the Capitol, via @NYSCapitolVisit 

When asked what a state constitutional convention might cost if called by voters in 2017, I said at a State Bar Association panel event that I had applied the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI inflator to what I then thought was the 1967 convention’s cost and got $47 million. Casey Seiler of the Albany Times Union was there. He did not hear or realize that I had adjusted for inflation, so he used the $47 million figure as the cost of the 1967 convention. This led others to then adjust for inflation based on that number, leading to the proliferation of a faulty projected cost of $350 million, immediately seized upon by convention opponents. (Seiler later published a correction.)

The Public Employees Federation wrote: “Experts estimate a constitutional convention would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.” Senator Majority Leader John Flanagan used it as evidence that a convention would be outrageously expensive, with no “guarantee” of any positive result. The wildly wrong number repeatedly popped up in media outlets all over the state. Even after shown the error of their ways in debates, opponents were loath to give up this ‘alternative fact.’ All of this was chronicled by Bill Mahoney as an urban legend in Politico New York.

Since then a leading convention advocate, Chris Bopst, went back to the state comptroller’s actual spending records. He found that between 1967 and 1971 a total of $7,580,885 was spent on preparing for and conducting the last constitutional convention. Of this, $527,051 ($3,977,673 in 2017 dollars) was for a preparatory commission. We haven’t had one of those this time; the Legislature killed it. This leaves $7,053,834, spent over a total of four years. In 2017 dollars this is $51,448,160, not far off (8.6%) from my original more-or-less shot in the dark of $47 million.

There’s no telling if the cost of the 1967 convention is a good guide for what a convention would cost if held today. After all, 1967 was half a century ago. (It’s the longest time since a constitutional convention was held in New York State history.) Some say that a better estimate is this year’s budget for the Legislature’s larger house, the Assembly. That roughly doubles the number, bringing it to $105.4 million.

One big thing is being missed: a major expense of the convention, the cost for delegates’ pay, would likely be lower in real terms this time around. The reason? Each delegate must be paid the salary of an Assembly member, and legislative compensation has gone up since 1967 far more slowly than the rate of  inflation.

In 1967 there were 186 delegates; each was paid $15,000. Total delegate costs were therefore $2,790,000, just short of 40% of the convention’s overall cost. At the next convention, if it is authorized, there will be 204 delegates (three from each Senate district – there are now 63, not 57 – and 15 at large). Unless there is a legislative pay raise, each will earn $79,500. The total payroll for delegates will thus be  $16,218,000. This is 29.8% of the current-dollar cost of the 1967 convention, and 15.4% of the 2017 Assembly budget.  

At this potential level of cost, is a convention worth it? A comparison, albeit imperfect, suggests itself.

Successful businesses regularly reorganize, merge, or acquire companies to increase profitability by becoming more efficient, managing scale, and consolidating strengths. A close friend on Wall Street estimated the bankers’ costs of a $50 billion acquisition to be somewhere around .50% of enterprise value – lawyers of course are extra! The New York state budget is $153.1 billion. If we use $105 million as the high end constitutional convention cost – we arrive at a “reorganization “ cost that is .001% of the state’s annual budget.

Corporate reorganizations, mergers, and acquisitions are pursued because the benefits are expected to exceed the costs and to accrete over the long term. Not all benefits, of course, can be defined with a financial value. The gains a convention would likely produce in democratic accountability and good government are potentially enormous, but hard to monetize. However, think of this: One 2007 study estimated that a  thorough reorganization of New York’s courts, sought for decades and recently said by the State Bar Association to be possible only through a constitutional convention, would save over $500 million ($600 million in 2017 dollars). That’s six times the high end cost of a convention in 2017.

What do these numbers tell us? It’s a no brainer. We cannot afford to not hold a constitutional convention.

***
Gerald Benjamin is director of The Benjamin Center at SUNY New Paltz.

(photo via @NYSEDNews)

The silence from D.C. is deafening.

As The Washington Post recently reported, “the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.”

Earlier this month, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos testified that “this department is not going to be issuing decrees” on major civil rights issues – even though interpreting and enforcing civil rights law is, in fact, the role of the agency she leads.

And Secretary DeVos’ agency then announced major changes that will dramatically weaken civil rights enforcement.

This lack of national leadership is shameful. But if the federal government is going to devolve its historic role protecting civil rights to the states, New York is well-positioned to be a beacon for the nation at a time when our students need it the most.

Building on significant work already underway by state leaders, there are three additional steps that New York should take.

