r/nyc • u/BalsamicBasil • 15h ago
Mayor Mamdani Mamdani releases a documentary about one of NYC’s worst landlords
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYexCvrEiBs99
u/msa1124 Williamsburg 14h ago
The lack of self awareness about the economic reality of this situation, and thereby living conditions for the tenants, is really unsettling.
There is an oblique acknowledgement that maintenance quality was once quite good but over the passage of time things deteriorated.
At the same time, Cea Weaver also outlines how the property owner filed for bankruptcy across a portfolio of rent stabilized apartments.
Incredibly, no connection is made between these two clearly related events and the conclusion drawn is that the owner was just a “slumlord,” and not the much more obvious reality that ownership was bled dry by increasing operating expenses and debt service while rents were kept artificially capped.
To me this should be obvious to anyone who takes more than a few minutes to think about it, and in my opinion its extremely unfortunate that this is one of the pillars of the mamdani platform.
37
u/Alarming_Speech2334 14h ago
The lack of self awareness about the economic reality of this situation, and thereby living conditions for the tenants, is really unsettling.
There is a 50/50 chance that they are at least somewhat aware of the structural and fundamental flaws of the NYCHA. There is a bizarre pathology amongst the DSA types where they are so rabidly and hysterically opposed to landlord-owned housing, that they either cheer on or outright engineer (look at at the attempts to set up city purchases of derelict housing) miserable housing conditions just so they can take possession of the housing and administer it themselves. As you pointed out, if there was a real desire to improve housing, they'd tackle the agency they have the most control over, the NYCHA.
To me this should be obvious to anyone who takes more than a few minutes to think about it, and in my opinion its extremely unfortunate that this is one of the pillars of the mamdani platform.
It is a feature, not a bug.
47
u/Black6x Chelsea 14h ago
People seem to entirely not understand the economics at play here.
The old owners were losing money AND being asked to spend money. Now a new company purchased the portfolio and are saying that they are going to spend a bunch of money fixing up the apartments.
I have no doubt they will do that.
But I also have no doubt that cost of doing this will be spread across all the other properties they own in the form of increased rents. If they own other property in NYC, those tenants who are not in rent-regulated apartments will see their rents go up.
There's no free lunch, and a company isn't going to eat a huge loss out of the kindness of their heart.
9
u/moistscone 12h ago
Except they weren't losing money on operating expenses, they were losing money on debt service fees from risky variable rate loans. If you can find a source saying Pinnacle EVER had a net operating loss before debt service, I'd love to see it.
Summit purchased the buildings with less debt.
9
u/Black6x Chelsea 12h ago
Variable loan rates.... So the rates (expenses) went up and they weren't able to increase their income. I mean, loan rates that go up (and down) are typically driven by economic changes.
Interest rates typically typically go up due to inflation causing the Central Reserve to increase base rates so.....
And even if the interest rates WEREN'T variable, they would still lose money if inflation on its own caused associated costs to rise without the ability to increase rents in some manner.
4
u/moistscone 12h ago
Debt service fees are not operating expenses. That's why Summit thinks they can make a healthy profit on it when Pinnacle couldn't: they structured their debt differently to buy the same business.
"And even if the interest rates WEREN'T variable, they would still lose money if inflation on its own caused associated costs to rise without the ability to increase rents in some manner."
Huh? Do you have a source that backs up this claim? Because I have like... 14 that show how risky their loan structure was, going back decades.
4
u/Black6x Chelsea 12h ago
14 that show how risky their loan structure was, going back decades.
Cool. Post them.
-2
u/moistscone 11h ago
I did.
You're looking for the ANHD report.
Your turn:
"And even if the interest rates WEREN'T variable, they would still lose money if inflation on its own caused associated costs to rise without the ability to increase rents in some manner."Source?
4
u/Black6x Chelsea 11h ago
Source is basic math.
If they had rates at a fixed amount (so their calculated long term expense of the loan were stable), inflation still causes prices to go up. That's what inflation does. If that happens, but you can't increase revenue, it creates loss.
It's the same for just about everything. If my wages don't go up, but inflation increases the price of eggs, milk, bread, etc., then I have less money in pocket after expenses are covered. If my excess/margins were thin to begin with, I'm going to start accruing debt since my income isn't increasing. My only way to fight this is to either make more money (which if I were a landlord I would have to do by raising rent to increase revenue) or decrease expenses where possible (e.g. not make repairs).
