Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani: Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to be here at Battery Park, the tip of Manhattan, alongside friends and partners as we celebrate a major victory for delivery workers across New York City. On January 26 of this year, our administration implemented new laws that forbade companies like Uber Eats and DoorDash from hiding tipping options on their apps. Today, we surpassed $104 million in tips paid to the delivery workers who keep our city fed.
I want to acknowledge a number of leaders we have here, both inside and outside of City government. We have our commissioner of DCWP, Sam Levine, [and] I want to thank him for all of DCWP's incredible work on this effort; Aboubacar Ki, an organizer with Los Deliveristas Unidos and Workers Justice Project, for sharing his story; our City Council Majority Leader Shaun Abreu, the sponsor of the legislation that made today's announcement possible; Council Member Harvey Epstein, chair of the Council's Consumer and Worker Protection Committee; and I want to thank Council Member Chris Marte for having us here in his beautiful district.
Now, every romcom lover knows that after the heart has broken and all seems lost, there's oftentimes only one thing left to do: order delivery. From "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" to "You've Got Mail," our heroine or hero is brought back to life by meals brought to their door. And as proof of their gratitude, they tip the delivery worker in cash. However, with the advent of apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats, these moments of connection between delivery workers and hopeless romantics have withered
In recent years, mega-corporations engineered design tricks in their interfaces to make it harder for New Yorkers to tip delivery workers - tricks like setting the default tip amount to below 10 percent in New York City, moving tipping prompts to hidden post-delivery screens. These ploys had their intended effect. While these companies raked in billions of dollars in revenue, the average tip at Uber Eats and DoorDash decreased from $3.66 per delivery to just $0.93. That is a 75 percent drop per delivery.
Anyone who has worked in food services or delivery knows just how essential tips are to make ends meet. But DoorDash and Uber Eats chose not to account for a simple truth. Instead, they made a bet. They bet that they could take advantage of the delivery workers who traverse our city in sleet and snow, who bike in extreme heat and flooding in order to keep New Yorkers fed. My friends, they bet wrong. Delivery workers may pedal through our streets on their own, but they are far from alone. When they weren't delivering food to doorsteps across the five boroughs, they were doing what New Yorkers do best: They were meeting up in parks and on street corners and in houses of worship. They were talking to one another, and they were organizing.
I've had the privilege of breaking fast, cheering on the Knicks, and standing shoulder to shoulder with many of these workers as they demand what they are owed. Since day one of our administration, City Hall has worked to ensure that dignity is accorded to every New Yorker, not just those who can afford it.
Since our new laws took effect six months ago, they have put delivery workers on track to receive an average annual increase of $2,287 paid to them in tips. That money is measured not only in bills that get paid with less dread and desperate math, but in less time spent biking on city streets just to be able to afford a meal of their own. It is also a return to transparency for the New Yorkers who rely on delivery services, from the harried father ordering an emergency pizza for family dinner, to "Sex and the City's" Miranda Hobbs eating chicken with broccoli and brown sauce while she watches her favorite show, Jules and Mimi. Today's $104 million victory is part of City Hall's larger effort to hold delivery apps and mega corporations accountable. On January 30th, DCWP ordered Uber Eats, Fantuan and Hungry Panda to pay more than $5 million back to nearly 50,000 delivery workers for pay rate violations. In April, DCWP won another $875,000 in restitution and penalties for more than 380 small restaurants across the city from Hungry Panda. And in our budget that was finalized in June, we increased DCWPs funding by $4.3 million so that we could increase staff to enforce these laws and better protect New Yorkers. The days of City Hall accepting corporate abuse as the cost of doing business here in New York City are over. Today's win stands as proof of that. And as I look to the advocates and city workers in this room, I am confident that more wins are on the way. Thank you very much. And now with that being said, I want to pass it over to our DCWP commissioner who has led an incredible team in delivering on these very kinds of wins for hundreds of thousands of workers across the city, Commissioner Sam Levine.
