Co-author Grace Lee, center, with supporters (photo: @graceleefornyc)
As New York Democrats continue to assess our stunning midterm losses – including two state legislative seats in Southern Brooklyn with high concentrations of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) voters – our party must reckon with the fact that we have failed AAPI communities when it comes to both outreach and policy.
As the fastest growing demographic in the country, Asian-American voters will only increasingly count in future elections. We are 17% of the city’s population, a number that will continue to rise. We hold the power to deliver the margin of victory in competitive races and more, yet we deserve to be treated as more than just a margin; we deserve to have our voices heard and our communities cared for.
As Asian Americans, we are deeply invested in the future of our Democratic Party – Grace is the Assemblymember-elect for the district that includes Chinatown and the only electoral district that Lee Zeldin carried in Manhattan, and Trip is one of just a few top political consultants who identify as Asian American. We are calling on Democrats to waste no time in wrestling with the consistent exodus of Asian-American voters from the Democratic Party that we have seen over the last decade.
In 2012, exit polls showed 73% of Asian-American voters supported President Obama. Compare this to the 2022 midterms, in which 40% of surveyed Asian Americans voted for Republicans. While a presidential electorate differs from those who vote in the midterms, a 15-point drop-off is a five-alarm fire that Democrats should respond to with both urgency and intention.
Here in New York, Lee Zeldin won plurality Asian-American districts in Brooklyn and Queens. His crime-focused message undoubtedly resonated with Asian Americans, while Democrats failed to adequately tailor public safety messaging to Asian-American neighborhoods whose residents live in constant fear of hate crimes. Our party also failed to educate Asian-American voters about how Zeldin himself helped fuel the hate that led to a nearly 400% spike in anti-Asian American violence; as a member of Congress, he repeatedly tweeted reminders that the coronavirus came from China, and he even voted against Rep. Grace Meng’s resolution condemning anti-Asian American hate.
Republicans are shameless at pursuing the votes of the very populations they have marginalized, whereas Democrats take the support of Asian-American voters, and all communities of color, for granted. The consequences are visible: just looking at a map, big blocks of red now cover chunks of Brooklyn and Queens, which could easily metastasize into other historically Democratic areas of New York.
So where do we go from here? We need a top-to-bottom, brutally-honest assessment of what went wrong, accountability for mistakes that were made, and a clear roadmap of what needs to change.
For starters, we need to take a hard look at the way we build Democratic power in Asian-American communities, and that begins by building trust in our political and public leaders. We need to prove that Democrats will keep their campaign promises and respond to the needs of their Asian-American constituents.
We must invest in holistic solutions to public safety and improve the economic vitality of our communities. We need to engage Asian Americans early, not just in campaigning but in actual policy-making. If Democrats want to earn the support of Asian-American voters, then we cannot steamroll an entire population when it comes to declaring sweeping changes to education and quality of life that affect communities – as the former de Blasio mayoral administration had done.
Asian-American voices deserve to be heard on issues impacting their communities, and adequate translation services should be in place to ensure that language is not a barrier to civic participation.
We also need to examine the financial investment (or lack thereof) in how campaigns communicate directly with voters. We need to do the work of expanding our relationships to include a new generation of community activists. We need to hire campaign staff from the community and people who can communicate with voters in the language in which they are most comfortable. We also need to build a bench by recruiting and investing in Asian-American candidates and supporting Asian-American government staff and consultants as they move up in their careers.
Our messaging, too, needs to be thoughtfully constructed to reflect the issues that Asian Americans care about, like public safety and education. We cannot use blanket Democratic talking points for every demographic, plastered on translated mailers sent two weeks before an election. But if we are doing policy right and delivering on the issues that matter to Asian-American voters, then the messaging should follow naturally.
Above all, Democrats today need to recognize that Asian Americans do vote and we do count; across much of the country, Democrats exceeded expectations, and Asian-American voters contributed to these strong election performances. But if Democrats fail to invest in the hard work of organizing Asian-American communities now, we will continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
***
Assemblymember-elect Grace Lee will be the first Korean-American woman to serve in the New York State Legislature, representing District 65 in Manhattan. She is a community organizer and mother of three young children. Trip Yang is the founder and president of Trip Yang Strategies, a political strategy and paid media consulting firm. He was named by City & State as one of New York’s Top Political Consultants in 2022. On Twitter @graceleefornyc & @TrippyYang.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Court of Appeals (photo: Mike Groll/Governor's Office)
The past few years have put into stark relief our inability to predict the future. Virologists, epidemiologists, and related medical professionals repeatedly reevaluate their views regarding COVID-19 and its variants. Economists daily revise their opinions about inflation, interest rate hikes, and the likelihood of a recession. Political pundits and pollsters are scurrying to explain why their election prognostications were off the mark. No one can gainsay the limited ability of meteorologists to accurately forecast the weather beyond a few days.
