The authors: Council Members Menchaca, left, & Ferreras-Copeland, center

New York’s immigrant families are waking up terrified as President-elect Trump, his supporters and growing administration spew hate. In spite of his new stance to “work something out” for Dreamers, Trump’s words are met with lack of trust. As the children of immigrants, we take attacks from Trump and his supporters personally and are filled with the courage needed to fight harder and smarter than ever to protect the rights and freedoms of diverse immigrant communities throughout New York City.

To this end, the New York City Council passed a resolution this week affirming our commitment to remain a sanctuary city for immigrants, and we personally delivered it hours later to Trump Tower. Our resolution codifies past commitments to sanctuary while signaling to everyone that we will invest the time, energy, and resources required to make good on our promises.
Our resolve is clear: we are here to stay.

Our City Council, like those in municipalities across the country, will play a lead role in this fight by redoubling our efforts to keep New York City a true sanctuary city. With the support of our Council colleagues, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, Mayor Bill de Blasio, fierce advocates, and brave New York families, we commit to immigrants that this city will remain a safe home.

This week’s sanctuary city resolution memorialized our commitment, and we will ensure it through, in part, the following:

First, we will defend our victories by preserving existing policies, initiatives, and programs that protect immigrants.

Detainer Law: The Council’s 2014 detainer discretion law has protected between 3,000 and 4,000 New Yorkers per year from deportation. The law draws a bright line between municipal law enforcement and overly aggressive federal immigration enforcement. All New Yorkers are safer when there is trust between immigrants and the NYPD because crimes are more likely to be reported and witnesses feel safer. Under the Trump Administration, we commit to gear up for legal challenges to this law, and we expect to prevail.

The New York Immigrant Family Unity Program (NYIFUP): NYIFUP provides legal services for New Yorkers who are detained and facing deportation. It has been highly successful and serves as a blueprint for other progressive municipalities. Continued funding for NYIFUP is not guaranteed by the city. The de Blasio administration must increase NYIFUP funding and make it permanent.

CUNY Citizenship Now!: Since 1996, the City University of New York lawyers, paralegals, and volunteers have assisted hundreds of thousands of immigrants with legal advice, representation, and referrals. Programs like this are worthy of celebration and require our continuing support.

IDNYC: IDNYC is the largest municipal ID program in the country with over 900,000 subscribers. It promotes civic participation, the economy, and public safety. We will ensure it continues to thrive. We call on the de Blasio administration to do everything in its power to protect the personal data of IDNYC cardholders. Entities like the NYPD, banks, and cultural institutions must continue to honor this government-issued ID. We will do our part in the Council, and in conversations with the mayor, to protect and defend the privacy of current and future IDNYC cardholders.

Second, we must expand protections and investment for New York City immigrants.

We are committed to building upon our victories, expanding existing initiatives, and creating new services, through efforts such as:

Expanding Funding for Immigration Legal Services: Today, NYIFUP is limited to individuals who are detained and do not have a prior order of removal. In anticipation of the Trump administration, the program should be expanded to provide representation to other classes of immigrants facing deportation. The City Council and the de Blasio administration have also recently invested in legal representation in complex immigration cases. The demand for this type of representation will likely expand under a Trump presidency, requiring increased funding for these services, as well. We commit to fighting for these increases in funding for immigration legal services in the fiscal year 2018 budget negotiation process.

Right to Immigration Counsel Law: A right to immigration counsel enshrined in law would help ensure that all individuals going through immigration court proceedings are represented by competent lawyers. While this might be expensive, we cannot let that deter us from doing what is right. We commit to working with our colleagues in the Council and the mayor to further assess the feasibility of a Right to Immigration Counsel Law.

Protection from Notario and Immigration Attorney Fraud: One of the clearest ways to protect immigrant families is to ensure they are not victimized by unethical “notarios” (notaries who present themselves as immigration legal service providers) and incompetent or sham attorneys. Notario and attorney fraud harms vulnerable New Yorkers seeking immigration assistance. Our constituents encounter fake lawyers, scams, inflated fees, and predatory providers daily. Often, in addition to bilking families out of thousands of dollars, these bad actors cause serious harm to their legitimate immigration cases. We commit to working with the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, and advocates on continuing to protect immigrants from notario and immigration attorney fraud.

Expanding Participatory Budgeting: Each year, through Participatory Budgeting (PB), Council members voluntarily cede capital budget allocation decisions to residents of their districts who collaborate to decide which projects best serve their communities. We have repeatedly seen an overwhelming number of PB ballots in languages other than English, which demonstrates the engagement of immigrants in this process. This also indicates to us that while many immigrants cannot vote in other types of elections due to their immigration status, many are eager to participate in our city’s democratic process. The city all immigrants and other residents love, contribute to, and call home should welcome civic participation. We commit to strengthening PB in our districts and supporting its growth across the city.

We are prepared for a Trump era during which immigrant communities will likely be under attack. New York City will stand as a beacon of welcome, hope, and protection for immigrants.

In the New York City Council, we commit to defending our history of hard-won victories, while also expanding protections for immigrants. We know cities will need to hold the line against Trump administration attacks. As New Yorkers, we embrace that challenge together.

***
Carlos Menchaca is the City Council Member for District 38 in Brooklyn and Chair of the Committee on Immigration.
Julissa Ferreras-Copeland is the City Council Member for District 21 in Queens and Chair of the Committee on Finance.
Follow them on Twitter: @cmenchaca & @julissaferreras.

Veterans Day (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)

Last month the New York City Council held a joint hearing of the veterans and higher education committees on services to military veterans at the City University of New York (CUNY). It was the first hearing regarding CUNY and veterans in several years. CUNY representatives touted the university as committed to making its campuses a first destination for veterans.

But, the hearing also helped expose gaps in the services that CUNY is providing to military veterans who are enrolled in its school system, and helps us understand the need for better support for student-veterans in New York City.

To help veterans transition from military service to college, in 2012 President Obama signed Executive Order 13607, which established principles of excellence for educational institutions serving veterans. Among its requirements, the order tasked institutions that receive funding for veteran education benefit programs to comply with a range of consumer protections pertinent to veterans, as well as provide veterans, before they use their benefits, the tools to compare institutions with respect to affordability and value.

Locally, in April 2013, then CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein convened a task force to address the needs of student veterans and to develop recommendations to improve their experiences.

The task force created a report that focused on five areas for CUNY to better assist veterans. Those five areas included: “Establishing the Basics,” “Fostering Military Cultural Competency Campus Wide,” “Streamlining the Student Veteran’s Introduction to the College,” “Developing Services and Programming to Ensure a Successful Academic Journey,” and “Ensuring the Veterans Continued Success Post Graduation.”

