The coronavirus response must continue (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)

Early last Saturday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed comprehensive legislation that would begin to ease the economic hardships Americans are facing right now as a result of the developing coronavirus crisis. After modifications from the House that weakened sick leave provisions, the Senate voted Wednesday to pass the The Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

The legislation, which President Trump is expected to sign, provides free coronavirus testing, increases funding for states’ Medicaid costs, strengthens food security initiatives, enhances unemployment insurance, and provides paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave through refundable payroll tax credits.

Congress deserves recognition for acting swiftly on what’s being referred to as Phase Two of their response – Phase One being the $8.3 billion spending package that focused on tests, treatment, vaccines, and telehealth provisions.

However, business has grinded to a halt and millions across the nation are already unemployed. In New York City, The Center for New York City Affairs found that, as a result of public health-mandated closings, as many as a half-million low-paid and vulnerable workers in New York City restaurants, hotels, museums, movie and television production, taxis, ride-hailing apps, and other lines of work will lose their jobs and incomes. That’s more than $1 billion in lost wages. In March alone.

The severity of the coronavirus recession will depend on policy choices made now. And reflecting on the recent decade-long economic growth period – which, in part due to budget austerity, left too many Americans behind, and disproportionately people with low incomes and communities of color and immigrants  – is instructive.

We at FPWA and our coalition partners in the Federal Tax and Budget Response Team – which serves over 3 million New York City residents each year – are asking the city’s congressional delegation to prioritize low-wage and vulnerable workers and human service providers in Phase Three of the federal response to coronavirus and its effects.

By protecting those whose jobs have been sacrificed to protect the public’s health and those serving on the frontlines who are responding to the growing needs of their communities, Congress can stave off a severe economic recession.

In addition to these concerns, national advocates representing human service providers and low-wage workers are rightly concerned about the following (among other things):

The bill reduces the state’s Medicaid share by 6.2 percentage points, meaning New York will now pay 43.8 percent of costs instead of 50 percent. However, this may prove to be insufficient given the extent to which the state budget will be squeezed by falling tax revenue and increasing costs.

A paid leave provision that focused on survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and their leave was stripped from the bill, and; the Act does not ensure that caregiving covered by both paid sick days and paid leave includes all caregiving for adults and children with disabilities.

The revised version of the Act only provides paid family leave of up to 12 weeks to people taking care of kids who aren’t in school. In the original version, all workers who received paid sick time would have been eligible for another 10 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds pay.

The Act does not provide resources to shelter providers to quickly and permanently house people who are homeless and at high risk of infection.

Workplace safety standards for health care workers were scrapped by industry lobbyists.

Food assistance benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should be increased across the board as they were in response to the Great Recession.

Although the Act ensures access to free coronavirus testing, even for the uninsured, the legislation does not address treatment costs for the uninsured, and those with private insurance may face complications in the event of hospital bed shortages.

And while the bill addresses nutrition assistance for older adults, it does not address health insurance affordability and access to home and community-based services to reduce the risk of infection.

The coronavirus outbreak is an unprecedented crisis, but policymakers can reduce the economic risk and human toll by acting with continued urgency towards passage of Phase Three.

***
Derek Thomas is Senior Fiscal Policy Analyst at FPWA. On Twitter @dlthomasNYC and @FPWA.

The New York Federal Tax and Budget Response Team works together to protect and strengthen federal human services programs and policies that support low- to middle-income New Yorkers. We are a state-based coalition whose members include FPWA, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New York, UJA-Federation of New York, Fiscal Policy Institute, New York Housing Conference, LiveOn NY, Human Services Council of New York, United Neighborhood Houses, Food Bank For New York City, Urban Justice Center, and Children’s Aid. Together, the umbrella organizations represent hundreds of faith-based and human-service organizations and serve together more than 3 million New York City residents each year.

Congress must take on coronavirus and its effects (photo: Jeff Reed/City Council)

The Senate Should Pass the Act, More Aggressive Measures Needed to Alleviate Widespread Human Suffering and Avoid Severe Recession

Early Saturday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed comprehensive legislation that would begin to ease the economic hardships Americans are facing right now as a result of the developing coronavirus crisis. However, as of Tuesday evening, the Senate has yet to act.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act provides free coronavirus testing, increases funding for states’ Medicaid costs, strengthens food security initiatives, enhances unemployment insurance, and provides paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave through refundable payroll tax credits.

The House deserves recognition for acting swiftly on what’s being referred to as Phase Two of their response – Phase One being the $8.3 billion spending package that focused on tests, treatment, vaccines, and telehealth provisions – while simultaneously working on the details of Phase Three.

However, with the nation’s economic centers nearly closed, business grinding to a halt across the nation, and the stock market continuing to plunge, the coronavirus outbreak is extremely likely to result in a recession. Indeed, both major political parties and the Trump administration acknowledge that Phase Two is merely another first step.

