New York

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      For Muslims, Mamdani’s rise signifies a new way of looking at who represents America

      by

      Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City’s Democratic primary for mayor has a group of Pakistani American aunties and uncles so excited that they are wondering if they should have given their own children more freedom in choosing their careers. “What if we let our kids become politicians, and not just doctors and engineers?” a member of the grassroots political organizing group, DRUM Beats, asked at a small celebration held at an Islamic school last month in south Brooklyn.DRUM Beats, which represents New York City’s working class South Asian and Indo-Caribbean populations, was one of the first grassroots groups to endorse Mamdani, when he launched his campaign in October – long before he became a household name. More than 300 volunteers, who spoke near a dozen languages, knocked on at least 10,000 doors to support him. DRUM Beats says these efforts helped increase voter turnout by almost 90% among Indo Caribbean and South Asians in some neighborhoods.The unabashed 33-year-old assemblyman ranked near the bottom of the pack when he began campaigning. Now, Mamdani has a chance to be New York City’s first Asian American and Muslim mayor. His family came to the United States when he was seven, and he became a citizen in 2018. He was born to Indian parents in Kampala, Uganda.View image in fullscreenMamdani’s campaign has piqued the interest of many South Asian Americans, as well as a diverse population of Muslims – not only because of his identity, but his platform, too. Many Muslims, even those who may not fully agree with Mamdani’s approach on every issue, see his rise as a sign of hope in a city where racism and Islamophobia erupted following the September 11 terrorist attacks.“We are stepping into leadership roles that challenge long-standing assumptions about who can represent the city of New York and Americans more broadly,” says Youssef Chouhoud, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University and expert on Muslim Americans.A leader for Muslims across the USSince winning the Democratic primary, Mamdani has faced Islamophobic smears online, and from both sides of the political aisle. Republican Congressman Andy Ogles demanded the use of material support for terrorism charges against Mamdani, without providing evidence, and urged that he be deported. (The Bush administration used these charges after 9/11 to shut down the nation’s biggest Muslim and pro-Palestinian charities, in what civil rights groups argue were often politically motivated investigations.) Donald Trump has since falsely questioned Mamdani’s citizenship and the administration’s Homeland Security Advisory Council is already looking into him.While New York City’s roughly 1 million Muslims aren’t enough to decide November’s election, Mamdani has become wildly popular with Muslims nationwide. Polling shows that Muslim Americans rank issues related to Gaza and affordability as their top priorities, which are reflective of broader trends and shifts within the Democratic base. It also aligns with the highpoints of Mamdani’s campaign such as affordable housing, and his frequent protest against US military support for Israel, said Nazita Lajevardi, an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University. She noted that Muslims – as well as many Democrats, including some Jewish Americans – were horrified by Israel’s attacks on Gaza and did not think they had good choices in the 2024 presidential election.View image in fullscreenMamdani’s campaign won almost over one-third of districts that Trump won in 2024, according to an analysis by the Gothamist.Mamdani’s advocacy for Palestinian rights includes authoring legislation that would have banned the city’s organizations from sending money to charities supporting Israeli settlement activity.He has been grilled repeatedly about his stance on Israel and whether he will condemn calls to “globalize the intifada”. He frequently responds with affirmations that he will protect Jewish New Yorkers. He has recognized Israel’s right to exist – but only as a state that enforces equal rights for its citizens.For some pro-Palestinian advocates, a formal recognition of Israel veers closely towards legitimizing the Nakba – when more than 750,000 Palestinians were permanently expelled from their homeland. Others say it’s largely a matter of semantics. And even Mamdani’s critics on this issue have appreciated his refusal to support a crack down on speech and his explanation that “intifada” also means “legitimate protest”. The Palestinian Youth Movement said in an Instagram statement that Mamdani’s victory shows that “being anti-genocide is not, in and of itself, politically costly with American voters in 2025”.