NYC mayral thoughts a conclusion

[richardmurray]

read on 

 

[ProfD]

It is a done deal.  NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani won in a landslide. 

 

Starting january 1st, it remains to be seen what Mamdani will do as mayor of NYC. 

 

If successful, rent freeze, free buses, affordable healthcare, more teachers and other things will benefit the citizens of NYC.

 

The white media is losing their minds over Mayor-Elect Mamdani because he seemingly came out of left field.  Showed up like a unicorn.  He doesn't  fit the red or blue narrative. 

 

Democrats were never all-in on Mayor-Elect Mamdani.  Now, they will be studying his recipe to pick and choose the ingredients and type of candidates needed to win future elections in certain areas.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

Who told you it was a landslide? 50% is a landslide?

 

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

Starting january 1st, it remains to be seen what Mamdani will do as mayor of NYC. 

well your correct and yet, what about your whole voter demand position? Where do you assess MAmdani's election with your voter demand position?

 

IN NYC I don't concur to much of what you have said, maybe outside NYC all of what you say is true but ok. 

[ProfD]

59 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

Who told you it was a landslide? 50% is a landslide?

Even when I don't use emoticons in my posts, read them with a sense of humor.

 

59 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

well your correct and yet, what about your whole voter demand position? Where do you assess MAmdani's election with your voter demand position?

The voters didn't demand anything from Mayor-Elect Mamdani. 

 

Those who voted seemed to be fine with Mayor-Elect Mamdani telling them what he's going to do.

 

i mentioned the list of things Mamdani claims he'll do.  I'm not stating or suggesting he can successfully do any of it. 

 

Again, take the too serious cap off when reading my posts.

 

59 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

IN NYC I don't concur to much of what you have said, maybe outside NYC all of what you say is true but ok. 

As usual, you don't concur with much of what I've typed because you're reading it through a prism of your own design steeped in seriousness.  Lighten up. 

 

You want to turn threads into a scholastic exercise.  That's not my reason for engaging in the dialog.

 

I enjoy hanging out at the AALBC coffeeshop and I contribute accordingly. 

 

Otherwise, your threads would have zero participation.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD steeped in seriousness, good line

your right

[ProfD]

@richardmurray, the real question to you is will Mayor-Elect Mamdani be former mayor Bill de Blasio 2.0 or better or worse?

 

I know it's way too early to tell.  Just wondering from your NYC perspective.

[richardmurray]

a drop of seriousness

 

@ProfD 

The short answer, Mamdani will not be de blasio 2.0 in any way

 

...

The long answer....

What does Lindsey to Mamdani have in common? 

The problems of NYC are beyond the office of mayor to solve. 

Lindsey->Koch->Dinkins->Guiliani->Bloomberg->De Blasio->Adams->Mamdani all couldn't actually repair the problems of the city. They each put bandages on select problems, but each bandaid always erased eventually onto a worse wound. 

Lindsey allowed the gypsy cabs, made the knapp report to clean up law enforcement. But the governor, rockefeller,  made rjikers. The governor didn't use his power to keep business in Nyc or new york state. he allowed the federal funds to support the white flight, lindsey had no way to stop that.

Koch didn't make the roaring 80s of NYC or the urban plight of the 80s, Reagan did. Reagan defunded schools, public works projects which negatively influenced all the non white regions in nyc during koch's time, while reagan also gave money to big business which led to the big building boom downtown manhattan during koch's time and the expansion of banking operations. koch simply set up ny city law enforcement to have free reign on abusing the poor who were inevitable, starting NYC law enforcement's infatuation with being protected.

Dinkins was denied by the banks the prior mayors had agreements with through the city to do business. Dinkins also had the unenviable task of coming after three terms of koch so dinkins in everything he was trying to do was deemed radical because the city had twelve years of one way. 

Guiliani expanded the reagan idea by selling the buildings nyc owned to private or forcing them into becoming coops. But guiliani wasn't why the rents were getting higher and food more expensive or the labor market in the city was getting too narrow. The real estate industry had been allowed through the federal government to prop itself up and maintain its value in very artificial ways. And he wasnt to blame for the dot com bubble which influenced real estate. 

Bloomberg gave real estate everything they wanted, more and more buildings, he opened up brooklyn to the modern highrise, he wanted to do the same to bronx or queens but all the implosions of various industries, from banks to automotive to whatever. Bloomberg emphasized the charter school movement, attacking harlem's schools like guiliani attack harlem's residentials. 

