Mayor Zoran Mamdani and local lawmaker Gustavo Gordillo seem to have a rather dismissive view of businesses facing challenges from the city government. Their comments suggest that if your business struggles, well, you probably should have seen it coming.
When questioned about how subsidized municipal grocery stores might harm local shops, Mamdani, with a grin, stated, “I’m excited for the competition. May the most affordable grocery store win.”
Gordillo echoed this on a media outlet, saying, “If one publicly owned store can drive a business under, maybe they shouldn’t be in business at all.”
This attitude feels frustratingly out of touch, especially coming from individuals who may not fully grasp how private industry operates. Where do they think tax revenue comes from?
Let’s be clear: private companies generate the taxes that fund public services. The idea that private business is simply “competitive” doesn’t quite capture the reality—it feels more like a deliberate undermining by the very government people elect.
And, it’s not just businesses at risk; small property owners facing rising utility and insurance costs often find it hard to keep up with city obligations amidst rent freezes, yet they face ridicule from those who oppose the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
Gordillo claims New York landlords enjoy a 12% return on investment, referring to a study that includes all properties, even rent-controlled ones. However, this figure isn’t a solid measure of profitability since it overlooks significant expenses like taxes and upkeep.
It’s worth noting that building owners aren’t simply greedy; they’re trying to manage costs fairly.
By bringing up “competition,” Mamdani and Gordillo invoke free market principles, but it might obscure what real competition entails. It effectively places the government on the side of failing businesses, empowering politicians at the expense of individual freedoms.
This may seem minor compared to the long-term vision the DSA has for the nation.
The DSA’s agenda suggests a future without debt, mortgages, or even landlords because they argue that a comfortable home is a human right. They also advocate that essentials like food, education, energy, and health care should be viewed as public goods rather than profit-driven enterprises.
Imagining such a radical shift raises a lot of questions; perhaps if they rewrote the Constitution, we’d see rivers flowing with lemonade and candy falling from trees.
It feels alarming that these extreme views are making headway in the Democratic Party.
They might very well prevail unless moderate Democrats begin to vocalize their opposition to these fundamentally anti-American ideas.
