Goldman Sachs finances $270 million affordable housing project in New York
Goldman Sachs
will finance a $270 million affordable housing project to build 385 apartments in the
East New York
neighborhood of
Brooklyn
, New York Governor Kathy Hochul's office said.
The city's housing crunch and rising rents have become a key focus of Democratic mayoral candidate
Zohran Mamdani
's campaign.
The project financed by Goldman's Urban Investment Group will include commercial space, the governor's office said in a statement.
"This project is helping us fight the housing affordability crisis while also prioritizing improvements that will make the neighborhood more livable for families," Hochul said.
Mamdani aims to invest public dollars to triple the city's production of permanently affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes - constructing 200,000 new units over the next 10 years, according to his campaign website.
His stunning victory over former Governor Andrew Cuomo has drawn concerns from business leaders, including some on Wall Street, about the costs of his proposed policies.
Goldman's Urban Investment Group has invested nearly $11 billion in affordable housing and other development projects across the state and $9 billion in New York City since 2001.
"Our investment is a down payment on East New York's potential, creating thousands of high-quality, affordable homes and essential services that will fuel the economic vitality of the community," said Asahi Pompey, chairman of Goldman's Urban Investment Group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Judges Continue to Block Trump Policies Following Supreme Court Ruling
WASHINGTON—When the Supreme Court issued a blockbuster decision in June limiting the authority of federal judges to halt Trump administration policies nationwide, the president was quick to pronounce the universal injunction all but dead. One month later, states, organizations and individuals challenging government actions are finding a number of ways to notch wins against the White House, with judges in a growing list of cases making clear that sweeping relief remains available when they find the government has overstepped its authority. In at least nine cases, judges have explicitly grappled with the Supreme Court's opinion and granted nationwide relief anyway. That includes rulings that continue to halt the policy at the center of the high court case: President Trump's effort to pare back birthright citizenship. Judges have also kept in place protections against deportations for up to 500,000 Haitians, halted mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services, and prevented the government from terminating a legal-aid program for mentally ill people in immigration proceedings. To accomplish this, litigants challenging the administration have used a range of tools, defending the necessity of existing injunctions, filing class action lawsuits and invoking a law that requires government agencies to act reasonably: the Administrative Procedure Act. It is a rare point of consensus among conservative and liberal lawyers alike: The path to winning rulings with nationwide application is still wide open. 'There are a number of highly significant court orders that are protecting people as we speak,' said Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that has brought many cases against the Trump administration. 'We're continuing to get that relief.' Conservative legal advocates also continue to see nationwide injunctions as viable in some circumstances. 'We're still going to ask for nationwide injunctions when that's the only option to protect our clients,' said Dan Lennington, a lawyer at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which has challenged race and sex-based preferences in federal policies. The Supreme Court's decision was long in the making, with Democratic and Republican administrations in turn chafing against their signature policies being held up by a single district court judge. The 6-3 ruling said that when judges find that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, their injunctions against the government can't be broader than what is needed to provide complete relief to the parties who sued. Trump's birthright policy would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one of their parents was a citizen or permanent legal resident. Judges in the weeks since the high court decision have ruled that blocking the policy everywhere remains the proper solution. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston again said a ruling with nationwide application was the only way to spare the plaintiffs—a coalition of 20 Democratic-run states and local governments—from harm caused by an executive order he said was unconstitutional. The judge noted that families frequently move across state lines and that children are born in states where their parents don't reside. 'A patchwork or bifurcated approach to citizenship would generate understandable confusion among state and federal officials administering the various programs,' wrote Sorokin, 'as well as similar confusion and fear among the parents of children' who would be denied citizenship by Trump's order. In a separate decision last week involving a different group of states that sued Trump, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reached a similar conclusion. Both rulings showed that state attorneys general remain well positioned to win broad injunctions against the federal government when they can demonstrate executive overreach. 'You've got these elite litigation shops in the states,' Tennessee's Republican attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, said of offices such as his. 'You're gonna figure out a way to continue to be one of the most active participants in the judicial system.' A New Hampshire judge has also blocked Trump's birthright order after litigants in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, used another pathway the Supreme Court left open: filing class-action lawsuits on behalf of a nationwide group of plaintiffs. Recent cases also underscore that the Administrative Procedure Act, long a basis for lawsuits against administrations of both parties, remains a potent tool. The law allows judges to set aside agency actions they deem arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Judges have blocked Trump policies in a half-dozen cases in the past month under the APA, and in almost every instance have specifically said they aren't precluded in doing so by the Supreme Court. Zach Shelley, a lawyer at the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen, filed a case using the APA in which a judge this month ordered the restoration of gender-related healthcare data to government websites, which officials had taken down after an anti-transgender executive order from Trump. The act was the obvious choice to address a nationwide policy 'from the get-go,' Shelley said. