New York braces for billionaire exodus after socialist Zohran Mamdani's win
New York is bracing for an 'exodus of billionaires' after the Democrats nominated a staunch socialist as their candidate for mayor.
Zorham Mamdani, a 33-year-old 'anti-Zionist', sent shock waves through American politics on Tuesday when he beat Andrew Cuomo, the former governor, in the Democratic primary, earning him the party's nomination for November's mayoral election.
A rank outsider, Mr Mamdani was carried to victory by a wave of young voters who were won over by his radical campaign pledges to freeze rents and introduce free public transport and city-run grocery stores, all of which he pledged would be paid for by hiking taxes on the wealthy.
The primary result has sparked panic among New York's ultra-rich, with luxury real estate agents inundated with calls from clients looking to relocate or freeze plans to move their businesses to Manhattan.
One high-end broker described Mr Mamdani's victory as the 'worst thing for the housing market since 9/11', while another called it the 'nail in the coffin' for New York.
'There's an old saying in real estate: Money goes where it's welcome,' said John Boyd Jr, founder of Florida-based corporate site selection specialist The Boyd Co, who works with a range of multi-millionaire New York-based clients.
'There's alarms going off among many key executives as well as the billionaire class about New York becoming a socialist run city,' he said.
Eric Benaim, a leading real estate broker known as 'The King of Queens', said that his phone has been 'blowing up' with clients panicking about the impact of Mr Mamdani's policies.
'One person just liquidated everything. He was just about to make another investment in New York city but he's now going to look elsewhere,' said Mr Benaim, the founder of Modern Spaces.
'It's the most devastating thing (to our industry) since 9/11,' he added. 'We are going to have the biggest exodus of New Yorkers since Covid - except this time, they're not going to come back. That's going to change New York.'
Mr Mamdani plans to hike the corporate tax rate from 7.25 per cent to 11 per cent and to charge those earning over $1 million a year an additional two per cent in city income tax, which is expected to cost wealthy households an additional $118,000 a year.
Business executives say the proposals have triggered widespread dismay, with Kathryn Wylde, the CEO of the partnership for New York City, which represents top business leaders, warning that 'terror' is being felt by many New Yorkers.
Briggs Elwell, the CEO and co-founder of RLTYco, a real estate consultant in New York, told The Telegraph it was 'a time of unique uncertainty'.
While James Whelan, president of the real estate board of New York, described Mr Mamdani's proposals on how to cut crime, build houses and create jobs as 'fanciful and extreme'.
Many of the city's ultra-wealthy have thrown their weight behind the more business-friendly incumbent Eric Adams, who launched his re-election campaign as an independent on Thursday with a rousing speech in which he declared: 'This is not a city of handouts.'
Mr Adams won as a Democrat in his first mayoral bid in 2021, but announced he would run an independent after he saw his popularity plummet following his indictment on corruption charges, which he denied.
The case was later dropped by the Trump administration.
Late on Wednesday, Mr Adams courted Wall Street sharks and politicos in a Manhattan conference room where they plotted how to block the rise of Mr Mamdani, according to The New York Times.
As New York's top one per cent look to leave the city, low-tax states such as Florida, which does not levy income tax, are set to become 'big winners', with Mr Benaim claiming property agents are 'rubbing their hands' at the prospect of wealthy buyers flooding into the state.
Mr Boyd said that he has been inundated with enquiries in recent weeks from business executives looking to move full-time to South Florida, which he called 'the sixth borough of Manhattan'.
Republicans have been quick to cash in on the so-called 'Mamdani effect', with Jack Ciattarelli, a New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, inviting business owners to move to the state.
'To all the residents and business owners of New York City who don't want a socialist, defund the police, anti-Semitic mayor representing them, I encourage you to move to New Jersey,' Mr Ciattarelli wrote on X.
Even members of Mr Mamdani's own party have sought to distance themselves from him, with John Fetterman, the centrist Democratic senator, describing the state assembly member's nomination as 'Christmas in July for the GOP'.
Kathy Hochul, the New York Governor, also refused to endorse Mr Mamdani's tax rises in the lead up to the primary, telling reporters: 'I don't want to lose any more people to Palm Beach.'
It is not only Mr Mamdani's fiscal policy that has generated consternation among New York's business leaders. A self-described 'anti-Zionist', the mayoral candidate is a staunch Palestinian supporter and incensed members of the Jewish community by refusing to condemn the phrase 'globalise the intifada'.
In a city with the biggest Jewish population outside of Israel, this is a major problem, according to Greg Kraut, the CEO of KPG funds, the largest office developer in New York.
'I've probably had about 30 phone calls from clients who are very nervous,' he said. 'Any time there is a headline that says 'anti-Semite socialist wins Democratic party election', that's not good for business, is it?'
