If Trump had his way, he most certainly would be, as it is no secret that Trump is no fan of Mamdani!
As we enter September 2025, New York City finds itself at another moment of high drama and potentially deep consequences—especially at the intersection of politics and real estate (nothing new for our city). Swirling speculation suggests that Mayor Eric Adams might withdraw from the 2025 mayoral race. Reports from various news sources indicate that White House insiders may have floated positions to Adams in order to clear the field for a one-on-one showdown between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani.
Some sources say Trump and his advisers set a tight deadline—ten days—for long-shot candidates like Adams and Curtis Sliwa to bow out, aiming to defeat Mamdani, the reigning Democratic primary winner. Across the private sector, real estate leaders are rallying behind Adams or Cuomo, concerned that Mamdani’s platform would destabilize investment and property values.
Mamdani is riding a wave of support grounded in affordability and, primarily, housing—a hot-button issue for many New Yorkers. His agenda includes rent freezes on stabilized units. His campaign’s resonance reflects New Yorkers’ frustration with soaring rents and persistently tight vacancy rates. To many in the real estate industry, though, such proposals raise alarms. Critics argue that public housing expansion and rent control could undermine landlord viability, dissuade new development, and echo the fiscal crisis of 1970s NYC. Cuomo is taking a more centrist path on housing, while Adams continues the “City of Yes” pro-development posture, which appeals to investors and developers.
While the Mayor of New York City cannot control everything citywide, if you work in real estate, as I do, you learn quickly that mayors are de facto chief operating officers of the housing market. They can’t control interest rates or Wall Street, but they do control the levers that decide whether properties actually get built, whether downtowns feel alive at 10 p.m., and whether a block feels clean, safe, and worth investing in.
Great lessons can be learned in tackling housing-related issues from the mayors of our large sister cities across the U.S.:
Los Angeles has taken a “cut red tape, build housing” mantra and made it operational. Mayor Karen Bass accelerated approvals for 100% affordable housing citywide, slashing permit wait times and pushing more than 25,000 units through the pipeline—a change now credited with helping homelessness fall for a second straight year, with unsheltered homelessness in the City of L.A. down 7.9% in 2025. The adaptive-reuse rule the city adopted in 2024 is also fueling conversions, with thousands of apartments in the works from former offices.
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston hit his “House1000” goal in 2023 and scaled it into All In Mile High, which cut large homeless encampments by 98% while moving thousands indoors. At the same time, Denver is lining up funding mechanisms for office-to-residential conversions downtown, which are not only satisfying heavy demand but also increasing investor confidence.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu launched (and then expanded) a Downtown Office-to-Residential Conversion program with additional incentives in 2024. By early 2025, the metro had roughly 3,000 units (a lot for Boston) in the conversion pipeline, supported by generous city backing and deadlines that force momentum.
Mayor Lurie of San Francisco—probably the most similar to NYC in terms of housing challenges—has streamlined approvals to speed up housing. The policy pivot is already unlocking projects and, crucially, cutting time out of the development gridlock, which is hugely important in a high-cost market where months equal millions! He also launched PermitSF in early 2025, which aims to simplify the city’s notoriously complex permitting process.
While much has been achieved in all of these cities (and in New York), the common theme among their programs is increased inventory (as opposed to rent freezes). Critics of rent-freezes say that they are likely to result in higher costs in the fair-market rental world and decreased servicing of older, stabilized buildings. Costs don’t disappear; they simply shift to another party. We saw what happened when buyer broker commissions were shifted to landlords (a 15% increase in rental prices across the board the first week!).
Economic and political opinions aside, we reside in a city where politics, power, and property are inseparable, and this election may well shape New York’s skyline—among other things—for many years to come.