DCA Commissioner Lorelei Salas, the author

Sitting in front of more than 150 people, Maria Aguilar broke down in tears as she shared how often she experiences discrimination and abuse at the hands of her employers. Maria is a day laborer at “La Parada,” a street corner in Williamsburg where every day she waits and hopes for the chance to be picked up by someone looking for last-minute child care or housekeeping services. Maria is almost always a victim of wage theft and despite working long days and weeks she does not get paid minimum wage, let alone the overtime wages she is owed. After years of toiling under terrible conditions, she joined other day laborers and formed a worker co-op of cleaners with the hopes of regaining some sense of control over who she works for, and on what terms.

She is one of the “lucky” ones. Most workers may never get to set the terms of their employment. Take Pierre, a young father and husband working for a fast food restaurant, who choked up as he told us how he had to wait until Sunday to figure out which two or three days he might be scheduled to work that week, and having to choose between putting food on the table or paying his phone bill. Or Nereyda, a transgender Latina and member of Make the Road New York, who experienced sexual harassment and wage theft at the restaurant where she worked. When she finally obtained a court decision in her favor, her employer went bankrupt and shut down to avoid having to pay her back wages.

New York City stands against these and other exploitative labor practices; we are committed to protecting all New Yorkers regardless of national origin, race, religion/creed, gender, and gender identity.

Mayor de Blasio‘s legislative proposal to address the terrible scheduling practices in the fast food industry by requiring employers to give advance notice to workers of their schedules will make it so that workers like Pierre can plan ahead and know how much money they will bring home. And as our Office of Labor Policy and Standards (OLPS) gets ready to implement the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, gig economy workers will get assistance in recouping money they are owed and navigating the court system. We are building a new generation of workplace protections, and just in time.

A few days ago, the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Office of Labor Policy and Standards (OLPS), along with the city’s Commission on Human Rights and the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, held a public hearing on the state of workers’ rights at LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City. We took testimony from nearly 50 workers in the construction, fast food and retail, home health care, restaurant, and taxi industries. I have spent nearly 20 years working in the field of labor compliance at all levels of government, and the stories of rampant wage theft and unsafe workplaces that we heard struck a very familiar chord with me. What I found even more alarming was that the exploitative conditions these workers endure do not discriminate. They have spread across countless industries and span racial and socio-economic divides.

While we wait to see what direction the Trump administration takes in terms of enforcing key workplace protections, we are preparing for the worst. A proposed $2.5 billion budget cut for the United States Department of Labor could result in a gutting of enforcement staff and further deterioration of working conditions. Now more than ever, it will be up to progressive cities and states to step up enforcement efforts and fill the gap left by the federal government.

New York City, led by Mayor de Blasio, is doing just that. We have been enforcing New York’s Paid Sick Leave Law for just over three years, and since January, we have seen a 30 percent increase in the number of complaints filed against employers not following the law. We are encouraged by the fact that people are not shying away from coming to us for help, but this troubling trend coincides with the timing of anti-immigrant policies coming out of D.C.

Today -- Monday, May 1, or May Day -- will be filled with marches and protests, and everyone who cares about workers’ rights, including those at my agency, will be seeking to elevate the issues that plague workers in this country. It has become ever clearer that worker exploitation is an equal opportunity evil that cannot be condemned just once a year. We need to devote more time and resources to filling current labor gaps if we hope to secure a safer and stronger workplace for our children.

***
Lorelei Salas is the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs, which houses the Office of Labor Policy and Standards. Workers can learn more about what the office does at nyc.gov/dca or by calling 311. On Twitter at @NYCDCA.

A charter school rally at the Capitol (photo: The Governor's Office)

UFT President Michael Mulgrew raises important points about the negative impact of suspensions in his recent op-ed, “Charter Schools Can’t Suspend Their Way to Success.”

There is no disputing Mr. Mulgrew’s argument that the excessive use of suspensions and other exclusionary disciplinary practices means that students (and especially students of color) miss out on class time and their education permanently suffers. No school – regardless of whether it’s a public charter school or district public school – should ever be able to “suspend its way to success.”

The good news is that New York can do something about it – right now.

In Albany, state leaders are working on a major overhaul of how New York measures school performance and provides urgency, resources, and support to help schools that are not succeeding for any group of students. These changes are possible under a federal education law that President Obama signed, called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

While academic measures like reading and math achievement must – and should – remain the most important aspect of how we measure school performance, there’s also room for a small number of additional measures of school quality and student success that capture other important student outcomes that schools can control and that have a clear link to achievement.

Without a doubt, reducing suspensions meets those criteria.

A recent study by the California Dropout Research Project and The Civil Rights Project at the University of California found that “suspensions themselves directly reduce the graduation rates of suspended students” – resulting in a 6.5 percentage point difference in high school graduation rates.

Our own research at The Education Trust--New York found that across New York State, African-American elementary and middle school students are nearly four times as likely as their white peers to receive at least one out-of-school suspension, and African-American high school students are twice as likely as their white peers to be suspended. The challenge is not limited to New York City, and it’s not unique to charter schools.