First, New York must modernize its laws to protect students who are the victims of discrimination. Due to a court decision in 2012, the state’s Division of Human Rights has only been allowed to enforce anti-discrimination protections in private schools – not in public K-12 schools or public colleges and universities. These anti-discrimination protections should be immediately extended to all students in all public schools.

In fact, legislation has already been endorsed by Governor Cuomo and passed the Assembly. All that’s standing in the way of protecting students is a vote by the State Senate. The federal government’s abrogation of its duty to protect students should give new impetus to legislators from both parties to vote. When the Legislature returns in January, this bill deserves an immediate vote.

But there’s more the state can do right now.

Government also has a broader responsibility to set standards, investigate systemic disparities and enforce civil rights protections. The U.S. Department of Education could previously be counted on to issue guidelines specifying how federal laws and regulations should be interpreted, and then monitor and report on whether they are being properly implemented. Under President Obama, for example, guidelines were used to protect transgender students and to demand that colleges prevent and address sexual violence.

Not anymore. The federal guidelines protecting transgender students have already been rescinded, and the Office of Civil Rights’ budget would be decimated under the current president’s proposal. Where the federal government is newly silent, New York should take up the mantle on behalf of students. The Attorney General’s Office and State Education Department have already shown clear leadership – for example, protecting immigrant students and transgender students and committing resources and staff to monitor school districts – as has the Governor’s Office on issues including college sexual assault.

These three state offices should now work together to take additional steps to fill the federal vacuum – issuing or strengthening guidelines, conducting investigations, and publicly reporting on their findings. For example, disparities in access to college-prep coursework and the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions are two issues ripe for greater focus from a civil rights perspective. And LGBT students, immigrant students, students with disabilities, and victims of sexual violence are only a few of the groups that would benefit from a sustained civil rights presence.

In addition, individuals and advocates have counted on the ability to file civil rights complaints with sympathetic U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Since those federal agencies now can’t be counted on to stand up for students, the state needs to bulk up its enforcement mechanisms.

These important functions will no doubt require additional resources – an important reason that the state should plan now.

Finally, data is often what makes it possible to identify patterns of systemic injustice. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights operates a rich source of data on educational inequities called the Civil Rights Data Collection. These data shine a light on critical issues like access to college-prep courses, student discipline measures, and school staffing.

The State Education Department should commit to maintain this data collection (regardless of whether the federal government continues to require it), validate New York’s data so that it is accurate and actionable, and put it to use through standardized reporting and public tools. Acting now will send an important signal to school districts and provide time to request any additional resources needed to carry out these data integrity and dissemination functions.

Because if the federal government is going to abandon the students most at risk, we should be able to count on New York stepping up in their defense.

***
Ian Rosenblum is the executive director of The Education Trust—New York. On Twitter @ianrosenblum & @EdTrustNY.

(photo: The Governor's Office)

Albany ended the legislative session without any government ethics reform and without any voting reform. Although there have been fewer arrests for corruption this session than last, no legislator should take this as a sign of improvement. And New York State voters should accept the truth that the Legislature itself will never seriously vote against its members’ self-interest to make progress on ethics or electoral reform.

The only opportunity for New Yorkers for real reform is on the ballot on November 7, 2017, where we will be able to vote “yes” for a State Constitutional Convention.

This year, some state legislators talked about passing voting reforms in our archaic, closed system, such as early voting, reducing the time required to switch parties, and same-day registration, but none happened. This legislative session we heard calls for closing the LLC loophole, fixing pay-to-play allowances, and eliminating “lulus” -- stipends that go to legislators, sometimes for work they don’t actually do.

The response to the news that almost all State Senators receive these lulus, or extra committee or conference leadership stipends, regardless of whether they are actually leading any committee, has been lackluster. The State Senate, for the first time in eight years, convened its ethics committee on June 15, less than a week before the end of the legislative session. It decided to table the lulu issue, who knows until when.

There will be a chance to make constitutional reform on the ballot this year aside from the Con Con. The one reform voters have the opportunity to enact is to revoke the pensions of legislators convicted of a crime, and that’s only because it was the singular outcome of legislators responding to the anger of voters over the corruption scandals that took down two legislative leaders in one year and have plagued the capital for decades.

One worthwhile result with a slew of problems brewing should not be taken as sufficient for voters in the state. Voters should enact the pension-stripping measure and also vote for a Constitutional Convention.

To be sure, a Constitutional Convention should not be a second way to legislate. Many different interest groups will try to use the Constitutional Convention to effect their legislative goals, such as the legalization of recreational marijuana, banning abortion, or creating a road to upstate secession. However, the one problem that a majority of constitutional delegates and eventually New York voters can agree on is that the years of legislative sclerosis are a systemic problem that the State Constitution could fix. Moreover, legislators themselves will not legislate their way into solving those problems, even if there is a switch in partisan power.

