Gov. Hochul celebrates Hispanic Heritage (photo: governor's offiice)
She once adamantly opposed the idea of giving drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants; she even went so far as to threaten their arrests and deportations. No Latinos were on the original list of speakers for the convention of the State Democratic Party, of which she is the de facto leader. The Nueva York Initiative the party established as an effort to woo Latinos would, they said, only generate a “multi-year, six-figure investment.” A paltry six-figure amount is not nearly enough to make a dent among Latino voters. Though a lieutenant governor with a Latino-sounding name was appointed, Antonio Delgado is not actually a Latino. And when new party executive leadership was selected not too long ago, no Latinos were on the list.
With an abysmal record on Latino matters, can Governor Kathy Hochul win the Latino vote in this year’s election? The short answer is “yes—but.” She may win their vote, but it’ll likely be with a smaller margin than that of any of her Democratic predecessors.
Much has been said about the non-homogeneity of Latinos, and that is certainly true. Latinos come from a variety of Latin American countries, with differences in culture, language accents, and the like. Yet despite this wide-ranging diversity, Latinos in New York tend to vote Democratic and for the most part align on issues of importance. For example, a UCLA study showed that 78% of Latinos in high Latino-density election districts in New York voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
At the statewide level, Latino voting preferences tend to follow the same Democratic line. By my own estimations, Andrew Cuomo’s support among Latinos in his elections hovered between 62% and 65%. Most public polling data tended to show slightly lower levels of Latino support, as this Siena College poll taken close to the 2018 election demonstrates.
Among the public polls that included Latinos in their crosstabs, Cuomo would tend to poll in the high 50s to low 60s. We must bear in mind that most public polls have a tendency of missing the mark on Latino support since they fail to correctly sample Latinos within their surveys. For instance, polls that undersample Latinos increase the margin of error in the Latino demographic and create particularly imprecise data.
These inaccuracies notwithstanding, Hochul has been polling at lower levels than Cuomo among Latinos. This October Siena poll had Hochul at 56% among Latinos.
An October Marist poll had Hochul at 55% with Latinos, where an October SurveyUSA poll had Latino voter support for Hochul at 45% with an additional 19% of Latinos polling undecided. Again, despite the undersampling of Latinos, these Hochul numbers suggest that her level of support among Latinos is still lower than Cuomo’s.
Yet I suggest that these Hochul numbers do not necessarily represent Latino defection from the Democratic Party or from Democratic candidates and thus a pull to embracing conservative candidates and ideologies. Current voter registration data does not suggest significant Latino defections from Democrats to Republicans. Furthermore, recent election results, like Eric Adams’ victory last November, also do not show any evidence that Latino voters in New York City (75% of Latino voters statewide reside in the City of New York) are leaving the Democratic Party or its candidates in droves. Latino support for the Democrat Adams resembled support for previous Democratic mayoral candidates.
Furthermore, the recent polling on the 2022 general election may also bear this out. Latino support for Senator Chuck Schumer’s reelection is at 57% (versus 45% for Hochul) in the SurveyUSA poll, 63% in the Siena poll (to 56% for Hochul). The Marist poll is the only public poll that has Hochul receiving a higher percentage of the Latino vote than Schumer (55–53%). When it comes to support for President Biden and Democratic congressional candidates, Latino support is consistently in the 60% range, also higher than Latino support for Hochul.
So, what gives with Hochul?
Several factors may account for Hochul’s lower numbers among Latinos than her predecessor. On one hand, most public polls indicate that crime remains the key issue for Latino voters, more so than economic concerns. It may be the case that Latinos are not happy with Hochul’s handling of crime, which typically hits communities of color harder than other demographic groups. Lee Zeldin, Hochul’s Republican challenger, is running the typical GOP election playbook and hammering Hochul on the significant crime problem in New York.
Second, the lower level of Latino support may be a consequence of Hochul’s election strategy, one which many have deemed an equivalent to the Rose Garden strategy made popular by William McKinley in the late 19th century and Jimmy Carter in the 20th. Hochul has refrained from the type of sustained retail politics that Latinos appreciate and by which they are motivated.
