Advocates hailed Zohran Mamdani’s victory as a win for rent-burdened tenants, while building owner groups decried his proposed rent freeze as a threat to the city’s stabilized housing stock.

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani at a campaign event in Queens on Oct. 6. (RonAdar/Shutterstock.com)

A year ago, then newly-announced mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani ran the New York City marathon with a promise on his t-shirt: “Eric Adams raised my rent,” it read. “Zohran will freeze it.”

On Election Day Tuesday, his message proved a compelling one to voters. More than 2 million people showed up at the polls—a level of turnout not seen since 1969—and more than 1 million cast their ballots for Mamdani, a 34-year-old assemblymember who’ll take office at City Hall come January.

His win caps a contentious election season where much of the debate focused on the city’s cost of living crisis—and in particular, its impact on renters, who make up 69 percent of households in the five boroughs. Roughly 2 million live in rent-stabilized apartments and would be affected by Mamdani’s rent freeze, if he’s successful in pulling it off.

“Tenants are the majority in New York. In June, we sent a clear message to the real estate industry: you can’t buy this city. Tonight, tenants beat back millions to prove it again,” Cea Weaver, director of the New York State Tenant Bloc, said in a statement Tuesday night following Mamdani’s win. “We are ready to freeze the rent with the mayor-elect.”

Stabilized tenants, whose rent changes are set each year by the mayoral-appointed Rent Guidelines Board, saw four hikes in a row under outgoing Mayor Eric Adams.

These households have a median income of 60,000 a year, and despite the regulated status of their homes, 46 percent are rent-burdened, meaning they spend at least a third of their earnings on housing. More than half of the city’s renters more widely meet that definition.

“We are at a pivotal moment. New York City faces a severe affordability crisis that no Mayor can solve alone,” the Association for Neighborhood Housing and Development (ANHD), a community development and advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday. “Families throughout the city are unable to afford rent and other necessities.”

But property owner groups, and some affordable housing experts, argue a flat rent freeze is the wrong way to address that problem. They say owners of buildings with stabilized units, particularly those with few or no market-rate apartments that can charge higher rents, need annual increases to offset other rising costs, like insurance and taxes.

Freezing rents will give those building owners less to draw from to make repairs and maintain aging properties, critics argue. A recent report from Enterprise Community Partners and the National Equity Fund, two groups that work in affordable housing, found that more than half (57 percent) of the more than 400 affordable projects it analyzed took in less revenue than what they spent in 2024.

A rent freeze would “destroy rent-stabilized housing,” Kenny Burgos, CEO of the New York Apartment Association, which represents rent regulated building owners, said in a statement Tuesday. “Thousands of buildings are in deep fiscal distress and bankruptcies are growing. If nothing is done, the city will lose this vital housing forever,” Burgos said.

Mamdani has countered such criticism by saying his administration would look to help struggling landlords by tackling rising insurance and property tax rates.

Rent stabilized tenants on a protest march to Gracie Mansion in October, the day the most recent rents increases for stabilized apartments went into effect. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Beyond a rent freeze, Mamdani’s housing plan calls for building 200,000 “truly affordable” apartments, and expanding city programs that finance homes for seniors and very low-income tenants. He’s pledged to double the city’s capital funding for NYCHA repairs, and says he’ll push Albany to invest more in public housing. 

“We will hold bad landlords to account because the Donald Trumps of our city have grown far too comfortable taking advantage of their tenants,” he said in his victory speech Tuesday night. “We will work tirelessly to make lights shine again in the hallways of NYCHA developments where they have long flickered.”

On Wednesday, Mamdani announced the first members of his transition team, led by Maria Torres-Springer—a veteran of city government who most recently served as deputy mayor for housing under Mayor Adams (she resigned from that post in February).

“I love that there is ambition in his and many other plans. It’s clear that the number one issue is affordability,” Torres-Springer told City Limits in a July interview about Mamdani, and housing more generally this election cycle.

The mayor elect nodded to the ambitiousness of his plans during his election night speech. While some have deemed his ideas unrealistic—including his rent freeze proposal, which could be hard to achieve, at least at first, if Mayor Adams appoints new Rent Guidelines Board members on his way out the door.