Saying yes to a Constitutional Convention is worth the fight. The delegates could draft a new and improved version of the state’s democratic system, which would then be put to the voters. New York voters are smart enough to reject changes that merely reinforce the status quo or do damage to our civil rights. The opportunity to vote yes for a Constitutional Convention every 20 years is a deliberate acknowledgment from the state Constitutional framers that politics will sometimes overwhelm the legislative process. The lawmakers will not fix the problems on their own, the people must do it.

On November 7, vote “yes” for a Constitutional Convention.

***
Richard Semegram is tenant lawyer based in Brooklyn. On Twitter at @richagram.

Mayor de Blasio (photo via The Mayor's Office)

Since Mayor de Blasio’s cries about the dire consequences of the State Legislature not granting him an extension of mayoral control over the city’s public schools didn't seem to work, this perhaps provides us with a little space to have a more open and less hysterical discussion about possible alternatives. What I find striking about the mayoral control debate is the false assumption that there exists a wide consensus on the need for it.

A May 2017 Quinnipiac Poll, consistent with other polls on the subject, found that “Only 21 percent of New York City voters say Mayor Bill de Blasio ‘should retain complete control of the public schools,’ while 68 percent say he should ‘share control of the public schools with other elected leaders.’” However, this has not been acknowledged by the mayor or taken seriously by the media. This probably goes to show the power of the corporate-educational alliance so brilliantly forged by former Mayor Bloomberg in his takeover of the schools back in 2002.

When I listen to Mayor de Blasio decry the corruption and chaos of the old local elected school boards, I see it as an attack on the ability of communities of color to run their own affairs.

The idea that decentralization of a bloated school bureaucracy and local community control of neighborhood schools is presented as a given unfairly cuts off any serious discussion of what really happened with the community control movement and how it was made dysfunctional. It cuts off any serious discussion of the role of parents and communities of color in determining educational policy in a city and school system in which people of color are in the majority.

Because of the lack of serious inclusion of people of color in educational policy, the charter school movement as a form of community control has arisen. Under Bloomberg and de Blasio the role of parents in school governance has basically disappeared. The Panel for Educational Policy is basically a rubber stamp for the Mayor and the Chancellor, and the parent coordinators in the schools are there largely to manage the parents, not increase their participation.

By decrying the corruption and chaos of the past, the mayor is essentially saying that this was inherent in bringing communities of color into the school governance process. If one extended this argument to, say, the state government, then we should be giving gubernatorial control of the entire state government because of the many ethics violations committed by state legislators.

The problems plaguing the decentralized school system before mayoral control were avoidable if there had been will to do so. For example, some thoughtful, careful restrictions on who could participate on local boards could be one remedy. There could also be rules limiting the role of the teachers unions in school board membership and elections that did so much to corrupt the system.

Throughout the state local school boards are elected, while in New York City, in which neighborhoods are the size of small cities in and of themselves, New Yorkers do not have the same right. This right to full and substantive participation in school governance adds to the civic health of the city, and in the past has included the right of non-citizen parents to be part of the process.

How is it that any of these points have not entered the current discourse on the need or not for mayoral control of the city schools? As an increasing majority of the city’s population has become people of color, this type of top-down governance is part of what I call trickle-down progressivism, which must be challenged.

***
Angelo Falcón is President of the National Institute for Latino Policy (NiLP), based in New York City. He is a co-editor of the book 'Latinos in New York: Communities in Transition,' 2nd Edition from the University of Notre Dame Press.

Mayor Bloomberg at a school (photo: Spencer T. Tucker)

Mark Twain’s reproach against “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” could easily be reformulated against Lies, Damn Lies, and Statutes.  Such are the many inflammatory statements against reversion to the old Board of Education made by Mayor de Blasio and his allies as they seek renewal of mayoral control of New York City’s public schools. This fear-mongering against a return to the old system, so-called school decentralization or community control, employs caricature rather than truth to advance its purpose. In fact, a close reading of the old law – about to be resurrected if mayoral control lapses at the end of this week -- reveals a surprisingly cautious approach to balancing central, district, school, and parent interests. The true picture is a sharp contrast to the administration’s doomsday scenario.

The mayor has described “chaos and corruption under the old school boards.” The Chancellor predicted, “Our system is headed for disaster,” calling a lapse of mayoral control “devastating.” The president of Bank Street College, a former DOE official, further injured the former institution’s reputation by recalling “the system we had” when “in certain districts there was a going rate” for sale of administrative positions by local school boards. This unusually heated rhetoric is at odds with the professional experience of each since the mayor, chancellor, and Bank Street president all flourished -- apparently uncorrupted -- under the old system as a community school board member, superintendent, and principal, respectively.