‘He supported us at a critical moment’Asad Dandia, who successfully sued the NYPD in 2013 for illegally spying on Muslim New Yorkers, connected Mamdani’s campaign to dozens of mosques and imams across the city. The key message was still affordability, Dandia said. His campaign team visited more than 100 mosques, of which Mamdani personally visited almost 25, said Zara Rahim, a senior adviser for Mamdani’s campaign. “Many of the tenets of this campaign are inherently Muslim: justice, mercy, commitment to community,” she said.View image in fullscreenMamdani’s embrace of being Muslim and South Asian helped build excitement with many voters, from adopting the psychedelic aesthetic of Eid Mubarak WhatsApp forwards to using nostalgic Bollywood references. His strong support of LGBTQ+ and trans rights has not appeared to cost him votes among his more conservative Muslim supporters either.Still, Mamdani’s identity, alone, wasn’t enough. “One lesson the left needs to learn is that identity politics cannot win you elections,” said Raza Gillani, an organizer with DRUM Beats. “You need a political program for people that speaks to the grave inequalities in society.”SK M Mobinul Hoque, a Muslim Bangladeshi taxi driver who lives in Queens, said he voted for Mamdani in the Democratic primary – but he didn’t even know Mamdani was Muslim until after he cast his ballot. “I didn’t even care. He supported us at a critical moment; that’s why I’m supporting him,” he said.View image in fullscreenHoque fondly remembers Mamdani’s advocacy for taxi drivers like himself, who were wrecked by mounting debt caused by the city’s controversial medallion program. By 2021, Hoque had accumulated $800,000 of debt and had already heard about five fellow drivers who died by suicide. Mamdani went on a hunger strike for more than two weeks and joined the TWA Taxi Alliance, as they protested in front of City Hall. The city subsequently made a deal with the union for debt forgiveness.‘If you don’t keep your promises, we will hold you accountable’New York City possibly getting its first Muslim mayor is notable, given its history of surveilling Muslim Americans after 9/11. Many DRUM members in New York City were deeply affected by the NYPD and FBI’s sprawling infiltration of student groups and mosques. The federal government ran elaborate sting operations in which informants sometimes pressured vulnerable Muslims to agree to take part in violent plots – and used their subsequent cooperation to throw them in prison.The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed in response to rhetoric that conflated Muslims with terrorists–and paved the way for the creation of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice). “Ice was born out of anti-Muslim hate,” said Heba Gowayed, an associate professor of sociology at CUNY Hunter College.Ice’s sweeping detentions of immigrants, and ability to operate at Rikers Island after a deal was struck between Eric Adams, New York City’s current mayor, and the Trump administration, have triggered old fears about law enforcement. In Astoria, undocumented Middle Eastern and North African immigrants are scared that Ice will try to deport them, said Rana Abdelhamid, who runs Malikah – a local anti-violence nonprofit that operates in Mamdani’s assembly district, and has worked closely with him. Earlier this year, a street vendor ran into Malikah’s office after Ice’s increased activity in Astoria. “He was coming in frantic–asking, ‘can I take the train to go to work today?’”, she said.View image in fullscreenSouth Asian immigrants with DRUM Beats are scared, too. After 9/11, some Muslim communities based their electoral support on whichever candidate they thought would win, hoping that it could help them get something in return, said Gillani, with DRUM Beats. The organization is trying to move voters in a different direction –“a new politics rooted in community defense”, Gillani said. Mamdani has promised to protect immigrants – in part, by expanding the budget for legal representation.DRUM Beats is already thinking about turning out voters in November. At the June meeting, Gillani urged members: “Don’t let this energy die down.” He also emphasized the longterm goal of building power for working-class communities. “We don’t support (Mamdani) because we think he’s a messiah who will save New York City,” Gillani said. “If you don’t keep your promises, we will hold you accountable – regardless of whether you are Zohran, Cuomo or Eric Adams.” More

