Aspirants for Lower Manhattan City Council Seat Reply to Broadsheet Queries
Tomorrow (Tuesday, June 24) is the primary election. The Broadsheet submitted an identical set of ten questions to each of the four Democratic candidates for the City Council seat representing District 1 (an aggregation of neighborhoods mostly below Canal, Houston, and Delancey Streets): incumbent Christopher Marte, and challengers Jess Coleman, Elizabeth Lewinsohn, and Eric Yu. (For this race, the heavily “blue” political landscape of Lower Manhattan usually makes the nod of the Democratic party tantamount to winning the wider contest, and often relegates the actual election, in November, to the status of a near formality.) The answers of these four candidates are appended below.
Broadsheet: What is the biggest single reason you are running for City Council?
Marte: I’m running for re-election because our communities are not for sale. This cycle, we’ve seen over $500,000 spent on attack ads from the special interests that are accustomed to controlling our district. Whether they’re coming from Vornado, a developer who is trying to build a new luxury tower in Independence Plaza, or billionaire Bill Ackman, who’s a proud Trump ally, special interests are doing everything they can to smear our campaign because of how much they fear our platform and what we’ve achieved. In my first four years in office, there hasn’t been a single decision I have made where the profit of big developers and corporations came before the needs of our communities. Taking on these special interests isn’t just why I’m running, it’s also why others are running against me.
Coleman: Housing. We’re facing a historic shortage, with a 1.4% vacancy rate—the lowest in half a century. That’s driving up rents, forcing out longtime residents, and making it harder for the next generation to stay. But instead of taking decisive, bold action, we still cater to loud minorities who seek to block every new development. We still have outdated zoning, parking mandates, and a permitting process that slows down even good projects. I’m running to help fix that. We need to build more housing—especially near transit—so that teachers, seniors, young families, and essential workers can afford to live here. I’m running because I believe we can grow thoughtfully, preserve what we love, and make sure this remains a place people can actually afford to call home.
Yu: I want New York City to be “well-run.” We deserve a back-to-basics focus on city services — to ensure these agencies (including the MTA) provide effective, efficient and reliable services — for its residents and businesses to have the opportunity to thrive. Since the COVID pandemic, there has been the ignoring of the increased reported (and unreported) crime on the streets and the subways. There has also been increased surveillance, restrictions on how we live, and taxing by local and state government in our lives, e.g. speed, bus lane, bike lane and red-light cameras, car-horn monitors, Local Laws 87 and 97, Congestion Pricing (aka mobility tax), prohibition on natural gas for new buildings, etc., while our quality of life diminishes. The reckless decision for a low-barrier men’s homeless shelter being planned (now in-contract) literally next door to the Peck Slip Elementary School was another reason.
Lewinsohn: I’ve spent my entire career working to keep New Yorkers safe. After September 11, 2001, I served as Director of Policy and Plans for the NYPD’s Counterterrorism Bureau, where I helped negotiate the security plan for the World Trade Center site. As chair of Gotham Park, I secured millions to create new, accessible green space. And on Community Board 1, I’ve spent over a decade fighting for better city services and real accountability. I’m running for office to make our streets safer — not with slogans, but with real leadership. That means fully funding public safety agencies, supporting community policing, and working with community leaders to prevent crimes before they happen—so families, seniors, and small business owners feel protected and respected in their own neighborhoods. It also means addressing the root causes of instability. We must invest in wraparound services for the unhoused—mental health care, substance use treatment, housing navigation, and job support—so people in crisis get the help they need, and our public spaces are safe and welcoming for everyone. I’m not a career politician. I’m a mother, a neighbor, and a public servant ready to get things one.
Broadsheet: What do you believe your leadership can provide that would not be offered by any other candidate?
Lewinsohn: I bring a unique combination of deep local experience, proven leadership, and a personal stake in the future of our community. I’ve spent over a decade on Community Board 1, chairing key committees and listening directly to neighbors. I’ve led real change as Chair of Gotham Park, transforming neglected public space into something beautiful and useful. And I’ve worked at the highest levels of public safety as Director of Policy for the NYPD’s Counterterrorism Bureau. But what truly sets me apart is that I’m the only woman and mother in this race. I understand what’s at stake for families trying to stay in Lower Manhattan — whether it’s safety, affordability, or protecting our schools and environment. My leadership is grounded in service, not ambition. I’m not here to posture. I’m here to deliver.