Experts also fear that Mr Mamdani's plans to pay for free public transport and universal free childcare with tax rises on the wealthy are unrealistic.
'If you are making a million or more in New York City, going from four per cent to six per cent in income tax is a 50 per cent tax increase - it's substantial,' said Nicole Gelnas, a senior fellow focused on Urban Economics at the Manhattan Institute.
According to the city's independent budget office, one per cent of households pay 40 per cent of city income taxes, with non-resident tax payers making up the fastest growing group of New York taxpayers.
'It doesn't take many of them to say, 'I can spend eight months a year in Florida and come back here whenever and save myself a lot of money,' to change the tax base,' Ms Gelnas added.
Luxury real estate dealers fear Mr Mamdani's support for de-funding the police and abolishing prisons will drive down property prices. He has also endorsed decriminalising prostitution and pledged to block US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents' efforts to deport undocumented migrants.
The last democratic socialist elected mayor of New York was David Dinkins, whose three-year term in office from 1990 was marked by racial discord, a drug epidemic, high levels of homelessness and a soaring murder rate.
'Crime was through the roof, businesses were fleeing and public services weren't being met,' recalled Mr Kraut, warning that the election of Mr Mamdani could herald a return to those dark days.
'People have called me up from Chicago saying: 'You guys are up next,'' he cautioned.
Mr Mamdani romped to victory thanks in part to a tidal wave of support from young voters, enamoured with his progressive agenda and slick social media campaign.
However, real estate agents warned that wealthy liberal voters' preoccupation with radical left-wing politics is naive.
'Everyone's a liberal until they lose their limo,' said Mr Kraut. 'If those companies and ultra net worth individuals choose to leave the city, your tax base goes bye bye.'
Reflecting on the long-term effects on America's wealthiest city, he added: 'New York always survives, but it's just another nail in the coffin.'
Mr Boyd warned that the primary result could spook investors in the long-term, potentially sending the city into a downward spiral.
He said: 'There's a very significant concern among job creators, investors and the real estate industry that New York is now always one election cycle from being a socialist-run city.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration's ban on birthright citizenship, in a ruling that could strip federal judges of a power they've used to obstruct many of Trump's orders nationwide. The decision represents a fundamental shift in how US federal courts can constrain presidential power. Previously, any of the country's more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states. Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear, despite Trump claiming a 'giant win'. To stymie the impact of the ruling, immigration aid groups have rushed to recalibrate their legal strategy to block Trump's policy ending birthright citizenship. Immigrant advocacy groups including Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap) – who filed one of several original lawsuits challenging the president's executive order – are asking a federal judge in Maryland for an emergency block on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They have also refiled their broader lawsuit challenging the policy as a class-action case, seeking protections for every pregnant person or child born to families without permanent legal status, no matter where they live. 'We're confident this will prevent this administration from attempting to selectively enforce their heinous executive order,' said George Escobar, chief of programs and services at Casa. 'These are scary times, but we are not powerless, and we have shown in the past, and we continue to show that when we fight, we win.' The decision on Friday morning decided by six votes to three by the nine-member bench of the highest court in the land, sided with the Trump administration in a historic case that tested presidential power and judicial oversight. The conservative majority wrote that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts', granting 'the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue'. The ruling, written by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Trump celebrated the ruling as vindication of his broader agenda to roll back judicial constraints on executive power. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued that the majority's decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven't filed lawsuits, meaning only those with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court would be protected. 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Jackson wrote. 'Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive's wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.' Speaking from the bench, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court's majority decision 'a travesty for the rule of law'. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th amendment following the US civil war in 1868, specifically to overturn the supreme court's 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. The ruling will undoubtedly exacerbate the fear and uncertainty many expecting mothers and immigrant families across the US have felt since the administration first attempt to end birthright citizenship. Liza, one of several expecting mothers who was named as plaintiff in the case challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy, said she had since given birth to a 'happy and healthy' baby, who was born a US citizen thanks to the previous, nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order. But she and her husband, both Russian nationals who fear persecution in their home country, still feel unsettled. 'We remain worried, even now that one day the government could still try to take away our child's US citizenship,' she said at a press conference on Friday. 'I have worried a lot about whether the government could try to detain or deport our baby. At some point, the executive order made us feel as though our baby was considered a nobody.' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an illegal policy. 'The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining was that the supreme court left open pathways for continued protection and that 'birthright citizenship remains the law of the land'. 'We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,' New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said, speaking alongside colleagues from Washington state, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 'For a century and a half, this has not been in dispute.' Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v Casa Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts had not specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. Reuters contributed reporting