But more importantly, the stereotype of community control they describe was long gone by the time mayoral control was implemented in 2002. Instead, the new system replaced a reform law enacted in 1996 that took pains to eliminate opportunities for corruption and substantially increased central power under the Chancellor while providing for important local roles. It’s that statute that will replace mayoral control if the state Legislature and governor fail to act.

Contrary to mayoral myth harking to earlier iterations of the law, the once-and-possibly future statute bans community school board members from most personnel decisions, subjecting them to removal by the Chancellor “for willful, intentional or knowing involvement in the hiring, appointment, or assignment” of school employees. The 1996 statute explicitly states that “community boards shall have no executive or administrative powers or function.” Instead they are confined to exercising “powers and duties to establish educational policies and objectives” consistent with policies of the central board and Chancellor.

The central board, now made up of seven members -- one each appointed by the Borough Presidents and two by the Mayor, thus without a mayoral majority -- is also limited to a policy role, similar to the original responsibilities of the mayoral control board, called for that reason the Panel for Educational Policy or PEP. (Its duties have since been somewhat expanded to allow for public decision-making on contract and siting matters.)

The exception to community school board members’ limited personnel role is in securing their own superintendents. But the law only provides for boards to recommend a list of candidates to the Chancellor under a model contract and regulations promulgated centrally.  Even the process by which the list is assembled is subject to sunlight, with the Chancellor empowered to establish an inclusive public process for the recruitment, screening, selection, and review of candidates.

The law, to take effect July 1, is very strong on educational accountability. Each Community Superintendent, once appointed by the Chancellor, is required to take action against the principals of failing schools. If not, the Chancellor may “remove a community superintendent who fails to comply with” all applicable laws, including “performance standards addressed by administration and effectiveness, and any requirements for continuing education and training.”

Presaging the Bloomberg-era emphasis on principal empowerment, the law reserves important powers to schools consistent with central and district policies. These include the authority to design and implement budgets; staff selection recommendations; curricula and syllabi; “teacher and staff development relevant to increasing pupil achievement, support extended day programs, school reform programs, and public support services;” make or arrange for minor building repairs; and purchase equipment and supplies if more inexpensive than system purchasing arrangements.

Parents, too, gain under the old statute which contains a number of explicit provisions making parent powers another key force in holding educators accountable and motivating them to act.  Parent involvement is one of three major criteria for evaluating principals’ performance, student achievement and school discipline being the other two.

I have my reasons for favoring mayoral control with changes. Part of the problem with the current debate over extension is its all-or-nothing posture. But advocates for mayoral control typically do a disservice to civic discourse by ignoring or mischaracterizing the reality of what would occur if mayoral control lapses. In its place would be a reform statute, curing many of the system’s previous ills, and setting forth a reasonable formula for educational accountability and effective management.

***

David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Educational Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center. Much of this analysis is based on his earlier study, co-authored with Bruce S. Cooper, “Re-Centralization or Strategic Management? A New Governance Model for the New York City Public Schools (Teachers College, Columbia University, 1998).

(photo: The Governor's Office)

New York’s mass transit riders are experiencing a serious and rapid decline in service. The negatives are palpable and documentable; ever-worsening delays are aggravating and angering the millions of New Yorkers who need the subways, buses, and commuter rail systems to move them around.

A State Comptroller’s audit found on-time weekday performance for the subway system had declined from 80% in 2013 to 74% in 2014; the MTA’s investor disclosure documents show OTP declined to 70% in 2015, to 67% in 2016; and the MTA website shows OTP through March 2017 at 63%. Increases in equipment failures are real too. The subway mean distance between failure improved dramatically with the capital program reinvestments of the 1980s and ‘90s, from its low point of 7,000 miles in 1981 to a peak of 178,000 miles in 2005, but since 2011 has declined from 172,00 mdbf to 112,000 in 2016, another rapid deterioration.

Explanations for these serious problems include difficulties in loading and unloading passengers as the trains and platforms become more and more crowded, delays due to emergencies like sick passengers and police actions, the aging of the subway car fleet, and capital and maintenance work being conducted on the rights-of-way even as the trains are running.

The overcrowding is palpable and documentable too; ridership increased 58% between 1996 and 2016. Employment in New York City grew by more than 630,000 between the end of the recession in 2009 and the end of 2016, and is continuing to grow. New York City’s economy is successful, but its infrastructure is choking.