The report also predicted that the number of military veterans applying to CUNY would grow as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan drew down, which proved correct. In 2009 there were slightly more than 1,700 veterans enrolled at CUNY. Today, there are more than 3,100, putting CUNY in the top ten for student veteran enrollment among the country’s higher education institutions.

The CUNY system is an essential resource for our returning veterans as they transition into civilian life, part of the system’s larger role in offering opportunity to those seeking higher education.

But, if you’ve been following David W. Chen’s reporting in The New York Times, you know that CUNY has major problems, including a morale and funding crisis, a federal investigation regarding the president of one college, and her resignation; as well as broader abuse and financial mismanagement. This has led Governor Cuomo to recently call for major reforms at CUNY, including a new inspector general.

It is indeed time to reform CUNY, and these reforms should include military veterans.

In the three years since the report of the CUNY task force on veterans was released, progress in the five areas the report focused on has been difficult to gauge. Campuses across the university seem to offer uneven services for veterans; with the key to success or failure seemingly based on how each college president regards veterans and their issues. Case in point: while every other campus currently has either a veterans coordinator or director, Baruch College does not.

This type of deficiency is the result of a troubling trend. Over the past six years, while the number of veterans attending CUNY has increased, the number of staff focused on supporting veterans at CUNY’s central office has decreased to only one full-time person. The lack of personnel has hindered the university’s ability to “look in” on campuses to make sure they are carrying out the policies and recommendations that the task force put forth.

The ongoing scandals and changing leadership at CUNY’s central office and the various colleges have hurt transparency regarding how City Council and State Legislature grants are distributed to the campuses for veteran services.  As a result, there appears to be no mechanism requiring the colleges to account for how those monies are spent on veteran services.

This makes the divide between CUNY’s central office and the colleges even greater, which has invariability led to the uneven services across campuses.

So it’s understandable why many student-veterans at the recent City Council hearing were surprised listening to officials from CUNY central office talk about the great things CUNY is doing for veterans. The testimony appeared disconnected from what many veterans are experiencing at their respective campuses. With insufficient staffing, the will to implement and enforce policies, and a veterans mental health program on only four campuses, CUNY has no way to baseline the services for veterans on each campus.

As a consequence, the more veterans in the community talk about those campuses that are not providing services, the more veterans will only consider those that are. The more veterans struggle on colleges with minimal services, the higher their attrition and transfer rates will be.

As the chair of the city’s Veterans Advisory Board recently stated, the importance of a sound, accessible post-secondary education to New York City's veteran strategy cannot be understated. It is the engine for economic mobility. Therefore, it is strategically important for the Governor, the Board of Trustees, and the leadership at CUNY to “look in” and put the necessary resources into its veterans offices and programs, enforce its own recommendations and policies; and see where the money is going and how it’s being spent at the colleges. CUNY can and must truly set the standard for success in veterans attending public colleges. That would be a win for New York City.

***
Joe Bello served 11 years in the U.S. Navy/Naval Reserve and has been a veterans advocate in New York City for two decades. He is the founder of NY MetroVets.

An NYPD family (photo: @NYPDnews)

As we continue to dissect the election that just occurred and look ahead to the Trump presidency, there is also business close to home to consider for 2017. New Yorkers must contemplate the grotesque failures of leadership exposed by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, while the Brennan Center for Justice has repeatedly told us that New York’s in the most dysfunctional state government in the nation.

Still, there are substantive matters that deserve our attention, and we must push state lawmakers, including Governor Andrew Cuomo, to move ahead on important reforms in a variety of issue areas. Since law enforcement and criminal justice is my area of expertise, that is where I focus my attention.

As we head toward the new legislative year, here are three public safety objectives for 2017.

First, as the crisis in police-community relations continues, the Legislature should create a new program to address it head on. New York needs a bill that would appropriate funding to the Government Law Center at Albany Law School to bring together community activists, law enforcement executives, and academics from across the state to develop a unified and coherent agenda of criminal justice reform to bring to the state's Executive and Legislature. It's high time we invited the community into the discussion and hosted real dialogue with a shared goal of agreeing upon concrete policy plans.

This agenda will promote community policing and confront the crisis in police-community relations head-on. The bill will also give the Division of Criminal Justice Services responsibility for managing a new local assistance program offering technical assistance and small grants to support the creation of community councils dedicated to creating a relationship of partnership between community stakeholders and law enforcement agencies. We have a groundbreaking model that has been developed in Albany in recent years that offers a way forward to all municipalities.

The kind of nominees President-elect Donald Trump is offering or floating for top public safety posts in his administration are unlikely to be sympathetic to our cause. If Governor Cuomo and his allies in the Legislature are sincere in their commitment to keeping New York a bastion of progressive public safety policy, they should back this proposal.

Second, we succeeded this year in having legislation introduced that will create a center for the study of transnational organized crime at SUNY. The Centennial of the New York State Police will be marked in 2017 -- in 1957, that agency made history with the exposure of the existence of the mafia, leading to decades of engagement by law enforcement agencies all over the nation in the face of the growing threat of organized crime.

In 1985, under the leadership of the late Tom Constantine, the New York State Police initiated an investigation that, six years later, saw the exposure of the operations of Colombia's Cali Cartel in our state, bringing to light the fact that we had been invaded and occupied by a powerful, wealthy, well-armed, ruthless foreign criminal power with tentacles throughout New York.

Constantine took over the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1994 and oversaw the defeat and dismantling of the cartel, the largest and most powerful criminal conspiracy in history. Organized crime gets little press today, preoccupied as we are with the war on terror. But terrorist organizations have symbiotic relationships with criminal enterprises in many nations. Long after the political, ethnic, and religious impetuses for the terror movements we know today dissipate, organized crime will still be with us.

The 2017 centennial of the state police and the respect and affection that many prominent law enforcement leaders around the world still hold for Constantine provide an auspicious moment and opportunity for launching a new institute that, in years to come, will organize and host annual conferences in Albany bringing together the best minds to develop advice to the world's governments on how to face down the threat of global organized crime. Our bill designates this institute The Thomas A. Constantine Institute for the Study of Transnational Organized Crime.

Third, New York and the entire nation have been going through an historic sea change in attitudes toward drug addiction as the result of the heroin/opioid epidemic. The past two years have seen positive results in New York. There is, however, an important gap in our panoply of prevention programs that we must urgently address.

