By Gus Saltonstall
Upper West Side State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal officially filed on Monday to run for Manhattan Borough President in next year’s election.
It will be the second time that Hoylman-Sigal, who represents the majority of the west side of Manhattan from West 14th to 102nd streets, is running for the Manhattan Borough President position. He finished a close second place to Mark Levine in the 2021 Democratic primary for the seat.
Mark Levine is the current Manhattan Borough President, but he is expected to run for Comptroller.
“There’s a feeling of insecurity on our streets and in our subways, and a growing concern that people are falling through the cracks and not getting the help they need,” Hoylman-Sigal said in his news release announcing his candidacy. “Whether it’s dangerous e-bikes, never-ending scaffolding, or people struggling with mental health crises or addiction, there’s work to be done to make our city more livable for everyone. I’m running on my record to make Manhattan a more safe and affordable place where people can thrive.”
Hoylman-Sigal was first elected to his State Senate seat in 2012. He lists affordability, safety, lower housing costs, addressing mental health issues, and making streets safer among his central platform.
Hoylman-Sigal would be the first openly LGBTQ+ person elected as Manhattan Borough President. Additionally, if he wins the race, it would leave the significant Upper West Side elected position within State Senate District 47 vacant.
Upper East Side Councilmember Keith Powers has also announced his election bid for the Manhattan Borough President position.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Hurray, we’re saved!
We really need new people.
Word on the street is that he is running for borough president because he is getting tired of the commute to Albany and wants to spend more time with his family. I know of people that have seen him in public looking exhausted.
I think there are many good qualities that he would bring to the position of borough president. I do not like what he said to me on the street, though, when he was campaigning for state senate last time. I asked him about the problems with the bail reform law and he told me, “We fixed it.” I don’t think the three tweaks the legislature made to the bail reform law have “fixed it.” Personally I’d rather see him stay in the senate and fight to bring back the bail law to what it was before 2019. Even though crime, they say, has fallen a bit, it is still greater than in 2019.
Joseph Margiotta wrote:
“Word on the street is that he is running for borough president because he is getting tired of the commute to Albany and wants to spend more time with his family.”
Man is paid about $150k per year plus benefits including a pension, for what is a part-time job. He’s allowed to keep private employment and so forth so there is that as well.
Career politicians such as Hoylman-Sigal moaning about how weary the job is do have an option. Not run for reelection. This as opposed to hanging onto job unless or until something else comes along.
What will it take to get new blood into NYC politics?
Every election for decades it’s largely same cast of characters either seeking reelection or playing game of political musical chairs. If they aren’t elected to something they are appointed to something else political.
Term limits barely has changed status quo, so that’s not answer either.
Hoylman-Sigal, along with Linda Rosenthal and several others, passed a significant piece of legislation this year that benefits many thousands of UWSers: Good Cause Eviction. For the first time, tenants in market rate apartments get important rent increase and anti-eviction protections.
I have not seen this covered in the WSR, but it addresses one of the most important issues for the UWS: the continued increases in the cost of housing.
I’m just wondering why the WSR has not covered this. Did i miss it?
Yes, Good Cause Eviction and rent increase protection are wonderful policies that Hoylman-Sigal supports.
Perhaps you should invest in residential real estate and lease your apartments to tenants who insist on paying below market rents (or not pay any rent at all).
Wouldn’t you know it — I try to push back on the right-leaning views that get frequent airing in the comment section here, and then some WSR editor goes and memory-holes what I wrote. There seems to be either a bit of confusion about what is and isn’t “civil,” or a particular touchiness that construes left-leaning responses less graciously.
In any event, the point of what I was trying to say to Murray is that there is a strong public interest in protecting housing affordability for middle- and lower-income New Yorkers. I’d rather we be making sure that regular people can continue living here instead of worrying about whether NYC residential real estate investors are making the returns they were hoping for. (In fact, if we don’t do the former, there won’t be as vibrant a city left to support property values for the latter.)
The problem is many people (including most economists) don’t believe that capping rents (without capping costs) actually keeps housing affordable. It does reduce the availability and quality of housing over the long-term.
@Different Brandon made a good answer to @72RSD, below. Some further points:
Affordable housing in NYC is what is called a “market failure”. The private sector alone cannot solve the problem, though the private sector has a role to play. In general, affordable housing in NYC has been effectively addressed, in certain cases, in the last 50 years through various forms of government subsidies. These include NYCHA developments, the Mitchell Lama program, and various subsidized private sector programs.