Marte: We have achieved a unifying coalition that can not be replicated. Too often, each neighbor and neighborhood are pitted against each other and told there’s not enough to go around. But when I got elected in 2021, it was through overwhelming support from Battery Park City to Chinatown. As Council member, I’ve built new school playgrounds at JHS56 on the Lower East Side and renovated the auditorium at PS234 in Tribeca. I’ve funded senior centers from Independence Plaza to Southbridge Towers. I’ve been able to listen and lead with powerful community activists from almost every block in our diverse district, and have a track record to prove it.
Coleman: I bring both experience and a bold, fresh voice. I’ve served five years on Community Board 1, where I’ve been a consistent advocate for safer streets, more housing, and better public spaces. I’ve supported policies like congestion pricing, the City of Yes zoning reforms, and outdoor dining — not because they’re always popular, but because they’re necessary to keep our city livable and sustainable. I’ve also shown I’m willing to stand firm, even when it means breaking with the loudest voices or entrenched interests. This district needs someone who knows how city policy actually works, but who also brings fresh energy and a clear point of view. I’m not interested in preserving the status quo — I’m running to move us forward with practical solutions and a commitment to long-term thinking. Lower Manhattan deserves someone who listens, and leads with a vision in mind, not the next election.
Yu: This doesn’t guarantee success, and I have made mistakes in my life, but my professional life is guided by the values of honor, courage and commitment. These values are applicable to public service, where the voters must have confidence their elected representatives will act with honor, courage and commitment on their behalf for the collective interest, while also valuing individual rights.
Broadsheet: Community Board 1 has repeatedly said it welcomes new homeless shelters in Lower Manhattan, provided that City Hall consults the community and emphasizes family shelters. How do you think this process can be handled better?
Yu: The awarding and siting of New York City-funded homeless shelters through an emergency request-for-proposal (RFP) process is fraught with back-room negotiations, and without legitimate public comment and concurrence by other local officials. This allows the Mayor and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) to bypass the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, which requires a timeline for approval or rejection from other elected officials. The budget for DHS is $3.5 billion. How is the taxpayer’s money being spent? Is New York City’s shelter system a “revolving door”? The metric is not how many people are in the shelter system. It must be how many people are transitioning to independence. In response to the low-barrier men’s homeless shelter (in contract) to be next door to the Peck Slip School, Community Board 1 passed a resolution demanding DHS to require a 500-foot minimum separation for low-barrier homeless shelters from schools. Affordable housing or a family shelter is requested.
Lewinsohn: Lower Manhattan — and especially Chinatown — has shouldered a disproportionate share of the city’s shelter system. We absolutely need more shelters citywide, but it’s simply unrealistic and unfair for one Council district to bear the bulk of that responsibility. I believe strongly in a fair and transparent process. That means meaningful community input, not after-the-fact announcements. It means focusing on shelters that serve families and vulnerable populations — not warehousing people without support. As a Council member, I’ll work closely with my colleagues and the Mayor’s Office to ensure that other districts contribute to the solution. We need to expand shelter capacity across the five boroughs and build supportive housing in communities that have the resources to help people rebuild their lives. Compassion must be matched with fairness—and right now, Lower Manhattan is not being treated fairly.
Marte: Community Board 1 has a list of viable sites that would be suitable for a shelter — but instead, the administration keeps blundering locations. The corruption in our shelter systems and how they are sited is well-documented. While at the same time, we see how properly located shelters can become great assets to our communities. The family shelters for migrants that opened a few years ago boosted our public school enrollment, and it has been great to work with these families as they settle into our communities, both in and out of the shelter system. However, I have been constantly urging and reasoning with Deputy Mayors and Commissioners to rethink a men’s shelter directly adjacent to 320 Pearl Street, and have been able to secure the indefinite postponement of the Spruce Street shelter. There are other locations for these facilities that could serve the residents and their new neighbors.