We – along with a statewide coalition of civil rights, education, parent, and business organizations committed to advancing equity through ESSA – believe that schools should be held accountable for reducing the overuse of exclusionary discipline measures, including in- and out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, seclusions/restraints, and school-based arrests.

Of course, just including discipline in our accountability system is not sufficient. We also need the resources to support teachers and principals in enacting restorative justice practices and establishing positive school environments. Including discipline in our accountability system can help create the urgency to provide these critical tools so our schools can truly address the problem and improve the learning environment for all students.

Other states are already taking advantage of ESSA to show they are serious about reducing excessive discipline. In Louisiana, for example, the state’s new accountability system would require support and improvement in schools that have high rates of suspensions.

Does New York’s State Education Department agree that efforts to reduce excessive suspensions should have real teeth?

We’ll find out in just a few short weeks, when they present their draft accountability plan to the Board of Regents and the public.

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

Michael Mulgrew, the author (photo: UFT)

Children who miss 20 or more days of school in New York City have lost so much instruction time that they are classified as chronically absent, which studies have linked to lower test scores and higher dropout rates.

So it is hard to see the educational purpose behind Success Academy's suspending a special-needs 7-year-old for 45 days, even if some form of alternative instruction was provided. This one recent example is part of a much larger pattern, both for Success Academy and the larger charter school sector it is the leader of.

Sadly, Success Academy is far from the outlier in the charter sector in the use of suspensions as a punitive tool.

A 2016 study by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California, Los Angeles, found charters nationwide suspended African-American and special-needs students at a disproportionately higher rate than their white or non-disabled classmates. The report was the first national review of charter school discipline.

In New York City, although the charter school student population was less than 7 percent of the system's total enrollment, charter schools accounted for nearly 42 percent of all suspensions, according to a review by The Atlantic of 2014 state suspension data.

Charter schools accounted for 48 of the top 50 New York City schools with the highest suspension rates for the same year. The Icahn Charter #7 in the Bronx reported giving out 142 suspensions to its 99 students that year, the highest suspension rate in the city. Achievement First Crown Heights Charter reported issuing 200 suspensions to its roughly 940 students that same year.

Teachers know that there is a place for suspension of children who are dangerous to themselves or others, or who constantly make learning impossible for their classmates. The UFT fought to ensure that the system's new discipline policy included the ability for a principal to suspend even the youngest children, though the potential loss of learning time means that suspension should always be a last resort.

But we also know that it takes time, energy, and public scrutiny to move from punitive, after-the-fact discipline codes to pro-active, restorative practices that can change school climate. At the UFT, we have joined with the city Department of Education to create a package of training and techniques to help staff identify and deal with issues proactively, known as the Positive Learning Collaborative.

At schools enrolled for three years in this joint venture, suspensions are down, as are the kinds of incidents that used to trigger them. And perhaps more important, the satisfaction of children, staff, and parents in the schools is up.

Charters need to do similar work, and do it publicly to regain the trust of the public, particularly parents and students.

***
Michael Mulgrew is president of the United Federation of Teachers. On Twitter @UFT.

(NYC HDC rendering)

For more than a year there has been wrangling and discord among developers, housing advocates, organized labor, and our elected leaders over an agreement on spending for affordable housing. A “memorandum of understanding” was drafted, but a budget and legislative session came and went in Albany without a consensus.

Now, we finally have a state budget that gives us more than $2 billion in spending on housing. It will have its critics, but by and large this plan puts in front of us the resources and the political will to address the housing and community revitalization needs of cities large and small throughout New York.

This commitment of state resources is more critical than ever as we face a hostile federal budget that aims to eliminate housing programs that are integral to everyday New Yorkers, as well as those that provide safety nets and services to our most vulnerable citizens.

At The Community Preservation Corporation (CPC), small buildings have been our focus for more than four decades. What we’ve seen across our lending portfolio highlights the critical role they play in the stability of our neighborhoods, but also the challenges these properties face. They are where most low- and moderate-income renters live, and are an essential resource of natural affordability.

The state’s housing plan puts in place more than $60 million to help preserve this irreplaceable, yet often forgotten backbone of our housing stock.

Seventy-one percent of the multifamily buildings in the upstate markets CPC serves have fewer than 50 units. What’s striking is that 67 percent of units in these small buildings are in fair or poor condition. They tend to be older, more distressed, and their owners often lack the means to maintain their physical and financial health.
Why are they so important? The rents in these very same buildings are the most affordable in all markets. They are 16 percent below the average rent for their metro areas and 40 percent below the rent levels of the highest-quality buildings. State resources on this scale will be key in preserving and improving housing that is currently serving millions of New Yorkers, and ensuring that it will continue to serve millions more well into the future.

Supportive housing is one of the most compassionate, effective, and cost-efficient means to addressing homelessness. Section 8 has played a significant role in its funding, but with the program squarely in the crosshairs of the president’s budget, state funding will be key to continuing its production.

This deeply affordable housing provides stability and supportive services specifically tailored to the needs of at-risk populations such as formerly homeless military veterans, youth aging out of foster care, and those with mental illness who need additional support.