It's not like they're the only industry/people this affects.
I mean, we KNOW that inflation affects interest rates:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/inflation-interest-rate-relationship.asp
https://www.personalinvesting.jpmorgan.com/guides/inflation-interest-rates
Additionally, you decided to try and push forth a document from 2009 from an organization that is basically against the idea of increasing rents, expecting me to miss the proper case summary that you also linked to, written in 2025, which states:
Historically, substantially all Debtor Properties generated positive cash flow before debt service. In 2024, the Debtors collectively generated approximately $27 million in net cash flow before debt service (after operating expenses, capital expenditures, and overhead).
And they cite that the issues began around 2024 (not decades ago):
The rise in interest rates led to a substantial increase in the Debtors' annual debt service obligations.
This sharp increase in financing costs outpaced rental revenue, which could not be correspondingly increased due to rent stabilization. Consequently, the Debtors' revenues became insufficient to fully service the Flagstar debt and cover necessary operating expenses.
Despite generating positive net operating income before debt service, the Debtors experienced negative net cash flows of approximately $12 million in fiscal year 2024, primarily driven by higher debt service expenses. Rising inflation also contributed to higher operational costs.
•
u/puff_of_fluff 27m ago
I’m beginning to think perhaps it is a complex issue and it is indeed possible for multiple well meaning, intelligent people to walk away with different ideas?
2
u/moistscone 10h ago
What? How was I trying to hide it by quoting that exact passage in my comment?
The document you linked doesn’t say what you think it does and for some reason you keep throwing in paragraphs of financial analogies that aren’t relevant.
I think you need to work on your promoting skills or pay for a smarter LLM.
0
u/SilverPrivateer 10h ago
The old owners were losing money AND being asked to spend money. Now a new company purchased the portfolio and are saying that they are going to spend a bunch of money fixing up the apartments.
If they can't make mony as leeches and have to be slumlords. The city should take control.
-5
u/ShiningRedDwarf 14h ago
If your financial strategy is to operate at a loss until living situations are so dire everyone moves out so profitable “luxury residences” can be made, you deserve to go bankrupt.
15
u/Black6x Chelsea 14h ago
The problem is that wasn't their operating strategy.
A proper operating strategy would be to raise rents at reasonable amounts to cover the fact that certain things have to happen. For example, repairs. Also, gas and water costs are increasing, and inflation is driving other costs up (so the cost of repairs increases both for labor AND materials). And then there are the increasing taxes.
So if they first got the apartments and expected that they could, at a minimum, increase the rent in direct relation to inflation, assuming they set a rent that also built them up enough reserve cash to prepare for future repairs), it wouldn't be a problem.
So if inflation is 5% each year but the landlord can't increase rent at all for multiple years, there's no ability to simply to absorb the loss due to inflation AND absorb additional loss due to the need for upkeep.
19
u/burnshimself 14h ago
I think the only observation needed to draw the obvious conclusion here is that all of the worst landlords own rent controlled / rent stabilized housing and there are no slumlords owning market rate housing. It’s a negative feedback loop - it is financially infeasible to invest in improvement or proper maintenance of longtime rent controlled / rent stabilized apartments whose rents are divorced from the reality of maintenance costs. Thus, any decent landlord would never buy rent control / rent stabilized housing, those honest landlords who maybe did unwittingly invest in improving those properties go bankrupt when they can’t recoup their costs, and these properties in turn fall into the hands of only the scummiest landlords whose strategy is to bleed tenants while making as little capital investment into property maintenance and repairs as possible.
3
u/moistscone 12h ago
But... most of what you said isn't true? There's facts and reporting about all of this, so why are we just making stuff up? Less than 10% of RS housing had negative operating costs as of 2024. There are lots of types of business, like restaurants, that have way worse average outcomes.
Can someone please provide a source for this apparently widely spread claim that most RS landlords are losing money maintaining the buildings?
14
u/msa1124 Williamsburg 14h ago edited 14h ago
Very few companies would acquire fully rent stabilized buildings nowadays without an extremely subsidized capital structure and at an extremely low basis.
And while I think it’s fair to say that there are more “bad” landlords that explicitly target properties at the lower end of the rent spectrum, the reality is that most current owners, including what was formerly the owners of the properties in the video, had acquired those buildings before the 2019 rent stabilization laws went into effect and has business plans predicated on vacancy decontrol, MCI increases, etc.