Reflecting on the recent decade-long economic growth period – which, in part due to budget austerity, left too many Americans behind, and disproportionately people with low incomes and communities of color and immigrants  – is instructive. Already, nearly half of all New York City residents cannot afford their most basic needs, let alone an emergency. Absent sweeping revisions to social safety net programs that were already insufficient, such as child care, cash assistance, support for older adults, aid for food, and so on, the human toll will be devastating.

As such, Phase Two must be passed by the Senate and Phase Three advanced. Phase Three must enact bold fiscal policy measures to stave off a severe economic calamity and address the shortcomings in the Families First Act.

On fiscal policy, the president continues to press for his payroll tax cut. But that relief would be too slow, not well targeted, and too narrow – nearly two-thirds of the tax cut (65 percent) would go to households in the top 20 percent. While meaningful differences in the details exist, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney joined progressive policy experts in calling for rebate or “stimulus” checks for unemployed and employed Americans that would put money into peoples’ hands quickly.

While the Families First Act is enormously important, it is indeed only part of the first step response to the coronavirus crisis. Advocates are rightly concerned about the following (among other things): 

The bill reduces the state’s Medicaid share by 6.2 percentage points, meaning New York will now pay 43.8 percent of costs instead of 50 percent. However, this may prove to be insufficient given the extent to which the state budget will be squeezed by falling tax revenue and increasing costs.

A paid leave provision that focused on survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking was stripped from the bill, and; the Act does not ensure that caregiving covered by both paid sick days and paid leave includes all caregiving for adults and children with disabilities.

The revised version of the Act only provides paid family leave of up to 12 weeks to people taking care of kids who aren’t in school. In the original version, all workers who received paid sick time would have been eligible for another 10 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds pay.

The Act does not provide resources to shelter providers to quickly and permanently house people who are homeless and at high risk of infection.

Workplace safety standards for health care workers were scrapped by industry lobbyists.

Food assistance benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should be increased across the board as they were in response to the Great Recession.

Although the Act ensures access to free coronavirus testing, even for the uninsured, the legislation does not address treatment costs for the uninsured, and those with private insurance may face complications in the event of hospital bed shortages.

And while the bill addresses nutrition assistance for older adults, it does not address health insurance affordability and access to home and community-based services to reduce the risk of infection.

The coronavirus outbreak is an unprecedented crisis, and the economic and human toll due to illness and the daily disruptions to our lives will be widespread. The U.S. Senate should swiftly pass the Families First Act to provide immediate relief and the certainty that Congress is functioning in a crisis. Immediately following, the House and Senate must again act swiftly and aggressively to alleviate human suffering and avoid a severe economic recession.

***
Derek Thomas is Senior Fiscal Policy Analyst at FPWA. On Twitter @dlthomasNYC and @FPWA.

Amid coronavirus outbreak, the social safety net must hold (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)

Daily home-delivered meals for home-bound seniors. Case-management to help make sure people have medicine and essential supplies, and reduce the harm of social isolation. Emergency food for people who are unemployed or homeless. Child care for those who still have to go to work.

All services we utterly need right now. And all provided by New York City’s remarkable network of not-for-profit human service providers.

These providers are essential to our city, as Mayor de Blasio recognized Tuesday when he declared about 40,000 nonprofit human services workers as "essential city employees," so they can receive child care as part of the emergency system the Department of Education and other city agencies are setting up to start next week.

Unfortunately, the City is not yet enabling these human service not-for-profits to step up to meet current crisis-time needs. With rapid action by City Hall, these safety net organizations can become an essential and creative part of our emergency response to the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). Without rapid action, they will become part of the crisis, as their employees swell the ranks of the unemployed.

Here’s what the City needs to do right away:

Don’t let the safety net fail
Commit to continue to pay the existing contracts of not-for-profit social service agencies through the end of the fiscal year (June 30), whether or not every service continues during the crisis, and stop recouping cash advances that were provided.

Advance bridge loans to cover cash flow. The City’s Department of Small Business Services deserves credit for rapidly establishing an emergency loan fund for small businesses, but it does not include these larger not-for-profit human service organizations.

This will allow the not-for-profits to continue what work they can, like meal delivery, grab-and-go soup kitchens and food pantries, and case management by phone. And it will also prevent thousands of social service workers from losing their income, even if the after-school youth program or senior center they usually work at is closed.

We’ve already allocated the funds for this work, so there’s no need for the workers who provide it to apply for already-strapped unemployment benefits. We’re going to need many of these people for other tasks. And even for those who stay home, whether because of their own or others’ health, this is a low-income workforce. Losing weeks of pay means they can’t pay for rent, food, and medicine.

Clarify what’s essential
The City needs to provide guidance on the essential services these organizations should provide. Existing programs to deliver meals to seniors are a no-brainer. These services should be expanded to include seniors who usually go to a senior center, and to other low-income households that can’t get food right now.

Not-for-profit child care centers need guidance too. They should either be looped into the enrichment center network that the Department of Education is creating, with the guidance and materials needed to do it, or instructed to close.

We’re going to need to continue to provide food pantry and grab-and-go soup kitchens, since we still have thousands of homeless New Yorkers living on the streets. And sadly, the ranks of people without enough food is going to grow as workers are laid off or put on unpaid leave from hurting or closed businesses.

