When Protecting Tenants Starts With Targeting Property Rights
New York City has never been short on bold ideas, but Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s latest appointment to the city’s Office to Protect Tenants has managed to ignite a firestorm before even warming the chair. His pick, Cea Weaver, arrives with a resurfaced video and a digital paper trail that would make any seasoned housing professional pause. Between her past social‑media proclamations like “seize private property” and her declaration that homeownership is “a weapon of white supremacy,” many are now wondering whether the city is trying to protect tenants or simply dismantle the concept of property rights altogether. And for those of us in the real estate world, especially appraisers, who live and breathe the principles of market value, ownership, and equity, the rhetoric isn’t just eyebrow‑raising. It’s a flashing red warning sign.
In the now‑circulating clip, Weaver explains that families, “especially white families”, need to have a different relationship to property. The phrasing is as subtle as a brick through a window. If any public official suggested that any other racial group should have its property rights “re‑imagined,” the outrage would be immediate, bipartisan, and deafening. Somehow this gets framed as “equity,” sold as “innovation,” and wrapped in “tenant protection.” Fascinating how terminology becomes flexible when the message hits the right demographic.
Of course, this isn’t Weaver’s first foray into anti‑ownership theatrics. In 2018, she posted the now‑infamous rallying cry: “Seize private property!” Not regulate. Not reform. Not expand access. Seize. Private. Property. It’s a slogan that would make any 20th‑century authoritarian blush with pride. And yet, somehow, this is the person now tasked with shaping housing policy in America’s largest city, a city where millions of people rely on stable property rights, predictable markets, and functioning housing systems. Appraisers know better than anyone: the moment you destabilize ownership, you destabilize value. And the moment you destabilize value, you destabilize entire communities.
Then there’s Weaver’s claim that homeownership itself is “a weapon of white supremacy.” Not discriminatory lending practices. Not redlining. Not inequitable access. Homeownership itself. It’s a breathtaking oversimplification, the kind that erases decades of work by civil rights leaders who fought for equal access to homeownership, not against the concept of ownership altogether. For appraisers, this rhetoric is especially galling. We spend our careers analyzing markets, documenting trends, and ensuring fairness in valuation. To reduce the entire institution of homeownership to a racial weapon isn’t just historically inaccurate, it’s an insult to every professional who works to uphold integrity in the housing system.
And here’s the part that deserves a slow clap: the same voices calling homeownership oppressive are often the first to demand more public funding, more subsidies, more “affordable” units, all of which depend on property taxes generated by privately owned real estate. You can’t condemn the system while cashing the checks it produces. You can’t vilify ownership while relying on the revenue it generates. You can’t call for seizing property while expecting the housing market to remain functional. Well, you can; but only if you assume the public isn’t paying attention.
Real estate appraisers are the quiet backbone of the housing ecosystem. We’re the ones who document market realities, protect lenders from risk, protect buyers from overpaying, protect sellers from being undercut, and provide the data that policymakers should be using. When someone in a position of power starts floating ideas that undermine the very foundation of property rights, appraisers feel the tremors first. Because when ownership becomes unstable, value becomes unstable. And when value becomes unstable, the entire housing system starts to wobble.
Housing policy should be grounded in law, fairness, and economic reality, not ideological experiments that single out racial groups or treat property rights as optional. Tenants deserve protection. Homeowners deserve stability. Landlords deserve due process. And appraisers deserve a regulatory environment that respects the role of property in a functioning society. Housing policy isn’t a sandbox for ideological crusades. Once property rights get racialized, we’re no longer talking about reform. We’re talking about destabilizing the very system people rely on. Call it whatever you want. Discrimination is still discrimination, and bad policy doesn’t improve with better branding.