The MTA announced a six-point improvement plan in May, including adding EMS and other personnel directly placed at major stations to address emergencies more rapidly, accelerating subway car replacements, especially on the 8th Avenue Line, and increased track maintenance. These improvements sound hopeful but will take time. In part they are just about adding resources to the operations and maintenance budget.

Governor Cuomo nominated Joe Lhota, the former MTA Chair and Giuliani Deputy Mayor, to the Chair position again on June 21, and the State Senate confirmed him immediately. The Governor is also seeking governance changes. He has asked the Legislature to give him more seats on the MTA board to create an outright appointed majority of the seats for the Governor, as if he did not already have effective control. He is also proposing separating the Board Chair from the CEO to strengthen executive leadership.

The former Chair and CEO, the widely respected Thomas Prendergast, retired several months ago, and the Lhota appointment brings in someone of stature and competence. More than a decade ago, then Governor Pataki and the Legislature had combined the Board Chair and CEO positions for that same purpose, stronger leadership. While Lhota may be a positive choice, the notion that Governor Cuomo has not been in charge is ridiculous.

In a June 8 blog, “Cuomo Gave MTA Chump Change...,” I discussed how the Governor had allocated less than 5% to the MTA of a $9.9 billion windfall to the State from financial settlements with Wall Street bad guys due to pre-recession wrongdoing. Only $278 million is left unallocated; in addition, $1 billion is authorized for cash to the Javits Convention Center expansion. I pointed out that the hotel industry and the giant “New City” being developed in Hudson Yards offered ready-made alternatives for financing Javits, and the money might better be spent to help the straphangers.

Extra cash for critical operations, maintenance, and capital work won’t provide miraculous relief, but ought to help. Even getting these funds assumes Cuomo will step up to the plate but the record is pretty bad so far.

In the current $29.5 billion capital plan the State has committed $1.3 billion in identified resources, with an I.O.U. written in state law that the State will provide another $7 billion by 2025 or whenever the MTA runs out of current resources, meaning many years before the State has to come up with more money. This year Cuomo even reduced the State’s commitment in replacement funds to the MTA, authorized when the MTA lost revenue when its dedicated payroll tax was cut in 2011, by $67 million.

When Cuomo became Governor in 2011, both the State and the MTA were emerging from the financial crises that had confronted them during the recession. The 2010-14 MTA capital program, originally conceived at $32 billion, had been proposed in 2009 at $28 billion but scaled back to $26 billion that fall, with only two years of identified funding. As a last resort the MTA indicated it could borrow heavily.

In July 2011, the MTA, lacking large commitments from outside parties, scaled the capital program back further, to $24 billion, and would borrow $14.8 billion to provide the resources. The State would contribute a meager $770 million. The huge borrowing assured continued substantial fare hikes as the interest on the debts would be paid.

Fortunately, economic growth, improved ridership, and low interest rates allowed the transit system’s finances to stabilize for several years and fare and toll hikes dropped from 7.5% every two years to 4%. By 2014 the review process had begun for the new 2015-19 capital program, which once again was proposed at $32 billion, the same amount as had originally been contemplated for the 2010-14 program. Transit advocates proposed a new Round II version of Congestion Pricing, imposing tolls on the East River bridges and below 60th street in Manhattan, but lowering tolls on other city bridges, as a way to fund the capital program, but Governor Cuomo never supported it. Instead, his appointee to the MTA Capital Program Review Board vetoed the MTA’s $32 billion plan in October 2014.

It was 17 months before a plan would finally be adopted. Legislation submitted by my office to divert a tiny fraction of existing revenues from the personal income tax within the region to fund a large portions of the plan drew no response from the governor, even after Senate Republicans latched onto my proposal by linking funding for roads and bridges that would benefit their districts.

The recession was a financial catastrophe for the MTA, and was a factor in funding setbacks. Hurricane Sandy proved a physical catastrophe, causing major setbacks while repairs were made and are continuing, along with diverting much managerial attention. New York City’s substantial employment growth is a good thing but is straining the mass transit system. On the political front, Governor Cuomo has been a catastrophe for this huge state agency.

Part of the 535 Carlton Pacific Park lottery ad

Ashley Cotton's June 22 Gotham Gazette op-ed “Tackling New York’s Housing Affordability Crisis” is deeply deceptive, part of the long-running spin from the developer of the Pacific Park (formerly Atlantic Yards) project.

It's on par with the misleading mayoral press release June 13 for the "100% affordable" 535 Carlton, which I analyzed in City & State.

