Hedge fund Citadel is accelerating its expansion in Miami, according to billionaire founder and CEO Ken Griffin, as debate intensifies over New York City’s proposed tax measures targeting high-value second homes, according to a report by Reuters.
Griffin said the firm is “doubling down” on its Miami operations following political backlash in New York, where city officials are advancing a levy on luxury pieds-à-terre valued above $5m unless they are declared as primary residences. The proposal has sparked concerns among some market participants and real estate investors about a potential migration of wealthy residents and financial firms out of the city.
The dispute has been amplified by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push for higher taxation on affluent property owners, including public messaging around the policy that Griffin criticised as “creepy and weird.” Griffin, who owns a Manhattan penthouse purchased for a record $238m in 2019, argued that the tax approach signals an unfriendly stance toward success and could weaken the city’s competitiveness.
Citadel, one of the world’s largest hedge funds, said it is still reviewing plans for a major Midtown Manhattan office redevelopment, though it has already revised its strategy to expand further in Miami. The firm’s leadership noted that it has contributed roughly $2.3bn in state and local taxes over the past five years.
The policy debate has drawn in other prominent financiers, with some arguing that aggressive taxation risks pushing capital and jobs toward lower-tax states such as Florida and Texas, which they say have invested more heavily in infrastructure and business development.
New York officials, however, maintain that the proposed tax is part of a broader effort to address affordability pressures and generate revenue from high-value properties. Estimates suggest the measure could affect roughly 13,000 properties and raise around $500m, though questions remain over valuation methods and how closely assessed values reflect actual market prices.
Real estate analysts note that reliance on assessed values may significantly undercount eligible properties, as official valuations often lag well behind transaction prices. Alternative estimates using market values suggest the number of affected properties could be substantially higher, though some may be excluded depending on usage classifications.