There has been no generally accepted prevention program that targets the key demographic of high school-aged kids. It is in high school that most kids are first exposed to the opportunity to obtain and experiment with drugs. It is in high school that kids often stop listening to adults and become more receptive to the opinions of their peers for good or ill. A peer-to-peer approach is the sound approach.

In recent years, I was introduced to Mentor International, an internationally respected youth drug abuse prevention program founded by Queen Silvia of Sweden in 1994. We debuted Mentor in Columbia County last year. I have been working with Gunilla Girardo, CEO of Mentor Foundation USA, the U.S. affiliate set up in 2010, to introduce the program to policymakers at the state level. Mentor has made New York a priority.

Successful introduction of the program here will have national influence. It is supported by the private sector and recruits community leaders in business, government, and the nonprofit sectors to serve as mentors to youth and to create mentoring opportunities for kids in a variety of workplaces. The hallmark of the program is its reliance on the peer-to-peer approach in getting kids to take up the cause of influencing their friends to make positive and healthy choices in life.

There is, of course, a role that the Legislature and the Governor can, and should, play in promoting Mentor.

The crisis in police-community relations, the challenge of global organized crime, and the heroin/opioid epidemic are national problems that were little discussed in the recent election. They require urgent, but thoughtful responses. The program outlined here offers a dynamic response to all three. As the political dust settles and we move forward, let's join together to assert New York's historic leadership in confronting the true issues of the day.

***
Terry O'Neill is Director of the Constantine Institute in Albany, an organization that promotes constitutional, legal and ethical standards in law enforcement and advises state and local governments on police issues. He is a lawyer and served as a criminal justice adviser to the administration of Governor Mario Cuomo from 1988 to 1994.

(photo via NYC Board of Elections)

The following essay is a slightly edited version of J.H. Snider’s introduction to a Fall 2016 symposium, “The Politics of State Constitutional Reform,” published by the Law & Courts Section of the American Political Science Association. The symposium provides a summary of notable presentations at a short course, A Political Primer on the Periodic State Constitutional Convention Referendum, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, whose theme for 2016 was “Great Transformations: Political Science and the Big Questions of our Time.” The short course and symposium provide an inter- rather than intra-state perspective on New York’s November 7, 2017 referendum on whether to call a state constitutional convention. Gotham Gazette has previously published four op-eds by J.H. Snider providing an intra-state perspective on the upcoming referendum.

********************

At the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, I produced a short course, “A Political Primer on the Periodic State Constitutional Convention Referendum.” The short course consisted of two parts.  

Part I included a two-hour compilation of TV documentaries and political ads. The TV documentaries included excerpts from past constitutional conventions, mostly U.S. state constitutional conventions held during the latter half of the 20th Century, plus a smattering of recent path-breaking constitutional conventions held in other countries. The unedited TV ads, mostly 30 seconds in length, were either for or against calling a state constitutional convention at an upcoming referendum. The TV documentaries generally described the past constitutional conventions in hagiographic terms. Most of the professionally produced TV ads were negative and characterized a future constitutional convention as a grave threat to the people’s rights.  

Part II consisted of four panels of experts, each panel approximately 30 minutes long. The first panel focused on New York, which on November 7, 2017 has the next referendum on whether to call a state constitutional convention. The panel included a history of New York’s 11 state constitutional conventions since 1777 (by me) and an argument why New York’s upcoming referendum was of national interest (by Sandy Levinson).

The second panel reviewed the history of U.S. state constitutional conventions (John Dinan) and changing public opinion towards them (William Blake). The third panel examined the merits of alternative legislative bypass mechanisms, including Ireland’s 2012 constitutional convention with randomly selected members (David Farrell), Florida’s periodic constitutional revision commission (Carol Weissert), and the constitutional initiative (Craig Holman and John Dinan).  The fourth panel focused on the politics and policy of New York’s upcoming constitutional convention referendum, including an identification of the political actors (me) and arguments generally for (Richard Briffault) and against (Craig Holman).

The short course, which was recorded and posted online at The State Constitutional Constitution Clearinghouse and The New York State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse, is intended as a resource for local opinion leaders in states with upcoming state constitutional convention referendums.

Between 2016 and 2034 at least one U.S. state every two years will have a referendum on whether to call a state constitutional convention: New York (2017), Hawaii (2018), Iowa (2020), Alaska (2022), Missouri (2022), New Hampshire (2022), Rhode Island (2024), Michigan (2026), Connecticut (2028), Hawaii (2028), Illinois (2028), Iowa (2030), Maryland (2030), Montana (2030), Alaska (2032), New Hampshire (2032), Ohio (2032), and Rhode Island (2034).

No periodic state constitutional convention referendum has passed since 1984—contributing to the longest drought in convening a state constitutional convention in U.S. history. After reviewing many debates leading to constitutional convention defeats, I concluded that the debate discourse was often ill-informed, partly because of a lack of local experts on whom the press could rely for historical and comparative information about state constitutional conventions.  

To rectify this problem, I have sought to provide easily accessible background information in a variety of different formats, including newspaper op-eds, online information clearinghouses, scholarly articles, public history events, and this short course.

My information clearinghouse on Rhode Island’s November 4, 2014 state constitutional convention referendum, the most recent such referendum, is the most comprehensive online documentation of the politics of such a referendum ever compiled online. The results of my research will be published in Snider, J.H., “Does the World Really Belong to the Living? The Decline of the Constitutional Convention in New York and Other U.S. States 1776-2015,” The Journal of American Political Thought.

Since only a tiny fraction of Americans has lived through a state constitutional convention in their adult lifetimes, and since Americans are not taught about state constitutional conventions (as opposed to the federal constitutional convention of 1787) during their formal schooling (even those such as myself who received a Ph.D. in American government), Americans approach these referendums starting with a huge knowledge deficit, making local opinion leaders that much more influential in public debates.

Too often local opinion elites and the public don’t focus on the referendum until only weeks or days before the vote, when the debate is dominated by lowest common denominator sound bites, including poorly informed opinion elites distracted by higher profile candidate races.  

Such a lack of attention and expertise should not be confused with lack of importance. As every young student learns, the preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence states that the American people have an “unalienable” right “to alter” their government. Thirty-seven of 50 U.S. states would eventually include similar rights language in their state constitutions; and all 50 state constitutions include some type of mechanism to implement that right. Clearly, the right to alter one’s constitution is one of the most fundamental, perhaps even the most fundamental, political rights Americans have. Implicit in that right is the right of the people to peaceably alter their constitution in the face of legislative opposition.

