Chelsea Neighbors United Presents Questions for City Council District 3 Candidates

(reprinted with permission)

To contact Chelsea Neighbors United, send an email to ChelseaNeighborsUnited2@gmail.com

NOTE: Early Voting for April 28’s NYC Council District 3 Special Election takes place daily: Saturday, April 18 through Sunday, April 26. Click Here for Special Election, June Primary, and November General Election info.  

Chelsea Neighbors United: We have information that RXR Realty, landlords of the Starrett-Lehigh Building in our district, rent the seventh floor of that building to an ICE Field Office dedicated to recruitment and community relations. Despite large public protests and civil disobedience in 2019, RXR renewed the lease in 2023. Additionally, we believe that ICE vans are parked under the High Line, near Starrett-Lehigh. As the Council Member for this district [District 3], what would you do to stop the enabling of ICE operations in our city–and specifically, how would you address this presence in our own neighborhood?

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: I strongly support protecting immigrants and maintaining New York City’s status as a sanctuary city and I share the deep concern about ICE’s presence in our neighborhood. At a time when federal immigration enforcement has become increasingly aggressive and opaque, we must use  every tool available at the city level to limit ICE’s ability to operate in ways that undermine public safety and community trust. That includes strengthening and enforcing restrictions on ICE activity in sensitive locations such as work places, courts, and residential buildings.

Specifically, I would work to hold property owners accountable for enabling ICE operations in our district, using oversight, public pressure, and where possible, legislative tools to discourage these arrangements. I would also advocate for stronger protections to prevent ICE from operating freely in and around our communities, including increased coordination with city agencies to ensure residents are protected. In addition, I support state-level efforts like the MELT and RADAR Acts to increase transparency and accountability around ICE activity. New Yorkers should not feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods, and I will work to ensure our district is not complicit in enabling harmful federal enforcement practices.

Lindsey Boylan: ICE has no place in our neighborhoods, and landlords should not be profiting from enabling deportation operations that terrorize immigrant families and undermine public safety. As Council Member, I would use every tool available to challenge and isolate ICE’s presence in District 3, including holding oversight hearings on private landlords leasing space to federal immigration agencies and examining whether any city subsidies, tax benefits, or contracts are flowing to companies that facilitate ICE operations.

Specifically regarding RXR and Starrett-Lehigh, I would publicly pressure RXR to terminate its lease with ICE and make clear that corporations cannot claim to be civic partners while hosting agencies that separate families and target our neighbors. I would also work to prohibit city business with landlords that knowingly lease space to ICE enforcement operations. More broadly, I support strengthening our sanctuary laws, expanding legal services and Know Your Rights programs, and ensuring city agencies never cooperate with ICE. New York City should be protecting immigrant communities,  not making it easier for ICE to operate here.

Layla Law-Gisiko: I would treat this as both a moral issue and a local governance issue. ICE publicly lists a “Community Relations Officer” office at 601 W. 26th Street, 7th Floor in the Starrett-Lehigh Building. (Which also begs the question: What kind of community relations are these officers doing?!)

As a Council Member, I would treat this as a serious issue. RXR is a private landlord choosing to profit from an agency that terrorizes immigrant communities. I would use every tool the office has to raise the political, reputational, and practical cost of hosting ICE here. That means public accountability for RXR. I would introduce legislation requiring any public or private entity doing business with ICE to disclose that relationship and be listed in a public database. I would call for hearings and use the  Council’s oversight power to force transparency about RXR’s relationship with ICE, including any city-facing benefits, subsidies, permits, or discretionary actions involving the property or the owner.

Specifically, I would require disclosure of any relationship with ICE as part of any ULURP application, so that the public and decision-makers are not asked to evaluate land use proposals in the dark. And I would urge the City Council  to weigh those relationships negatively in discretionary decisions, including land use actions, contracting, and the allocation of public funding.

Carl Wilson: New York must remain a true sanctuary city. I oppose any private landlord profiting from or facilitating ICE operations  that undermine trust and safety in our communities. As a Council Member, I would push for stronger oversight of city  contracts and zoning tools to prevent the expansion of ICE facilities, increase transparency around leases like the one at  Starrett-Lehigh, and work with state partners to explore legal avenues to end them. Locally, I would organize with community groups, apply public pressure, and ensure workers and residents know their rights when interacting with ICE.

