An abortion rights rally in New York (photo: Mike Groll/Governor's Office)

The Supreme Court’s horrific decision to overturn Roe is not only a severe blow to women’s autonomy over their bodies, it is a powerful reminder that addressing the real impacts of sexism and gender inequality is not on the national agenda as much as it should be.

Right now, women — especially women already living paycheck to paycheck — are at serious risk of falling off the economic cliff, resulting in dire consequences not just for them, but for their families and communities. For most people, including women, housing is their single biggest expense. And it’s increasing.

That is why with the economy slowing, inflation rising, and the pay equity gap exacerbated by covid, developing housing that is affordable and sustainable is more important than ever.

Women are paid less than men. Way less. White women fair best, making roughly 79 cents for every dollar a white man makes. Women of color make even less. Black women earn just 63 cents for every dollar white men earn, and Latinas fare even worse, making just half of what white men make.

Women are also increasingly likely to be the sole or primary breadwinner in their families. And the economic impact of covid has disproportionately hit women, either by forcing them out of the workforce because of caretaking duties or by putting women out of work in industries like teaching and healthcare, where women are overrepresented. This is on top of the fact that women-headed households are already having more trouble making rent.

Now, the Supreme Court has added forced childbearing to this already financially toxic sea. Women will be forced to spend hard-won savings or borrow money to travel for abortion. They will lose jobs because they have to be absent from work as they seek care. Others will be forced to have children they can’t afford.

All these things together mean women are at great risk of losing their housing.

To help mitigate the growing economic challenges women face, we need more housing that is affordable. That means two things need to happen, and they need to happen quickly.

First, we need new housing models. “Affordable housing” is often defined as housing that a) costs less than one-third of someone’s gross income and b) is available only for families who earn well below the median income of a geographically defined area. Avoiding “rent burden” is a good financial metric, and it is also fair to target lower- and moderate-income families in jurisdictions where the cost of market-rate housing would make them rent-burdened.

But that’s far too narrow of a definition of affordability. Housing isn’t “affordable” if it requires a mean and expensive two-hour commute or saying ‘no’ to a new job because it’s too difficult to get to and moving’s not on the table. It’s not “affordable” if it means forcing a child to change schools or moving to a neighborhood that feels unsafe.

For decades, the prevailing policy and financing approach has been to segregate market-rate housing from affordable housing. In practice, it means wealthier people generally find housing that meets that financial metric — and that also preserves their quality of life. We haven’t given those with fewer financial resources those same options.

Beyond that fairness issue, dividing families on the basis of income is one of the things that exacerbates social inequities, leading to significant differences in economic, education, and health outcomes. 

It’s time to do it differently. We need a true mixed-income housing approach that brings people together and gives them the same access to quality schools, healthcare, economic opportunity, and social infrastructure.

Second, we need private investors to be a larger part of the solution and invest in these different models. 

Providing affordable housing can’t just be the job of the public sector. We need private investors to understand the financial and social benefits of mixed-income housing and for the public sector to establish policies and programs that incentivize and reward investors to think outside the box. 

By forging true public-private partnerships that are predictable but flexible, we can increase housing production and provide more affordable homes to the people who need them.

The need for housing that is safe and affordable for women is only going to grow. We know from experience that to address women’s needs, women have to be at the table. Gender does matter. So let’s make a concerted effort to direct capital and opportunities to firms that are run by women — whether that’s architects, developers, or in my case, real estate fund managers. Let’s give them a chance to do it differently and do it better.

To be clear: Building housing that works for women isn’t the answer to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The answer to that is to keep fighting until those rights are restored. 

In the meantime we have to do everything we can to make sure women have the support they need to stay afloat economically in stable, affordable housing.

***
Alicia Glen is a national housing expert and the former deputy mayor for housing and economic development for New York City. She is the founder and managing principal of MSquared, a women-owned real estate development and impact investing platform building mixed-income housing that is affordable. On Twitter @AliciaGlen.