De Blasio rent froze and supported public schools but he came after twenty years of guiliani+bloomberg who supported the real estate industries agendas and law enforcement. and then the building collapse happened, another age of corporate consolidation started so downtown was unhappy, but the city didn't have any industry outside real estate/banking, which none of the prior mayors worked for or were allowed to do in circa thirty two years. 

Adams comes in and says he will make nyc safer,but that is by spending on law enforcement but all his labor numbers are hogwash. the city has for ten years, over one hundred thousand homeless children in public school. Adams didn't find their parents jobs so the job growth he mentioned is not functional, just statistical games. 

MAmdani wants affordability, but while the mayor can lower the rent he can't force the cost of utilities to go lower, he can't force the various coops or private buildings that have been ushered in before him to lower their rent. He doesn't control the management of international trade which nyc relies on as nyc will never have the ability to feed itself, a population of way over ten million people in a city geographic space far smaller than los angeles. Consider los angeles has about a fourth of nyc's populace but at least double nyc's landmass. 

Mamdani simply joins the ranks of mayors who are bandaid men. Whatever they choose to focus on will look good for a while but the external forces will render mute. 

The casinos is a state issue. Marijuana is a state issue. The real estate industry in the city because guiliani+bloomberg privatized so much is beyond any mayor's control.  This is why the fast track is being considered. But , my parents say it best, and they have lived through multiple housing booms. Housing booms never lower the rent. And the reason why is the business of real estate isn't about places to live but investments. So many people in NYC own properties as investment,s they don't live there, they don't want to build anything there, they simply want tenants to leech through rents or sell for some financial goal per some personal plan. Add the underreported and ballooning nyc populace. Those three factors mean new buildings can never lower the rent. I even expect legal action against the fast track program. What media may not have told those outside nyc is that, many regions of nyc, blockade new buildings while pushing new buildings into the poorest regions. The wealthy black community in Queens has never had a alcoholics anonymous where they are. so, i can see legal action. Schrumpft will support it to breed chaos and then.... Food is totally out of the control of mayor. When the sars cov 2 happened, NYC was at the mercy of the international trade of goods. ... maybe mamdani can try to tax foods that have ny state alternatives. New york state does have some food producers but do they make enough... bloomberg and de blasio tried to get the wind farm but that is  behind schedule/in limbo before schrumpft and with schrumpt... maybe dead, I don't know, so energy is going to rise, nuclear power is no unless someone comes up with fusion or fission but figures out how to make the pipes for the molten salt reactors of fission. the cost of living  is going to rise. Maybe mamdani can try tax incentives, but as a legislator in the state assembly he didn't seem a big tax incentive man. he seemed to be a tax eliminator man. And MAmdani has no control over the shutdown battle, which is a battle of blinks. the donkeys + elephants have plans on the congress floor, neither will sign the one the other made, so the shutdown is until one decides to sign the one the other made. MAmdani has no control over that, but the ebt and snap is huge for nyc's elderly and fiscally poor populace. the NYPD are always up for the policing bit but, mamdani has never been in a situation where he has to govern the nypd while also utilize them, if he makes a mistake, he will deemed a traitor by many of his voters. I don't know where jobs will come from, the schools in nyc are tyring to have job initiatives cause they see, that graudates aren't getting job to such a quantity that it will influence how people view going to college. 

The city have problems. Mamdani will never be De Blasio 2-0 but he is Mamdani 1.0 already. 

If MAmdani is lucky before next year the federal government finds some sort of balance. If he is unlucky, Mamdani will be entering the job of mayor with a city boiled over or about to boil over. ... Adams I must say has a huge role. The modulation between adams and mamdani is also huge. Usually the new mayor comes in like a storm, but that I don't think is a wise way for mamdani to come in. 

We shall see. 

My final issue are his voters. If MAmdani starts bad, this will be a very long four years for him. He can't afford to start bad. The media alone will cricify him but it will test his supporters. Maybe they will remain faithful, hopeful, but... 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

My thoughts on the NYC election?

I'm tempted to say....a Black man didn't win, so who cares?

But I know who runs....or atleast APPEARS to run...New York ("America's City") matters because it's often a template for other big city mayors across the U.S.

I don't think him being elected is going to change much in New York.
Especially for the better.

I think Indians, Arabs, and Pakistanis will flock to the city in larger droves than they already are and use his Administration as a proverbial goose that lays golden eggs; but for Black people and even most Whites.....his election will be of very little to no benefit.
 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'm tempted to say....a Black man didn't win, so who cares?

