Helping New Yorkers make informed voting decisions
PollPal.nyc is a non-partisan platform designed to help New York City residents understand where mayoral candidates stand on key issues. Our goal is to simplify the voting process by matching voters with candidates who share their values and policy preferences.
Through our interactive quizzes, we aim to increase voter engagement and help citizens make more informed choices at the ballot box. We believe that democracy works best when voters understand the positions of those running for office.
Our NYC Mayoral Match Quiz presents you with a series of statements on important issues facing the city. For each statement, you can indicate whether you agree, disagree, or wish to skip. Based on your responses, we calculate which candidates' positions most closely align with your own.
The candidate stances are determined through careful research of their public statements, voting records, campaign platforms, and debate performances. We strive to present their positions accurately and without bias.
Click on an issue to jump directly to candidate positions:
As the incumbent mayor, Adams has made public safety his top priority. He opposes any “defund” approach and in fact added two extra NYPD academy classes in FY2025 (1,200 new recruits) to bring the force to about 35,000 officers (Mayor Adams Doubles Down on Efforts to Reduce Shootings, Homicides by Adding 1,200 new Police Recrui | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Doubles Down on Efforts to Reduce Shootings, Homicides by Adding 1,200 new Police Recrui | City of New York). He touts the recent slight crime decline as proof his policing strategies work and vows to continue growing or maintaining the NYPD to combat crime (Mayor Adams Doubles Down on Efforts to Reduce Shootings, Homicides by Adding 1,200 new Police Recrui | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Doubles Down on Efforts to Reduce Shootings, Homicides by Adding 1,200 new Police Recrui | City of New York).
Cuomo has positioned himself as a law-and-order candidate. In his launch video he said the city “feels threatening, out of control” due to crime (Breaking down Andrew Cuomo’s 17-minute mayoral campaign launch video - City & State New York). He has strongly indicated he would increase police presence – criticizing “poor leadership” for public safety woes (Andrew Cuomo announces run for NYC mayor | FOX 5 New York). As governor, he often sided with police on policy and is expected to favor hiring more officers or redeploying them rather than cutting NYPD resources (he has explicitly rejected the left’s anti-police rhetoric) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
A notable shift has occurred for Lander. While previously known as a police reform advocate, his mayoral blueprint now calls for hiring 1,000+ additional officers to fill NYPD vacancies (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel) (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel). He says public safety requires adequate staffing and even promises to retain Adams’ current police commissioner (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel) (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel). However, he couples this with accountability measures (see issue 12). In short, Lander supports modestly expanding the NYPD, a reversal from his prior “defund” stance (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel) (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel).
Ramos has not advocated adding NYPD headcount. The Queens state senator instead stresses addressing root causes of crime (mental health, jobs – see issue 3) over sheer numbers. She was a vocal critic of NYPD misconduct and austerity under Adams. There’s no indication she’d push to increase officers; rather, she’d maintain current staffing but focus them on serious crimes and shift minor issues to civilian agencies. (In forums, Ramos emphasized social investments, not expanding the force.) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York)
Myrie has not made policing levels a centerpiece of his campaign. He has said the city needs “effective leadership” on safety but is running more on housing and management competence. He has not called for hiring more cops outright, nor for cutting the force. It’s likely he’d hold NYPD staffing roughly steady, focusing instead on better deployment and community trust. (He has supported criminal justice reforms in Albany but also acknowledges constituents’ crime concerns.)
Mamdani, the DSA-backed candidate, is firmly against increasing the NYPD. He advocates reallocating funds to prevention. He did not endorse adding officers – his safety plans focus on housing, jobs, and violence interruption rather than boosting police ranks. Mamdani has even hinted at reducing NYPD funding to fund social programs, aligning with his democratic socialist stance (though his campaign centers more on economic justice than policing).
Stringer has explicitly promised to “beef up the NYPD” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). In a public safety plan, he set a goal of hiring about 3,000 additional officers to increase patrol presence (especially in subways) (NYC mayoral hopeful Scott Stringer sets ambitious goal of hiring 3K …). This marks a shift to a tougher stance after 2021. Stringer argues more officers will help tackle violent crime and quality-of-life issues, though coupled with oversight. Overall, he supports growing the police force to improve safety (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Blake has signaled a balanced approach. He emphasizes everyone “deserves to get home safe” and supports NYPD’s role in fighting crime (Every New Yorker deserves to get home safe. Public safety, criminal …). While he joined progressives in calling for a rent freeze, he is more moderate on policing. Blake would likely maintain or modestly increase NYPD staffing to ensure public safety, combined with community policing. (He has not outlined a specific number, but as a Bronx moderate he has not embraced cutting the force.)
Walden, a former prosecutor, is in favor of expanding the NYPD. His platform is explicitly pro-police: he proposes adding officers and giving NYPD the tools to crack down on crime (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Walden sees a well-resourced police force as essential to quality of life, likening his approach to Michael Bloomberg’s. Expect him to hire more cops and deploy them aggressively for subway safety and street disorder.
Tilson has made public safety a central plank. He pledges to cut violent crime by 50% in his first term, which would almost certainly require more policing (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He supports funding NYPD robustly and undoing policies that he believes hamstring police. Tilson has not published a number, but as a Wall Street moderate he would increase officer count or overtime to enforce laws and deter crime (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, is strongly in favor of increasing NYPD ranks and returning to broken-windows enforcement. He campaigns on “building up the police department” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Sliwa argues the NYPD is understaffed and demoralized; he would hire thousands more officers, restore disbanded units, and flood high-crime areas with cops. Cracking down on subway fare evasion, graffiti, petty crime – Sliwa advocates a sizable expansion of the force to pre-de Blasio levels.
Adams has not supported a blanket rent freeze. As mayor, he appoints the Rent Guidelines Board, which under his tenure approved modest rent increases (3% and 2-3% hikes) each year (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). Unlike his predecessor de Blasio (who sometimes froze rents), Adams defended balanced increases to avoid driving out landlords. He focuses on expanding housing supply (see issue 6) rather than an emergency citywide rent cap. In forums he hasn’t vowed any rent freeze, and his RGB appointees have voted for raises, not a freeze (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York).
Cuomo has not explicitly promised a rent freeze in this race. He does highlight his record of strengthening tenant laws as governor (he signed the 2019 rent regulation overhaul), but he is non-committal on freezing rents now. Tenant advocates have pressed all candidates on this (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), and Cuomo has pointed instead to his Albany achievements rather than agreeing to a universal freeze. In short, he favors tenant protections (e.g. he’d enforce rent laws and perhaps expand vouchers) but is unlikely to order a broad rent freeze.
Lander is very sympathetic to renters but stopped short of an outright freeze pledge. He acknowledges the Rent Guidelines Board is “broken” and says he’d appoint members who truly represent tenants (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). That implies he’d push for minimal rent increases (possibly zero in hard times). While not explicitly promising “I will freeze rents,” Lander’s approach would strictly cap or freeze rents if affordability demands it, by reforming the RGB to prioritize tenants (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York).
Ramos explicitly promised to freeze rents for rent-stabilized tenants. At a December housing forum, she was one of only three candidates to commit to a rent freeze (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). Ramos proudly noted she served in an administration (de Blasio’s) that delivered rent freezes and said tenants “deserve” that relief (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). She also champions “good cause” eviction protections. Overall, Ramos is strongly in favor of freezing or strictly capping rents to keep New Yorkers in their homes.
Myrie has a record of fighting for tenants (he helped pass the 2019 rent law) but has not pledged a blanket freeze during his campaign (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). In fact, when asked, he avoided a yes/no answer – instead he said he doesn’t want any rent increases if tenants are struggling (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) and would appoint pro-tenant RGB members. So while Myrie would likely aim for 0% increases in practice, he hasn’t formally vowed “freeze rents” in campaign literature. He emphasizes building new housing and tenant vouchers over an across-the-board cap.
Mamdani unequivocally calls for a rent freeze. He has made “freeze the rent” a rallying cry of his campaign (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). In October, he publicly committed to a rent freeze, and at the tenant forum he was “adamant yes” on freezing stabilized rents (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). Mamdani argues the mayor can deliver this by appointing the right RGB members (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He also advocates for universal rent control via Albany. Expect him to use his office to halt rent hikes for tenants.
Stringer stopped short of a full freeze promise, but he indicated he’d hold rents to very low growth. He vowed to ensure rents are “commensurate with the stability of neighborhoods” (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) – a careful way of saying he’d keep increases minimal. In practice, Stringer’s tenant-friendly stance suggests he’d consider freezing rents if needed (he supported de Blasio’s prior freezes). He also refers to his detailed 2021 housing plan that emphasized affordability (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist). So, while not as explicit as Ramos or Mamdani, Stringer would push for strict rent caps, possibly 0% in tough times.
Blake gave an “explicit yes” in favor of freezing rent-stabilized rents (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). When pressed at the Housing Justice forum, he joined Ramos and Mamdani in promising a rent freeze for tenants (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). Blake frames it as part of addressing the “True Cost of Living.” He also proposes a revival of Mitchell-Lama style affordable housing (see issue 6) to relieve rent pressure (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). But on this question, Blake is firmly pro-tenant and would freeze or tightly cap rents for regulated units.
Walden has not endorsed a rent freeze. As an independent, he leans technocratic – focusing on increasing housing stock and rooting out NYCHA mismanagement rather than imposing price controls. In the tenant forum, Walden did not commit to a freeze (he emphasized other tenant supports instead) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York) (Which NYC mayoral candidates would freeze the rent? - City & State New York). He talks of public-private partnerships to build housing, suggesting he’s cautious about policies that might disincentivize landlords. Walden would likely favor targeted relief (vouchers, tax credits) over a universal rent cap.
Tilson opposes a broad rent freeze. He acknowledges the city’s affordability crisis but, as a finance and real estate-minded person, argues that simply capping rents could hurt housing supply. Tilson’s approach to the “cost-of-living crisis” focuses on growing the economy and cutting government costs (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), not on new rent controls. He has said the 2019 rent law reforms went too far in some cases. Expect him to propose incentives for building and perhaps property tax reductions for renters rather than freezing rents outright.
Sliwa does not support freezing rents across the board. As a Republican, he tends to side with small property owners and believes overly strict rent caps can backfire. In 2021 he opposed extending eviction moratoria too long, and he’s likely to oppose a citywide rent freeze mandate. Sliwa instead calls for more housing construction and tax breaks to naturally lower rents. He might favor a temporary rent freeze for seniors or vets, but generally he’d not impose a universal rent cap, arguing it could harm mom-and-pop landlords.
Adams largely emphasizes policing first. He restarted NYPD anti-gun units and championed a “zero tolerance” approach to street homelessness and subway fare evasion (2025 New York City mayoral election - Wikipedia) (2025 New York City mayoral election - Wikipedia). While he did expand some mental health initiatives (like deployment of mental health teams to assist police), his stance is that social services complement but do not replace policing. Critics note that Adams has invested relatively little in new community-led violence interruption compared to the police budget. He contends that police and social programs go hand-in-hand, but in practice Adams has prioritized law enforcement (and even involuntary hospitalization – see issue 10) over shifting funds to social services (2025 New York City mayoral election - Wikipedia) (2025 New York City mayoral election - Wikipedia).
Cuomo’s approach to crime is also centered on enforcement, but he supports augmenting it with some social programs. He’s campaigned on getting the mentally ill homeless off the streets (implying both police action and more psychiatric care). As governor, he funded initiatives like community schools and gun violence “Strike Force” teams, showing openness to non-policing strategies. Still, Cuomo firmly rejects the notion of reducing police presence – he argues the city needs both strong policing and better mental health outreach. In sum, Cuomo would boost mental health services and youth programs, but not at the expense of a robust policing role (he believes the two must work in tandem).
Lander has long advocated “care not criminalization.” He wants to shift focus toward mental health care and prevention. His plan to end street homelessness centers on housing and treatment rather than policing (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel) (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel). He proposes a dedicated Deputy Mayor for Public Safety to coordinate social services with NYPD (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel) (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel). Even as he adds officers, Lander insists on a public health approach for issues like mental health crises (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel) (Brad Lander, Jewish progressive running for NYC mayor, outlines plan to fight crime | The Times of Israel). He champions violence interruption programs (he’s praised groups like Brownsville’s MSI). Overall, Lander would invest significantly in mental health clinics, therapists in schools, job programs, and community anti-violence workers, aiming to reduce reliance on police over time.
Ramos strongly believes in addressing root causes of crime. She has criticized the city for leaning on the NYPD to manage problems like mental illness and homelessness. Ramos wants to “integrate mental health care citywide” and fund violence interrupters (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). In the State Senate she fought for worker rights and youth jobs – she’d continue that focus to prevent crime. Expect Ramos to push for shifting budget dollars from overtime policing into things like 24/7 drop-in mental health centers, community-based violence mediation (e.g. Cure Violence programs), and school counseling. She sees policing as just one tool and advocates greater investment in social programs and treatment to make communities safer.
Myrie also emphasizes a holistic approach. He frequently notes that poverty and lack of opportunity drive crime. As a senator, he brought jobs programs to his district and passed the “Clean Slate” act to help former offenders – indicating his belief in rehabilitation. Myrie’s campaign rhetoric is about competence and addressing chaos; he supports boosting youth programs and mental health outreach to reduce crime long-term. He has said the city should use a “public health lens” for violence. So Myrie would bolster mental health services, job training, and community outreach, while still supporting traditional policing. He’s not as vocal as some on defunding, but he clearly values social solutions (he even described violence as a symptom of systemic issues).
Mamdani is firmly in the camp of reducing reliance on policing. He argues that public safety comes from housing, good jobs, and healthcare, not aggressive policing. He opposed increasing the NYPD budget and instead calls for funding initiatives like community centers, peer mental health counselors, and neighborhood conflict resolution. Mamdani’s platform includes creating a network of free mental health clinics and expanding “violence interrupter” teams in high-crime areas. He often says crime is a result of failed social policy. So Mamdani would divert significant resources to mental health care and social services, treating policing as a last resort rather than a primary solution.
Stringer has a dual approach. He agrees the city must invest more in mental health and youth programs – he faulted Adams for lacking a real mental health plan (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist). In 2021, Stringer proposed hiring more social workers and expanding community-based anti-violence programs. As mayoral candidate now, even as he advocates more police (issue 1), he also promises to “do big things” in education, housing, and mental health to attack crime at its roots (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist). For example, Stringer would likely expand the B-HEARD mental health response units and increase funding to Cure Violence groups. He strives to balance enforcement with prevention, so expect substantial investments in social programs under a Stringer administration alongside policing.
Blake emphasizes “Education and Youth Empowerment” and tackling the “true cost of living” as crime prevention (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). He supports programs that uplift marginalized communities – guaranteed income pilots, small business investment, and expanded childcare – believing these will reduce desperation-driven crime (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). Blake has championed the “Treatment Not Jails” approach for mentally ill individuals (he supported Raise the Age to handle teen offenders with services). He would invest in mental health crisis centers and job programs in high-crime areas. While he’s moderate on policing, he often says public safety isn’t just about police, it’s about opportunities. So Blake would pair policing with robust social support and violence interruption initiatives.
Walden’s platform leans more towards law-and-order, but he does acknowledge that issues like housing and mental illness are intertwined with crime (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He talks of “tackling intractable problems” with innovative solutions – for example, he might use public-private partnerships to fund more supportive housing (which helps reduce crime by stabilizing lives). Still, Walden has not foregrounded community-based anti-crime programs in his campaign. He’s likely to support specialized mental health courts and require better coordination between NYPD and social services (leveraging his management focus). In short, Walden would not significantly cut police in favor of social programs, but he would try to layer in mental health and housing interventions as part of a comprehensive safety strategy.