Fourteen states implement that right in part by granting the people the right at periodic intervals (ranging from 10 to 20 years) to call a state constitutional convention via a statewide referendum.  This institution, like the constitutional initiative, dramatically reduces the legislature’s gatekeeping power over constitutional amendment. Since legislatures have an institutional conflict of interest in proposing reforms that might weaken their own power, this institution serves a vital democratic function--albeit one that is rarely politically salient to the average voter.  

Motivating voters to care about the direct provision of collective goods, such as education or transportation, has proven hard. Harder still has been motivating people to care about indirect collective goods such as redistricting, campaign finance, or other “good government” reforms that serve as the platform for providing direct collective goods. Hardest of all may be motivating average voters to care about infrequent and unfamiliar mechanisms for creating good government—arguably, the ultimate collective action problem.

The price of serving as a check on legislatures is that legislatures are this institution’s intrinsic enemy. Powerful special interest groups with a track record of successfully influencing legislatures are also intrinsic enemies, as their ability to control a constitutional convention is a wildcard. Partly as a consequence of this intrinsic opposition and the collective goods nature of this institution for average voters, campaigns that oppose calling a state constitutional convention have tended to be much more sophisticated and better funded than campaigns that support calling a constitutional convention.  

A state constitutional convention referendum has the ingredients of a collective action problem: concentrated benefits for opposing one and diffuse benefits for favoring one.

Better educating the public about this institution via local opinion elites cannot eliminate this classic political problem, but it can mitigate it.

********************

On the short course page at NewYorkConCon.info, links can be found to the essays of the other symposium contributors as well as a two-hour documentary researched and compiled by J.H. Snider that consists of excerpts from TV documentaries and political ads on state constitutional conventions.

Brooklyn Bridge Park (photo via Henrik Krogius)

Recently, there has been considerable focus on the idea that public parks are important to the health and wellbeing of New Yorkers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg invested $5 billion in parks during his 12 years in office after decades in which even caring for existing parks was a low city priority. Mayor Bill de Blasio has made his Community Parks Initiative a centerpiece of his agenda to reduce inequality in all aspects of city life. Since announced, the number of community parks targeted has increased from 35 to 67, at a total cost of $285 million in capital. In August, the Mayor announced an additional $150 million to upgrade five New York City parks – one in each borough.

With more than 1,000 parks in New York City, these investments are welcome, but only a drop in the bucket. And capital is in many ways a smaller issue than maintenance, which is provided for in the city’s expense budget, and which competes for scarce tax revenue. Sadly, the budget for maintaining parks has never recovered from the fiscal crisis of the 1970s and is woefully inadequate to the task.

If public funds are short, is private money the answer? A number of privately-funded park conservancies have grown, starting with the Central Park Conservancy, to fill the gap for missing public funds. But that only works when there are well-to-do people in close proximity to a park who care enough about its upkeep to contribute their own money.

Another approach, exemplified by Hudson River Park and Brooklyn Bridge Park, are large parks built with public money but required to be financially self-sustaining. In other words, parks that must generate revenue within the park to cover ongoing operations and maintenance. These are thought of as a way to leverage public money to produce private investment: so-called public-private partnerships. They have a mixed record.

Hudson River Park was created first but it has struggled for years despite the fact that visitors flocked to the site even when the park was only a strip of concrete on which to run, bike, and walk next to the Hudson River. The park has not received as much capital as it needs, but also does not have enough revenue to cover its expenses. Yet its efforts to remedy that situation by bringing in new private sources have been fought by the neighboring communities, local elected officials, and civic groups. After many battles, the Hudson River Park Trust has obtained legislation permitting it to sell its air rights to developers who wish to build across the street from the park, but many are still unhappy with this result.

The latest installment in the Trust’s attempts to build the park is the lawsuit being waged to prevent the development of Pier 55 as a landscaped venue for non-profit cultural and musical event. This, despite, or perhaps because, wealthy donors have agreed to provide the bulk of the funds and ongoing maintenance.

In the case of Brooklyn Bridge Park, generating revenue within the site to cover the cost of operating and maintaining the park was from the beginning a condition of the state and city providing the necessary capital to build the park. That revenue had the added benefit that it would be captured directly by the park and not be subject to the vagaries of the city budget process.

When it turned out that maintaining the pier structures upon which much of the park sits was considerably more expensive than thought, housing along the edge of the park was chosen as the revenue generator because it would provide the most revenue in the smallest footprint. Although that plan was endorsed by all of the major neighborhood and civic organizations, and survived a legal challenge on the grounds that the park would not exist but for the housing plan, there has been a constant and growing effort to prevent the last housing project from going forward, thereby depriving the park of needed revenue.

A different set of local elected officials than were earlier in place now repudiate the bargain that was made, while many in the community either don’t know or don’t care what commitments were made. Litigation over how to proceed is pending while piers deteriorate.

Why are these park arrangements controversial? The public at times seems uncomfortable with the concept of public-private ventures. Some do not trust wealthy people offering funds to provide a public good, regardless of how good it may be. They don’t like developers whose investment is needed to help pay for a park, especially when it means market-rate housing for more wealthy people (though when Mayor de Blasio proposed some affordable housing for Brooklyn Bridge Park, the neighbors didn’t like that, either).

Some people are philosophically opposed to private funding, but, for many, opposition to public-private ventures may be a cover to protect their own private interests – like inexpensive parking on Pier 40 or a private grudge in Hudson River Park, or an impaired view on Pier 6 in Brooklyn Bridge Park (even though disclosed in their prospectus).

Legitimate issues arise when private funds support public purposes, and each project must stand on its own merits. Still, public resources are often inadequate to needs. In the case of major new parks like Hudson River and Brooklyn Bridge, the choice was not between public funding and private funding, but between park and no park. Both are democratic parks, available to all, wildly popular, and reflective of the diversity of New York. When the litigation and controversy end, as they will, two great parks will remain.

***
Joanne Witty, a lawyer and environmentalist who has served in both City and State government, was president of the community-based Local Development Corporation that created Brooklyn Bridge Park's master plan. She currently serves as Vice Chair of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, the city-sponsored not-for-profit organization that is building and operating the park.

Kelsie Louie, the author, last World AIDS Day (photo: Donna Aceto)

For over 35 years, HIV has plagued communities around the world. In the initial years that followed its discovery, our elected officials and social institutions failed to address the epidemic as it unfolded. Those who were falling ill faced tremendous danger and anxiety with no recourse in sight. Organizations like GMHC, ACT UP, Housing Works, and so many others were founded to not only provide a support system and educate the public, but to fortify a voice that would compel our leaders to take the AIDS crisis, and its victims, seriously.

