’s just the manner in which they are that he has an issue with.
This is what it’s supposed to say in regard to City of New York (RCNY) Title 28, § 8-04,
HPD may request the Commissioner of Finance to execute a deed to a Third Party selected by HPD… Such notice will advise tenants of the foreclosure action… and advise Tenants of an opportunity to apply for eventual ownership of such property under the sponsorship of a Third Party.“
As usual. You failed to talk about NY run homes the have a repair record that is in the tank. Who will take take that property away?
X – you seem to think that the laws you pass actually work – just because you pass them.
Lets ignore privately owned apartments for a second.
There are units all over this country owned by the government – these are some of the $hitiest housing in existance. Think Cabrini Green – which was supposed to be a model for affordable housing and was a h311hole for decades and fortunately has been torn down.
Regardless lets start there. Lets have ALL Government housing sold to the tenants for $1.
Milton Freidman and Jack Kemp proposed that decades ago.
It would actually SAVE the government money – the government LOSES enormous amounts of money on public housing.
You rant about greedy landlords – but our government can not even manage to break even providing crappy housing to people.
Regardless, lets start selling all public housing back to tenants and see how well that works.
Sounds like a great start to me.
Do you expect that to go well ? I don’t.
Why would you expect confiscating private property and selling it to tenants to go any better ?
Why should anyone listen to your stupid rants about laws that any rational person can grasp are going to go very badly ?
I have no idea if there is an afterlife – but you should pray there is not.
I have told you repeatedly that “Intent does not matter” – and you keep ignoring that.
Are you a good person because you protest for whatever causes you think are good ?
Or are you a good person because you actually DO things that make the world better ?
Ar you a good person if with the best of intentions you support policies and laws that ultimately ruin the lives of those you try to help ?
Or are you a good person if in the course of making yourself better off, you also make many others better off ?
Good morning Mr. Crement!
Recently you cited Murray Rothbard to the effect that all government is theft.
Clearly you learned nothing from your reading of Rothbard.
Turley is incorrect that the city should confiscate the property of “the worst landlords”
In the real world “the worst landlord” serve “the worst tenants” – they are made for each other – both in the ultimate justice sense and in the sense that this is really how things work best.
About a decade ago in NYC a jewish “slum lord” was murdered on the streets. It was big news for a while. He owned lots of $hitty buildings charged $50/month – his tenants were mostly otherwise homeless and drug addicts. These were horrible places to stay.
The city shut them down, and thousands of people ended up on the streets.
And some of them died. Regardless thousands of people – instead of having a bad place to live had no place to live.
Those of you on the left do not seem to grasp that Everyone is not willing to pay what it actually costs to provide what you idiotically claim is a right.
Many drug addicts and homeless will not or can not pay the price of an apartment that you would find acceptable. But they can and do pay for places that you would never consider living.
Most of the homeless are not chronically homeless – it is temporary – they manage to get past their problems and get back into decent jobs and living conditions. That happens faster when they have choices besides shelters, the street, living in their cars, or apartments that they can not afford.
You and Mamdani are not onlyu screwing landlords – you are screwing people who can not afford what YOU arbitrarily define is the minium that the law allows.
But all homelessness is not temporary
Whether through drug addiction, mental health issues, both or other factors – there are many people who are going to live at the edges. If you actually read REAL stories about these people – by those who care for them or otherwise get deeply into this world – many of them WILL NOT comply with efforts to help them. They will not use shelters, it is near impossible to get them to accept medical care – even for free.
Most of the “problems” that people left and right want to FORCE top down solutions onto – are not simple and can not be solved Top down. Sometimes they can not be solved at all.
Do you want people at the edges living on the street ?
If you do not, then you are going to have to accept that your one size fits all nonsense DOES NOT WORK.
The jewish slumlord in NYC – that Mamdani would right now be putting through the ringer – and likely jail – who clearly violated all kinds of laws – still did something that Mamdani and YOU are not doing.
He provided shelter that thousands of people were willing to pay for.
These are people who CHOSE not to pay for apartments, and CHOSE not to use City or charity shelters.
The also CHOSE to pay a jewish slumlord $50 for a crappy place to stay rather than any of the other choices they turned down.
All you are doing as you spray this nonsense is highlighting the FACT that your top down approach FAILS.
You cite laws – and rant that those laws are not being obeyed.
Landlords would not provide housing that violates the law – if there was not a demand for it.
If the people the slumlord I cited would pay more – the slumlord would provide better housing.
Since you are into Anacho-Capitalists suddenly – he is Economist Walter Block and
“Defending the Undefendable”
https://cdn.mises.org/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018.pdf
All you laws and regulations and other nonsense do is make it so that people on the edges have LESS CHOICE.
Minimum Wage laws – mean less jobs. Rent Control mean fewer apartments.
Housing regulations mean – LESS HOUSING.
Further LESS HOUSING – means HIGHER RENT – it is called the law of supply and demand – and it is immutable.
While not a “slumlord” I do rent “affordable housing” – when taxes go up – rents go up.
When the city passes regulations that increase my costs – rents go up.
Landlords do not make money renting property. They make money investing in real estate.
