July 17, 2025 — On Tuesday, July 15, as part of his campaign reboot, former Governor Andrew Cuomo participated in an extensive walk-and-talk with Errol Louis on Inside City Hall. (The full 26-minute segment can be found here.)
A central part of the conversation was how to make living in New York City more affordable, and, as such, housing costs were a significant part of the discussion. As things stand now (and have stood for decades), New York City is not in control of its own destiny. Pursuant to what is known as the “Urstadt Law,” rent regulation in New York City is controlled by New York State. In answering what might be done to make housing more affordable, Cuomo said, “The Urstadt Law could be repealed, allowing New York City to regulate its rents,” as shown in the clip below.
In the same conversation, Cuomo — as he has done before — ripped Democratic nominee and general election frontrunner Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s pledge to freeze the rent for the four years of his first term, describing it as a simplistic, unrealistic, and ultimately counterproductive solution.
So, when I reached out to the Cuomo campaign via email yesterday and again early this morning, one of the questions I asked was this:
[Cuomo] said that a rent freeze (a la the Mamdani proposal) is a simplistic/unrealistic/counterproductive solution. He also said he would call for the repeal of the Urstadt Law. If the Urstadt Law were repealed and the City had authority to regulate on its own, what specifically would the Governor do in the realm of rent regulation to enhance affordability? (Emphasis added.)
One could imagine a variety of responses, for example: a shorter-term freeze; a system that exempted a to-be-defined group of “small landlords” from a freeze; or a system that made it easier for a landlord to claim a hardship exemption. Or, course, “we haven’t figured that out yet.” (None of that explains what would be better for tenants in the former Governor’s imagined City-controlled system.)
In any event, I got no response whatsoever.
During the Inside City Hall discussion, another issue that came up was the desperate need to increase housing supply significantly (as many candidates have suggested). Here, Cuomo asserted that, “You need a massive construction effort like you’ve never seen before. Open all the valves.” (Except shown below.)
In reaching out to the campaign, I wrote:
[Cuomo] said that we should “open all the valves” in order to build housing. How does the Governor square that with his position in the primary that he would not engage in any upzoning of low-density neighborhoods? (Emphasis added.)
Has he changed his position? If so, how? Was the metaphor only used rhetorically and he really means “open only some of the valves”? Here, again, there was no response. (Note that the Charter Revision Commission is likely next week to approve, as one of a number of proposals to reduce barriers to building affordable housing, the submission to voters of a proposed Charter amendment that would facilitate affordable-housing construction in the community districts that have permitted the least such construction.)
My final question dealt with a feature of New York City that tends to be discussed less: its high level of residential segregation. I wrote:
Since many low-density neighborhoods are highly racially segregated, how could residential segregation in New York City be tackled in a serious way if those neighborhoods are off the table for upzoning to allow even modest multi-family dwellings? (Emphasis added.)
No exception to the rule: this question, too, went unanswered.
Presumably, these questions will recur during the more than three months until Election Day. Remapping Debate remains eager to hear Mr. Cuomo’s answers.