Encourage thoughtful creativity
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to need massive amounts of creativity to meet rapidly-evolving needs. As our hospitals become overwhelmed, we will need an expanded healthcare support workforce. As social isolation sets in, we’ll need a new system of support to help vulnerable seniors (and all of us).

Our human service not-for-profit organizations can act quickly to fill these gaps, as they did after Hurricane Sandy. My office is already working with Heights and Hills (an organization serving older adults in Brooklyn) to get volunteers calling hundreds of home-bound seniors on their lists to see how we can help them. This kind of work can be expanded to help fill in the gaps in our safety net, as best we can under these emergency circumstances.

Let’s empower and encourage New York City’s not-for-profit organizations to be creative and flexible in the anxious days ahead.

Coordination
Finally, in addition to contract commitments, clear guidance, and flexibility, our not-for-profit organizations need a clear point-of-contact in the City administration, a “not-for-profit czar,” with access to senior leadership and the ability to make decisions. They should convene daily calls with human service leaders to help stand up the emergency networks we need. Crisis leadership that is clear, flexible, and inspiring can help unlock an enormous amount of good.

The COVID-19 crisis is exposing massive gaps in our social safety net. But we are blessed with a creative and resilient network of human service providers, in every neighborhood of the city, that can step up to the challenge at this urgent moment. Let’s not let it fail.

***
Brad Lander is a New York City Council Member from Brooklyn, and the former executive director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, a not-for-profit affordable housing and community development not-for-profit organization. On Twitter @BradLander.

A push for a new state homelessness-housing voucher continues (photo: John McCarten/City Council)

As a doctor in the hospital, I bear witness to some of the most severe downstream effects of health inequity in our community. In my field, I care for any person who presents to the emergency room and is then deemed too sick to be discharged. Through years of clinical service, I have come to appreciate housing as the most vital component of a person’s ability to stay well.

More recently, research surrounding individuals experiencing homelessness has highlighted the increased risk of trauma, rapid aging and development of geriatric syndromes, and increased risk of death at an earlier age compared to people who have stable housing.

In essence, people in our community who are experiencing homelessness are becoming sicker faster and dying at an alarming rate. Compounded with the fact that we are facing the worst homelessness crisis since the Great Depression, our state needs to act now.

A proposed statewide rent subsidy program known as Home Stability Support would be a critical step forward in changing the trajectory of so many people and families struggling with one of the most basic human needs. The proposal would help individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless in providing realistic rental assistance that would result in successful housing. 

The majority of my patients are highly medically complex and experiencing social struggles that complicate their recoveries. I have the privilege and honor of hearing people’s stories while working in my field and am humbled each time a person describes the painful experience of attempting to maintain their health while concurrently managing an unstable living situation or navigating the shelter system.

Being discharged from the hospital with a new list of medications and follow-up instructions after a severe disease state can be complicated in otherwise ideal situations. For a person experiencing homelessness, who is tasked with the additional worry of safety, exposure, or navigating the housing system, we can easily see their diseases rapidly worsen after leaving the hospital and see them end up back in the emergency room. This is no cycle that any human being should experience. 

Even if not homeless at the time, my patients have additionally asked to leave the hospital before medically treated because missing another day of work would put their ability to pay rent in jeopardy. As a doctor, tasked with attempting to alleviate suffering and treat disease, it pains me to witness people having to choose between keeping their housing and their health. With 23,000 more New Yorkers becoming homeless than leaving homelessness each year, Home Stability Support would critically address people at risk of eviction in addition to people currently homeless, preventing so much of the endless suffering and potential health complications that accompany losing your home.

Homelessness, while not officially recognized as an Adverse Childhood Experience (events linked to increased risk of numerous conditions including cancer, lung disease, heart disease and early death), does place children at higher risk of ACE exposure and poor health outcomes later in life. In hearing frequent stories of childhood trauma amongst my patients with high biopsychosocial complexity, I can only think of the needless suffering that a program like Home Stability Support would prevent. We already know, but clearly don’t fully appreciate, the potential risk we take allowing 150,000 children in our state to experience homelessness, as was the case in the last two years.

In hearing the critical steps this statewide proposal would take to effectively alleviate and prevent immediate homelessness, this is our chance to speak out as citizens and urge our State Legislature and Governor to work together to pass, fund, and quickly implement this initiative and help move people from the shelter systems to homes where they can begin to heal. I encourage any healthcare provider who has had the privilege of caring for patients with unstable housing to speak out similarly and support the Home Stability Support proposal.

***
Amanda Ramsdell, M.D., is an Internal Medicine Physician at New York Presbyterian in New York City and Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. On Twitter @ARamsdell3.

Gov. Cuomo outside Indian Point power plant (photo: Governor's Office)

Richard Webster, attorney for Riverkeeper, a principal advocate for closure of Indian Point power plant, has written a deeply misleading response to an opinion piece in which Herschel Specter and I urged that the Indian Point nuclear plant, the largest source of carbon-free energy in the downstate region, be kept open.