“We’re going to take homes from white people and give them to non-whites,” says Mamdani’s executive director of housing, Cea Weaver. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/sxYwElzjah
— Peter Lloyd (@Suffragent_) January 5, 2026
- From Dealerships to AMCs: Tech Fees as the New Normal - January 27, 2026
- When Protecting Tenants Starts With Targeting Property Rights - January 6, 2026
- “No Name” Licenses, No Accountability: From Highways to Housing - October 24, 2025
Private ownership of property is a bedrock foundation of ethical capitalism. The rhetoric is deeply concerning and does not reflect “a new vision,” but a failed system. New visions are available, investable and compatible with wealth creation for the investor, the buyer and society. Win-win-win. The capital of capitalism can surely invest in solutions that work for people.
What I’d add is this: any “new vision” worth taking seriously has to survive contact with real‑world mechanics; lending, valuation, risk, incentives, long‑term stability. It’s easy to pitch ideas that sound transformative, but if they can’t coexist with the systems that keep communities functional, they’re not solutions, they’re experiments with other people’s homes.
Innovation is great. Reinvention is great. But durability matters. If a proposal can’t hold up under basic economic pressure, it won’t deliver the outcomes people are hoping for, no matter how inspiring the language around it sounds.
Cindy Chance Yes and no. First, we haven’t been practicing Adam Smith’s capitalism since ever… So land? Nope…
If you are looking for a villian (or reform point) in this story it’s blowing up “shareholder value” and replacing it with “stakeholder value”….
You can thank me later as I accept the Nobel.
Well done. Thank you for this. This could have catastrophic consequences for the communities impacted. This needs to be stopped, and people who think this is ok, removed from their positions.
Thank you. What worries me most is how quickly ideas like this move from fringe rhetoric to actual policy conversations. Once that happens, the damage isn’t theoretical anymore. It shows up in lending behavior, investment pullback, neighborhood stability & the long‑term health of the market.
Communities don’t fall apart overnight; they erode when the basic assumptions people rely on, like secure ownership & predictable rules, get treated as optional. That’s why speaking up early matters. If we don’t challenge this now, we’ll be dealing with consequences that take decades to unwind.
The warmth of collectivism though……
The warmth is usually just the glow from the fire made out of everyone’s property rights. Looks cozy until you get close.
Exactly. And once those rights are gone, the market reacts instantly. Values drop, risk spikes and neighborhoods feel the impact long before the rhetoric cools off. There’s nothing warm about instability.
The destruction of Western Civilization is one of the goals of communism and of Mammy Danny’s “religion”. I don’t say it, they do, you know, just in case there’s a leftist hiding in the wood pile here. Unless Trump sends troops into NYC to remove him, he will destroy it. Let’s be men and stop pretending otherwise.
Capitalism is failing. New ideas are needed.
Capitalism isn’t the problem. You can’t blame the calculator when the inputs are wrong. If policymakers keep pulling out the support beams, of course the structure wobbles. That’s not a market failure, that’s a design failure.
Capitalism has not failed. The truth is that we already live in a socialistic country. Where the governments primary activity is using the mechanisms of force, applying taxation without representation, redistributing peoples wealth. The end result is a limitless line of special interests with their hands out. That’s why there is none left for many regular people, especially honest people, and the youth. Everyone else has cut in line ahead. The failure is branded as the fault of capitalism, by the same socialist groups whom benefit from; more socialist policies.
What has failed is the socialist policies in America. Along with the educational systems, which were among the first major institutions in America to adopt socialist policies and ideals. We should move towards limited government and merit based systems once more, something most of us have not seen in our lifetimes. Back to the basics; no taxation without representation.
You know what works really really well though? The propaganda machine. It has you convinced.
Everything we need to correct course lies in article 1 section 10. / No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Word. Frederick Bastiat summed it up well about 170 years ago:
Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
A few holidays ago I gave everyone his book. The grandfather of law. These days all too many people whom think they’re well informed, are merely parroting slogans without understanding the legal concepts or ideological basis behind them. The propaganda machine has been incredibly successful over the longer term. Always back to the basics; no taxation without representation.