    • 225 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      I was on New York’s rent board. Zohran Mamdani’s ideas aren’t pie in the sky | Leah Goodridge

      by

      During the New York City mayoral primary campaign, Zohran Mamdani’s proposal for a citywide rent freeze became a contentious topic. The Democratic nominee says to achieve a cap on annual rent increases for the city’s 1m rent-stabilized apartments, he would appoint members to the city’s rent guidelines board who support it. Critics decry a rent freeze as a pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic proposal.I served as a rent guidelines board member for nearly four years, appointed by then mayor Bill de Blasio in 2018. And it’s clear this controversy isn’t just about rent freezes – there’s a larger agenda to deregulate rent-stabilized housing, under which rent ceilings prevent landlords from raising the rent too high and tenants must be offered renewal leases (unless the landlord shows legal reason not to).Rent freezes are lifelinesIn 2023, a report revealed that half of New Yorkers couldn’t afford basic needs such as housing, transportation, food and healthcare. This is the New York that I grew to know intimately before I joined the board. I’d been a tenants’ rights attorney for years under the city’s right-to-counsel program, representing hundreds of low-income families facing eviction who could not afford their own attorneys. Each week, I entered housing court to find my clients – families with toddlers, seniors with disabilities and food delivery drivers – anxiously awaiting possible eviction. It’s not just low-income tenants at the mercy of landlords. Over the last 12 years, I’ve listened to thousands of stories and the one common thread is how easy it is for a moderate-income person to wind up homeless. Sudden unemployment, unexpected disability coupled with a rent increase, and now you’re fighting like hell to survive housing court and not join the 350,000 homeless New Yorkers. For these New Yorkers, a rent freeze isn’t some out-of-touch idea; it’s a lifeline.The people who make that decision are nine board members, all appointed by the mayor – two tenant members (my former role), two landlord members and five public members whom the tenants and landlord members vie to win over to reach a majority vote. We don’t rely on feelings or vibes – we’re poring over reports and hours of public testimony, and engaging in spirited policy debates. In 2020, those reports revealed record unemployment spurred by the pandemic and an already high homelessness rate and rent burden (most tenants were paying 30% or more of their income on rent). Weighing that with landlord operating costs, the board voted to approve a rent freeze that year, and a partial rent freeze (for six months) the following year. In fact, the board voted for a rent freeze four times over the last 10 years under the de Blasio administration (the board votes every summer on these rent levels and they take effect in the fall). This is why criticisms of Mamdani’s rent freeze ring hollow for me – it’s painted as out of touch, yet there’s already a precedent, backed by government reports and data.Rent stabilization is under attackIt is essential for the public to understand that there is a broader agenda behind the “rent freezes are bad” argument. Undermining freezes is part of a larger goal to weaken rent stabilization, which landlords have consistently sought to do – and they were nearly successful recently.While I was on the board, landlords sued the rent guidelines board and all of its members (including me!) in federal court, claiming that rent stabilization amounted to an “unconstitutional taking”: if the government tells me how much I can increase my rent by and when I can terminate a lease, then the government is interfering with my private property without just compensation, the argument goes.For years, there had been whispers that New York landlords were rubbing their hands together, eager to devise ways to get such a case before the US supreme court – and this one came dangerously close. I still remember when I got the call four years after the case traveled its way up the federal appeals court chain: “The court declined to hear the case!”Supreme court cases aren’t selected in a vacuum – the court often grants certiorari , or agrees to hear a case, when there is a broad public interest, leading some parties to drum up support for their cause strategically. When I was on the board, I often heard the dichotomy of the good landlord versus the bad tenant. It’s become so popular, you’ve probably been inundated with these stories too. “Professional tenants” who sign a lease, then never pay rent. TikToks about tenants leaving an apartment in disarray. Squatters. Rent-stabilized tenants who are secretly wealthy, gaming the system by paying low rent. All designed to lead you to the conclusion that “rent stabilization shouldn’t exist”. You’d never know that the median household income for rent-stabilized tenants is a modest $60,000. Or that eviction rates are so high that the New York City housing court doesn’t have enough judges to handle the volume of cases it sees daily.Just last year, in yet another case that landlords asked the supreme court to review, the court declined, but Justice Clarence Thomas signaled the court would be interested in hearing a rent stabilization challenge and even provided a legal roadmap for how to bring it. Landlords don’t want to reform rent stabilization – they want it done away with.At the end of the day, when the goal is profit and power is unchecked, it will be profits over people. Mamdani’s proposals are a threat to the real estate industry because they signal a mayorship that doesn’t ascribe to the tenet that government must sit back and let the market come to its own conclusion – all while millions of New Yorkers are trying to avoid housing court.

      Leah Goodridge is a former member of the New York City rent guidelines board and an attorney who spent 12 years in legal services representing tenants More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Zohran Mamdani’s campaign proposes free childcare. Is it finally a winning policy?