Samuel A. A. Levine, Commissioner, Department of Consumer and Worker Protection: Well, thank you, Mayor Mamdani, and good morning. It's great to be here alongside the mayor and Councilmember Marte, Chair Epstein, Chair Abreu - really an all-star team here of champions for New York City workers. And speaking of New York City workers, it's great to be here alongside just a few of the more than 70,000 delivery workers who keep this city running. These are the New Yorkers who brave the heat waves, traffic, fire, wildfire smoke and late nights so millions of us can have medicine, groceries or a meal delivered to our door. But today they're not here to work. They are here to celebrate. We are celebrating a historic victory: $104 million in additional earnings since January, when New York City banned delivery apps from concealing tip options from consumers. That is $17 million for every month under this administration. And by the end of this year, we expect delivery workers' earnings to increase by more than $180 million - as the mayor said, an average of $2,287 for every worker hustling across the five boroughs.
But today, we're celebrating something even bigger than higher pay. We're celebrating the strength of a movement that has made this victory possible. A movement powered not by corporate lobbyists or super PACs, but by ordinary people, the delivery workers in this room and across New York City who stood together and stopped billion-dollar tech platforms from using design tricks to drive down tips.
And this isn't just a win for delivery workers. It's proof that ordinary people can prevail over corporate power. It's proof that good laws matter, but only if government is willing to enforce them. And it's proof that the apps got something fundamentally wrong about New Yorkers. They wanted us to believe that paying workers fairly would drive customers away, that suppressing tips would scare these workers into submission, that raising standards for workers would come at the expense of our beloved restaurants, but it turns out these tech companies were wrong. Within one month of New York City banning these deceptive design tricks, tips nearly doubled. And far from being hurt, restaurants have seen orders surge by more than $700,000 each week compared to before the minimum pay rate took effect.
This shouldn't be a surprise. New Yorkers are consumers, but we are workers too. We want to support our neighbors who bring meals, groceries and medicine to our doors. We want New York's restaurants to thrive. We understand that when workers, consumers and small businesses are fighting over scraps, multi-billion-dollar app companies can quietly squeeze us all. Today's victory shows that ordinary people don't have to lose so billion-dollar companies can win. Together we can deliver a fairer economy for us all.
So, thank you again to the brave delivery workers who spoke out, often at great personal risk. Thank you to the Workers Justice Project for your relentless advocacy; to leader Shaun Abreu for championing this legislation, the reason we're here today; and to the extraordinary public servants at DCWP who ensured that this law will live up to its promise.
And lastly, let me thank Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Deputy Mayor Julie Su. Six months ago tomorrow, we stood at the Long Island City Food Hall and vowed we would go to the mat to ensure our worker protections translated into real dollars and real dignity for our workers. I think the record of this administration and the celebration we're having today shows that we have done just that. And I'll repeat what I said back then: There's a lot more to come. Thanks very much. And it is now my honor and pleasure to introduce Leader Shaun Abreu.
Majority Leader Shaun Abreu: Good morning, everyone. In 2023, a law passed by the City Council went into effect guaranteeing minimum pay for deliveristas. How do the delivery apps respond? By burying the tipping options for customers, causing deliveristas to lose out on over half a billion dollars in potential earnings. We fought back with a bill that restored tipping right at checkout. Well, the apps sued us. They said it wasn't fair, that it would be better for their bottom line if we allowed them to discourage customers from tipping the people who were bringing them dinner in the rain from across town. The courts - like the City Council, like our mayor, like DCWP - sided with the workers. And in the last six months alone, we've been able to claw back over nearly $100 million for our deliveristas. That's money deliveristas can put to use for food on their tables and to provide for their families. We know the fight isn't over. We won't stop until every deliverista gets every dollar they have earned. We will stand with them every step of the way. I want to thank Mayor Mamdani, Commissioner Levine for your continued enforcement and for being champions of deliveristas. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Levine: Thank you, Leader Abreu. And it's now my honor to introduce Chair Harvey Epstein.
Council Member Harvey Epstein: I just want to thank the commissioner and the mayor for the 60,000 delivery workers. This is a moment to reflect on. We're talking about $104 million so far this year, $184 million that's going back into the pockets of delivery workers. This is not a moment we can take lightly. This is a movement about sea change. This is a moment we talk about people who have power and [are] trying to exert their power over the powerlessness. And the City Council and the mayor are fighting back, fighting back since the beginning that they started, fighting back since we've gotten to the Council, fighting back with leaders like Council Member Shaun Abreu and Council Member Chris Marte to say that we see the workers, we're here with the workers, and we're going to fight for them.