But Mamdani maintains he can get it done.

“Democrats can dare to be great,” he told his future constituents Tuesday. “Our greatness will be anything but abstract. It will be felt by every rent-stabilized tenant who wakes up on the first of every month knowing the amount they’re going to pay hasn’t soared since the month before.”

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post ‘Ready to Freeze the Rent’: Housing Groups React to Mamdani’s Mayoral Win appeared first on City Limits.

Nada Hassanein, Stateline.org

Racial health disparities may widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with federal funding cuts to programs that were aimed at filling gaps in care, public health experts say.

Related Articles

Congressional stalemate creates chaos for Obamacare shoppers

Trump’s HHS orders state Medicaid programs to help find undocumented immigrants

Allina Health clinic doctors conduct 1-day strike

FDA warns websites selling unapproved Botox for cosmetic purposes

Can a weight loss and diabetes drug treat long COVID?

As part of its federal restructuring and crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, the Trump administration has been shuttering federal offices and rescinding grants dedicated to addressing worse health care access and outcomes for racial minorities.

The shake-up has caused some state agencies and nonprofits to pause programs and some groups and universities to apply for foundation grants instead.

Hundreds of grants have been terminated for state, local and territorial health departments as well as nonprofits and universities, many of which addressed health equity across rural, low-income and communities of color.

The nation’s racial health disparities were laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the virus killed Black, Hispanic and Indigenous people at higher rates than white people. The police murder of George Floyd in May 2020 also fueled a racial reckoning across the nation, prompting efforts by states, universities, health systems and the federal government to address racial health disparities.

Those approaches ranged from targeted vaccine campaigns and efforts to enroll more people of color in clinical trials to corrections of diagnostic tests that relied on inaccurate information about race and biology.

Communities of color have long had less access to health care, increased exposure to environmental pollutants and higher rates of certain chronic illnesses and cancer deaths. They also have more diabetes-related amputations because of a lack of access to care. And specific genetic diseases, such as sickle cell disease, disproportionately affect Black people.

“COVID revealed the impact of health disparities to individual health — as well as how not addressing these disparities undermines the health system for everyone,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Now, many of the programs trying to address health disparities are being rolled back.

As a result, health policy experts, clinicians and researchers fear those disparities will widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with lost federal dollars while the administration continues to limit federal funding for DEI programs. In July, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidance saying such initiatives should not receive federal funding, alleging they are “discriminatory.”

Entities that receive federal funds “must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics—no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions,” the news release said.

Several state and local health officials were reluctant to speak with Stateline on the record about how the federal administration’s DEI crackdown has left them in a bind, fearing retaliation or targeting by the federal government. The White House did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.

“My concern about what the administration is doing is that they are, in effect, making these disparities worse,” Benjamin said. “Everybody’s health is not the same. … It’s important to know that the disparities are really profound.”

Benjamin added that the cumulative effect of disparities means more late-stage disease — costing both patients and health systems more.

“There’s a trope or misunderstanding out there that DEI is a ‘woke’-related agenda. DEI is not a ‘woke’ agenda. DEI is an American agenda, because it’s really one that is the same thing as ‘rising tides lift all boats,’” said Brandon Wilson, senior director of Health Innovation and Public Health at Community Catalyst, a health equity advocacy organization. “When you cut [resources] off, you’re actually disproportionately impacting those who are already impacted.”

‘Increasing need’

The administration canceled billions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Many of the grants helped recipients create solutions tailored to their communities’ needs and strengths.

At least three dozen state, local and territorial health departments have had pandemic-era grants that addressed health equity terminated. While originally focused on COVID-19, agencies have since used that grant money for other public health efforts: testing and contact tracing for a wide range of diseases, better data reporting, and community partnerships that address social and environmental effects on health.

The money was part of a $2.2 billion national health equity initiative that aimed to address vulnerabilities and protect those communities ahead of the next outbreak.

The Department of Health and Human Services told media such cancellations were due to the pandemic emergency ending in 2023.