      by

      Maggie Stockdale hadn’t given much thought to childcare before welcoming her first child last year. But once she learned the high price of full-time daycare tuition in Brooklyn, New York, she knew she had to find another solution.Now, her care duties are split between Stockdale’s parents, who relocated from Wisconsin to help out, and her husband, who cut his hours down to part time and arranged with his employer to let him bring their 10-month-old to work several days a week.“You feel fragile,” said Stockdale, lamenting that so many families have to choose between financial stability and their child’s wellbeing.So when Zohran Mamdani campaigned on a platform of affordability, proposing free childcare for children aged six weeks and older, it made her feel that the pain she and other parents had experienced had not gone unnoticed.Mamdani, the 33-year-old state assemblymember who won the Democratic primary for New York City mayor last month, has put forth a variety of kid- and family-focused ideas, including distributing baby baskets containing formula and postpartum supplies to new parents, building up mental health infrastructure in schools and closing off high-traffic streets adjacent to school zones. But what’s garnered the most attention is his promise of free childcare, a system he plans to fund by raising taxes on corporations and the city’s richest residents.As he told supporters in his victory speech: “We have won because New Yorkers have stood up for a city they can afford. A city where they can do more than just struggle … where childcare doesn’t cost more than [college].”For Stockdale, seeing these policies at the center of a major political campaign has underscored how childcare affordability is not only a core concern for voters – but also a winning issue.“It’s got so much support,” said Stockdale, also an organizer with the advocacy group New Yorkers United for Childcare. “People have started to realize that this should be a key component of any candidate’s platform.”In many ways, Mamdani’s platform responds to the surge of activism that New York has seen in favor of making childcare a public good – activism that first emerged at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the importance and fragility of the country’s childcare system was laid bare. Since then, elected officials have begun to take the issue seriously, explained Allison Lew, senior organizer with New Yorkers United for Child Care.A report released from the New York City comptroller’s office this year shows the average cost of center-based care across the five boroughs was $26,000 a year, and that to afford the cost of care for a two-year-old in New York City, a family would need to earn $334,000 annually. “People are draining their savings, going into debt, borrowing on their 401ks [retirement funds],” said Lew. “You have to be wealthy in order for childcare to not be an issue.”For many would-be parents, the inaccessibility is affecting their family-planning decisions, causing them to delay having kids or to only have one child, despite wanting more. “We would love to have another, but financially, we don’t know if we can afford it,” said Nancy Keith, who is raising a 15-month-old in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn. Keith says that she and her husband waited until they were in their late 30s, and more settled in their career, to have a child. Even still, they need financial assistance from their parents to afford the $26,000 a year they pay for childcare.Should Mamdani win the mayoral election in November and make his childcare vision a reality, these challenges could become things of the past, experts say.Most immediately, parents and childcare workers alike would experience improved financial security. Families would see thousands more dollars in their bank accounts every month, while childcare workers would be paid salaries and receive benefits at parity with New York public school employees.Gregory Brender, chief policy and innovation officer at the Day Care Council of New York, explains that pay parity has been a priority for the provider network for decades, making it a relief to finally see it be a legislative priority. “Early childhood education depends on a talented and educated workforce, and they need to be compensated appropriately,” he said.These family-focused policies would also improve equity in the city, as more parents – especially women – would be able to remain in the workforce. And in making the city more affordable for everyone, families from diverse backgrounds with a range of incomes would be able to remain in their communities.Down the line, such policies would also bolster the city’s economy. Collectively, New Yorkers spend as much as $15bn on childcare every year. And in 2022, families not being able to afford childcare cost the city $23bn between lost tax revenues and workplace departures as parents were forced to drop out of the workforce.“We just cannot afford to not have universal childcare,” Lew said.Universal childcare isn’t cheap. But the city has the money, said Justin Brannan, a New York City councilmember representing parts of Brooklyn and chair of the city’s committee on finance. “We have been stuck in this cycle of false austerity where we are supposed to believe that we have to choose between little and even less, and it’s just not true,” Brannan said, noting that the city’s budget totals almost $116bn (universal childcare would cost $12bn per year). “We just need to do a better job of spending our money,” he said.Implementing such a system may not be as simple as carving out room in the budget, however. Some facets of the plan – like raising taxes – need to be approved by the state legislature and the governor. Kathy Hochul, the New York governor, has already said she will not raise income taxes. Mamdani has acknowledged these challenges, saying in an interview with Morning Edition, “Any mayor that has an ambition that meets the scale of the crisis of the people that they’re seeking to represent will have to work with [the state].”Still, the ideas have momentum.New York has been a pioneer in accessible childcare infrastructure for several years, including universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds (known as pre-K and 3-K). And although many doubted Bill de Blasio’s ability to pull off his promise of universal preschool when he ran for mayor more than a decade ago, the program is now a national model. Before that, the city instituted a voucher program that enabled low-income families to access childcare for children aged six weeks to 15 years – although seats are limited. As a result of those developments, advocates like Lew say some degree of publicly funded childcare is now a “non-negotiable” for many New Yorkers.Mamdani says his campaign promises to build on those past successes. “These platform planks are rooted in very recent New York City history,” he said in an interview with the Nation. “Universal childcare is something that many candidates are in support of because of the success of universal pre-K.”New York isn’t alone in its quest for solutions to the nationwide childcare crisis. In 2022, New Mexico made childcare free for most families. That same year, Washington DC raised childcare workers’ wages through a tax on the district’s wealthiest residents. And in 2023, Vermont guaranteed financial support for childcare for all families with incomes below 575% of the federal poverty level – amounting to 90% of families in the state.Hailey Gibbs, associate director of early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress, said it’s an issue that crosses the political aisle. “Folks, regardless of what state they represent or how far they sit in the political extremes, understand that the lack is meaningful,” she said.