A joint report by New York City and State found that tenants of supportive housing spent fewer days in jail, homeless shelters, and state-operated psychiatric facilities. This can save taxpayers millions because these tenants are far less likely to need other publicly-funded programs such as government-subsidized health care and social services.

Governor Cuomo’s “Affordable New York” program, which replaces 421-a, will help jumpstart development of low- and moderate-income rental housing in working-class communities throughout New York City’s boroughs. This is essential in a city like New York where half of renters are rent-burdened – paying 30 percent or more of their income towards rent.

Contrary to the spotlight on luxury buildings in high-market neighborhoods, data shows that more than 64 percent of all residential units financed under the old 421-a program between 2010-2015 were created outside of Manhattan, most in smaller buildings.

Thousands of units of affordable and naturally affordable housing would not have been financially feasible and would not have been built without 421-a. Those properties are anchoring working-class communities, providing revenue to the city, and their construction, operation, and maintenance create jobs.

This plan makes good on the governor’s promise to provide an unprecedented level of state resources to address the housing challenges facing our state. It is time for the housing community to come together and recognize that we’re all on the same team. The federal budget, or lack thereof, is looming large over our efforts to strengthen our communities and serve those most in need. If we continue to fracture and fight amongst ourselves, the losers will be the New Yorkers who don’t have the luxury of waiting for us to get out of our own way.

***
Rafael E. Cestero is the president and CEO of The Community Preservation Corporation and former commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. On Twitter @communityp.

(photo: choreographer Blacka Di Danca)

New York City is experiencing a sonic boom. From electronic cumbia in the Bronx to thumping techno in an East Williamsburg warehouse to experimental sounds in a former Greenpoint luncheonette, the energy of the city’s diverse music cultures is at a creative and popular peak. At the grassroots level, a diffuse network of DIY arts spaces cultivates the next generation of musicians. These fiercely independent venues exist to create opportunities for emerging artists and new voices, offering a first show, a supportive crowd, and a sense of community.

But not everyone is feeling the good vibrations: archaic laws and a punitive bureaucratic mindset are stifling small, local venues that are already struggling to cope with skyrocketing rents. Given a severely lacking support structure for the city’s DIY music and art spaces, a single misstep can prove disastrous. In this environment, the selective enforcement of current rules and regulations serves to criminalize nightlife—dampening economic opportunity and making New York less safe.

One particularly draconian example, the Cabaret Law, was passed at the height of the Harlem Renaissance in a bid to curb the rise of jazz clubs in the prohibition era. In the words of the Committee on Local Laws, the aim was to rein in “the ‘wild’ stranger and the foolish native” by prohibiting restaurants and bars from allowing more than three patrons to dance without receiving a separate cabaret license. For more than 60 years, the law specifically banned the principal instruments used in jazz, until a 1986 ruling found that provision unconstitutional. Despite this overtly discriminatory origin, the law has remained in force to this day.

In addition to its redundancy—strict rules already govern noise, alcohol, crowds, and other late-night nuisances—the Cabaret Law continues to have a chilling effect on specific styles of music, encouraging local music and art spaces to book rock bands or folk performers instead of hip-hop artists or salsa musicians that might inspire the crowd to dance. Applying for a license involves a gauntlet of additional regulations and costs, including additional security, surveillance, operational, and recordkeeping requirements. The cost and complexity help explain why just 94 of the city’s 25,000-plus food service establishments currently hold a cabaret license.

This regulatory relic is just one example of the adversarial relationship that characterizes the city’s interactions with independent nightlife and local arts communities. Many DIY spaces never recover after accruing multiple violations and thousands of dollars in fines. Even modest fixes can be out of reach, especially for smaller spaces: changing a certificate of occupancy, applying for a public assembly permit, or undertaking renovations to comply with byzantine building codes all pose significant hurdles. The lost revenue from just a few days spent closed for repairs can mean the difference between making rent and risking eviction.

In a city where one experienced entrepreneur cites costs upward of $1 million to open a 100-capacity venue, it’s no surprise that artist- and youth-run spaces end up mired in a constant struggle to operate legally. The result is that the city’s small, local arts venues—which account for more than 12,000 jobs and $800 million in annual economic output—struggle to make ends meet.

Rising rents are a major contributing factor, but the city government presents obstacles of its own. In order to prepare for the onslaught of city agencies, DIY spaces are not only paying artists and staff, but also attorneys, expeditors, compliance consultants, and contractors to satisfy health, building, fire, water, gas, and electrical regulations. Faced with escalating costs, zoning pressures, and an enforcement-focused system of regulatory agencies, New York City’s status as an incubator of arts and culture is under threat.

The Center for an Urban Future’s Creative New York report found that at least 24 music venues closed between 2011 and 2015, with more DIY spaces, such as Palisades and Shea Stadium, shuttering in the past few months (although the latter is poised to return). A recent report from the Mayor’s Office of Entertainment and Media confirmed these findings, announcing that more than 20 percent of the city’s smaller music venues have closed over the past 15 years.