At NIH, the administration terminated more than 5,400 NIH research grants, although about 2,800 were reinstated. Canceled grants included research toward illnesses like HIV and AIDS, which disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic people as well as gay and transgender people.

The Trump administration has also gutted federal offices dedicated to fighting disparities, including the Offices of Minority Health under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the state level, the Arkansas Department of Health recently shut down its own minority health-focused office. Ashley Whitlow, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement that it “relies on federal grant funding to support a variety of public health programs.”

“The recent reduction in program staff reflects the Arkansas Department of Health’s ongoing efforts to operate more efficiently with the resources available. Despite these changes, ADH remains fully committed to serving communities across the state,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, Maryland’s Department of Health said its minority health office is funded through state general funds and not directly impacted by the federal cuts.

The nation has seen a spike in congenital syphilis cases, which disproportionately occur among Black and Indigenous families.

“Regardless of whether you’re at the highest risk, any outbreak that’s not controlled can spread widely and broadly, and you can see that that’s what’s happening with measles,” said Dr. Julie Morita, former executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former health commissioner Chicago Department of Public Health.

But states likely can’t replace all the lost federal dollars.

“You’ve got declining capacity, and increasing need — which is a formula for problems,” said Richard Frank, director of the Brookings Institution Center on Health Policy.

“It’s impossible to make all that up with state and local dollars,” he continued. “You’re going to see programs that serve real people getting pulled back.”

Frank and Wilson also expressed concern about the Medicaid changes included in the broad tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed in July. The law is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $911 billion over the next decade, largely because new work requirements will push people off the rolls. Data shows the majority of Medicaid enrollees already work, and experts say many will be kicked off the rolls due to difficulties in states’ reporting processes. Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately represented on the Medicaid rolls.

OB-GYN Dr. Versha Pleasant, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan, directs the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic at Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital. She treats patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancers. Black women have an almost 40% higher risk of death from breast cancer than white women.

“That, to me, is unacceptable,” she said, adding that such disparities speak to the need for ongoing programs to “provide everyone with a fair chance at leading a long and healthy life.”

“If we don’t make a special effort to save the most vulnerable lives … where does that leave us?” she continued. “The changes that we’re seeing are only going to magnify preexisting challenges.”

Data and dollars

Dr. Sarah Rudman, acting public health officer at the Santa Clara County Public Health Department in California, and others have told Stateline that federal officials are informing health agencies that race and ethnicity data are no longer required to be reported.

“We are being asked to change the way we collect our own data here and report it,” Rudman said, adding that her county is going to continue collecting data to “understand who is here, who’s experiencing what health outcome and what they need.”

Many families, in the shadow of the county’s Silicon Valley, still struggle with poverty — more than 27,000 children suffer food insecurity, United Way Bay Area says.

“It is sometimes surprising and striking to people to understand how much poverty and other types of vulnerability are hidden among the more visible wealth of Silicon Valley, and that’s where we’ve dedicated our resources,” Rudman said.

“It’s hard to even imagine what my colleagues in smaller areas of California or in other parts of the country are experiencing,” she added about lower-income counties. “We are feeling extremely strained and already in our second round of layoffs, knowing that many more are likely. So I think that the hits are going to be that much more significant in areas who have less resources than we do.”

Federal officials also canceled the county’s $5.7 million grant to address COVID-19-related disparities, used to shore up vulnerable communities ahead of the next disease outbreak, natural disaster or heat wave, Rudman said. The money helped the county conduct basic laboratory testing and vaccine outreach for a wide range of diseases, not just COVID-19.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The investing information provided on this page is for educational purposes only. NerdWallet, Inc. does not offer advisory or brokerage services, nor does it recommend or advise investors to buy or sell particular stocks, securities or other investments.

Madison Hayes considers herself to be in her “full-blown revenge saving era.”