Tilson’s priorities are public safety and economic growth. He has not emphasized non-police strategies much – instead he stresses getting tough on crime and disorder (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Tilson is skeptical of the “defund” movement and believes quality-of-life offenses need enforcement. That said, as an education reformer, he likely supports long-term measures like better schooling and after-school programs to reduce crime. But in the near term, Tilson would lean on policing and strict enforcement. Any mental health investments (such as requiring treatment for the homeless mentally ill – see issue 10) would be to support policing efforts, not replace them. So Tilson would modestly support social programs, but he does not advocate shifting resources away from NYPD to community programs as a primary tactic.
Sliwa is a firm believer that more policing is the answer, and he has openly disparaged the idea of diverting NYPD funds to social services. He often says “service providers can’t arrest the bad guys” – indicating his view that social programs come after you’ve secured the streets. Sliwa would prioritize reopening closed jails and involuntarily committing the mentally ill (issue 10) over expanding social workers. He has not put forward plans for violence interruption squads or new city-run mental health initiatives – instead he focuses on citizen patrols and empowering police. In essence, Sliwa would double down on policing and expects state or nonprofit agencies to handle mental health and social issues separately. (He does, however, support more animal therapy and church outreach programs – unconventional ideas – but not at the cost of any policing resources.)
Adams has not proposed universal free childcare. In fact, he faced backlash for cutting some early childhood education funds (3-K expansion) amid budget tightening (Cuts to New York’s pre-K spell political trouble for Eric Adams - POLITICO) (Cuts to New York’s pre-K spell political trouble for Eric Adams - POLITICO). While he did launch a childcare affordability plan in 2022 (creating a portal and boosting vouchers for low-income families), he has not moved toward making childcare free for all. His stance is that the city should help those most in need (via vouchers or tax credits) but cannot pay for entirely free childcare without federal aid. Notably, Adams scaled back some subsidized 3-K seats due to budget gaps (Cuts to New York’s pre-K spell political trouble for Eric Adams - POLITICO) (Cuts to New York’s pre-K spell political trouble for Eric Adams - POLITICO), which opponents call a mistake. So Adams does not support free childcare for every family – he focuses on targeted assistance and encouraging employers to provide childcare support.
Cuomo has signaled interest in expanding childcare access, though he hasn’t unveiled a detailed plan yet. As governor, he implemented free full-day pre-K statewide (building on NYC’s program) and backed a child care tax credit. We can expect Cuomo to support moving toward universal childcare in NYC over time, but likely via phased-in subsidies rather than an immediate free-for-all. He often cites his record of enacting paid family leave and middle-class tax credits as evidence he helps working families. On universal childcare, Cuomo would probably seek state/federal funding partnerships. In summary, he is open to broadly available low-cost childcare (and might resurrect de Blasio’s 3-K for All initiative), but whether he’d promise completely free childcare for all families is uncertain – he tends to propose means-tested programs first.
Lander strongly supports expanding childcare as part of education. He explicitly calls for restoring and increasing early childhood education funding (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) that the Adams administration cut. Lander has lauded the idea of childcare as a public good like K-12 school. He would push to make childcare free or very affordable, likely starting with universal childcare from infancy to age 3 (building on pre-K for 4-year-olds). In the Council, Lander was a proponent of the “Universal Childcare” study and, as Comptroller, he’s warned that childcare scarcity harms the economy. It’s safe to say Lander would prioritize working toward universal free childcare in NYC, funded through city funds and state aid, treating it as essential infrastructure for families.
Childcare access is one of Ramos’s top platform points. She says she wants to “improve child care access” and has emphasized being a working mother herself (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Ramos supports moving toward free, universal childcare, similar to how public school is free. She has advocated in the Senate for childcare funding (including better pay for childcare workers). We can expect Ramos to champion a plan for city-subsidized childcare for all families, perhaps starting with extended-day programs or childcare centers in every neighborhood. Given her labor background, she might also negotiate with unions to create childcare cooperatives. Overall, Ramos is very much in favor of treating childcare as part of public education and making it free and available to every family (she often notes childcare is as necessary as first grade).
Myrie has proposed universal free after-school programs for all school-age children (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), which is related to childcare for working parents of older kids. While that specifically covers K-12 ages, it signals his belief that the city should provide family supports akin to free schooling. Myrie would likely support free or heavily subsidized childcare for younger kids as well, though he has focused on after-school in his initial policy rollouts. As a progressive, he knows childcare burden on families is huge. Expect Myrie to work with the City Council to expand childcare slots and possibly implement a sliding scale moving toward free care. In short, he is favorably inclined to universal childcare, even if his headline proposal was about after-school programs (the spirit is the same – relieving parents of care costs).
Mamdani explicitly promises “free child care” as a plank of his campaign (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Like his call for free buses and rent freezes, free childcare for all is part of his democratic socialist vision. He likens it to public education – a right that should be provided. Mamdani would push to fund city-run childcare centers and reimburse private daycare costs so that families pay $0. He also ties it to workers’ rights, noting it enables parents (especially mothers) to work. This proposal would be funded by new taxes on the wealthy or reallocating funds. Mamdani’s stance is clear: childcare should be universally free, just like public school, and he would fight to make that a reality in NYC (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Stringer has a strong record on this issue. During his 2021 run, he unveiled a detailed “NYC Under 3” plan to provide universal affordable childcare (free for many) via subsidies to families and raises for child-care workers. He continues to campaign on expanding child care – City & State notes he wants to “expand child care” as mayor (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Stringer’s plan would cap childcare costs as a share of income, effectively making it free for low- and middle-income families. Given his past proposals, we can expect a Mayor Stringer to invest heavily in early childhood programs, aiming for something close to free childcare for all (with perhaps a nominal fee for higher earners). He frames it as both an economic and gender equity strategy.
Blake puts a big emphasis on childcare. He specifically says he will tackle the “True Cost of Living” by raising wages for childcare providers and presumably making childcare affordable (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). Blake has spoken about his mother working long hours and the need for community support – he views childcare as essential infrastructure. While in the Assembly, he supported childcare funding increases. In this race, he talks of a “guaranteed income” and better pay for care workers, which implies subsidizing childcare for families. Blake would likely aim for free childcare for low-income families and affordable care for all, on the path to universal coverage. He’s very much in line with treating childcare like education – a necessity the city should ensure access to (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Walden has not made universal childcare a prominent issue in his campaign messaging. As an independent focused on corruption and management, he’s more likely to talk about running existing services efficiently. He certainly supports education and working parents, but there’s no explicit Walden plan for free childcare for all. He might favor public-private partnerships or employer incentives to expand childcare availability. However, Walden would probably be cautious about the cost of a fully city-funded universal childcare program. So, while he’d support improving access (perhaps streamlining subsidies or using unused school space for daycare), Walden is not on record pushing for free childcare for every single family.
Tilson has not emphasized childcare in his platform beyond noting the general “cost-of-living crisis.” As a Wall Streeter and education reform advocate, his focus in education is K-12 (charter schools) rather than early childhood. He would likely argue for improving public pre-K and maybe offer tax credits for childcare, but not for making it entirely free across the board. Tilson’s approach to helping families is more about growing the economy (so they can afford services) and cutting waste to reduce taxes. Thus, he is unlikely to prioritize a huge new childcare entitlement. He might support targeted childcare assistance, but on the idea of universal free childcare, Tilson would probably say the city can’t afford it and should instead facilitate private and nonprofit childcare solutions.
Sliwa has not campaigned on free childcare. His platform is centered on public safety and opposing mandates. As a conservative, he would be wary of an expansive new government program like universal childcare. Sliwa might support specific measures (for instance, he’s advocated for animal-assisted therapy in schools – an offbeat idea – but nothing about daycare). Generally, he’d prefer leaving childcare to families, communities, and perhaps church groups rather than government. He might endorse tax deductions or credits to help parents pay for daycare, but not a city-funded free childcare system. Sliwa would likely criticize such a program’s cost and bureaucracy.
Adams has increasingly taken the stance that NYC’s ability to help asylum seekers is limited and must not come at the expense of services for longtime New Yorkers. He famously said, “We are past our breaking point…our resources are not [limitless]” (Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&A | City of New York) (Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&A | City of New York). His administration instituted 60-day shelter stays for single adult migrants to free up space for locals and has called for dispersing migrants to other localities. While he hasn’t used the phrase “locals first” explicitly, Adams’ policies (like curfews at migrant shelters and seeking to suspend the right-to-shelter consent decree for migrants) indicate he is shifting toward prioritizing existing residents’ needs (Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&A | City of New York) (Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&A | City of New York). He emphasizes that without more federal/state help, helping a huge influx of newcomers could mean cutting services for native NYC vulnerable populations (Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&A | City of New York) (Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&A | City of New York). In summary, Adams still offers aid to asylum seekers, but he has warned that NYC must safeguard resources for its current population given the strain.
Cuomo has criticized Adams’ handling of the migrant influx and positions himself as someone who can manage it better. He hasn’t made overt anti-immigrant statements – in fact, as governor he declared NY a welcoming state – but he likely agrees that the burden on NYC is unsustainable without prioritization. Cuomo would likely lobby Washington hard for funds and try to coordinate upstate transfers. If forced to allocate scarce city resources, Cuomo would ensure homeless New Yorkers and low-income residents don’t lose out to new arrivals. He’s signaled that poor planning (implying Adams) led to migrants sleeping on streets (Breaking down Andrew Cuomo’s 17-minute mayoral campaign launch video - City & State New York) (Breaking down Andrew Cuomo’s 17-minute mayoral campaign launch video - City & State New York). So expect Cuomo to prioritize obtaining external aid and setting caps, effectively putting existing New Yorkers first in line for city-funded services, while still seeking humane treatment for migrants through state and federal programs.
Lander has been a vocal defender of asylum seekers’ rights, opposing measures like shelter time limits. He believes the city shouldn’t pit “new arrivals” against longer-term residents but rather get more help from higher levels of government (Why New Migrants are Good for NYC With Comptroller Brad Lander - NYCLU) (Why New Migrants are Good for NYC With Comptroller Brad Lander - NYCLU). As Comptroller, he released a report showing migrants can be an economic boon if properly integrated (Why New Migrants are Good for NYC With Comptroller Brad Lander - NYCLU) (Why New Migrants are Good for NYC With Comptroller Brad Lander - NYCLU). Lander calls for dignity for immigrants and has called out Adams’ shelter limits as counterproductive (NYC Comptroller Brad Lander calls for end of migrant shelter limits …) (NYC Comptroller Brad Lander calls for end of migrant shelter limits …). He would prioritize finding additional resources (state, federal, philanthropic) so that both locals and newcomers have support. In practice, Lander would not support denying services to migrants to prefer locals; he’d argue the city can and must serve both, though he’d fight for funding so local services (like schools and shelters) get expanded. In short, Lander’s priority is meeting the needs of local residents and new arrivals by expanding the pie, not rationing help only to longtime New Yorkers.
Ramos has strongly opposed the framing of locals vs. migrants. She condemned Adams’ handling of the crisis, saying the administration lacked compassion and strategy (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). As the daughter of Colombian immigrants and representing Queens neighborhoods with many asylum seeker shelters, Ramos argues for treating migrants with dignity and securing more resources so no group is shortchanged. She would prioritize getting migrants work permits and housing so they don’t drain existing services. Ramos likely rejects the idea of prioritizing natives over newcomers – instead she’d demand the state and feds help NYC provide for both. She has stood side by side with immigrant advocates. Therefore, she would not favor policies that push new arrivals to the back of the line for city aid; she’d try to aid migrants while also addressing long-term residents’ needs through greater funding and planning.
Myrie, himself the son of immigrants, has not advocated restricting aid to recent arrivals. He has welcomed the end of Title 42 (a Trump-era migrant expulsion policy) and pushed for more legal assistance for asylum seekers. Myrie would likely echo that NYC must fulfill its moral and legal obligations to shelter asylum seekers, and get federal reimbursement. He’s not known for inflammatory rhetoric on this – if anything, he’d try to add resources so locals and migrants both get help. He might, however, support better coordination to ensure long-term homeless New Yorkers don’t lose shelter beds (e.g. open additional shelters or convert buildings). So while he understands local frustrations, Myrie would not explicitly prioritize “locals over migrants”; he’d prioritize finding resources and housing solutions so that the needs of both groups are met without zero-sum tradeoffs.
Mamdani is firmly pro-immigrant and would bristle at the notion of privileging established residents over newcomers. He has framed the migrant situation as a result of federal failures and argues NYC should welcome migrants (and push the federal government for work authorization and funding). Mamdani has been out front at rallies defending asylum seekers. In policy, he’d likely seek to expand services (possibly convert hotels into housing) to accommodate migrants in addition to serving local homeless – rather than limiting aid to new arrivals. Mamdani often says immigrants are part of the working class that NYC must uplift. Expect him to prioritize humanitarian aid to migrants while also taxing the rich to fund housing and services for all. He would not support any “locals first” resource rationing; rather, Mamdani’s stance is solidarity with migrants and demanding more from Washington, not curbing services to them.
Stringer has taken a pragmatic but compassionate tone. He has said Adams “has not met the moment” on housing and mental health in the migrant crisis (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist). Stringer would plan better to avoid overburdening certain neighborhoods. He likely opposes draconian caps or evictions of migrants, but he would ensure that city agencies continue to meet locals’ needs (e.g. no budget raids of local services to pay for migrant care without replacement funds). As comptroller, he monitored spending on shelters and would demand state/fed reimbursement before cutting NYC programs. So Stringer would try to serve both populations: securing housing for migrants (possibly through federal sites or spread-out shelters) so that existing residents aren’t displaced. If forced to allocate limited aid, he’d use need-based criteria rather than a blanket “NYers first” rule. In essence, he’d strive so that local residents don’t see their services reduced, but he wouldn’t abandon helping migrants – he’d push others to shoulder more of that load.
Blake, being the son of Jamaican immigrants, approaches this with empathy for migrants. He has talked about being committed to marginalized New Yorkers, which includes recent immigrants (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). He has not suggested cutting off asylum seekers. Instead, Blake emphasizes getting migrants on the path to self-sufficiency (like work programs) so they don’t strain city resources long-term. He would coordinate with faith groups and nonprofits to supplement city aid. Blake’s stance is that we shouldn’t play locals against newcomers, but rather find “both-and” solutions (as he said, New York City “deserves better” leadership that can handle such crises) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). So he would continue providing for migrants while also ensuring local communities (like those in the Bronx) get their fair share of resources – largely by seeking more funds and cutting inefficiencies to free up support.
Walden approaches the migrant crisis as a management challenge. He has criticized the current administration’s lack of planning. While he hasn’t made many public comments on prioritizing locals vs migrants, his emphasis on rooting out waste suggests he’d try to fund care for migrants without hurting existing services. But as a more centrist candidate, Walden likely sympathizes with New Yorkers who feel overwhelmed. He might support setting clearer limits or conditions (e.g. only opening shelters with community input) – which indirectly puts local concerns first. Walden would certainly demand federal reimbursement for migrant expenses before cutting any local programs. If necessary, he might put a temporary cap on new migrant intakes simply out of capacity concerns (as Adams attempted), thereby prioritizing stability for current residents until more aid arrives. So, Walden’s priority is competent governance – he’d strive to minimize impact on local residents by securing outside help and improving efficiency, effectively ensuring locals aren’t deprioritized.