************************************************************

Chelsea Neighbors United: The Hudson River Park Trust has rented parking space on Pier 40 to ICE. Although the Trust will not break the lease, it is expiring at the end of June, and will not be renewed. The Trust has earned $800,000 from this contract with ICE. Do you support the Trust covering legal costs for any immigrant detained by ICE along the stretch of riverfront they manage? Would you advocate that the Trust donate some or all of the “dirty money” they have earned from ICE to organizations that provide aid to immigrants?

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: I support directing resources toward protecting and supporting immigrant communities, particularly those impacted by detention and enforcement actions. Given the harm associated with ICE activity along our waterfront, I believe the Hudson River Park Trust should take meaningful steps to reinvest those funds in ways that support affected communities. That includes exploring contributions to organizations that provide legal services, advocacy, and direct support to immigrants. Access to legal representation is one of the most critical factors in ensuring due process, and I strongly support expanding funding for immigrant legal defense.

More broadly, we need to ensure that public entities are aligned with our city’s values. While the lease may be ending, there is still an opportunity, and responsibility, to take restorative action that reflects our commitment to immigrant  communities.

Lindsey Boylan: When the news broke on Hudson River Park Trust’s Pier 40 contract with ICE, I immediately publicly condemned the collaboration. If a public authority profited  from leasing space to ICE, it has a moral responsibility to help repair the harm caused by that decision. I support the Hudson River Park Trust dedicating those revenues to immigrant legal defense funds, rapid response networks, and community organizations that provide direct aid to immigrants facing detention or deportation. That money should  be reinvested in the communities harmed, not absorbed without accountability. I also support exploring whether the Trust can help cover legal support for individuals detained along the stretch of riverfront it manages, in partnership with established nonprofit legal service providers. At a minimum, the Trust should publicly acknowledge the damage  caused by hosting ICE operations and commit resources toward immigrant justice.

More broadly, public entities should not be doing business with agencies that target our neighbors and undermine the values of this city. I would push for stronger standards to prevent future leases or contracts with ICE and to ensure public assets are never used to facilitate deportation infrastructure again.

Layla Law-Gisiko: If a public authority or entity such as the Hudson River Park Trust made money from facilitating ICE tactical operations, it should not get to wash its hands of the consequences once the lease ends.

I support the Hudson River Park Trust using some or all of the revenue it earned from this contract to help repair the harm. That should include funding for immigrant legal defense and support for organizations that provide direct aid  to immigrants and families affected by detention and deportation. At a minimum, I would advocate that the Trust direct a meaningful portion of that money to reputable immigrant-serving legal and community organizations. And if people were detained along the stretch of riverfront the Trust manages, then it is entirely reasonable to ask the Trust to fully cover legal costs for those impacted.

Carl Wilson: When it was revealed that Hudson River Park Trust was using ICE vehicles on their property, I immediately called on the Trust to remove them. It is not enough to wait out the contract, the vehicles must be removed now. The Trust  should not profit from harm. I would advocate that funds earned from ICE be redirected to immigrant legal defense and community-based organizations providing direct support. While legal constraints may limit retroactive actions,  we can and should push for moral accountability and future policies that prohibit such agreements.

************************************************************

Chelsea Neighbors United: What would you, as a City Council Member, do to educate and encourage residential building owners to create safe spaces for people who work in their buildings, such as building staff?

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: Creating safe environments for building workers is essential, particularly in a time when many immigrant workers feel vulnerable. As a Council Member, I would work with city agencies, labor organizations, and community groups to ensure building owners and managers are educated on immigrant protections and best practices for maintaining safe spaces. This  includes clear guidance on how to respond to ICE presence, protecting employee privacy, and ensuring that staff are  not put at risk.

I would also support stronger outreach and “Know Your Rights” education for both workers and building management, so everyone understands their rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, this is about fostering a culture of accountability and respect, where workers feel safe, supported, and  protected in their workplaces.

Lindsey Boylan: Building service workers are the backbone of so many residential buildings. They keep residents safe, care for our  homes, maintain buildings through every kind of weather and emergency, and are often the first people tenants  turn to when something goes wrong. How we treat the people who steward our homes is a reflection of our values. And this is personal to me. My uncle and grandfather were lifelong union doormen, and I know firsthand the dignity, pride, and stability that building service work can provide when workers are respected and protected.

As a Council Member, I would use the office to promote best practices for residential building owners, including anti-harassment  and workplace safety standards, fair scheduling, adequate staffing, and respect for workers’ rights to organize. I would also partner with unions and worker advocates to educate owners and co-op and condo boards about their  responsibilities as employers. Building staff deserve safe workplaces, fair treatment, and the dignity that comes with being valued for the essential work they do every day.

