MSCC, John Mudd, May 3, 2026

The Daily Dirt’s Erik Engquist writes after the election, “Carl Wilson’s 17-point victory in Tuesday’s special election for City Council was a win for real estate” and “any politician who opposes the eminently sensible NYCHA project must be a total lunatic.”

By Layl Law-Gisiko

This morning, Daily Dirt, the trade newsletter of The Real Deal, a publication devoted to the emotional needs of the real-estate industry, published a hit piece suggesting that asking questions about the NYCHA Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea redevelopment is evidence of lunacy.
What have I done to deserve such label? I guess the Real Deal has discovered that I am dangerous to the ecosystem of people who believe public land is best understood as a spreadsheet with plumbing.

The article is, in its way, a small masterpiece of industry panic. It begins by celebrating Carl Wilson’s victory as “a win for real estate”. Most political analysis at least pretends to be about voters. But the Real Deal has looked upon democracy and, after a careful examination of the entrails, concluded that the true victor was real estate.

Not voters. Not tenants. Not the district. Real estate.

One appreciates the honesty. It saves time. No need to pretend we are discussing civic life when we can simply light a candle before the sacred altar of the capital stack.

Then the article proceeds to explain that because I questioned the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea NYCHA redevelopment deal, I must be somewhere between a NIMBY and a mentally ill person. This is a fascinating diagnostic method. Apparently, if you ask whether NYCHA tenants have received full transparency, enforceable protections, credible relocation guarantees, environmental scrutiny, and actual power over the future of their homes, you are not doing oversight, you are suffering from a psychiatric condition, one recognizable only to real estate newsletters.

Let me clarify, since this appears to be difficult for some people whose moral imagination ends at the 15% return on investment.

I do not oppose NYCHA residents getting safe, modern, beautiful homes. They deserve them. They deserved them yesterday. They deserved them before the roof leaked, before the mold spread, before the boiler failed, before the city discovered that neglect could be turned into a financing model.

What I oppose is the insultingly familiar New York ritual in which public assets are starved, tenants are patronized, developers are sanctified, and anyone asking for documents is treated as if she has just set fire to the neo-liberal think tank lobby.

The Real Deal seems especially offended that I “rallied NYCHA tenants.” Imagine that. Tenants speaking about their own homes. Residents asking questions before their buildings are demolished. People who actually live there daring to interrupt the soothing lullaby of “mixed-income redevelopment,” that magical phrase that in New York usually means: the public gets a brochure, the developer gets a neighborhood, and the tenants get a relocation counselor with a fake smile.

And then there is the Mamdani argument. It is a rhetorical ragout so undercooked it should be sent back to the kitchen. The claim appears to be: if Zohran Mamdani supports the demolition project, and some people consider him radical, then anyone opposing the project must be a “total lunatic.” This is not logic. This is the most panic-laden argument I have ever heard.

The question is not whether one politician, any politician, supports the project. The question is whether the deal is transparent, enforceable, tenant-protective, financially sound, environmentally responsible, and democratically legitimate. I realize these words can cause discomfort, or even a skin rash in certain circles. They are known irritants to the development community.

The article also suggests that opponents of the project are either selfish NIMBYs or worse. Making you wonder what in their minds comes to the next phase of evil spectrum. Insult and smear as argument rarely win.  This is the preferred taxonomy of people who cannot imagine that a tenant might have a political thought not pre-approved by a consultant. It is always the same little sermon: trust the deal, trust the process, trust the developer, trust the renderings, trust the city, trust the authority that let the buildings fall apart in the first place.

No.

NYCHA tenants are not extras in a ribbon-cutting ceremony. They are not raw material for someone else’s capital stack. They are not obstacles to “progress” because they would like the details of the progress in writing.

So yes, The Real Deal may celebrate my third-place as a blessing for the industry. That is their prerogative. Every trade publication needs its little feast day.

But if the real-estate industry is relieved by my preliminary result, in a race that required not one but two political machines to hold me back, that is perhaps the clearest endorsement I received during the all campaign.

Because I will continue to ask questions.

I will ask why public housing was allowed to deteriorate.
I will ask who profits from the remedy.
I will ask what tenants are guaranteed, not promised.
I will ask what happens to public land.
I will ask what happens if the financing changes, the market shifts, the timeline slips, or the “temporary” move becomes another New York euphemism for abandonment.

And I will ask these questions even if it upsets people who believe democracy is a charming feature best removed during pre-development.

Public housing residents deserve new homes. They also deserve truth, power, and enforceable rights.

As for lunacy, let’s all acknowledge that blessedly, Real Deal is not in the business of revising the mental disorder manual.

Source: Layla Law-Gisiko