Image via CBS
***
New York City voters have been hearing different transformative promises for this impending 2025 mayoral election: “We will freeze the rents.” “We’ll guarantee childcare.” “We’ll finally fix the NYPD.” Yet underneath this strong language lies a more difficult truth. Whether it is Zohran Mamdani, Curtis Sliwa, or Andrew Cuomo, the next mayor will inherit a city where much of the real power no longer exists within the walls of City Hall.
This race isn’t only about who is going to be able to deliver better policies. It is a test of whether urban democracy can prevail when the local government has lost control over the forces that have an impact on people’s lives. New York City’s mayor will be at the forefront of the headlines. Still, the office itself has been slowly hollowing out, hemmed in by state law, federal policy, private capital, and an increasingly fragmented web of semi-public actors. This brings up the question of how any of the promised proposals will be able to come to fruition.
There was once a time when the myth of the “most powerful mayor in America” carried weight. From Fiorello La Guardia’s New Deal programs to Ed Koch’s urban development drives, mayors shaped the city’s path for decades to come. Today, however, the power is primarily symbolic.
First, there is the constraint of state preemption. The key issues, like rent regulation or property taxes, are all controlled in Albany, not City Hall. If the next mayor of the city wants to overhaul housing law or expand tax revenue, he will not be able to do this without the major help of Albany.
Then, the mayor will find the other limit of federal policy. A large portion of New York’s budget falls on Washington. This means that on the federal level, there will be decisions made on infrastructure, asylum, and social services, which will directly affect what the mayor can and cannot do. The President has also previously stated that he would withhold federal funds if Zohran Mamdani prevails, which is a reminder that local agendas cannot go on if the Federal government does not want them to.
Then, there is capital itself. New York City, as the capitalistic city of the world, relies on real estate developers, private equity firms, and institutional investors for infrastructure, housing supply, land use and permissions, and economic development. Even if the city votes in the mayor with the most ambitious housing plan, it will be impossible to build all of the affordable units without navigating the demands of financiers who control the land. At the same time, zoning changes, which are often the city’s main policy tool, are shaped by lobbying, lawsuits, and state-level legislation, long before the mayor can even act on them.
Finally, fragmentation and privatization have also been able to redefine NYC’s governance. There are charter school networks, business improvement districts, or public-private partnerships that run many of the city’s services, which are the same ones that some candidates want to reform. Even if the mayor of the city plans to make certain decisions, these entities will be huge decision-makers that will influence whether these plans can be completed or not.
Housing is definitely the central issue of this election, and every candidate has a plan. Zohran Mamdani plans to freeze the rent and expand social housing. Curtis Sliwa calls for deregulation to boost new construction. Andrew Cuomo proposes to “streamline” permitting and zoning. Still, whoever succeeds will face several barriers.
The state government will oversee all of the zoning decisions that the future mayor makes. For instance, tax incentives like 421-a, which shape a large part of the city’s development, are determined by the decisions made Upstate. There have been many reforms proposed for housing, but there are also legal challenges brought forward by landlord groups. Also, much of the financing depends on private entities or bond markets that may not have the city’s best interests at heart.
What is left is a cruel paradox: the mayor is blamed for skyrocketing rents and people being displaced, but also lacks the authority to completely go against the system. Debates about “solving” the crisis get much more complicated when the tools to make effective change are not in the mayor’s hands.
This same dynamic exists within policing. All three candidates who remain in the race have promised to reform the NYPD, doing so with accountability reforms, budget changes, or increased enforcement. However, union contracts, court rulings, and state law all constrain how far a mayor can go. The NYPD’s budget, which is now over $5.8 billion, is deeply rooted in how the city functions, and adjusting it in any way would require a political battle that goes far beyond City Hall.
Then, the issue of migration is even more constrained. Mamdani has proposed expanding legal aid for asylum seekers. On the other hand, Cuomo proposes working with Washington. Still, unfortunately, immigration law comes down to federal decisions. Whether there is funding for shelters and services depends on Albany and Congress. A mayor is unable to change border policy, so if they want to make any change, they will need to work with the way the system is set up.
These realities are creating a gap between campaign promises and actual governing power, which could end up with voters being disappointed if this rhetoric doesn’t succeed. Unfortunately, there is a lack of understanding as to what the mayor can and cannot do, and this could affect the approval ratings that the future mayor gets.
As the power of mayors has gradually begun to wane, there are new actors in play. Real estate developers deal directly with city agencies to mold zoning agreements. Moreover, philanthropic foundations also finance a significant amount of education, housing, and climate initiatives, which enables them to decide the priorities they prefer to put forward. Many public spaces in the city are controlled by business improvement districts and technology companies, which adds a whole other level for the upcoming mayor.
These actors are not democratically elected by the people, yet they still hold an immense amount of power over everything citizens are concerned about for this upcoming election. The mayor will try to set his agenda, but whether it is implemented is also up to his negotiating skills and his relationships with these entities.
In order to understand which one of the candidates can accomplish their job within this complexity better, it is crucial to understand their approach to this structural reality. Zohran Mamdani, who labels himself as a democratic socialist, is calling for a radical municipal intervention. He wants to establish different plans, like public grocery stores in every borough and expansive tenant protections. His platform illustrates the desire some of the population has to reclaim state power at the city level. Still, the fate of his ideas will depend on how he is able to navigate Albany and the resistance from the federal government.
Then, Curtis Sliwa is promising more compliance with the Federal government, policing crackdowns, and tax cuts. However, his agenda is based on the assumption that the old mayoral autonomy still holds true today. State and federal mandates, along with entrenched interest groups, could be extremely limiting as to what he can deliver.
Lastly, Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York State, now running as an independent, positions himself as someone who thinks pragmatically and who will be able to negotiate deals across the different layers of government. He addresses the complexity of the mayoral position, but also risks giving up ambition to the status quo.
The danger of these structural limitations is not just the failure of new and helpful legislation, but also the erosion of democracy. If a mayoral election of such an important city can no longer change the trajectory it’s going to, it becomes a theatrical ritual instead of a vehicle for collective power. Voters may still go out to vote, but the reality is that decisions come down to legislatures, courts, private enterprises, and a powerful few, which moves politics far from public accountability.
New York is much more influential than it appears. November 4th will be a test of whether local democracy can revive in an era of limited power for elected officials. In order to create an impact, the next mayor needs to do much more than govern; he needs to fight to reclaim the full capacity of governing. This means to challenge state preemption, change how budgets work, build new coalitions beyond City Hall, and deviate from the outsider power of private capital.
The 2025 Mayoral race will determine much more than who occupies City Hall. It will show if one of the most important cities in the country can still govern itself at all.
***
This article was edited by Colin Mitchell and Isabella Valentino.
Anika Bobeck 
Serena Dash 
Fathema Siddiqua