I don’t know they are necessarily lying, I think that what they want to do comes from an honest place, it’s just that once elected, they realize they either don’t have that power or they’re actively blocked from doing it.

Looking at Mamdani specifically, he wants city run grocery stores. LOL. I feel safe in saying that’s a child-like pipe dream, but I still want to see him try. There’s like a 4% chance it could work, but hey, I’m saying there’s a chance! 😉

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/26/mamdani-city-run-grocery-store-plan-criticized-as-unrealistic.html

Thanks for the links. Apologies in advance for the long comment.

The increase is so high that it’s basically calculated as if you had removed commercial property taxes entirely.

The levy is paying for continuity of existing services: parks maintenance (tree planting and timing, garbage cleanup) and amenities like summer camps, swimming lessons, etc. They basically don’t devote any significant part of their funding to facility maintenance, which is why many of the hard tops and other things are in poor condition.

I guarantee you that even if this levy passes they will come back to voters down the road with a levy specifically for rebuilding park facilities.

The following gets a little into my philosophy on taxation, but in general I’m OK with paying for services (including increases) so long as outcomes are measured and city leaders hold themselves accountable to the public.

Partly I think parks funding is structured poorly, and partly that something must be done at the municipal level. The city keeps building parks they don’t have to account for in the budget and that the parks service can’t properly maintain at current funding levels. This and (as you noted) tax compression are the primary drivers for the increase.

I’m sympathetic to tax compression. But parks need to be paid for out of the general fund, not through levies. That way it forces the city to either build fewer parks or (ideally) properly fund parks through tax revenues. Levies should be used for extraordinary things, not regular operating budget. That they go this route is basically to work around property tax increase limits.

They should make the case to change the law and forgo levies in favor of the tax changes that are more representative of what the city actually needs to operate. To do that they should strive to become a model of transparency and accountability for the money they already receive, including publishing outcomes for their programs and special taxes, and redirecting funding where positive outcomes cannot be shown. This means, for example, increasing funding for auditors and creating statutory requirements around this kind of transparency.