Sustaining independent music and nightlife means supporting efforts to create safer physical spaces. It is essential that all spaces comply with common sense safety rules, such as clear paths of egress and working fire extinguishers. But the existing financial and regulatory burden creates a two-tiered ecosystem, with fully licensed, for-profit venues operating aboveground while many artist-run or not-for-profit spaces are forced into the shadows. This has the paradoxical effect of pushing vital arts spaces further underground, making artists and patrons less safe, not better protected.  

New York needs a strong base of local arts venues to create opportunities for emerging artists and sustain the next generation of musicians, organizers, and cultural producers. The city should take steps to cultivate its grassroots music and nightlife venues, or risk undermining the foundation of its creative growth. The creative sector now employs roughly 300,000 New Yorkers, or 7 percent of all jobs in the city. And small clubs, bars, and music venues account for thousands of additional jobs, fueled by live performances every night of the week.

A strategy to support these entrepreneurial endeavors could include free or subsidized legal advice and architectural services for artists and venues; a grantmaking or matching-funds program for urgent safety improvements and public assembly permits; a program to provide mock inspections to local music and art venues; and a nightlife liaison inside City Hall—an approach successfully undertaken by some of New York’s cultural rivals, including San Francisco and Berlin.

Perhaps the simplest step in the right direction is to repeal the Cabaret Law. After nine decades of antagonism toward nightlife, the time has come to let New York dance.

***
Eli Dvorkin is managing editor of the Center for an Urban Future and a founding member of the Silent Barn. On Twitter @nycfuture.

(Photo: @NYSEDNEWS)

When voting Nov. 7, 2017 on whether to call a state constitutional convention, New Yorkers should consider enhancing social welfare rights

New York’s Constitution mandates that every 20 years New Yorkers be asked via a statewide ballot referendum whether they want to call a state constitutional convention. The next such referendum is on the ballot on November 7. If passed, the agenda for the constitutional convention that then occurs should include enhancing social welfare rights, including healthy public schools.

The state constitutional convention held in New York in 1938 passed amendments mandating healthy work conditions for government employees, including healthy work hours. These amendments were added at a time when the conditions in public schools were very different.  For example, the one-room schoolhouse remained common, dedicated public bus transportation to schools was just emerging, and forcing children to attend school before dawn was exceptional. If New York’s Constitution guarantees healthy work conditions for government employees, it should do the same for children attending public schools, who have even less choice over the place and hours of their work.

The Proposal
I recommend two additions to New York’s Constitution. Currently, its bill of rights includes the following provision: “Labor of human beings is not a commodity nor an article of commerce and shall never be so considered or construed. No laborer, worker or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor engaged in the performance of any public work, shall be permitted to work more than eight hours in any day or more than five days in any week, except in cases of extraordinary emergency.”

Analogous to this bill of rights for government employees (“labor”), I recommend one for public-school students: “The state shall not compel students to sacrifice fundamental biological needs to attend public school.” This would include forced attendance at school prior to dawn and at times that make it impossible to get appropriate sleep.

I also recommend adding a health provision to the education clause in the main body of the Constitution (addition marked in italics): “The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free and healthy common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.”

Note that in New York’s Constitution the term “common schools” refers to what we nowadays call public schools. Although this clause may appear vague and unenforceable to the casual reader, New York’s top court has interpreted it to mean that the Constitution guarantees every New York student, including disabled, delinquent, neglected, and dependent children, a “sound basic education” through high school.

As applied to school start times, the proposed change to the education clause could be interpreted to entail a due process requirement when a public-school district mandates pre-dawn start times; for example, that a school district couldn’t arbitrarily schedule a poor child to take a public-school bus at 5:55 a.m. (before dawn) to attend a high school starting at 7:17 a.m. (also before dawn during winter months) without providing a reasoned, public explanation for its decision that explicitly considers children’s health and safety.

Manageable court remedies for a school district with persistent unhealthy bus pickup or school start times could include mandating a healthy time or, less onerously, that the district offer the harmed students a voucher based on the district’s current average student cost. The voucher could then be used to allow the student to get a sound healthy education at another school.

It’s arguable that New York’s clause, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” already includes a right to sleep and health more generally. For example, on February 28, 2016, India’s Supreme Court ruled that “sleep is a fundamental human right” based on the clause in its constitution protecting the “right to life.” But given the history and wording of New York’s Constitution, such a court interpretation in the context of public schools is unlikely.

New York also has a clause mandating that its “state board of social welfare shall make inspections… as to matters directly affecting the health, safety, treatment and training of [reformatory institutions’] inmates.” But public school children are clearly exempt from this requirement.

Other social welfare clauses likely to be proposed at a New York State constitutional convention would be a guarantee of affordable basic healthcare coverage for all; affordable, debt-free tuition at public institutions of higher education; and a clean and healthy environment, including water and air. Redefining the definition of “needy” in the “aid, care and support of the needy” clause would also be likely. Consequently, it could be smart politics for the social welfare groups backing such proposals to form an alliance prior to the Nov. 7 referendum.