“It’s a unifying issue,” echoed Karen Schulman, senior director of state childcare policy at the National Women’s Law Center, pointing out that even staunchly Republican states like Alabama, Georgia and Montana have created early childhood education funds.But Mamdani’s campaign is the first in the country to put children and childcare front and center – and win, at least at the primary level. “That’s pretty bold for the US,” Gibbs said. More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Zohran Mamdani’s videos are a masterclass. Eric Adams’ posts are getting more bizarre | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Eric Adams, possible resident of New Jersey and mayor of New York City, is a man of many talents. He is the city’s “most famous vegan”, albeit one who eats fish. He has a knack for scoring freebies from foreign governments. He managed the great feat of being the first mayor in the city’s history to be indicted while in office. And, on top of all that, he may well be the most unintentionally hilarious man on the internet.Please see, as exhibit one, a classic piece of Adams surrealism from 2011, shot when the mayor was just a humble state senator. Dressed like an undertaker, Adams instructs viewers to search their child’s room for contraband. Per Adams, a jewelry box may have a gun in it, and the bullets may be behind a picture frame. Unappreciated for many years, the video finally found an audience when it went viral during Adams’s indictment.More recently, the mayor posted a very weird Instagram video of him listening to Katy Perry, and another one captioned, “Make an important call with me,” in which he fake chats to Usher to announce a free concert series in New York City. And, of course, there was his famous “trash revolution” press conference where he helpfully demonstrated how to use a wheelie bin. You open the lid and then you close it: magic!In another Instagram video, Adam shares his morning routine. The mayor once told an audience: “I get out of the shower sometimes and I say: ‘Damn!’” This little bit of the routine, alas, did not make it into the cut. Instead he irons a shirt, munches a carrot stick in his bizarre industrial kitchen, and rants about how he is being guided by his GPS (“God positioning satellite”). The video was posted a month ago but it really took off this week after internet detectives pointed out that a clock in the footage tells a completely different time than the purported time on the screen. In other words, the whole “routine” was about as natural as a ski slope in Dubai.One glaring reason for Adams suddenly trying to up his Instagram game is the rise of Zohran Mamdani, the Queens assemblyman whose socialist ideas and (admittedly elite) TikTok strategy recently propelled him to victory in New York City’s mayoral primary. Adams is currently slated to run as an independent in the general election against Mamdani, and he’s clearly running scared.Adams is not the only Democrat making headlines this week for attempting to make waves on the internet. There’s an influential web series called Subway Takes in which the New York-based comedian Kareem Rahma solicits hot takes from strangers, and the occasional celebrity, on the train. Kamala Harris was on it last year, but you wouldn’t have seen the segment because it was reportedly so bad that it didn’t run. “Her take was really confusing and weird, not good, and so [we] mutually agreed we shouldn’t publish it,” Rahma told Forbes. One day it may fall out of a coconut tree, but right now it is hidden from scrutiny.Then there’s the Democratic house minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who was recently mocked for posting what appeared to be a badly photoshopped picture of himself, altered to make his waist thinner, on Instagram. (He seems to have deleted the photo on Thursday.)Jeffries was also just ridiculed (mainly by conservatives) for an Instagram photo in which he holds a baseball bat in metaphoric opposition to Donald Trump’s “One Big Ugly Bill”. The 82-year-old congresswoman Virginia Foxx was not impressed by this; Foxx tweeted the photo with the caption “low energy”.Jeffries certainly does seem to have a few energy issues. He can give record-breaking long speeches but he, along with other senior Democratic figures, can’t seem to summon up the energy to endorse Mamdani. Democrats love saying “vote blue no matter who” – except in situations where they have got a charismatic candidate who resonates with ordinary people.Meanwhile, Mamdani has no trouble with social media: his TikTok videos are one of the reasons the Queens assemblyman has surged from relative obscurity to mayoral frontrunner. Some of his rivals seem to think they are the cause for his success. “I regret not running for mayor in 2021,” state senator Jessica Ramos said during the mayoral primary debate. “I had been in the senate for two years. I’d already passed over a dozen bills. I thought I needed more experience. But turns out you just need to make good videos.”Of course, Mamdani doesn’t resonate with so many people because he’s studied vertical videos strategies. He’s successful because his core messaging connects with the needs of normal New Yorkers rather than the 1%. He’s been successful because he seems to genuinely want to fight for people rather than just collect a paycheck and then head off for a cushy job at whatever lobbying company donates the most to him. He’s relatable and authentic and those are two things that are very hard to manufacture. Although that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from trying: they have discussed throwing millions of dollars into creating a “Joe Rogan of the left”.This isn’t to say that you can’t buy yourself a great social media strategy. John Fetterman, the soulless ghoul who is senator of Pennsylvania, certainly did. He made some brilliant hires, who ran a very entertaining campaign against Dr Oz in 2022. Now that Fetterman seems more obsessed with bombing Gaza than serving his constituents, many of those staffers have left, however. I doubt he’ll be able to pull off another campaign like his first.Speaking of pulling things off, now that Adams has posted his morning routine I wouldn’t mind seeing other politicians post theirs. Please Cuomo, and every other establishment politician: stream the 7 Habits of Highly Ineffective People over TikTok. I can’t wait to see Cuomo walk to a bagel shop and order an English muffin before telling passersby “I’m not perverted, I’m just Italian.” Surely that will convince New Yorkers to Pokémon Go to the polls. More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      New York City’s congestion pricing has cut pollution and traffic – but Trump still wants to kill it