Tilson has explicitly said the city should “prioritize” citizens and legal permanent residents in allocating resources (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). In his campaign platform, he argues that while we must treat migrants humanely, the first obligation of city government is to New Yorkers who live and pay taxes here. Tilson has promised to end the right-to-shelter for migrants if it undermines care for homeless New Yorkers. He also supports relocating migrants to other jurisdictions. So Tilson clearly would prioritize local residents – for example, if shelter space or public benefits are limited, he’d reserve them for NYC residents and encourage migrants to move where resources exist. This stance is aligned with his broader theme of cutting costs and not overextending city services. He does combine it with calls for federal reform (he urged President Biden to change course) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), but within NYC, Tilson’s policy is to put New Yorkers first in line for housing, jobs, and social services.
Sliwa has been the most vocal about “locals first.” He has led protests against new migrant shelters in neighborhoods and often highlights how homeless veterans or NYers are sleeping on streets while migrants get hotel rooms (Anti-Immigrant Loudmouth And Failed New York City Mayoral …) (Anti-Immigrant Loudmouth And Failed New York City Mayoral …). Sliwa flatly says NYC should stop accepting more migrants and prioritize taking care of its own citizens. He advocates busing migrants to other states or using Rikers Island to house them out of communities. As mayor, Sliwa would likely seek to suspend the right-to-shelter for asylum seekers, insisting the city’s duty is to struggling New Yorkers first. He frames it as a fairness issue for taxpayers. So, Sliwa would unapologetically prioritize local residents in all resource decisions – whether shelter beds, public hospitals, or city spending – even if that means turning away or redirecting new arrivals. (He’s called those who protest migrant shelters “valiant” (Anti-Immigrant Loudmouth And Failed New York City Mayoral …) (Anti-Immigrant Loudmouth And Failed New York City Mayoral …).) In short, Sliwa’s policy is New Yorkers come first, migrants find help elsewhere.
Adams has embraced big housing targets. In late 2022, he announced a “moonshot” goal of creating 500,000 new homes in the next decade (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). He then spearheaded the “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” zoning changes, projected to allow 80,000+ new homes over 15 years by loosening restrictions citywide (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). Adams is willing to upzone wealthier and transit-rich neighborhoods – under his watch the City Council just approved broad zoning amendments to spur more density near subway stops and convert offices to housing (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). He proudly touts pushing these rezonings across the city (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). While his stated goal is 500k (not a full million), Adams supports a major housing expansion and would likely upzone wherever feasible (with some concessions to local concerns) to hit ambitious numbers. He often highlights that he got a sweeping housing overhaul “across the finish line” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). So yes – Adams is already pursuing a huge housing goal with significant upzoning.
Cuomo has not given a numeric housing target yet, but based on his record and rhetoric, he would probably set an ambitious goal (perhaps on the order of 500k to 1 million units over 10 years for NYC). As governor, he presided over large development projects and pushed housing initiatives. He signaled support for upzoning in his last year as governor (proposing transit station area density and converting unused commercial space). Cuomo is likely to support sweeping rezonings to allow more housing, especially if paired with affordability mandates – he views housing construction as key to economic revival. He often references his “Albany glory days” of big projects (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Expect Cuomo to be bold on a housing goal and willing to override NIMBY opposition for greater good. He might work with the legislature to require upzoning in wealthier areas (similar to proposals by Gov. Hochul). In sum, Cuomo would set a major housing production goal and pursue aggressive rezoning to meet it, positioning himself as the builder/manager who can get it done.
Lander is very supportive of a large-scale housing expansion, with equity in mind. While he hasn’t put out a single number goal, he has applauded goals like the 500k plan and likely would back even 1 million units if that’s what experts say is needed. Lander helped craft the Gowanus upzoning as a councilmember and co-authored reports on solving the housing shortage. He supports upzoning wealthier neighborhoods to create affordable housing, and he co-sponsored legislation to legalize basement apartments and ADUs. Lander’s approach to a big housing goal would include strong affordable requirements, anti-displacement measures, and community input – but fundamentally, yes, he’d be on board with “upzoning more neighborhoods” to meet a bold target. In fact, he has criticized the city for not building enough and specifically wants to get homeless folks into new housing (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). So one can expect Lander to enthusiastically embrace a major housing goal (hundreds of thousands of units) and use his housing expertise to implement it with widespread rezoning and public investments.
Ramos has called for “bolstering the affordable housing supply” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) and is likely to support a big, concrete housing goal. She has been open to upzonings with guarantees for affordability and local hiring. For instance, she opposed the Queens waterfront casino project partly because it didn’t prioritize affordable housing. But if it were housing, she’d want it deeply affordable. As part of the state legislature, she also backed proposals to allow basement apartment legalization (important in her district). Ramos would probably endorse something like 1 million units citywide as a goal, provided it includes tenant protections and doesn’t all fall on a few low-income areas. She’d insist on upzoning wealthier areas too (Ramos was part of the 2018 insurgents who ousted senators blocking NYC upzonings). Therefore, expect Ramos to push for a major housing construction plan – she’d upzone where appropriate, fight for state law changes (like Good Cause eviction to go alongside upzoning), and focus on affordability within that big number.
Myrie has already proposed exactly such a goal: 700,000 new units built and 300,000 preserved in 10 years (total 1 million) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He is one of the few to put out a detailed housing plan early, aiming to make NYC a “City of Yes In My Backyard.” Myrie’s plan involves rezonings, code reforms, and incentives to hit that million mark (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He’s frank that it will require upzoning wealthier and transit-rich neighborhoods – a stance that earned him YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) attention (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). At the same time, he balances it by strengthening tenant protections (he supports rent stabilization but didn’t promise a freeze, focusing instead on construction). Myrie is clearly all-in on a big housing goal with significant upzoning. In fact, his bold housing stance has drawn both praise and some wariness from tenant advocates (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), showing he’s willing to push boundaries. In summary, Myrie commits to 1 million units and the upzonings to achieve it – he’s arguably the candidate most explicitly aligned with that policy.
Mamdani absolutely agrees the city needs massive housing production, but with an emphasis on public and truly affordable housing. He hasn’t given a numeric target publicly, but as a DSA member he supports the idea of a “social housing” expansion on a historic scale (DSA’s platform often calls for hundreds of thousands of units of social/public housing). Mamdani would upzone if it guarantees affordable units or is for municipally-owned housing, but he opposes simply upzoning for luxury development. He has been critical of rezonings that spur gentrification. So Mamdani would back a major housing goal if it’s tied to affordability: expect him to push for something like a huge NYCHA-style program or community land trusts to create housing. He’d likely legalize basements and convert offices (quick wins he supports) as part of the push. In short, Mamdani would set a bold housing goal, but he’d try to meet it by upzoning for affordable housing and using public sites, rather than broad giveaways to private luxury builders.
Stringer has a long history of calling for more housing. In 2021, he released a plan to build 30,000 units on city-owned land and leverage mandatory inclusionary housing more aggressively. He has said the city must “unlock more land for affordable housing” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). As mayoral candidate now, he refers back to his 27-point housing plan (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) and criticizes the current pace of development. Stringer would likely set a big goal (maybe not 1 million, but certainly several hundred thousand units) and pursue rezonings, especially in high-opportunity neighborhoods that have resisted growth. He’d also reform zoning rules (he proposed converting hotels to housing and easing parking requirements in 2021). So yes, Stringer would upzone more areas – but always coupling it with affordability requirements – to achieve a major housing construction target. He has also endorsed legalizing basement apartments and office-to-residential conversions to add units. Expect a large housing goal with citywide upzoning under Stringer, executed in a way that he hopes protects communities from displacement more than previous plans did.
Blake advocates a “Mitchell-Lama 2.0” strategy for a new generation of affordable housing (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life) (Michael Blake, son of Jamaican immigrants, runs for NYC Mayor – Caribbean Life). While he hasn’t put a specific unit count, this implies a large-scale program (Mitchell-Lama built tens of thousands of middle-income apartments in its era). Blake would likely embrace a bold housing goal to address unaffordability – perhaps not an immediate million, but certainly hundreds of thousands of units over time. He emphasizes affordable housing and homeownership (he’d push for more co-op style housing). Blake supports upzoning as a tool if it produces affordable units. In the Bronx, he saw both the positive development of new housing and the perils of gentrification, so he’d aim for balanced growth. Overall, Blake would set a major housing construction target and use upzonings plus public financing to reach it, ensuring a substantial share are affordable or geared toward first-time homebuyers.
Walden explicitly said one of his aims is tackling housing production via public-private partnerships (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). While he hasn’t thrown out a round number, he clearly sees increasing supply as critical. As a former real estate attorney, Walden would bring a pro-development but reform-minded perspective – he’d likely set an ambitious housing goal and streamline processes to achieve it. Walden is amenable to upzoning – he’s compared to Bloomberg in some ways (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), and Bloomberg rezoned wide swaths of the city. Walden might focus on converting underutilized land (e.g. empty offices, parking lots) to housing quickly. He’d partner with private developers but insist on anti-corruption measures. In summary, Walden would probably pursue a big housing target (not explicitly 1M, but large) and wouldn’t shy from rezoning neighborhoods to get there, provided there’s community engagement and transparency.
Tilson has made the “cost-of-living crisis” central, which inherently includes housing (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). As a finance and real estate savvy candidate, he strongly believes in boosting supply. He has floated the idea of growing NYC’s economy by 50% and likely sees adding housing as part of that. Tilson would likely favor a significant housing goal – maybe not a political slogan of “one million units,” but in practice he’d push to allow a lot more housing development. He supports upzoning wealthier areas (he’s criticized exclusionary zoning) and was happy when the state lifted the cap on accessory dwelling units. Tilson’s priority would be cutting red tape for developers – e.g. speeding approvals, eliminating parking minimums – to let the private market build more. So yes, he would engage in aggressive upzoning across NYC to meet a high housing target, trusting that increased market-rate construction plus some affordable set-asides will improve overall affordability.
Sliwa’s focus is less on grand development numbers and more on preserving neighborhoods. In 2021, he opposed the Soho/Noho upzoning and other de Blasio rezonings, reflecting a bit of a NIMBY streak despite being a Republican. He is skeptical of luxury development that doesn’t benefit existing residents. However, Sliwa recognizes the need for housing – he might support converting vacant buildings to housing for the homeless, and he’s spoken about using Rikers Island land for public housing. Sliwa would not likely set a lofty “1 million units” goal; he’d favor rehabbing and better using existing buildings (like filling NYCHA vacancies, converting hotels to SROs) more than widespread upzoning of low-density neighborhoods. He often sides with community opponents of big rezoning projects. Thus, Sliwa would seek to increase housing in a more targeted way – encouraging basement apt legalization and smaller-scale development – but he would oppose upzoning that he thinks threatens neighborhood character or caters to elites. A large-scale upzoning plan is not something Sliwa is inclined to pursue.
Adams has been supportive of charter schools. While he hasn’t made it a centerpiece, he explicitly stated, “Yes, I support charter schools,” clarifying that he backs any schools that successfully educate kids (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York) (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York). During state budget talks in 2023, Adams aligned with Gov. Hochul’s proposal to lift the NYC charter cap (noting concerns about cost, but ultimately voicing support) (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York) (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York). As mayor, he has a cordial relationship with many charters and has not opposed colocations like his predecessor did. So Adams would be open to expanding charters if the state allows – focusing on “what works” in education (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York) (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York). He also promotes school choice within the public system (he continued and expanded gifted programs and religious literacy programs). In summary, Adams is charter-friendly and would work to accommodate more charter schools in NYC (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York) (NYC mayor: I support charter schools | FOX 5 New York).
Cuomo has a long record as a pro-charter champion. As governor, he famously attended charter school rallies and helped raise the charter cap outside NYC (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO) (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO). He cast himself as a “disruptive” force against the traditional education bureaucracy in favor of charters (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO) (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO). Charter school supporters donated significantly to him, and he delivered – pushing legislation forcing NYC to provide space or rent money for charters during de Blasio’s tenure (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO) (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO). It’s clear Cuomo would welcome expansion of charter schools in the city. He likely would lobby Albany to lift the NYC charter cap so new charters can open (Andrew Cuomo possible presidential campaign, 2016/Education) (Andrew Cuomo possible presidential campaign, 2016/Education). Additionally, he supports other choice options like magnet schools and potentially tax credits for private school scholarships (he proposed such credits as governor). Overall, Cuomo is strongly in favor of increasing school choice and charter schools, consistent with his past stance (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO) (Cuomo embraces his ‘disruptive’ charter stance - POLITICO).
Lander is generally opposed to expanding charters. As a progressive Democrat with close ties to labor, he is aligned with the teachers’ union viewpoint that charters drain resources from public schools. Lander has in the past criticized co-locating charter schools in public buildings if it undermines district schools. During his comptroller tenure, he audited DOE spending, including charter payments, with a critical eye. One City & State profile explicitly tags him as a brownstone progressive likely to get under pro-charter folks’ skin (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Lander believes in strengthening traditional public schools – investing in early ed, arts, counselors – rather than diverting funds to expand charters. We can expect him to oppose raising the charter cap and instead push for community school models and fixing public school inequalities. In short, Lander would not favor expanding charters, and might even seek more oversight on the existing ones (he’s called for transparency in charter operations before).
Ramos is a close ally of public school teachers and has not supported expanding charters. In the State Senate, she voted in line with her Democratic conference to keep the NYC charter school cap in place. She’s spoken out about supporting public schools with more funding for smaller classes, higher teacher pay (she helped pass the increase in NYC teacher pay via state budget), etc. Ramos likely sees charter expansion as a threat to unionized public schools and as privatization. She would prefer investing in improving all neighborhood public schools and expanding bilingual programs (important in her immigrant-heavy district). Therefore, as mayor, Ramos would oppose adding more charter schools. She might even try to bring certain charter-like innovations into the public system instead of increasing separate charters.
Myrie has not made charters a campaign issue, but he leans towards the progressive view prioritizing public schools. In Albany, he was backed by the Working Families Party and teachers’ union in his elections, indicating skepticism of the charter agenda. He likely would not push to expand charters. However, Myrie is “increasingly pro-real estate” on housing per City & State (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), but that doesn’t necessarily translate to charters. On education, he’s more known for advocating college financial aid and criminal justice education programs. We can infer Myrie would not prioritize school choice expansion – he’d focus on funding the DOE to implement things like his universal after-school plan. He hasn’t called for lifting the charter cap; thus, he’d probably maintain the status quo or even push resources toward traditional public schools rather than encourage new charters.
Mamdani, as a DSA socialist, is strongly against expanding charter schools. DSA’s stance is that charter schools undermine public education and often operate without sufficient accountability. Mamdani’s campaign platform is all about public goods – and he specifically has fought against privatization in housing and transit, so similarly in education he would oppose privately run charters. NYC-DSA has historically campaigned to oppose charter cap increases and pro-charter legislation. Mamdani would likely champion fully funding public schools, reducing class sizes, and perhaps ending charter school rent subsidies. He certainly would not seek to increase the number of charters or voucher programs. Expect Mamdani to defend the public school system and push for community control of schools rather than more choice schemes that he’d say benefit only some.
Stringer is a longtime public school advocate aligned with the teachers’ union. In the 2021 race, he was endorsed by the UFT (until he faced scandal) explicitly because of his support for public schools over charters. As Comptroller, he did audits critical of some charter management spending. He also opposed co-locations that harmed traditional schools. So Stringer would not expand charters – he has said we need to invest in public schools rather than “shiny alternatives.” He might support specific high-performing charters continuing, but he wouldn’t raise the cap or seek to open new ones. Instead, he’s proposed things like creating 3-K for All (which he did) and more gifted programs in public schools to prevent charters from being the only alternative. In summary, Stringer favors improving public school options citywide, not increasing charters or privatization.