Cotton, the External Affairs Executive VP for Forest City New York (and thus the spokesperson for the joint venture Greenland Forest City Partners), writes of that new building, "It’s 100 percent affordable, and proof positive that our public-private affordable housing model delivers great results."

Really? Half of 535 Carlton is dedicated to middle-income households earning up to 165% of Area Median Income, or AMI. Translation: studios cost $2,137, one-bedrooms $2,680; two-bedrooms $3,223, and three-bedrooms $3,716.

While those dip below market rates, they hardly supply housing to those who need it most. According to the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development's Affordable Housing "Cheat Sheet," only 7.4% of New York households even fall within 140% and 170% of AMI, above which is clearly market rate.

I recall the 2009 public hearing, where a member of the housing group ACORN urged approval of Atlantic Yards because "[t]he people in my building cannot afford $2,000 a month rent." They still can't.

The word "affordable" sounds good, but vagueness about actual affordability obscures how affordability differs significantly from that originally promised, which got advocates like ACORN on board.

Cotton writes, "We committed to delivering 2,250 units of below market-rate housing by 2025." Yes, but that obscures how the developer, with compliant public officials and cowed advocates, has delivered apartments for households in the top quartile of city incomes.

The 2005 ACORN agreement was supposed to deliver 2,250 units of affordable housing, with only 20% of them -- 450 total -- going to the best-off middle-income cohort. Not only has AMI floated up significantly, this building has 50% of the units assigned to the best-off cohort.

No wonder that I discovered, after analyzing the raw spreadsheet of applicants for City Limits, that while 92,743 households applied for 297 lottery units, only 2,203 applicants even fell within income eligibility for the 148 middle-income apartments among them.

"For lottery winners, these units are life-changing," Cotton writes. Sure, for the woman Cotton features in her essay, who had been trying desperately to get good housing, and luckily won the lottery.

For the relatively small number of those seeking the middle-income units, as well as the significant number of middle-income households who've actually turned down the housing after winning the lottery, it's not so life-changing.

"Pacific Park Brooklyn," writes Cotton, "is already proof that putting affordability first can reap great rewards for the citizens of New York." Actually, it's proof that "affordability" is a great selling point when few look closely.

The unfortunate but deeply important lesson of Atlantic Yards -- 13-plus years in -- is that the developer is always spinning.

Those of us with long memories recall past deceptive essays by the developer. In May 2008, Bruce Ratner, CEO of Forest City Ratner (since renamed Forest City New York), penned an op-ed for the Daily News, contending, "for the first time, I am offering an updated construction timetable for the project...We anticipate finishing all of Atlantic Yards by 2018."

Well, we know how that turned out. The timetable stretched to 2035, and then was said to be 2025, at least for the affordable housing, though officials at Ratner's parent company now hint at well past 2030.

"We're still building the iconic Miss Brooklyn tower," Ratner wrote, regarding the Frank Gehry-designed flagship building at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues, which would loom over the Barclays Center and contain an atrium in which arena attendees could gather.

Now, of course, Gehry is long gone, and the Greenland Forest City joint venture -- surely wary of construction over a regularly used arena -- now plans to seek state permission to shift the bulk of Miss Brooklyn across the street. That would transform an already large approved tower -- replacing the current big-box stores Modell's and P.C. Richard -- into an enormous two-tower project.

Consider the Feb 2010 op-ed from Ratner's deputy, MaryAnne Gilmartin, in the Commercial Observer. Atlantic Yards, Gilmartin wrote, "has been about jobs and housing and an historic community-benefits agreement that ensures that the project’s economic and social benefits help the folks who live here and need it most."

Well, it's clear today that much of the "affordable housing," not to mention the market-rate housing, doesn't help those who need it most.

What about that much-ballyhooed Community Benefits Agreement, or CBA? It was a huge part of project promotion, earning a press release from Mayor Bloomberg's office when it was signed in 2005.

One significant part of the CBA, a pre-apprenticeship training program that was supposed to vault struggling Brooklynites into coveted union jobs, dissolved, leading to a bitter lawsuit. Other elements remained vague, unenforceable aspirations.

Who oversees the CBA? Because it's not a government document -- Bloomberg was just a witness -- it's left up to the compromised signatories, which had neither the expertise nor the incentive to challenge the developer. As a consultant Forest City itself hired to evaluate the CBA concluded, the developer financially compensated the organizations for their potential to secure community support for the project, but not for their capacity to fulfill the CBA's programmatic goals.