Mayor Adams, Chancellor Banks, and students (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)

The Trojan Horse called “Fair Student Funding” that allocates $10 billion of city funds to our 1,700 public schools needs to be scrapped. The attractively alliterative system inadequately funds the real needs of schools and, according to an unreleased 2021 Fair Student Funding Task Force study, funnels “additional resources to high schools with “higher achievers” who are disproportionately whiter and wealthier than the overall school population. It concludes “this is not an equitable funding system.”

Fair Student Funding is at the heart of the current school budget crisis, with the mayor mired in debate with an abulic City Council and a lawsuit that may allay his $215 million cut to city schools but fails to address the long-term problems of declining student enrollment and erosion of federal pandemic relief funding.

Fair Student Funding (FSF) was also central to temporary rejection of FSF-based school allocations by the Department of Education’s Panel for Educational Policy (PEP), a usually docile mayor-controlled body, when it mutinied over the system’s inadequacies and inequities. In a hasty compromise in exchange for the PEP’s approval, Schools Chancellor David Banks agreed to look into FSF’s weighting of student needs including, for example, providing additional funds for students in temporary housing and foster care.

But nibbling around the edges of how FSF arbitrarily weights student-based expenses does nothing to get at the root problem of what Banks himself calls “this mess.”

First, Fair Student Funding is based on district-wide assumptions out of touch with school realities. Mayor Adams based his budget reduction on total public school enrollment but individual schools don’t run on these gross totals. The bulk of a school’s budget is salaries and what matters to principals is not overall enrollment but how many teachers and others are needed for a given grade or class. Teachers and paraprofessionals and guidance counselors and others need to be hired based on these sub-groups.

Further, as New York Post reporting showed, when Mayor Adams promised to “fully fund” Fair Student Funding, fingers crossed behind his back, he knew he could save money by decreasing FSF’s per-student allocations by assuming an across-the-board average teacher salary reduction, irrespective of a school’s actual payroll.

Second, FSF only funds about 65% of school needs, so the chancellor’s focus on FSF is a distraction from the larger issue of how overall school budgets are allocated by the central administration.

Check the DOE budget website where no less than five other large, highly-manipulable, opaque streams are listed. Add to this the countless off-budget grants and donations such as those from wealthy parents, which go 100% to their kids’ schools, and we see that the entire scheme of school funding needs an overhaul.

No one trusts the DOE to fix this. Not only is Banks disregarding work already done by the ill-fated 2021 FSF Task Force. He compounded this disregard by designating First Deputy Chancellor Daniel Weisberg to lead the redesign effort. This is classic political rope-a-dope.

Weisberg is too busy to spend much time on the study and he played a leading role in the Bloomberg administration’s original design of FSF under Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. He can hardly be expected to kill his darling. Besides, he doesn’t seem to care how expenses are weighted, just minimizing the bottom line.

Testifying before the City Council last month and defending the $215 million cut to schools, Weisberg challenged the Council members to move money around, creating their own “winners and losers,” while he held fast to the widespread, devastating school staffing cuts by his own agency (that the mayor and Council have been negotiating to reverse).

Instead of  Banks’ suggestion of a new commission heavily weighted to administration personnel and interests, we need the non-mayoral PEP members including representatives of the borough presidents, city comptroller, and independent parent members to constitute their own task force using those officials’ staff resources along with the city’s Independent Budget Office to craft a new school allocation system based on professional expertise from across the country.

Banks’ idea of adding volunteer members from the PEP and community is a scam unworthy of someone committed to real change. These people have neither the time nor experience to design a complex budgeting system for the largest school district in the country with a budget in excess of $30 billion. The symbolism is both demeaning and offensive.

In keeping with good public policy and democratic procedures, the PEP will have the legally-mandated last word on approving the new system. But the technical design assuring fiscal equity and adequacy among almost 1 million public school students needs serious and objective expertise under non-mayoral PEP guidance, qualities the administration has yet to demonstrate.