Layla Law-Gisiko: I would start from a basic principle: no one should fear detention, intimidation, or retaliation simply because they go to work each day.

As a Council Member, I would work to educate and encourage residential building owners and managing agents to make their buildings safer for immigrant workers, including porters, doormen, handymen, cleaners, home care workers, and other staff who are too often left vulnerable. I would make sure owners understand what they should do if ICE or other immigration enforcement agents show up  at a building. Building staff should not be put in the position of having to make legal decisions on the spot, and they should never be pressured into facilitating enforcement activity. I would push for clear protocols, Know Your Rights  materials, and training so that management and staff understand the difference between a judicial warrant and  other forms of paperwork, and know when they do and do not have to grant access. I would also urge buildings to  create a private room, bearing a sign “Private, for Staff Only” that would act as a safe place in which ICE agents would  not be permitted to enter without a warrant.

Carl Wilson: Building workers are essential to our neighborhoods and deserve dignity and protection. I would partner with  unions, worker organizations, and tenant groups to expand “Know Your Rights” education, encourage best practices for safe workplaces, and support legislation that protects workers from retaliation. We should also explore incentives and standards for building owners to create safe, respectful environments for all staff.

************************************************************

Chelsea Neighbors United: There is a plan to demolish the Fulton, Elliott-Chelsea Section 9 NYCHA housing in our neighborhood, and convert  newly built replacement buildings to Section 8 Housing. Do you support this plan? Please explain why you do or do not. Are you concerned about a precedent being set that will undermine public housing nationwide? Do you have ideas or  proposals for funding public housing that don’t include privatization?

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: The proposed redevelopment of Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea is extraordinarily complex, and I do not believe this issue  should be reduced to a simple “demolition vs. no demolition” debate.  

My primary concern is the increasing reliance on private, for-profit entities to take control of public housing. While  residents absolutely deserve safe, healthy, and well-maintained homes, and NYCHA has fallen short in delivering that, we must be careful not to create a system that transfers public  assets into private hands with less public accountability and weakened long-term public control. I am concerned about the precedent this model sets. If we normalize privatization as the solution, we risk undermining the public housing model. I am not opposed to public-private partnerships in theory, but they must include strong oversight, enforceable protections, and a clear commitment to preserving tenant rights, particularly Section 9 protections.

We also need to continue pushing for greater public investment in NYCHA, including increased federal, state, and city funding, so that privatization is not the default solution to decades of federal disinvestment. As a Council Member, I would use my land use authority to demand transparency, ensure community-driven plans are respected, and hold all parties accountable throughout the process.  

Lindsey Boylan: I want to start by saying that there should be no plan for FEC that is not centered on the tenants themselves. Every Sunday, I hold listening sessions with FEC residents, and what I hear is not one single opinion but a wide range of  views.Many tenants are deeply skeptical of Related and feel there has not been enough transparency about what is really being proposed. Others are frustrated with the current conditions and want to see new buildings and real investment. What is consistent is that people feel they have not been given the information or power they deserve in a decision that affects their homes and their futures.

Because of that, the first step is not deciding whether the redevelopment or demolition should happen or not. The first step is restoring trust and making sure tenants are actually driving the process. People feel misled, intimidated, and at times silenced, and that cannot continue. NYCHA has been systematically underfunded for decades, leading to a crisis of disrepair, neglect, and institutional  failure. Residents have endured years-long wait times for basic repairs, heat and hot water shutoffs, and worsening conditions under RAD conversions that have handed control to private landlords with little accountability.

The City Council has too often sidelined the needs of public housing tenants and failed to deliver the kind of deeply affordable, decommodified housing that our communities need. In District 3, the situation at the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses reflects this long-standing disinvestment and the unwillingness of state and federal officials to step up for the  public housing residents who keep New York City running. That’s why I was one of the earliest contributors to the  Fulton-Elliott-Chelsea NYCHA Legal Fund—because tenants deserve the power, resources, and legal support to fight for their homes and hold all parties accountable. I oppose the privatization of NYCHA, full stop. But I also know that the status quo is unacceptable, and residents deserve urgent, transformative action. Families deserve safe, healthy homes now, not another decade of delays.

If any redevelopment moves forward, it must come with ironclad, enforceable protections that are written with tenants, not for tenants. A years-long construction timeline without protections and obligations written in stone to  hold the developer to would be completely unacceptable. The level of market-rate infill that has been discussed is far too high for public land in the middle of a housing crisis. Tenant protections must go beyond what is currently offered under Section 8 or Section 9, temporary relocation must be fully paid for, and there must be real accountability  mechanisms if promises are not kept.