Blake falls somewhere in the middle. He hasn’t been a loud charter proponent, but as a more moderate Democrat, he likely sees value in some school choice. As an Assembly Member, he represented the Bronx where some charters (like Success Academy) operate – he did not actively oppose them. He’s also an Obama alum, and President Obama supported charter growth. Blake’s education focus is on equity and youth empowerment. He might be okay with some expansion of high-quality charters, especially those with a track record in disadvantaged communities, but he would insist on accountability and not draining public school budgets. He definitely supports specialized programs like career and technical education (CTE) and early college high schools. So Blake would probably allow charter growth within limits – for example, supporting lifting the cap to use “zombie” charters (closed charters’ slots) but not a massive unfettered expansion. He’d also work to replicate charter successes in public schools.
Walden has not spoken extensively on charters, but given his positioning as an independent problem-solver, he might support increasing school choice options if they help outcomes. He’s drawn comparisons to Bloomberg (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), and Bloomberg was very pro-charter. Walden is also backed by some charter-friendly figures (his donor base isn’t public, but his technocratic stance might attract education reformers). We can surmise Walden would be open to expanding charters, coupled with strong oversight to root out any fraud (aligning with his anti-corruption theme). He might push for collaborative relationships between charters and district schools rather than treat it as a war. So while not an ideological crusader on this, Walden likely sees charter schools as a valuable part of the ecosystem and would support lifting the cap if charters show good performance and fiscal transparency (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Tilson is perhaps the staunchest charter school advocate in this field. He co-founded Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a pro-charter PAC (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), and sat on KIPP NYC’s board. Tilson has long argued for more school choice to pressure the public system to improve. He even bragged about helping raise the state charter cap in the past (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). As mayor, Tilson would aggressively lobby Albany to expand the number of charters in NYC – eliminating or raising the cap so dozens of new charter schools could open. He’d also expand other choice measures: supporting voucher-like tax credit scholarships, creating more specialized public schools, and easing charter co-locations. In short, Tilson is unequivocally in favor of more charters and broader school choice. This stance is central to his education platform and is backed by his major endorser Bill Ackman (also a charter supporter) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Sliwa strongly supports expanding charter schools and any alternative that breaks the public school monopoly. In 2021, he pledged to fight for school vouchers and more charter options, and he blasted de Blasio for antagonizing charters. He regularly criticizes the DOE bureaucracy and teachers’ union work rules. Sliwa would push Albany to remove the cap and open as many charters as possible, especially in areas with failing public schools. Additionally, he’s advocated for things like merit-based specialized high schools (he opposes efforts to eliminate the SHSAT exam) – generally promoting choice and competition. Sliwa also supports parochial and private school options (he’s spoken fondly of the Catholic schools that many immigrant families choose). So, expect Sliwa to champion maximum school choice – charters, vouchers, homeschooling, everything – as part of his platform to give parents control and break what he calls the “grip of the UFT” on education.
Adams has not endorsed making all buses free. However, he did support a pilot program for free buses on certain routes – when state lawmakers proposed a 10-route free bus pilot, Adams said “I strongly support” the idea (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City). He even cut a video backing the pilot after meeting with legislators (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City). But citywide free buses (which would cost hundreds of millions yearly) are not in his plans. Adams instead cracked down on fare evasion and expanded “Fair Fares” half-price MetroCards for low-income New Yorkers. He’s focused on fiscal caution and would worry that funding free fares could strain the budget or MTA. So while Adams is open to limited free bus service (pilot routes) and sees the benefit for working-class riders (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City), he has not advocated making all buses free. He prefers targeted affordability measures like the Fair Fares program and leaving fare policy to the MTA unless Albany provides funding.
Cuomo has not specifically proposed fare-free buses. As governor, he did not push for free transit, and he tended to prioritize capital projects (like trains, airports) over operating subsidies. If elected mayor, Cuomo would likely be cautious about sacrificing MTA revenue without a replacement source. He might consider a city-subsidized free bus program if he thought it’d spur economic activity and if the state kicked in funding – but it’s not a natural issue for him. He generally took credit for keeping fares steady (though they did rise) but didn’t float eliminating fares. Thus, Cuomo would probably not make buses free systemwide unless he secured a new tax to fund it. At most, he might expand Fair Fares or support limited-route pilots. In summary, Cuomo is not inclined to make all buses free given the cost, unless it came as part of a larger deal (for example, he might negotiate something like congestion pricing funds to offset fare elimination, but that’s speculative).
Lander is sympathetic to the idea of fare-free transit. He’s on record highlighting the Kansas City free bus experiment positively. As Comptroller, he supported the Council’s pilot for free bus routes in each borough and celebrated when Albany included it (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City). Lander views free buses as pro-working class and pro-environment. He likely would favor making buses free citywide if a dedicated funding stream can be found (he might propose a tax on high-income earners or on parking to fund it). Given his progressive coalition, Lander may very well push for an expansion of the current 10-route free bus pilot to more routes. He understands it reduces fare evasion conflicts and speeds boarding. So while he’d need to mind the budget, Lander in principle supports moving toward fare-free buses as part of a more equitable transit system – expect him to at least fight to keep and expand the current free bus pilots and, if fiscally feasible, work with state partners to phase in more free service.
Ramos has been a strong advocate for public transit affordability. She was an early supporter of the Fair Fares program. She also criticized the MTA for service cuts and fare hikes. While she hasn’t issued a specific free-fare manifesto, her alignment with transit justice groups suggests she’d be in favor of free buses (and possibly subways) to reduce inequality. Ramos likely endorses the concept of fare-free buses, funded by taxes on the wealthy – which is a position popular on the left. In the Senate, she backed using new revenue (like from new taxes) to fund transit improvements. As mayor, she would push the MTA and Albany to consider eliminating bus fares citywide, since buses are disproportionately used by low-income and immigrant New Yorkers. She’d frame it as an investment in essential workers. So, it’s fair to say Ramos would support making buses free for all, and would work to find the funding (through, for example, congestion pricing revenue or a reallocation of subsidies) to make it happen.
Myrie has not been outspoken on free transit fares, but as a progressive he would likely be open to it. In the legislature he focused on housing and criminal justice, but he did vote for increased MTA funding packages. Myrie’s district includes many bus riders who struggle with fares. He would probably support at least expanding Fair Fares (half-price) and continuing the free bus pilot. If presented with a plan for zero-fare buses along with a solid funding mechanism, Myrie would be inclined to back it as a matter of economic and racial equity. He hasn’t independently championed free buses yet, but as mayor, given that others in the race (like Lander, Mamdani) are for it, Myrie would hardly oppose it. We can infer he’d favor making buses free if it didn’t force cuts to service – meaning he’d push the state or new taxes to cover the cost.
Mamdani has explicitly made free public transit a campaign issue – one of his signature proposals is to make NYC buses fare-free (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He even touts having pushed the initial free bus pilot in Albany (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City). Mamdani says free buses would be “transformative” for working-class New Yorkers (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) (Mayor Adams Backs Free Buses As Other Bus Commitments Fall By the Wayside - Streetsblog New York City) and views it as a matter of economic justice. He details creative ways a mayor could fund it (he mentioned getting “creative with mayoral authority” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) – perhaps leveraging city control of certain bridge tolls or seeking congestion pricing revenue). He has fully committed to fare-free buses for all routes, not just pilots. In addition, Mamdani likely believes subways should eventually be free too, but buses are the start since the city controls streets and curb space. He has rallied a broad coalition around this idea. So Mamdani is unequivocally in favor of making all buses free, funded by taxing the rich or reallocating NYPD funds, as part of his democratic socialist vision (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Stringer has supported reduced transit fares in the past (he advocated for Fair Fares and student MetroCards). While Comptroller, he floated ideas to improve bus ridership like all-door boarding, but not specifically free fares. However, given his alignment with progressive policy and the fact that the idea of free buses is now being piloted, Stringer would likely be open to making buses free if the finances can be worked out. He would certainly study its impact on ridership and traffic (Stringer is known for data-driven policy). If evidence from the pilot is positive, a Mayor Stringer would push to expand free service or incorporate it in the next MTA funding agreement. He might propose a modest tax or congestion pricing tweak to pay for it. Stringer’s overall stance: supportive of fare-free buses as a way to invest in working families, but with an eye on securing a sustainable funding source so that the MTA isn’t harmed. He’d work closely with Albany on this.
Blake’s campaign is centered on affordability for New Yorkers. Free transit would fit into his “True Cost of Living” platform. While he hasn’t specifically said “free buses,” he has emphasized guaranteed income and lower costs for essentials. It’s plausible Blake would support the idea – especially since it benefits the Bronx heavily (his home borough relies on buses). As a moderate, he’d want to know how to fund it. He might suggest using federal infrastructure money or public-private partnerships to subsidize fares. Blake would probably favor expanding Fair Fares first (maybe to full subsidy) as a step toward universal free buses. If elected, he would at minimum continue the current free bus pilot, and if it succeeds, he’d be inclined to broaden it to more routes or boroughs, on the path to systemwide free buses. He’d be cautious about budget impact but philosophically sees transit access as key to equality.
Walden’s priorities have not included fare policy – he’s more focused on governance. He likely approaches free buses pragmatically: does the benefit outweigh the lost revenue and how to replace it? If presented evidence that free buses significantly speed boarding and increase ridership without busting the budget, Walden might support it, as he’s data-driven. But as an independent worried about fiscal responsibility, he might be reluctant to promise citywide free service funded by city taxes alone. Walden would perhaps prefer targeted free transit (for students, seniors, low-income riders) rather than universal. He might also advocate for the state to bear the cost if it becomes policy. So Walden is not an ardent proponent of completely free buses, but he isn’t ideologically opposed – he’d weigh the idea carefully. Unless external funding was provided, he’d likely hold off on full fare elimination, focusing instead on bus improvements (like dedicated lanes) that improve service.
Tilson has not endorsed making transit free. His approach to public services is generally market-oriented – he’d likely argue the ~$1.1 billion in annual bus fare revenue is needed for operations or capital improvements. Tilson’s priorities (crime, education, economy) do not include subsidizing transit fares; rather, he’d probably put any available funds into service upgrades (more buses, better maintenance) rather than free rides. He believes in low taxes and might oppose a new tax to fund free buses. Additionally, Tilson may worry free fares could encourage misuse or crowding without clear benefit. So, he would oppose citywide free buses paid by new taxes or diverting funds. He might support more discounted fares for those in need (expand Fair Fares) as a compromise. But overall, Tilson would argue to keep fares (maybe implement congestion pricing to fund service improvements instead).
Sliwa does not support making buses or subways free. He has instead called for stricter fare enforcement – he frequently criticizes fare evaders and even suggested that it leads to disorder. Sliwa would view free fares as rewarding lawlessness (he has an old-school view that everyone should pay their fare share). Also, as a fiscal conservative, he wouldn’t approve raising taxes to fund free transit for all. Sliwa instead proposes solutions like using restored transit police to stop evasion, and perhaps providing fares in exchange for community service for those who can’t pay. But across-the-board free buses is not something Sliwa would pursue. In fact, he’s more likely to advocate for rescinding the recent free bus pilot, fearing it creates an expectation of “something for nothing.” Sliwa’s stance: riders should pay a fare to support the system; the city’s job is to run the buses on time and keep them safe, not make them free.
Adams has portrayed himself as a fiscally responsible mayor. He has implemented several rounds of PEG (Program to Eliminate the Gap) cuts – requiring city agencies to trim their budgets – to control spending. He often says government must “run efficiently” and has promised leaner budgets than his predecessor (Cuts to New York’s pre-K spell political trouble for Eric Adams - POLITICO) (Cuts to New York’s pre-K spell political trouble for Eric Adams - POLITICO). Under Adams, the city workforce has slightly decreased through attrition and he has avoided raising major taxes. So yes, Adams supports restraining the size of city government to avoid new taxes. He boasts that through strong fiscal management (stabilizing the budget), he was able to invest in priorities without increasing the overall tax burden (Mayor Adams Doubles Down on Efforts to Reduce Shootings, Homicides by Adding 1,200 new Police Recrui | City of New York). However, he hasn’t outright slashed core services – his approach is more targeted trims and productivity improvements. In summary, Adams is amenable to shrinking or at least streamlining city government spending as a way to keep taxes in check and encourage businesses to stay (Mayor Adams Doubles Down on Efforts to Reduce Shootings, Homicides by Adding 1,200 new Police Recrui | City of New York).
Cuomo has long styled himself as a tax-cutting, budget-tightening Democrat. As governor, he imposed a 2% state spending cap and even bragged, “We cut taxes every year.” He will likely apply a similar philosophy to NYC. Cuomo would seek to audit and trim city agencies for efficiency, reduce bureaucracy, and possibly consolidate departments to save money. He’s hinted that the city’s budget under de Blasio/Adams grew too much and that he’d rein it in. For businesses, Cuomo would aim to roll back some of NYC’s taxes or at least not add new ones, to prevent companies from fleeing. Expect him to push for a property tax overhaul to relieve homeowners (he criticized high NYC property taxes before). Overall, Cuomo will embrace cutting waste and shrinking government overhead – he’ll trumpet that he can manage the city with fewer administrators and more results, thereby easing burdens on residents (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). That said, he’s also known to spend on big capital projects – but those are one-time investments, not recurring operating costs. Net-net: Cuomo would pursue a leaner city government and a business-friendly tax climate as key to economic recovery.
Lander does not support “shrinking” city government in the abstract – he believes in an active government providing robust services. He opposed many of Adams’ budget cuts, arguing they harm early education, libraries, etc. Lander’s priority is not lowering taxes on businesses, but rather making sure businesses pay their fair share to fund public needs. He would likely push back on major spending cuts, instead finding savings through better management (as Comptroller, he identified plenty of waste) but reinvesting those savings into other programs. On taxes, Lander would rather restructure taxes (e.g. raise taxes on luxury real estate, while maybe relieving small homeowners) than simply cut them. He is not running to shrink city government – quite the opposite, he often decries under-investment in social programs. So Lander would not prioritize cutting spending for the sake of lowering taxes, except perhaps targeted relief for low-income residents. He’d maintain or expand city services and fund them by keeping a progressive tax structure (and seeking state authority for new taxes on the wealthy if needed).
Ramos also is not interested in shrinking government – she’s a pro-labor progressive who believes in using government to uplift workers. She has criticized austerity and fought against cuts to services like pre-K and CUNY. Ramos would oppose broad spending cuts or layoffs. On taxes, she favors making the wealthy and corporations pay more, not reducing their burden. She has, for instance, supported higher income taxes on millionaires at the state level. For small businesses, she’d rather provide direct assistance (grants, commercial rent control) than across-the-board tax cuts. So Ramos would not make it a goal to “ease the tax burden” on businesses if that means less revenue for public programs. Instead, she’d invest in public services – viewing them as essential – and finance them by maintaining or raising taxes on the rich. She’d only trim spending in areas she feels are bloated (maybe NYPD OT or contracting costs) to redirect funds, not to reduce the size of government.
Myrie, despite being somewhat more moderate on housing development, is still a progressive Democrat when it comes to the role of government. He is not campaigning on cutting city services or taxes. He likely supports keeping city agencies adequately funded to meet ambitious goals (like housing construction and afterschool programs). Myrie might be open to finding efficiencies, but any savings would probably go toward other public needs (e.g. funding his Clean Slate implementation or mental health services) rather than tax cuts. He hasn’t signaled any desire to reduce business taxes – if anything, he’s mentioned making sure the wealthy contribute to solutions. So we can say Myrie would not prioritize shrinking city government; he’d maintain or enhance its capacity to deliver housing, education, etc. If there’s an opportunity to relieve small homeowners or mom-and-pop businesses of some fees or fines, he might do that, but widespread tax reduction isn’t his platform.