This World AIDS Day -- Thursday, December 1 -- marks not only a day of remembrance and mourning for those we have lost, but also a turning point in our efforts to defeat the epidemic. After decades of deficient and half-hearted policies to address HIV, the United States has a National HIV/AIDS strategy, and, with aggressive pledges to end the epidemic in their respective jurisdictions, communities such as New York, Washington D.C., San Francisco, and Fulton County, Georgia are leading the charge to end AIDS.

Aside from pledges and press conferences, we have actually seen elected and government officials affirm their commitment to these efforts.

This past summer, officials in Fulton County, Georgia, unveiled an ambitious plan to eradicate HIV in the Atlanta metro area. According to the federal Center for Disease Control (CDC), an astonishing 1 in 51 Georgians will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime. County officials have set out to provide free, routine opt-out HIV testing in all healthcare settings and jails to decrease the number of new HIV diagnoses by 25 percent, increase the number of free condoms distributed from 2.3 million to 3.5 million, and link 85 percent of people who test positive for HIV to care within three days.

Here in New York State, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Ending the Epidemic Blueprint has served as a catalyst to expand funding and services across the state. For instance, in New York City, we have been successful in expanding rental assistance benefits to almost all low-income individuals living with HIV.

The blueprint has produced tangible results. On Tuesday, the New York City Department of Health released data showing that the number of new infections has dropped to 2,493 in 2015, the first time that annual infection figures have dropped below 2,500 since the HIV crisis began. The Department also made a monumental announcement – for the first time, in 2015, there were no mother-to-child HIV transmissions.

Until we see similar progress in all places, not just Fulton County and New York, our work is not complete. The South now experiences the greatest burden of HIV infection, illness, and deaths of any U.S. region, and lags far behind in providing quality HIV prevention and care. At-risk groups nationwide, particularly communities of color, transgender women, and men who have sex with men, continue to face institutional barriers that prevent easy and affordable access to testing, treatment and prevention.

I have great concern about the current national climate, which includes significant uncertainty over the future of federal health care policy. Depending on the course taken by Congress and the next President, we may be forced to confront new challenges in reducing HIV transmission rates and ending the epidemic. Local, regional, and state governments may be forced to pick up the torch in order to avoid moving backwards. Right now, we need more local elected leaders to act on ending HIV and AIDS in their communities. When they do, I am confident that we will collectively end this epidemic.

Thirty-five years ago, the feat of ending AIDS appeared impossible, but today, I believe our darkest days are behind us. We have overcome past inaction and complacency, and we must proactively continue to fight because we cannot afford to waste any opportunity to create an AIDS-free generation.

***
Kelsey Louie is the CEO of Gay Men’s Health Crisis. On Twitter: @GMHC.

Sen. Schumer (photo via @SenSchumer)

New York's Charles Schumer has suddenly become the most important Democratic leader in the country through his selection as Minority Leader in the United States Senate. Schumer’s role over the next few years will be critical in shaping the nation's future.

Leading 46 Democrats, Schumer looks back on a net loss of several Senate seats since 2009 and forward to 2018, when 10 Senate Democrats will be up for re-election in states won by Donald Trump. Schumer is said to get along well with Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but says he will draw the line at being too accommodationist with Trump and the Republicans. "When he is opposed to our values, we're going to go after him tooth and nail," Schumer said of President-elect Trump. "For instance, we're not going to let him repeal Dodd-Frank or the rules we've put in place to limit Wall Street."

Democrats will oppose Trump every time he takes "a dark, divisive turn," Schumer has promised. Already, Schumer has charged that the choice of former Breitbart News chief Stephen Bannon as White House senior counselor and strategist means that "dangerous and bigoted ideas will have a seat at the table."

A New Yorker with flair, drive, and self-confidence
Senator Chuck Schumer has a good deal of New York support, enthusiasm, and momentum behind him. He easily beat his Republican challenger, Wendy Long, in his 2016 re-election campaign, garnering about 70% of the vote (Democratic presidential nominee and former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, by contrast, got about 58% in New York).

Over his 19-year career in the Senate, Schumer has come across as an energetic, hard-charging New Yorker. When he was elected to the Senate in 1998, he made a pledge that he has kept, to visit each of New York's 62 counties at least once a year. The biographical sketch on his Facebook page says "he has built a reputation as a leader in finding common-sense solutions to national issues and a tireless fighter for New York."

Schumer has expressed a vision for rebuilding and re-energizing the national Democratic Party. "We need to have a party that works on behalf of all Americans," he said in his first speech as minority leader. "And a bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message that talks about how people in the middle class and those struggling to make it there can do better, but also deals with the unfairness in the American economic system, will unite our caucus and speak to the blue-collar worker in West Virginia and Michigan as well as the people who live along the coasts."

What is Schumer likely to do? Looking back along two historical paths may give us some guidance.

Schumer's revealing 2007 book
Senator Schumer's book “Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time,” published in 2007, offers insights into the senator's thinking and strategies.

Three themes in particular stand out.

1. Republicans are skilled at getting their "message" across to voters. Schumer contended that the Republican Party was mostly dominated by "theocrats" (conservatives who dislike government and want to minimize it) and "economic royalists" (people who want unfettered property rights and minimal or no government regulations or restrictions on business). Neither group represents mainline American values, Schumer says. But Republicans have used three shrewd marketing tactics, driven by the right-wing media: 1) Keep stressing that "What's good for the wealthiest is always, always, good for America."; 2) practice politics of fear and division; and 3) identify issues that connect with their values and then repeatedly return to them.
That worked for Republicans in 2004 and 2006, Schumer said. It sounds like some of his analysis about what happened in 2016.

2. Democrats need to really understand the middle class. Schumer argued that the Democrats had better policy positions than their opponents but did not connect well with the vast majority of voters. To help sharpen their strategies, Schumer invented and inserted in his book a hypothetical middle-class family, headed by Joe and Eileen Bailey, which he placed in Massapequa, Long Island. They should be supporting Democrats, but in recent elections, they tilted toward Republicans.

