Make this Make Sense!!!
At a time when so many New Yorkers are working two jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, when small landlords — the mom-and-pop owners of walk-up buildings and multi-unit brownstones that form the backbone of our neighborhoods — are squeezed by taxes, regulation, and rising costs, the City Council is preparing to vote itself a pay raise. The optics are terrible and the timing is worse. This is not just a tone-deaf political move; it’s a slap in the face to the people the council members are supposed to represent.
Consider the reality on the ground. New York City’s cost of living is punishing. Teachers, nurses, cooks, caregivers, delivery drivers, building superintendents — so many New Yorkers juggle night shifts and second jobs just to pay rent, commute costs, child care and basic necessities. Families scrape together security deposits and scrounge savings to buy a small multi-unit building, hoping to stabilize their incomes and keep a foothold in a city that so often pushes people out. Those small landlords are not corporate giants; they are neighbors, retirees, immigrant entrepreneurs who absorb taxes, maintenance and regulatory burdens to keep units affordable and occupied.
A salary increase for elected officials while their constituents tighten their belts sends the opposite message of public service. The city’s leaders preach sacrifice and responsibility when they ask New Yorkers to stomach higher property taxes, stricter regulation, or zoning changes. Yet when it comes to their own pay, some council members appear ready to prioritize personal gain over empathy and accountability. Even if the raise is portrayed as a correction for an underpaid office, the question is unavoidable: under what moral authority should elected officials lift their incomes while many of the people they represent are forced into second jobs, rent-burdened households, or the sell-off of small buildings to well-capitalized investors?
Worse, the policy landscape in which this raise is being considered may itself be contributing to the economic pressure on small building owners and tenants. Regulatory changes, tax hikes, and new compliance costs — even when well-intentioned — can make it harder for small landlords to keep units affordable. The result: deferred maintenance, building sales, and in some cases, conversions to higher-end units that push longtime residents out. If city leadership is serious about helping New Yorkers who are struggling, the priority should be stabilizing housing, protecting tenants, supporting small property owners through targeted relief and sensible regulation — not enlarging their own paychecks.
There are principled, defensible ways to handle compensation for public servants. Pay should be transparent, tied to a clear formula (like an independent cost-of-living metric), and implemented with sensitivity to the public mood and the city’s economic circumstances. Raises should be phased in, subject to public review, and linked to performance and ethical standards. Most importantly, they should not be approved during a crisis or while related policies impose extra burdens on the very people who will bear their political consequences.
If the Council believes compensation prevents corruption and attracts qualified candidates, then show it: propose reforms that increase transparency, create independent oversight, and discuss alternative benefits that do not appear self-serving. A better path would be to couple any adjustment with concrete measures that directly help struggling New Yorkers — property tax relief for true small landlords, grants for building repairs, expanded renter protections, or caps and exemptions that prevent unintended displacement.
Elected office is not a job like any other. It’s a public trust. When members of the City Council vote to give themselves a raise while ordinary New Yorkers are forced to choose between food and medicine, between two shifts or sleep, they risk betraying that trust. Salary decisions should reflect service, sacrifice and solidarity — not timing, convenience, or political expediency.
Make this make sense, Council members. If you want buy-in from a city that is tired and stretched thin, start by listening. Put the needs of the many ahead of the comforts of the few. If you can’t, at least have the decency to wait until New Yorkers are not fighting for survival.