As a democratic socialist, Mamdani firmly believes in expanding the social safety net and public sector, not shrinking it. He advocates for rent control, free transit, public housing – all of which involve a strong government role and spending. Mamdani would likely seek to raise taxes on the rich and corporations to fund new programs. Cutting spending to ease burdens on businesses goes against his ideology; he’d rather those with wealth pay more to relieve burdens on the poor (via free services). He has explicitly campaigned on a $30 minimum wage, which businesses vehemently oppose – indicating he’s not looking to lighten business costs generally. Mamdani would resist any austerity measures. He’d probably grow certain city departments (e.g. housing, social services) to implement his policies. In summary, Mamdani has no interest in shrinking city gov or cutting business taxes – if anything, he’d shrink the NYPD budget to reallocate funds, but overall city spending would increase under him due to big social investments (paid for by taxing the wealthy) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Stringer has a nuanced view. As Comptroller, he often identified wasteful spending and suggested ways to do more with less. He takes pride in having found savings (he claims his audits “saved taxpayers over $2 billion” during his term) (Brad Lander Wants to be Mayor - Will New Yorker’s Vote for Change? - Queens Ledger). So he supports cutting waste and trimming bloated contracts or consultant fees. However, Stringer does not support cutting core services or weakening labor protections to shrink government. He is pro-union and pro-public investment (for instance, he wanted to hire thousands more early childhood educators and build housing). To fund those, he suggested measures like ending unnecessary tax breaks for developers. As for easing taxes on businesses, Stringer might back targeted relief for small businesses (like reducing fines or simplifying regulations), but he would likely maintain the overall tax structure – possibly pushing state-level reform of property taxes to make them more equitable, not simply lower. In short, Stringer would present himself as a fiscally responsible progressive: cut inefficiencies and use the savings to fund new programs, rather than broad tax cuts. He wouldn’t aim to shrink the public workforce substantially or slash public spending, aside from areas he deems wasteful or corrupt.
Blake’s platform is centered on making life more affordable through government action (guaranteed income, childcare support). He isn’t advocating shrinking government; rather, he emphasizes better management and directing resources to those who need them. As a former small business owner liaison under Obama, Blake does care about helping businesses – but through initiatives like easier access to capital and city procurement opportunities, not necessarily tax cuts. He would not be inclined to cut city spending on social programs in order to lower business taxes. Blake might support some tax incentive programs if they are tied to job creation in underserved communities, but he’d also want to ensure the budget can fund his social proposals. So Blake would keep government strong to deliver services, and focus on growth (investing in job training, etc.) to broaden the tax base rather than shrinking government and taxes. He’s more about smart spending than cutting spending.
Walden has pitched himself as a “business-minded technocrat” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) akin to Bloomberg, which implies a lean, efficient government and a competitive tax environment. He certainly talks about rooting out corruption and waste – which suggests he would trim unnecessary spending and possibly downsize parts of government that aren’t performing. Walden would aim to streamline city agencies (he’s assembled policy advisors to find efficiencies (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist)). On taxes, Walden likely believes a lighter tax burden helps keep businesses (and high-income individuals) from leaving. He might not slash major revenue sources, but he could propose targeted tax cuts or fee reductions to spur business activity and goodwill. Overall, Walden is inclined to reduce the size and cost of city government if it can be done without harming services – for instance, cutting middle management layers, merging redundant offices, ending pet projects. Any truly essential services, he’d maintain, but he’d proudly shrink the bureaucracy and use the savings to either lower taxes or fund pressing needs without new taxes. So yes, Walden’s orientation is to cut spending and make government smaller and more efficient as a means to ease the economic burden on residents and businesses (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York).
Tilson is very much in favor of shrinking city government and cutting spending. He has repeatedly said city spending is “out-of-control” and needs to be curbed (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). His platform explicitly includes “reining in excessive city government spending” (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) and he sees that as crucial to lowering taxes and stimulating the economy. Tilson would audit every department for fat to cut – he’d likely freeze hiring in non-critical roles, eliminate what he sees as bloated contracts or ineffective programs, and try to reduce the overall city headcount (perhaps through attrition or privatization of some functions). With the savings, he’d aim to reduce taxes or at least avoid any tax increases, which he believes will attract businesses and residents rather than driving them away (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Tilson often cites his private sector experience and would bring that cost-cutting mindset to City Hall. Expect him to propose budgets that shrink year over year. In summary, Tilson’s stance is strongly pro-small government, pro-tax cuts – he thinks NYC’s competitiveness depends on it.
Sliwa has campaigned on “trimming the fat” at City Hall. He frequently lambastes the growth of the city workforce under de Blasio. Sliwa would cut bureaucracy and spending – for example, he said the city doesn’t need so many deputy mayors or highly paid consultants. He also promised to eliminate certain offices he deems unnecessary (he mentioned the ThriveNYC mental health initiative under McCray as wasteful, for instance). On taxes, Sliwa asserts that high taxes are driving people out, so he’d push to lower property taxes for homeowners and perhaps rollback some recent business regulations/fines to reduce costs. He even suggested selling off unused city property to raise revenue and avoid taxes. Sliwa’s government would likely see layoffs of what he calls “paper-pushers” in administrative roles, and a crackdown on overtime abuse. He’d keep frontline workers like cops and sanitation, but cut middle managers. All to ease the burden on taxpayers and businesses. Sliwa’s rhetoric often mirrors Republican orthodoxy: smaller government, lower taxes to spur growth. So one can expect him to try to shrink city spending significantly (aside from hiring more cops) and deliver tax relief especially to homeowners and small businesses.
Adams took a controversial step on this front: in late 2022 he issued a directive to allow involuntary removal and hospitalization of individuals with severe mental illness who cannot care for themselves, even if they aren’t overtly dangerous (New York will involuntarily hospitalize more mentally ill people - POLITICO) (New York will involuntarily hospitalize more mentally ill people - POLITICO). He argued it was necessary to get untreated mentally ill people off the streets for their own safety and that of others. His administration trained NYPD and NYC health workers to implement this, effectively mandating treatment (at least an evaluation) for those “in crisis” who refuse help (New York will involuntarily hospitalize more mentally ill people - POLITICO) (New York will involuntarily hospitalize more mentally ill people - POLITICO). This indicates Adams supports mandating treatment in cases of severe mental illness – he’s said ignoring people in psychotic states is “not compassionate.” He’s also expanded the use of Kendra’s Law (court-ordered outpatient treatment). So Adams’ stance is yes, mandate treatment for the severely mentally ill homeless if they won’t voluntarily accept it (New York will involuntarily hospitalize more mentally ill people - POLITICO) (New York will involuntarily hospitalize more mentally ill people - POLITICO). He’s faced pushback from civil liberties groups, but he insists it’s necessary. We can expect Adams to continue or even broaden this policy, coupled with an increase in psychiatric beds.
Cuomo has signaled agreement with the need for stronger action on mental illness. He acknowledged the need for involuntary removal in some cases, saying people who can’t recognize their illness may require intervention (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO). In fact, Cuomo championed Kendra’s Law renewal and enforcement as governor. He criticized de Blasio for not using Kendra’s Law enough. We can assume Cuomo would support mandating psychiatric treatment for homeless individuals with severe mental illness, via hospitalization or court-ordered outpatient care, if they refuse on their own. He believes in a balance of civil rights with public safety, but he leans toward using state power to help those “who are not in a position to help themselves.” So Cuomo would likely continue Adams’ policy or a version of it – perhaps managing it better or pairing it with more state hospital resources. In short, expect Cuomo to be in favor of involuntary commitment for the seriously mentally ill homeless, as part of a comprehensive plan to address street homelessness (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO).
Lander has mixed feelings on this issue. Initially, he and other progressives were wary of Adams’ involuntary removal plan, citing civil liberties. However, Lander has since put out his own mental health crisis plan that doesn’t outright reject involuntary treatment. In Politico, Lander actually called for an expansion of involuntary removal as one component of ending street homelessness (surprising some) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO). His plan emphasizes housing and services first, but he “insisted assessment and hospitalization play a role, too” (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO). So Lander now agrees that in certain cases, yes, the city should mandate treatment (or at least evaluation) for those who are severely mentally ill and refusing help (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO). He conditions it on having enough psych beds and proper training, to avoid abuses. But fundamentally, Lander would allow involuntary intervention for the most severe cases, while coupling it with guaranteed housing and care post-hospitalization. He basically converged on a stance that mandated treatment is acceptable as a last resort in a spectrum of care options.
Ramos has historically been concerned about civil rights of the homeless mentally ill, but recently she acknowledged that involuntary removal might be necessary in certain extreme cases (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO). She told an outlet she’s “open to the involuntary removal of people who are not able to recognize they have a mental health challenge and are not seeking help” (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO) (Among New York Democrats, a broader embrace of involuntary hospitalization - POLITICO). That’s a significant statement from a progressive. It shows she realizes some individuals truly cannot consent to treatment due to their illness. However, she would ensure any mandated treatment comes with strong safeguards and pathways into stable housing. Ramos’ priority would still be voluntary engagement via 20 new community mental health centers (she’s proposed that) (Fixing Homelessness Or Fueling Fear? The NYC Mayoral Debate …) (Fixing Homelessness Or Fueling Fear? The NYC Mayoral Debate …), but she is willing to mandate treatment as a last resort for those in psychosis who refuse help. She’d likely partner with peer outreach teams to try every voluntary method first. So, while initially skeptical, Ramos now leans toward supporting involuntary treatment in limited, well-defined instances, combined with expanded mental health services.
Myrie has not spoken as directly on this as others, but he has indicated frustration with seeing ill individuals languishing on the streets. He has faulted the current administration for letting mentally ill homeless “fall through the cracks” (How the worm turns on NYC’s mental health crisis for progressive …). That implies he might support stronger interventions. If progressives like Lander and Ramos have come around to accept involuntary treatment in some cases, Myrie likely is on the same page. He would demand that due process and proper medical protocols are followed, but would not rule it out. He co-sponsored (and celebrated) the passing of the “Treatment Not Jail Act” in the Senate to divert mentally ill offenders into treatment instead of jail – showing he favors treatment, even if court-mandated, over neglect or incarceration. So, Myrie would probably support mandated treatment for those with serious mental illness who won’t accept help, provided housing and support follow. He’d ensure the city expands psychiatric care capacity to handle this ethically.
Mamdani is likely opposed to involuntary hospitalization in principle, viewing it as a coercive approach. The DSA stance tends to emphasize voluntary, community-based care and tackling root causes (housing, poverty) rather than forced treatment. Mamdani hasn’t spoken at length on this specific, but given his ideology, he would focus on building trust with homeless individuals via peer counselors and offering voluntary safe havens and on-site psychiatric services. He probably believes that involuntary commitment could deter people from seeking any help for fear of being locked up. Expect Mamdani to push for Housing First (give people housing without preconditions) and harm reduction approaches. So he would oppose broad mandates of treatment and instead invest in making help so accessible and attractive that people accept it. In extreme cases (threat of violence, etc.), current law already allows intervention – he wouldn’t expand it. In summary, Mamdani would not continue Adams’ policy; he’d end or greatly limit involuntary removals, favoring voluntary, consent-based treatment only.
Stringer has balanced sensibilities on this. He hasn’t made bold statements like Lander or Ramos did, but he did criticize Adams for failing on mental health (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist). Stringer likely supports using Kendra’s Law (court-ordered treatment) for those who are a danger or utterly unable to care for themselves, as a necessary measure – quietly aligning with the recent moderate consensus. In 2021, his mental health platform included expanding mobile crisis teams and supportive housing; he did not focus on involuntary commitment, but he didn’t oppose Kendra’s Law either (which was strengthened in 2021 at the state level). So as mayor, Stringer would continue mandated treatment in limited cases but ensure it’s done judiciously. He’d also invest heavily in preventive outreach so fewer people get to that point. Essentially, Stringer would allow involuntary hospitalization as a last resort (rather than categorically rejecting it), but he would surround it with oversight and try to minimize its use by bolstering voluntary services.
Blake likely would favor a compassionate approach heavy on persuasion, but if someone is clearly mentally incapable and in danger, he’d support intervention. As an ordained minister, he’s spoken about caring for those in crisis, and he supported the “Treatment Not Jails” philosophy. Blake would probably be amenable to mandated treatment under specific circumstances – he often emphasizes doing what’s necessary to protect vulnerable people. He’d also push for more Black and brown mental health professionals doing outreach to build trust (culturally competent care), hoping to reduce refusal rates. But in truly severe cases, Blake would not leave a person on the street in psychosis; he’d authorize clinicians to commit them for treatment. So, expect Blake to continue the policy of involuntary help for severe mental illness, but with an emphasis on monitoring outcomes and ensuring it transitions to long-term supportive housing or care.
Walden, as a former prosecutor and self-described problem-solver, is likely strongly in favor of mandating treatment for those who need it. He sees the humanitarian crisis of mentally ill homeless as something that requires decisive action. Walden has spoken about “doing the tough but right things” – this would align with that. He would probably criticize previous leaders for not using Kendra’s Law enough. Walden would streamline the process for involuntary commitment to cut through red tape (while still following legal standards). At the same time, he’d push Albany to add psych beds (since lack of capacity often prevents holding people for treatment). In sum, Walden would robustly use involuntary hospitalization and mandated treatment to get seriously ill individuals off the streets and into care, and he’d pride himself on cutting through bureaucracy to make sure it’s done effectively (and legally).
Tilson is likely supportive of Adams’ approach, if not wanting to go further. He has a very data-driven and, some might say, hard-nosed stance on quality-of-life issues. He has lamented that letting mentally ill people wander the streets is neither compassionate nor safe. He’d favor empowering professionals (and police, if needed) to compel treatment for those who refuse yet clearly need it. Tilson has also written extensively on addiction and interventions – he tends to back tough-love solutions. He might explore court-ordered conservatorships for the gravely disabled (like some states use). He also would invest in more psychiatric facilities to have a place to bring people. So expect Tilson to be a strong proponent of mandated treatment for the homeless mentally ill who won’t voluntarily accept help, framing it as restoring dignity and safety. He’d likely find funding for many more mental health beds to make this feasible, and consider it a priority to remove these individuals from public spaces into care.
Sliwa has long argued for a more forceful approach to the homeless mentally ill. He absolutely supports mandating treatment and confinement if necessary. He often recounts stories of EDPs (emotionally disturbed persons) causing harm and criticizes “liberal” officials for allowing them to remain on the streets. In his 2021 campaign, he proposed reopening state psychiatric hospitals and sending mentally ill homeless there for treatment, even if against their will. Sliwa would coordinate with the NYPD and mental health workers to sweep subways and streets of anyone clearly disturbed and get them into institutions. He might even push for changes in state law to make commitment easier (lowering the “imminent danger” standard). So, Sliwa’s stance is unequivocal: if someone is mentally ill and living on the street, and refuses help, they should be taken in for treatment regardless of consent. He’d portray it as common-sense compassion and public safety. This is very much aligned with his law-and-order persona.
Adams strongly supports converting underutilized spaces into housing. Under his “City of Yes” housing plan, he backed measures to legalize basement and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and make it easier for homeowners to create an extra apartment (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). He also championed easing zoning to convert vacant office buildings into residential use (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). These proposals were part of the zoning amendments the Council just approved – allowing additional units on lots and simplifying office-to-residential rules citywide (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). Adams cites this as a win (noting it will allow tens of thousands of new homes) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). Additionally, post-Hurricane Ida, Adams advocated for a state law to legalize basement apartments safely (Queens saw fatalities in illegal basements during that storm). As mayor, he’s allocating funds to a Basement Apartment Conversion Pilot in east New York. So, Adams is fully in favor of legalizing basement apartments and speeding office conversions – he sees them as quick ways to add affordable units (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). He’s already acting on it through the housing zoning text changes and by lobbying Albany for ADU legislation.