Schumer presents a detailed, insightful profile:

They have a house, a mortgage, property taxes that never cease to go up, monthly payments for two cars, and three kids in the local public schools. They both work because they want to and because they need to...The Baileys are generally optimists. They do not see impending doom on the horizon, though they sometimes worry that America's place in the world is under threat...But they are increasingly bothered by nagging worries. They're worried about terrorists who are...bent on killing Americans...They also worry about economic forces that are beyond their control...They don't see how they can possibly pay for college for their children. They haven't lost jobs to outsourcing, but some neighbors have...They are bothered by the corporate excesses that they read about in the paper [and the] moral excesses they see all around them...They believe that everyone deserves a fair chance and are sympathetic to those who are less fortunate than they are...

Politically, they are up for grabs...they are part of the new wave of independents...They support government when they feel it supports them, which isn't often...Most of the time, it seems to them that government is focused on someone else -- the very poor or the very rich.

That all sounds familiar. The electorate in 2016 was very divided, characterized by vague feelings that something is amiss in the nation, and mistrustful or cynical about both major parties.

3. Democrats can win by offering concrete, credible policies and solutions that appeal to the middle class. Over half of the book (pp. 117-263) is devoted to advancing and discussing specific policy proposals. Schumer titled his proposals with a clever catchphrase, "The 50% Solution." Here are a few examples (some are dated; but others still have a ring of relevance):

*Increase reading and math scores by 50%
* Increase the number of college graduates by 50%
*Reduce illegal immigration by at least 50% and increase legal migration by up to 50%
*Reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 50%
*Reduce cancer mortality by 50%
*Reduce abortions by 50%
*Reduce tax evasion and avoidance by 50%
*Increase our ability to fight terrorism by 50%

Nine years later, this year, Schumer is again patiently explaining that it is not enough just to oppose what the other party is trying to do. Political leaders have a responsibility to advance specific ideas and credible, concrete proposals in terms that people can understand and appreciate. “Positively American” is a good model, and many of its ideas still seem relevant.

Schumer's legacy from New York's previous eminent U.S. Senators
A second way of discerning Schumer's possible directions and influence is to look back at five of his predecessor U.S. senators from New York. Each had outsized talent, influence, and accomplishments, sometimes leaving legacies that were surpassed only by those of presidents.

*Daniel P. Moynihan (D, 1977-2001) came to the Senate after a long career, including White House advisor, Counselor to the President, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He had served under two Democratic presidents, Kennedy and Johnson, and two Republicans, Nixon and Ford, and was exceptionally skilled in bi-partisan negotiating and finding common ground. He was also a notable scholar, authoring 15 books and studies, including several influential works on important policy issues.

As Senator, Moynihan blended academic erudition, wit, and experience. He fought to get New York's fair share of federal aid. He moderated his strong anti-Soviet views and opposed the Reagan administration's hawkish Cold War policies. Taking on complex issues, he helped shape the Tax Reform Act of 1986. He supported protection of the environment and systematic transportation policy. But he maintained his position as a highly respected, independent-minded statesman by breaking with the liberal positions of his party on several occasions. For instance, as chair of the Senate Finance Committee in the 1990s, he opposed President Bill Clinton's proposal to expand healthcare coverage to all Americans, asserting that the dimensions of the health care crisis in the nation had been exaggerated.

*Herbert H. Lehman (D, 1949-1957), a former governor, was distinguished in the Senate for his defense of civil liberties. He was one of the first and most persistent opponents of Senator Joseph McCarthy's irresponsible crusade against alleged Communist influence in the government. He challenged McCarthy to produce proof, questioned his sources and tactics, and complained about his browbeating of witnesses McCarthy hauled before his investigating committee.

Lehman gave speeches in McCarthy's home state of Wisconsin, denouncing the senator and his followers for inciting fear to advance political ambition. He helped lead the campaign that resulted in McCarthy's censure by the Senate in 1954 for his ruthless, reckless tactics. Lehman voted against the Internal Security Act of 1950, calling it a threat to civil liberties. He was particularly alarmed about a provision giving the President authority to round up and detain people when there was a "reasonable ground" to believe that they will engage in acts of espionage or sabotage.

*Robert F. Wagner (D, 1927-1949) proposed initiatives to help organized labor and combat unemployment as the Great Depression began to grip the nation after 1929, but his efforts were rebuffed by Republicans. He became one of the chief critics of President Herbert Hoover's inaction to combat the Depression, calling for bold, national action. When Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president in 1932, Wagner became one of his key advisors and policy architects. He was so influential that Roosevelt once called him "the co-pilot of the New Deal." Wagner drafted and sponsored several key pieces of legislation, including the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), National Labor Relations Act (the "Wagner Act") (1935), and Social Security (1935).

*Elihu Root (R, 1909-1915) was one of the nation's most influential and respected statesmen for more than a quarter century. He came to the Senate after stints as U.S. Secretary of War and Secretary of State, where he had advised a number of presidents on several issues and helped transform the United States into a world power. He helped persuade business interests and press leaders to support an activist foreign policy and measured economic reform, a tactic he continued to champion as senator.

In 1912, as a result of his work in bringing countries together through cooperation and arbitration, Root was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That year, he helped sidetrack his old friend Theodore Roosevelt's bid for another term as president by supporting the incumbent, William H. Taft. Root counseled preparedness as the U.S. readied for World War I and, after the war, supported membership in the League of Nations, with reservations. Along the way, he served in other important capacities, including chairing the convention to revise the state constitution in 1915.

*William H. Seward (Whig/Republican, 1849-1861), a former governor, was a leading opponent of slavery expansion in the 1850s. In an 1858 speech, he asserted that the U.S. had two "antagonistic systems...continually coming into closer contact, and collision results...It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become entirely either a slave-holding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation."

Seward vocally opposed the federal Fugitive Slave Act, passed in 1850, and set an example for evading it by occasionally letting fugitive slaves shelter at his house in Auburn. Seward helped establish and shape the Republican Party in the late 1850s and was the leading candidate for the party's presidential nomination in 1860. His strident opposition to slavery undermined his candidacy but, when Abraham Lincoln was nominated, Seward campaigned for him. Lincoln appointed Seward as secretary of state and he became one of Lincoln's most trusted confidantes and advisors on war issues, emancipation of slaves, and political strategy. Seward was perhaps second only to Lincoln himself in importance in key policy-making areas.

Chuck Schumer will make his own Senatorial history
In the days ahead, Chuck Schumer, always independent-minded, will strike his own course according to his conscience.

But he can draw on the legacy of previous U.S. Senators from New York -- Seward, for uncompromising, principled stands on issues with social justice and moral dimensions; Root, for appealing to business interests to support responsible public policies; Wagner, for opposing federal policies of neglect and for formulating crisp policy and effective laws; Lehman, for defending the innocent against public bullies; and Moynihan, for political independence, principled positions (even when unpopular in his own party), and skilled bipartisanship.