The CBA required an independent monitor. "Atlantic Yards is setting a new standard," Ratner asserted in March 2007, "and the ICM [Independent Compliance Monitor] will be everyone's watchdog to ensure we reach all of the goals and benefits we have agreed to." The monitor was never hired, despite a Request for Proposals. The developer saved at least $100,000 a year, and the CBA evaded scrutiny.

I remember a November 2004 public meeting in which Forest City's initial Atlantic Yards point man Jim Stuckey, asked how the project would be overseen, replied, "The CBA we have in negotiation calls for an independent officer. Probably more than one." He even told the New York Times in July 2005 that the full project -- which was supposed to take 10 years when announced in 2003 -- might be completed as soon as 2011.

That's the developer's record. Their statements, including claims of "Tackling New York’s Housing Affordability Crisis," always deserve skepticism.

***
Norman Oder is a Brooklyn journalist who writes the daily blog Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report and is working on a book about the project. On Twitter @AYReport.

Pacific Park Brooklyn (photo: Max Touhey)

Crystal Patterson is a fourth-generation New Yorker whose city roots run deep: she was raised in East Flatbush, has family in Bedford-Stuyvesant and works in Midtown. Yet, even though Crystal calls New York home, for years she had no home to go to; she was one of the hundreds of thousands of city residents who struggled to find safe, affordable housing.

Today, New York is experiencing an unprecedented affordability crisis. In all five boroughs, from Williamsbridge in the Bronx to Williamsburg in Brooklyn, the cost of housing has become increasingly out of reach for low, moderate, and middle income New Yorkers. In many ways, we have become victims of our own success: while the city has become safer, more vibrant, and more welcoming than ever before, it has also become more expensive to live here. The simple economic principle of supply and demand has caused this emergency, but it will take an innovative, multifaceted solution to get us out of it.

One creative solution has already proven to be successful in Brooklyn: public-private partnerships. Last week, Greenland Forest City Partners was proud to open 535 Carlton, our COOKFOX-designed, 298-unit building in one of the most desirable parts of the city. The best part? It’s 100 percent affordable, and proof positive that our public-private affordable housing model delivers great results. This pioneering partnership ensures that Pacific Park Brooklyn, our 22-acre project in downtown Brooklyn, enhances the area’s diversity, vibrancy, and accessibility.

Working in conjunction with the city and the state, we at Greenland Forest City developed a plan to accelerate the timetable for affordable housing coming online. We committed to delivering 2,250 units of below market-rate housing by 2025. In exchange, the city’s Housing Development Corporation (HDC) provided financial resources to guarantee two 100 percent affordable buildings, 535 Carlton and 38 Sixth Avenue, would start construction earlier than planned. These buildings wouldn’t just be for low-income New Yorkers; they would also include housing for moderate and middle income New Yorkers who have been increasingly priced out of their neighborhoods.

Moreover, Greenland Forest City committed to building affordable housing designed by the city’s top architects. COOKFOX, the architect behind 535 Carlton, is a pioneer of sustainable, environmentally-responsible design, which permeates throughout the property. The building sits adjacent to what will become the eight-acre, publicly accessible Pacific Park. It includes resident gardens on the rooftop and a green wall in the lobby. Many of the sundrenched apartments have views of the neighborhood, nearby Prospect Park, and New York Harbor.

For lottery winners, these units are life-changing. For years, Crystal lived in AirBnB rentals, spending a few short months in different neighborhoods throughout New York and beyond. She applied to 60 affordable housing lotteries throughout the five boroughs, each time praying that she would finally get a lucky break and a place to call home.

Late last year, that break came: Crystal opened her email to find out she had won the affordable housing lottery for 535 Carlton. She now lives in a two-bedroom apartment with her 15-year-old son, Trey. The building has a fitness center, children’s play area and resident lounge, amenities more likely to be found in a luxury building than a 100 percent affordable one. But for Crystal, the best part is building a new, stable life in the city she loves.

“The joy we felt was indescribable,” said Crystal on securing her apartment in 535 Carlton. “Today, I feel like my son and I are part of the growing community in both the building and the neighborhood.”

Ultimately, we want more New Yorkers like Crystal to feel that they are part of our shared future, and that there will be enough affordable housing supply for generations to come. Pacific Park Brooklyn aims to meet this vision, and is already proof that putting affordability first can reap great rewards for the citizens of New York.

***
Ashley Cotton is Executive Vice President, External Affairs at Forest City New York.

(photo: secondskinuk)

We write in response to the pro-big business, anti-worker, politically-motivated opinion piece written by Peggy Ableman entitled, “New York’s Asbestos Courts Need Transparency.”