Mr. Webster, probably speaking for the Cuomo Administration as well, has attempted to refute our assertion that the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant will lead to the burning of huge amounts of natural gas, vastly increase the emission of greenhouse gases, and raise the levels of air pollution in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color in New York City and elsewhere.

In the very first paragraph, he claims that NYISO, our grid operator, says that once Indian Point closes, electric demand can be met with “combinations of clean energy sources, transmission improvements, and energy efficiency.” In fact, the source he cites says they will be relying on three natural gas-fired plants to supply the electricity we need. In fact, the words “clean” or “renewable” do not even appear in the NYISO report.

He goes on to assert that “clean energy and efficiency” can “replace” one of Indian Point’s two reactors. The Indian Point plant runs 24/7 providing “baseload” power to the region. Weather-dependent solar and wind sources provide energy when the sun shines and the wind blows, not the full scope of when we need it. Nor are they even available downstate in the quantity needed to power this dense, high-utilization region.

Mr. Webster believes – and we know this belief is shared by many others – that Indian Point poses great risks to our region. My colleague Herschel Specter has shown in two guides – here and here – that scientific studies and worldwide experience demonstrate that these fears are unfounded. Reactors have been operating safely in the United States for more than 50 years, and they continue to do so. Residents of the Metro area can relax; any problems at Indian Point will be localized and easily dealt with.

Websters treats the generally laudable goals of New York’s 2019 landmark climate legislation as if they are on the way to being achieved. In fact, the prestigious Citizens Budget Commission has shown that the early goals in this legislation are “likely infeasible.” Mr. Specter and I have demonstrated elsewhere that attempting to meet the new law’s 2030 goal with only renewable sources would cost more than $100 billion and is completely impractical. In both the short and long term, nuclear power must be a part of New York’s energy future if we are to end the use of fossil fuels. Closing Indian Point will be a giant step backwards, setting us back a decade and probably more.

One further point: The 2017 Indian Point Closure Agreement may actually be illegal. The State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) requires that all discretionary decisions of an agency like the Department of Environmental Conservation that may affect the environment are subject to an environmental assessment under SEQR. In fact, on p. 137, in an Environmental Impact Statement regarding water use permits, DEC recognizes the deleterious effects that even a temporary closure would have. Certainly, the permanent closure of Indian Point will have substantial environmental impacts, and no such review of this closure has ever been performed. 

***
Leonard Rodberg is a physicist who taught climate change and public policy at Queens College/CUNY until his retirement in 2017.

It's time for social distancing in New York (photo: Benjamin Kanter/Mayoral Photo Office)

Much of my life’s work has been about building in-person social connections. Now, I'm wrestling with how to understand and participate in "social distancing" as a way to confront the spread of the new coronavirus, COVID-19.

I help run a network of hundreds of political social events around the country that has created friendships and solidarity through face-to-face gatherings. I'm also chair of the board of The Tank, a Manhattan theater that runs 20 shows a week and supports 1,000 performers every year while welcoming tens of thousands of audience members through its doors. I'm a parent whose kids need affirming contact and need to run as free as city life allows. I once gave a speech about the importance of hugs.

And as a candidate for public office, I'm in the handshake and house party game.

Yet, the way we slow or stop the spread of a virus is by reducing the number of people each of us—even those of us who are healthy and less at risk—come into contact with. In addition to measures like washing our hands, staying home if we're sick, and working from home, "social distancing" is the recommendation by public health officials to ultimately do less harm to the community around us.

It’s a frustrating irony that at the moment of a public health crisis—when there's fear and isolation and stigma and misinformation, and when community, friendship, solidarity, neighborliness, personal connection, and social capital may be more critical than ever for many of us—we have to distance ourselves from each other, at least physically.

My mind goes to the individuals who already feel isolated or alone and for whom this moment could intensify those feelings. To those who need others, physically or emotionally, to get through the day. And to those whose roles—at work or at home—demand they care for others.

And then it goes to those people whose fields are about creating community spaces and connections: coffee shop owners and staff, folks who run recreation leagues and gardening clubs and afterschool activities, and of course those in the performing arts who deliver the electric thrill of live performance in an era dominated by screen time.

“Social distancing” is hard for some of us—but nearly impossible for others—and a quarantine is a real physical, emotional, and financial risk to many. And yet, far from being anti-social, social distancing is the most pro-social act we can take, because those of us who have the privilege to do it are able to help those who can’t.

Social distancing is a reduction, not the elimination, of human contact. And it shouldn’t mean checking out of society or hiding away in a bubble. Check on your elderly neighbors and offer to shop for them, because it may be important that they not shop on their own. When you shop, take what you need, but don't hoard months of supplies and add to an amplified panic. 

Be kind and grateful to the folks who continue to do their jobs, cashing you out, delivering your mail, stocking shelves, driving a cab, signing you in at the doctor. That means following their rules, respecting their space, asking before you make contact, covering your mouth, avoiding them if you're sick, and saying thank you. And I'd even suggest that if you're not sick, you should continue to patronize restaurants and cafes and bars that aren't crowded, because if they aren't crowded, you can keep a social distance from others—and the venue can probably use your money.

