I have spent more than two decades on the streets of New York City working with young people, families and communities devastated by gang and gun violence. I have seen firsthand how fragile public safety can be and how quickly progress can be erased when policy is driven by slogans instead of sober, sustainable solutions. As New Yorkers consider their choices this election season, we must ask difficult questions about the real costs and consequences of some of the more attention‑grabbing promises being made.
Take the proposal for free bus and subway service. I support making transit more equitable and accessible. But mass transit doesn’t run on good intentions — it runs on dollars that pay for drivers, mechanics, signal systems, security, and a supply chain that keeps vehicles operable and stations safe. Farebox revenue is only one piece of the funding puzzle, but it is a predictable one. If riders stop paying fares without a credible, long‑term plan to replace that revenue, the shortfall will come from somewhere: underfunded maintenance, deferred safety upgrades, layoffs, or higher taxes on middle‑class New Yorkers who already shoulder a heavy burden. The people who count on reliable buses and trains for work, school and medical care — and the officers, transit workers and community partners who keep those systems secure — deserve a plan that balances access with sustainability.
Rent freezes and sweeping government takeovers of food distribution are equally worrisome as blunt instruments. Rent freezes can provide immediate relief for some tenants, but broadly applied and prolonged freezes risk freezing out new housing production, discouraging repairs and driving small landlords to sell properties — actions that reduce supply and ultimately make housing less affordable. Government‑owned grocery stores are well intentioned as a way to address food deserts, but they risk displacing local grocers and undermining small businesses that are a lifeline for neighborhoods. There are smarter, targeted approaches: expanded rental assistance and vouchers for the most vulnerable households; incentives and technical support for neighborhood grocers; targeted subsidies for fresh food; and investments in community‑based food cooperatives that keep wealth in the neighborhood.
Most important to me is the future of our public safety institutions. We are living in a city that, after years of hard work by officers, prosecutors, community organizers and residents, has seen declines in many crime categories. That progress is fragile. Rhetoric that suggests wholesale layoffs of experienced officers — or the gutting of units that investigate guns and gangs — risks reversing gains. That does not mean resisting reform. I have long supported reforms that increase accountability, build trust between police and communities, and redirect resources to proven prevention strategies. But reform and public safety must be pursued together, not as competing goals. Experienced officers, properly supervised and accountable, are essential partners in violence interruption, community policing and investigations that bring perpetrators to justice.
If we are serious about reducing gun violence and strengthening neighborhoods, we need policy realism and a funding strategy to match our ambitions. A sensible platform for any mayoral administration should include:
– A credible, multi‑year transit funding plan that protects essential maintenance and safety work. If fares are reduced or eliminated for some riders, the gap should be filled with dedicated revenue — state or federal match, or public‑private partnerships — not by quietly cutting frontline services.
– Targeted housing supports that protect vulnerable tenants while preserving incentives for building and maintaining affordable units: expanded rental assistance, vacancy‑tax incentives for landlords who keep rents below market, and accelerated affordable housing construction.
– A food access strategy that empowers neighborhood grocers and small businesses, pairs direct subsidies with technical assistance, and uses land‑use tools to encourage fresh food retail in underserved areas rather than relying solely on large, government‑run stores.
– Public safety policy that balances reform with retention of experienced investigators and patrol officers. Greater preventive investment in community violence interruption programs, church orgs outreach efforts while expanding mental‑health and social‑service responses where appropriate, and ensure police departments have the training and oversight to operate fairly and effectively.
– Transparent budgeting and community engagement so New Yorkers understand tradeoffs. If a policy costs money, voters should know how it will be paid for and what will be cut or raised elsewhere.
We have a moral obligation to protect the city’s most vulnerable residents from the trauma of violence, and an economic obligation to preserve the institutions that make daily life possible. If candidates are asking us to choose between equity and safety, they are creating a false dichotomy. We can — and must — pursue both. But doing so requires honesty about costs, disciplined planning, and a willingness to compromise where necessary to preserve what actually works on the ground.
As someone who has watched lives saved and futures changed because a street crew showed up at the right time, I urge voters to demand plans, not platitudes. Ask the candidates: Where exactly will the money come from? How will services be maintained? How will reform be paired with the retention of the people and systems that keep us safe?
The stakes are too high to accept anything less. As a newly reformed Independent voter because the Democratic party lost its way using law fare and deceptive campaigns to shut down those who oppose their tactics of late.
I am placing my vote with what I already see working and the Adam’s administration has demonstrated that he is worth giving another four years and I hope in particular that Black voters don’t drink the koolaide that others are selling…we need real leadership that is open to diversity and understands that blue collar workers need representation not broken promises and wishful ideas!
One final note on practical politics: I am not interested in purity tests or petty intra‑party feuds. I supported Governor Andrew Cuomo’s reelection and even worked on his campaign, and I remain willing to work across lines to protect our neighborhoods. If Mayor Adams decides to suspend his campaign and only if he does, which I don’t see happening as per his recent press conference, I will not be coy about it — I will gladly partner with Governor Cuomo to defeat a socialist trying to occupy City Hall who isn’t serious about funding transit, preserving public safety, and supporting the small businesses and families that keep our city alive. New Yorkers deserve leaders who put results, not rhetoric, first.
