By Aliza Feldman, Opinions Editor
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani secured a victory in New York City earlier this month after campaigning on promises of free buses, public grocery stores and frozen rent for his constituents. Now he faces the challenge of implementing his proposals, while economists remain divided on whether the policies are even feasible.
According to his campaign website, Mamdani believes that “the cost of living is crushing working people” and that the “government can lower costs and make life easier” in the city. His platform promises to “use every tool available to bring down the rent, create world class public transit, and make it easier to raise a family.”
Mamdani proposes a 2% income tax increase on residents earning more than $1 million a year to fund his policy proposals. He also suggests raising corporate taxes to fund his agenda, aiming to generate significant new revenue.
Many policy experts are skeptical about Mamdani’s economic vision. Judge Glock, director of research and a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, told the YU Observer that Mamdani’s proposals aren’t just fiscally unfeasible, but they would have serious consequences for small business owners and landlords, as well as impacting the daily lives of ordinary New Yorkers.
“A rent freeze would be devastating,” Glock said, referring to Mamdani’s promise to freeze the rent to crack down on what he says are corrupt landlords. “We’re already approaching a level where many landlords can’t operate. Buildings aren’t being maintained and are being withdrawn from the rental market.”
Glock added that landlords will view a rent freeze “as the city intending to extract every last dollar from their pockets,” which will “discourage future development in New York City.”
Glock also questions Mamdani’s rationale on public grocery stores. “Mamdani cannot point to price gouging in grocery stores,” he said, adding that private grocers are already struggling with slim profit margins. He cited a Kansas City publicly-run store that closed recently after struggling with high crime and empty shelves as proof that the model is flawed.
Glock makes a similar argument about free buses, saying that Mamdani is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. “The bus charge is not the reason people don’t take buses,” he said. Instead, Glock warns that eliminating fares could create new problems for commuters. “The research on free buses shows that without a requirement to pay, you have people with mental disorders using the system,” he said, adding that this would make buses unwelcoming for everyday riders.
Other economists view Mamdani’s efforts through an entirely different lens.
Clara Mattei, Professor of Economics at the University of Tulsa and President of FREE: Forum for Real Economic Emancipation, argues that the real problem isn’t Mamdani’s proposals — it’s how economists evaluate them.
“I think it’s a plan that is really courageous in trying to set the priorities straight, no longer surrendering to the logic of profit as the one organizing principle of society,” Mattei told the YU Observer. Instead, she argues, the city should prioritize human need over investor returns.
Mattei noted the discrepancy between New York being “the city with the biggest number of millionaires in the world” and the extremely high number of children who experienced homelessness last year. “This is completely unsustainable from a humane point of view,” she said.
Mattei acknowledges that Mamdani’s proposals would upset the status quo, but argues that it won’t be catastrophic. “Yes, they will piss off private investors. Will this be the end of the world? No,” she said. Mattei hopes that Mamdani’s political efforts will “pressure the economic forces into a direction that is more humane.”
Nikolaos Chatzarakis, Assistant Professor of Economics at The New School for Social Research, argues that Mamdani’s policies are feasible — but only if executed carefully.
“The New York Times has confirmed that Mamdani has done the math correctly,” he told the YU Observer, referencing The Times’ reporting on the campaign’s budget estimates. The entire platform would cost “at most about 22% of the current city budget — it might sound nuts, but it’s not unfeasible from a fiscal perspective.”
But Chatzarakis believes that within Mamdani’s proposals, “there are technicalities that need to be worked out.” He sees significant implementation challenges, particularly around free transit. “If you allow free fares on buses but don’t enhance the quality and quantity of buses, it will lead to a free rider effect — around a 30% increase,” Chatzarakis said, referring to the expected surge in ridership when fares are eliminated. Without adding more buses to handle the additional passengers, “this will be a heavy burden for the MTA,” he added.
Still, he points to cities in the U.S. where free transit has worked: Kansas City, Chapel Hill, Alexandria, Virginia and Corvallis, Oregon have all implemented fare-free systems. “In all cities, the quality of services and efficiency increased,” Chatzarakis noted, though costs vary by implementation.
Chatzarakis noted that like free transit, Mamdani’s public grocery store proposal can’t be implemented by the mayor alone. “It has to be dealt with by the state legislature.”
The debate among economists reveals a broader question about the role of cities and their responsibility toward residents. Are they economic engines that must prioritize investors and fiscal stability? Or are they communities with an obligation to house, transport and feed their residents — even at the cost of disrupting the current market system. That tension has moved from academic debate to the ballot box. Electing Mamdani, New York City voters have placed their bet.
Photo Credit: Aliza Feldman