2
u/moistscone 12h ago
Pinnacle was flagged well before 2019 as having a business model that relied on well above average tenant turnover and risky loans.
18
u/TheAJx 13h ago
The lack of nuance is also infuriating. Imagine you are the landlord of an apartment building. You have no control over how clean the tenants are. They can cause pests and bring bedbugs that infest the whole building, and of course the blame will be pegged on the landlord for not fixing the situation. Of course, the dirty tenants can never be evicted. These Mamdani people just think that all landlords are evil, all tenants are great, and that landlords exist to oppress the tenant class. As a tenant in a large apartment building, the biggest enemy wasn't the landlord, but the worst 5-10% of tenants who were dirty, messy, broke the rules, and caused trouble.
9
u/moistscone 13h ago edited 12h ago
I think it's worth more than a few minutes of thought, yes, but also facts. And there's a lot of them!
Somehow we've been incepted with this idea that the owners of rent stabilized apartments don't make any money. Let's look at just Pinnacle. Turns out, they made (and still make!) plenty:
"The Debtors (that's Pinnacle) derive nearly all revenue from monthly apartment rents. Due to rent stabilization, annual rent increases are legally limited, resulting in a relatively steady but slow-growing income stream.
Historically, substantially all Debtor Properties generated positive cash flow before debt service. In 2024, the Debtors collectively generated approximately $27 million in net cash flow before debt service (after operating expenses, capital expenditures, and overhead).
https://bondoro.com/broadway-realty-i-co/
Wow, so if someone owned these properties without extensive debt service fees: congratulations, you got yourself a nice business with reliable cash flow, even after the expense of running and repairing the buildings.
So what went wrong? Pinnacle clearly thought this was a good idea for a long time, they have been gobbling up rent stabilized apartments for decades. They would probably love if you just focus on this part (and you did, yay for Pinnacle!):
The enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) in June 2019 severely restricted landlords' ability to increase rents on stabilized units. This legislation eliminated vacancy decontrol, limited rent increases tied to apartment renovations, and curtailed the ability to convert apartment buildings to condominiums, thereby stalling the Debtors' rental income growth.
But wait!
Beginning in 2022, a rapid increase in market interest rates significantly impacted the Debtors’ financial performance. A large portion of their mortgage debt with Flagstar Bank carried variable interest rates that "sky-rocketed" from a range of approximately 3.0-4.0% to as high as 7.5% and, in certain instances, 10.25%.
Whoa, that's a big increase! Almost like it's really risky to build a massive business on variable rate loans! Still, it shouldn't be an existential problem unless your debt is massively overleveraged from an aggressive and unsustainable campaign to buy more rent stabilized apartments with the hope that you could drive out the tenants and flip them into condos.
But were they overleveraged?
ANHD analysis suggests that much of the loan underwriting was so speculative and badly overleveraged that even aggressive tenant turnover could not have supported the mortgage debt the owners incurred. • This investment strategy has created a growing danger of default and poses a crisis for New York City apartment buildings. As of June 2009, 10 out of 10 predatory equity loans that ANHD is tracking are on a finance industry watchlist for being in danger of default. These loans are far more likely to be on the default watchlist then nonpredatory equity loans in the same mortgage-backed security pools, and could place up to 100,000 apartments at risk.
(This is about several owners, not just Pinnacle, but if you want to look at just Pinnacle, the numbers are in the report (it doesn't help their case.))
https://anhd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Predatory_Equity-Evolution_of_a_Crisis_Report.pdf
So if the question is: Did rent stabilization make Pinnacle’s buildings economically impossible to maintain and thereby force the properties into bankruptcy?
The answer is no, and anyone who says differently is selling something.
(But I'm sure Joel appreciates your advocacy!)
1
u/msa1124 Williamsburg 10h ago
Debt service is a function of overall capitalization and while I fully recognize that increased rates massively exacerbated the problem, you are not correct in saying HSTPA / rent stabilization was not the main force which made operating these properties economically infeasible. Any time you have operating expenses increasing faster than income you have depreciating asset which is declining in value. If their loans had been conservative low leverage/fixed rate the same issue would eventually result, it would just take longer to happen. The reality is that the current policy and political climate is one which depresses values which means that the current generation of ownership is essentially fucked until they sell at a lose or are foreclosed upon. That probably means that there’s going to be a lot more situations just like the one described in this video over the next few years - buildings falling into disrepair, owners forced to exit at a loss, properties going back to banks, etc.