      by

      It has faced threats and lawsuits and even had its death proclaimed by Donald Trump as he startlingly depicted himself as a king in a social media post. But New York City’s congestion charge scheme for cars has now survived its first six months, producing perhaps the fastest ever environmental improvement from any policy in US history.New York vaulted into a global group of cities – such as London, Singapore and Stockholm – that charge cars for entering their traffic-clogged metropolitan hearts but also ushered in a measure that was unknown to Americans and initially unpopular with commuters, and was confronted by a new Trump administration determined to tear it down.But the six-month anniversary, on 5 July, of congestion pricing highlights a string of remarkable successes. Traffic congestion in Manhattan, site of the $9 charge zone, is substantially down, cars and buses are moving faster, air quality is improving as carbon emissions drop, a creaking public transportation system has new verve and there are fewer car accidents, injuries and opportunities for incandescent New Yorker honking and yelling.In an era of assaults upon climate policy and societal betterment in general across US and around the world, New York’s congestion busting has been a rare flicker of progress in 2025. “It’s been even more obviously beneficial than even the most fervent proponents had hoped, and there have been really tangible improvements that are really gratifying,” said Ben Furnas, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a New York-based pro-transit group. “It’s been incredible to see.”Congestion pricing in New York had a tortured birth – the state’s governor, Kathy Hochul, initially delayed it and cut the charge for drivers from $15 to $9, citing cost-of-living concerns – but since its January introduction the system appears to be achieving its aims.Spanning the southern tip of downtown Manhattan northwards to 60th Street, the congestion charge zone has slashed traffic delays by a quarter, with around 2m fewer cars a month now entering streets previously gridlocked in traffic. Vehicles that were previously crawling at a pace slower than a horse and cart are now moving more smoothly, with traffic speeds rising by 15%.Carbon pollution, meanwhile, has dropped by about 2.5%, with air pollution such as soot that can bury deep in people’s lungs also down. Despite the faster traffic, fewer people are being directly hurt by car accidents, too. The experiment has been a reminder that cities aren’t intrinsically noisy even if cars are – Furnas said that one of his favorite stats is that noise complaints along Canal Street, a key artery in lower Manhattan, have reduced by 70%.“The quality-of-life improvement has been dramatic,” he said. “Reducing pollution is often seen to involve a lot of sacrifices, but this has been different. People can see the improvements to their lives. There was this cynical assumption that this was a bullshit charge and life will stay the same but that assumption has gone away now.”Scaling public unpopularity in this way isn’t new – London’s congestion charge met initial opposition in 2003 and then, more recently, an expansion of the city’s ultra-low emission zone (or Ulez) was bitterly contested. London’s air quality has improved markedly and support has since edged up, though, a forerunner of the New York experience, where more people now support the charge than oppose it – a reversal of what the polls showed prior to its imposition.A primary motivation for the congestion charge was to raise funds for the beleaguered Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which presides over one of the most extensive public transport systems in the world but has struggled with a spluttering subway that runs on antediluvian technology through often squalid stations. Fears of subway-based crime, regularly amplified by the Trump administration, have also bedeviled the MTA’s attempts to lure commuters back following Covid.Congestion pricing revenue, though, is on track to reach $500m this year, allowing upgrades to the subway, the purchase of several hundred new electric buses and improvements to regional rail. Hochul, with the zeal of new convert, said the scheme has been a “huge success” and pointed out that people are still flocking to Manhattan stores, restaurants and Broadway shows, with pedestrian activity up 8% in May compared with the same month last year. Subway visits have also increased by 7%.“We’ve also fended off five months of unlawful attempts from the federal government to unwind this successful program and will keep fighting – and winning – in the courts,” the governor said. “The cameras are staying on.”Trump has continued his quest to kill off congestion charging in his native city, however, prematurely declaring success in this endeavor in a memorable February post on X in which he was depicted in an oil painting wearing a crown, triumphantly standing in front of the Empire State Building. “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!” the president wrote.Trump’s Department of Transportation has attempted to withdraw federal approval of the scheme but its deadlines to end congestion pricing have so far been thwarted by the courts and the department has, in frustration, replaced its own lawyers, accusing them of undermining its case.Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, has said the charge is unfair to drivers and is “classist” against the working poor (even though they overwhelmingly take buses or trains, rather than drive), and threatened to cut federal funding to New York transit.View image in fullscreen“If you can’t keep your subway safe, if people can’t go to the subway and not be afraid of being stabbed or thrown in front of tracks or burned, we are going to pull your money,” Duffy said in March.The administration confirmed it will forge ahead with its legal battle. “In the 11th hour of his failing administration, Joe Biden cowardly approved this absurd experiment that makes federally funded roads inaccessible to many taxpayers without giving them a toll-free alternative,” said a Department of Transportation spokesperson.“We can all agree that the New York City subway needs fixing, but drivers should not be expected to foot the bill.”But the series of courtroom defeats suffered by the Trump administration have strengthened the congestion charge’s future, according to Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia Law School. “The administration have suffered a series of resounding defeats, they haven’t got anywhere,” said Gerrard. “It’s clear that Donald Trump doesn’t like New York City and wants to do anything he can to increase the use of fossil fuels. I don’t know if Donald Trump has ever been on the subway.”Other opposition remains, too, although it has become more muted of late. A leading critique of congestion pricing was that it will simply pile up traffic at the boundaries of the charge zone, although a recent report found the opposite has occurred – traffic delays are down 10% in the Bronx and have even been reduced by 14% in the commuter belt of Bergen county, in New Jersey.