The Process and Opposition
The constitutional convention process grants the public three votes (see graphic): 1) whether to call a convention, 2) who to elect to a convention, and 3) whether to approve any of the convention’s proposals. The purpose of the mandatory referendum provision is to provide a mechanism to bypass the Legislature when the Legislature would otherwise have veto power over constitutional amendments involving its own power and the special interests to which it is beholden. In other states, the constitutional initiative serves a similar function, albeit in a less deliberative and democratic way.

Since the institution of a constitutional convention is a check on the Legislature, its natural enemies include the Legislature and any powerful special interest group that has a successful track record of influencing the Legislature. Coalition partners of these groups, who fear opposing their most powerful allies, are also its natural enemies, which may entail either taking a neutral position or actively opposing a measure that, absent the imperatives of coalition politics, they would support. Alas, many of these coalition partners are social welfare groups.

A primary argument that state constitutional convention opponents make is that a convention cannot be controlled by the Legislature and is thus a “Pandora’s Box.” But that is its prime virtue because if a Legislature could limit its agenda it would defeat the purpose of calling a state constitutional convention in the first place.

The more relevant question is whether the people can be trusted to vote in their own self-interest. For thousands of years, the enemies of democracy argued that the people were incapable of making reasoned judgments about their own self-interest. They have a point, but in the long run actions premised on the people’s incapacity for democracy—including their incapacity to override a legislature’s veto power over constitutional amendment—have proven far more harmful.

Conclusion
The health of our children should not be subject to the special interest politics that too often dominate American public education and intimidate parents whose children are held hostage. If Big Education views the cost of healthy public schools as a zero-sum game that comes out of its members’ paychecks, then it should be bypassed. In New York, the only available bypass mechanism is the state constitutional convention. If government workers have a right to healthy work conditions, so do children—even more so because they are children and have no say in the matter.

I came to this country at the age of two. I have grown up in this country for over two decades, and I am a New Yorker through and through. New York City is where I go to school, where I work, and the place my family and I call home.

But my life here, and my family’s life, is at risk because I am a “Dreamer.” My only protection from being separated from my family is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Donald Trump’s administration has already started trying to tear apart families like mine, including detaining Dreamers like me. Daniel Ramírez, a Dreamer, was detained in Washington. Daniela Vargas, also a Dreamer, was detained in Mississippi. Whether or not Trump decides to repeal DACA, it is clear that our families are under attack.

But, for immigrants like me, there is one key lesson from the first months of the new administration: when we fight back, we win.

When Trump issued the Muslim and refugee ban, it was enormous grassroots opposition, coupled with legal advocacy, that blocked these policies.

When Daniel and Daniela were detained, it was a groundswell of popular support—protests, petitions, and more—that got them free.

When Trump and Paul Ryan tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take health insurance away from tens of millions of people, it was ordinary people taking to the streets, town halls, and congressional offices that defeated them.

Despite these early losses, Trump shows no signs of slowing down his anti-immigrant agenda. Having failed to pass healthcare reform, Trump now wants to pass a budget that will allow him to build a wall that we don’t need and spend billions more to terrorize our families. But our communities will defeat his wall and his budget in the same way we’ve beaten him on his other priorities: by taking to the streets.

That’s why, on Monday May 1, at 5pm in Foley Square, I’m joining a coalition of dozens of immigrant, community, and labor organizations to rally for immigrant rights and workers’ rights.

On May 1, whether you were born here or in another country, whatever you believe in or however you got here—we need to stand together and resist together. With 50,000 people packed into Foley Square, we will demand that Trump stop his unjust attacks towards our communities.

Immigrant families are under attack. Workers’ rights are in jeopardy. And Muslims and refugees are in the crosshairs of this administration. Together, we will send a strong message of resistance against Trump’s agenda of hate.

As immigrants, we demand a stop to Trump’s anti-immigrant policies that are separating families throughout the nation and seeking to terrorize us all.

As workers, we demand good jobs, the right to organize and join a union, and for Congress to pass a federal budget that reflects our priorities.

As New Yorkers, we demand respect and dignity for all.

On May 1, with 50,000 people in the streets, we will show that we will not live in fear and that we stand united for a better future for all New Yorkers.

***
Yatziri Tovar is a Youth Power Project member of Make the Road New York, the largest grassroots community organization in New York offering services and organizing the immigrant community. On Twitter: @maketheroadny.

Gov. Cuomo (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)

Governor Andrew Cuomo's April 10 announcement on the passage of the state budget cited several new initiatives and innovations that were included in the budget bills for the new 2017-2018 fiscal year, which began April 1.

But history suggests that at least three of them actually are not really new.

Tuition-free SUNY and CUNY
"With the 2018 Budget, New York leads the nation by making college tuition-free at SUNY and CUNY two- and four-year colleges for working and middle-class families making up to $125,000 per year," says the governor's announcement.