At the same time, I will not pretend that the status quo is acceptable. Tenants  deserve safe, healthy, modern housing, and ignoring the conditions people are living in is not a solution either. The  choice cannot be between neglect and displacement. My role as a Council Member will be to make sure that any decision about the future of FEC is made by the people who live there, not by luxury developers, not by NYCHA alone, and not by politicians using tenants as political props. My office will be an organizing hub, supporting tenant leadership, offering legal aid access, and pushing for community benefit agreements that are enforceable and regularly reviewed. NYCHA tenants have been treated as an afterthought for far too long. It must come to an end. 

Layla Law-Gisiko: No. I oppose this plan. The demolition of Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea and the conversion from Section 9 to Section 8 is a privatization scheme dressed up as rehabilitation.

I am deeply concerned about the precedent this would set. If decades of neglect become the excuse to demolish Section 9 housing and shift it into private management structures, then we are not preserving public housing—we are  dismantling it. That is a terrible precedent for New York City, and for the country. The plan would cause displacement, and serious air pollution from soil contamination. It would segregate tenants into three buildings when they are currently spread out throughout 12 buildings. The plan would also mingle seniors and the general population, when today, seniors live in the senior building, a building that has special amenities.

We need to be serious about recommitting to NYCHA and to Section 9. This neglect is far from a fatality. There is nothing inevitable or structural about it. What we are looking at is a tragic, racist, and classist lack of political will. I am also alarmed that NYCHA CEO Lisa Bova-Hiatt has signaled interest in scaling up demolition as a broader strategy, not just in Chelsea. At a public hearing of the City Council, she proudly admitted that NYCHA is planning more  demolitions throughout the city.  

There are other ways to fund public housing that do not include privatization: Dedicated city, state, and federal capital support, and new progressive revenue sources, including a stock transfer tax. We have chosen for too long to  underfund public housing while subsidizing wealth. That choice can be reversed. 

I am proud to have the support of public housing tenants and leaders, including Renee Keitt, president of the Elliott Chelsea tenants association, and Jackie Lara at Fulton. I stand with residents who are fighting for repairs, investment,  and the preservation of public housing—not its demolition by another name. 

Carl Wilson: Important changes need to be made, but the plan should continue moving forward. NYCHA residents in Chelsea have waited far too long for safe, dignified housing, and many are counting on this project to finally deliver the improvements they deserve. Stopping this now would take residents back to square one, with no Plan B on the horizon. 

We must ensure the plan works better for both residents and the surrounding community. For example, more additional units must be truly affordable, with a higher percentage set aside for low-income New Yorkers. The massing  of the buildings must be carefully addressed, with taller buildings oriented closer to Tenth Avenue rather than Ninth Avenue to better fit the neighborhood context. Materials also matter, and the use of high-quality options like brown stone should be prioritized. Most importantly, tenant rights must remain front and center, with strong protections and a real voice throughout  the process.

************************************************************

Chelsea Neighbors United: Buildings are responsible for two thirds of NYC’s greenhouse gas emissions. Local Law 97, enacted in 2019, mandates  greenhouse gas emissions limits for buildings over 25,000 sq ft, aiming for a 40% reduction by 2030 and net zero by  2050. Some building owners want to purchase “renewable energy credits” (RECs) rather than retrofit buildings to comply  with the law. Will you be a champion for Local Law 97 and work to help building owners comply with the law, or do you support legislation that would enable these RECs and water down the law?  

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: I strongly support Local Law 97 and the goals it sets to reduce emissions and hold buildings accountable for their role  in climate change. I’m proud to be the only candidate in this race who is well-versed in implementing urban green solutions.

Buildings are the largest source of emissions in New York City, and meaningful reductions will require real investment in retrofits, energy efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure, not workarounds that dilute the intent of the law. While I understand that compliance can be challenging, I do not support efforts that would weaken Local Law 97 through overreliance on renewable energy credits in place of actual emissions reductions.  

As a Council Member, I would work to support building owners, especially smaller and rent-regulated buildings, in meeting these requirements through technical assistance, financing tools, and incentives, while maintaining the  integrity of the law. We cannot afford to compromise on climate policy. Local Law 97 is a critical tool in meeting our emissions goals and  improving public health. 