Coleman: The city needs to start with transparency. Communities should be part of the process from day one, not left reacting to decisions after they’re made. At the same time, local leaders have to engage in good faith—not just say “no” and expect to be taken seriously. I support Safe Haven shelters: they’re smaller, supportive, and tailored to people who are most in need. But we can’t keep concentrating shelters in a few neighborhoods while others opt out. If we want to reduce street homelessness, we need a citywide solution—with fair distribution, strong services, and meaningful community input. Lower Manhattan is willing to step up, and City Hall should meet us with the respect and communication we deserve.
Broadsheet: The construction of a new jail at the site of the former Manhattan Detention Complex has been controversial, with many local residents (especially in Chinatown) feeling lied to and cut out of the process. How would you address these concerns?
Coleman: The process was flawed from the start — residents were left in the dark, and legitimate concerns were dismissed. I don’t support building a massive jail in a residential neighborhood, especially in the middle of a housing crisis. We should close Rikers, yes — but simply scattering smaller jails across the boroughs doesn’t fix the underlying problems. We need to reduce the jail population by clearing case backlogs, expanding drug courts, and ending technical parole violations. That’s how we shrink the need for jail space — and how we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Going forward, I’d push for a process that actually listens to the community, and for policies that tackle the root causes of mass incarceration instead of just reshuffling it around.
Yu: Borough-based jails lack the capacity to meet future needs, and their proximity to densely populated neighborhoods raises public safety concerns, especially in the event of escapes or disturbances. It is also inhumane to confine people to a building versus providing an opportunity to be outdoors where they can see natural greenery. More importantly, new buildings do not solve the real problem. What’s needed is not new locations, but transparency, and operational reform. Rikers Island offers the space and separation needed to house inmates securely, while addressing long-standing issues in correctional oversight. I suspect there is a private entity seeking to purchase Rikers island for development. Rikers must remain open with transparency. I would pursue a change to the 2019 law, to keep Rikers functioning, and to make Rikers available [for] public inspection and review. The local residents in Chinatown are being sacrificed to institute a flawed policy.
Lewinsohn: What started as a plan for a “modern, humane jail” has turned into a $3.7 billion boondoggle and the community is right to be outraged. Just because the demolition has already happened doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept what comes next. We owe it to the next generation to hit pause and take a hard, honest look at this project before any more damage is done. That starts with a full public audit. Where is the money going? What alternatives were seriously considered? Why is this plan still moving forward when the people most affected have been raising red flags from the very beginning? Chinatown and Lower Manhattan have already carried more than their fair share of the City’s infrastructure burdens, from jails to shelters to construction sites that seem never-ending. Our community deserves a voice and respect. I am optimistic about the new plans proposed to move the jail to the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center, but there needs to be more in-depth conversations with the federal government, city government, and our neighbors on Park Row before moving forward. Any future development on this site must be scaled appropriately, shaped by real community input and guided by transparency every step of the way. Otherwise, we’re just repeating the same top-down mistakes that have already hurt residents and fractured trust.
Marte: I am the only person running for this position that has been on the ground organizing against this unjust proposal since it was first presented. I co-founded an advocacy organization dedicated specifically to fight the jail, helped develop lawsuits, installed air quality monitors, and as Council member, I’ve been able to cause enough road blocks that construction has still not begun. If any open dialogue was had with the community before this project began, then we would have absolutely seen adaptive-reuse of the existing facility. It’s not that stakeholders weren’t given a seat at the table, it’s that there should have never been a table to begin with. I have deep ties in the Chinatown community with both the long-time activists, but also property owners, small business owners, and the hundreds of workers that keep Chinatown humming on a daily basis. No process, let alone decision, should even begin without an assembled coalition.
Broadsheet: Community leaders often cite the metric that Lower Manhattan has lost more affordable housing inventory in the last 25 years than any other district in New York State. Do you agree that this is a problem, and how would you work to mitigate it?
Marte: The massive displacement crisis is what propelled me to run for office. Rent-stabilized apartments from the Lower East Side to the Financial District are becoming market-rate due to expiring abatements and shady landlords. To stop homelessness, and to protect the very fabric of our communities, we must stop displacement and build new, truly affordable housing. I’ve been successful in supporting the opening of new affordable housing buildings on Broome Street that even have units set aside for those living in our shelter system, and have new developments to be announced soon. At the same time, my office has helped thousands of tenants stop illegal evictions and remain in their homes. Sometimes these cases take weeks and other times years, but the evictions we have stopped are some of the most impactful work we’ve done in office.