White folks definitely care. They think the immigrant apocalypse is coming to the Big Apple. As if it hasn't been there for a long time already.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I think Indians, Arabs, and Pakistanis will flock to the city in larger droves than they already are and use his Administration as a proverbial goose that lays golden eggs;

It would be awesome if he actually had enough power to make their lives better.

 

That way, we could look at every Black politician side-eye for what they have failed to do for their own people.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

but for Black people and even most Whites.....his election will be of very little to no benefit.

Right. Black and white folks might continue getting whatever they asked for and/or have been receiving. 

[Mel Hopkins]

 

If the NYC mayoral race were a novel, I'd deconstruct its architecture. From one election to the next, the narrative appears to shift away from focused policy debates, instead centering on the influence of religious groups. The major religious factions—Christian nationalists, Muslims, and Jews—each appear to compete for cultural and political dominance within the city.

Amid this religious competition, the African diaspora in the U.S.—a powerful and often underestimated voting bloc—continues to be overlooked and taken for granted by both the candidates and the dominant religious groups.  
It sometimes seems as though these competing religious groups neglect the African diaspora’s influence. Ironically, the roots of these religions trace back to African science-based spirituality, yet this connection receives little attention in political or religious discourse.

This dynamic played out in Election 2024: Christian nationalists—including evangelists, southern Baptists, and likely Catholics—rallied strongly behind DJT. Media and external influencers shifted the conversation away from local policy and toward polarizing international issues, like the U.S. stance on Israel and Palestine, further affecting how voters chose among domestic candidates.

When reviewing 2025 election results, I noticed Mamdani was not the only Muslim elected, which raises the question of whether heightened coverage of Gaza led to greater sympathy and increased Muslim representation—a trend potentially extending into the midterms.

Don’t misunderstand—I bear a grudge against all religions. Religious study should bring wisdom, spirituality, and growth, yet it often has the opposite effect. Religions lead to violence instead of joy and peace. Add patriarchy, and it’s chaos.

Returning to the story's structure: Is this a narrative of democratic socialism rising in the heart of Wall Street? Consider Manhattan—the FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF THE WORLD—and its boroughs. Is the city that never sleeps really ready to move from capitalism to social ownership? Notably, NYC is the largest property owner according to Curbed.com, and the mayor administers these assets. Perhaps social ownership is the underlying story arc behind recent shifts.

So, in this story—call it Project 2025 (S)—the central figure is a young millennial poised to challenge the reigning power and reclaim Manhattan for the people. Behind the scenes, religious struggle, human trafficking disguised as immigration reform, and pervasive surveillance set the chaotic stage for change in the city.  

Meet the Muslim and Arab Americans who won in US local elections
Jews vote for Andrew Cuomo over Zohran Mamdani in NYC mayoral race | The Jerusalem Post

"In addition to the Jewish vote, Mamdani lost the Catholic vote by a significant margin: 53% supported Cuomo and 14% backed Sliwa, against 33% for Mamdani.

A decisive 75% of voters with no religious affiliation supported Mamdani."

Here's a past look at Manhattan when DJT began buying up NY property in the early 70s(?) a look back at Palestinians, Israel, Libya, etc.  
 

 

 

[ProfD]

11 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Amid this religious competition, the African diaspora in the U.S.—a powerful and often underestimated voting bloc—continues to be overlooked and taken for granted by both the candidates and the dominant religious groups.  

Easy to overlook and take for granted. Black folks could be a more powerful voting bloc If we were actually demanding tangibles. 

 

We have not put forth an agenda to which politicians can be held accountable. 

 

Otherwise, we're just exercising our right to vote.  We get nothing return.   

 

11 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

It sometimes seems as though these competing religious groups neglect the African diaspora’s influence. Ironically, the roots of these religions trace back to African science-based spirituality, yet this connection receives little attention in political or religious discourse.

Again, Black folks are easy marks.  Other groups of people have zero respect for us.  We haven't done anything to correct it.

 

The biggest *problem* is there are too many operatives among Black folks selling us out.

[Mel Hopkins]

6 minutes ago, ProfD said:

The biggest *problem* is there are too many operatives among Black folks selling us out.

Agree! I think this is why you, I,  and the rest of the AALBC fam meet up here. We freaking READ! We read our history and study our lessons! We don't let anyone feed us what they want us to know. You can't be sold on anything when you Know Thyself! But without that knowledge, somebody can sell folks an Easy button. 