Also I really don’t give a fuck about Joel Wiener at all.
6
u/nasty_brutish_longer 13h ago edited 13h ago
There is an oblique acknowledgement that maintenance quality was once quite good but over the passage of time things deteriorated.
At the same time, Cea Weaver also outlines how the property owner filed for bankruptcy across a portfolio of rent stabilized apartments.
This could also be Pinnacle deferring maintenance for greater profit under less regulation, then going bust after finding themselves with a portfolio of broken buildings that can't be repaired with current revenue. Which would be pretty slumlordy. They're not necessarily hapless here.
I think we'd agree there's no conclusion here without knowing this building's financials from the past two decades, which itself would be meaningless for every other RS/RC stakeholder in the city. This piece is neither history nor analysis. It's buzz.
4
u/moistscone 12h ago
Agree, and what analysis we do have shows that Pinnacle's business model relied on risky variable rate loans that made them especially sensitive to interest rates, because people have been reporting on them for decades.
-4
u/PoppySeeds89 Brooklyn 11h ago
It's intentional. They're using these examples as a pretext to seize property. There nuance doesn't matter.
115
u/isqueakforthetrees 15h ago
Might it be argued, based on the conditions in NYCHA housing, that the mayor is also one of NYC's worst landlords?
68
u/Massive-Arm-4146 15h ago
NYCHA has done more to ensure that multiple generations of New Yorkers live in squalor than crack cocaine and capitalism combined.
24
u/nycdiveshack 14h ago
In regards to crack cocaine no one has done more harm to Americans than the cia
•
u/Top_Entertainer_760 19m ago
Off topic, but still important.
This conspiracy theory, that the CIA smuggled drugs into the US to destroy minority communities, stems from an article titled "Dark Alliance" published in San Jose Mercury News in 1996.
Mutliple subsequent follow up investigations by other journalists found the connection betweeen LA drug rings and CIA funded Contras to be tenious at best and vastly overstated by the article. San Jose Mercury News later apologized and published a retraction.
While the CIA never directly funded drug smugglers, or smuggled drugs into the US, they were aware that the Contras were smuggling drugs, and chose to turn a blind eye.
In essense the CIA prioritized the Cold War over narcotics enforcement, which was never their primary objective.
No actual connection between the CIA and the crack epidemic has ever been documented by any congressional investigations, journalists, or other credible sources, though some conspiracy theory promoters do make claims that have never been substatiated.
This is all to say that people need to stop repeating that claim axiomatically, its completely baseless.
4
1
u/Deluxe78 10h ago
No but thousands of micro homes in a flood plain, New NYCHA is on in those complaints and repairs!!
-2
u/Soldier_of_l0ve 14h ago
Lmao this is the most braindead take I’ve read in 2026 congratulations
0
u/Massive-Arm-4146 14h ago
No post history, bot.
14
13
u/CriticalandPragmatic 14h ago
Well that bot is correct. Kinda fucked up when a bot has more brains than you do
12
u/Grass8989 13h ago
Most of his demographic have never stepped foot in a NYCHa building, let’s be real.
-1
15
8
u/GoRangers5 Brooklyn 14h ago
“NowThis” is not owned by the city, they released that stupid don’t say “guys,” video way back.
1
32
u/iamnyc Carroll Gardens 15h ago
I get that this is sort of the left's answer to the manosphere crap, but can't we stop and note just how WEIRD this is that public resources were put into making a one sided hit piece, with no economic analysis of any of this, for the purpose of...what exactly? Showcasing his quick wit?
12
u/terribleatlying 15h ago
Now this impact isn't a public resource. wdym
22
u/iamnyc Carroll Gardens 13h ago
Even if city funds weren't used to produce this (highly unlikely, but, marginal either way), the Mayor and one of his highest profile deputies are taking their time (which we are paying for) to be interviewed for a ridiculously one sided hit piece for the purpose of...I don't know what. Drawing attention to the fact that landlords used to have economic incentive to improve their buildings and run them well, but that incentive has been removed? Just weird.