Coleman: It’s a real problem, and a predictable result of bad policy. Programs like 421-a allowed affordability to expire, and now we’re seeing the consequences. I support stronger tools like 485x and 467m, which require permanent affordability. I also backed City of Yes — even as our incumbent Council member opposed it — which is the largest plan for the creation of affordable housing in the history of this city. It’s easy to demand “affordability” in theory, but if we don’t pair that with viable policy, we’ll keep languishing. The solution is to build more housing citywide, especially in areas near transit, and to ensure we’re using every available tool, from tax incentives to social housing, to deliver lasting, income-targeted housing.
Yu: I support affordable housing to provide people with lower income to have decent housing, and also to provide socio-economic diversity in neighborhoods. Increased housing costs reflect the demand to live in Lower Manhattan due to neighborhood vibrancy and close proximity to economic opportunity (aka jobs). I would retain existing rent-controlled and -stabilized apartments. However, the current programs of offering developers financial incentives to provide affordable apartments, is not truly affordable. With the high Area Median Income (AMI) for neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan, these apartments are not truly affordable. Instead of selling city-owned property to developers for rental-units, I propose creating limited equity cooperatives instead of rentals. This ensures all units will remain affordable for low- and middle-income people, and residents will have ownership rights in the building in which they live. Penn South Mutual Redevelopment Houses is a successful example.
Lewinsohn: The single greatest opportunity we have is converting vacant and underutilized office buildings into permanently affordable housing — and building on public land, especially city-owned lots that are sitting empty or underused. We also need to stop the bleeding. That means strengthening rent stabilization, strengthening tenant protections, preventing illegal conversions, and using every tool we have to preserve the affordability that’s left. As a Council member, I’ll fight to ensure our neighborhood isn’t just a place for the gentrifiers — but one where families, seniors, and working people can actually afford to live and stay.
Broadsheet: What is your view of the massive new residential complexes planned for Five World Trade Center, Independence Plaza, and 100 Gold Street? What givebacks, concessions or amenities (if any) should the community insist on? Do you think any (or all) of these projects should be opposed, rather than negotiated over?
Lewinsohn: Every project must start with this question: Who is this housing for? Lower Manhattan has seen too much luxury development that drives up costs and displaces working families. That cannot continue. At Five World Trade Center, I support the push for significantly more deeply affordable units — especially for September 11 survivors, frontline workers, and those who helped rebuild the city. It’s public land and a public process, so the community should absolutely demand public benefit. Azt Independence Plaza and 100 Gold Street, any proposed changes must protect existing tenants and affordability. If developers are seeking new entitlements or zoning changes, the community must insist on givebacks — like permanently affordable housing, public open space, or investments in schools and transit. If developers refuse to meet the basic needs of the community — or if the project causes more harm than benefit — we should say no. But our goal should always be to shape development to serve the public good, not corporate profit.
Marte: I have been a long-time supporter of 100 percent affordable housing at Five World Trade Center and am proud that while we didn’t meet our full demand, we ensured that there will be units that match the income levels of working people and first responders. I am adamantly against the Independence Plaza proposal because of the devastating impact it would have on the senior center and surrounding residents, while I am simultaneously ready to push for more affordable housing in this area. The last thing Tribeca needs is another market rate luxury tower. As public land, 100 Gold must be 100 percent affordable housing.
Coleman: Each project is different — but overall, I support building more housing. Five World Trade Center includes 30 percent affordable housing, which required major state subsidies and years of organizing. Independence Plaza can be built as-of-right, but we should push the developer to take advantage of 485x and deliver 25% affordable housing. Because 100 Gold is city-owned, I’d like to see it developed through a community land trust, to guarantee long-term affordability. In every case, we should fight for community benefits: early childcare, senior centers, streetscape improvements. But blocking housing in a housing crisis won’t help anyone. We should be negotiating for the best outcomes — not walking away from the table.
