New York City’s democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani has issued an ultimatum to Albany: tax the ultra-wealthy or face a “last resort” 9.5% property tax hike to plug a $5.4 billion deficit.

While Mamdani claims he’s protecting the working class, real estate insiders say the plan is a math-defying disaster that will drive up rents and accelerate the flight of taxpayers to low-tax states like Florida and Texas.

“Even the discussion of a 9.5% hike is enough to influence buyer behavior and cause irritations in the market,” Douglas Elliman’s Ben Jacobs told Fox News Digital. “Some buyers have considered Nassau, Westchester, Long Island, and even Florida or Texas as alternatives because they just don’t agree with [NYC] politics.”

“The mention of a 9.5% hike can pause decision-making, especially for those weighing options in the suburbs or out-of-state markets. We’re already seeing clients seriously evaluate alternatives in Nassau, Westchester and beyond, factoring taxes heavily into affordability calculations,” Michelle Griffith of Douglas Elliman also told Fox News Digital. “In some negotiations, this ‘Mamdani Effect’ is tangible, slowing deals or prompting buyers to consider properties outside NYC.”

WALL STREET CASH FUELS HAMPTONS HOUSING BOOM TO RECORD MEDIAN PRICE AMID TIGHT INVENTORY

Earlier this week, Mamdani issued a preliminary fiscal year 2027 budget that includes a property tax hike, a prospect he has described as a “last resort.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani held a press conference in Coney Island on Feb. 15, 2026. (Getty Images)

“Today, I’m releasing the City’s preliminary budget. After years of fiscal mismanagement, we’re staring at a $5.4 billion budget gap — and two paths. One: Albany can raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy and the most profitable corporations and address the fiscal imbalance between our city and state. The other, a last resort: balance the budget on the backs of working people using the only tools at the City’s disposal,” Mamdani said in a Tuesday post on X.

“Faced with no other choice, the city would have to exercise the only revenue lever fully within our own control. We would have to raise property taxes. We would also be forced to raid our reserves,” Mamdani additionally said during remarks Tuesday. “This would effectively be a tax on working and middle class New Yorkers, who have a median income of $122,000.”

Both agents warn that taxing high earners could trigger a further exodus of wealth, shrinking the tax base and eventually leaving middle-class families “holding the bag.”

“Higher corporate and wealth taxes can trigger a chain reaction,” Jacobs said. “Reduced investment and relocation of high earners shrink the city’s tax base, which often indirectly affects middle-class households. Even if they aren’t the direct target, over time these economic ripples can influence affordability, property values and access to services.”

“In many cases, property tax increases are eventually absorbed by tenants, particularly in rent-stabilized or market-rate units where landlords factor operating costs into pricing,” Griffith added. “While the Mayor’s promise of ‘rent stability’ is admirable, history shows that higher property taxes can translate into incremental rent increases fairly quickly, sometimes within a year. Working families may end up feeling the impact, even if it’s not immediate.”

Jacobs’ and Griffith’s respective clients allegedly also see the risks with Mamdani’s economic proposals.

“Many of my clients view a flat rate hike on a system they already consider inequitable as a Band-Aid solution. Buyers and sellers alike would likely welcome a complete reassessment overhaul that reflects true property values and promotes fairness,” Griffith explained. “Temporary spikes tend to create uncertainty in the market, whereas a transparent and balanced approach would stabilize it long-term.”

“A flat hike on a system already misaligned with true property values risks exacerbating inequity,” Jacobs said.

Real estate is a game of certainty, and Mamdani’s proposal has created the opposite as the agents look ahead to the future of NYC’s market.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

“Buyers and sellers are focused on long-term affordability and predictability. Without clear guidance on taxes and assessments, the market slows and buyers proceed with caution, which is especially true for middle-class families,” Jacobs said.

