‘New Yorkers don’t care.’ Is the real estate pledge dead in NYC politics?

For New York City political candidates looking to prove their progressive bona fides to voters, the real estate industry is no longer the bogeyman that it was several years ago.

Take the 2025 Democratic mayoral primary. Most of the leading contenders lining up to challenge New York City Mayor Eric Adams are freely accepting campaign money from the real estate industry – a contrast to the last mayoral primary and other elections within the past seven-ish years. Though it was Adams, a champion for the powerful industry, who ultimately emerged victorious in 2021, many of his fellow Democratic mayoral candidates pledged in the lead up to the election that they wouldn’t accept most donations from real estate developers. 

That’s not been the case for the already crowded 2025 field. As of Jan. 6, Comptroller Brad Lander is the only one of Adams’ challengers to publicly declare he’s mostly rejecting money from the real estate industry – with caveats. (A spokesperson for Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani's campaign told City & State he’s also not accepting contributions from the industry, though he’s been less vocal about it than Lander). But while some housing advocates lauded Lander after he issued the proclamation at a mayoral forum centered on housing last month, the once popular pledge’s days in the sun are likely largely over. 

“New Yorkers don’t care. They just don’t care. They want someone who is going to keep the city safe, who is going to build more housing, who is going to make sure schools are functioning well,” Democrat political strategist Chris Coffey said, attributing the change to a tonal shift in politics. “The idea that lots of voters are out there policing whether (candidates) got money from a real estate agent, a broker, a development company – it’s the kind of virtue signaling that I think people don't buy.”

At a town hall forum in 2018, State Sen. Zellnor Myrie adamantly said he wouldn’t accept real estate contributions. As a mayoral candidate, he’s accepting donations from the industry, positioning himself as a candidate intent on increasing housing development across the city. While former comptroller Scott Stringer shunned many contributions from the industry during his 2021 mayoral run, a campaign spokesperson said he has no such restrictions this time around. State Sen. Jessica Ramos is not “courting real estate for donations,” according to a campaign spokesperson, but she’s not rejecting them either. “Given the scale of the housing crisis and all the construction needs our city has, it’s important for the next mayor to have a functional relationship with all the stakeholders,” the spokesperson said.

Adams, a landlord himself, certainly has no reservations. He received more donations than any other candidate from the real estate industry during the 2021 election. In one particularly memorable moment on the campaign trail, Adams declared “I am real estate.”  As mayor he’s remained cozy with developers and property owners. Just last month, he raised concerns about legislation passed by the City Council that would relieve most tenants from having to pay broker fees. He’s continued to fundraise for his reelection from a myriad of real estate companies.

While questions about the influence of real estate money in politics have circulated for decades, the trend of swearing it off started perhaps with Diana Richardson’s 2015 victory in Brooklyn’s 43rd Assembly District. Richardson, who is now married to Myrie, made not accepting contributions from real-estate interests a large focus of her campaign and ultimately garnered a swell of support. A string of progressive candidates popularized the pledge over the next couple of years through explosive victories. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proclaimed she wouldn’t “accept a dime” from developers as she successfully took on then-Rep. Joe Crowley in 2018, and state Sen. Julia Salazar swore off the donations like many fellow insurgent state legislative candidates. She ousted an eight-term incumbent after taking on his record on tenants rights. For a time, refusing to accept contributions from the real estate industry was essentially a litmus test for progressives – although what exactly that promise meant and just how seriously it was upheld varied candidate to candidate.

The real estate industry has always been powerful in state and city politics, funding Democratic and Republican candidates alike for elected office across the ballot. Developers and lobbyists have long been prolific fundraisers, often hosting events that draw a host of wealthy attendees. On the state level, real estate developers frequently took advantage of what was once a gaping loophole in state campaign finance laws, which allowed nearly unlimited amounts of money to flow to campaigns through a number of limited liability companies. Lawmakers largely closed the “LLC loophole” in 2019 after Democrats took power in the state Legislature. Not wanting to give the impression that developers can influence their decision-making – be it land use or otherwise – candidates often turned to swearing off contributions from real estate interests.

Real estate leaders have pushed back at negative characterizations, arguing that the industry was made into a scapegoat for the city’s issues. “The fact that the industry is demonized and used as a whipping boy to try to derive votes, I think at the end of the day has very negative ramifications for the city,” said real estate attorney Sherwin Belkin, co-founding partner of Belkin Burden Goldman. “Its tax revenues are vitally needed, its ability to build and house New Yorkers is vitally needed, yet setting this industry up as this evil entity that must be opposed is foolish from the outset.”

As the city faces a dire housing crisis, attitudes toward development and the real estate industry as a whole have also shifted in a more favorable direction, according to David Schleicher, a professor at Yale Law and expert in New York City politics. “The view of who the bad guys are has shifted pretty substantially,” Schleicher said, attributing this to New Yorkers becoming more receptive to YIMBYism and the growing belief that the city is not producing enough housing. The recent passage of Adams’ sweeping overhaul of zoning laws to fuel housing production is one such example of this, he added. 

There’s also the matter that many of the candidates who’ve previously pledged not to accept real estate money have in fact taken some contributions. Such pledges can often be ambiguous and the real estate industry is by no means a monolith. Lobbyists, brokers, architects, construction firms, developers and landlords with varying degrees of power are all associated with the industry. “The belief that politicians didn’t take real estate money was always a lie or at least fictional in that they always took homeowner money,” Schleicher said. “It was always not about purity, but about being against development.”

Lander’s claim at last month’s housing forum that he was the only candidate to have pledged he does not and will not accept campaign contributions from real estate developers is one example. It’s just not that simple. Politico New York recently reported as much, pointing out that Lander has already accepted money going back to 2022 from dozens of people in the real estate industry. 

Clarifying his stance, Lander’s campaign told City & State that he won’t accept contributions from what they essentially described as big for-profit real estate development companies. Specifically, “corporate or Real Estate PACs,” and “principals of for-profit real estate development companies,” meaning those who “own/develop/manage over 100 units of multifamily residential” real estate in New York City according to a campaign spokesperson. Unless they are also developers or owners, that doesn’t include architects or construction firms. (The campaign is also not accepting donations from corporate lobbyists registered in the city, fossil-fuel executives or investment managers seeking to do business with the city). Looking through the donations to Lander’s campaign, there are a few exceptions to his real estate pledge, but according to the spokesperson, these have all been refunded. 

Technical as it is, Lander’s promise still has a great deal of value, according to Cea Weaver, coalition director of tenants advocacy group Housing Justice for All.

“Our actual goal here is that the organized real estate industry – by which we mean the New York Apartment Association and (Real Estate Board of New York) – aren’t given an extra large microphone,” she said. “The real estate pledge is just the beginning. Rejecting the money is one way for people to show that they’re on our side.” 

Donations from real estate leaders will likely be all the more important for Adams after the New York City Campaign Finance Board denied him millions of dollars in public matching funds he’d requested for his 2025 reelection campaign, citing his ongoing criminal indictment and his campaign’s failure to comply with program rules. While the mayor will have the opportunity to appeal the Dec. 16 decision, it’s unlikely CFB will reverse course. If Adams ends up opting out of the program, he’ll no longer be subject to the maximum contribution cap of $2,100 contribution – something wealthy real estate leaders would easily be able to surpass if allowed.

“Real estate will continue to give big to the mayor,” Weaver said. “I don’t think that the candidates seeking to replace him are going to beat him by trying to play his game.”