This is just one win of many for delivery workers. There's an opportunity we have in the city to say people need to live here. What that means is they have to be able to afford here. So, we've talked about over $2,000 going back to each worker. What does that mean in their lives? For a person who's making on the average of $30,000 to $40,000 a year, this is a substantial amount of money. I'm really grateful for the partnership we've had with DCWP and the mayor to ensure that we talk about this in every industry. We're talking about it for small businesses like Hungry Panda; we're talking for delivery workers; we're taking about for junk fees. This is a City Council and administration that's planning to fight for New Yorkers. We talk all the time about an affordability crisis; this is how you solve affordability, getting money back into the pockets of people who need it the most. This is a big win for those workers. It's a big one for New Yorkers. I look forward to a lot more things to come. Thank you.
Commissioner Levine: And now it is my particular honor to introduce one of the leaders of the Deliverista Movement, Aboubacar Ki.
Aboubacar Ki: Good morning, everyone, my name is Aboubacar Ki and I have been working as a delivery worker in New York City for seven years. Like thousands of deliveristas across the city, I work long hours in the heat, the cold, the rain and the snow to support my family and serve New Yorkers. Delivery work is one of the most dangerous jobs in the city and we know New Yorkers appreciate the work we do. Tipping is part of New York City culture. Every day, more than 80,000 delivery workers provide an essential service, and customers want to recognize their work. But after delivery workers won a historic minimum pay law, the app company retaliated. Instead of respecting the law, they changed the app in a way that made it much harder for customers to leave tips. That wasn't just unfair to workers, it was unfair to customers, too. New Yorkers want to thank the people delivering their meal; the company stood in the way. Those design [changes] cost delivery workers an estimated $550 million in tips - money that should have gone to the worker who earn it and help support our family.
But workers didn't stay silent. Through Los Deliveristas Unidos, with the worker usage project, we organized, we spoke out, we share our story, we demand that the company stop interfering with how we get paid and stop punishing worker for standing up for our right to dignify livelihood. We're grateful that New York City Council listened to delivery worker and passed the tipping transparency law last year. We're grateful that the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection has worked tirelessly to enforce that law. And we're grateful that Mayor Mamdani and Commissioner Levine have shown we stand with working people and are committed to making this right real in our daily life. Today, it's another chapter in the story this administration is helping to write; one where workers organize, government and working people, and our rights are not only won, but enforced. Securing $104 million more in tips for daily worker is a major victory. It's correct analysis and [inaudible] harm inflicted on [a] worker by app company that have proven they weren't willing to help working people to protect their own profit.
Today, victory sends a clear message. The living worker are not standing alone; we are partners and allies in the City Council at the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. And in this mayor, who has shown they will stand with us, and enforce the law we fought so hard to win. When those companies try to take away our dignity, they should know they are not facing workers alone. They are facing a city united behind the people who keep this city running. Every time they try to weaken our right, we will organize and fight back. Every time they put profit in [the] way of workers, we'll stand together until every daily worker is treated with dignity, respect and justice we deserve. Thank you.
[Crosstalk.]
Question: The report that the DCWP came out with today said that average wages are up after these protections went into place, but that wages are still lower than they were pre-December 2023. Are you planning any other additional steps to get wages back up to what they were before the apps changed their designs? And what are some of those steps that you can take?
Mayor Mamdani: I think first and foremost, I'd say that today is one announcement that is part of a larger vision that we have in our administration, and also at DCWP specifically, of how we can ensure that dignity is accorded to each and every New Yorker. And when we're talking about delivery workers, we're taking about people who are putting themselves through the worst kind of conditions. The moments where we are telling New Yorkers that they should be staying home, oftentimes the ones who are keeping them fed are these delivery workers who don't have that ability to do the same thing. And so yes, we are going to look not only at ensuring that delivery workers are receiving the tips that they used to receive - prior to attempted tricks with design interface redesigns - and also beyond that at every single tool at our disposal. Commissioner, I'm not sure if there's anything you'd want to add.
Commissioner Levine: If I may just briefly, so just to clarify, wages for workers are up very substantially since the minimum pay rate was passed, more than $2 billion; total hourly earnings up from $10.48 to more than $27 an hour. You're right that the tipping amount is lower - it's now up in 2026, thanks to Leader Abreu's legislation. But we have seen that some of the biggest increases in deliverista wages in the United States, thanks to the hard work of the people in this room.