As the weather gets nicer, get outside if you can. 

Yes, wash your hands, carry tissues, cough into your elbow—literally the least you can do. 

And when social distancing has helped level out this coronavirus, get ready for serious socializing: Show up at birthday parties and school functions, and take in a night of theater (or several!) to bring back that joy and vibrancy that we'll miss.

We need government to act to ensure the social safety net, from health care to paid sick leave to unemployment insurance, and we need employers to do what they can to support their employees' health and well-being. There are myriad policy solutions at this moment, and many more that we need long-term to address the societal weaknesses this emergency has laid bare. But even while we demand that our government and businesses do more, we need to act as individuals for the sake of the larger society—reducing contact where we can and ensuring connection where it's most needed.

I once gave a graduation speech about the importance of hugs. Now, I'm facing a few weeks of waves, nods, and elbow bumps. It's not because I don't care about you but because I do. And we'll be back to hugging soon.

***
Justin Krebs is director of campaigns at MoveOn and a candidate for City Council in Brooklyn’s District 39. On Twitter @justinmkrebs.

People need secure housing for themselves & others (photo: Benjamin Kanter/Mayoral Photo Office)

No one is immune to the novel coronavirus: The World Health Organization recently declared the outbreak a pandemic, Governor Andrew Cuomo declared a state of emergency, and the congressional doctor reportedly expects up to 150 million citizens to be infected.

Do you know who is most vulnerable to COVID-19? Health professionals have identified people who are elderly and sick as particularly at risk, but we must not forget those who are poor or homeless. New York City has the largest homeless population in the country, and our homeless shelters are ill-equipped to deal with a highly contagious disease. Now is the time for New York to act by protecting the most vulnerable New Yorkers.

Our government can mitigate this growing public health crisis in several ways. One is that New York State should institute an eviction moratorium immediately. Eviction moratorium plans are already underway in San Jose and San Francisco -- and many more cities are expected to follow.

An eviction moratorium in New York is the bold and sensible action we need. Taking this important step not only gives reprieve to thousands of tenants from becoming homeless, which is necessary in itself, it would also slow the growth of this pandemic. As studies have shown again and again, good housing policy is truly also good healthcare policy.

As a housing attorney, I see thousands of people pass through New York City housing court daily. These tenants are disproportionately poor, black and Latino, immigrants, LGBT people, seniors, people with disabilities, and women. In fact, New York City’s Open Data Portal shows over 3,000 executed evictions have taken place since January 2020. Each eviction places already vulnerable seniors and people with health issues -- their families and everyone they come in contact with in the court system -- at further risk.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has urged New Yorkers to limit nonessential commuting, but how do we expect thousands of tenants to heed this call when they must commute to work to try to make rent? Or commute to court or risk losing their home there? How do we expect poor people, who may be exhibiting symptoms of infection, to self-quarantine, when there is nowhere to quarantine if they lose their home? We need an eviction moratorium now.

Legal services organizations, and the unions representing thousands of attorneys, paralegals, and advocates, have reached out to Governor Cuomo and Chief Judge DiFiore of the Office of Court Administration to implement measures to: stay warrants of eviction, adjourn cases rather than issuing defaults, and provide litigants with the opportunity to appear by videoconferencing. The Right to Counsel NYC Coalition has called on the governor to close housing court, except for applications for emergency relief. These requests are still pending.

As the pandemic grows, so does the growing chorus of advocacy groups demanding an eviction moratorium. A recent online petition, organized by the Upstate Downstate Housing Alliance and Housing Justice for All, garnered over 2,000 signatures in one day alone. And, there is mounting momentum among elected officials, including Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who issued a public letter calling on Chief Judge DiFiore to declare a moratorium on evictions immediately. State Senators Brad Hoylman and Brian Kavanagh are introducing legislation to enact a statewide moratorium on evictions and foreclosures during the coronavirus pandemic and future emergency declarations.

While we wait on Governor Cuomo, the State Legislature, and Chief Judge DiFiore to act on the state level, Mayor de Blasio can act on the city level. The mayor can and should institute a moratorium on all NYCHA eviction-related cases in public housing. During Hurricane Sandy, NYCHA instituted an eviction moratorium in response to the urging and advocacy of The Legal Aid Society. In addition to the eviction moratorium we saw during Hurricane Sandy, the precedent exists in the winter months for broadly similar reasons raised now regarding public health concerns of homelessness and the real risks to life.

The coronavirus pandemic is highlighting some of the greatest inequalities in our society. On the national level, we are hearing the demand for large-scale programs such as national paid sick leave and Medicare for All. Given the state of our federal government, these are worthy long-term goals that, at the moment, are theoretical responses to the current crisis. In the meantime, there is at least one simple and immediate proposal on the table right now in New York: an eviction moratorium, and we can get it done immediately.

***
Jason Wu is a housing attorney for The Legal Aid Society of New York and a Trustee for the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, UAW 2325. On Twitter @CriticalRace.