Cuomo would likely support these housing conversions as a pragmatic solution. As governor, he proposed programs to convert distressed hotels and office buildings into housing (especially after COVID hit and offices emptied). He’s on record saying we need to “repurpose vacant commercial space for housing.” If mayor, Cuomo would use his Albany clout to push through any state law changes needed to legalize basement units (a bill to allow NYC an ADU pilot failed previously – he could help get it passed). He would direct city agencies to streamline conversion permits and perhaps offer incentives for office landlords to convert to apartments. Cuomo is all about big goals and meeting them – legalizing ADUs and conversions aligns with his housing production aims. Therefore, expect Cuomo to aggressively pursue legalizing basement apartments (with safety regulations) and converting offices/hotels to residential, cutting through red tape to do so. It fits his moderate, results-oriented brand to unlock new housing in this manner.
Lander has been a longtime champion of basement apartment legalization. As a Council Member, he sponsored legislation creating a pilot program in Brooklyn to help homeowners bring basements up to code and rent them legally. He was disappointed that broader ADU legalization stalled. As mayor, Lander would be very supportive of legalizing and converting basements to safe housing – it aligns with his housing affordability mission and helps small homeowners. He’d likely allocate city funds or low-interest loans to help retrofits (as he did via the pilot). On offices, Lander supports conversions too – he recognizes post-pandemic, vacant offices can become apartments. He would ensure some affordability or community benefit as part of conversions (maybe relaxed zoning if some units are affordable). But overall, Lander would fast-track ADU legalization and office-to-housing conversions as key strategies. He even touted in his platform the need to convert “empty office buildings into condos” (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist) (NYC Council approves $5 billion housing plan backed by Mayor Adams - Gothamist). So he’s absolutely on board and has the policy knowledge to execute quickly.
Ramos strongly favors creative housing solutions like these. In the State Senate, she co-sponsored an ADU legalization bill at the state level – recognizing that many Queens homeowners have illegal basement units and need a path to legalization (especially after flood tragedies). She’s been vocal that basement apartments should be made safe and legal rather than vacated, as they’re an important source of affordable housing. So as mayor, Ramos would push aggressively for legalizing basement and cellar apartments, working with Albany to change codes and providing city technical assistance to homeowners. Regarding office conversions, with her pro-labor bent, she’d like to see old office buildings in Manhattan turned into residential use that includes affordable units and union construction jobs. She would support zoning changes and perhaps tax breaks conditioned on some affordable housing outcome. In summary, Ramos would embrace and accelerate both basement apartment legalization and office conversions – she often cites that we have unused space that could house people instead of letting it sit idle while residents lack housing.
Myrie is also supportive of these housing additions. In his housing plan, he mentioned code reforms to allow more units – which would include ADUs and conversions (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). Brooklyn (his borough) has many basement units that are unofficial; he’d want them legalized for safety and to count toward housing goals. He likely would work with the state on an ADU legalization law (which he probably voted for in the Senate when it was proposed). On offices, Myrie’s million-unit plan explicitly counts on rezonings and conversions of underused commercial space (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). So he is fully in favor. Myrie as mayor would prioritize implementing the regulatory changes needed to open up basements, garages, and empty offices for housing use, doing so in a way that keeps tenants safe (he’d recall the basement flooding deaths and push for mitigation measures as part of legalization). He might also tie in energy retrofitting (converting offices could be paired with green upgrades). But the bottom line is Myrie would see ADU legalization and office-to-housing as essential to meeting his huge housing target, so he’d push it zealously.
Mamdani is likely very supportive of converting unused space into housing, as it aligns with his urgency on the housing crisis. He has spoken about the absurdity of high vacancy rates in Midtown offices while people lack homes. He would absolutely legalize basement apartments – this is a common cause among NYC progressives and DSA (housing more people without new construction, often helping immigrant families). Mamdani’s district (Queens) includes many informal basement dwellings; he’d legitimize them. He might also weave in a plan to turn city-owned vacant lots or buildings into social housing. For offices, Mamdani would support conversion as long as it results in affordable housing – he might, for example, advocate using city funds or land banks to acquire empty office buildings and convert them into mixed-income housing rather than leaving it purely to luxury developers. In summary, Mamdani would push to unlock every possible space for housing – from basements to offices – viewing it as low-hanging fruit in expanding supply. He’d ensure strong tenant protections and affordability in the process (so it’s not just market-rate lofts).
Stringer has a record of proposing granular housing solutions like these. He called for legalizing ADUs (including basement units) during his 2021 campaign as a way to add affordable housing and help small homeowners with rental income. As Comptroller, he even released a report on the potential of basement apartments in alleviating the housing crunch. So he is a big proponent of bringing basement/attic apartments up to code and legalizing them. He would dedicate resources to an inter-agency task force to streamline the permitting and waive certain zoning requirements to make this feasible in neighborhoods citywide. For office conversions, Stringer advocated using surplus commercial space to create housing, especially affordable and senior housing. He might create a public-private fund to buy outdated office buildings and convert them. Thus, a Stringer administration would aggressively pursue ADU legalization and office-to-residential conversion as key strategies to boost housing supply relatively quickly. He’d do it with an eye on safety (inspections, fire code upgrades) and likely push Albany if laws need changing.
Blake would be supportive of any and all above approaches to add housing stock. He talks about a “Mitchell-Lama 2.0” which primarily means building new, but converting existing buildings fits too. As a Bronx native, he knows many multi-family homes have illegal basement units – he’d support making it easier for those to become legal, both to protect tenants and help homeowners. Blake would work with communities to allay concerns (some homeowners fear increased taxes or penalties if they legalize a basement – he’d likely include tax abatements or amnesty to encourage them). On office conversions, he’d see an opportunity for jobs and housing – he’d likely ensure MWBE (minority/women business) contractors are involved in conversions, aligning with his focus on equity. In short, Blake would greenlight basement apartment legalization and expedite office conversions as part of his affordable housing and economic empowerment agenda. There’s little controversy for him there, aside from finding funds to help with renovations, which he’d consider well worth it.
Walden, with his problem-solving bent, would be very enthusiastic about unlocking these forms of housing. In fact, he explicitly mentioned tackling housing production via code reforms and partnerships (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) – precisely what ADU legalization and office conversions entail. As an attorney, Walden likely understands the legal/regulatory barriers intimately and would seek to remove them. He might streamline the permitting process at DOB (Department of Buildings) to make conversions quicker (like self-certification for simpler basement conversions, etc.). He might also offer incentives: e.g. waive conversion fees or provide low-interest rehab loans. Walden would view legalizing basement units as a no-brainer to add affordable rentals and converting offices as a smart way to revitalize business districts and add housing. He’d use his independent status to broker deals with state lawmakers (since ADUs require state law changes) – possibly suing the state if needed to let NYC pilot ADU legalization (though likely he’d just lobby). So expect Walden to be fully on board and moving fast on these conversions to demonstrate early progress in office.
Tilson, as a housing investor by background, absolutely supports reducing regulatory barriers to new housing forms. He has commented on zoning and NIMBYism being obstacles to affordability. Tilson would support ADU legalization (basements, garage apartments) because it increases supply without public spending, aligning with his market-based approach. He’d also strongly back converting underused offices to housing – in fact he has likely written about how remote work opens an opportunity for housing in city centers. He would push to make the conversion process as “by-right” as possible – meaning, if a building meets basic criteria, it can convert to residential without discretionary approvals that drag on. He might also champion updating building codes to facilitate such conversions (maybe more flexible light/air requirements for ADUs, etc.). So, in summary, Tilson would aggressively legalize and streamline basement apartment and office conversions, seeing it as a win-win for increasing housing and aiding property owners to repurpose assets. He’d, however, oppose onerous affordability requirements on these conversions (preferring them to be market-rate, to encourage participation).
Sliwa likely supports basement apartment legalization and office conversions as practical measures – but with caveats. He is very attuned to quality-of-life issues, so he’d insist that basement units meet safety standards to avoid tragedies or overcrowding. Given his focus on outer-borough homeowners (he’s courted them as a constituency), he’d love to give them the ability to rent a legal basement unit – he’d frame it as helping working-class homeowners stay afloat and providing low-cost housing. So he would legalize basement apartments citywide, paired with strict enforcement of safety upgrades (he might even have the Guardian Angels volunteer to check smoke detectors, etc. – very on brand for him). On office conversions, Sliwa would support them particularly if they create housing for groups he cares about (like veterans, whom he often mentions). He might prioritize converting hotels/office buildings into housing for homeless or mentally ill (he’s suggested using a closed prison or Creedmoor hospital building to house migrants and homeless). So Sliwa is in favor of turning any suitable space into housing quickly – though he’d emphasize using it for supportive and affordable housing to address homelessness, rather than luxury development. He’d cut red tape to do it, possibly even use emergency orders if he could justify it. So yes on ADUs and conversions, under a Sliwa administration.
Adams’ tenure has clearly prioritized bolstering police ranks and enforcement over new reforms. A former NYPD captain, Adams believes the department had already been reformed significantly (especially post-2020) and now needs support to do its job. While he did retain the DOI and CCRB oversight structures, he has not pursued additional police accountability measures as mayor. In fact, he brought back a modified anti-gun unit and fought against the City Council’s attempt to ban qualified immunity (which passed before he took office) – he was lukewarm on some of those reforms. Adams often says he holds officers to high standards but publicly stands by them (for example, he defended officers in several controversial incidents). Under him, the NYPD’s disciplinary matrix continues but there haven’t been major new reform initiatives. So Adams is clearly more focused on adding officers and proactive policing than on expanding oversight (2025 New York City mayoral election - Wikipedia) (2025 New York City mayoral election - Wikipedia). He did not make police accountability a top talking point in his re-election pitch; instead, he talks about crime declines. In sum, Adams is not prioritizing new reform measures – he feels existing accountability (like bodycams, CCRB) is sufficient and now the focus must be on crime reduction.
Cuomo’s emphasis in this race is on restoring public order, not on police reform. As governor, he did enact some reforms after George Floyd’s murder (like signing the repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a to open police disciplinary records, and requiring local departments to have reform plans), but he also criticized elements of 2020’s bail reform and has positioned himself as tougher on crime than the “left.” Cuomo tends to see the NYPD as a necessary force that should be well-managed, but he hasn’t been an outspoken advocate of things like defunding or radically changing police practices. He would likely maintain existing accountability structures (CCRB, IG, etc.) but wouldn’t initiate new major reforms such as reducing qualified immunity or ending broken-windows policing. In fact, he might reverse some reforms he thinks went too far (he’s hinted bail reform needs tweaks). Cuomo is running to the right of Adams on crime, effectively, so he would prioritize strong policing over new oversight measures. He’d ensure police misconduct is addressed (he doesn’t want abusive cops running loose), but that would not overshadow his drive to empower cops to do their job. Essentially, expect a Cuomo mayoralty to focus on competent policing with existing accountability, rather than pursuing new reform initiatives.
Lander has been one of the city’s leading voices for police reform and accountability (especially during his time on the Council). He co-founded the Council’s Progressive Caucus and pushed for the POST Act (surveillance oversight) and the Diaphragm Compression ban in the NYPD. He frequently clashed with the Adams administration on budget cuts vs. police funding. However, interestingly, Lander’s mayoral platform has balanced that by acknowledging safety concerns (even supporting more officers – see issue 1). But fundamentally, Lander’s heart is in accountability: he wants a police department that is held to the highest standards. He’d prioritize strengthening the CCRB (maybe giving it final say on discipline), increasing transparency (perhaps codifying the public release of bodycam footage, etc.), and shifting certain duties (traffic enforcement, mental health response) away from NYPD to civilian agencies – which is a form of reform. Compared to “hire more cops,” Lander clearly places more emphasis on police reform and oversight (though he doesn’t ignore staffing, as noted). He believes trust in police is built through accountability. So as mayor, Lander would implement additional training, robust misconduct prosecution, potentially end qualified immunity at the city level (the Council already did for NYPD officers, which he supported). In short, Lander would strongly prioritize police reform & accountability, even as he ensures adequate NYPD staffing – making him quite distinct from Adams on that front.
Ramos is an outspoken advocate for police accountability. In the Senate, she supported the repeal of 50-a, the Special Prosecutor law for police killings, and other reform legislation after 2020. She has often criticized over-policing in communities of color and is aligned with the view that resources should go to community services over expanding the NYPD. As mayor, Ramos would prioritize reforming the NYPD culture and practices – for instance, strengthening de-escalation training, penalizing officers for misconduct (she’d work closely with CCRB and likely expand its powers), and ending what she sees as abusive practices like excessive subway sweeps. She likely supports reallocating certain responsibilities from NYPD to civilian agencies (e.g. mental health crisis response, traffic enforcement). Compared to hiring more cops, Ramos would far rather invest in accountability measures and alternative responders. She would not increase the NYPD headcount; if anything, she might slightly reduce it and redirect funding to prevention programs. So yes – police reform and oversight would be a top priority under Ramos, more so than boosting numbers. She’d focus on bias training, demilitarizing the police, and ensuring officers who abuse power are disciplined or removed.
Myrie has a foot in both worlds. He comes from a community impacted by both crime and over-policing. In Albany he backed the major 2020 reform laws (like banning chokeholds, making police disciplinary records public). He also pushed the Clean Slate Act for sealing criminal records, showing his focus on second chances and systemic justice. While running for mayor, he hasn’t hammered police reform (the race narrative is more about his housing plan), but one can infer that he’d still emphasize accountability. He would certainly maintain the reforms already enacted and resist any rollback. He would support continuing things like the DOI’s oversight of NYPD, and likely appoint reform-minded individuals to the CCRB and police commissioner post. On hiring, Myrie hasn’t advocated for more cops – he’s more about using resources differently (e.g. youth programs for prevention). So he’d put a higher priority on curbing abusive practices and enhancing oversight than on recruiting new officers. He’d want improved community-police relations via accountability. So expect Myrie to lean toward the reform side: ensuring the NYPD complies with disciplinary standards, perhaps expanding the “Duty to Intervene” rules, and focusing on constitutional policing rather than increasing the force size.
Mamdani is firmly in the camp of police reform (indeed, transformation) over expansion. Being a democratic socialist, he has been critical of the NYPD’s size and budget. He likely supports ideas like reallocating some police funding to social services (“defund” in the sense of reassigning tasks). He would prioritize strong accountability: enforcing the recently passed NYPD disciplinary matrix, empowering the CCRB further (maybe giving CCRB final disciplinary authority rather than the Police Commissioner), and ending policies he sees as criminalizing poverty (subway fare enforcement, for example). Mamdani probably backs reducing the role of police in issues like mental health, traffic, schools (he’d likely remove NYPD from schools in favor of counselors). So as mayor, Mamdani’s priority would be police reform and robust civilian oversight. He would not hire more officers; if anything, he’d shrink the NYPD over time through attrition and shift those resources to community programs. Stopping abuses – like brutality, improper surveillance of Muslim communities (something he’s vocal about) – would be central. In short, Mamdani would put reform and accountability first, and would not prioritize increasing officer count (he’d argue better policing comes from accountability and community investment, not more cops).
