Picture two children with the same abilities but different upbringings.<\/p>\n
One is taught that if he wants something, he has to work for it.<\/p>\n
The other gets more allowance each year, no matter how well or badly he behaves.<\/p>\n
Which child will grow into a more resilient, capable adult?<\/p>\n
Local governments are much the same.<\/p>\n
When they\u2019re forced to earn what they spend by growing their economies, attracting new residents and delivering value for tax dollars, they produce better results \u2014 while cities accustomed to bailouts<\/a> become complacent.<\/p>\n New York learned this the hard way: Fifty years ago, the city essentially stood bankrupt<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mayors over the preceding two decades had consistently overspent, assuming that state or federal aid would eventually fill the city\u2019s budget holes.<\/p>\n They didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n When the banks finally stopped lending to Gotham in 1975, its accumulated shortfall had ballooned to $5 billion, or 42% of its $12 billion annual revenues.<\/p>\n The state\u2019s Financial Control Board<\/a> took over city finances and imposed strict cost controls, forcing a long-overdue reckoning.<\/p>\n By the time the board relinquished oversight a decade later, the city\u2019s governing philosophy had matured.<\/p>\n Under hard-headed Mayor Ed Koch, the city prioritized the interests of its residents rather than those of its employees.<\/p>\n Koch dug New York out of its fiscal mess through responsible decision-making.<\/p>\n He grew the economy and tax base by embracing job growth on Wall Street, rebuilt abandoned housing in The Bronx, cleaned up graffiti on subways and partnered with private groups to improve parks and business districts.<\/p>\n In short, austerity proved that disciplined management could revive a failing city.<\/p>\n The state\u2019s fiscal guardrails enacted in the wake of the 1975 crisis, such as an annual balanced-budget requirement, continue to protect the city against government overreach.<\/p>\n This history serves as a warning to Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani: Ignore fiscal reality at your peril.<\/p>\n Unlike his ideological compatriot Bill de Blasio, Mamdani won\u2019t have the benefit of a booming local economy <\/a>to paper over his administration\u2019s inefficiencies.<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\tGet opinions and commentary from our columnists\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSubscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\tThanks for signing up!\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n His success \u2014 or failure \u2014 will thus largely rest on his ability to do more with less.<\/p>\n In an October breakfast with local business leaders, Mamdani<\/a> vowed<\/a>, \u201cMake no mistake, my friends: When I am mayor, this city is going to innovate.\u201d<\/p>\n Embracing innovation involves accepting that productivity-enhancing tools like artificial intelligence will require city employees to adapt.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a feature, not a flaw, if the goal is better delivery of city services.<\/p>\n But it means Mamdani will need to secure maximum managerial flexibility through his collective-bargaining negotiations with the city\u2019s public unions.<\/p>\n The political temptation, however, will be to protect existing municipal jobs, as New York state has done.<\/p>\n Late last year, when Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the LOADinG Act into law, my colleague Ken Girardin explained that it effectively bans state agencies from using automation \u2014 including AI \u2014 to perform tasks now done by employees.<\/p>\n Shielding workers and outdated processes from technological change won\u2019t make New York City more affordable, or its government more capable.<\/p>\n Mamdani should resist that temptation.<\/p>\n Instead, he should use the latest innovations to make city government nimbler, more responsive and more effective.<\/p>\n