“Conceptually it’s a good idea, but let’s get a fair deal for Jersey,” conceded Phil Murphy, governor of New Jersey, on a recent podcast with the comedian Hasan Minhaj. Murphy previously called the charge a “disaster” and is still involved in legal action to stop it, although he now says he will accept a “deal” whereby his state gets some of the revenue and the toll is lowered somewhat.Murphy acknowledged traffic is down but he questions if it will last. “The data from London suggests it won’t continue,” said the governor, pointing to how the UK capital is now the most congested city in Europe, with drivers spending an average of 101 hours sitting in traffic last year, despite its own toll.However, others think New York may be different, a long-term habit switch from driving thanks to its dense public transport links. If it survives its Trumpian attack, the scheme may even be replicated by cities elsewhere in the US. If highways and bridges can be tolled, as they often are in the US, why not the core of cities too?“It’s been such a success that I think others will look at this,” said Furnas. “Not everywhere has New York’s public transit, but we would be wise to apply these sort of benefits to other places, too.” More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral bid? | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      A recent New York Times news story immediately drew fire from readers – and for very good reason.Headlined “Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application,” the article centered on Zohran Mamdani, the candidate for New York City mayor who drew national attention recently with his stunning win in the Democratic primary election.Its gist was that as a high school senior in New York City, Mamdani – who was born in Uganda and is of Indian descent – checked a couple of different boxes about race when applying for admission to Columbia University.So what, you might ask. Why is this even a story, you might also ask.Excellent questions.Whatever its news value, or lack thereof, the story certainly got the attention of one of Mamdani’s rivals – current New York City mayor Eric Adams, who will run in the general election as an independent candidate.Adams, who is Black, called it “deeply offensive” that Mamdani would try to “exploit” an African American identity even though he is not Black.And on Fox News, talkshow hosts used the Times story to trash Mamdani. Charlie Hurt, for one, called the mayoral candidate a racist on Fox & Friends and claimed that Mamdani despises America “and everything that we stand for”.The rightwing cable network was having a field day with Mamdani, a Muslim and social democrat, even before the Times story. President Trump has called him a communist and suggested he should be deported. Other rightwing outlets picked up the story, too, presenting it as a DEI scandal – that Mamdani lied about his race in order to take advantage of the affirmative action admission policy at Columbia. (Making the story even more absurd is the fact that Mamdani didn’t get in.)In print, the would-be scandal got some help from headline writers: “Mamdani Faces Scrutiny Over College Application.”Mamdani has explained that he was trying to communicate his complicated background. His father is Indian Ugandan and his mother is Indian American; Mamdani himself was born in Uganda and lived briefly in South Africa before moving to New York City as a child.“Most college applications don’t have a box for Indian-Ugandans so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background,” he told the Times.The Times’s decision to pursue and publish the story was, at the very least, unwise.For one thing, it came to the Times due to a widespread hack into Columbia’s databases, transmitted to the paper through an intermediary who was given anonymity by the paper. That source turns out to be Jordan Lasker, who – as the Guardian has reported – is a well-known and much criticized “eugenicist”, AKA white supremacist.Traditional journalism ethics suggests that when news organizations base a story on hacked or stolen information, there should be an extra high bar of newsworthiness to justify publication. Much of Big Journalism, for example, turned their noses up at insider documents offered to them about JD Vance during last year’s presidential campaign, in part because the source was Iranian hackers; in some cases, they wrote about the hack but not the documents.The Mamdani story, however, fell far short of the newsworthiness bar.A ranking Times editor, Patrick Healy, responded to criticism of the story in a thread on X, justifying it as part of the paper’s mission “to help readers better know and understand top candidates for major offices”.Soledad O’Brien, the prominent media entrepreneur and journalist, called that explanation “a joke”. The publication of the Mamdani story is “an absolute embarrassment” for the Times, charged O’Brien, who herself is of mixed-race ancestry and identifies as Black.Plenty of others agreed, seeing Healy’s explanation not as admirable transparency but as damage control.The incident raises a larger issue: the Times’s apparent opposition to Mamdani’s candidacy.On the opinion side of the paper, there’s little question about that. Even though the Times no longer makes endorsements for mayor, they published an editorial urging voters to avoid ranking Mamdani at all on their ballots because he was so unqualified. (New York City uses ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list several candidates in order of preference.)Remarkably, the Times stopped short of giving the same “don’t rank him” advice about disgraced governor Andrew Cuomo, who resigned his office in 2021 and then ran for mayor against Mamdani in the primary.The opinion side of the Times is entitled to its opinion, however misguided. But straight news articles, by contrast, aren’t supposed to go to bat for or against candidates. They’re supposed to be neutral and non-partisan, not cheering on one candidate or kneecapping another.In practice, of course, that’s often not the case.With this made-up scandal, combined with the pre-election editorial, the Times looks like it’s on a crusade against Mamdani.And no lofty explanation about the mission can disguise it.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The other winner in New York’s mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting | David Daley