***
David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center. On Twitter @BloomfieldDavid.

DOE Chancellor Banks at Bard High School Early College (photo: @BHSEC)

Although prom, soccer games, and spirit weeks are all memorable parts of my high school experience, my favorite time of the year takes place two weeks before the semester ends; course selection. Each semester, 300 students in the 11th and 12th grades refresh their mailboxes, eagerly awaiting the pamphlet filled with all the college courses that will be offered the following semester. 

I attend Bard High School Early College Queens, so in addition to 17 filled notebooks, I will leave with a high school diploma, an associate degree, and 60 transferable college credits - all free of cost. But my biggest takeaway from this unique high school will be my experiences in college classes.

When walking to my seminar class, I always hear the chirping of crickets or hissing of snakes from the animal behavior class in the lab. In my freshman year literature class, my professor changed the final for the class to reflect the civil rights protests that were occurring at the moment. The decision was impactful for many students, especially those of color, and made them feel seen in the classroom. I recently took a course on the Harlem Renaissance and more often than not, the conversations in class would lead to similar discussions about modern day social issues.

Once we complete traditional high school classes in our freshmen and sophomore years, our college courses in junior and senior years do not adhere to standardized curriculum and testing, and professors create their own syllabi, class materials, and assessments. At Bard High School Early College Queens, professors teach both high school and college-level courses, and 97% of the faculty have a doctorate in the area that they teach. Not only does this result in 90-minute conversations about 20 pages in a book, but my teachers are always open to discussion outside designated class times.

The flexible curriculum and an education that is not isolated from the outside world are two of my favorite parts of the early college model, and the ability to have control over courses of study keeps students extremely motivated.

More importantly, early college instills a sense of belonging in students, especially those who are typically underrepresented in academia. Early college plays an active role in making college an expectation rather than an option for all students. Students who are first-generation college goers or from low-income backgrounds stop viewing college as a daunting prospect because their first two years of college are in a familiar environment. At my school in Queens and the Bard High School Early College in Manhattan, 50% of the 1,284 member student population is first generation American and 70% are low-income. 

By the time they graduate and go on to another institution, they have already been exposed to a college environment and have the confidence to continue their studies. In fact, Bard Manhattan and Queens have the highest on-time bachelor’s degree completion for low-income students of all public schools in New York State.

It is no surprise that the early college model has become increasingly common across the country, with similar positive outcomes on graduation rates, college enrollment and degree completion. Taking courses without having to worry about cost or practicality helps reinforce that college is not just for career preparation and networking, but is also a place to learn. The ability to interact with complex topics while still maintaining the innocence of being a teenager and living at home is a privilege that I will be eternally grateful for. 

I never thought I would be ready for college until I realized that I was already in one. I invite New York State and City leaders to make high school more memorable and meaningful at an earlier age by opening more of these schools, and provide thousands more young people the same life-changing opportunity that I am having.

***
Aarsha Joshi is a Year 1 student (Junior) at Bard High School Early College Queens and Student Fellow in Public Policy with Bard Early Colleges.

Online news and (dis)information in the spotlight (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)

Disinformation may be the single greatest threat to American democracy, prosperity, and even our health. Without a common set of facts, it is nearly impossible to find agreement on our common destiny.

Disinformation permeates and poisons public discourse. Donald Trump’s Big Lie has undermined confidence in our elections; Facebook fuels climate denialism; and misinformation about vaccines has prolonged and exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is not a coincidence that the spread of disinformation has accelerated as independent news media has declined. Newspapers are now shutting down at the rate of two per week.

However, as much as I still love reading an honest broadsheet or a spicy tabloid, the solution to disinformation does not lie in traditional print media. The cost-efficiency and publishing speed of online journalism, combined with the comparative advantage of digital advertising, has permanently disrupted the media industry.