Yu: Five World Trade Center — this 900-foot mixed-use apartment tower is already approved by New York State. Dedicated public space for community events, and public restrooms are needed. Independence Plaza — the owner, Vornado, can build-by-right. I support a set-aside for affordable housing. Ensure there is sufficient capacity in the local schools, and the infrastructure (power, sewer and water) can accommodate the new housing. Reduce the 940-foot tower with a wider footprint, and/or increase the height of the low-rise buildings. There is need for a community facility, and to renovate Washington Market Park (create a dedicated funding stream). One Hundred Gold Street — the selling of functioning New York property, especially office buildings, is short-sighted. This is a give-way to a private developer, and New York City agencies will need to rent commercial space. If 100 Gold Street were vacant, then I would support housing, or a commercial development to provide economic opportunity and vibrancy.
Broadsheet: A recent report indicates that there are between 11 and 25 million square feet of office buildings in the Financial District and Tribeca that would lend themselves to conversion for residential use. What requirements for affordability do you think there should be, as Lower Manhattan faces the possibility of between 12,000 and 40,000 new homes coming to the community?
Yu: Lower Manhattan and New York City as a whole must retain their commercial space. The availability of employment or business opportunities is what draws and retains people to New York City. The demand for office space ebbs and flows. Converting all of them to residential space will harm New York in the long term, from the loss of economic opportunity and loss of business tax revenue. There are other undeveloped areas throughout New York City, which need to be developed. New York State needs to enforce existing affordable housing agreements, such as Atlantic Yards where the affordable housing units are still not built. However, if these office-to- residential conversions do occur, there must be a set-aside for affordable housing and community space. In the Financial District, there is a need for a public library.
Lewinsohn: This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring new housing to Lower Manhattan — but only if it’s truly affordable. Right now, projects like Five World Trade Center are being billed as mixed-income, but the current AMI levels are far too high to meet the needs of most New Yorkers. I believe the affordability at Five World Trade must go much deeper. We should be requiring very low income units — defined as 31 to 50 percent of the Area Median Income. That’s the level where families, frontline workers, and September 11-survivors actually get access to housing they can afford. If developers are receiving public land, tax breaks, or zoning relief, they must deliver real public benefit. And with up to 40,000 new homes potentially coming to the Financial District and Tribeca, we also need infrastructure — schools, transit, open space — to match. I support new housing, but not at any cost. It must be equitable, sustainable, and anchored in the needs of the people who already call Lower Manhattan home.
Marte: Conversion from commercial to residential has been a massive success in Lower Manhattan, transforming the Financial District from a business epicenter into a thriving community of families. Any time we are allowing private developers to make more money, which conversion allows since office space is less valuable than housing, we have to fight for the highest percentages of affordable housing and the lowest income requirements. There is too much “affordable” housing that’s built for people who make over $100,000 and not enough for our neighbors who desperately need a home they can afford.
Coleman: Office conversions are one of our best tools for adding new housing in Lower Manhattan. I support 467m, the state tax incentive that requires 25 percent permanently affordable housing without needing city subsidies. These conversions are complex and expensive, so we need realistic tools that get the job done. At 125 Water Street, we’re already seeing 467m deliver hundreds of affordable units. I live in a mixed-income building myself, so I’ve seen these models work. They help families stay in the city, they stabilize neighborhoods, and they ensure Lower Manhattan remains accessible to a broad range of New Yorkers. We should do everything we can to support these conversions and get them right.
Broadsheet: A separate report indicates that Lower Manhattan has the highest retail vacancy rate of any community in five boroughs. What kind of economic development leadership can stimulate a return of storefront businesses to the neighborhood. And how can (or should) the City Council help cultivate small businesses, rather than large, corporate chains?
Coleman: Small businesses are essential to what makes Lower Manhattan feel like a real neighborhood — but they’re struggling. Post-COVID foot traffic is still down, and the cost of doing business keeps going up. First, we need to invest in public space — plazas, open streets, outdoor dining — that draws people in and creates an inviting street-level experience. Second, we should reform the property tax code, which unfairly penalizes mixed-use buildings and pushes rents even higher. Third, we should consider a vacancy tax for landlords who keep storefronts empty for long periods. And finally, we need to cut the red tape that makes it so hard to open or grow a small business in the first place.
