New Yorkers want lower rents; Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s solution is more government. His preliminary Citywide Racial Equity Plan, released yesterday, responds to the city’s affordability problems with a sprawling managerial framework—hundreds of goals, strategies, and indicators across 45 agencies. The plan and its new “True Cost of Living” (TCOL) measure suggest that the administration is focused more on process and performance than on lowering New Yorkers’ cost of living.
The implausible conclusions start with Mamdani’s TCOL index, which purports to measure how much a family needs to earn to be “economically secure” in New York. According to the mayor’s office, 62 percent of New York City residents were insecure as of 2022, thanks to sky-high housing, child care, and health-care expenditures.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
These are real burdens, but labeling two-thirds of the city poor is a stretch. Mamdani’s measure implies that a family of four can be poor while earning nearly $160,000 a year. That family may feel some economic stress, but it’s hardly in the same category as a family of four actually eligible for federal welfare, which makes less than half as much.
Nor are the assumptions underlying TCOL necessarily sound. Its estimates are based on Census data from 2018 projected forward to 2022 conditions. (“Future reports,” the plan says, “will use more current data and allow year-over-year comparison.”) It relies on assumptions about costs and subsidies, rather than drawing them from the actual population. The 62 percent figure is thus almost certainly not sufficiently reliable to bear the weight of the policies likely to be hung on it.
TCOL involves some concept creep, as well. A metric built around what it takes to live in New York “with dignity” will almost always expand the population classified as falling below that standard. As wealth and thus expenses rise, so, too, will the alleged burden. That gives government permission to treat ever-higher living expenditures as a justification for broader redistribution—rather than as a signal to reduce the costs that City Hall can actually influence.
The plan’s bigger problem, though, is that New York doesn’t need more government frameworks or new cost indicators.
The sheer bureaucracy on display here is staggering. Across those 45 agencies, the Mamdani plan is organized into seven domains and contains more than 200 agency goals, 800 strategies, and 600 indicators. The result is an administrative fog machine that substitutes box-checking for attaining outcomes New Yorkers care about.
In a city already struggling with fiscal pressure, there’s little room to expand government. Mamdani’s budget shortfall over this fiscal year and the next ranges between $5.4 and $7.1 billion. City Comptroller Mark Levine warns that FY 2026 operating expenses could exceed revenues by between $4.5 and $6.3 billion.
The TCOL report does offer a useful insight, though, in an unlikely place: its discussion of racial disparities. According to the report, these disparities are substantial. About 44 percent of white New Yorkers fell below their TCOL threshold, compared with 66 percent of black New Yorkers, 78 percent of Hispanic New Yorkers, and 63 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander New Yorkers. These numbers certainly suggest large disparities, at least in the likelihood among groups of falling below the threshold; however, once below the threshold, the gaps between these New Yorkers, of any race, are much smaller.
That suggests that the affordability crisis itself is being powered by citywide structural costs—namely, a lack of sufficient housing supply and high health-care expenditures. Housing and health care fuel the affordability crisis because they are among the largest unavoidable expenses in family budgets, so when rent is driven up by scarce supply, and medical spending consumes a growing share of income, even working households can fall behind no matter how much they cut elsewhere. That points toward a different policy response—one focused on lowering costs and expanding opportunity, not the framework-heavy approach equity planners tend to favor.
Indeed, a serious affordability agenda would focus on exactly the factors that drive these disparities.
Start with housing. Land-use regulations need to allow more and denser housing development as-of-right—something that the city permitted until 1961. Environmental review should be loosened, and ideally exempted, for new residential construction. The city should reduce discretionary delay in land-use and permit review by offering builders a state-granted permit for applications that take too long to approve. Unlike public subsidies for affordable housing, procedural reforms unlock private-sector capital at no expense to the public.
Childcare providers should likewise be able to expand supply by making it easier to open and operate facilities and easing space constraints where possible. Subsidies should be simpler, easier to claim, and targeted to work and income.
And city officials should never forget that affordability needs to be measured in reference to what New Yorkers are earning and taking home. Mamdani has yet to appreciate the importance of growing the economy and pushing up wages through robust competition for employees. But to do that, the city must be an attractive enough place for firms to want to hire and expand, relative to competition elsewhere.
The city should keep measuring outcomes. But it should measure the right ones: housing units completed, rent burdens, childcare seats, job placement, job retention. It doesn’t need 600 indicators—or a lecture about equity.