And yet in our criminal courts, judges act as if they have the power to see into the future. It is commonplace for judges to hand down maximum sentences as they emphatically proclaim that the person in front of them is irredeemable and will forever be a threat to society.
In apparent recognition of and response to this judicial hubris, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates approved a resolution that encourages legislation to provide for judicial “second look” review of all criminal sentences. Such legislation would mandate a reevaluation of sentences where individuals have been incarcerated for ten years, regardless of original sentence or crime of conviction. Notably, the resolution received the unanimous support of the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section Council, a group comprised of judges, prosecutors, and academics, as well as defense attorneys.
The resolution is a recognition that people, including those convicted of serious and often violent crimes, can and do change. Public attitudes about crime also change as evidenced, for example, by the movement to legalize marijuana. Our understanding of behavior evolves as neuroscience now reveals that brain development and the corresponding ability to control impulses and consider consequences continues into our twenties. It is also appropriate, if not imperative, to re-examine sentences simply because it is illogical to think that a sentence once imposed remains just, necessary, and appropriate in perpetuity.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that not all victims or family members of a victim demand lengthy prison terms for the person who caused harm. The restorative justice movement is shining light on innovative approaches to harm and trauma and the needs and desires of those who have been harmed by violence. “Second look” reviews can amplify the burgeoning restorative justice movement by promoting conversation about alternatives to relentless punishment.
Further, second looks are not just about beneficence or mercy. There is much talent that is wasted behind bars. People languish on the inside when they could contribute on the outside as mentors to young people who might end up making the same mistakes that they did at similar ages. They could help repair families and communities that have been devastated by the draconian sentencing of the past several decades. More directly, second look sentencing can return fathers and mothers to support their sons and daughters, and restore sons and daughters to act as caregivers to aging parents. Returning citizens can and do revitalize communities and promote public safety.
To be clear, the American Bar Association resolution does not call for automatic resentencing. It is not a guarantee that anyone will be released. Rather, the potential for resentencing will provide hope for those serving long sentences that they are not necessarily consigned to die in prison. Second looks provide a powerful incentive for incarcerated people to take whatever steps they can to grow and improve, and to confront and address the confluence of factors that led them to where they are, the harm they caused, and what they can do to try and atone.
The ABA resolution is by no means an outlier.
Senator Cory Booker and Representative Karen Bass introduced the Second Look Act in 2019 to permit people who have served ten years in federal prison to petition a court for resentencing. In the meantime, federal court judges are using the First Step Act and compassionate release to find compelling reasons to resentence people given long sentences. Some states have taken steps to rectify past decades of massive sentences that were often motivated by racist tropes like “super predator,” “wolfpack,” and “wilding,” by passing legislation authorizing the right to seek resentencing for those convicted when they were young.
New York is among the states that presently do not provide any mechanism for sentencing review beyond the immediate direct appeal. A bill, the Second Look Act, addresses that omission by allowing judges to review and reconsider excessive sentences. It is long overdue as there are more than 7,500 people serving life and very long-term sentences in New York prisons.
Consider just one example. When Bryon was a young man, he and friends made the rash decision to rob some local drug dealers in upstate New York. In the ensuing chaos, one person was shot in the leg. At sentencing, the judge expressed his view that Bryon was irredeemable, stating, “You should be locked up for a very long period of time to protect other God-fearing, law-abiding citizens . . . you should be kept under lock and key for the absolute maximum period of imprisonment of the time they can keep you there.” Bryon was ultimately sentenced to 50 years.
The passage of time has proven the judge wrong – 21 years later, Bryon has grown into a mature, thoughtful, and accomplished adult. He has not received a single disciplinary ticket for violent conduct. He serves as a GED tutor and is taking college classes. He facilitates alternatives to violence and related programs. He has written apology letters to his victims to take full responsibility for his actions and to express his heartfelt remorse. Recently, he and his wife organized a bookbag giveaway as an effort to try and repair the harm he caused to his community. Without the Second Look Act, Bryon will remain behind bars for decades to come.
Many are familiar with the sentiment expressed by Sister Helen Prejean and civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson that no one should be judged by the worst thing they ever did. It seems appropriate to amend the statement – no one should be judged in perpetuity for the worst thing they ever did. It is exactly the “in perpetuity” that forecloses the recognition of redemption and mandates the need for second looks.
***
Steven Zeidman is a professor of law at CUNY School of Law. On Twitter @SteveZeidman.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Housing (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)
Faced with an influx of migrants, the main shelter system bursting at the seams, and skyrocketing rents, New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency. The response to this perfect storm has since involved the opening of emergency shelters, building tent intake centers, and even negotiating with cruise line companies to possibly house those in need.
