Over here in our current universe, we’re talking about one of the largest cities on earth, and one of the most divisive political figures in the nation.
So yes, it’s both unnecessary and partisan. It’s an article about road signs. Exactly how unrelated does the article need to be before you’d accept this kind of thing as crass?
Oooga booga! Mamdani! Oh no! The politics of it! Help!
Write a letter to the fucking editor if it ruffles your feathers that much. I'm sure they'll be waiting with bated breath to hear your objection.
Give it up, man. Go touch some grass.
Mature. I'm sure you'd react similarly if the article talked about a politician you don't like.
The fact that it's a light and whimsical article about street signs is exactly the point. The political content is completely unnecessary to the story, and exists only because the mayor had a PR event.
At least to me that's just a human interest element. The mayor is a notable person, it suggests something about popularity and ties it to a name the reader already might know. It's the same as saying a celebrity shops there or whatever.
This case is a little different because NYC is a big city, but what's partisan about it? They don't mention his politics or views at all. He likes a sports team and he likes this shop. It's being mentioned as a human interest detail, because he's a minor celebrity with some readers. This is why it seems like you have some kind of political opinion about him - if you didn't, why would it be notably political at all?