Clark Mindock

Mamdani’s affordable housing plans on a collision course with industry headwinds The mayor-elect has promised to build 200,000 new units in New York City.

It's hard to tie all this into a bow. These issues are huge and systemic.

But don't be surprised if insurance comes up again (and again, and again) as affordability continues to dominate political discourse, whether here in NYC or someplace else.

Link: www.insuranceinsiderus.com/article/2fl2...

Climate change, inflation and aging infrastructure concerns impact building insurance regardless of whether its affordable or market rate.

But affordable housing, which has restrictions on revenue, is especially vulnerable to price increases that everyone in the US seems to be experiencing.

I'd suggest there is: Like it or not, insurance plays a major role in getting big projects (like multi-family apartment buildings) funding, and the fact of the matter is insurance is harder to get these days.

I think it's fair to say that insurers skew conservative. Not many insurance executives likely voted for Mamdani.

But I was curious...does that mean they don't have some common interests here?

After Zohran Mamdani's election last week in NYC, I think a lot of people are wondering how feasible his 200k apartments plan is.

I've seen a lot of emotional takes. But I took a crack at explaining an oft-overlooked, unsexy but very important system that could be a big obstacle: Insurance. (1/x)

Big news here

Earlier this year, the Trump administration killed NOAA's billion-dollar disaster database - one of many attempts to censor climate change in the federal gov

But the climatologist who compiled the program just revived it, launching just this morning with the folks
@climatecentral.org

The database - which shows the US had 14 separate billion-dollar disasters in the first half of 2025 - is available here: www.climatecentral.org

And my story can be found here for subscribers of Insurance Insider: www.insuranceinsiderus.com/article/2fhn...

Earlier this year, the Trump administration killed NOAA's billion-dollar disaster database - one of many attempts to censor climate change in the federal gov

But the climatologist who compiled the program just revived it, launching just this morning with the folks
@climatecentral.org

U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | Climate Central Explore U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters since 1980, including total costs, trends, and impacts.

The database can be found here: www.climatecentral.org/climate-serv...

And subscribers of Insurance Insider can view my story here: www.insuranceinsiderus.com/article/2fhn...

Federal agents are staging a massive operation downtown near Canal street. Show of force with reportedly dozens of agents from agencies including ICE, FBI, IRS, DEA, etx

After this far-right propagandist put an inflammatory spotlight on vendors on Canal Street, ICE agents were spotted at the location making indiscriminate arrests of anyone they think looks like a delivery person or vendor (ie: not white)

If I have any credibility with you from 20 years of reporting on rightwing & fascist movements, please listen when I beg you not to celebrate Charlie Kirk getting shot. Leave aside morality: this isn’t a match in dry grass, it’s a torch. We do not want what this could ignite & we would not win.

Unpacking the legal justification for Trump’s attack on the foundation of U.S. climate regulations The 2009 "endangerment finding" has been used to justify key climate regs. Relying on recent SCOTUS decisions, Trump says the EPA has overstepped its authority.

www.landmark.earth/p/trump-epa-...

What was less clear heading into the announcement was exactly what this proposed repeal would look like. More importantly, it was unclear how exactly the agency would try to justify a move that basically contradicts the vast majority of climate science that points to greenhouse gases as the cause of climate change, and climate change as a deadly and costly growing phenomenon. Those questions have finally been answered, at least somewhat: The proposal largely dodges questions of science and focuses on the legal argument that Congress never gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The argument relies heavily on interpretations of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have together already restricted the powers of administrative agencies like the EPA. “It’s hard to avoid the thought that EPA and the administration are beckoning to the court to make new law here,” Joe Goffman, a former assistant administrator in the EPA’s office of air and radiation during the Biden administration, told Landmark.

My latest, analyzing the legal justification for the Trump admin’s latest attack on climate regs, just posted.

Featuring commentary from Joe Goffman, a former Biden EPA air & radiation office official:

The Em Dash Responds to the AI Allegations “In recent months, a curious fixation has emerged in corners of academia: the em dash. More specifically, the apparent moral panic around how it is...