The Governor has acquired new powers (photo: Darren McGee/Governor's Office)

It may be Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel who’s famous for saying that you should “never let a good crisis go to waste,” but it’s New York’s Andrew Cuomo who’s taking the adage to heart. For proof, one need only look to the governor’s response to the recent coronavirus outbreak.

There should be few things less divisive than how we respond to a public health crisis. Increase funding for hospitals? Of course. Reduce barriers to disease testing? Without a doubt. So, when the governor called for $40 million in emergency funding to fight COVID-19, it would have seemed like a slam dunk. Then why did the chairs of the State Assembly and State Senate health committees vote against the response?

The reason they said “no” wasn’t the price tag of the bill, but the power grab buried inside. In a matter of hours, Cuomo pushed through language that not only gave him more money, but the broadest emergency powers of any governor in the country, according to an analysis by my organization, The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

Even before the new law, Cuomo had sweeping authority. The governor could suspend any law or regulation that got in the way of emergency response, which was enough to make civil rights advocates nervous. But not even George Orwell could have imagined what would come next.

The governor “may issue any directive during a state disaster emergency…necessary to cope with the disaster and may provide for procedures reasonably necessary to enforce such directive.” Strip away the legalese and we’re left with the power to do anything in time of crisis.

It’s staggering — the thought of one person having the power to rewrite state laws without so much as a second opinion from lawmakers. And this isn’t just for COVID-19, the emergency powers covers everything from tornadoes and volcanoes (do we have those in New York?), to drought, and vaguely defined “cyber events.” And, unsurprisingly, it’s the governor who gets to declare an emergency in the first place.

We’ve been down this road before. Few of us forget the panic-struck days after 9/11, when a public desperate to feel safe again supported legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In a matter of days, we rewrote the way our country has been governed for decades.

The PATRIOT Act, which was supposed to sunset just a few years later, became a fixture of American life, giving birth to the perpetual surveillance later exposed by the likes of Edward Snowden. The AUMF has been used to justify military strikes as recently as last year, when President Trump assassinated the Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani. Prior to the AUMF, that sort of military action without Congressional approval would have been blatantly unconstitutional, but the Trump administration claimed that 18 years later, the AUMF is still giving the President a green light to kill nearly anyone he wants, at any time, and in nearly any place.

How long will Cuomo’s new emergency powers be with us? It’s hard to know. The new law is set to expire in just over a year, but the history of the PATRIOT Act teaches us that emergency laws may live on far longer than we first expect. Cuomo himself has indicated he thinks it makes sense as a permanent adjustment.

Even more alarming was the process. The legislation meant one of the most fundamental transformations of New York State government in generations, and it happened with almost no notice or debate. Even worse, the emergency powers were tied to the same legislation as COVID-19 funding, so those who voted against the bill now face the prospect of attacks claiming they opposed providing emergency pandemic cash.

Sometimes emergencies call for immediate action, but nothing the governor did here required the legislature to abdicate its role. The few reforms we’ve seen since last week could have been easily approved by lawmakers, and the emergency powers legislation could have been given at least time for a debate.

In a week when the state Legislature held hearings on everything from loan forgiveness for farmers to actuarial tables for health insurance, one would think that lawmakers would have time to discuss one of the most transformative New York bills in our lifetimes. Sadly, while it’s very easy to take new powers in an emergency, it’s generally a lot harder to roll them back.

***
Albert Fox Cahn is the founder and executive director of The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) at the Urban Justice Center, a New York-based civil rights and privacy group and a fellow at the Engelberg Center for Innovation Law & Policy at N.Y.U. School of Law. He writes the monthly Surveillance and the City column at Gotham Gazette. On Twitter @FoxCahn & @STOPSpyingNY.

Muslim New Yorkers in prayer (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

As we again learned in 2016 and 2018 that voting matters and elections have consequences, we must also recognize -- ahead of time, right now -- that the 2020 Census matters and not being counted has consequences.

After 2016, many New Yorkers have been mobilizing to bring progressive voices to elections: from supporting change in Albany and flipping local House seats to turning entire state legislatures blue across the nation and backing chosen presidential candidates. We have been organizing and fundraising for campaigns, with intense focus and passion — cheering every win, large and small, across the country.

We are maligned as “snowflakes” for caring about people and inclusive values, but it is our passion that carried our wins in recent elections and what is required for the big win this fall.

However, there is one critical campaign that isn’t getting the same attention: the 2020 Census.

New York City is at risk of a huge undercount in the 2020 Census, which would result in undermining our democracy and communities by leading to decreased political representation and decreased federal funding for the next ten years. 

Anti-immigrant and Islamophobic federal messaging and policies combined with concerns about data privacy have created legitimate anxiety in many communities around anything involving the U.S. government. This is especially true of the Census, which to some feels like a registry akin to the special registry of some Muslim immigrant men after 9/11 or the list of undocumented immigrants the Trump administration was clearly hoping to develop with its failed citizenship question.

Additionally, the 2020 Census will initially call for online submissions for the first time. While that will simplify the process for some digitally-savvy individuals, it will not be as easy for all Americans. Filling out a form online is more complicated than sharing a funny cat meme and many communities lack sufficient access to the internet as well as limited digital literacy. Combine this with fears of the government, especially but not limited to the Trump administration, and you have a perfect storm that can lead to nonparticipation.