My 401K has doubled in value. Over the same period of time the value of my apartments has increased by a factor of 3 AND the mortgages are nearly paid off. But until I sell them – I have not made a dime.
I also perform improvements and renovations – when those are possible – because that increases the value of my property. How does it increase the value of my property – because improving the property means higher rents.
As Turley noted – if you cap rents – Rent Control, the supply declines, and the quality of that supply declines.
So go ahead – Rant all you want – make stupid and self destructive laws.
“There is no argument that the worst landlords warrant the loss of their properties”
Turley left a bit of ambiguity. When the state takes private property, we lose our freedom. Turley should have been more explicit about this because rules can be twisted so that suddenly the taking of property is “legalized” in the bureaucratic sense. I remember when NYC did this before, and it led to a housing crisis and increased costs for all citizens, rich and poor. It led to builders ceasing to build needed rental units in NYC, and owners of privately held apartment buildings refurbishing and converting rental units into unaffordable condominiums and co-ops.
These actions by Mandami are going to lead again to reduced housing and revenues for the city. Remembering the 1970’s in the past and NYC forgetting and not learning, I think a lot of potential private investment in the city will be reduced in the future.
Turley is incorrect – the worst landlords DO NOT warrant losing their property.
They do not warrant fines.
They do not warrant harassment by the city.
If the people living in those apartments do not wish to do so – they are “free to choose” to live elsewhere.
You do not have a right to someone else’s property.
You pay rent for the priviledge of staying there.
If you are unhappy – leave.
If McDonald’s fed you dog $hit – you would go elsewhere.
This is not different.
The correct punishment for the worst landlord is the worst tenants – and that is pretty much how it tends to work out.
If you are actually a good tenant with a $hitty landlord – you will have no problem going elsewhere.
Contra the left – to the extent that any landlord makes money off of rents – that would be landlords renting to demanding rich people.
Look on Reality TV HGTV has lots of shows telling you how to buy a place in a high demand vacation community – fix it up and rent it profitably for the summer – and then have your own personal vacation home for the off season.
This works. My mother did quite well buying homes on the Atlantic City Island.
Nor should this surprise anyone – you get to be demanding when you are paying a premium.
IK do property condition assessments on Residential rental properties all the time.
I have seen Really bad places and really great places. I did the JW Marriot on Central Park in NYC several years ago.
I have been in places where management has sensors throughout the apartment and maintenance is there to fix problems before the tenant knows about them – and the rents are sky high.
I would bet you are well taken care of in a Trump Condo.
I have also seen really bad places – and guess what ? The rent is low.
You get what you pay for.
Some people can not afford much.
If Mamdani takes that away from them – they will be on the streets.
Is that the improvement those on the left want ?
More Homeless ?
John, I stand by my earlier comment and think Turley was ambiguous. Some of the “worst landlords” can cause negligent death and injury. Turley didn’t specify how the landlord would lose the property (There is no argument that the worst landlords warrant the loss of their properties.” ), but he did say Mandami’s way was wrong. What he meant by this is unknown to me. One certainly cannot simply take the property away. Otherwise you and I are in perfect agreement, as can be seen in my other statements.
On another note, the city has been proven not to be an able landlord for most properties.
Housing in NYC has been a major problem since the 70’s
While Mamdani is certainly making it worse. It has not been good for a long time.
It depends on what good means. More people want to live in the City than there are units available. When I last walked along the High Line to Hudson Yards, the least expensive new apartments were going for $1-2 million for a 1-bedroom apartment. One cannot say that is bad.
NYC always had problems, but the ones who know how to make money learn to deal with them.
We act as if this were new, this business of landlords and tenants. Yet we have records going back centuries of similar behavior. For a brief peek, review this very nicely put together article. https://commonedge.org/high-density-living-2000-years-ago-inside-the-roman-apartment-building/
My point? Mankind has been scratching for a better solution for quite a long time. If I were king for a day I’d wave my magic wand (mixing my metaphors horribly) and eliminate rent control so that assets may be priced appropriately.
Would those on the edge hate it? Yes! But would we get more housing units built if a proper return were not limited by government fiat? Yes, also. Question is; which would we rather? Wring our hands in despair about landlords and the decrepit buildings, or see the hustle and bustle of renewal?
—
John
JB – those living on the edge would NOT hate it.
They are the ones most screwed.
The discussion right now – is not about quality housing for people who can afford it.
Any shortage in that is totally artifical and the consequence of stupid govenrment laws.
Apartment rentals is actually real estate investing – tenants and rents are just the means to cover the costs of maintaining the property and paying the mortgage.
BUT to the extent any rentals are profitable – that is ALWAYS at the high end – not the bottom.
Wealthy tenants are incredibly demanding – and they pay handsomely for it.
It is not an accident that the Trump’s move out of “affordable housing” in the early days and into commercial and high end residential – because that is where the profits are.
Contra Mamdani, the wing nuts here, and even Turley the people who Benefit from the worst housing,
are the people who can only afford the worst housing. There best chance to improve that – is if idiots like you stop trying to “help” them.