Of course, Schumer needs to do all of that while at the same time looking out for New York's interests.

History suggests that Chuck Schumer is up to the challenge.

***
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.

Council Member Constantinides, the author

As we continue to digest the results of the election, a troubling reality emerges that our core beliefs are under attack. As New Yorkers, we stand in unity with our neighbors, especially Muslim, Latino, and LGBTQ communities across our city.

We are also left with deep disappointment because President-elect Trump has attacked climate change as a hoax. He has pledged to undo American efforts to prevent a global warming catastrophe, including retreat from the Paris Agreement on Climate, Clean Power Plan, and new EPA regulations.

It is clear that our city and other local governments need to lead the way on protecting equality, as well as protecting our planet.

As Chair of the New York City Council's Environmental Protection Committee, I remain focused on making our city greener and more sustainable. We learned four years ago with Hurricane Sandy that the effects of climate change can cause devastating damage to our homes, infrastructure, and places we hold dear. Since then, New York has made great strides in resilience and sustainable building.

With a strong environmental partner in Mayor de Blasio, we have already begun working toward our commitment to reduce our carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and continue to invest in environmental education and programming. The City Council recently passed legislation I sponsored to boost renewable energy including solar, geothermal, and bioheat.

We have also helped encourage sustainable habits such as taking public transportation more and using less air conditioning. Earlier this month, we passed a bill, Intro. 1124, which will encourage more New Yorkers to drive electric vehicles by implementing a pilot program for publicly accessible charging stations.

On Monday, I will chair an Environmental Protection Committee oversight hearing on emissions that come from power plants throughout the city.

It is time for us to be bolder in our efforts to lead on environmental policy, through innovative policies and careful oversight, like the efforts mentioned above.

We have introduced legislation that advocates for environmental justice in our most underserved communities, making New York the first large city in the nation that would have such a commitment.

Knowing that 75% of our emissions come from buildings, we are exploring the use of wind energy in our city, allowing neighbors to tap into the same geothermal energy source to power their own homes, and solar thermal installation on city-owned buildings. New York has already been a worldwide role model in sustainability and we must continue to keep this work a top priority.

Now is the time that we must stand up and fight for our planet’s future.

***
City Council Member Costa Constantinides represents the 22nd Council District, which includes his native Astoria along with parts of Woodside, East Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights. He serves as Chair the Council's Environmental Protection Committee and sits on six additional committees. On Twitter @Costa4NY.

NYS Assembly chamber (photo: MattWade on flickr)

On November 7, 2017, New Yorkers will be asked to vote on whether to call a state constitutional convention. When this question was last on the ballot in 1997 (it’s required to be on the ballot once every 20 years), the most publicized argument not to call a convention was that the convention delegate election process would be dominated by the same interests that dominate New York’s Legislature.

That argument fails to account for the many successes of America’s 236 state constitutional conventions since 1776, including New York’s nine. It also fails to explain why the same special interest groups who would supposedly benefit from a convention will spend millions of dollars opposing one. Except for the fact that incumbent public officials can run as delegates, New York has one of the best delegate election processes among the states. 

But, there is still much room for improvement.  

New York’s Delegate Election Process
New York’s Constitution mandates what’s known as a mixed delegate election system. Of the 204 delegates to be elected, 189 are elected from New York’s 63 state Senate districts (three from each district) and 15 elected at large for the entire state. Crucially, the details of how this mixed system works are left up to the discretion of the Legislature.

The last time the Legislature chose the election details it created a system whereby in each Senate district voters voted up or down for three candidates, and in the at-large election voted up or down for a party-based slate of candidates (see the sample ballot below).

A Better Delegate Election Process
A better mixed system would be built on a foundation of what political scientists call Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), a type of electoral system used in Germany and New Zealand at the national level; and Scotland, Wales, and more than a dozen German states at the regional level. In a 2006 survey, political scientists who specialize in electoral systems ranked MMP as the best family of electoral systems.

Part of the MMP mix would include ranked-choice voting, a type of electoral system used in Ireland and Australia at the national level, and in many U.S. cities at the local level. In 2016, Maine voters approved a ballot initiative to choose the Governor and state Legislature via ranked-choice voting. In the same 2006 survey, ranked-choice voting was ranked the second-best family of electoral systems.

In an MMP system, voters cast two types of votes: one for candidates in their local district, and one for a party. The votes, in turn, count for two tiers of seats: a local candidate tier, and a compensatory tier for parties that didn’t win seats in the candidate vote in proportion to their party vote. Within the constraints of New York’s current constitution, this could work as follows:

In choosing candidates from their local three-member Senate district, voters would rank their preferences rather than vote up or down for each candidate. Such a “ranked-choice” voting system wouldn’t require separate primary and general elections because runoffs are instant. Most important, it wouldn’t penalize voters for voting for their first choice rather than a less preferred candidate with a better chance of winning. With New York’s three-member districts, any district candidate with 25% of the vote plus one would win a district seat, thus strengthening party competition and mitigating the harmful effects of partisan gerrymandering.

The party votes would be used to ensure that the ratio of seats to votes is proportional. For example, assume the Democratic Party gets 49% of the vote, the Republican Party 46%, and an independent party 5%. Under the current delegate election system, the Democratic and Republican parties would most likely win 100% of the seats. But under MMP, the independent party would be entitled to 5% of the overall seats and thus win ten of the fifteen at-large seats, with the balance divided proportionately among the Democrats and Republicans. The result of such compensatory seats is that small parties and political entrepreneurs would have a much greater incentive to compete in the election.

Each party would compile its list of candidates for proportional allocation the way it wanted. For example, a party could add the proportion of a candidate’s district vote (e.g. the number of top-three votes) to the proportion of the party’s district vote to come up with a candidate’s party list ranking. Many other methods could also be used.

When a delegate’s seat became vacant, the party would choose the next name on its list as a replacement. No special election would be held.

Although the 15 at-large, compensatory seats might seem to guarantee a relatively small amount of proportionality, the combination of ranked-choice voting in the three-member districts plus the compensatory seats would lead to a remarkably high degree of proportionality (although having more compensatory seats would be even better).

A state-of-the-art electoral system should provide not only voters, but also parties and candidates, with more options consistent with the principle of political equality and robust public deliberation. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) combined with ranked-choice voting accomplishes that.