      by

      The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%.In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party’s endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone.Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion.There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere.Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting.To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast.But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it’s a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter’s second choice.Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it’s too confusing.)A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally.Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani’s victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionVoters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved.When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the “losers” seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign.The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it’s also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the “politics of the future”, as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible.What’s giving me hope nowOutside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York’s adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on “spoilers” or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won’t take long for people to ask why they can’t have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections.

      David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Zohran Mamdani won by being himself – and his victory has revealed the Islamophobic ugliness of others | Nesrine Malik

      by

      Zohran Mamdani’s stunning win in New York’s mayoral primary has been a tale of two cities, and two Americas. In one, a young man with hopeful, progressive politics went up against the decaying gods of the establishment, with their giant funding and networks and endorsements from Democratic scions, and won. In another, in an appalling paroxysm of racism and Islamophobia, a Muslim antisemite has taken over the most important city in the US, with an aim to impose some socialist/Islamist regime. Like effluent, pungent and smearing, anti-Muslim hate spread unchecked and unchallenged after Mamdani’s win. It takes a lot from the US to shock these days, but Mamdani has managed to stir, or expose, an obscene degree of mainstreamed prejudice.Politicians, public figures, members of Donald Trump’s administration and the cesspit of social media clout-chasers all combined to produce what can only be described as a collective self-induced hallucination; an image of a burqa swathed over the Statue of Liberty; the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, stating that Mamdani’s win is what happens when a country fails to control immigration. Republican congressman Andy Ogles has decided to call Mamdani “little muhammad” and is petitioning to have him denaturalised and deported. He has been called a “Hamas terrorist sympathiser”, and a “jihadist terrorist”.It is a measure of how racist the reaction has been that Donald Trump calling Mamdani a “communist lunatic” seems restrained in comparison. Some of the responses have been so hysterical that I often couldn’t tell what was real and what was parody. Because the idea that Mamdani, whose style is, above anything else, wide-grinned earnestness, was some sinister Islamist sleeper agent is so clearly a joke.But it’s not a joke, and if it is then it’s on me for still, after all these years, underestimating what Muslims in the public sphere do to people’s brains. And how utterly comfortable many are with anti-Muslim hate. And why shouldn’t they be? To date, the most senior figures in Mamdani’s own party, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, have not called out this onslaught, and those politicians and public figures who made them will suffer no censure or consequence. Because, fundamentally, anti-Muslim hate, like all racism when it becomes normalised, thrives when there is a systemic blessing of it through not even registering its offensiveness.But the apathy towards assaults against Mamdani is because he is an outsider in more meaningful ways, not just in his religious background. His crime is not one of daring to be Muslim and a politician – he might have “passed” if he was a conventional Democratic apparatchik – but of having strong opinions about economics and politics that mark him out as a challenger of mainstream orthodoxies regarding capitalism and Israel.Given his leftwing opinions on taxation and rent control, and objections to the slaughter of Palestinians on the US’s dime, a backlash to Mamdani was always likely. But he has done much to counter it. He has made thorough explanations of his abhorrence of antisemitism, of his pledge to combat all hate crime, and of the fact that his economic agenda is based on making the city, from its food to its childcare, more affordable.His offence has been in his unwillingness to water down his principles, not toeing the line on Israel, and not making frankly embarrassing assertions, like those running against him did, that Israel would be his first foreign trip. He has refrained from debasing himself through serial condemnations of phrases that have arbitrarily been erected as litmus tests of a Muslim’s acceptability in the public domain.Mamdani’s refusal to reject the phrase “globalise the intifada”, on the grounds that it expresses “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights” has been seized upon as an indication that he supports some kind of violent jihad – a reading that ignores his frequent assertions that Israel has the right to exist and condemnations of any violence against Jews. What are we doing here?There is no degree to which Mamdani could have become acceptably Muslim while holding these opinions – even though they are clearly universal enough for him to receive emphatic support from New Yorkers, including from Jews who voted for him, and the Jewish candidate Brad Lander, who endorsed him. He cannot be secular enough, American enough, or elite enough, as the son of a film-maker and a professor, to hold politics that will not be reducible to his inherently suspect identity.Even in demeanour, he has spoken of how he constantly has to measure his tone, lest he be smeared as a “beast”. And in this, he mirrors a broader, exasperating reality – one where Muslims and pro-Palestinians are condemned as threatening, while there is a colossal attack on their rights and safety across the world, simply for opposing an incontrovertible crime being perpetrated in Gaza. From detention and deportation proceedings against activists such as Mahmoud Khalil in the US, to the vilification and securitisation of pro-Palestinian speech and activism in the UK and Europe, the messenger is shot, and then framed as the aggressor.But smears and diversions and outrageous extrapolations will not change the facts on the ground, which are that the Israeli state is occupying the West Bank, starving and killing Palestinians in Gaza, and accused of war crimes and genocide, all with the sponsorship of the US and support of western regimes. In that sense, Mamdani’s victory is a threat, because it reveals how finally, all attempts to maintain an indefensible and intolerable situation have lost their grip on the growing number of people who are thinking for themselves.Mamdani isn’t even mayor yet, and he will probably face an escalating campaign using his identity as a way of discrediting his beliefs, both economic and political. And here is where the response to his win is both alarming and potentially propulsive, like the clammy buildup to the final breaking of a fever. Mamdani is where he is because he is not alone. Not by a long shot. And in drawing out such naked and explicit anti-Muslim hate, Mamdani has inadvertently revealed the ugliness and weakness not just of his opponents, but of the wider political establishment, as well as their anti-democratic impulses.In drawing them out, Mamdani has shown how prejudice is rarely about individuals, but the fear that marginalised minority views could ever become powerful majority ones. In this mayoral race, from Palestine to local policing, anti-Muslim hate is not just a repellent phenomenon confined to Mamdani, it is a barricade against the desires of the voting public. Once people start making that connection, it really is over.

      Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More