The Bigger Apple: Affordable Housing Math

With the mayoral election in November, we’ll be taking a closer look at the issues and policies affected by who and what will be on the ballots. This week:

Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor with 56.2% of the final vote, and 53% of all votes cast, according to the latest tally, helped by a ranked-choice alliance with City Comptroller Brad Lander. Lander and Mamdani cross-endorsed, and enough of Lander’s voters ranked Mamdani ahead of Andrew Cuomo, sealing his win.

The general election now includes five candidates: Mamdani, Adams, Cuomo, Republican Curtis Sliwa, and attorney Jim Walden. But, instead of consolidating around a single candidate, the Democratic establishment remains split. Cuomo’s donor network continues to raise money through the Fix the City super PAC. Adams is staying in, pledging to register a million new voters.

Meanwhile, Mamdani is consolidating institutional support on the left. He’s picked up endorsements from more than a dozen unions, including UFT this week, 32BJ SEIU, NYSNA, HTC, and the NYC Central Labor Council. But mainstream Democrats have been slow to endorse him.

Still, Mamdani faces real limits. A recent Slingshot Strategies poll puts him at 35%, with Cuomo at 25%, Sliwa at 14%, Adams at 11%, and Walden at 1%. His net favorability is +4, much higher than Adams’ -34, but not overwhelming. Cuomo’s net favorability is -2. 

President Trump, reacting to Mamdani’s rise, said the federal government may need to “step in” if Mamdani wins. That warning, reported by Newsday and the New York Post, has only sharpened national attention on a race that remains open despite Mamdani’s early lead.

The 2025 NYC Charter Revision Commission, established by Mayor Adams, is considering replacing the closed, party-only primaries with an open, ranked-choice primary—in which all voters and all candidates would participate, with party identification on the ballot, and the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, would advance to the general election.

In favor: Supporters argue the reform would enfranchise over one million unaffiliated voters, many of them minorities, who are currently excluded from primaries. To build a truly representative democracy, the next step is opening primaries to all voters, not just party insiders. (See Grace Rauh of Citizens Union).

Against: Opponents warn it could weaken party structures, favor well-funded candidates, and dilute the political voice of marginalized communities. The Working Families Party says the current open primary proposal would violate New York’s fusion voting system by preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot under multiple party lines.

MI’s research: Polling by the Manhattan Institute shows broad support for electoral reform among city voters. MI’s John Ketcham has long argued that primary reform—paired with even-year elections aligning city and state elections (rather than presidential, which the commission is proposing)—would increase participation and give more New Yorkers a meaningful say in local governance. 

MI’s Jack Santucci argued this week that New York City’s proposed top-two election system could work, but only if political parties control who gets to use their label on the ballot. Without that, he writes, voters may face confusing, crowded races with meaningless party affiliations. (Read the full analysis)

The Commission’s interim report proposes five potential ballot measures—four focused on expediting housing development and one to move city elections to presidential years. The sixth measure, on open primaries, remains under consideration, and the Commission is particularly interested in hearing additional testimony. A final vote on ballot language is scheduled for July 21. 

Zohran Mamdani’s call for “fast, free buses” taps into real frustrations about affordability and slow service, but fully eliminating fares would create a funding gap of up to $1.4 billion, jeopardizing the very service improvements he promises, Eric Goldwyn writes for Vital City. A more practical path is to expand Fair Fares for low-income riders and make buses faster through proven changes: dedicated lanes, all-door boarding, signal priority, and stop consolidation.

As mayor, Mamdani could also use city authority over streets and land use to improve transit: accelerating long-delayed bus lane projects, coordinating more efficiently with the MTA to cut capital costs, and rezoning along new lines like the Interborough Express to boost both housing and ridership. These structural reforms may lack the punch of “free,” but they would deliver real gains in speed, access, and equity, he argues.

MI’s Nicole Gelinas agrees. “More frequent and reliable service, coupled with well-targeted affordability subsidies, is far superior to free buses for all. The MTA and the city could do a much better job of encouraging fast boarding. The MTA could install weather-resistant Square-style tap readers at bus stops so that people could quickly tap in as they see the bus approaching. Multiple tap readers on the bus would allow people to tap as they reach their seat or reach the standing area at the back of the bus,” she emailed.