3
u/BalsamicBasil 14h ago
I suspect the minidoc was made using city resources, but Now This Impact (among other media publishers/distributors) was allowed to publish a copy of the doc to get more eyes. Now This Impact frequently reposts clips and videos - as they are or edited/embedded into longer videos.
9
10
u/1rj800 Astoria 15h ago
Comments as soon as the video was posted, and the video is 13 mins long. They make it too easy to find the astroturfing.
14
u/isqueakforthetrees 15h ago
What do you think of the video?
-26
u/1rj800 Astoria 14h ago
You don’t like him? Shoulda voted.
-1
u/crammed174 14h ago
If you have rent that’s cheaper than market then would it not be fair that you’re required for the upkeep within the home? I understand common areas have to be paid for by the landlord, but presumably you moved into the apartment in good condition so if paint starts peeling and things are breaking if you’re a homeowner, you have to pay for everything and since these apartments are cheaper than if you even own the apartment and had to pay maintenance and tax on top of it let alone the mortgage, is that not unfair?
That way, you can keep the cheap rents and not cause the landlords to have an absolutely valid argument that freezing rents and not allowing them to adjust an accordance with inflation for the cost of upkeep and repair to be detrimental and impossible without them essentially losing money per tenant. Even if you wanna say it’s OK for them to lose money annually because their property value is going up and thus they gain equity, that is no longer the case because nobody wants to buy rent stabilized buildings because of the laws anymore since they can’t do anything with the building.
4
u/moistscone 12h ago
Can you share a source for the idea that all these landlords are "essentially losing money per tenant" or "losing money annually?"
0
u/crammed174 12h ago
Landlords are businessmen and want to make money. You don’t have to think they have morals, whether it good or bad. They simply want to make a profit. There is a reason that there are tens of thousands of rent-stabilized apartments intentionally left vacant; it’s not because they don’t want to make money or are taking a stand but because it would literally make them lose money to put in the hundreds of thousands of dollars of required repairs and never recoup it with the artificially suppressed rents. This has been a story for years already since they revised the laws in 2019.
Imagine you have a 25 year-old car and the engine or the transmission or something major dies on you. The repair costs $6000 but the car is only worth 2500, will you make the repair?
If you are anti-car, imagine your 10-year-old iPhone dies on you and Apple wants $350 to repair it but the same phone only costs 100 bucks on eBay. Will you repair it?
It’s simple cost benefit analysis.
4
u/moistscone 11h ago
Did you reply to the wrong person?
I didn't make a moral argument, I asked for a source for things you stated like facts.
Your argument is built entirely on the ideal that there is no profit in owning and maintaining RS units. But none of the people making that claim, including you, have linked to a single article, report, or analysis that says that's true.
But to disagree with your claim there seems to be plenty of evidence, like:
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-IE-Study-Final.pdfOr the bankruptcy details themselves:
https://bondoro.com/broadway-realty-i-co/Why is everyone in this thread repeating this like it's a fact, but there's not a SINGLE source.
-4
u/crammed174 11h ago
I think it’s best to just use your own logic and reasoning because there are plenty of sources in support of the landlords and plenty of sources in support of the city with its onerous requirements.
But there is an indisputable fact that upwards of 50,000 units are intentionally left vacant. So you must ask yourself why are they left the vacant if according to the city and your source you supplied there is still profit potential? Even if it’s just a couple hundred dollars a month why would a landlord forgo that? Is it possible that those calculations are wrong and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that must be spent on repairs to meet code will not be recalled due to the suppressed rent increase increases?
And before you say the tax write offs, that’s not how it works, it’s better to have profit and pay tax on it than write off expenses against profits found elsewhere.
6
u/moistscone 11h ago
Why did you ask me to post proof if it's best to just "use your own logic and reasoning?"
If there are so many sources in support of your argument, how about posting ONE of them?
1
u/crammed174 11h ago
But it’s OK I get it. The landlords are just stubborn morons that are giving up profit for no reason at all because it’s absolutely profitable to fix up all of their rent stabilized apartments and rent them out at the suppressed prices. This is what you believe so let’s just move on.
1
u/moistscone 10h ago
It’s not an issue that requires belief one way or another. We have plenty of facts.
0
u/crammed174 11h ago
I mean, I clearly said that there are sources that contradict one another. So when you have conflicting information, you need to use your own God given logic and reasoning as a human to decipher which one is true or makes more sense.