Why doesn’t supply and demand work to solve the issue? There are several important causes, but it’s important to note that we don’t have a classic “supply and demand” situation. Demand grows, but supply is limited, primarily by zoning laws and protections to existing tenants. These are necessary. Imagine a Manhattan with no zoning laws. Imagine landlords being able to clear out older building whenever they want, rip them down, and replace them with ultra developments, often with fewer units.
We actually had a real-life experiment that tested 72RSD’s theory about doing away with regulated rents. In the late 90s, the rent regulation system was greatly weakened by state legislation, making it much easier to take apartments out of the system. In the ensuing 25 years, over half of the rent stabilized apartments on the UWS have been removed from rent regulation. But have rents stabilized or come down? No, they have continued to skyrocket.
QED rent stabilization protects poor, working class, and middle class tenants.
That theory only holds in an abstract econo-world of perfectly functioning markets. If it were true in reality, you’d expect to see a rise in housing stock upon elimination of rent control, but cities that have tried that — notably Boston — still struggle with housing affordability and availability problems.
Wow, Have worked with Brad on animal issues, Very smart and personable. Happy to support
Nice guy, likes animals.
Hmm…
Didn’t he proudly vote for the disastrous bail reform laws? Anyone with critical thinking skills foresaw how that would turn out. Everyone who supported that needs to be retired.
I hope Maria Danzilo fills the state senate seat.
Agree. She was an excellent candidate. A true Democrat, but more pragmatic than the others who shuffle through these jobs.
The vest he is wearing under his blazer disqualifies him in my mind – major fashion faux pas.
I am generally not a big fan of his but I do give him credit for at least acknowledging that there is a safety problem – some of the others act like it is all made up.
Tony Simone and Erik Bottcher are two contenders for this seat.
According to Wiki (which I take with a grain of salt), both identify as “progressive.” This term has a lot of meanings but to me it is too far left. There are a lot of moderates here. We are to the left of the vast majority of America but to the right of many of our neighbors. We want common sense.
Tougher sentencing. Get the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment. Better schools for all without diluting the good ones. Equal rights for all without completely obsessing over identity politics. Housing for all without completely diluting the rights of landlords who are entitled to make a living.
I would consider voting for him for the largely ceremonial borough president because we all benefit from Hoylman-Sigal no longer voting on important state legislation.
The question is whether he runs to replace Nadler or have Manhattan Dems already anointed someone for that seat?
Put him where he can do the least damage.
All of the politicians in NYC are railing against the scaffolding. Am I missing something or aren’t they in the singular position to address this problem? One immediate step would be to lengthen the inspection period from every 5 years to every 10. Of course enforcement and holding offenders accountable in the truest sense of the word would also help.
His “platform” is very rich considering he led the charge in defending several pro-crime bills he helped approve in Albany including bail reform (lowering the bar for pre-trial release), discovery laws (making it harder for prosecutors to meet deadlines), raise the age (petting the heads of teenage criminals), “less is more” (parole for criminals) etc. now he’s the solution for the problems he created? I don’t think so. We see you, Brad.
The borough president and public advocate positions should be eliminated.
They have little to no official power or function and the incumbents can pretty much do whatever they want and then brag about “results” when what they’ll tackle is what’s in their wheelhouse. BUT the jobs they aspire to require actual performance in all areas, not just the ones they know they can do well.
These positions add nothing except to give ambitious politicians the opportunity to claim success and try for higher office.
Doubt that? Both De Blasio and Adams held these positions before running for mayor.
We need new blood and he isn’t it!
Paul wrote:
“The borough president and public advocate positions should be eliminated.
They have little to no official power or function and the incumbents can pretty much do whatever they want and then brag about “results” when what they’ll tackle is what’s in their wheelhouse. BUT the jobs they aspire to require actual performance in all areas, not just the ones they know they can do well.”
Many agree with you and have been saying so for decades.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/03/do-borough-presidents-actually-have-any-power/176254/
When city eliminated Board of Estimate back in 1989 (after losing SCOTUS legal battle) it should have given BPs the push as well. But that didn’t happen and worse another largely symbolic elected office was created, that of public advocate.
Sadly it would take either action by city council and or mayor to revise NYC’s charter to get rid of BPs and or office of public advocate. Good luck with that, regardless of which side of political fence they sit upon all NYC politicians (or those who hope to be) recognize value of having yet another elected office that needs filling every four years.
Both BPs and PAs are offices that largely are bully pulpits. It gives those hoping to become mayor or whatever other elected office a place to bide their time until something else opens up.
One fly in ointment is if BPs an d PA office are eliminated what little powers they have would be likely doled out to city council and or mayor. That may or may not be a good thing.
There is also fact that if for any reason a mayor of NYC cannot complete his/her term and or is incapacitated PA slide into that role.