Stephen Reynolds Seriously, dude. You might want to think of relocating, maybe somewhere socialism succeeded… Oh wait, there isn’t anywhere on the planet that socialism succeeded. Perhaps get some recommendations from Rosie O’donnell.
There’s always a leftist in the woodpile.
the turds are circling in the bowl that is nyc,, let it flush, it will be a prime example of progressive socialism failure.
Desiree, you connected the dots in a way most people don’t. One thing I’d add from the appraisal side is that markets react to signals, not just laws. Even the suggestion that ownership is unstable can shift values, stall investment & change how communities grow. That’s the part of the story that rarely gets told.
Thank you Carl! You’re right: the signals hit first. What I’ve noticed is that they also change who’s willing to invest, not just how much. That shift alone can alter the entire trajectory of a community.
Excellent work! Thank you for putting this together. What I see in the field is that the damage starts long before any policy is implemented. The second property rights become a political variable, the market recalibrates. Values move, risk increases and the people who can least afford volatility end up carrying the cost. Your post highlights why this can’t be brushed off as just “debate”
Thank you JC! What often gets missed is how quickly institutions react when ownership looks unstable. Capital doesn’t argue or debate, it relocates. Once that happens, the downstream effects on neighborhoods are almost impossible to reverse.
The fact that anyone is even entertaining the idea of taking property from one group or another is alarming. It’s unethical, illegal, and completely detached from the reality of how people build stability for their families. No one’s home should ever be treated as something the government can redistribute on a whim.
They’re going to need like a really big wall, and restrictive travel passes.
Work harder. Millions on welfare depend on you.
Well said. Thank you for saying it.
Very sad to think that those who voted for this communist also vote in state and national elections.
How will the transition from private to public ownership be accomplished without violating Federal Law. Will this be in the form of eminent domain where property owners are justly compensated? I doubt New York could afford this. Once all property is publicly owned – who decides who lives where?. Would this be based on your social credit score that the left is trying implement (and China already has).
As New York City fails, no state or federal bailouts should be offered/given. And maybe Federal funds of any kind should be withheld starting now.
If these hyper-ignorant voters want socialism/communism – there are many places in the world they can move to. Maybe we can start go-fund-me like-accounts to pay for their one way tickets out of the USA which would include forever voiding their citizenship here.
The issue has many sides. On the one side, public perception, another welfare program. Not too difficult to drum up support for the concept. The actions will be mitigated to some degree by the push back from excessive taxation and general leanings regarding political structures.
That’s not what the issue and proposal is really all about. The issue at hand is another program which will create new avenues for profitable fee raking and customer farming through government channels. They’ll drive people into compromising situations if that’s what’s necessary to establish and expand the program, create more members and funding. It’s all about the expansion of government. Everyone in the know wants a piece of the action.
Once government subsidy and welfare programs get moving, they’re extra ordinarily difficult to shut down. The cost drain will be tremendous, the product at hand’s pricing structures will be under never ending pressure which drives costs up, value down, creating continued incentive for the program to expand and run longer.
What shall not be mentioned is that the people individually are likely to be much wiser managers of the money than the collective body of bureaucrats. That’s the part you’re not supposed to talk about. The people are instructed to focus on the controversy and zany aspects of outrageous program proposals. So then when the heat is turned down, you’ll be better acclimated to accept alternate models of essentially the same programs.
Where as the alternative is a sovereign people whom reject government interventionism. Who recognize it is not the governments responsibility to provide entitlements to anyone. Voting conservative is quite easy, you basically vote no on everything except that which reduces the size of government and restrains their powers.
I’ll be praying for you appraisers in NYC and other deep blue outhouses. I’ll also be praying for any of you guys who have the unfortunate situation of appraising something in Epic City outside of Plano, TX.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mamdani-housing-czar-called-white-middle-class-homeowners-a-huge-problem-during-2021-podcast-appearance/ar-AA1Uf2jn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=SCOODB&cvid=6968f998113f4e80a184b891e49d24d8&ei=37
And here we are, but much, much worse than simple communism.