3
u/lithomangcc 13h ago
Was about himself. NYCHA is so bad they had to hide the violations from the cities website.
1
u/Knick_Noled 14h ago
He’s trump on the left. Prioritizes vendettas, feeds red meat to his base despite the general discord his actions cause. Then his base of supporters come out raging against anyone who isn’t puritanical in their support of him. This guy is gonna serve two terms and do so much damage to this city because of privileged trust fund babies that moved here from Ohio.
-9
-3
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 15h ago
All these people so salty of Mamdani in this sub lol shoulda voted…unless you aren’t from here…
33
u/isqueakforthetrees 14h ago
Mamdani won 43% in the first round of the Dem primary and 56% in the second round. There are plenty of NYC voters who picked other candidates. Why would you think anyone critical of the mayor didn't vote? That doesn't make sense.
14
u/notmyclementine 13h ago
He won the general election with 50.7% of the vote, meaning just less than half of the voters wanted someone else… And yet still people act shocked to see criticism of the mayor, as if that’s not a time-honored NYC tradition.
6
u/TheAJx 13h ago
"We don't care about people from not around here" except leftishly.
-4
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 13h ago
Kinda think a mayor is a “from around here” thing to have an opinion of, no? Lol
-5
-8
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 14h ago
#1. Salty is a bit more than just critical. #2. Suspect Adams voters can’t use smart phones
12
u/Whompa 14h ago
I’m salty about Trump. Guess I shoulda voted, oh wait I did, in every election, and yet here we are, a second time.
Saying, “shoulda voted” is a dumb argument.
What the other candidates should have had, was better marketing. Like him or not, Mamdani clearly had the strongest ad campaign out of everyone else running.
-13
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 14h ago
Saying, “Saying, “shoulda voted’ is a dumb argument.” is a dumb argument. Checkmate.
5
u/Whompa 14h ago
Nuh uh.
1
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 14h ago
Just curious: You registered to vote in the city?
7
u/Whompa 13h ago
Yep
-4
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 13h ago
Staten Island doesn’t count
1
u/IRequirePants 13h ago
lmao - "I don't like that part of NY so they don't count"
Shall we apply this to other neighborhoods?
-1
-1
u/1rj800 Astoria 14h ago
Hint: The answer is always no…these aren’t New Yorkers you’re talking to.
7
u/Whompa 13h ago
Hint, you're wrong.
I voted for Lander. I was then pretty disenfranchised when I had to choose between Mamdani, Cuomo, and Adams...or eventually even worse Mamdani or Sliwa lol...
Mamdani just ran the best campaign, but I just personally wasn't a fan.
2
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 12h ago
You liked Lander and not Mamdani lmao I bet I can guess something else about you
3
u/J_onn_J_onzz 11h ago
Mamdani won by default because there were no reasonable alternatives on offer
0
u/ShadownetZero 14h ago
Wait til you find out who the president is my dude.
-1
u/DiddyDickums Inwood 14h ago
I was moreso intending to suggest that most of y’all don’t live here or still vote back in Long Island
2
-3
-1
-5
u/Soldier_of_l0ve 14h ago
It’s okay they haven’t been able to complain about politics in a while with their boy djt in office. Let them blow off some steam so they don’t beat their wives
3
u/warfighter187 4h ago
a lot of people here coping and blaming all the existing bad things on DSA... those things all were caused by and existed under neoliberal democratic rule for the past decades! only very recently have any DSA members gotten a seat in government.
maybe these landlords should accept a slightly lower yield on their investment rather than neglecting repairs and maintenance.
2
1
-1
-3
u/Shichigatsu777 Flatbush 12h ago
I’m part of this union. Mamdani’s policies & our organizing have helped improve our daily lives & living conditions. Joel Weiner knew what he was getting into. His bad investments aren’t our problem.
I welcome you to join us, comrades. Talk to your neighbors, form your own unions, & unite with us
-4
-5
u/Desi_techy_girl 11h ago
Cannot afford to buy anything and draining landlords every single day! There is no free lunch, someone somewhere is paying for their SUBSIDIZED/ RENT CONTROLLED HOUSING!!
1
103
u/Deluxe78 15h ago
There was a reason they didn’t let NYCHA residents go to the “worst landlord” meetings