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Zohran Mamdani has the Palestinian protest movement to thank for his win
In a tremendous upset of politics as usual, Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old brown, Muslim, Democratic socialist who had little name recognition in February beat the poster boy of the Democratic party establishment, Andrew Cuomo, by a plurality of votes in the first round of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. What makes this win even more remarkable is that Mamdani has refused to back down from his vocal support for Palestinian liberation, a position that has long been a death knell for candidates within a party whose establishment is unabashedly pro-Israel. Mamdani's victory shows that his support for Palestine is not a liability, nor irrelevant to his mayoral campaign. In fact, Palestine has moved to the heart of domestic politics thanks to an organized, grassroots movement of Palestinians and allies, students and activists, that paved the way for this mayoral win. Over the course of the last two years of genocide, protests and social media activism has shifted the national discourse around Palestine. A Quinnipiac poll has found that sympathy for Israel has reached an all-time low, with Pew showing that over 71% of Democrats aged 18-49 have a negative view. On Wednesday, the day of the Democratic primary (as well as the hottest day New York has seen in over 13 years), I stood on the corner of 146th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, trying to convince New Yorkers to rank Mamdani on their ballot. One of the leaders of our canvass was a student who was doxed for fighting for her university's divestment from Israel alongside Mahmoud Khalil. Later that evening, after Cuomo's concession, Mamdani's campaign manager thanked Jewish Voice for Peace, whose chapters are integral in organizing against Israel's genocide and apartheid, for its early endorsement of his campaign. While Cuomo was rich in money, receiving $26m in Super Pac funds as opposed to Mamdani's $1.8m, Mamdani's wealth was in the people already organized on issues of progressive politics, including Palestine. The Mamdani campaign's 'joyous' ground game, tens of thousands of people who volunteered to knock on over 1.6m doors, is not simply a story of individuals being organically moved to action by progressive politics or a charismatic candidate. It is instead a story of people who have for years been organizing to oppose an electoral system that marginalized them, who saw Mamdani as an alternative to 'elected officials [who] endorse or overlook genocide' whether they organized through ethnic organizations like Desis Rising Up and Moving (Drum) or the Democratic Socialists of American (DSA). This is not a campaign that can be recreated with any fresh face, or just any economically progressive platform. Bernie Sanders is wrong to say that Kamala Harris would 'be president of the United States today' had she simply had a platform geared towards the working class, and focused on knocking on doors. People came out for Mamdani because he rejected a party machinery whose establishment candidate, Cuomo, was literally part of Benjamin Netanyahu's legal team. It mattered that Mamdani started his college's Students for Justice in Palestine chapter. It mattered that Mamdani said he would arrest Netanyahu, that he'd disband the Strategic Response Group of the NYPD, which I'd watched brutalize my City college students as they protested. People came out to campaign for him, rain or shine, because he refused to decry the phrase 'Globalize the Intifada' even as he endured vile smears and a death threat for it. If the mayoral race is a referendum on Israel, there was a record turnout for Mamdani. People who had not voted in prior elections showed up to the polls, with Mamdani winning in deeply Hispanic and Asian areas, and doing extraordinarily well among young people of all races. Polling showed him second among Jewish voters. Mamdani's victory in the Democratic primary, however, is just one big step in what will continue to be a tough mayoral race. Perhaps the largest threat this campaign will face is the pressure placed on it by the pro-Israel machinery of the Democratic party. The senator Kirsten Gillibrand suggested he may be a threat to Jewish New Yorkers, Laura Gillen, a congressperson, called him 'too extreme' and Tom Suozzi, another congressperson, said he had 'serious concerns' about his campaign. Mamdani is reportedly scheduled to sit down for meetings with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, who have so far declined to endorse him. Mamdani is also being targeted by the right. In a grossly racist action, the Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles called for Mamdani to be denaturalized and deported, posting on X 'Zohran 'little muhammad' Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.' And even as she called his campaign 'unique' and 'smart', Marjorie Taylor Green retweeted an AI-generated image of the Statue of Liberty covered head-to-toe in a black burqa saying, 'This hits hard.' Mamdani's very identity is a challenge to a two-party system that has normalized anti-Muslim hate, and through its prism anti-Palestinian repression and genocide. Trump began testing his mass deportation policy on the Palestinian students who led the movements that made the Mamdani campaign possible, including by kidnapping and imprisoning Khalil, the negotiator for the Columbia encampment. Trump justified his travel ban, which Mamdani's home country Uganda may be added to in the coming months, as part of fighting antisemitism. What his pathway to victory in the primary shows is that his continued strength, and that of any other candidate hoping to secure a similar victory, will not rely on political endorsements. Instead, it will rely on him staying true to the authenticity that made this campaign resonate with millions of people in New York and around the world.