Question: Can you please respond to the concerns that have been raised about the fact that there are no longer any Jewish people on your committee to appoint judges? You didn't apparently appoint any of the 18 who were Jewish, and some Jewish legal groups are asking you to address that, to reverse that. Is this a concern? Was it an oversight? And if nothing else, does this present an appearance problem for you at a time when some Jewish New Yorkers are feeling suspicious about your views?
Mayor Mamdani: So, in my six months of being the mayor, I've had the privilege of appointing a dozen qualified judges from a range of backgrounds, including Jewish judges. And I want to be clear that any suggestion that the composition of the advisory committee was motivated by religion is false. And when it comes to, in that same letter, there was a point around Mr. Leventhal and his appointment, as to why it was not considered. I want to be very clear that we decided not to move forward with his appointment because of the fact that he served on Ghislaine Maxwell's legal defense team and collected legal fees as such. And as much as possible we thought it best to avoid any association between the committee that would be appointing judges and the Epstein world, especially given how much of a loss of faith it has created for many New Yorkers and Americans generally in our legal and our political system.
Question: And just to follow up quickly, were you aware when you put out this list - which touted that it was diverse and representative of the city as a whole - were aware that there was no one Jewish on the panel? And did it come up in conversation? Or was it something you were unaware of until the reporting or the letter?
Mayor Mamdani: I did not ask for the religion of each of the person that was put forward. As you know, as the mayor and our administration, we put forward about half of those nominees. The other half were put forward by other entities. And the thing that matters most to me is that in the judges that have been appointed and reappointed, that they do reflect that diversity of New York City, and that diversity includes Jewish New Yorkers and we've seen that with the appointments thus far.
Question: Sir, I'd like you to elaborate on that, if you would, please. Because I am a little puzzled by this. Given the amount of criticism you've received from some members in the city's Jewish community, doesn't even the appearance that you were deliberately excluding qualified Jewish attorneys from the committee, doesn't even the appearance of that bother you?
Mayor Mamdani: I think the suggestion that there would be any decision-making motivated by religion - it does bother me. This is a city that is beautiful because of the breadth of diversity of those who call it home. And that includes the Jewish community across the five boroughs. And when it comes to the proposal of a lawyer being someone that would be on that committee, when we find out that they served on Ghislaine Maxwell's legal defense team, that was a moment of concern. I think, as I've said in these six months, I've had the opportunity to appoint and reappoint about a dozen judges. In those appointments and reappointments, there have been Jewish judges that have been appointed and reappointed, and that will continue because of a mere fact that that is a reflection of what this city looks like.
Question: I have two transit questions, Mayor Mamdani. So, I think just this morning, there was a teenager riding an illegal e-bike off of the Brooklyn Bridge, right outside City Hall, who was killed in what I believe is a collision with a car. And I wanted you to talk about - this is not the first time in recent weeks or months that we've seen a bad collision involving an e-bike. And I wanted to ask you about what are the ideas that your administration has to promote better regulation and safety around these e-bikes, particularly when it comes to ones that are illegal. How does the city prohibit people from riding the illegal bikes? Or do you think that that is the issue? And then my second question was, it was reported that Andy Byford was at City Hall yesterday to talk about the Penn Station redevelopment - is the city going to chip in any money toward that redevelopment? And also, what do you think about President Trump wanting to rename the station after himself?
Mayor Mamdani: I am more interested in what the station would be able to deliver to New Yorkers than what we call that station. I think that we speak about our city as a world-class city, and we know that in order to earn that description, we have to be able provide world-class service at every single juncture, and there is still much to be done when it comes to ensuring that's the case when New Yorkers experience Penn Station.
To your first question. My thoughts at this time, first and foremost, are with the family of that teenager. We're talking about a 17-year-old New Yorker who is now dead. And that is something that we should all mourn when we see that a family will have to live with that tragedy hovering over their lives for not just weeks or months, but, frankly, years and decades to come. And when it comes to safety, it has to be the paramount decision-making framework for us whenever it comes to our streetscape.