Yu: It is the role of New York City government to ensure an environment for its residents and businesses to thrive — a focus on public safety, and effective, efficient and reliable city (and MTA) services. It is not for the City Council to have preference on a business, especially since these firms must be able to thrive on their own without public subsidy. However, to provide a more “level-playing field,” there must be education (and possibly small grants) through the Department of Small Business Services. New York City must avoid selling large land parcels to a single developer, otherwise there will be less opportunity for smaller store owners, who in turn provide a local and individual connection to the neighborhood.
Lewinsohn: Small businesses are the heart of our neighborhoods. These storefronts create jobs, shape our streetscapes, and give our communities their unique character. But today, many of these businesses are under siege. They’re struggling to survive under skyrocketing rents, excessive fines, and outdated city regulations. As a Council member, I’ll fight to give small businesses a fair shot at staying open. Far too many cherished local establishments have closed, leaving empty storefronts where vibrant community life once thrived. We risk losing the character and connection that make our neighborhoods special. I’ll champion policies like a storefront vacancy registry with penalties for landlords who leave spaces empty for years. We also need regulatory reform — modernizing zoning to allow more flexible use of space for childcare, culture, and community services. Temporary uses like pop-up shops and art installations can activate empty storefronts and give entrepreneurs a chance to grow. Government support — through loans and grants — should help small businesses manage rising rents and stay afloat. And city enforcement must work with small business owners, not against them, ensuring fair and transparent treatment, especially for minor or first-time violations. When we fight for small businesses, we’re fighting for stronger, more connected communities — places where local entrepreneurs thrive and every storefront tells part of our shared story.
Marte: A global pandemic is going to take some time to bounce back from. As generations embrace the convenience of online marketplaces, they also still long for authenticity and community. That community can only be fostered through small businesses. Many small retailers, coffee shops, and independent restaurants are starting to adjust to our post-Covid world, adapting more savvy online marketing, while building local loyalty. The Department of Small Business Services should be providing more upstart grants to help these shops get their doors open faster. However, one of the biggest obstacles facing small businesses is big landlords. Many of the large property owners in Lower Manhattan will not risk renting to a small business when they can hold out for higher rent from a corporate chain. We must introduce carrots and sticks to stop this practice — a small dent in the profits of commercial landlords, but a serious setback to our streetscape and communities.
Broadsheet: The FiDi-Seaport Master Plan for resiliency appears likely to cost in excess of $10 billion, and last year’s presidential election makes the prospect of any significant part of this coming from the federal government increasingly remote. Do you believe the plan needs to be re-envisioned? Should it be made more modest? Or scaled up to include development that would help the project pay for itself (as was the case in Battery Park City)?
Marte: There’s no guessing how low Trump might go when it comes to the safety of New Yorkers, but so far there’s been no movement to defund the project. We can never compromise when it comes to preparing for the impacts of climate change and readying ourselves for the next super storm. At the same time, we have to meet the moment if the federal government can’t. I have been working with City agencies and City Hall to map out a way to increase our municipal investments in this plan so that we can lessen our dependency on federal aid.
Coleman: We can’t afford to go small on climate resilience. Sea-level rise is accelerating, and Lower Manhattan is at serious risk. The FiDi-Seaport Plan may be expensive, but the cost of inaction is far greater. We should look at every tool available to help fund it: tapping into future congestion pricing revenue (with state approval), leveraging nearby development, and partnering with state agencies to access capital. Battery Park City offers a useful model — pairing new construction with long-term resilience investment. But the bottom line is that this plan protects homes, jobs, and infrastructure. It’s a generational investment, and it needs to be a priority come budget season.
Yu: The FiDi-Seaport Master Plan is necessary, and cannot be reduced in scope. Federal funding must continue to be sought. Reducing the project cost through reducing schedule and mobilization costs must be sought from increasing the permissible hours of work, access to the construction area, and a project labor agreement between the contractor and labor organization. Besides building seawalls and other flood protection, there needs to be long-term planning with the Department of Buildings, Department of Design and Construction, Department of Environmental Protection, and Department of Transportation, to waterproof the infrastructure (power, telecommunications, water and sewer), and increase the elevation of the streets and future buildings. Increasing elevation eliminates the problem in the long-term. Seawalls, considering their length, can always be breeched.