Many projects and experiments are underway to find ways to combat the disinformation crisis. Notably, independent digital platforms have demonstrated the ability to report the news with the same vigor as legacy media. Some of the strongest are nonprofits. In New York City, we have been blessed by the coverage of The City, Gothamist, and, of course, Gotham Gazette, among others. Elsewhere, MinnPost, the Texas Tribune, CTMirror, and dozens of other news sites have inherited journalism’s mission of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

These nonprofits depend on a mix of private philanthropy and low-dollar individual contributions. Private support is welcome but won’t scale to match the need for independent community-based media across the country.

Public goods require public support. It is past time that we expand the mission, and the budget, of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support digital platforms. Since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967, the CPB has sustained public television and literally invented National Public Radio. And despite controversy (e.g., the recurrent “Big Bird” hearings), we are much the better for it.

As proposed by the Federation of American Scientists, the Knight Foundation, and others, Congress should recast CPB as the Corporation for Public Media. Give it the funding to catalyze robust online local news media platforms, and then steer clear of political interference by empowering local governance.

Disinformation is not the only cost of the decline of independent nonpartisan news media. It has also widened the window for government corruption.

Of course, supporting local independent news media, by itself, will not disrupt the damage disinformation causes. Congress must also regulate social media platforms in order promote transparency and restrain the spread of false and dangerous information. False speech about election administration should be made a crime. And foreign actors should be held accountable for interference in American elections.

But as Jefferson said, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press.” So does our health, our planet, and our democracy.

***
Dan Goldman is a candidate for Congress in New York’s 10th Congressional District, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and was chief House counsel in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. On Twitter @danielsgoldman.

Oscar Garcia Rivera in 1937, the year he took office (photo: The Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College)

Tuesday, June 28, 2022, marked an important shift in Latino politics in New York, represented in part by Assemblymember Jose Rivera’s Democratic primary loss to George Alvarez. The significance of Rivera’s defeat goes beyond an election loss by someone who has been in office for four decades. Rivera represents the last of what can be deemed a third generation of Puerto Rican Latino elected officials, someone who was part of a generation that paved the way for the younger generation of current Latino political leaders.

Many of these younger leaders and members of the city’s broader Latino communities may have little understanding of the significance of Rivera’s life and career. This lack of historical perspective, important for understanding the trajectory of Latino politics in New York, one filled with long and difficult struggle, was made evident to me in a conversation I had with one leader who expressed bewilderment when I mentioned that Fernando Ferrer was the first Latino to win the Democratic nomination for the mayoralty in New York. The young leader had no idea who Ferrer was.

Rivera’s loss represents yet another confirmation of a gargantuan historical and demographic shift taking place in Latino politics in New York. To understand how we, as Latinos, have arrived at this point, we must have perspective on, and appreciation of, the events and people that led us here.

The need to tell our political story as Latinos has been burning inside me for years and has only intensified since that conversation with the young leader last year, in light of Dianne Morales’ run for the mayoralty, debate over representation at the statewide level amid two lieutenant governor vacancies, and other recent developments.

The following presents an outline of what has become a book I am writing on the history of Latino politics in New York. Rivera’s defeat, like his victory over an Irish incumbent 40 years ago, has a history. And it must be told. Here’s a snapshot of it.                

Puerto Rican Migration, Cigar Makers, and Numbers Runners, Oh My!
The history of Latino politics in New York is largely the history of Puerto Rican politics in New York. Though a new chapter in this history has been emerging, the fact remains that up until 1991, when Guillermo Linares became the first Dominican elected in the history of New York, almost all Latino elected officials in New York were Puerto Ricans.

 The long and difficult struggle for Latino political representation begins 100 years ago with an unlikely cast of characters: cigar makers and numbers runners. By the mid-1920s, a large number of Puerto Ricans began to arrive on the shores of Gotham City. This first spurt of Puerto Rican migration was a direct result of the passage of the Jones Act in 1917, which forced on the island of Puerto Rico economic consequences that are still being felt today. Eight years after the Jones Act, an additional 40,000 Puerto Ricans arrived in New York, drastically increasing the community’s overall population from a mere 2,000 just a little over a decade before.

