Powell: Can Democrats ever deliver 'a city we can afford'?

By CHRIS POWELL

Maybe the most effective slogan for Zohran Mamdani's campaign for mayor of New York City was "A city we can afford." Indeed, New York long has been famous for being horribly expensive, part of why people often said, "It's a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to live here."

Of course the whole country is a lot more expensive lately because of inflation, generated in large part by uncontrolled federal government spending and borrowing that has allowed the country to live far beyond its means. Both major political parties are responsible for that.

But the federal government is no more responsible for New York City's expensiveness than it is for the expensiveness of the rest of the country. The expensiveness of New York City is mainly the responsibility of city government and New York State government.

Mamdani, a Democrat and a socialist, wants to tax the rich more to create a socialist paradise, but New York City's income tax is determined by state government, not city government, and the rich already pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes in the state and are notoriously mobile. That narrows the possibilities for making New York "a city we can afford."

Housing costs in New York City have been driven up by unchecked illegal immigration, a Democratic policy Mamdani supports.

Mamdani wants more rent control in the city, which will help a few people at the expense of the many by discouraging housing construction and pushing up housing prices even more.

Mamdani wants less enforcement of criminal law in the city and has denounced its police department though crime increases the expense of city living for everyone.

Most city government expense is a matter of the compensation of its employees. New York City's government workforce is heavily unionized, politically active, generously compensated, and difficult to hold accountable. Making the city more affordable requires making its government more efficient and getting more value from its employees. But the government employee unions are a big component of Mamdani's party, they embody socialism, and they aren't likely to cooperate with efficiency.

New York City spends $40,000 per pupil in its school system and yet half the students still fail to meet basic proficiency standards. Graduating so many uneducated young people doesn't help them earn the income needed to live in an expensive place.

The city's transit system, operated jointly state government and city government, is often exposed for fraud, incompetence, goldbricking by its employees, poor maintenance, and generally excessive costs, even as most city residents must rely on it. It long has resisted reform.

Making city bus service free to passengers, as Mamdani would like to do, isn't such a crazy idea in principle. But it is crazy while the city's transit system remains so badly managed. Free buses should be financed from transit system efficiencies.

New York State has had Democratic governors since 2007. New York City hasn't had a genuinely Republican mayor since Rudy Guiliani left office in 2001. (His successor, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, was nominated by the Republican Party but was actually a Democrat at heart and soon formally became one.)

Since Democrats have been unable to control the cost of living in New York City, a Democratic socialist isn't likely to do any better without changing some of his premises.

Of course Connecticut is also too expensive and for some of the same reasons New York City is.

Government's subservience to the government employee unions may be even more demeaning in Connecticut than in New York. Connecticut columnist Red Jahncke reported this week that some retired state employees are receiving pensions much higher than the salaries they earned.

Taxes in Connecticut are high, economic growth is low, education is failing the poor, housing is expensive, poverty and homelessness are worsening, and the Democrats who run the state are advocating rent control as they haggle over zoning legislation that, even if enacted, won't get much housing built.

So is "democratic socialism" to be Connecticut's fate as well?

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net) His other columns are here.