Lewinsohn: The FiDi-Seaport resiliency plan is essential to protecting Lower Manhattan from future climate threats like flooding and extreme storms. Its scale reflects the urgency of this challenge. With federal funding uncertain, we must prioritize the most critical and cost-effective measures first, while staying open to expanding the project as more resources become available. I am personally willing to go to Congress and fight hard for additional federal funding to fill the gaps. At the same time, I will actively engage the private sector to secure contributions that support this vital work. We can also consider development models — like Battery Park City — that help finance resiliency without sacrificing community needs or open space. Protecting our neighborhood requires strong local leadership, private investment, and federal support working together to ensure a safer future for all.
Broadsheet: If your tenure as City Council member could be remembered for only one accomplishment, what would you want that to be?
Lewinsohn: Since COVID, our district has lost much of its vibrancy — so many people have moved away, small businesses have closed, and our streets feel quieter and less connected. If my tenure as City Council member could be remembered for one accomplishment, I want it to be the revitalization of our neighborhoods — bringing back thriving small businesses, lively streetscapes, and a strong sense of community. A key part of that is creating a real sense of safety. I will fight to encourage law enforcement to get out of their cars, walk the beat, engage with small business owners, and build trust. When people feel safe, they’re more likely to shop, dine, and spend time in their neighborhoods. But just as important is affordability. If people can’t afford to live here — if working families, artists, seniors, and young people are priced out — we lose the very soul of our community. I’ll fight to expand deeply affordable housing, convert underused office buildings and public land into homes people can actually afford, and strengthen tenant protections to stop displacement before it starts. At the same time, I’ll push for the legislation we need to give entrepreneurs a fair shot — whether that’s a storefront vacancy registry, regulatory reform, or grants and loans to help small businesses manage rising rents. I want to be known as the Council member who stood up for local entrepreneurs, fought for affordability, and helped make our streets welcoming, secure, and full of opportunity — for everyone who calls this district home. That’s the legacy I want to leave.
Marte: The same as my first answer. Through my time in office, I hope to prove that there is a different way to be a City Council member. You don’t need to spend your entire day in meetings with lobbyists when you can be organizing with people on the ground. The victories we’ve already been able to achieve — like saving city retirees’ from being forced to switch from Medicare to Medicare Advantage — have been won through this method. Retirees have been rallying outside of City Hall while taking meetings with Council members around the city, asking to pass my legislation, Intro 1096, to protect their healthcare. Morality was on our side, and special interests and big money were against us. But we didn’t shy away from the fight, or resign ourselves to anything less than what these retirees deserved. And while we still need the legislation passed — it’s intention has been implemented as the Mayor announced he will allow retirees to keep their Medicare.
Coleman: I’d want to be remembered for helping to fix our broken housing system. On the campaign trail, I’ve met so many young people and families who’ve already given up on staying in New York, and older neighbors who are watching their kids leave because there’s no place for them here. That’s not just an economic problem, it’s a loss of community, of continuity, of hope. If I can help build a city where people don’t have to choose between stability and affordability, where teachers and nurses can live near the people they serve, and where kids growing up here actually see a future here — that’s a legacy I’d be proud of. We owe people more than just survival. We owe them a city worth building a life in.
Yu: I have many goals for New York City to be well-run, from ensuring we have enforcement of the law for public safety, re-evaluation of the homeless shelter system, high-performing schools, more job training, etc. However, I want to be remembered for changing the evaluation and maintenance of our infrastructure (e.g., buildings, bridges, parks, etc). Our infrastructure needs to maintained for longevity and optimal use. For example, the Manhattan Bridge is allowed to deteriorate for years (even a decade or more) with rust, water intrusion (efflorescence and cracks in masonry), uneven and broken pavement (with irregular patches). The different funding sources for maintenance and capital improvements led to years of neglect (which the public endures) and increased and expands the deterioration, which will subsequently balloon the cost (and complexity) of the capital project. The total cost (functional loss and increased construction costs from prolonged and expanded deterioration) as a whole must be considered when routine maintenance is ignored.