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., said administration officials ignored common sense by taking down entire webpages of information instead of removing specific words or statements that ran afoul of Trump's gender order. 'This case involves government officials acting first and thinking later,' Bates wrote. Nothing in the high court's ruling prevented him from ordering the pages be put back up, the judge said. The Justice Department argued that Trump administration officials had acted lawfully and reasonably in implementing the president's order to remove material promoting gender ideology. The department is still in the early stages of attempting to use the Supreme Court's ruling to its advantage, and legal observers continue to expect the decision will help the administration in some cases. In one, a New York judge recently narrowed the scope of a ruling blocking the administration's attempts to end contracts with Job Corps centers that run career-training programs for low-income young adults. If the lawsuit had instead been filed as a class action or litigated in a different way, though, 'the result may very well be different,' Judge Andrew Carter wrote. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Mariah Timms at and Jess Bravin at
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Hedge funds ditch tech and buy essentials, Goldman Sachs says
LONDON, July 28 (Reuters) - Hedge funds fled technology stocks at the fastest pace in 12 months in the latest week, just as the S&P 500 reached all-time highs, a note to Goldman Sachs clients and seen by Reuters said. The S&P 500, which includes seven tech stocks in its top 10 largest constituents by market value, has surged roughly 28% since its 2025 low, while the Nasdaq Composite has jumped 38% in that time. As of Friday, the S&P 500's forward price to earnings ratio, which reflects the value of a company's stock relative to its projected future earnings, was 23.11, around five-month highs, according to LSEG/Datastream. "U.S. equities valuations (such as price earnings ratios) are now 30% higher than their recent decade average, while 10-year yields remain stubbornly high and volatile. The future path of equities may depend partly on a decline in long-term rates; however, we do not seem to be there yet," Lombard Odier Investment Managers head of macro Florian Ielpo said in a note on Friday. Globally, hedge funds sold tech stocks, some of the most richly valued equities, more than any other sector last week, the Goldman Sachs note said. Rather than shorting the sector, hedge funds tended to ditch long bets and exit trades, the bank said. A short bet is designed to profit from a drop in an asset price. This week's exodus was the largest the bank had seen since July 2024, Goldman Sachs said. Hedge funds fleeing tech stocks centered on trading in North America and Europe. Every kind of tech stock was sold, including semiconductor chip companies, as well as those in software and IT services, the bank said. Meanwhile, shares in consumer staples - companies that sell items that people purchase regardless of economic conditions - were among the most net bought U.S. stock sectors this week, Goldman said. Hedge funds piled into these stocks for the fourth straight week and their trades were almost entirely long positions - those that will profit if the stock prices rise. The kind of companies whose shares hedge funds bought included those that sell food and beverages and personal care products. (Reporting by Nell Mackenzie; Editing by Amanda Cooper and Alison Williams)
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Jay Leno on steering clear of politics on The Tonight Show: ‘Don't think anybody wants to hear lecture'
Jay Leno revisited his two-decade tenure on The Tonight Show in a candid conversation with David Trulio, President & CEO of the Reagan Foundation, explaining why he consistently avoided political humour. 'I like to think that people come to a comedy show to kind of get away from the things, the pressures of life, whatever it might be,' Leno said, adding, 'I love political humour, don't get me wrong, but what happens is people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.' Leno was known for walking a fine line between humour and neutrality during his run from 1992 to 2009 (and again briefly from 2010 to 2014). He told Trulio that his strategy was simple: appeal to everyone. 'Why shoot for just half an audience? Why not try to get the whole?' 'I don't understand why you would alienate one particular group,' he said. 'Or just don't do it at all. I'm not saying you have to throw your support or whatever, but just do what's funny.' According to Fox News, Leno recalled receiving conflicting hate mail over the same jokes, with one viewer accusing him of siding with Republicans, and another calling him a Democratic sympathiser. 'And I go, 'Well, that's good.' That's how you get a whole audience,' he said. Leno's philosophy on comedy is simple. 'Funny is funny,' he told Trulio. 'I don't think anybody wants to hear a lecture.' He drew a contrast with the current political climate in comedy, where many late-night hosts have embraced explicit political opinions. 'Now you have to be content with half the audience because you have to give your opinion,' Leno noted. He pointed to his long friendship with fellow comedian Rodney Dangerfield as a model for apolitical comedy. 'I knew Rodney 40 years,' Leno said. 'I have no idea if he was Democrat or Republican. We never discussed, we just discussed jokes.' The interview comes just before CBS announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. As reported by CNN and Fox News, the network cited financial constraints, but the decision drew speculation about political motives, given Colbert's consistent criticism of Donald Trump. Weeks before the announcement, CBS and its parent company Paramount paid Trump $16 million in a settlement related to a 60 Minutes segment. Colbert had openly criticised the deal, calling it a 'big fat bribe' on-air. The show is now set to end in May 2026. (With inputs from CNN, Fox News)