“Ultimately, buyers want predictability. When policy proposals create uncertainty, whether on taxes, rent or regulations, it directly impacts the market. People are not just looking at the sticker price of a property,” Griffith said. “Stability and transparency in tax and assessment policies are key to keeping NYC’s middle-class families confident in making big housing decisions.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani’s office for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

FOX Business’ Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Salford Council Conservative leader says stadium is “burning” cash but leaders say there is clear vision for venue’s future

Salford council is facing calls to sell the CorpAcq Stadium – amid claims it is ‘burning’ cash – and spend the money on fixing roads instead. The stadium company, CosCos, is controlled by the town hall after it completed a £7.7m deal with former co-owners Peel in late 2024.

It is home to rugby union club Sale Sharks as well as Salford’s phoenix rugby league team. The Conservative opposition group at Salford council said ownership of the stadium is costing £1.6m a year, according to the council’s finance department.

The Tories are calling for the council to begin the process of selling the ground and to put £1.6m a year towards a ringfenced fund to fix roads and pavements across the city.

The demand has been submitted as an amendment to the council’s budget which is being discussed at a meeting on February 25.

Coun Bob Clarke, leader of Salford Conservative group, said: “It’s outrageous, we couldn’t believe it when we saw the figures.

“I think the mayor had good intentions and wanted to do something for everybody, but if it’s burning through the best part of £1.6m a year, that’s not credible, especially when you ask for more money from the residents [through council tax] and they see this being burned.

“It’s an extra £6,500 a month per ward that we could spend on making things better for everybody, not just the few people that use the stadium. It doesn’t make sense, it’s £1.6m, it’s over £100,000 a month gone.”

A Salford Labour spokesperson defended the party’s move to take full ownership of the ground and surrounding land, which is also known as the Salford Community Stadium.

They said: “Salford Labour was re-elected in 2024 on a manifesto commitment to deliver a rugby strategy for the whole city. Taking full control of Salford Community Stadium is a key part of this vision, helping ensure that professional clubs from both codes continue to play in Salford.

“The stadium was also a key venue for the Women’s Rugby World Cup last year, and as part of our ownership we will continue to explore opportunities to use the stadium for other prestige events.

“The stadium also provides the foundation for improving the surrounding facilities to support greater grassroots participation in rugby. This will enable residents across the city to benefit from the sporting, social, health and economic advantages the sport brings.”

During the budget meeting next week councillors will also vote on proposals to increase council tax in Salford by 4.99 per cent, adding more than £100 to annual bills for people living in band D properties.

This is part of the council’s revenue budget used to pay for services across the city.

The Conservative group leader said he believes residents will be unhappy at how much the stadium is costing.

He added: “I’m sympathetic to the place the council is in with money after 14 years of cuts which I think went on too long, I was never a fan of it and I do sympathise, but when you see £1.6m a year being wasted something has to be done.

“When people find out what the stadium is losing they’ll be upset.”

When Salford council bought the stadium at the end of 2024, it was expected that land around the ground would be sold for development to finance the purchase.

The move was also seen as a lifeline for former rugby league club Salford Red Devils, but the club ended up being liquidated in 2025 over unpaid debts, ending 152 years of history.

Salford’s phoenix rugby league club continue to play at the stadium, but chief executive Ryan Brierley said in January that there is currently no deal in place with the council and that talks were ongoing.

The Conservative group amendment being debated next week states: ‘Salford City Council owns Salford Community Stadium, which continues to operate at a significant ongoing cost to our residents.

‘The stadium is currently estimated to make a loss of approximately £1.2 million, in addition to approximately £420,000 per year in lost interest on the amount of debt in relation to the stadium, resulting in a total annual cost to the Council of approximately £1.62 million.

‘This represents a substantial recurring financial burden at a time when residents face a 4.99pc increase in council tax, and when the council faces ongoing financial pressures.’

The amendment adds that the council could only sell the stadium in 2028 due to ‘existing financial and contractual arrangements’ in place, but called preparations to sell the ground to ‘begin immediately’.