NYC mayoral candidate Scott Stringer plans zoning change to stop Trump from selling fed buildings
The plan, dubbed Safeguarding Historic Infrastructure through Effective Land-use Defenses, or SHIELD, would create a new 'federal use' zoning category that would require any such deal to go through a lengthy public review, and it would give the City Council the ability to block it.
'As mayor, I will fight to protect our civic infrastructure, using all the tools at my disposal to protect it from Trump selling it to the highest bidder,' Stringer said in a statement. 'Under this new zoning rule, if Trump wants to hatch a scheme to line his or his cronies' pockets, he'll have to go through New Yorkers first.'
There are just four buildings in New York that could be at risk and would fall under this federal policy, including the 41-story Javits Federal Office Building in lower Manhattan, which is home to Immigration Court and Immigration and Custom Enforcement's local field office.
Stringer's proposal to take on this niche issue for the city would require a new text amendment to the city's zoning rules, which would itself require a months-long process in order to be put in place.
A Stringer campaign spokesperson said the proposal is relatively uncontroversial, so it could be adopted more quickly, and that a prospective developer might be turned off by the idea of going through a long process.
The Trump administration last month released, but then walked back a list of hundreds of buildings across the country that it was considering selling off. The administration has said it is continuing to identify government buildings that it potentially could put up for bids.
Under the proposed new designation, the structures would gain a 'special use' condition on top of their underlying zoning.
Then, if the feds tried to sell one of the properties, the developer would have to get a special permit from the City Planning Commission. That, in turn, would trigger the months-long Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP, that goes through various levels of city government for approval, with the City Council getting the final say.
Mayoral candidates running in the Democratic primary election have been eager to show how, if elected, they each would stand up to Trump's threats, with many pitching plans to counter Trump's threats to pull federal funding.
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo faced early criticism for saying he'd be open to working with the president, and has since leveled more blows at Trump — although he's still facing backlash for taking donations from Trump allies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Cleveland-Cliffs Stock Is Red-Hot Today
Key Points Cleveland-Cliffs reported smaller-than-expected losses this morning. Steel prices fell in Q2, but management is cutting costs to mitigate the damage. With a little help from President Trump's tariffs, Cleveland-Cliffs could turn profitable again. 10 stocks we like better than Cleveland-Cliffs › Shares of Cleveland-Cliffs (NYSE: CLF), one of the nation's biggest steelmakers, soared 13.7% through 1:20 p.m. ET Monday after beating on earnings this morning. Analysts had forecast a rough quarter for Cleveland-Cliffs, with $0.63 per share in losses expected on sales of $4.9 billion. The company nailed the revenue target, and beat on earnings with a loss of "only" $0.50 per share. Cleveland-Cliffs' Q2 earnings Cleveland-Cliffs set a new record for steel shipped in the quarter: 4.3 million net tons, up 7.5% from a year ago. Average selling prices on that steel, however, slid 10%, turning what should have been a revenue improvement into a decline -- and turning its gross profit margin negative. On the bottom line, Cleveland-Cliffs ended up with $470 million in net losses, or $0.97 per share, reversing the tiny profit it earned in Q2 2024. Is Cleveland-Cliffs stock a buy? But if Cleveland-Cliff's news was so bad, why are investors buying the stock? Partly because management said $323 million of its net loss -- about 69% -- came from "previously disclosed non-recurring charges related to idled facilities." And partly, because management says it's making progress cutting both costs and inventories. Turning to guidance, Cleveland-Cliffs notes that it's on track to cut its 2025 cost of production by about $50 a ton in comparison to 2024 -- enough to offset about half the decline in steel prices seen in Q2. Combined with reductions in capital spending and in selling, general, and administrative expenses, plus the absence of the "non-recurring charges" that hurt Q2 results, and of course the benefits Cleveland-Cliffs might enjoy from Trump administration tariffs on imported steel, there's every chance profits will perk back up soon. Management didn't quite promise this, mind you. But investors seem to be betting on it. Should you buy stock in Cleveland-Cliffs right now? Before you buy stock in Cleveland-Cliffs, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Cleveland-Cliffs wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $652,133!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,056,790!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Cleveland-Cliffs Stock Is Red-Hot Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein's ghost is haunting Trump, and America's enemies could summon more
