Satmar HQ condemns Mamdani for vetoing no protest buffer zones around educational facilities

In a move that has ignited controversy within the city, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has vetoed Intro 175-B, a bill intended to establish protest-free buffer zones around educational institutions. This marks Mamdani's first veto since taking office, signaling a significant stance on the balance between public safety and the fundamental right to protest.

“

As the bill is written, everywhere from universities to museums to teaching hospitals could face restrictions. ... This could “impact workers protesting ICE, or college students demanding their school divest from fossil fuels or demonstrating in support of Palestinian rights.”

Mamdani cited constitutional concerns over the bill's expansive definition of 'educational sites,' which he argued could inadvertently restrict lawful demonstrations. He pointed to potential impacts on various groups, including workers protesting immigration policies or students advocating for divestment from fossil fuels or supporting Palestinian rights. The mayor's office emphasized that the bill, as written, could encompass everything from universities to museums and teaching hospitals, raising alarms among labor unions about their ability to organize.

However, the veto has been met with sharp criticism, particularly from the Satmar hasidic community, which had previously aligned with Mamdani. Satmar HQ expressed horror at the decision, asserting that student safety should be paramount and that the veto jeopardizes the security of children. This reaction is notable, given that a faction of the Satmar community had previously endorsed Mamdani.

“

We’re horrified by @NYCMayor Mamdani’s decision to veto Intro 175, legislation that would have mandated clear safety plans around our schools and Yeshivas. Our children’s safety should always be a top priority! This veto clearly doesn’t defend rights! It puts the safety of every student in NYC in harm’s way.

In contrast, Mamdani approved Intro 1-B, a bill focused on protecting houses of worship. While acknowledging initial constitutional concerns, he deemed the final version sufficiently narrow to allow it to become law, emphasizing its focus on preventing obstruction and intimidation outside synagogues and churches while still safeguarding free speech. This selective approval highlights the mayor's nuanced approach to protest regulations.

“

Following a thorough legal review, I do not believe it poses the same risks it once did, and that is why I will allow it to become law. ... I nevertheless disagree with its framing of all protest as a security concern.