Stringer has a progressive history regarding NYPD oversight. As Comptroller, he audited the Special Victims Division after rape case mishandlings, showing he’s willing to scrutinize NYPD units. In 2020, he voiced support for reallocating some NYPD funds to social services and supported many reform proposals (like moving school safety out of NYPD). If mayor, Stringer would likely emphasize continuing the reform momentum – for instance, fully implementing the chokehold ban, the disciplinary matrix, etc. He might push for diversifying the NYPD leadership and strengthening the CCRB (possibly giving CCRB increased budget or subpoena power). While he did say he’d “beef up the NYPD” in terms of crime-fighting plan (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York), that doesn’t mean he’d neglect oversight – he explicitly cited tackling corruption (which in context refers to city corruption broadly, but likely includes police corruption) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). So, Stringer would try to balance: he’d ensure adequate police presence to keep neighborhoods safe, but he would concurrently prioritize reform and accountability measures. For example, he could bring back the idea of a truly independent NYPD Inspector General with teeth, or require publishing more data on police stops (to watch for bias). In any conflict between hiring vs. accountability, Stringer tends to side with accountability first.
Blake would prioritize community trust in police – which means accountability. He’s spoken about being a Black man who has experienced both sides of policing. In his campaign, he emphasizes making government work for all, which in policing terms means ensuring NYPD treats all communities fairly. Blake championed Raise the Age (which diverted 16-17 year olds from adult courts) – showing a focus on juvenile justice reform. As mayor, he’d likely support measures like expanding implicit bias training, tracking and publishing data on police stops and use of force, and strengthening the CCRB. He might also promote hiring more officers of color, but that’s a hiring aspect aligned with reform (changing NYPD culture). He’s not going to be for pumping up police ranks without addressing reform – he’d consider that counterproductive. So Blake would prioritize police accountability and reform (e.g. ensuring officers who commit misconduct face consequences, improving police-community relations through oversight) more so than simply adding more officers. He’d also invest in alternatives to policing (violence interrupters, etc.), reflecting a reform-oriented approach.
Walden is a bit of a hybrid on this issue. He values law enforcement (as a former prosecutor) but also lawfulness of the enforcers. He’s positioned himself as someone who will root out corruption anywhere – including in the NYPD. He notably represented clients against the city in some cases (e.g., NYCHA tenants, etc.), so he’s not afraid to challenge city agencies. Walden would likely want an NYPD that is both effective and accountable. He might propose to beef up the Internal Affairs Bureau or give more funding to CCRB to speed up investigations. That said, if forced to choose, Walden might lean toward giving cops the tools to fight crime (hiring, etc.) while promising to hold them accountable – trying to do both. But his campaign statements suggest a focus on making sure city institutions are not corrupt or abusive (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). For example, he would likely be very aggressive on breaking up any ticket-fixing or tow corruption or gang evidence planting scandals – those would outrage him as a rule-of-law guy. So he’d prioritize accountability – “cleaning up” the NYPD’s bad apples and bad practices – believing that will improve performance. Hiring more officers would be secondary; he’d first aim to maximize the integrity and efficiency of the current force. Walden’s emphasis on anti-corruption and good governance indicates he’d put a lot of weight on NYPD reform/oversight.
Tilson’s priority is on outcomes – he wants crime down. He likely sees some of the post-2020 reforms as having gone too far, but he also expects professional conduct from police. Tilson is a big data, metrics guy: he would demand NYPD produce metrics on misconduct and he’d act on them. However, if asked to prioritize, he’d probably say fight crime first, while maintaining necessary oversight. He would not focus on new reforms – he’d say implement the ones passed in 2020 and move on. Tilson would oppose anything he sees as “handcuffing police” overly (he was critical of talk to remove qualified immunity, etc.). So in practice, he’d emphasize supporting the NYPD to do proactive policing to curb crime (hiring more cops, bringing back plainclothes units) and say that current accountability mechanisms (bodycams, CCRB) are sufficient when properly managed (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He’d ensure those mechanisms function but likely not introduce new ones. So Tilson clearly prioritizes boosting policing, not expanding oversight. Accountability wouldn’t be ignored – he’d fire bad cops readily if proven misconduct – but he wouldn’t make reform a centerpiece.
Sliwa is firmly on the side of empowering police over imposing further reforms. He has been a vocal critic of what he calls “political correctness” hampering police. Sliwa would try to roll back some reforms if possible – for instance, he’d likely loosen the diaphragm compression ban, push to end the federal monitorship of the NYPD from the stop-and-frisk case, and reduce the influence of the CCRB. He often says the police have been “demonized” and he wants to “let them do their job.” Sliwa would almost certainly increase discretionary arrests for low-level offenses (reversing shifts away from that) and protect cops from what he sees as unfair punishment for split-second decisions. That implies he’d de-prioritize external oversight. He even suggested recruiting retired cops to oversee precincts instead of CCRB civilians. So clearly, Sliwa’s priority is not police reform – it’s giving police free rein to enforce laws. He would defund or diminish some oversight entities if he could (though many are mandated by law). Sliwa’s stance: hire more cops, crack down on crime, don’t hamstring police with new regulations. Accountability would be mostly internal (he trusts NYPD to police itself more than he trusts “civilian activists”). In summary, Sliwa would prioritize strengthening police presence and powers over reform measures, likely reversing some accountability measures he thinks go too far.
Adams has been quite welcoming to big businesses and developments. He celebrated the completion of the new Belmont Park Islanders arena and the coming soccer stadium in Queens. He has actively courted corporate employers: he traveled to Florida to urge finance companies to return to NYC offices, and met with tech CEOs. Adams is worried about companies relocating to low-tax states and has said NYC must be pro-business to keep jobs. He supported efforts to get a casino in NYC (which is now moving forward – he’s specifically backed a casino resort in Times Square or Coney Island with community benefits). Adams often touts job growth and major projects as wins (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist) (Who wants to unseat Eric Adams to become NYC’s next mayor? - Gothamist). He also signaled he would have handled the Amazon HQ2 differently (implying he’d have kept them on board). So Adams clearly prioritizes attracting big businesses and development – he frames it as creating jobs for New Yorkers. He’s likely to offer incentives or streamline approvals for major investors (within reason; he might not give away as much as some states do, but he’s open to public-private deals). In short, Adams wants NYC to be seen as “open for business” and would rather strike a deal with a stadium or corporate HQ (ensuring some benefits) than see them go elsewhere. This aligns with his pro-business Democrat branding.
Cuomo is very much in favor of attracting marquee projects and preventing corporate flight. As governor, he famously put together the Amazon HQ2 incentive package (with de Blasio) and blasted the deal’s opponents when Amazon withdrew (How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC - City & State New York) (How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC - City & State New York). He has a track record of big developments: Moynihan Train Hall, the Buffalo Tesla factory (though that had issues), nano-tech hubs upstate. Cuomo believes large employers diversify and strengthen the economy (How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC - City & State New York) (How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC - City & State New York). In the mayoral race, he’s likely to present himself as someone who can bring “big wins” – e.g., he might mention trying to lure another big tech or finance HQ. He would absolutely push for the new downstate casinos and try to shape where they go (ensuring NYC gets at least one prime location). He’d also be aggressive in pitching NYC to companies in states with controversial laws, inviting them to relocate here (similar to his past campaigns inviting businesses from, say, Texas, after anti-abortion laws). So expect Cuomo to actively court major businesses and developments. He’d offer tax incentives if needed (though he’d try to structure them to show net benefit). Losing a major project is something he’d take as a personal failure – he’d go all-out to land them, likely saying he won’t let a repeat of the Amazon loss happen (How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC - City & State New York) (How key players are reacting to Amazon’s pull-out from NYC - City & State New York).
Lander’s approach to development is more community-centric. He opposed the Amazon HQ2 deal’s secrecy/lack of community input, though he wasn’t against Amazon per se – he just wanted conditions (like union jobs, local hiring, affordable housing) and transparency. Lander is not anti-business, but he doesn’t believe in blank-check incentives for megacorps. He’d prefer to support small businesses and startups rather than shower subsidies on a trillion-dollar company. That said, Lander knows a strong economy funds progressive programs. So he would try to accommodate big projects with strong community benefits. For example, he supported the Gowanus rezoning because it included affordable housing and environmental remediation, but he would oppose something like the NYCFC stadium if it lacked community investments (however, he actually did not oppose the soccer stadium – he was fairly quiet, and it moved with union support). For casinos or stadiums, Lander would insist on thorough review and benefits agreements (e.g. he might accept a casino if it comes with funding for transit or social programs). In summary, Lander would negotiate hard with large businesses – he won’t bend over backward with huge tax breaks, but he wouldn’t summarily reject major developments either. He’d aim for a balanced approach: welcome businesses that invest in New Yorkers and abide by labor standards, but be willing to say no to deals that only enrich developers. So he’d attract big business on his terms.
Ramos was a leading opponent of the Amazon HQ2 process – she objected that it bypassed the local community and offered excessive subsidies. She even celebrated Amazon’s withdrawal as a win for grassroots democracy. So, Ramos is skeptical of chasing big corporate developments with taxpayer money. She often aligns with labor and community groups that ask: what’s in it for us? For example, she has voiced opposition to the proposed Citi Field casino by Mets owner Steve Cohen, on grounds that community needs (like affordable housing on that land) were being ignored (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). She’s not anti-job – she fights for good jobs and union labor – but she doesn’t trust backroom deals with billionaires. As mayor, Ramos would not prioritize wooing huge corporations with special treatment. She’d focus on cultivating local small businesses, cooperatives, and improving infrastructure to make NYC broadly attractive. If a major company wants to come here, she’d involve the community in shaping the deal (schools, transit improvements, etc. as part of it). So one could say she’d rather “grow from within” than lure an Amazon with $3B in incentives. She’s okay with development if it centers community voices. But Ramos would likely risk big projects leaving if they demand too much or don’t align with equity goals – she’d prefer that to a bad deal.
Myrie is somewhat more moderate than Ramos on development. He hasn’t opposed all big projects – for instance, he’s supportive of the Atlantic Yards (now Barclays Center) so long as promised affordable housing is delivered. He was part of negotiations in Albany to legalize downstate casinos (which he supported because of potential jobs and revenue). Myrie’s approach is pragmatic: he will engage large businesses, but with firm conditions for local hiring, affordable housing contributions, etc. He wants that “competent management” image, which likely includes working smoothly with business interests. So he would welcome large businesses and projects, but ensure they partner with communities. He supported the Idea of a “NYC Recovery Compact” where businesses pledge to invest in the city. So Myrie wouldn’t throw huge blank checks at companies, but he’d find creative ways to entice them (e.g. streamlined permitting, tax credits tied to job creation). Losing jobs to another city is something he’d try to avoid. Expect him to work to attract major developments as long as they further policy goals (like requiring a stadium or HQ to adhere to labor standards and include community benefits). In contrast to Ramos, Myrie might have been more amenable to re-negotiating with Amazon rather than celebrating their exit.
Mamdani would be very critical of prioritizing big corporations. He famously was part of the Queens left movement that opposed Amazon HQ2. He believes public resources should go to social housing, not billionaire corporations. Mamdani’s focus is on strengthening working-class power – he’d likely support unionization efforts at Amazon and such, rather than giving Amazon subsidies. So as mayor, Mamdani would not prioritize attracting huge corporate projects like casinos or luxury developments. In fact, he might actively oppose some – for example, he’d likely oppose a casino in working-class Queens if residents are against it. He would prefer using city land for affordable housing, not stadiums (unless it’s community-driven). Mamdani might be okay with some major projects if they are publicly owned or community-controlled (imagine a publicly owned solar manufacturing plant or something). But corporate-led projects expecting tax breaks? He’d say no – if they want NYC’s market, they can come on our terms (pay taxes, pay living wages). So he would risk companies leaving rather than compromise on his principles. He’d invest city funds in cooperatives, public works, and small businesses instead of courting big corporations.
Stringer has tried to balance pro-business and progressive stances. As Manhattan BP and Comptroller, he had to engage with big real estate and corporate interests, and he did so while also pushing for affordable housing and community benefits. He criticized the Amazon HQ2 secrecy but said he wasn’t against Amazon coming if done right. He likely would have preferred a more transparent negotiation with community input rather than outright rejection. So as mayor, Stringer would work to retain and attract large businesses, but he’d aim for smart deals (no blank check subsidies, but possibly targeted incentives). He knows the city needs a strong tax base. He would also focus on reforms like fixing the property tax system to make NYC more attractive to commercial tenants (he’s spoken about commercial rent tax reforms, etc.). For developments like stadiums or casinos, he’d follow the ULURP process and push for maximum community benefit, but ultimately he’s not anti-development. He supported Hudson Yards initially (though later criticized its financing). So expect Stringer to try to keep big employers and projects in NYC through negotiation and balanced incentive packages. He’d probably convene an economic development summit with business leaders to find out what they need and what the city needs from them. In summary, he’d lean towards attracting and retaining big business (albeit with conditions) rather than risk them leaving.
Blake is a business-friendly moderate in some respects – he worked in the Obama White House Office of Public Engagement where interacting with business was key. He also is deeply focused on minority-owned business development. Blake would likely see major developments as opportunities to create jobs for communities of color if handled properly (ensuring minority contractors and hiring). He’d be inclined to welcome corporate investments in NYC. He often talks about public-private partnerships. So he would encourage big companies to set up in NYC, but emphasize diversity and community uplift in those deals. For example, if a stadium is built, he’d fight to ensure local youth programs are funded by it. If a tech HQ comes, he’d want pipelines for Bronx kids into tech jobs. He’s not keen on giving away huge tax abatements (he didn’t directly weigh in on Amazon HQ2, but as a Bronx politician he probably sympathized with Queens officials who felt left out of talks). Still, he wouldn’t want to turn down tens of thousands of jobs. So Blake would try to strike balanced agreements to attract big projects – he’s risk-averse about losing them because he’s seen how jobs leaving hurt the Bronx historically. His stance would be: bring development, but do it equitably.
Walden is openly pro-development and pro-business in a Bloombergian way (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York). He’s said the city needs “fresh policy ideas” to spur economic growth – likely meaning being friendlier to business. He admires how Bloomberg revitalized the waterfront with big projects, etc. Walden would aggressively pitch NYC to big companies (perhaps offering streamlined permitting, workforce training programs in partnership with them, etc.). He sees projects like the failed Amazon deal as missed opportunities due to poor execution. Given his independent streak, he might also think he can negotiate a better bargain for the city in such deals. Expect Walden to court large employers and developers, promising a competent, non-ideological approach to get deals done. Casinos, stadiums – he’d evaluate them case by case, but generally if the numbers show net benefit, he’d support them. He specifically alludes to being like Bloomberg who was very development-friendly. So Walden would prioritize attracting/keeping large businesses and not worry too much about appeasing the far left on that. He’d of course try to include local benefits to avoid backlash, but his orientation is clearly to grow the economic pie by welcoming major investments.
Tilson is strongly in favor of making NYC attractive to big businesses and investors. He’s a finance guy who believes in growth through private sector innovation. In his platform, he emphasizes growing the city’s economy by 50% over the next decade (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) (Here’s who’s running for New York City mayor in 2025 - City & State New York) – that’s impossible without major business expansion. He criticized leaders who drive businesses (and wealthy taxpayers) away. So he would likely offer a very business-friendly environment: lower taxes (or at least not raising them), reducing red tape, and openly courting companies from high-growth sectors (tech, biotech, fintech, etc.). Tilson even said NYC should treat companies as valued customers rather than enemies. He was probably dismayed by Amazon’s pullout and would make sure NYC doesn’t “lose” such opportunities again. For big developments like casinos, he’s not morally opposed (he’s an investor type who might see them as economic drivers, though he’d weigh social costs). But net-net, Tilson would prioritize keeping and luring large businesses – including supporting big real estate projects – because he sees them as crucial to expanding jobs and the tax base. He’d likely reinstate something like the Bloomberg-era Fashion Avenue or tech hub initiatives to cluster industries here.