I've long said, and I continue to believe, that we cannot have a hierarchy of safety on the basis of what mode of transit you use. You should be just as safe whether you're driving a car, walking, riding a bike, getting on a bus or getting on the train. And our focus has by and large been on the question of infrastructure to ensure that that safety is delivered because we know that oftentimes the absence or the presence of infrastructure is the determinative factor when it comes to what happened this morning. That's something that I'm going to follow up on for more details about.
Question: Would it be looking at redesigning that bike path?
Mayor Mamdani: I think it is - that is part of it. I also think that when it goes into the question of illegal e-bikes, there is also a conversation to be had both at the city level and at the state level about what kind of legislative avenues we can take to ensure that only the safest methods of transit and the ones that are legally permissible are the ones that are actually being used across New York City.
Question: I have two questions about the second home tax. So, the letters that were sent out -
[Crosstalk.]
Question: So, the PAT tax, as I call it. The Department of Finance sent letters to people who, for example, I spoke to a woman who lives in a co-op. She already gets a condo and co-op tax abatement that the Department of Finance is aware of, yet they still send her this letter. Could the Department of Finance have done more due diligence and [used] a stronger filter before sending out letters, especially if people thought maybe there wasn't enough time to know this has to be someone's primary residence because they already get this co-op condo tax abatement?
And the second part of that is with co-ops and condos. Taxes are paid collectively as a condo, and I was told by someone at the Department of Finance that if there's one second-home neighbor who doesn't, let's say, refuse to pay, that gets fined collectively. Could someone shine some light about that and how this will be applied specifically to co-ops and condos, which, especially co-ops, are kind of unique within New York City, of how that will apply if your next-door neighbor has it as a second home and all the taxes are paid collectively.
Mayor Mamdani: So, I'll answer the first question and then pass it over to our commissioner for additional details. What I would say is that the Department of Finance identified homes that may be subject to the surcharge. As we know, this is a surcharge on non-primary residences that are worth more than $5 million. And as required by the law, the Department of Finance sent informational resources to homeowners to ensure that they understood the tax [and] that they understood the options before them and also, if they did not believe it to apply to them, that they had the time in order to be able to appeal.
Richard Lee, Commissioner, Department of Finance: As the mayor indicated, we did use existing information to identify impacted homeowners for the non-primary resident surcharge. In the specific example that you gave, we can look into exactly what happened, but we used existing information that we have, and it could have been that we don't have updated information on the applications, the filings [and] the exemptions, but we did use all the available information that we had in order to determine the residency status. And this is the period in time in which we are working with New Yorkers that are impacted to ensure that we are only charging the non-primary resident surcharge on those that should be impacted.
On your second question regarding the co-ops, we are aware of this, and we are reaching out to each of the individual co-op developments so they can better this process. It is a new little bit of a new territory for us because of the way the surcharge is designed, but as we start those discussions with those co-op developments, we're happy to give an update.
Question: Why put the onus on the homeowner when I'm sure it's not like a simple computer search? But if they're getting that tax abatement, which is filed through the state, wouldn't you know if that's their primary residence? That's usually how - I mean - that's how the city looks for fraud if you're getting some kind of co-op or condo abatement.
Commissioner Lee: Yes, and many times those applications are not up-to-date or aren't refiled, right? And so that might be one of the indicators that is happening. And it is entirely possible in that scenario. And this process was designed so that during this period, we at [the] Department of Finance and the city provide all the resources we can to walk individuals through. They can access Department of Finance by calling us. We have constituent services that are ready to help individuals like we already have been for the last week. They can access our website nyc.gov/ptsurcharge or they could even call 311 - 311 is already at the helm, ready to help individuals walk into [the] process like again. We want to ensure that through this new surcharge, we are only impacting those that should be impacted.
Question: I just want to push a little bit on pied-à-terre because you've talked often about not just delivering policy but delivering good government-
Mayor Mamdani: Yes.
Question: There does appear to be the ball getting dropped here. Your commissioner just mentioned using existing resources; [a] number of neighbors of mine ended up on the list. They've lived there for decades. Their homes are worth well below $5 million. And so, we're talking about pretty straightforward information that was missed. How did it happen, and again, why should New Yorkers be tasked with fixing this?
Mayor Mamdani: So first, I just want to ask you, when you say, "on the list," are you speaking about the property tax roll or receiving the letter?