Historically, New York City has faced census participation challenges. In the 2010 Census, the city had a 61.9% average initial household self-response rate, well under the national rate of 75.8%, with some communities as low as 44%, like those in Brooklyn’s Brighton Beach or the 50% rate in Bronx’s Eastchester Heights.

Census data is crucial to providing social services, Medicaid, education, and funding for infrastructure, such as our subways and bridges. It is key to states’ ability to advocate for their fair share of $670 billion in annual federal funding, in part because the Census also determines political representation, most directly in terms of seats in the House of Representatives. New York is at risk of losing up to two Congressional seats this time around.

Undercounted communities will have less representation at the federal level but also state and city levels once the Census leads to legislative redistricting.

The anxieties of traditionally marginalized communities around government data collection are not at all misplaced. For example, Muslims are intimately familiar with the risks: the NYPD utilized publicly-available aggregate census data to spy on Muslim communities after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

But that very same data also helps advocates and government better support the very same communities. For example, racial demographic data is utilized by civil rights lawyers to highlight racial inequity in policing and incarceration as well as political representation. Muslim communities have advocated successfully and used data to push for Muslim school holidays and halal lunches at senior centers and schools.

An Imam asked me, “Why would anyone fill this out? In this current time with this current government?”

But the answer is that we must fill out the Census form, especially at this time, especially with this government. If we don’t, they will win so much more than just an election. If we do not participate in the Census, then we will lose the ability to fully participate in our democracy, binding our communities for decades.

If you believe that the future of our democracy is at stake in the upcoming election, that the safety and security of our most vulnerable communities is on the line, then you should be just as passionate about ensuring that you and every individual in your community near and far gets counted in the 2020 Census.

Get involved in your local 2020 Census organizing committee; in New York City join your Neighborhood Organizing Census Committee. Help get the word out to all your friends and family and volunteer in April and beyond to help ensure everyone completes the 2020 Census.

***
Ahsia Badi is the New York Census Director for Emgage, the largest non-profit focused on Muslim civic engagement, and is a member of Manhattan Community Board Six. On Twitter @kashmirimama & @EmgageAction.

The planned Coney Island ferry landing site (photo by the author)

Coney Islanders asked for a ferry. Instead the City is providing the community with a deadly toxic brew of lead, dioxin, mercury, PCBs, and pesticides.

At a February 12 Brooklyn Community Board 13 meeting, the New York City Economic Development Corporation made the surprise announcement that the originally proposed ferry dock at West 33rd Street on Gravesend Bay had been replaced by a new site in Kaiser Park that, when constructed, will destroy the single most environmentally sensitive and vulnerable area in all of Coney Island. 

The Kaiser Park site on Coney Island Creek requires an extensive dredging project in the narrow channel adjacent to Calvert Vaux Park, the former industrial dump and landfill that is known to contain long-buried toxic materials. The City's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), revealed that core samples drilled last fall at the channel found that "sediments in the eastern dredging area contain contaminants of concern exceeding Class C thresholds, including thresholds for arsenic, lead, mercury, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], and dioxin, which can be associated with chronic and potentially acute toxicity to aquatic life."

Class C is deadly, and the effect of these carcinogens on humans was glossed over in the EIS. Construction and operation of the ferry dock will bring these toxins to the surface. The EIS only covers impact caused during construction and ignores future impact to the community after project completion. Kaiser Park is being sacrificed.

These disturbing findings have not deterred the City's choice of the Kaiser Park fishing pier site. It turns out that the final Coney Island ferry site was not "decided by science," as officials promised. Thousands of people who signed petitions requesting a ferry were not told it would be located in Kaiser Park — they believed it would be on the ocean side.

The City's plan to move the dock to a vulnerable restored estuarine habitat with a small pier and a beach used by school children for marine education, and for kayaking and fishing, was apparently made long before the Environmental Impact Statement was released in late January 2020. The City's report describes construction impact, but not the long-term impact to the community, public parks, or the environment after completion of the project. The report also neglects to analyze the impact on Kaiser Park from automobile and foot traffic for the ferry. 

Kaiser Park is the Central Park of Coney Island, a neighborhood refuge for playing and picnicking. The EIS compiled a list of the ferry's negative impacts to the park including noise: "adverse impact at Kaiser Park is unavoidable...and that no feasible and practical mitigation measures have been found." Noise and pollution impacts at the park caused by the ferry's diesel engines are being ignored.

The EDC downplays the effects of the dredging project, claiming that it will be handled in a "safe" manner, with the toxic materials removed using "Best Management Practices" for hazardous waste removal. Hazardous material removal is never perfect, and the larger problem is that buried contaminants and chemicals can migrate and leach from the adjacent sediments along Calvert Vaux Park into the low point of the newly dredged channel.