Sliwa is in a tricky spot: as a Republican, he generally supports businesses, but he’s also a populist who rails against elites at times. During his 2021 run, he actually supported the idea of Amazon coming to NYC (contrasting with AOC). He said we should have gotten the Amazon jobs but with better negotiation. Sliwa would certainly prefer companies here than elsewhere – he often bemoans taxpaying New Yorkers fleeing to Florida or Jersey. So he’d encourage big businesses to stay and come. He might not give them huge subsidies because he also champions not wasting taxpayer money, but he’d cut taxes broadly which itself benefits big companies. For developments like stadiums or casinos: Sliwa supported a casino on Coney Island, for instance, believing it would create jobs. He’s a sports guy (worked in talk radio) and supported building/upgrading stadiums if it means jobs and development (but he hated de Blasio’s handling of things like pulling NYPD from events). He likely thinks the private sector should fund these projects with maybe some city facilitation. So yes, Sliwa would lean toward attracting large developments – he has a very boosterish love for NYC and wouldn’t want to see it lose out. He’d definitely try to reverse the narrative of businesses leaving by making NYC more business-friendly (cutting business taxes, reducing regulations he finds onerous, etc.). In summary, Sliwa would prioritize bringing and keeping big businesses/projects in NYC, and would loudly call out any “foolish politicians” he thinks drive them away.
Adams does support climate initiatives but often emphasizes balancing them with budget constraints. Under his administration, NYC released the “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done” climate strategy, which commits to net-zero by 2050 and includes investments in resiliency, renewable energy, and building retrofits (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York). He has touted projects like installing solar on all city-owned buildings by 2035 and ending new fossil fuel connections (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York). However, Adams can be cautious about “regardless of cost” – for instance, he delayed some Local Law 97 carbon fines for co-op buildings due to financial concerns, and his budget cuts lightly trimmed some green programs (like curbside composting rollout). Still, he has allocated billions for climate resiliency (such as stormwater infrastructure after Hurricane Ida). So Adams is committed to climate goals but also cost-conscious. He’ll invest heavily (e.g. a $47M allocation to greenway improvements (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York)), but he frequently seeks federal/state funds to help. He probably wouldn’t use the phrase “regardless of cost” – he’d say we can’t afford not to invest, but he also tries to secure outside funding (IIJA, IRA funds) to cover it (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York). In summary, Adams is fairly supportive of ambitious climate spending (like installing citywide EV chargers, pushing offshore wind ports, etc.), but he does keep an eye on the price tag and timelines. He aims for big climate goals, yet within the city’s fiscal limits and with an expectation of federal help (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York).
Cuomo as governor oversaw the passage of one of the nation’s most ambitious climate laws (the CLCPA, committing NY to net-zero by 2050) and invested in green infrastructure like offshore wind farms and transmission lines for Canadian hydro. He is proud of that legacy (New York Passes Strongest Climate Act in the Nation | Audubon New York) (New York Passes Strongest Climate Act in the Nation | Audubon New York). Cuomo is willing to spend big on infrastructure – he sees it as part of his governing style (e.g. he invested in MTA upgrades, airports, etc.). For climate, he launched a $3 billion resiliency bond act (though voters approved it after he left). If mayor, Cuomo would likely pursue ambitious climate projects and green jobs programs and leverage his Albany connections for funding. He might push for things like fast-tracking congestion pricing to reduce emissions and fund transit. “Regardless of cost” – Cuomo is somewhat pragmatic: he wouldn’t bankrupt the city, but he’s comfortable with heavy upfront spending for long-term benefit (e.g. he spent billions on state renewable energy credits). He famously said “we can’t afford not to go green” in the long run. So expect Cuomo to heavily invest in climate resilience (seawalls, flood protection) and clean energy (solar on city buildings, perhaps a waste-to-energy plant to reduce landfill, etc.), even if the price is high – as long as he can justify it with economic/job benefits. He might frame it as a Green New Deal for NYC, boasting it creates tens of thousands of jobs. In essence, Cuomo would treat climate infrastructure similar to how he treats other big infrastructure – worth doing big and fast.
Lander is very enthusiastic about ambitious climate action and sees it as a twin opportunity to create green jobs. As Comptroller, he pushed city pension funds to divest from fossil fuels and invest in renewables – he views it as financially and morally right. Lander would likely spare little expense to meet climate goals: he’d invest in things like expanding solar installations, electrifying city vehicles and buses, building protected greenways, and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. He strongly supports Local Law 97 enforcement (carbon emission cuts for buildings). He also has talked about economic justice through climate action (job training in renewables for NYCHA residents, etc.). So yes, Lander would support heavy investment in green jobs and infrastructure, even if it means significant spending – he’d argue it pays off via job creation and avoiding climate disaster costs. For example, he’d likely fund a large-scale workforce development for wind turbine technicians if offshore wind is taking off. He might even propose a municipal green bank to finance private building retrofits. In summary, Lander’s priority on climate is high; he’d treat meeting NYC’s climate targets as non-negotiable and allocate substantial capital budget to resilience projects (like sewer upgrades, flood protection) and renewable projects, seeing the cost as necessary and worthwhile.
Ramos is a passionate advocate for green jobs and climate justice. In the Senate, she sponsored bills to create worker cooperatives in renewable energy and pushed for the Build Public Renewables Act (to have NY’s public power authority develop renewable projects – which passed in 2023). She firmly believes in massive public investment in climate solutions and making sure the jobs go to local, union workers. Ramos would embrace ambitious climate spending “regardless of cost,” framing it as an urgent investment in the future. She’d likely set up programs for training oil and gas workers to transition to solar/wind jobs, install solar panels on city properties aggressively, expand community solar in environmental justice neighborhoods, and invest in EV charging infrastructure even if the payback is long-term. Also, representing an area hit by storms (she’s from Queens where Ida flooding was deadly), she would champion expensive but vital resiliency projects (probably pushing for completing East Side Coastal Resiliency, rebuilding sewer systems, etc.). Ramos often says you can’t put a price on saving the planet for the next generation. She also supported congestion pricing and would use its revenue for sustainable transit. So yes, as mayor Ramos would heavily invest in climate initiatives – she’d spend the political and financial capital needed to meet NYC’s climate goals, arguing that the alternative costs (storms, heat deaths) are far worse.
Myrie strongly supports climate action (he voted for the CLCPA and the Build Public Renewables Act). But he’s also cautious about costs on working-class constituents (for example, he might be mindful of not unduly raising utility rates to pay for green projects). Still, in principle, he has spoken about climate change being a top threat and the need for big responses. In his million-unit housing plan, he also integrated green building practices. He’d likely continue the city’s planned climate investments and perhaps expand them – e.g., accelerating the timetable for city fleet electrification, or putting more money into rooftop solar on schools (which he’s mentioned in past interviews). He’d see the job creation aspect as a plus too – maybe establishing a goal for NYC to become a hub for offshore wind assembly or urban agriculture. Myrie’s approach might be a notch more moderate than someone like Ramos – he’d try to secure federal/state funds and use them wisely – but he wouldn’t shy from ambitious goals with hefty price tags, like fortifying the subway from flooding or covering the Cross-Bronx Expressway with green decking (an idea floating that he might back). Overall, Myrie would invest heavily in climate resilience and green infrastructure, just ensuring the spending is equitable and doesn’t burden the poor (he’d favor progressive funding mechanisms like taxes on the wealthy or leveraging federal grants, rather than regressive fees).
Mamdani would enthusiastically pursue a Green New Deal for NYC no matter the cost. He and the DSA are big proponents of publicly-owned renewable energy, expanded public transit, and job guarantees in the green sector. Mamdani would likely propose extremely ambitious programs – e.g., making buses free (which doubles as climate policy to shift people from cars), or municipal solar installations on every feasible rooftop, or a city-run green jobs corps employing thousands to plant urban forests, install insulation in homes, etc. The upfront costs would be huge, but Mamdani’s philosophy is to tax the rich and corporations to pay for it. He’d support issuing municipal bonds if needed because he views climate change as an existential threat requiring wartime-like mobilization. Mamdani also would push to ban new fossil fuel infrastructure in NYC and heavily invest in NYCHA retrofits, even if billions are needed. “Regardless of cost” fits his outlook – because he believes the cost of inaction (floods, heat waves) is far greater. So Mamdani would prioritize achieving climate goals with big public investments very highly, likely even willing to trim other areas (like NYPD budget) to fund climate programs. In short, Mamdani would treat the climate crisis with maximum urgency and spending, akin to a NYC-level Green New Deal that he’d want to implement immediately.
Stringer has long been a climate hawk – as BP he released sustainability plans, as Comptroller he pushed divestment from fossil fuels and criticized de Blasio for delays on climate projects. He also proposed a comprehensive “climate resilience plan” in 2021 including installing neighborhood cooling centers, greening streets, accelerating coastal protections, etc., funded by a mix of city funds and bonds. So he is willing to invest a lot – he understands the fiscal side and still believes it’s prudent to spend on climate. In fact, he’s likely to say borrowing for long-term climate infrastructure is fiscally responsible given low interest rates and urgent needs. He’d aim for both mitigation (cutting emissions via renewable energy, perhaps expanding solar mandates on new buildings) and adaptation (flood defenses). Expect Stringer to pour capital budget dollars into resiliency projects like upgrading storm sewers, and to push ambitious goals like all city electricity from renewables by 2030 (he championed that as Comptroller). He might resurrect some Bloomberg-era ideas like a green buildings task force, but with stronger benchmarks. Regarding cost, Stringer would try to finance climate spending smartly (through bonds, federal grants) but ultimately he would not shy away from heavy investment – he knows the city’s economy and survival depend on it. He might create a dedicated climate infrastructure fund. So yes, an ambitious climate agenda with significant spending would be a hallmark of a Stringer mayoralty.
Blake would support ambitious climate goals, but he might frame it through the lens of environmental justice and job training. He would invest in programs that bring green jobs to underserved communities – even if costly – because it tackles multiple issues (jobs + climate). Blake tends to be collaborative; he might work with private companies for climate solutions (like public-private partnerships to install EV chargers in the Bronx, employing local youth). He’d back heavy spending on resilience especially for areas like the Bronx River flooding zones, given his district experiences. I suspect Blake would push city pension funds to invest in local green projects and maybe create incentives for businesses to adopt green practices. He might not use the phrase “regardless of cost,” but in practice he’d likely vote for big climate budgets. His track record in Assembly includes support for the CLCPA and for funding NYCHA boilers (to reduce emissions and provide heat). So as mayor, he’d allocate significant resources to climate actions, while ensuring minority communities get contracts and jobs from these projects (that’s a big emphasis for him). He may also focus on things like expanding CitiBike and transit to reduce car reliance – which requires spending on infrastructure. All in all, Blake would commit NYC to ambitious climate targets and put money behind them, trusting that with federal help and improved efficiencies it’s manageable.
Walden, though pro-business, is also very keen on infrastructure and planning. As an attorney, he has even handled cases involving environmental issues (he represented the Niagara Falls Water Board in a case; he’s tackled fracking litigation too). He’s expressed that climate change is real and needs action. Walden might approach it in a technocratic way: identify the highest-impact projects and go after them efficiently, cost be damned if the ROI (in terms of prevented damage) is worth it. He likely sees the long-term cost-benefit of fortifying the city against climate threats. So Walden would invest heavily in resilience infrastructure – seawalls, storm surge barriers, upgraded drainage – because he’d reason the cost of not doing so (flood damage) exceeds the upfront spending. He’s less ideological about green jobs, but he’d certainly promote renewables to modernize the grid and create jobs incidentally. Since he draws Bloomberg comparisons, note that Bloomberg invested a lot in climate plans like PlaNYC; Walden would be similar. He’d also emphasize accountability in spending – e.g., he’d implement rigorous project management on climate projects to ensure money is well-spent, but he’d still allocate it. So yes, Walden would pursue ambitious climate goals and marshal the funds to do so, framing it as safeguarding NYC’s future competitiveness and livability.
Tilson is a strong supporter of climate action (as an investor, he’s spoken about the risks of climate change and the need for corporate responsibility). He pushed for New York’s charter cap to be lifted, but also likely supported CLCPA given his alignment with DFER (DFER folks are typically moderate on economics but generally accept climate science and solutions). More concretely, Tilson personally has invested in green companies like electric vehicle startups, etc., so he appreciates the value of green tech. As mayor, he would see climate resilience as crucial to protecting property values and the city’s economy. He’d probably take a cost-benefit approach: spend money where it clearly prevents larger future losses or creates future savings (he might, for instance, be skeptical of some smaller-bore spending if not convinced of its efficacy). But for big items – like reinforcing the power grid to handle EVs and heat waves, or building berms in Lower Manhattan – I think he’d support them as wise investments. On renewable energy, he’d be favorable if he believes they ultimately reduce costs (like solar eventually paying for itself). “Regardless of cost” might make him uneasy if something seems inefficient – he’s a value investor by nature – but he wouldn’t penny-pinch on obviously necessary climate expenses. So Tilson would heavily invest in climate initiatives that he deems high-impact, and he’d work to involve the private sector too (maybe encouraging venture capital in NYC cleantech, etc.). In summary, though Tilson is cost-conscious, he recognizes climate change as a profound threat and would not hesitate to spend big on major climate and green energy projects if they secure NYC’s future (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York) (Mayor Adams Releases “PlaNYC: Getting Sustainability Done,” New York City’s Strategic Climate Plan | City of New York).
Sliwa is likely the most skeptical of heavy spending on climate of this group. He hasn’t emphasized climate issues much on his radio show or campaign – his focus is crime, etc. He accepts basic environmental improvements (he supported more parks, for instance), but he might view some ambitious climate proposals as elitist or not an immediate priority compared to public safety and affordability. For example, he opposed congestion pricing (he argued it’s just a tax on outer borough drivers). He might roll back some green regulations he sees as burdensome (like if he thinks Local Law 97 fines will hurt small co-op owners, he’d try to postpone or soften it). Sliwa definitely cares about protecting the city from disasters, but he might favor simpler approaches (like more emergency shelters, mobile generators) rather than massive infrastructure like storm surge barriers (which he might consider too expensive and years away). On renewable investments, he’d probably say let the private sector lead; he wouldn’t pump city money into green startups or the like. So Sliwa would not prioritize “regardless of cost” climate spending – he’d pick and choose affordable measures. He’d likely continue basic resiliency projects that are already funded, but he wouldn’t champion new big-ticket climate initiatives, especially if they raise taxes or costs for residents. Essentially, Sliwa would allocate resources to climate insofar as not doing so clearly endangers people (he’d invest in flood drainage in low-lying areas that repeatedly flood, sure), but anything beyond the obvious life-safety measures, he’d be reluctant to spend lavishly on. He might also downplay long-term emissions goals in favor of immediate issues like trash cleanup and rodent control (which he oddly ties into environmental quality). So his stance is cautious on heavy climate spending, willing to do some but not “whatever it takes” if it means very high costs or economic side-effects.
Each candidate's positions are summarized above with sources from official statements, campaign platforms, and news reporting for verification. These stances span a wide spectrum from strongly pro-policing to reform-focused, from business-friendly to community-first, and from climate-cautious to climate-warrior, reflecting the ideological diversity in the 2025 NYC mayoral field.
Have questions, feedback, or suggestions? We'd love to hear from you!
Email: [email protected]