That sounds like a major step forward. Actually, it is something of a reversion to the original philosophy of the two public university systems. SUNY, established in 1948, was created in part as a result of the rising cost of higher education after World War II. Its units were mostly tuition-free or very low tuition until the 1960s. CUNY, established in 1961, was mostly tuition-free or low tuition until 1976. The tuition-free policy was discontinued that year as a result of New York City's fiscal crisis.

But since then, state and federal grants have been available to help low-income students at CUNY as well as at SUNY. The new policy at least partly hearkens back to policies and ideals of the past rather than departing from them.

"Raise the Age"
"The FY 2018 State Budget raises the age of criminal responsibility to 18-years-old and ensures that young people who commit non-violent crimes receive the intervention and evidence-based treatment they need," notes the governor's announcement. "New York was previously one of only two states in the nation that automatically processed all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in the criminal justice system, no matter their offense."

The governor is certainly right in calling attention to this as a major reform. He deserves credit for its enactment. But proposals to raise the age date back quite a ways. As Governor Cuomo's Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Juvenile Justice noted in its 2014 report, Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State, which advocated for the change, most states raised the age many years ago. New York was one of the few states not to take this step despite criticism from youth advocates, recommendations from its own State Crime Commission in a report dating from 1931, and other experts.

Shrinking local government
"The FY 2018 Budget continues the Governor's efforts to relieve the property tax burden and builds on the success of the 2 percent property tax cap," says the Governor's announcement. "The typical New York homeowner pays 2.5 times more in local property taxes than in state income taxes. The Budget will empower citizens to control the cost of local government by requiring counties to assemble local governments to find efficiencies for real, recurring taxpayer savings. To ensure transparency and an active role for citizens in reducing their tax burden, public hearings and input will be required as part of the development of the shared services plans."

New York has about 4,000 local governments. The governor's initiative is a fresh variation on an old theme: reducing the number of local governments, consolidating them, or urging them to share services in order to reduce the burden on taxpayers.

History suggests Governor Cuomo's new initiative may have a hard time getting traction.

New Yorkers may complain about taxes, but they seem indifferent to state initiatives to eliminate or consolidate services. Consolidation threatens the jobs of local officials. Citizens are apprehensive about changing something that is familiar even if it means greater efficiencies and more economical operation.

In 2013, Cuomo offered a program of state support to promote reduction of local governments through consolidation. There was little interest.

Governor Eliot Spitzer appointed a Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness.

Governor George Pataki had a Commission on Local Government Reform.  

Governor Mario Cuomo appointed a Commission on Consolidation of Local Governments.

None made any appreciable headway.

In 1935, Governor Herbert Lehman told the Legislature that "There are too many units of government in the State of New York and...the resulting complexity of local government cannot produce efficiency or economy." Legislators were not interested.

In 1929, Governor Franklin Roosevelt asserted "even the school children know that we maintain many useless offices in our towns, that many functions now exercised by town officials should be assumed by county management...in the final analysis...the average taxpayer does not know why or where his tax money is being spent." In 1932, he cited "great waste and duplication" and "thoroughly unbusinesslike practices." But even then, with the Great Depression undermining local governments' tax base, very little happened.

In 1926, Governor Alfred E. Smith, who had reorganized and consolidated state government, called New York's complicated system of local government "costly, wasteful and obsolete...we have too many political divisions, too many officials, too little efficiency." The pattern of counties, cities, and towns had changed little since the beginning of the state. Over the years, special districts for sewers, water, etc., "were created without any understanding of the results that would follow because they overlap one on the other and set up within one township all sorts of overlapping special governments and special tax districts."

Two years later, Smith said the sprawling system of local governments represented "the old-fashioned, foolish way of doing things...inefficiency...we are still in the Middle Ages of government."

Among Smith's proposals: abolish the five counties in New York City; elevate densely populated Nassau County to the status of a city; merge Dutchess and Putnam counties, Rensselaer and Columbia counties, and Warren, Washington, and Saratoga counties into three large counties.

Smith made a strong case: consolidation would save taxpayer money, improve services, make government more responsive, and streamline management of state aid for highways, welfare, and other services.

But Smith's proposals produced very little public interest and support. The Legislature declined to take any action.

There may be more action under Cuomo's new approach. But history does not offer much cause for optimism.

These three examples suggest that looking back into history can often help inform current policy discussions. Often, there are reverberations of past policy proposals in innovative new ones.

***
Dr. Bruce W. Dearstyne's latest book is The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History, published in 2015 by SUNY Press.

Mayor de Blasio visits Bellevue Men's Shelter (photo: Michael Appleton)

Residents of Manhattan’s Kips Bay neighborhood have been plagued in recent years by crimes attributed to clients of the 800 bed men’s shelter on East 30th Street and First Avenue.

Shelter clients have reportedly defecated in front of buildings, publicly masturbated, and exposed themselves to children in windows of classrooms. Since the shelter does not prohibit violent parolees or other criminals, neighborhood residents, as well as proprietors and customers of nearby businesses, have reported being raped, robbed, assaulted and stabbed by shelter clients. Fugitives and child sexual predators have hidden among shelter clients and, just recently, a man was arrested outside the shelter for alleged heroin sales.