Question: On the special surcharge list that exists on the website, although they did not necessarily receive mail, for clarity.
Mayor Mamdani: So, I just want to - for the sake of clarity - establish a few things. The first is, and the reason for establishing this is some of them have been conflated. The first is that just like localities from Nassau to Albany, we publish property tax rolls in accordance with the law, as the city has done twice a year for years, frankly, if not decades and centuries. And the tax property role that was posted last week is a reflection of all properties across New York City, not a reflection of those specifically that the pied-à-terre tax will be levied upon. And that is an important distinction because as you've heard from the commissioner, the pied-à-terre tax is something that will be levied upon non-primary residences that are worth more than $5 million.
When it comes to the recently passed law, there was a requirement to publish this role once again before the implementation of this surcharge.
Now, to the other point. We [also] made the decision to invest in the hiring of dozens of additional civil servants at both [the] Department of Finance and at OATH to ensure that there is work also being done from within City government to establish any of the points of tension that there may be in the assessments of this. What we have heard when we're having this conversation around the pied-à-terre, it's not just the question of properties that are worth more than $5 million of non-primary residents. We also have some New Yorkers who have made the decision to register their property as a trust or as an LLC.
And part of the point of this outreach from the Department of Finance is to ascertain whether or not that reflects a primary residence or not. And one of the reasons that this is being done now is to ensure that New York has [the] requisite time before the implementation of the surcharge. They have until next March to be able to go back and forth with the department to ensure that this has an accurate reflection of that.
Question: But for clarity here, so there was the full list published; under that there was a supplemental list for types one and types two, three [and] four. If you're on that supplemental list and you didn't get mail, you're not necessarily subject to this. Is that what you're saying?
Commissioner Lee: So, the supplemental roll, which was provided as required, was all residential properties already on the final role. So, you will find even myself on this supplemental roll, because I am a homeowner, right? So, it is all residential properties on this supplemental role. It is the misconception that it is a targeted, specific list of those impacted by the non-primary resident surcharge. is false. It is the entire roll, as we have done for the last number of decades. As part of the final roll, the information is exactly the same, right? So, it is not that specific.
Question: I wanted to follow up on some of Liz's questions about the bike crash earlier this morning. I know this wouldn't necessarily directly apply, but we reported earlier this year that the admin had stepped in to prevent facial recognition technology for Citi Bikes for minors under 16. I'm wondering, I know what happened this morning, but is that a conversation about age restrictions and access to e-bikes for teens? Is that something you intend to revisit with Citi Bikes/Lyft?
Mayor Mamdani: Just to be clear, what happened this morning was an illegal e-bike, as Liz said?
Question: It wasn't a Citi Bike, but I'm just wondering if - given this conversation around safety?
Mayor Mamdani: I think that I only want to be clear about it just because of - first, our focus on what happened this morning, [and] second, when it comes to anything that we can do to ensure that New Yorkers are safe, that is always something we will consider. Our concerns as it pertained to facial recognition with age verification for e-bike use from Citi Bike was all of the different kind of data that would be collected by these kinds of companies and the inability for those companies to provide the requisite commitments as to how they would protect all of that data. This is something that is especially pertinent at a time when we've seen data leaks at various levels of government. We wanted to make sure that our kids are not being subject to that for something that we are not yet able to prove a clear connection when it comes to safety, like this morning.
Question: And then I had a follow-up question on your announcement, the budget savings yesterday. I know you are approaching this with the survey. I'm wondering: Is the city going to make these cuts based solely on the survey? Is the city gonna be bound to any of those - the findings from the surveys - or is that just one factor the city is taking into consideration?
Mayor Mamdani: The survey is one part of how we are going to assess the different ways in which we can better deliver efficiency and excellence. And one of the reasons that we sent out this survey to city workers is we believe: Who knows the city's functioning better than those who work every single day to make it possible? And so, some of the findings we anticipate will be the kinds of particular things that only a worker could know if they've been working on it for years, if not decades. Other things might also gesture to a need to reframe the way in which we approach any one of the larger topics that the city does work in. When it comes to the savings plan, we are speaking about a 2.5 percent set of savings that we are putting forward as our goal. And what's important about doing so now is that we're also giving agencies and departments the time to reflect on it, as opposed to having this conversation only within the context of the budget process itself.
