Do Any of the Current Mayoral Candidates Have What It Takes to Close Rikers?

By Danielle Minelli Pagnotta, Executive Director, Providence House

The call to close Rikers Island is not just a policy debate—it is a moral imperative. The jail complex, long notorious for its inhumane conditions, systemic neglect, and persistent violations of human rights, remains a stain on our city's conscience. Despite years of public commitments and legislative mandates, the vision of shuttering Rikers feels increasingly distant. Why? Because closing Rikers is not simply a logistical challenge—it is a test of our political courage and collective values.

As a mother, a daughter, and an ally to those impacted by the criminal legal system, this issue is deeply personal. I have listened to the stories of those who’ve passed through Rikers’ gates—some who left and rebuilt their lives, and others whose futures were forever altered. I have seen both the deep scars left behind and the remarkable resilience that emerges when people are given a real chance at restoration. Their stories have taught me this: we don’t just need reform—we need a complete reimagining of what justice looks like in New York City.

But the conversation around Rikers has become a political football—kicked around by candidates and officials unwilling to take a decisive stance on if, when and how the facility should be closed. For some, there’s the persistent fear of being labeled “soft on crime.” With public safety dominating headlines and polls, many leaders shy away from supporting closure, wary of potential political fallout. For others, it’s the “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) resistance that continues to obstruct efforts to establish smaller, community-based facilities—an essential step in replacing Rikers with more humane alternatives.

History teaches us that any attempt to challenge entrenched systems—especially those perceived as radical—will inevitably face resistance. But meaningful change requires bold leadership, and leveling the playing field demands not only vision but accountability. It's time we expect and insist on both.

The toxic combination— of fear-driven politics, posturing, and local resistance—has paralyzed meaningful action. But the cost of inaction is exponentially greater. Every day that Rikers remains open is a day justice is denied, lives are lost, and public dollars are squandered on sustaining a system rooted in punishment rather than rehabilitation.

What’s urgently needed now is sustained leadership, effective interagency collaboration, and investment in community-based services. Closing Rikers is not the sole responsibility of one administration or agency—it requires a citywide commitment to coordination and care. We must prioritize partnerships with organizations already doing the work on the ground, ensuring returning citizens have access to housing, behavioral health services, workforce development, and long-term support.

Closing Rikers is not just about shutting down a physical location; it’s about reimagining our approach to justice and rehabilitation. This starts with a mayor who is committed to facing this issue head-on.  A leader who will bring a wide group of stakeholders to the table to methodically chart a course that will result in the shuttering of the jails on Rikers for good.  And, it can’t be overstated that  community-based services must be the cornerstone of this vision. At Providence House, we’ve seen the impact of real support firsthand. For over 45 years, we’ve provided housing and care for women returning from incarceration, achieving a 95% non-recidivism rate. These women—mothers, daughters, sisters—come from communities we know and share. When the system chooses incarceration over rehabilitation, it doesn’t just fail them—it fails us all.

As the 2026 Mayoral election approaches, the critical question is this: Which candidate has the courage and clarity to lead the city toward a future without Rikers? So far, the answers remain uncertain.

Some candidates have offered thoughtful proposals—like appointing dedicated leadership to oversee the closure of Rikers—while others have sidestepped the issue entirely, omitting it from their platforms. More troubling are those actively working to preserve the status quo, choosing political convenience over moral responsibility.

Rather than tackling the root causes of public safety concerns—poverty, trauma, mental health, and disinvestment—many candidates default to tough-on-crime rhetoric that only deepens the cycle of incarceration. This approach is not only shortsighted; it is fundamentally flawed. Closing Rikers and investing in community-based alternatives is not a risk to public safety—it is a strategy for achieving it.

We must hold mayoral candidates accountable and demand clear answers: What is your plan to close Rikers? This election is our opportunity to insist on bold, decisive action—leaders who will confront political obstacles, champion community-based solutions, and invest in organizations like Providence House, which stands ready to help. Closing Rikers is not an aspirational goal; it is a moral mandate. The women trapped within its walls cannot wait for political courage to catch up with reality. As voters, we must demand leaders who tackle hard questions, understand that justice and public safety go hand in hand, and are committed to creating a city where everyone can thrive. The time for half-measures is over. The time for action is now.

Additionally, I encourage you to explore the @Campaign to Close Rikers Voter Guide to learn where each candidate stands on this critical issue: Campaign to Close Rikers Voter Guide.
Together, we can advocate for meaningful change.