A vote for Mamdani is a vote for LITERALLY more criminals on NYC streets

As early voting kicks off in New York City’s mayoral race, the competition boils down to a choice between prioritizing law and order in City Hall or electing a decarcerator-in-chief.

During the recent debate, the candidates were questioned about the future of the Rikers Island jail complex, which is scheduled to close by law in 2027. However, the construction of new county jails to replace it won’t be completed until 2029 at the earliest.

Both Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa proposed scrapping the county jail plan and opting to rebuild on Rikers Island instead. This move seems more practical given the delays and cost overruns associated with the county jails.

Candidate Zohran Mamdani, on the other hand, insisted on adhering to the timeline for closing Rikers Island, citing legal obligations. Mamdani’s campaign focuses on making NYC more affordable through various free services, but his primary commitment lies in decarceration – the abolition of jails altogether.

Mamdani’s plan involves closing Rikers Island and constructing neighborhood jails, which will reduce the total number of beds available for inmates. This could potentially result in serious offenders being released due to lack of space, leading to increased crime rates.

The aftermath of previous inmate releases, such as those in 2020, showed a significant spike in crime and violence. With Mamdani’s proposal to release even more inmates, the city could face a more severe crime wave.

The current inmates at Rikers Island are predominantly charged with violent felonies, including murder. Releasing these individuals back into society could have disastrous consequences for public safety.

The rise in crime rates following Mamdani’s proposed Rikers releases could surpass previous levels, leading to widespread fear and instability in the city. The exodus of residents due to safety concerns could further exacerbate the situation.

While Cuomo and Sliwa have sensible approaches to the issue of city jails, their inability to unite against Mamdani may hinder their chances of defeating him. A potential power-sharing agreement between them could potentially thwart Mamdani’s bid for mayor.

As a retired career prosecutor, my vote will go to the candidate most likely to defeat Mamdani, even if it means compromising on certain issues. Mamdani’s promises of free services are meaningless if public safety is compromised.

In conclusion, the mayoral race in New York City hinges on the crucial choice between ensuring law and order or risking a surge in crime under a decarcerator-in-chief. The decision voters make will have far-reaching implications for the city’s future.