[ProfD]

40 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Agree! I think this is why you, I,  and the rest of the AALBC fam meet up here. We freaking READ! We read our history and study our lessons! We don't let anyone feed us what they want us to know. You can't be sold on anything when you Know Thyself! But without that knowledge, somebody can sell folks an Easy button. 

 

Exactly.  Unfortunately, that thing has turned a bunch of folks into lemmings and sheep.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD @Pioneer1 @Mel Hopkins 

Well here is an idea being positive. 

My Preface

I made a suggestion when Obama became president, that he should had spent his time improving the efficiency of the federal bureaucracy, as president he could do that with no input from anyone else. PResidents can't control the economy of the world, they can't protect peoples in states, they can't make laws that are everlasting. 

Presidents legal parameters allow them to manipulate the executive branch bureaucracy, and mold the war machine with no input from any other. 

That didn't happen. Obama meddled in finance and healthcare and made the bureaucracy worse and made the war machine worse.

My Idea for Mamdani

The mayor of NYC can't control or manipulate the price of food[private industry]. the cost of utilities[private industry]. the global real estate industries interwoven system[private industry]. the employers reaction to modern computing power[that is private industry], get money to finance the city[that is the governor]. The reality is the modern global fiscal capitalistic structure NYC was placed firmly in through decades of actions that can not be undone in four years or eight years or twelve years. The mayor of NYC can improve the bureaucracy of NYC, for example manipulating the NYPD into another organization. 

But the mayor can also pass laws, unlike the president who has been given legal powers by the congress. the mayor has the greater power in NYC, and so to the affordability push, I say make an affordability scale law.

What do I mean? 

Butter cost eight dollars for four sticks. Which means two sticks cost four dollars. One stick costs two dollars. A half of a stick cost one dollar. 

But most stores only sell packs of four or two. So, the affordability law is needed to get customers the ability to scale down what is sold to them. 

For example, for butter, why can't customers have a half a stick of butter available for one dollar? Literally have the stores, the delis + supermarkets , be within a legal right to sell goods when applicable in a more affordable way. 

The mayor can't lower the cost of butter, but in NYC with so many relying on EBT/Snap/Food pantries including federal workers who haven't been paid, forcing businesses to sell products more affordably i think is something he could had said he was going to do during the campaign. 

Maybe I am too serious or to honest, but I have never comprehended why anyone in government in a post or applying for a post provides pie in the sky or hopes or possibilities. All government post in human history have rules, even kings or queens. The rules dictate what you can do. So, just tell people with what you will be able to do in a position what you will do. 

Well that is it, my one idea to push. BAsed on Obama+AOC + Ohlan+.. Adams plus many others, the odds are mamdani's agenda will be nothing as I suggest. But, I gave a functional idea. 

[ProfD]

54 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

...the mayor has the greater power in NYC, and so to the affordability push, I say make an affordability scale law.

What do I mean? 

 

The mayor can't lower the cost of butter, but in NYC with so many relying on EBT/Snap/Food pantries including federal workers who haven't been paid, forcing businesses to sell products more affordably i think is something he could had said he was going to do during the campaign. 

Great idea.

 

Businesses can either scale products to be more affordable and/or EBT/SNAP benefits 

can be increased to more adequately cover costs of products and goods.

 

There is no good reason for the wealthiest country on the planet for any of its citizens to be poor, hungry or homeless. Especially when it comes to women, children and senior citizens. 

 

Human greed and the willingness to let a relative few people control wealth is the only reason billions of people have to struggle and suffer.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

2 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Businesses can either scale products to be more affordable and/or EBT/SNAP benefits 

can be increased to more adequately cover costs of products and goods.

remember, ebt/snap are all federal issues, the mayor of nyc has no power over those benefits, but getting businesses in nyc to scale products he can do, at least get a law made and I think enough support exists in nyc for that to happen. The detractors will be the grocers who will tax hit or an overhead cost increase with this action. But, the growing lines of people i see on the food pantry I don't think will mind. In this way those people who may have pennies here or there can go to the stores and buy something. 

 

5 minutes ago, ProfD said:

There is no good reason for the wealthiest country on the planet for any of its citizens to be poor, hungry or homeless. Especially when it comes to women, children and senior citizens. 