Neighborhood residents are mindful of the homelessness crisis, and have willingly carried their share of the city’s burden for decades. But they also desire to preserve their quality of life and the safety of their community. They have long requested that the 30th Street shelter be re-purposed as a shelter for homeless families instead of single men.

A recent confluence of events should inspire the de Blasio administration, the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), and Governor Cuomo to consider their proposal. It makes good sense for homeless families, city taxpayers, and the city’s budget watchdogs. As the mayor continues to roll out his new shelter plan, he should incorporate these ideas.

Consider these three developments:

1. Covenant House, the sanctuary for homeless youth, and the EDC have proposed development of the block containing its West Side headquarters, between West 40th and 41st Streets, Ninth and Tenth Avenues.

2. Governor Cuomo’s proposed budget released January 17 called for the sale of the Hunter College Masters of Fine Arts building on the Covenant House block so that “up to $60 million of the proceeds” can be used to fund the budget of the City University of New York.

3. City Comptroller Scott Stringer reported that New York City spent nearly $73 million on hotels for homeless families in the twelve months ending last October 31, sometimes paying as much as $600 per night for a room.

Housing homeless men in new or existing buildings on the Covenant House block on the West Side would free up the 30th Street men’s shelter for homeless families now housed at expensive Manhattan and outer-borough hotels. It would also offer an array of other benefits.

Any vacationer who has had to spend a night or two stuck at an airport hotel with young children knows how desolate they can be for youngsters. There is no play space, inside or out; no entertainment besides TV; and no real stimulation. Meals are limited to room service, the hotel restaurant, or take-out or delivery from a poor array of choices. Children are understandably “bouncing off the walls” within a few hours.

But New York’s homeless families can be left in hotel settings for weeks and months at a time.  On average, the city’s homeless families spend over 400 days in shelter before being moved to permanent homes.

A family-oriented homeless shelter at East 30th Street would allow homeless children access to common play and study space, nutritious institutional dining with other families, and parks, schools, churches, libraries, and the healthcare facilities of Kips Bay. They could be spared the social isolation that comes with living in a hotel and, instead, be integrated into a community of similarly situated children, as well as those of the neighborhood. Moreover, their parents could have ready, free, day-care in the shelter while getting help or finding a job.

Temporarily housing homeless men on the Covenant House block would place them in a largely commercial district near hotels and other transients. The city could consolidate social services for Covenant House clients, men’s shelter clients, and out-of-shelter homeless people who congregate near Port Authority Bus Terminal. Locating the men’s shelter near the NYPD stronghold of Times Square and near the borders of three police precincts would better deter criminal activity.

The Covenant House/EDC proposes their development include some affordable housing. But the site lays near the Lincoln Tunnel entrance and adjoins the PATH bus terminal ramp. It’s desolate and mostly unsuited to permanent housing; EDC should look elsewhere for affordable permanent residences. But it is a much better locale for temporarily housing homeless men than the bustling residential neighborhood of Kips Bay.

While it will certainly be necessary to renovate both the 30th Street shelter and the Hunter College building (or to build a new building, as Covenant House proposes), the savings from placing 200 to 300 homeless families in a community shelter instead of costly Manhattan hotels would recover those costs in just a few years and generate tens of millions in cost savings prospectively.

The de Blasio administration, Governor Cuomo, and the EDC should move thoughtfully and creatively on the Covenant House site. They have a rare chance to do good for homeless families and the residents of Kips Bay, and to do well for the taxpayers of New York.

***
Lauren Pohl, an attorney, is the founder of Kidz Central Station. Thandi Gordon Stein-Sapir is a fashion industry executive. Both are leaders of Third and 33rd, a group that advocates for neighborhood safety and improvement.

(photo above via The Governor's Office) (image below by Becca Glaser)

With the regularity of a ritual, every year the advocates of high-quality public higher education make a pilgrimage to Albany. Every year, for over 40 years, the request has been the same: stop de-funding higher education. And nearly every year, for over 40 years, the Legislature and Governor do the same thing: cut funding and approve tuition hikes. As a result, annual per-student government expenditures in New York’s public higher education system languish at an average of $8,830; while private colleges nationwide spend an average of $23,100.

More than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, a college degree is what a high school diploma used to be. Yet, public and private higher education are increasingly separate and unequal -- and increasingly expensive.

It wasn’t always this way. CUNY was free for New Yorkers from 1847 to 1975, when the institution was majority white. The state imposed tuition through a Wall Street-aligned “Emergency Financial Control Board” in 1976. It was also the first year the university system enrolled a majority students of color.

The steady retreat of government from the provision of higher education as a public good has allowed Wall Street loan sharks to advance. Poor and working-class students have been the casualties, stuck relying on loans or longer and longer hours at low-wage jobs to get themselves through school.

The CUNY administration likes to tout the institution as the “American Dream Machine,” proclaiming in sunny subway ads that “80% graduate debt-free.” They don’t mention a darker truth: over 50% of those who enroll don’t graduate at all, falling prey to a lack of financial aid, the high cost of living in New York City, and the frequent unavailability of classes that are required for graduation (students call this “getting CUNYed”).

