Many people, especially New York City residents, are eagerly waiting to see whether Zohran Mamdani will honor his mayoral campaign promises. Although only time will tell what Mamdani will actually accomplish as the mayor of one of the most important US cities, he has been dropping hints here and there on what to expect.
Last week, Mamdani said he would end the clearing of homeless encampments that Mayor Eric Adams instituted. According to Mamdani, the clearing of encampments is a cruel act, partly because they aren’t “connecting homeless New Yorkers to the housing they so desperately need.” What Mamdani actually means by “housing” is unclear. Either way, these are mere words, and there are no solid plans on what actually to do about the homeless people in New York City. And housing is extremely difficult to come by in New York.
Mayor Adams chimed in: “I appreciate the idealistic view he has of life because you need that as a mayor, but the realism is — imagine if we said that you are allowed to sleep on the streets of our city in tents and encampments with 230,000 people coming to our city.”
Is Mamdani simply idealistic, or is he evading the task of finding an actual solution to the problem?
There are many homeless shelters in the city, but a majority of the homeless population don’t go there because of the strict rules forbidding drugs and alcohol. They refuse shelter so they can stay high. This is not a new problem. New York, like many other major cities in the United States, has had a homelessness problem for decades. This doesn’t mean that it should be ignored, but Mamdani’s apparent plans to fix it are devoid of practicality.
Real estate will be affected, too. Manhattan real estate agent Ann Cutbill Lenane said that ending the clearing of homeless encampments “hugely affects things. It will absolutely not be good for the real estate market, it won’t be good for people and quality of life, and these encampments get bigger and bigger.” Can Mamdani reconcile these two separate realities: growing real estate in the city (something he discussed with President Trump during the visit to the White House) and allowing homelessness?
A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I briefly helped out in one of New York City’s shelters for homeless women. Catholic nuns ran it, and although it was an extremely charitable, kind, and good operation, it had many rules.
There was a soup kitchen, and homeless women were allowed to come every night for dinner. There were also many rooms and beds, but this wasn’t just any kind of shelter. Women were allowed to live there for a specific period, during which they were responsible for seeking employment and better housing. In other words, there had to be a level of responsibility–a more solid solution was being created.
Of course, one cannot expect a substance abuser or alcohol addict to show the same amount of rationality. First, he must free himself of addiction, and then begin to rebuild his life. Everyone deserves another chance at a productive life, and if there is a place where this is authentically true, it’s America. But policies that allow rampant homelessness are not going to make anyone into a productive citizen at all.
Let us also not forget that crime and mental illness are inevitably attached to the homeless population, and law-abiding citizens should not be exposed to this. New Yorkers have a right to a safe city.
Does anyone really believe that Mamdani will do what he promised in his campaign? Author and orator Fran Lebowitz recently said in an interview for Variety that Mamdani is “too old to believe” these idealistic things. “When I was 34,” said Lebowitz, “I was long past believing this kind of stuff. But I think it’s adorable.” She still voted for him because she was sick of the “old Democrats,” even though she doesn’t necessarily agree with most of his ideas.
Whether Mamdani ends the clearing of homeless encampments or these are just empty words remains to be seen. He may even genuinely believe in the ideas he’s proposing, but his mayoral term is shaping up to be composed of a lot of talk and a lot of gridlock from which nobody will benefit.