Lastly, Latinos may be getting tired of a political party that seemingly has only paid lip service to the needs and demands of its communities, from public safety and small businesses to education and housing. And even when the party and its leaders make attempts to reach into Latino neighborhoods, they respond with paltry attempts like that of the Nueva York Initiative and its minor “investment.”
Yet, Latinos across the nation and in New York have consistently and faithfully pulled the levers for Democratic candidates, including Governor Hochul in June’s Democratic primary. Many Latinos would say that they have not left the Democratic Party or its leaders; the party and its leaders have left the Latino constituency
Hochul has her work cut out for her in Latino neighborhoods across the state. The last two weeks of the race will be critical for her election efforts, particularly as campaigns shift into get-out-the-vote. Will Latinos see their governor?
***
Eli Valentin is a political analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Life. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.
***
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: Edwin J. Torres/NYC Mayoral Photography Office)
If you haven't learned how hard it is to find housing in New York these days, I envy you. Whether it’s a one bedroom apartment or a house with room for three kids and a dog, everyone can feel the strain of jacked-up prices and limited options. The difference is, if you’re living in a place upstate like I am in Rochester, the supply is even more limited. And that’s before you factor in that I’ve been living with HIV for more than 20 years.
It’s easy to see the signs of a housing crisis right now, but people living with HIV have faced housing insecurity for decades. Unlike those living in New York City with the HIV/AIDS Service Administration (HASA), once you cross city limits, support is almost nonexistent. If New York State wants to address the whole of this current housing crisis, our policy-makers must provide the same public assistance for people living with HIV/AIDS outside New York City.
Since being diagnosed with HIV in 2000, there are few things in my life the virus hasn’t affected. I kept it a secret from my daughters and other family members, for fear of what they would think. When I was incarcerated in 2014, people referred to it as “The Monster,” and if anyone knew I had it, I would be shunned. And when I was at risk of being evicted by my landlord during the pandemic, I faced risking my life by entering a shelter.
Housing is healthcare, no matter what condition you’re living with. And for those living with HIV, it’s the difference between life and death. It’s not the virus itself that could kill us – it’s the illnesses that we can’t fight off that put us at risk. And the one sure way to come in contact with those deadly risks is not having stable housing.
Housing is so much more than having a roof over your head when you live with HIV. Housing means having a fridge to store your medication in cold temperatures so it’s safe to take. Housing means having a place to store the belongings that keep you alive, instead of moving them from shelter to shelter. Housing means having a bathroom and kitchen to take responsibility over your own hygiene and nutrition. But people living with HIV outside New York City face the most obstacles to getting permanent housing.
While the intersection between housing and healthcare is not new for people living with HIV, our state does have a renewed opportunity to do something about it. On Wednesday, October 26, the Assembly Committee on Social Services will have a hearing in New York City to discuss public assistance for the coming year, while we’re still reeling from the pandemic.
While it’s ironic that the hearing is being held in the one place in our state where people with HIV have the most support, that's even more reason for us to make our case. While I can’t be there in person, I will join other members of VOCAL-NY’s Positive Leaders Union in testifying that lawmakers carve out funding in the state budget to house people living with HIV outside the five boroughs. Whether it’s solely through the budget process, or budget funding accompanied by legislation, the importance of housing for people living with HIV can no longer be overlooked.
With enough funding, we won’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul to provide this support. Making sure people living with HIV have stable housing to keep them alive does not mean the rest of New Yorkers shouldn’t get housing too. We cannot operate from a mentality of scarcity. With budget funding for public assistance, in addition to Good Cause legislation and an improved voucher program, we can help more New Yorkers than ever before, in a time when we need it most.
This is not a fight between people looking to get housed — this is a fight against greedy, discriminatory landlords and the lawmakers that allow it to continue. People with HIV living anywhere outside of New York City have been left out in the cold for too long, figuratively and literally. We need to bring our most vulnerable communities up to a level playing field when our housing market is as competitive as it is right now.
Stable, permanent housing has always been a requirement for all people living with HIV, no matter their zip code. It’s time New York State made it a reality.
***
Tracie Adams is a HIV+ leader with VOCAL-NY and lives in Rochester, New York. On Twitter @VOCALNewYork.