Ferries docking and turning in the narrow channel will stir up other toxins now buried under a cap of clean sand that covers the creek's bottom. No cleanup of the entire creek bottom, or mitigation of any kind for that matter, has been proposed or cited by the City's EIS report. Several years ago, hazardous material removal and remediation in a small area of Calvert Vaux Park for construction of soccer fields cost the City millions of dollars. Similar hazardous materials remain buried alongside the narrow channel that will require constant dredging for the ferry.

Of the two contested sites, the West 33rd Street site had much to recommend it. It's a straight shot from Gravesend Bay to the dock, avoiding the need to enter Coney Island Creek and according to the EIS, "does not require dredging restrictions or special handling." The 33rd Street site called for a pier with "public amenities" including benches and access for fishing. This location would have provided needed community benefits but was rejected.

EDC officials said the 33rd Street site was too exposed for a ferry, but this isn't true. The site is similar to the Bay Ridge ferry dock, which has similar exposed orientation. Skanska Construction, the multinational marine construction company building the City's ferry docks, has the engineering ability to construct any kind of dock in any kind of environment. The City just doesn't want to spend the money to do this project the right way, a decision that will prove more expensive in the long run, while jeopardizing the health of the surrounding community for years to come.

The endangered Kaiser Park location has come a long way. When I was growing up in Coney Island in the 1950s and 1960s this site was one of the most polluted parts of the creek, downwind from a now-closed sanitation department incinerator and across from the once active dump that is now Calvert Vaux Park. During the last 25 years, the site has been restored with sand dunes, native plants, a new shoreline, and a horseshoe crab spawning beach. This location is used as an outdoor schoolroom by environmental groups including the Coastal Classroom, Billion Oyster Project, New York State Marine Education Association, Coney Island Beautification Project, Coney Island History Project, and Partnerships for Parks.

Kaiser Park provides the safest public access to Coney Island Creek, a place to conduct research, monitor horseshoe crabs, and launch rowboats, kayaks, and underwater robotics. Future stewards of Coney Island Creek, mostly youth of color from the neighborhood, are being denied their classroom.

The pier and adjacent sand bar are also known as the best fishing spot for a local community of subsistence anglers. Fish caught at this location – striped bass, bluefish, and albacore – are coming from the ocean and considered safer to eat than the fish that live in the creek. All educational and recreational activities will be forced to end with the construction of the ferry dock.

The remote ferry location has made few residents happy. The amusement businesses in central Coney Island lobbied for years for an oceanfront ferry only to have it placed in the West End, far from their businesses. West End residents have expressed valid concerns about the impacts caused by thousands of seasonal visitors being stranded in their neighborhood without a viable means of transportation to or from the ferry dock. A temporary jitney has been proposed but seems impractical.

Many in the community feel the dock sites were chosen to serve the newly constructed high-rises located three blocks away. The City has offered no mitigation or increased enforcement to protect the public parks and environmentally sensitive areas surrounding the dock.

The ferry has also been touted as a "commuter line" benefitting NYCHA residents, but it actually doubles the fare to Manhattan, as most passengers would have to take the subway from the Wall Street terminal and pay an additional fare because there is no free transfer. When questioned about tourists and visitors using the ferry to get to Coney Island attractions, an EDC ferry official told me that "they'll take it once" before realizing that it's not for them.

Most New York City ferry docks are located in former industrial areas attached to hard bulkheads. Coney Island will be the only dock located at a small beach where people are now swimming, fishing, and boating. It's the only ferry line that will transit an extremely narrow channel with inherent navigational risks. The mouth of Coney Island Creek is in constant transition with drifting sands from beach nourishment on the ocean side. The proposed ferry dock at Kaiser Park fishing pier will expose the surrounding community to toxic materials in the air and water unless mitigation is implemented.

Last summer local residents held a demonstration at Kaiser Park after hearing a rumor that the City was planning to move the dock from 33rd Street to the Kaiser Park fishing pier. Officials from the EDC and Skanska Construction vehemently denied the rumors. Seventy-five local residents, most living on West 33rd Street, signed a petition demanding that the City not build the dock at the fishing pier, contradicting the City's insistence that most locals did not want the dock at West 33rd. At a February 2020 community board meeting, EDC officials could not answer a simple question of when the final decision had been made to move the dock to Kaiser Park.

The only concession made by EDC officials so far is a promise to make repairs to the fishing pier that the ferry dock will be attached to, actually a required repair as the pier is falling apart and has been condemned in the past. The representative claimed at the February meeting that people will still be able to fish there, and that the ferry would not disrupt anything. But a more truthful Skanska representative told me last July that "people will be able to fish there but they won't be catching anything."

A false narrative is being circulated, implying that community members concerned about negative impacts at Kaiser Park do not want a Coney Island ferry. Nothing is further from the truth. Coney Island desperately needs a ferry, but the project has to be done right.

This project requires an independent impact assessment, as well as remediation and mitigation to protect the long-term health and well being of the community and the Coney Island Creek estuary. These issues must be addressed before construction begins.

It’s not too late to make your voice heard, too: written comments concerning this project will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Monday, March 16.

***
Charles Denson is Executive Director of the Coney Island History Project, and author of the book “Coney Island: Lost and Found.”