Question: Maybe you or the commissioner can answer this question. About how many letters did you actually send out to property owners informing them that they may be potentially subject to the pied-à-terre tax?
Mayor Mamdani: We can get back to you on the specific number. What I do know is that it is a very small fraction of the property rolls that we have put forward thus far.
Question: And should property owners be concerned about the rollout of this, about whether the tax will be implemented fairly or accurately? Should property owners be concerned about that?
Mayor Mamdani: No, we are committed to ensuring that this is a tax only levied upon those Whose second homes are worth more than $5 million, and the reason that we wanted to conduct outreach months in advance of when the tax would be levied would be to ensure that that exact premise would be fulfilled.
Commissioner Lee: We are we're happy to get back to you on the exact number, but right now it is a very small percentage.
Question: I saw your face on the cover of the New York Post yesterday. Not sure if you saw it yourself.
Mayor Mamdani: I haven't seen it yet.
Question: About the pied-à-terre, "Pied-à-Terrorize the Rich." You know, this misinformation was really spreading that the city had put out some sort of hit list against rich people. In retrospect, do you think there was a better way that the city could have rolled out the information around this tax and the tax list, there being kind of a public one and a smaller, more private one that we're unsure the number of. What can you say about that?
Mayor Mamdani: I think as I've shared, what we did is following through with the law as it stands and it's what localities do across the state and it is also what the city has done. And we also know that when we do that, sometimes there are many people for whom it might be their first time in engaging with what the city is delivering on an annual basis. And part of the reason that we wanted to make sure that the letters were being sent out was also to ensure that any New Yorker who would have any questions about this would have the requisite time and the requisite staff that they could connect with to ensure that the final process would reflect that.
Question: I have a question for the mayor and the commissioner, and to the commissioner's point that there was a misconception, I think the misconception was on your agency. It says in the supplemental role: "This role includes those properties that may be subject to the surcharge." Do you owe the thousands and thousands of people some kind of explanation for the anxiety it caused, thinking they might have to have a tax, and then have to go fight City Hall to prove they are exempt with information the city should already have? Where is the excellence in that in government that you've promised?
Commissioner Lee: So, the website indicated that it is a supplemental role of all residential properties that may be impacted and all residential property is the only ones that are impacted. We didn't submit a supplemental roll for commercial properties or vacant properties. And so, we did exactly as we were mandated to provide an updated supplemental role of potentially impacted properties, which is all residential. And on the website, it indicates that that it is a list that may or may not include those impacted by the non-primary resident surcharge. I mean, so we-
Question: People are upset, right? Like, you get it? You get the anxiety?
Commissioner Lee: But the only individual, so the individuals that are impacted are the ones that are going to be receiving a you-may-be-impacted letter, at which point we provide a number of resources to help those impacted respondents to get through the process to see if they do qualify or should be exempt from the surcharge because of one reason or another, being a primary resident because they are currently living there under a trust, or it could be a family member, maybe their parents own the property, and they are out of state but their child was living there, or it could be that we just didn't have the information because a spouse was deceased and the property was under their spouse and we just don't know whether or not the individual living there now is the property owner. There's a number of reasons why we might have a lot of these edge cases and we knew that it would, but that's why we have the committed resources to do so and help these individuals go through the process in order to ensure that only those impacted will be impacted. We have until the end of August, August 21 and August 24, for those to come to Department of Finance to show their residency or exemption. But we also have the Tax Commission, who is going to be taking these appeals all day through next March. So, we are trying to build in as much resources to help as many impacted respondents as we can to walk into the process and ensure that only those who are supposed to be surcharged are surcharged. Thank you, everyone.
Mayor Mamdani: I think we're always going to do everything that we can to ensure that we're communicating clearly to New Yorkers and I think that what we found thus far is when it comes to these letters being sent out, it is anyone that the city believes may be subject to the surcharge and now the work will begin to ensure if someone has registered their property in a trust or they've registered their properties in an LLC and they are in fact the primary residence holder there, that that is something that is communicated with the city. We've put the investment and we're putting in the time now to ensure that come next year, this tax is only levied on those who are non-primary residences that are worth more than $5 million. Thank you all very much.