Facilities across CUNY are falling apart. And the faculty are increasingly overworked and underpaid -- over half of CUNY’s courses are taught by adjuncts making an average of $3,275 per course. With a full-time teaching load, that would bring you $19,650 per year before taxes, and put you in poverty.

This year in Albany was supposed to be different. On April 7, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that a deal had been reached regarding the state budget, including approval for his Excelsior Scholarship program, which is now being billed as the first tuition-free college plan passed by a state.

Cuomo is selling us a bill of goods.

He says his “Excelsior” plan makes higher education free for “middle class” families. He does not mention that it actually increases tuition by $1,000 over the next five years (pending approval from the Board of Trustees). Cuomo claims that low-income students currently can cover their tuition with existing state and federal aid, but this is not generally true. Decades of funding cuts, tuition hikes, absurdly low income limits and other restrictions on aid mean that thousands of students already struggle to pay tuition and their costs of living. Now, thanks to Cuomo, they may have hundreds of dollars more in tuition to pay.

The Excelsior Scholarship is a smokescreen for this backdoor tuition hike that will fall on many of the neediest students, who do not qualify for the aid that Cuomo touts. To maintain eligibility for the scholarship, students must take 30 credits per year -- an average of five classes per semester in a standard school year, which is more than the minimum for being full-time. This is an impossibility for students who must work to provide for their families or care for children. With this inordinate course load, students must also maintain a certain GPA, to be decided by their college.

Undocumented students remain completely excluded from financial aid.

It gets worse. The Excelsior program will also take from the poorest students to fill the coffers of the state. At current rates of enrollment, the $1,000 tuition hike could bring in over $274 million in additional revenue at CUNY alone, given its 274,000 full-time students. It could bring in an additional $400 million from SUNY’s 400,000 undergraduates.

Yet, the state plans to spend only $163 million on the Excelsior Scholarship, leading to a net revenue increase for the government, in part paid for by those students who can’t qualify for the scholarship because they are not able to take five classes at a time.

Cuomo’s plan aids middle-income students while turning poor and working class students into a profit center, continuing the 40-year trend of reducing access for the poor to public higher education and shifting the funding burden to students. It also makes no provision for badly-needed investment in the CUNY system: including infrastructure, adjunct pay parity, and support for struggling students.

And there’s one more thing. For those who are able to maintain four years of five classes per semester and meet GPA requirements each semester, Cuomo’s plan will force its recipients to remain in New York for the same number of years that they received the scholarship. If graduates move out of state, they will be charged with debt equivalent to the tuition covered by the Excelsior Scholarship, sending more young people into the jaws of the student loan industry.

We have a better idea.

Higher education is a free public good in dozens of countries across the world, all of which are less wealthy that the United States. It used to be the norm here too. It’s time to bring it back.

The Campaign to Make CUNY Free Again is gathering 30,000 petition signatures to place the “Make CUNY Free Again Law” on the ballot in November’s election. Our proposal will do what Governor Cuomo would not. It will end separate and unequal in New York City’s higher education system by requiring the City to ask the State to authorize a tax on the top 1%. The law will guarantee funding to CUNY on parity with the median per-student expenditure in the private sector, guarantee any New York City resident (U.S. citizen or not) tuition-free access to a college education or the remedial programs necessary to prepare for college, stipends to remove poverty as a barrier to student success, and equity in pay between part-time and full-time faculty and staff, and between the public and private sectors.

For 40 years, the political class has pushed higher education farther out of reach for poor and working-class New Yorkers. If our campaign is successful, on November 7, 2017 we the people will go to the polls to have our say: education is a human right.

***
The Campaign to Make CUNY Free Again is an independent initiative of CUNY students, faculty, staff, and community members in New York City. On Facebook & Twitter @MakeCUNYfree.

Signed:
Erik Forman (@_erikforman) teaches in the public K-12 and higher education system in New York City and is the co-founder of the NYC Social Justice Curriculum Fair.

Tim Hardin is an Inwood-based activist, Army combat veteran, and NYC DSA organizer who attends BMCC and advocates for a free CUNY, single-payer healthcare in NY, and other local and state grassroots campaigns.

Jennifer Hyman graduated from Hunter College with a BA in Political Science and Philosophy and from SUNY Binghamton with an MA in Social, Political, Ethical, and Legal Philosophy in 2011.

Rosa Squillacote is a PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center; Hunter College adjunct professor and alum; and organizer with the CUNY branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Joseph van der Naald is a PhD student in the program in sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center.

Conor Tomás Reed is a CUNY doctoral student, scholar-in-residence at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, and organizer in the Campaign to Make CUNY Free Again.

Joseph Sellman is a community organizer and regional board member of Citizen Action New York, an active member of Voices of Community Activists and Leaders (VOCAL-NY), and an ‘83 alum of Baruch College.

Meghann Williams is an MFA Candidate in Poetry at Hunter College and is president of the Hunter College Graduate Student Association.

Tiffany Berruti is a queer undergraduate activists at Hunter College, and is currently involved in NYC DSA.