Lindsey Boylan: I strongly support Local Law 97 and will oppose efforts to weaken, delay, or create loopholes that undermine its  enforcement. Buildings are the largest source of emissions in New York City, and LL97 is one of the most important tools we have to reduce pollution while creating good, union jobs for retrofitting our building stock. I believe we should be focused on full implementation, not carveouts that allow large building owners to avoid making real upgrades. Weakening the law would delay urgently needed climate action and jeopardize the thousands of jobs that come with energy efficiency retrofits, electrification, and building modernization. That doesn’t mean that deeply affordable and cooperatively-owned housing should not receive the support they need to make the transition, but we cannot afford to let major polluters buy their way out of compliance while communities continue to face the impacts  of climate change. 

Housing developments like Penn South should be provided the financial support of the city and state governments to transition to renewables, install solar, and connect to the grid to access the benefits of clean energy, so that tenants and cooperators don’t absorb sky high maintenance or rent hikes. Because that’s not a just transition. Unfunded man dates that leave working people behind are not the solution, and neither is creating carveouts for the big real estate. 

Layla Law-Gisiko: I support Local Law 97, and I do not support using RECs as a workaround to weaken it. Building owners need help complying, and I support technical assistance, financing support, and a serious public  effort to help co-ops, affordable housing providers, and rent-regulated buildings decarbonize without passing unreasonable costs onto residents.

But the deeper question is whether compliance should mean actual emissions reductions in the building sector, or whether it can be satisfied through paper offsets. The purpose of Local Law 97 is to drive real retrofits, real electrification, real energy efficiency, and real reductions in fossil fuel use in large buildings. It was not meant to become a bookkeeping exercise where owners can avoid modernizing their properties by purchasing renewable energy credits  generated somewhere else. 

Carl Wilson: I am a strong supporter of Local Law 97 and its goals. We cannot afford to weaken one of the most important climate  laws in the country. While flexibility may be necessary in limited cases, over-reliance on RECs risks undermining real  emissions reductions. I will work to ensure building owners have the tools and support to decarbonize, while holding  firm on the law’s intent and timelines.

************************************************************

Chelsea Neighbors United: Parts of our neighborhood were underwater during Hurricane Sandy. Climate change is a local issue. What are your  ideas for creating a more green NYC to stand up to Trump’s and Hochul’s ongoing attacks on clean energy? 

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: Climate change is not abstract for our district, we saw firsthand during Hurricane Sandy how vulnerable our water front communities are. Creating a greener, more resilient New York City requires both mitigation and adaptation. That includes continued investment in waterfront resiliency infrastructure, reducing emissions, and expanding access to sustainable  transportation.  

I have long advocated for environmental improvements in our district, including leading the push for electric shore power at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal to reduce harmful diesel emissions, and helping establish an Environmental Community Fund to address local environmental impacts. I am also the only candidate in this race with a sustained, hands-on track record of prioritizing environmental issues at the local level.  

Looking ahead, I support expanding access to electric vehicle infrastructure, strengthening environmental requirements in land use decisions and improving public transit through more reliable service, dedicated bus lanes, and  increased ADA accessibility.  

At a time when clean energy progress is being challenged at higher levels of government, cities must lead. I am committed to advancing policies that reduce emissions, protect our communities, and build a more sustainable future.  

Lindsey Boylan: State and federal attacks on our climate laws, like the CLCPA, are unacceptable no matter which party they come from. As the former Deputy Secretary for Housing and Economic Development, I led the continued recovery effort  for Sandy and the state’s recovery work in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. I am proud to have done that work, but  we can’t just be reactive to these climate supercharged disasters. Creating a greener New York City means treating climate policy as a local survival issue, not a branding exercise. 

As a City Councilmember, I would fight to make New York a leader in climate resilience and clean energy even as Trump attacks the Inflation Reduction Act and Hochul backs pipelines and tries to weaken the promises of the CLCPA.  That means accelerating building decarbonization, defending and strengthening Local Law 97 implementation, expanding truly affordable electrified housing, and making sure the transition creates high-road union jobs. We should  be rapidly electrifying schools, public housing, and city buildings; expanding bus priority and safer streets to reduce car dependence; investing in stormwater infrastructure, green roofs, tree canopy, and flood protection; and using  city procurement and pension power to support a just transition away from fossil fuels. 

It also means being honest: we cannot claim to care about climate while expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. New York City should use every available lever to oppose new pipelines, fight peaker plants, and push for a faster buildout  of renewable energy and storage. And because climate justice is inseparable from economic justice, the neighborhoods most harmed by pollution, flooding, heat, and disinvestment must be first in line for investment, protection, and decision-making power. We need a city government that acts like the climate crisis is here, because it is. I want a greener New York that is not only more sustainable, but more public, more resilient, and more democratic. 

