9.5% hike conflicts with campaign promises
Contradiction Between Goals Emerges
Mayor Mamdani’s preliminary budget proposal presents a troubling contradiction between his stated commitment to housing affordability and the proposed 9.5 percent property tax increase that would affect millions of residential property owners across New York City. During his campaign, Mamdani emphasized his commitment to making housing more affordable and supporting working-class families struggling with the cost of living in the city.
A property tax increase of this magnitude directly conflicts with affordability goals and could accelerate displacement of longtime residents and small property owners who are already struggling with rising housing costs, property maintenance expenses, and other financial pressures. For many families, property taxes represent a significant portion of the cost of homeownership.
Impact on Different Communities
The property tax increase would affect homeowners across all boroughs and all income levels, though the impact would vary significantly based on property values and existing tax burdens. In neighborhoods with rapidly appreciating property values, the tax increase compounds the impact of rising assessments on property owner finances.
Small property owners with limited rental income or families living in single-family homes would feel the impact acutely. These property owners often have limited ability to pass tax increases to tenants or other parties. For fixed-income seniors and working families already struggling with housing costs, the increase could be the difference between remaining in their homes or being forced to relocate.
Community Board Concerns
Across the city, community boards and borough presidents have raised concerns about the property tax proposal. Queens Borough President Donovan Richards specifically mentioned the impact on Black and Brown communities and families already experiencing affordability crises. He characterized the property tax increase as unacceptable, at least in the context of a self-described progressive administration.
Small business owners who lease properties have also expressed concern about property tax increases being passed through to them as higher rental costs. Restaurants, retail establishments, and service businesses operating on thin margins could be significantly affected by landlord efforts to offset tax increases through higher rents.
Systemic Inequities in Current System
City Comptroller Mark Levine characterized the property tax system as deeply flawed and inequitable, noting that it functions as a regressive tax hitting homeowners and communities of color much harder than homeowners in wealthier areas. Levine emphasized that the system should not be the preferred approach to solving the city’s fiscal challenges.
The property tax system’s well-documented inequities have long been a subject of both Republican and Democratic criticism. Reform advocates have called for decades for wholesale restructuring of the system, but such reforms require state legislative action that has not yet occurred.
Alternative Approaches Needed
Both City Council leadership and fiscal watchdog organizations have called for the mayor to prioritize identifying additional spending reductions or alternative revenue sources before resorting to property tax increases. Their position suggests that detailed examination of city spending might identify waste or inefficiency that could be eliminated without service degradation.
The mayor’s emphasis on permanent revenue sources from high-income earners and corporations reflects the alternative the administration prefers. The question facing the city during the budget negotiation process is whether state lawmakers will authorize such revenue sources or whether alternatives will need to be identified.
Longer-Term Fiscal Sustainability
Beyond the immediate budget cycle, sustained reliance on property tax increases would require ongoing increases in subsequent years as the city’s fiscal challenges persist. This pattern would place cumulative burdens on property owners and could accelerate housing market instability and displacement. For analysis and monitoring, see Citizens Budget Commission, Empire Center, and Advocates for Children.