What’s clear is that both our insufficient temporary and permanent housing systems fail those most in need. If we are to turn back the tide on this growing crisis, the path to preventing and solving homelessness runs through creating a new paradigm for housing people.
My tenure leading RiseBoro Community Partnership has taught me that opening more shelters is not the right solution for New York City’s homelessness crisis. Our city’s right to shelter mandate has laid the groundwork for the expensive and inefficient shelter system, but despite billions of dollars in annual expenditures, we are no closer to solving the problem. Meanwhile many tens of thousands of New Yorkers continue to suffer in shelters and on the streets every night. If we are to solve this crisis permanently, we must shift our mindset from a right to shelter to a right to housing.
In a city and nation as wealthy as ours, there’s no excuse to not provide permanent affordable housing to everyone who needs it. Affordable means rent is no more than 30% of a household’s income, the federal standard. Everyone needs an affordable place to live, and when we dedicate such a large share of our resources to shelters over permanent housing, we miss the opportunity to end homelessness.
To be sure, creating a real right to housing in practice will not be easy. It will require a multi-pronged approach that catalyzes new housing production and expands rental assistance for those who need it. The resulting effort may have a large price tag but the city is already spending over $3 billion annually on homelessness. We can’t keep trying to bail water out of this sinking boat with a leaky bucket. We have to plug the hole, and a shift to a right to housing would do that.
For this to be a reality, we need to start by making development in the city cheaper and easier; New York is a notoriously difficult and expensive place to build housing. While there were measures for positive developments proposed in Albany that ultimately failed to pass this year, such as the removal of caps on the size of residential housing development, more needs to be done if New York is to be a place where residents can find an affordable place to live and become thriving members of the community.
To achieve this vision, we should start by reforming New York’s byzantine zoning and land use processes so that all neighborhoods share the responsibility of building additional housing. Next, we must address our outdated property tax system, which puts huge tax rates on large rental properties. Finally, we must invest more in the production of affordable housing, both in terms of capital dollars and in the city agencies that are charged with facilitating development.
Affordable housing is needed throughout the city. Most of New York City’s relatively meager housing growth has been concentrated in a small number of neighborhoods. Since 2010, 10 of the city’s 59 community districts accounted for 47% of new housing permits, and one-third took place in five neighborhoods: the far west side of Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg/Greenpoint, Long Island City, and Astoria. We need more infrastructure in disinvested neighborhoods, like the West Farms section of the Bronx, one of the poorest districts in the city. Proposals like Senator Brad Holyman’s — which would shut down racist local zoning laws — would help make this dream a reality.
We also need more creative solutions, like converting hotels and single-room occupancy buildings into affordable housing units, to become the norm. Last year, RiseBoro completed such a project on the Upper West Side for 135 homeless seniors.
Finally, we need broader efforts through legislation to address the housing and homelessness crisis. Senator Brian Kavanagh’s proposal to include $250 million in funding for the Housing Access Voucher Program (HAVP) in the state budget would have been a big step forward, and though it failed this year it should be taken up in 2023. The proposal would support many of the 92,000 New Yorkers across the state currently experiencing homelessness by providing funds to house over 40,000 people in just the first year of the program.
Mayor Adams’ first city budget included $22 billion for housing over the next decade, but that still falls well short of candidate Adams’ $4 billion-per-year pledge for housing.
Creating enough housing is no doubt an expensive proposition, but inaction will cost us far more.
A supportive housing bed and wrap-around services cost $42,000 per year, well short of the $550,000 per year that a bed at Rikers is costing. The difference underscores a real cost-burden of not reducing homelessness, as the unsheltered are 10 times more likely to have contacts with police, nine times more likely to experience jail spells, and twice and three times more likely to require ER services or ambulance rides, respectively.
New York can’t make this shift on its own. The federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that passed, scaled back from the more ambitious Build Back Better plan (BBB), provided $1 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for grants supporting climate efforts in affordable housing projects. This is a long way off the $175 billion promised in BBB to build and support affordable housing. This loss of needed federal funding continues to hamstring local efforts to reverse the homelessness crisis and provide enough quality, affordable housing for everyone.
Working at RiseBoro, I see how affordable housing changes people’s lives every day. And my vision of a vibrant and diverse community doesn’t end with housing. Residents must have access to a full range of services that address their needs. Young people must have safety and opportunity to fulfill their potential. It must be a community with healthy food, healthy families, and healthy housing. Without affordable and stable housing, everything else is less effective. Temporary housing only dooms other services to be temporary. We must look beyond the right to shelter and collectively strive toward a right to housing.
***
Scott Short is CEO of RiseBoro Community Partnership. On Twitter @RiseboroNYC.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.