👋👋 Good morning real estate watchers! Today, we are going to discuss how Mamdani’s election led to $100 million in New York real estate relocating to Florida. Florida! When Florida starts looking like a safe harbor, you know things have gotten weird. That’s like someone saying, ‘My marriage is going great…That’s why I’ve moved into a Motel 6.’

But first, here’s what we’ve been paying attention to this week…

1️⃣ Buy Now, Pay Forever: The Trump administration has proposed 50-year mortgages to lower monthly payments and ease the housing market crunch, but the plan could lead to nearly double the interest payments and delayed home equity growth. Critics argue that without increasing housing supply, this policy could drive up home prices, negating any potential savings for buyers. (Realtor.com)

2️⃣ Fed’s Next Move: Economists are divided on whether the Federal Reserve will implement a third rate cut in December following two consecutive 25 basis point reductions. A recent study by Wolters Kluwer Blue Chip Economic Indicators reveals mixed expectations for the Fed’s next decision. (NMP)

3️⃣ Foreclosures Rise: U.S. foreclosure activity increased for the eighth consecutive month in October 2025, with foreclosure starts up 20% and completed foreclosures up 32% compared to the previous year. Despite the rise, foreclosure volumes remain well below historic highs, with Florida, South Carolina, and Illinois posting the highest rates. (ATTOM)

4️⃣ Buyers on Hold: Pending home sales dropped slightly by 0.3% year-over-year in early November 2025, marking the first decline in four months, as buyers remain hesitant due to high housing costs and economic uncertainty. Homes are staying on the market longer, with a median of 49 days to go under contract, while many would-be buyers wait for lower mortgage rates and greater economic stability. (Redfin)

5️⃣ Zillow Fights Back: Zillow has rebutted Compass's antitrust lawsuit claims, denying any conspiracy with Redfin to boycott Compass and asserting that its listing standards ensure market transparency. The company argues that Compass's claims lack evidence of coordination between the two real estate giants. (HW)

TOP STORY

On a drizzly August morning in London, a pair of weary landlords huddled outside a café in Islington, comparing tax projections with the kind of grim resignation usually reserved for dental surgery. Across the Atlantic, a New York developer scrolled through Florida listings like they were boarding passes out of LaGuardia. What links these two scenes is a rapidly spreading political mood in the world’s most expensive cities: an era of anti-landlordism—once a fringe sentiment, now increasingly public policy.

In the U.K., the Treasury is reviewing a proposal to expand national insurance contributions to rental income, effectively taxing landlords’ rent for the first time. The measure, reported by The Guardian, could raise roughly £2 billion, part of an effort to address a projected £40 billion fiscal shortfall. Labour insiders told The Times that rental income offers “a significant potential extra source of funds,” and that the government views rents as “unearned revenue.”

But analysts warn that the proposal risks hitting tenants rather than landlords. “Targeting landlords won’t lose the government many votes but such moves invariably end up hurting tenants,” said Tom Bill, head of UK residential research at Knight Frank. “Another disincentive would reduce supply further and put upwards pressure on rents… When you tax an activity, you get less of it.”

It’s a simple economic principle…One that many governments are flirting with, with some seeming determined to test empirically.

Meanwhile, in New York, a more ideological version of the same trend is already sending ripples as far as Miami. Zohran Mamdani—a democratic socialist who ran on a sweeping platform of rent freezes, free buses, public grocery stores, and steep taxes on “corporations and the 1%”—is set to become mayor after defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The psychological effect on affluent New Yorkers, and the developers who court them, has been immediate.

Isaac Toledano, CEO of Miami-based BH Group, told Fox News Digital he’s seen more than $100 million in signed contracts from New York buyers in recent months; twice last year’s volume. “People are nervous [for] what's coming,” he said. Mamdani’s platform, he explained, “make[s] a lot of people very nervous.”

The concern isn’t subtle. One developer, quoted by The New York Times, even donated to Mamdani’s campaign; not out of support, but out of anticipation that the new mayor’s policies would depress values and create buying opportunities. “Mamdani… is probably going to end the city,” said Kevin Maloney, CEO of Property Markets Group. “In five years we’ll go and pick up all the pieces at a very low price point.”

You can’t accuse the man of lacking optimism…That’s not a quote; that’s the plot of a Batman villain monologue.

A JL Partners survey for the Daily Mail found 9% of New Yorkers say they’d “definitely” leave the city if Mamdani won, about 765,000 potential departures. Even if only a sliver of that manifests in moving vans, the shift is meaningful in a city where real estate stability depends on tax revenue from high-earning residents.

This ideological hardening also collides with a national housing supply crisis. Redfin reports the median NYC home price reached $875,000 in September—up 7.9% year-over-year and more than twice the U.S. median. Realtor.com estimates that Americans now need $118,530 to afford a median-priced home, which is over 50% higher than the median household income.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell highlighted the key constraint succinctly: “We have had, and are on track to continue to have, not enough housing.” Zillow puts the shortage at 4.7 million homes nationwide.

Taxing landlords, reducing incentives for rental investment, and tightening regulation in high-cost markets all push in the opposite direction of increased supply. And politically, landlords make easy targets.

But as the U.K. and New York demonstrate, destabilizing property owners rarely ends with a celebration among tenants. More often, it ends with fewer rental units, higher rents, and a flight of capital to jurisdictions where investors aren’t cast as villains.

In that environment, it’s no surprise Florida, Texas, and the Carolinas have become the primary beneficiaries of anti-landlord policies elsewhere. These states offer the opposite: low taxes, pro-development politics, and an enthusiastic welcome to investment capital.

For investors, the implications are bifurcated:

1. High-regulation cities may see weakening fundamentals

Anti-landlord policies tend to shrink supply faster than demand. If investors retreat from markets like London or New York, housing could grow even scarcer (and more expensive for tenants) while investor appetite cools.

2. Capital will flow toward stable, business-friendly markets

Developers with national reach are already shifting resources. The $100 million Miami surge may be just the opening salvo.

3. Distressed-asset opportunities could emerge

If Mamdani’s critics are even half right, New York may offer a buyer’s market within several years, though the social cost will be steep.

4. Political risk is becoming a core underwriting factor

In 2025, property taxes, national insurance expansions, rent freezes, and progressive city governments matter as much to investors as interest rates.

The through-line is clear: policies intended to make life easier for tenants often backfire by constraining supply and driving out capital. If anti-landlord sentiment continues to rise, the world’s most iconic real estate markets may soon find themselves learning an old economic lesson the hard way.

And if Miami developers are right, New York’s loss could be Florida’s gain…again.