Mamdani would make New York a gloomy city of handouts and moochers

For centuries, New York City was the place strivers came to make something of their lives — where smarts, hard work and grit turned pushcarts into prosperity, and where the streets were paved with gold for those willing to mine them.

Success in New York was always tougher than anyplace else. Making it here meant you could make it anywhere.

Only the very poor received charity or government assistance, and only enough to help them get on their feet and start helping themselves.

Zohran Mamdani has a very different philosophy.

Much of his “affordability agenda” isn’t targeted to the neediest — but to New Yorkers who should be paying their own way.

Take fare-free buses: The city already offers a half-price “Fair Fares” program for low-income bus and subway riders.

Free buses would be available to everyone, including well-paid professionals and even loathed billionaires.

Food stamps, too, are means-tested, but city-run grocery stores wouldn’t stop millionaires from scooping up avocados at below-market prices.

Plenty of wealthy people already live in rent-stabilized apartments, so freezing the rent would benefit some rich tenants at landlords’ expense, even those small landlords who are less well-off than their tenants.

But Mamdani isn’t asking everyone to share the burden evenly by raising taxes across the board. He wants to tax corporations and the wealthiest.

It’s welfare for the upper-middle class, with no strings attached.

It’s also a paradigm shift, a belief that government — not our own efforts — should guarantee security.

The traditional American free market rewards those who work hard, delay gratification and take risks.

Those efforts benefit wider society — making companies more productive, adding to the tax base through growth and extending new opportunities for others.

In much of the country, homeownership is the reward for these sacrifices — a marker of having earned one’s place in society and holding a stake in a stable neighborhood. In rental-heavy New York, paying rent for a comfortable place confers a similar status.

---

Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post’s signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here!

---

Rent stabilization, by contrast, provides these benefits through government mandate. Stabilized tenants can pass along a legal entitlement to live in the below-market apartment to family members and even in some cases to non-related co-residents.

Unsurprisingly, these tenants rarely give up their sweetheart deals, making it harder for younger New Yorkers to find a foothold.

Doubling down on these programs would make New Yorkers more dependent on them — and on the government.

As always, those who benefit from a government program have a strong stake in seeing it continue — and they vote.

Mamdani’s proposals are tailor-made for his base of young, highly educated, far-left NYC newcomers. These bright and capable young voters aren’t chasing big dreams.

By many measures, they experience higher rates of mental health challenges and lower well-being at work — and are turning to the government for a more comfortable, secure life.

But New York has never been content with “good enough.”

Is it difficult to buy a house or afford rent, especially for the young? Absolutely.

But is it the answer to hand more power to City Hall and let it determine more of our lives?

The government’s track record isn’t pretty.

The single biggest reason why housing is so expensive in NYC is that, for decades, City Hall has prevented the private sector from building enough supply to meet demand.

And in the housing stock the government does control or influence, residents aren’t thriving.

Rent-stabilized apartment stock is rapidly deteriorating. Landlords are prohibited from collecting enough in rent increases to cover higher operating and maintenance costs.

Conditions in NYCHA buildings are so poor that far-left Public Advocate Jumaane Williams has repeatedly named the public housing authority the worst landlord in the city. On average, it takes 413 days for NYCHA to complete repairs.

At its best, New York rewards aspiration, not entitlement.

If the city is to be a place where strivers thrive, its government must reward diligence and productivity.

It must allow for growth, making it easy for businesses to set up shop and create jobs.

Instead of making life more comfortable for young professionals, the next mayor should inspire them to make the most of their skills and talents — to make them dream bigger than what mere government can offer.

Allowing the private sector to build much more housing would give young New Yorkers a better chance to buy or rent new, modern apartments.

They’d feel like their hard work is getting them somewhere.

The alternative is stagnation — a sadder, less dynamic city.

That’s not New York.

John Ketcham is director of cities and a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.