What if I told you that there was a mayor who, during his first two fiscal years in office: cut unemployment by 20%; lowered murders, shootings and crime overall; brought transit crime to record low levels; lifted the test scores of city schoolchildren; and directly raised the wages of more than half-a-million workers? And what if I told you that he also reduced the cost of child care by 90% for struggling families and the taxes of 800,000 New Yorkers; increased the number of child care seats to the highest number ever; invested more in affordable housing than any mayor in history; expanded the city’s low-cost health plan; wiped away the medical debt of hundreds of thousands of people; and lowered transit fares for lower-income riders? And what if I told you that that same mayor also inherited a massive crime spike, a city careening toward recession, and an influx of 200,000 dependent newcomers who doubled the burden on our social safety net — and that he dealt with it all without adding any new taxes or laying off any city workers? Pretty unbelievable, right? Now what if I told you that some prominent political figures called him “incompetent” and a “failure”? And that headlines rang shrill with the heckling voices of critics demanding he go? Do you know who this story is about yet? Yes, it’s about Eric Adams. But with just a few differences it could have as easily been about our other Black mayor, David Dinkins. Dinkins inherited a city in crisis. But when he left office, crime was lower, thousands of new police had been hired, a transformative deal was in place to clean up Times Square, huge amounts had been invested in supportive housing for struggling New Yorkers, and the city’s homeless shelter population had dropped significantly.  Yet Rudy Giuliani and others also called Dinkins “incompetent” and a “failure” — and much, much worse. Now, 30 years later, as citizens of the supposedly more enlightened 21st century, we cannot let Adams be treated with the same unfairness. New York just passed its third budget under Adams. Despite billions of dollars in costs related to the asylum seeker crisis and billions more lost to expiring federal dollars linked to COVID, he somehow still added $2 billion to his already largest-ever commitment to affordable housing creation and rental assistance, more than $100 million for early childhood education and Pre-K expansion, millions more for reduced-cost MetroCards, and increases to trash pick-ups and parks clean-ups. In fact, each of his budgets have made record commitments in the areas that matter to regular New Yorkers: housing, wages, public safety and quality of life. Then why are you constantly seeing headlines about Adams cutting this and not spending enough on that? It’s largely because of the unpredictable migrant crisis. Last year, for example, we were projecting 4,000 newcomers a week at a cost of more than $5 billion a year — all while not knowing if the state or federal government would pick up any of the bill. The mayor planned for the worst to balance the budget, and reduced spending in November. The reductions were understandably met with disappointment and anger. And, in fairness, the mayor decided to take a much more pessimistic view than some. Protesters rose up; the mayor’s approval rating sank. But then the mayor convinced Albany to increase its share of migrant spending, the economy continued its upward trajectory under his administration, and Adams found ways to reduce the cost of migrant care. Then the Biden administration enacted policies that helped alleviate the burden on New York by allowing more migrants to work and by taking practical steps to slow the flow at the border — both policies that Adams advocated for. Flash forward to last week, when the mayor and the Council agreed to a robust budget that both sides said served working people and delivered for New Yorkers, without the cuts they had feared. In other words, Adams weathered the storm and the city is back on track. But the criticism of Adams and the disconnect between perception and reality of his administration of this city is extreme. Somehow it seems easier for those who are against him to get their message through, and for the damning, coded, curse of incompetence to be laid on his head. That is what we must examine. Here is where we must remember Dinkins. So I ask all New Yorkers: look at the numbers before you listen to the noise. Look at the messenger before you listen to the message. You may disagree with Adams’ politics or his policies, but you can’t disagree with the record. You can’t disagree with the results. Mayor Dinkins would be proud of the job Mayor Adams has done for our city. Sharpton is the founder and president of the National Action Network.