Related Articles

FAA says it will list airports where it is reducing flights during the government shutdown

IRS Direct File won’t be available next year. Here’s what that means for taxpayers

France moves to suspend Shein’s online market over listings for illegal firearms and sex dolls

Xcel pares Wisconsin solar farm project, adds battery backup 

Gemini AI to transform Google Maps into a more conversational experience

During the pandemic and the real estate boom that followed, Hayes (who is a realtor) was very focused on business growth and basically ignored her personal finances. Late last year, she realized how much money she’d spent on things like food delivery, subscription boxes and social memberships she never had time to use.

“Now I’m saving 48% of my income year-to-date,” says Hayes, who owns Gateway Realty Group in St. Louis, Missouri. “I treat saving like a competition with my past self.”

Because she owns a business, Hayes says she keeps four months of operating expenses in her bank account. She also has her bank automatically transfer any money in excess of her reserve to a high-yield savings account at the end of each month.

“It’s simple, but it’s changed everything,” she says.

Hayes isn’t an outlier. She’s part of a subset of Americans shifting their focus from spending to super-saving — a trend known as “revenge saving.”

What is revenge saving?

“Revenge saving” translates to saving very aggressively, often after a period of overspending or financial uncertainty.

“They’re going to try to outdo themselves, and save probably in a way they never have,” says Martin Lynch, president of the Financial Counseling Association of America. Lynch says the only time he’s seen saving this intense is with couples focused on saving money for a house down payment.

“Those are your real spartan savers who cut out everything,” Lynch says. “I’ve even cautioned the home buyers not to be that aggressive because it just means there’s a greater chance they’re going to fail.”

For many revenge savers, it’s about feeling like you’re in charge of your situation, says Lev Mandel, a financial life strategist in Walnut Creek, California. “When inflation is high, when the economy’s not great or there are questions around it,” Mandel says, “revenge saving brings back that feeling of control.”

Why is revenge saving having a moment?

Post-pandemic, people engaged in revenge spending — splurging on experiences and travel after years of feeling restricted. Revenge saving may be a reversal of the trend.

“It’s the pendulum swinging back to, ‘Hey, I’ve done all the vacations and things like that, and now I really need to get my house in order,’” says Marcel Miu, a certified financial planner in Austin, Texas.

People also may be reacting to news of layoffs and economic uncertainty in general — and that fear leads them to stockpile as much cash as they can, Lynch says.

“Americans typically start saving in advance of and during periods of recession and increasing unemployment,” Lynch says. “Just the fact that people see that others are going to be out of work makes them think, ‘Oh, that could be me.’”

But isn’t saving a good thing?

Saving money is definitely near the top of the “smart choices” list. But it’s a balancing act — saving money at the expense of other goals or to the detriment of living your life normally isn’t sustainable.

For instance, putting all your money into your 401(k) can leave you with little cash on hand for emergencies, Lynch says, while putting every dollar into your emergency fund and skipping 401(k) contributions can leave you worse off in retirement. And trimming your budget to the bone can lead to savings burnout.

“There has to be a balanced, thoughtful strategy,” Lynch says. “We don’t want to lurch from one side of the boat to the other when the seas get rough.”

How to revenge save without regret

If you’re feeling the urge to funnel buckets of money into savings, try these strategies to keep your financial plan balanced:

Have savings goals: Save for something specific, not just because you’re feeling anxious.
Prioritize: Make sure you’re paying off high-interest debt and covering your important financial goals, like retirement and college funds.
Automate: To the extent you can set up automatic transfers into savings or investment accounts, do it.
Set an end point: Pick a date to reevaluate and rebalance as needed.

As for Hayes, her savings goal is personal: She’s on track to pay off her mother’s mortgage next year for her 75th birthday. “She’s retired and has always been my biggest supporter,” Hayes says. “After all the years she’s spent cheering me on, I can’t wait to hand her the letter showing her house is officially paid off.”

More From NerdWallet

How a Personal Finance Expert Leverages Holiday Sales for Household Necessities
5 Scary Things About the Government Shutdown
Fed Cuts Rates; Powell Says Future Cuts ‘Far From’ Certain

Kate Ashford, CSA® writes for NerdWallet. Email: kashford@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @kateashford.

The article What Is Revenge Saving (and Should You Be Doing It)? originally appeared on NerdWallet.