Layla Law-Gisiko: Ten years after Sandy, we need to seriously invest in waterfront and coastal resilience. We have seen what happens when the water rises, and when infrastructure fails. 

A greener New York must also be a more resilient New York. That begins with major public investment in the infrastructure that actually protects people: flood mitigation, stormwater systems, sewer upgrades, backup power, resilient public housing, and a streetscape designed to absorb heat and water rather than collapse under both. 

The City Club of New York, of which I am the President, has long taken waterfront resiliency seriously. We need a coherent, science-based approach to protecting our shoreline, including working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers where appropriate. But I do not believe in a wall slicing us off from the waterfront and calling that resilience. We do not need a blunt barrier that treats the city as something to be sealed off from itself. We need a smarter, more integrated approach: one that protects neighborhoods without surrendering the public realm.

Carl Wilson: As water levels rise, we must require more permeable materials in buildings, improve storm water retention and limit runoff by vastly expanding bioswales on every block, and incentivize solar use on residential and commercial  buildings. While working for then-Council Member Erik Bottcher, I was proud to lead the way to require an expansion of the City’s tree canopy, which will help reduce temperatures, improve air quality, and increase biodiversity. Once in  the Council, I will work with environmentalists and business leaders to find solutions where they are often at odds to ensure we forge ahead together to protect our city from the ongoing threat of climate change.

************************************************************

Chelsea Neighbors United: There is a lot of wealth in our district. How do you feel about taxing the rich to fully fund our schools, public transit,  social programs, safety nets, and climate programs? 

Leslie Boghosian Murphy: New York City is a place of immense wealth and we must ensure that our tax system reflects our values and supports  the needs of our communities.  

I support a more equitable approach to taxation that ensures those with the greatest ability to pay are contributing their fair share to fund essential services like education, public transit, housing, and climate initiatives.  At the same time, many of these taxation decisions are made at the state level, so it is critical that we work in partnership with our state representatives to advance policies that increase revenue in a fair and responsible way. As a City Council Member, I will advocate for fully funding the services New Yorkers rely on, while ensuring that our  policies promote both equity and long-term economic stability. 

Lindsey Boylan: I strongly support taxing the rich to fully fund the public goods that make New York livable and fair. At a time of extreme inequality, it is unacceptable that working families are asked to do more with less while billionaires, luxury real estate interests, and wealthy corporations benefit from loopholes and special treatment. In a district with so much wealth, we should be honest that those who have gained the most from this city can and should contribute more  to sustain it. That means higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, pied-à-terres, luxury real estate speculation, and large  corporations, along with closing giveaways that drain public resources. Those revenues should be invested in fully funding our public schools, reliable and affordable transit, universal childcare, housing, healthcare, climate resilience, and the social safety net. New York has immense wealth. The question is whether we allow it to remain concentrated at the top or use it to build a city where everyone can thrive. 

Layla Law-Gisiko: We are living in a city of immense wealth alongside immense unmet need, despite the very large city budget. It is the  result of political choices: what we tax, what we excuse, and whom we ask to carry the city on their backs. If we want to fully fund schools, public transit, social programs, safety nets, and climate infrastructure, then we need to  stop pretending the money is not there. It is. What is missing is the will to tax capital and concentrated large wealth. That means pursuing measures like a stock transfer tax. It means taxing real estate at its just value. And it means  ending the grotesque tax abatements and giveaways that have distorted our budget priorities for years, including subsidies lavished on projects like Hudson Yards. 

For too long, New York has socialized need and privatized gain. We ask working people to accept austerity while billionaires, luxury developers, and major asset holders are given tremendous deference and acquiesced to when they  demand a better deal, at the expense of tax payers. I reject that framework. 

A city that cannot tax wealth cannot govern itself. And a district like ours, which sees so clearly the extremes of in equality, should be leading that argument, not avoiding it. 

Carl Wilson: Yes. At a time of deep inequality, we must ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to contribute a little more so we can fully  fund our schools, transit, housing, and climate programs. I support progressive revenue measures at the state level  and will advocate for a fairer tax system that allows our city to meet its obligations and invest in working people. At the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure every public dollar is used effectively. That means taking a hard look at agency spending, improving oversight, and rooting out inefficiencies so we are getting the most out of what  we already invest. A fair tax system and responsible stewardship of public funds must go hand in hand if we are going  to deliver the services our communities deserve.

—END—