***
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.
Climate resiliency envisioning (photo: mayor's office)
Superstorm Sandy’s impact on New York City must not be forgotten: 44 people died citywide, over 69,000 homes were damaged, and Brooklyn’s waterfront neighborhoods flooded in an area more than twice as large as the 100-year floodplain. Over 2 million New Yorkers lost power, stranding some residents – especially those in public housing – for weeks before power was restored.
Now it’s a decade later and we’re still recovering from the last storm and completely unprepared for the next one. We need to reinvigorate our recovery and resiliency efforts now, executing on investment opportunities, changing how we deliver on capital projects, and entirely rethinking how we build our city.
We have to start by understanding the status of our recovery and resiliency projects 10 years after Sandy struck our city, and we need not look further than New York City Comptroller Brad Lander’s extensive report published earlier this month.
The Comptroller demonstrates that the City has spent $11 billion, or 73%, of the $15 billion in federally-allocated grants appropriated for projects resulting from Sandy. He concedes that this is a bit of progress from 2019, when only 54% of these grants had been spent, but projects remain incomplete, with some not slated to be finished until as far out as 2030. Some projects are underinvested – only 0.3% of funding to raise shorelines has been spent, which would help protect neighborhoods such as Coney Island – and since the NYC Sandy Tracker only shows federal funds spent, the City’s own low capital contributions are concealed.
We’ve got to ramp up our investments at all levels of government, and this funding must be strategically targeted to ensure projects are generating the greatest possible protections for our communities. This means we need transparency. By implementing grant accounting procedures for federal funds and improving how we publicly track capital projects, we can empower leaders, advocates, and communities to ensure our spending is sufficient, sustained, and allocated correctly. At the same time, we have to strengthen the City’s ability to execute these projects on budget and on time.
First Deputy Mayor Lorraine Grillo’s Capital Process Reform Task Force has initial recommendations ready to go that would accelerate the pace of incomplete resiliency projects and future projects. We should implement those now if we’re going to successfully scale our transformative spending opportunities – like the $4.2 billion that the state’s Environmental Bond Act, if passed this November, would set aside to fund climate resiliency, natural protection, and clean energy projects while boosting the long-term security of funding for climate resiliency projects across our state.
But all this talk of money and project execution is nothing without the planning that will guide it. One of my main priorities as Brooklyn Borough President is to rethink how we approach our built environment through comprehensive planning.
Instead of piecemeal rezonings or scattered and inequitable development, we must zoom out and look at our city holistically. We should consider how development in one neighborhood may affect the others nearby, the way our environment informs the health of our residents and communities, and how our built and natural environments interact. Then, we build our city planning around this data and the deep understanding of where resources are abundant and where they’re needed.
To understand what this means in the context of climate change, we can look to our NYCHA public housing. Today, 17% of NYCHA’s buildings are in the 100-year floodplain, but by mid-century, this number will grow to 26% – one in every four NYCHA developments. Still to this day, Red Hook Houses is dealing with the consequences of Sandy, including issues with electricity, plumbing, and mold.
Our public housing residents deserve better, and we’re already confronting a housing crisis displacing far too many of our neighbors. This is where comprehensive planning comes in, requiring that our urgently needed new development is resilient and affordable, indicating where we do or don’t want to grow, and helping us to ensure that vulnerable populations aren’t being encouraged to move to at-risk areas like floodplains.
The recovery and resiliency of our public housing, as well as the risks facing our industrial and manufacturing facilities, neighborhood parks, and other essential infrastructure (a whopping 79% of our transportation and utility land uses that support everything from electric and gas utilities to railyards and airports are located in the floodplain), are challenges we have to solve now.
We don’t have the luxury of time – and a coordinated vision for the City’s future, tied to the City’s budget and grounded in interagency collaboration, would lead to the more efficient allocation of resources for the large-scale projects we require. Our short political cycles have hindered us from creating a long-term plan to deal with the reality of climate change, and the pressure is on. There is a better way.
***
Antonio Reynoso is Brooklyn Borough President. On Twitter @BKBPReynoso .
***
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.