“With better on-board fare enforcement, too, riders could use their phones to activate a pre-paid ticket or monthly-pass ride as they board. No large global transit system features free buses — and Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu, whom Mamdani admires, has never extended her own city-paid pilot beyond its original three lines.”

New York City’s affordable housing crisis is not just about a lack of new construction or political will—but about basic math, Howard Slatkin and Sarah Watson of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council argue in City Limits. Whether housing is public, nonprofit, or rent-regulated private, many buildings bring in less revenue than it costs to maintain them. This leads to deteriorating conditions, unhealthy environments, and demoralized tenants. The authors refer to this as “antisocial housing”—a term meant to highlight the systemic failure to fund housing operations at sustainable levels.

They urge policymakers and advocates to shift focus from ideology to financial viability. Solutions include mixing incomes within buildings to create cross-subsidies, increasing operating subsidies, or raising rents with matching tenant support. No amount of new construction will be enough without closing the funding gap between what it costs to maintain housing and what it brings in. 

“[T]he authors are right to criticize the familiar non-solutions: nonprofit ownership of rental housing, public ownership, and ‘rent freezes.’” MI’s Eric Kober writes. “But they sidestep two key questions: How did the city get into this mess? And who will share the financial burden of getting out of it?”

New York City’s ambitious rent-regulation law, the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) of 2019, has inadvertently triggered a collapse in investment in rent-stabilized housing by severely limiting landlords’ ability to raise rents via vacancy allowances, luxury deregulation, or pass-through improvements, Kober writes. As a result, many owners—especially in lower-income neighborhoods—no longer see a financial incentive to maintain or upgrade their properties. With federal aid shrinking and rent increases capped below inflation, the city’s affordable housing stock is increasingly falling into disrepair.

To remedy this, he urges policymakers to rethink the HSTPA’s most restrictive provisions and empower New York’s rent-setting bodies—especially the Rent Guidelines Board—to allow rent increases that align with economic realities. Owners should regain limited flexibility to raise rents upon vacancy and recoup renovation costs. At the same time, continued use of government subsidies and tax tools like 421‑a should supplement, not substitute for, a sustainable rent framework.

Ultimately, without easing the financial strain on landlords, the city risks letting its rent-stabilized housing deteriorate further, and the state legislature will eventually need to revisit the law.

Impact of the 485x Tax Break: 

EMP Capital’s 259-unit building at 1042 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn is one of the last large-scale rentals made possible under the expired 421a tax break. Councilmember Crystal Hudson initially tried to block the rezoning but ultimately negotiated a deal with 35% affordability and a supermarket.

That level seems to no longer be viable under 485x, the replacement for 421a, which took effect in June 2022 and mandates permanently affordable units and union-level wages. So far, only two projects have been approved under 485x citywide, with developers staying under the 99-unit threshold to avoid prevailing wage requirements, Eric Enquist writes in The Real Deal. 

What Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful’ Bill Means for NYC: Momentous decisions loom for state and city officials, who will either have to reduce services or find a way to absorb huge cuts in federal aid, Greg David writes in The City.

The microhubs for Amazon and UPS deliveries seem to be working: they are easing congestion and improving delivery efficiency on a small scale, but with just three sites and persistent enforcement and scaling challenges, the program is still in its early, limited phase.

Congestion pricing, in effect since January 2025, is showing strong results: traffic delays are down 25% in Manhattan and up to 14% in surrounding areas, according to the Regional Plan Association’s analysis of Waze data. Governor Hochul is touting it as a regional success. However, toll evasion remains an issue, with “ghost vehicle” rates unchanged from 2023 despite enforcement efforts.

Public Safety: Mayor Adams faces backlash after four ex-NYPD chiefs filed lawsuits alleging unconstitutional policing, cronyism, and retaliation within the department. He also walked back a proposal to jail repeat offenders of a citywide mask ban after pushback from Police Commissioner Tisch. Meanwhile, the Rikers jail population has topped 7,000, but plans to add beds were blocked, leaving officials scrambling for solutions.

Modest academic gains: The screener data (not state test scores) showed slight citywide improvements: 41.6% of students scored above the national median in reading (up 2.5 points) and 38.4% in math (up 3.2 points).