I can vouch for the em-dash here. We’ve known each other for years.

I have photos with the em-dash from college in the early 2010s — it DJ’ed parties on an iPod. It played MGMT and The Blow (I think that was because the em-dash had a thing for Parentheses though).
www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the...

Unpacking the legal justification for Trump’s attack on the foundation of U.S. climate regulations The 2009 "endangerment finding" has been used to justify key climate regs. Relying on recent SCOTUS decisions, Trump says the EPA has overstepped its authority.

www.landmark.earth/p/trump-epa-...

What was less clear heading into the announcement was exactly what this proposed repeal would look like. More importantly, it was unclear how exactly the agency would try to justify a move that basically contradicts the vast majority of climate science that points to greenhouse gases as the cause of climate change, and climate change as a deadly and costly growing phenomenon. Those questions have finally been answered, at least somewhat: The proposal largely dodges questions of science and focuses on the legal argument that Congress never gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The argument relies heavily on interpretations of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have together already restricted the powers of administrative agencies like the EPA. “It’s hard to avoid the thought that EPA and the administration are beckoning to the court to make new law here,” Joe Goffman, a former assistant administrator in the EPA’s office of air and radiation during the Biden administration, told Landmark.

My latest, analyzing the legal justification for the Trump admin’s latest attack on climate regs, just posted.

Featuring commentary from Joe Goffman, a former Biden EPA air & radiation office official:

I’m in Rwanda for the first time. Very surprised to see so many Uhauls with Arizona license plates tbh

Brown University reaches agreement with Trump administration to restore federal research funding - The Boston Globe The deal settles three open investigations into the university, and does not require the Ivy League institution to admit any wrongdoing or make a payment to the federal government.

EXCLUSIVE: Brown University has reached an agreement with the Trump administration to restore the university’s federal research funding and address allegations that it failed to do enough to stop the harassment of Jewish students. @bostonglobe.com

www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/30/m...

I would NEVER draw a picture!

I’d say that @stephencolbert.bsky.social is (with the lone exception of @maddow.msnbc.com) the most brilliant, humane person I’ve encountered in broadcasting. His mind works faster than anyone else’s at a level of sophistication that is unmatchable. Genuinely a generational talent.

Trump’s $1tn for Pentagon to add huge planet-heating emissions, study shows Exclusive: 17% increase in military spending will add emissions equivalent to those of some entire countries

NEW: Our study in @theguardian.com shows that the new $1T Pentagon budget in Trump’s bill— paid for by cuts to education, food stamps, disaster management, etc—will raise its carbon emissions higher than the entire country of Ethiopia, and cause 47B in damages.

www.theguardian.com/environment/...

Email filters may be the world's great equalizer.

Just switched to a new email at work and whether you're emailing me from an "@amazon1claimservices.freestuff.com" or "@harvard.edu" account... it's all junk now!

The lawsuit comes just short of two weeks after devastating floods hit Texas communities, and killed over 100 people.

NEW: A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states have sued the Trump administration for illegally eliminating FEMA’s BRIC pre-disaster grant program.

Billions of dollars needed to fortify communities against hurricanes, floods and earthquakes (among other climate change risks) are at stake.

Here’s a link to the lawsuit filed by Massachusetts, Washington and other states today: www.mass.gov/doc/fema-bri...

Either way, the funds at issue are a big deal— every $1 spent in pre-disaster mitigation saves $6 down the road, studies show.

And insurers - and therefore the economy - see mitigation as a very important tool to fight climate change.

If not FEMA/the feds… where is the money going to come from?

The states argue that the admin’s move was illegal in a few ways:

Mainly: it violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives the power of the purse to Congress (not agencies).

Also: Cameron Hamilton, the former acting FEMA administrator, wasn’t nominated to run the agency (or confirmed by the Senate)

The lawsuit comes just short of two weeks after devastating floods hit Texas communities, and killed over 100 people.

NEW: A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states have sued the Trump administration for illegally eliminating FEMA’s BRIC pre-disaster grant program.

Billions of dollars needed to fortify communities against hurricanes, floods and earthquakes (among other climate change risks) are at stake.