Billionaire investor Bill Ackman is warning that New York City’s affordability problems will get worse under Mayor Zohran Mamdani, arguing that rent freezes, higher taxes on wealthy residents and other progressive policies risk reducing housing supply and driving investment elsewhere rather than helping the people those policies are meant to protect.
Ackman made the case during an interview with Fortune Magazine, a clip of which was shared by conservative commentator Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report. Rubin introduced the segment by saying New York City remained in “free fall,” but most of the clip consisted of Ackman laying out a broader free-market argument about housing, energy, taxation and government policy.
The criticism comes from a distinctly capitalist perspective, and that context matters because Mamdani has built his political identity around a very different theory of affordability, including rent protections, large public investments in housing and child care, higher taxes on wealthy residents and businesses, and expanded city involvement in basic services.
Ackman Blames Housing Costs On Restricted Supply
Ackman began with housing, asking why rents in New York City have become so expensive and answering that years of policies making development difficult have constrained the number of homes available.
His central argument was straightforward: if a city has strong demand but makes new housing difficult or expensive to build, existing homes become more valuable and rents rise accordingly.
Ackman said Mamdani’s rent freeze for rent-stabilized apartments could deepen that problem by limiting the income landlords receive from regulated units while leaving market-rate units to absorb more of the building’s operating costs.
He described buildings where roughly half of the apartments are rent stabilized and the rest are market rate, arguing that landlords who cannot raise rents on one group may try to recover higher expenses from the other.
That is a recognizable supply-side argument in housing economics, although the effects of rent stabilization are more complicated than Ackman’s presentation suggests because such policies are also designed to prevent displacement and give existing tenants greater stability.
Mamdani’s administration has paired its rent freeze with a much larger housing program aimed at constructing and stabilizing hundreds of thousands of affordable units, meaning his approach is not simply to freeze rents and stop there.
Austin Becomes Ackman’s Preferred Example
Ackman contrasted New York with Austin, Texas, where he said rents have fallen because local leaders made it easier to build housing.
His point was that expanding supply can relieve pressure without requiring government to dictate prices, particularly in cities where population growth has created strong demand.
He also claimed that around 60,000 apartments in New York have been removed from the market because renovation costs cannot be recovered under existing rent rules.
From his perspective, that is an example of regulation backfiring: rules intended to keep units affordable can make some properties uneconomic to repair, reducing the number of apartments actually available.
There is a legitimate policy question here because New York is trying to solve two problems at once. The city needs more housing, but it also has millions of existing renters who cannot simply wait years for new construction to bring prices down.
That tension helps explain why Mamdani’s housing agenda combines tenant protections with a plan to build 200,000 affordable homes by 2031 rather than relying solely on either regulation or private development.
Ackman Says Wealthy Residents Help Fund The City
Ackman then moved from housing to taxation, arguing that New York should actively encourage wealthy individuals and businesses to remain in the city because they contribute a disproportionate share of tax revenue.
He cited wealthy investors such as Citadel founder Ken Griffin and entrepreneur Elon Musk as examples of people governments should want nearby rather than drive away with aggressive tax policy.
Ackman also argued that expensive luxury developments can have broader economic benefits because their construction creates jobs, while the residents who purchase those properties pay substantial taxes.
He estimated that the top 10% of taxpayers generate roughly 70% of government revenue, using that point to argue that the city has more to lose than gain if affluent residents decide that taxes and regulations have become excessive.
That argument reflects a long-running debate in high-tax cities: governments rely heavily on wealthy taxpayers, but those same residents are often the easiest targets when officials need new revenue.
Mamdani has taken the opposite position, arguing that New York can ask more from corporations and very high earners while using the proceeds to reduce costs for working families.
So far, his administration has also shown some willingness to retreat or compromise when proposals prove politically or financially difficult, including backing away from an earlier suggestion that property taxes might need to rise and scaling back support for an expensive expansion of a rental assistance program.
Energy Policy Also Comes Under Fire
Ackman argued that New York’s high energy costs are another example of what he considers poor policy rather than an unavoidable feature of living in an expensive state.
He criticized the closure of nuclear power, limits on fracking and lengthy approval processes for pipelines and transmission infrastructure, saying these decisions have left New York more dependent on natural gas brought in from neighboring Pennsylvania.
His broader point was that affordability cannot be separated into isolated categories.
Housing, electricity, transportation, taxes and business costs all eventually feed into what residents pay to live in the city.
That is one of the stronger parts of Ackman’s argument because even policies designed for worthy goals can create unexpected costs elsewhere, and governments do need to consider those tradeoffs rather than judging programs only by their stated intentions.
At the same time, those tradeoffs also include environmental, safety and public-health concerns that were largely absent from the short interview clip.
“Socialism Is A Disaster,” Ackman Says
Ackman eventually summarized his criticism in much broader ideological terms, saying New York suffers from waste, fraud, poor economic policy and poor tax policy before concluding that socialism is “a disaster.”
He predicted that if Mamdani successfully implements his agenda, New Yorkers will eventually see the consequences.
Rubin’s framing was even more direct, presenting Ackman’s comments as evidence that the city had passed a dangerous point under its current political leadership.
That conclusion is more sweeping than the evidence presented in the clip supports.
Mamdani’s administration has certainly adopted policies that Ackman and Rubin strongly oppose, particularly on rent regulation, taxes and government spending, but the mayor has also launched a major housing-construction plan, expanded child-care initiatives and pursued other affordability programs that cannot yet be judged solely by ideological predictions about how they will perform over the longer term.
The fairest way to read Ackman’s warning is therefore not as proof that New York has already failed, but as a clear statement of the free-market case against Mamdani’s approach.
Two Very Different Ideas Of Affordability
The disagreement ultimately comes down to competing ideas about how a city should make itself more affordable.
Ackman believes New York needs to build more private housing, reduce regulatory barriers, keep taxes competitive and make itself attractive to wealthy residents and investors whose money supports both development and government revenue.
Mamdani’s approach places more emphasis on protecting existing renters, using government spending to lower household costs, building publicly supported affordable housing and asking wealthy residents and corporations to contribute more.
Neither side is operating without tradeoffs.
Aggressive rent controls can discourage investment if poorly designed, but eliminating protections without rapidly increasing supply can expose tenants to sharp rent increases and displacement. Higher taxes can raise revenue for public programs, but pushing them too far can encourage some high earners or businesses to relocate.
Ackman’s warning is therefore best understood as part of that larger argument rather than as a neutral verdict on New York’s future.
Rubin clearly views Mamdani’s democratic socialism as evidence of decline, while Ackman believes the city can restore affordability through greater construction and more market-friendly policy. Whether New York ultimately proves either of them right will depend less on the labels attached to those ideas than on whether the city actually succeeds in building enough housing, controlling costs and keeping both residents and businesses willing to stay.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