There is absolutely nothing that Mamdani, The left or anyone can do that will change that calculus.
John – Renewal and rehabilitation is fine – and I would bet most landlords in NYC would love to get market rate rents and be happy to make their properties much better.
But improving the overall quality of apartments also means higher rents (or fewer units).
It means most of the people living in these places would not be able to afford them.
In a free market the laws of supply and demand result in the market providing for everyone something close to the best they are willing to afford.
That means really crappy places for people who can not or will not pay more,
and fantastic places for those demanding people who want incredible apartments and solid gold service and will pay for it.
There were ~50,000 unrented (empty) apartments in NYC a year ago: perhaps more today. One has to know the answer. You do, but the leftists don’t.
NYC residents, I am given to understand that the neighborhood formally known as Bay Ridge, is being referred to as Beirut. Hence, you’ve earned the right to augment your address by adding ‘Mamdanistan’ following the zipcode. When the 12th Imam finally arrives after the apocalypse as it has been foretold, allwill be in readiness to welcome him. Yes him! There’s no issue of gender in this eschatology.
We’ve just past the 50 year anniversary of President Ford telling NYC the federal government would not bail them out. People still remember the infamous Daily News headline: “Ford to NYC: Drop Dead”.
Hopefully that will be Trump or the next President’s response when NYC runs out of money.
NYers voted for Mamdani. They must live with the consequences of that decision.
And by all means, do not fall for the media’s emotional blackmail routine that people will suffer if NYC is not bailed out. And don’t fall for the lies of GeorgeX and Natacha, who with 100% certainty will try to pin the fault on Trump, Republicans, or anybody except where it rightfully belongs: Democrats and the Mamdani government.
Cool NY can keep the money that gets sent to red poor states. problem solved
With 5 government run grocery stores serving 8.5 million New Yorkers (that’s 1.7 million New Yorkers per store), what could possibly go wrong?
Not all 8.5 million New Yorkers have no grocery stores within 5 miles. There are only a few places where that is the case. It is also a good idea to run a small pilot project to work out how to handle unexpected cases.
To Mamdani and other socialists like him, this seems like a grand idea.
The question is, does Mamdani really believe it or is it just political posturing?
Stand back, wait and see.
Mamdani’s West coast socialist in Seattle Katie Wilson is finding out in real time her socialist ideas is producing a great sucking sound as businesses, people and taxes leave her city and in some cases, the state.
In a last-ditch move to salvage his “US Freedom 250” concert, Donald J. Trump announced on Monday that the only remaining musical act will be Secretary of State Marco Rubio playing a kazoo.
“Quite frankly, we don’t need no-talent losers like the Commodores,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “We have Little Marco playing his Little Kazoo!”
According to sources, Rubio is taking his new assignment extremely seriously, spending hours practicing the kazoo in the Situation Room.
In an official statement, Rubio declared, “I am honored to blow anything President Trump asks me to.”
New York receives twices as much federal aid per person as Florida? Why?
END THAT!
Also a 1% tax on the gross of all wall street trades or moving money offshore.
Take away centralized power of wall street from buying DC!
The benefit…more investing…less useless TRADING!
Trading is investing.
These are the people managing your 401K
Modami is a Robert Mugabe wannabe. Stealing the apartments is like stealing the land was. Zimbabwe crashed and could no longer feed itself. Turning over the apartments to members of the polit bureau will be a double whammy. First., it will remove the property from the property tax rolls and then the tax payers will have to pony up to maintain the property because the rents will be too low to self sustain itself. Like “W” said – “you are doing a heck of a job brownie”.
The Bolsheviks had to go to war to take the property. Just as Lincoln had to go to war to take back the states from the Confederate government – states that chose to secede because the US government was in breech of the Constitution their ancestors had ratified.
Mamdani can not go to war to take the property. There will be some sort of sham legal process to transfer the deeds. Heck, they may even make the deal sweet enough – effectively bribe – that some of the current owners will voluntarily transfer the deeds.
But that just means the city will be stuck with a bunch of dilapidated property that they overpaid for. That’s just the first step in a series of uneconomic transactions to follow, leaving the broader NYC society poorer than they otherwise would have been.
This is just the middle step of the land grab by foreign entities disguised for now as helping the poor.
President Trump, Speaker Johnson, Majority leader Thune, GOP
I have a solution
End Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
Outlaw Public Unions
The Democrats will destroy themselves in 6 months!
welcome to national socialists German 1930’s
Heck they were better…they loved their country
Democrats HATE America….love illegals invaders and criminals
Democrats are SET ON DESTROYING western society
and every single person voting democrats is 100% AT FAULT!!! Voting Democrat at this point is TREASON!
ok boomer someone needs a nap
Interesting breakdown from Hon. Vickie Paladino on X. The real reasons why Zohran the Terrible is trying this.
I generally disapprove of lawyers that sue for ridiculous reasons, however this will count as an exception. Take him to court on each building, multiple times if necessary and let the lawfare run out the clock on his term as mayor. Hopefully the courts will act appropriately with blind justice. In the end it will be the same as what the Democrats are trying with Trumps policies, tie him up until they win the next election.