It's the irony of all ironies: How could President Trump put his credibility on the line with his hard core MAGA supporters over Jeffrey Epstein? Trump has survived a felony conviction and was twice impeached and acquitted. He was found liable by a judge of sexual assault, owes potentially millions of dollars in libel suits for his actions and avoided possible prosecution and considerable jail time for gross mishandling of highly classified material. None of these mishaps prevented Trump from being reelected as America's 47th president. Yet, despite this graphic history, Trump is now threatened by the ghost of a convicted sexual predator. How can this be? As Epstein's attorney Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 16, Trump was free and clear of any and all entanglements with his client. And it was reported that Trump had once barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Extreme elements of his MAGA constituency have turned against Trump. For what seem to be irrational reasons, they have accused the president of a cover-up and lying about not providing full transparency on the Epstein saga and releasing the so-called 'client's list' that Dershowitz asserted was nonexistent. Conspiracy theories sprouted like mushrooms: for example, that Trump was obviously hiding his relationship with Epstein or protecting others in his administration and circle of friends from the Epstein stain. Shrill calls reverberated through Washington's political gasosphere for Attorney General Pam Bondi to resign over this failure to release the Epstein files. Having bragged that he could shoot someone dead on Park Avenue and be absolved, it is incredible that Trump could be attacked by his MAGA allies on such an extraordinarily trivial matter, given the magnitude of obstacles he has previously faced and overcome. Worse, so far, the explanations of why part of his base is incensed make little sense. That Trump has somehow now become part of the 'deep state' that he vowed to eliminate is nonsensical. Promising to release all 'any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony' on Epstein (and, for that matter, JFK's assassination) and not following through has been part of Trump's lifelong pattern of deception and disinformation, if not outright lying. It is quite possible — again, quoting Dershowitz — that there simply was no there there regarding the Epstein files, and that Trump simply exaggerated or distorted that possibility to play to his base. Then he got caught. And now Trump is lashing out against this base. Whether this is a minor tempest and will dissipate soon or has tsunami-like consequences remains to be seen. Why has this brouhaha over Epstein been so explosive? Is this the state of American politics today when a leader's credibility among his followers fractures over literally nothing, as occasionally happens in marriages? Has Trump violated some mythical bond or unspoken oath with this base? Or is the MAGA movement's instability or irrationality causing such a backlash? The timing is not helpful to Trump. In the midst of what could be a major global tariff war, the conflict in Gaza still blazing and Vladimir Putin given 50 days to put up or shut up on a cease-fire and peace negotiation in Ukraine, how do these outside players react? Do all or many shake their heads believing that this is simply the vulgarity of U.S. politics and ignore this display? Or do others, probably in Beijing and Moscow, see this as a fatal weakness in American culture and society to be exploited? Despite Trump's refusal to believe Russia interfered on his behalf in the 2016 election, make no mistake: Chinese and Russian, as well as other intelligence services, are exploring how these flaws and cracks in American politics can be exploited. For example, assuming that ex-KGB officer Putin wanted to alter the 2016 election, imagine how he could have exploited the so-called Steele dossier that alleged Trump's sexual misconduct in Moscow. The internet would have been filled with torrid stories and deep fake shots of Trump in compromising positions. With AI and other technical means, identifying seemingly minor issues that could have otherwise profound political consequences would not be difficult for an adversary or for anyone wishing to meddle in politics. This happened during Brexit. With social media as a force multiplier, it is easy to see how political fractures could be generated. As a thought experiment, suppose the resurrection of Epstein's ghost originated in a certain building in the Kremlin or inside Beijing's Forbidden City. That, I am sure, did not happen. But it could. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological' deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends
A federal judge on Monday questioned the true nature of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists during closing arguments of a bench trial over the controversial arrests. U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Reagan, must determine whether the so-called 'ideological deportation policy' exists, such that the administration singled out campus activists critical of Israel's war in Gaza unlawfully. The plaintiffs, who make up several university associations, argued that the administration's policy is to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy in aim of chilling speech. 'It is stifling dissent, your honor,' said Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'That's the goal.' But the Justice Department called the suggestion 'silly,' contending that the trial evidence demonstrated no such policy exists. 'This policy is a product of the imagination and creative conjuring of the plaintiffs,' said DOJ lawyer William Kanellis. The arguments cap a roughly two-week trial over the crackdown, namely the arrests of and efforts to deport foreign-born students and faculty members linked to campus demonstrations. It was the first major trial of President Trump's second administration. Across several days, green card-holding professors at U.S. universities took the stand to testify that the high-profile arrests of outspoken students, like former Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, made them fearful and stifled their speech. On Monday, Conlon argued that was the administration's goal. She referenced statements made by Trump and other officials lauding the arrests and said they were 'designed to terrorize' those who share the views of those who were arrested. She also pointed to testimony from a senior Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), official that 'most' names his team was directed to investigate in March came from Canary Mission, a pro-Israel online blacklist that is anonymously run. The site has been accused of doxxing people protesting Israel's war with Palestinian militant group Hamas but describes its mission as documenting individuals and organizations 'that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' Conlon called the group 'extremist.' 'The fact that's the pool of people the government started with shows you what the point of this policy was,' she said. Young questioned whether the trial evidence showed Canary Mission is 'extremist' and said it seems 'perfectly appropriate' for the government to take leads from any source, noting that leads frequently come from a 'wrongdoer' or 'rival gang.' But Conlon said those leads relate to alleged lawbreaking, where here, the leads amount only to criticism of Israel or the U.S. 'That's how you end up with someone like Ms. Ozturk being described as pro-Hamas,' she added, a reference to the student's arrest being publicly linked only to an op-ed urging her university's divestment from Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio deemed several of the campus demonstrators threats to the nation's foreign policy, invoking a statute that makes deportable any noncitizen whose 'presence and activities in the United States' is thought to have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' In a memo explaining the apparent threat posed by Khalil, Rubio cited the student's beliefs as justification for his deportation. Young later expressed having 'trouble' with the apparent policy. Without making any formal findings, he said it seems to him that the new administration is implementing new foreign policy within the existing legal framework – efforts that fall squarely within executive powers. The Justice Department argued that's exactly right. Ethan Kanter, another DOJ lawyer, said that noncitizens do not have equivalent rights under the First Amendment. The nature of those rights are 'context dependent' and tied to 'competing government interests in play.' 'That is what these cases demonstrate,' Kanter said, though noting that the judge does not have to rule on that matter to decide the case in the government's favor. Young zeroed in on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)'s use of masks as a cause of concern, saying he's not aware of any other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. that allow the practice. He signaled disbelief in the government's contention that the agents were protecting their identities, instead suggesting that the 'common sense' interpretation might be that their objective is to 'spread fear.' 'Perhaps they're afraid what they're being called upon to do is of concern,' the judge said. Kanter rejected that notion, asserting that those decisions came down to the 'judgment, experience and operational needs' of individual agents. Kanellis, the other DOJ lawyer, compared the plaintiffs' case to the fictional Don Quixote's fight with windmills. In the story, Quixote sees windmills and believes they are giants. He's flung off his horse while riding to 'fight' them and does not believe his squire who notes they are windmills, not giants, insisting they were changed. 'Plaintiffs in this case imagine lawful standards amount to some grand government conspiracy,' Kanellis said, adding the challengers have been 'knocked off their horse.' But Young said another historical reference better befits the case. He described King Henry II of England asking his court to rid him of a 'troublesome priest.' Two knights went out to 'hack down' the bishop. The president, Young said, has likewise raised various concerns about campus protests. 'He doesn't have errant knights, but he's got Stephen Miller,' the judge said, referencing the top White House adviser. Young said he will issue a written ruling deciding the case but gave no indication of when it can be expected.
