The mayor’s race has yet to be determined, but the property is on the verge of winning.
Despite the recent successes of leftist candidate Maya Vili, the latest poll shows the industry will have a mayor to work with: Eric Adams or Catherine Garcia.
Just two years ago, this seemed unlikely. Anti-real estate forces have intensified, as have housing values. Increasingly, political candidates blamed the industry for gentrification and the burden of rents and turned away its money. The state legislature and Gov. Andrew Cuomo have opposed homeowners with a new rent law.
Mayor Bill de Blasio – a former pro-growth politician who supported the Atlantic Yards megaproject in the 2000s – followed suit. City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, too, opposed the Amazon headquarters project and stopped accepting donations from industry. The real estate lobby became so toxic that it had to form coalitions to get lawmakers to listen.
But ahead of the Democratic primary on June 22, Adams wants to lose and Garcia wants to win.
Any candidate is eligible for real estate. Adams, a centrist running a business, was called a “homeowner with in favor of the lessor”And benefits from industry campaign contributions.
Garcia, also moderate, argues that the city needs to build, not regulate, a path to accessibility. Her first words housing policy are: “Over the past decade, we have added 500,000 New Yorkers, but only 100,000 new housing units.” And she is the opposite of de Blasio – a manager, not an ideologist.
The only real estate problem is Wylie, who profited from the collapse of rivals Andrew Young, Scott Stringer and Dianne Morales. But she five to eleven points behind Adams and even about Garcia. Her hope that a new ranked-choice voting system can rid her of both is far-fetched, as it is based on ranked-choice election results elsewhere, where the lead candidate won almost every time.
Another point: in the last days of the race, Wylie’s commercials will not be broadcast as often as her rivals, because she did not have enough money. “If you haven’t been at full speed in the last two weeks… then you’ll drown,” said an operative of one running man. “People are unlikely to see your ad when compared to other candidates.”
Her survey results make late fundraising possible, but airtime, like airline tickets, is much more expensive if booked at the last minute.
All this points to a favorable result for real estate after several difficult years.
What explains its apparent political resurgence? Basically it is: Development is less unpopular with New Yorkers than its haters think. And the extreme left still constitutes only about one-third of the democratic electorate.
The rise of ultra-progressive people has been exaggerated. The Amazon campus was killed by a minority, albeit a loud one, led by Republican MP Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to an internal poll, her support only makes a real difference in six or seven of the city’s 51 districts. Wiley needs a lot more than the AOC crowd in the high-turnout citywide elections that attract moderates to polls, so real estate interests have funded efforts to get the vote.
“A lot of people touting this great left-wing revolution have forgotten that in the primary mayor of the Democratic Party, two-thirds of the electorate consider themselves moderate or conservative,” the agent said.
These voters support development and something else important for real estate: the police. Key to the rise in polls for former police officer Eric Adams has been the rise in crime and alleged disorder.
Nonetheless, housing remains a major issue – and a key differentiator among candidates.
Wiley’s housing platform is built on fantastic, unrealistic promises that pander to anti-capitalists. She “guarantees” that no New Yorker will pay more than 30 percent of their income in the Wiley administration – something 44 percent landlords are currently doing so. A quarter spend more than half of their income on rent.
What magic wand can Wiley wave to get rid of the burden of rent from nearly 1 million tenants? $ 1 billion cut in the Police Department budget as Wiley would, will only bring in about $ 80 for a rent-laden family per month.
In fact, she has no plans to spend NYPD money helping tenants. Rather her Web site depicts a future in which government funding seems to be pouring down from heaven. She used this fun money to “dramatically expand and maintain the city’s affordable housing supply, building 100% permanently affordable housing on public land.”
The existing supply of such housing in the city requires repair of 42 billion dollars. Wiley will spend $ 2 billion a year on this, but Housing Authority residents will not appreciate her building new homes while their own falls apart.
“We must do everything in our power,” says former attorney de Blasio, “to give shelter to every New Yorker. Well, not all. She opposes the construction of private housing for people of different incomes on state land, which will cost the city nothing.
Its adoption of the slogan “Keep Public Housing in the Public Sector” directs frightening opponents to NYCHA’s rare success story: the RAD program, in which private firms renovate and maintain Housing Authority housing estates without raising rents.
In another unfulfillable promise, Wylie vows to enforce a “strict moratorium on evictions” until the “economic crisis” is over, that is, indefinitely. This would be a problem for the landlords – if the city really had that kind of power.
Wiley is opposed to “rent cancellation” and the cancellation of the stabilized rent. It also calls for increased ownership and wealth accumulation, but with “protection from further gentrification.” These policies contradict each other: gentrification has brought unexpected benefits for colored homeowners in areas like Harlem and Fort Green. Limiting price increases with community land trusts (which Wiley supports) also limits wealth creation.
But the industry leaders’ biggest fear of Wylie is that she demonizes them. This is not a risk for Adams and Garcia.
“New York may be a group of communities, but it is also one city and we must all be involved in this rebuilding together,” Adams says on his campaign website. “Let’s start acting like this.”
However, the Brooklyn borough president raises other concerns, namely that he would hire mediocre (or worse) aides and not make a name for himself when the city council stifles development, as it did in Industry City without opposition from Adams.
Another red flag is that it perpetuates questionable statement that the addition of housing in low-income areas “has led to the displacement of people with higher incomes, making communities less accessible and often crowding out long-term residents.”
But developers would prefer to build in high-income areas anyway, and Adams is crazy about it. This is one of the reasons he was the top choice in real estate at the start of the race. He swears “Aggressive” housing construction, stating: “Housing, including affordable housing, can and should be placed wherever it is, provided that it benefits those who need it.”