It's funny profd, I have heard black people offline say that my entire life. and I have never once believed it to be true. the usa was built on the european colonies which themselves were built on the death of the first peoples. That is the truth, I don't know about good or bad reasons but I know true reasons. and they are what they are. the heritage of the usa is genocide is enslavement, we all know this , black people should know and yet... is it hope? is that what I miss? Is it communicating hope? is that the basis of that opinion which so many black people utter all the time. 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

 

remember, ebt/snap are all federal issues, the mayor of nyc has no power over those benefits..

Right. I know the mayor of NYC cannot so anything about those benefits. I was referring to a parallel solution.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

The detractors will be the grocers who will tax hit or an overhead cost increase with this action.

Of course, those who have to do anything extra and/or lose money might be resistant.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

It's funny profd, I have heard black people offline say that my entire life. and I have never once believed it to be true. the usa was built on the european colonies which themselves were built on the death of the first peoples. That is the truth, I don't know about good or bad reasons but I know true reasons. and they are what they are. the heritage of the usa is genocide is enslavement, we all know this , black people should know and yet... is it hope?

Black folks are well aware of how the country was built. We also know who holds the money and power too.

[Mel Hopkins]

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Presidents legal parameters allow them to manipulate the executive branch bureaucracy, and mold the war machine with no input from any other. 

That didn't happen. Obama meddled in finance and healthcare and made the bureaucracy worse and made the war machine worse.

My Idea for Mamdani

The mayor of NYC can't control or manipulate the price of food[private industry]. the cost of utilities[private industry]. the global real estate industries interwoven system[private industry]. the employers reaction to modern computing power[that is private industry], get money to finance the city[that is the governor]. The reality is the modern global fiscal capitalistic structure NYC was placed firmly in through decades of actions that can not be undone in four years or eight years or twelve years. The mayor of NYC can improve the bureaucracy of NYC, for example manipulating the NYPD into another organization. 

Thanks for the tag. I read through your essay, and while I don’t agree with a lot of the conclusions, I do think you’re raising an interesting point about the difference between what officials want to do versus what they’re actually allowed to do.

 

The part of your argument that does land for me is the structural piece:
— The mayor can’t set private-market prices,
— but can shape how NYC agencies function, including the NYPD.
That’s a fundamental distinction and a solid place to build from.

Your part about packaging sizes and affordability is also an interesting angle. It reminds me of "five-cent loosies" from back in the day. That’s something you could actually dig into with data, separate from the political side.

 

For me, I try to stick to the parts of an argument where there’s a clear legal or economic grounding — it keeps the conversation from going in circles. 

 

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts. It will be interesting to see how Mayor Mamdani differs from the mayoral candidate Mamdani.  

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

well ok, I will leave it alone.

@Mel Hopkins

ok

[Pioneer1]

 

richardmurray

 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Butter cost eight dollars for four sticks. Which means two sticks cost four dollars. One stick costs two dollars. A half of a stick cost one dollar. 

But most stores only sell packs of four or two. So, the affordability law is needed to get customers the ability to scale down what is sold to them. 

For example, for butter, why can't customers have a half a stick of butter available for one dollar?

Loosies?
You mean, kinda like what they did with cigarettes?

If they're selling butter in "2 stick" packs, I may have to take a quick trip to the NYC to witness this for myself...lol.

 

 

 

 

ProfD
 

11 hours ago, ProfD said:

There is no good reason for the wealthiest country on the planet for any of its citizens to be poor, hungry or homeless.

I'd argue there are several GOOD reasons why a person....even in the world's wealthiest country...would be poor, hungry, and homeless.
 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'd argue there are several GOOD reasons why a person....even in the world's wealthiest country...would be poor, hungry, and homeless.

Poor decisions and mental health issues notwithstanding, there is still no good reason in this country for people especially childen, women and senior citizens to be in a net negative position. 

 

Elon Musk is en route to becoming the world's 1st trillionaire. He hasn't done anything for the greater good of humanity that warrants having enough wealth to take care of several countries.

 

Right now, the US gov't is holding hostage SNAP benefits which amount to $9 billion dollars per month. That's a drop in the bucket for the country to spend. It impacts 42 million people.

[Pioneer1]

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

Poor decisions and mental health issues notwithstanding

Exactly.

With some people, no matter how many opportunities you give them or how much wealth you give them....they'll find a way to fuck it up and will fuck up YOUR life too if you let them.
This isn't most poor people obviously, but a lot of them.

I've been homeless before and saw quite a few people who came from wealth and privilege but ended up in that condition from poor decision making and just being plain ole stupid.

[richardmurray]

mamdani's plan