We have been representing the working men and women of New York for over 30 years in the “New York asbestos courts” which are the subject of Ms. Ableman’s piece. The lives of these men and women, people responsible for building this great city, have been devastated by asbestos diseases caused by corporate recklessness and greed. Ms. Ableman attacks the honesty and integrity of these true heroes, as well as the honesty and integrity of their lawyers.

Her attack is nothing more than a politically-motivated, scurrilous work of fiction, promoting the agenda of such groups as the American Tort Reform Association. This group’s main goal, supported by Ms. Ableman, is to deny and/or significantly limit access to the courts by those whose lives have been destroyed by an industrial poison. Interestingly and tellingly, Ms. Ableman’s piece is completely devoid of any facts in support of her made-up claims of fraud. This is not surprising given the fact that Ms. Ableman is not a member of the New York bar and, to the best of our knowledge, has never set foot in a New York courtroom.

Perhaps most importantly, in a piece calling for “truth” and “transparency,” Ms. Ableman failed to disclose her current employer. After leaving the bench to seek more lucrative work, Ms. Ableman was hired by the powerhouse asbestos defense law firm, McCarter & English. She is currently “special counsel” to this law firm which has been representing defendants in asbestos litigation for decades.

The firm’s website touts as one of Ms. Ableman’s “accomplishments” the fact that she was quoted in the American Tort Reform Association’s rag, “Judicial Hellholes.” This “publication” denigrates and belittles the incredible work of New York judges who labor every day, all day, seeking to provide justice to all litigants that appear before them. To call the New York State’s judicial system administered by these conscientious jurists a “judicial hellhole” is an outrage and a direct affront to the integrity of these judges.

If Ms. Ableman is interested in ferreting out fraud, she should start with a good long look in the mirror. Her failure to disclose the fact that she works for a firm that represents big corporations that are sued in asbestos cases in a column about “truth” and “transparency” says all you need to know about her credibility.

***
Perry Weitz, Arthur Luxenberg, Robert Gordon, Charles Ferguson, Alani Golanski and Jerry Kristal, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.

a "baby box"

As sponsors of legislation to establish a Newborn Health and Safe Sleep Pilot Program, we call on the Legislature to combat infant mortality in New York and pass the bill.

This measure is an important step forward in our state’s ongoing efforts to support new parents and provide all children with the best possible start to life.

According to the Department of Health, over 90 infants in New York die every year as a result of unsafe sleep practices and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). While there are many factors involved in improving infant health, research clearly demonstrates that promoting safe sleep is a key component in reducing preventable injury and death.

The Newborn Health and Safe Sleep Pilot Program would distribute “baby boxes” or other approved products, like play-yards or bassinets, to provide parents in the areas of greatest need or regions with high rates of infant mortality with a safe sleep option. In addition to providing a safe sleeping environment for newborns, the “baby box” or similar product distributed through the program would also include essential baby care items, educational materials, and provide an opportunity for new families and health care providers to discuss safe and healthy practices aimed at reducing SIDS.

“Baby boxes,” a concept originated in Finland, have been used across the world with proven success. In the United States, several states and a number of cities and health care systems have already implemented “baby box” programs as a persuasive way to reach new families. The statewide program would offer critical resources, educate new families and enable them to engage in safe practices.    

While distribution of “baby boxes” alone will not completely solve the problem of infant mortality, this program would be just one piece of a much larger puzzle in New York. Our state has already made great strides to improve health outcomes. In 2015, we worked together to pass legislation which made New York the first state in the nation to designate pregnancy as a qualifying life event for health insurance enrollment, guaranteeing all families the opportunity to access vital prenatal care to prevent pre-term births and pregnancy complications. New York has worked to establish paid family leave benefits for working parents and provide maternal, infant, and early childhood home-visiting services in our most vulnerable communities. The Newborn Health and Safe Sleep Program would further our efforts to reduce health disparities and ensure all parents receive the support they need to raise healthy children.

In an ideal world, every family would be aware of and adhere to the American Academy of Pediatrics Safe Sleep Recommendations and have a crib or bassinet meeting their guidelines. In reality, new families are often sleep deprived, exhausted, and struggling to adjust, or simply can’t afford a crib. The Newborn Health and Safe Sleep Program will help new parents avoid unsafe behavior and will encourage and increase healthy sleep practices.  

New York has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to enacting comprehensive policies to support healthy parenting, these measures will allow New York to continue to serve as a national leader in protecting the health and wellbeing of babies, children and families.

***
Aravella Simotas is a Democratic Assembly member representing AD 36, Astoria, Queens, and Kemp Hannon is a Republican representing SD6, in Nassau County. They sponsor bills S3867 and A/A6044-A.