Party-Based Electoral Competition is Good
In the United States, the media teaches the public to think disdainfully of political parties. Consequently, the word “partisan” has become a dirty word. But contemporary democracy is unthinkable without parties, and party labels are an extremely efficient and effective system for educating the public about candidates. MMP offers the best of both party- and candidate-centered elections while radically diminishing the need for public financing of elections.

States have had many democracy enhancing constitutional conventions that were dominated by two-party delegate competition, including New York’s famous state ratifying convention in 1788 that was dominated by Federalists and Anti-Federalists (the Anti-Federalists won the most delegate seats but were eventually convinced to side with the Federalists). The chief worry should not be party but incumbent legislator dominated conventions. Only the latter type of domination violates the core democratic function of a convention, which is to bypass the Legislature’s gatekeeping power over constitutional amendment. Still, using MMP to lower barriers to entry for both parties and candidates would greatly strengthen the delegate election process by providing voters with more meaningful choices.

New York’s past practice of having candidates outside the two major parties run as a slate is a vastly inferior alternative to MMP but probably the best that New York’s Legislature would allow if voters approved calling a convention. Thus, reform groups may focus their efforts on putting together a slate. In 1966, when New York last had a delegate election, such efforts were remarkably successful—albeit still inadequate (7% of the elected delegates were incumbent legislators).

Getting to MMP
The politics of improving the delegate election process are admittedly dismal. Legislatures hate conventions because they function as a check on their power, so the last thing they want to do is strengthen the institution. Ditto for the powerful special interest groups that thrive working through the Legislature and thus view a convention as a threat.  

One reason for hope is that federal courts could rule that the delegate election system approved by the Legislature for the three-member districts violates the proportional requirements under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed just before the last delegate election took place in 1966. If the Legislature doesn’t change the type of system it approved in early 1966, it is likely to be sued under that law. That could give the federal courts the ability to design a more proportional electoral system such as single-member districts (the courts’ conventional remedy based on using an up-or-down voting rule) or ranked-choice voting within the constraints of New York’s constitutionally specified three-member districts.

The best long-term hope for meaningful delegate election reform is the political logic of the famous “veil of ignorance” effect regarding democratic reforms that won’t take effect for at least 20 years into the future. The basic idea is that even crassly self-interested convention delegates would have an incentive to support democracy enhancing reforms such as MMP if they wouldn’t take effect until after those delegates would be retired from politics and couldn’t foresee how they would personally benefit from preserving an otherwise inferior status quo.

Most of those using the delegate election process as an argument against calling a convention are using that argument as a pretext for opposition on other grounds. But they do have a point, so those who aren’t using that argument as a pretext should direct their energies to fixing the process either through the Legislature and courts or, if that’s not possible, the next convention.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence asserts that Americans should have an “unalienable” right to “alter” their form of government, including the right to peaceably bypass their legislatures’ gatekeeping power over needed democratic reforms. The inter-generational struggle to protect and enhance this most fundamental of all democratic rights should dwarf considerations of short-term expediency. The cure for the deficiencies of the current process, like democracy itself, is a better process, not the eternal tyranny of the legislature over the constitutional amendment process.

Like all electoral systems, a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system with ranked-choice voting is not perfect. But to safeguard our most fundamental of all democratic rights, it would be a great legacy for us to leave to future generations of New Yorkers.

Urban Pathways residence in Queens (photo via Urban Pathways)

Across the United States, cities continue to adopt laws criminalizing homelessness and poverty as their first line of defense against rising homelessness. According to a 2014 study of 187 U.S. cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 100 cities have banned sitting or lying down in public places and 81 cities have prohibited sleeping in one’s own vehicle, increases of 43 percent and 119 percent, respectively, since 2011.

Criminalization of homelessness occurs in many forms. Palo Alto, CA made sleeping in one’s own vehicle a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine or up to six months in jail. In June, Saratoga Springs, NY banned sitting or lying on sidewalks. While federal courts increasingly find these laws unconstitutional, cities still adopt them, appeasing some constituents with “tough” measures disconnected from proven solutions to homelessness.

Even for cities like New York that don’t adopt these bans, criminalization persists, with similar consequences for those criminalized. City laws – such as the city transit code prohibition on lying down or taking up more than one seat on the subway - are arbitrarily enforced against those experiencing homelessness. The police also order persons experiencing homeless to “move along” not because there is reasonable suspicion they are engaging in criminal activity but because they are homeless.

Regardless the form, criminalization hurts the person criminalized, policing, taxpayers, and the community. Harm to those criminalized can include a criminal record, fines, or jail, as well as another traumatic experience added to that of being homeless. It impedes community policing, compromising the already attenuated relationship between communities and the police who are to protect and serve them. It is a waste of money, using significant tax dollars for policing and court time, and too often involving the expensive corrections system. Criminalization also accomplishes nothing for the person experiencing homelessness or the city enacting the ordinance, since these laws and their enforcement don’t address the root causes of homelessness. 

It is the central cause of homelessness, the dearth of truly affordable housing, on which we must focus, doing all within our power to constantly protect low-income tenants and facilitate the tenancy of those without access to affordable housing. In New York City this includes strongly enforcing our fair housing laws, including the Human Rights Law’s protection against source-of-income discrimination. We only impede shelter exits when we allow landlords to refuse to rent to a person because they have a Living in Communities rental voucher.

In this spirit, today, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty launches a national campaign advocating for “Housing Not Handcuffs.” The campaign has two principles: 1) To end the homelessness crisis, the criminalization of homelessness must end; and 2) All persons experiencing homelessness should instead have access to affordable housing, education, health care, employment, income, and other opportunities and services that allow all to live with dignity.

Tomorrow -- Wednesday, November 16 -- there will be a New York City launch of the national Housing Not Handcuffs campaign at the City Hall steps. The launch, focusing on homeless criminalization and affordable housing in New York City, will feature speakers including Eric Tars of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty as well as individuals who have experienced homelessness criminalization. We will also launch a survey of those experiencing homelessness about criminalization.

You can get involved in the Housing Not Handcuffs Campaign in several ways: Attend and encourage others to attend the New York City launch on Wednesday; Endorse the national Housing Not Handcuffs Campaign; Encourage those experiencing homeless to complete the criminalization survey; Reach out to the NYC Housing Not Handcuffs Campaign at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Let’s end the criminalization of homelessness. Handcuffs are not the solution to homelessness; truly affordable housing is.

***
Nicole Bramstedt is Policy Director at Urban Pathways. Jeff Foreman is Policy Director at Care for the Homeless. Both organizations serve homeless adults in New York City. On Twitter: @UrbanPathwaysNY & @CFHNYC.