 Most workers in the early Puerto Rican labor force were cigar-makers populating factories all over the city, including those like El Morito on 86th Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, a location now surrounded by luxury high-rises and about a half-mile from East Harlem, which would become one of the early hubs of the Puerto Rican community.

The cigar-makers (tabaqueros) were a learned bunch. Bernardo Vega, one of the first to chronicle his life as a Puerto Rican migrant in New York post-1917, describes the type of colleagues he encountered at El Morito. There was Juan Hernandez, director of the workers’ paper, and Enrique Rosario Ortiz, Tomas Perez, and Matias Nieves, whom he describes as people active in the worker cause and in the wider Latino community. With such outstanding workers, it is no surprise to read from Vega that they hired lectors to read to all the workers for an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon. Morning reading sessions were devoted to the latest news of the day. Afternoon readings were headier and included political and literary tomes.

 The tabaqueros were not only learned, they were also extremely organized. These organizational abilities and structures are what eventually led to political recognition. The tabaqueros were instrumental in fighting for workers’ rights, fair wages, and fair labor practices. They organized a number of small strikes, which culminated in a bigger strike in 1919.

While the 1919 strike did not necessarily lead to improved conditions, employers and others could not ignore the tabaqueros—these Latino men (overwhelmingly Puerto Rican) were brilliant, conscious of their own value (as Puerto Ricans and as a labor force) and highly organized. Many took notice, including an Italian-American politician who would eventually become mayor of New York City, Fiorello LaGuardia.

 Interestingly, many of these tabaqueros were socialists, including Bernardo Vega and Jesus Colon, another key figure in early Latino politics in New York. The workers’ cause became an impetus for embracing socialist principles, which Puerto Ricans in New York had brought with them from the island.

All this led Bernardo Vega to initiate the first Puerto Rican chapter of the Socialist Party in New York. Other prominent early groups, like the Alianza Obrera Puertorriqueña, became hubs for the gathering of Puerto Rican socialists. One fascinating fact about the early Puerto Rican socialists is that they believed in the necessity of coalition-building for the cause of economic justice. Thus these same groups invited over 200 Jewish socialists to partake in conversations around workers’ struggles both in Puerto Rico and New York.

Indeed, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist background has deep roots in early Puerto Rican politics in New York.

 Puerto Ricans arriving in New York began to realize that in New York they would also face poor economic conditions, though perhaps not as severe as the conditions they had left behind. The economic struggles made early efforts to organize politically a daunting task. Effective organizing meant proper funding. Where would an economically struggling community turn?

 Besides the tabaqueros, numbers runners (boliteros) were pivotal in what would become the early efforts in Latino politics in New York. The boliteros were among the early financial backers of the first Puerto Rican political clubs and organizations. One of these boliteros was Carlos Tapia, whom Nestor David Pastor would describe as the Puerto Rican Luke Cage. Tapia, with his linebacker size, was instrumental in the struggle for political empowerment and in defending Puerto Ricans against racism and police brutality. He would go on to co-found one of the very early Puerto Rican Democratic clubs in New York, the Betances Democratic Club in Brooklyn.

Tapia owned his own bodegas and restaurants and would go on to push these same clubs and organizations to cease receiving funding from the boliteros. By that point, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Puerto Rican political organizations had garnered enough experience and channeled enough energy to gain the attention and support of some of the Democratic County organizations in the city.

 Right alongside, and often in front of, these men were pioneering Puerto Rican women who also dedicated their lives to the social and political empowerment of Puerto Ricans. Noteworthy among these women is Antonia Denis. Unfortunately, not much information remains about Denis’ life and work.

All of the early pioneers are gone and very little documentation remains of the efforts of Denis and others. What we do know is that Denis was instrumental in the start of the Betances club as well as other political and cultural organizations and that she was known to be a one-woman voter registration and voter turnout champion.

Denis also was a pivotal figure in the early efforts to commemorate Puerto Rican culture and contributions through cultural festivities like the Puerto Rican Day parade. Fortunately, some audio recordings of interviews exist at the Center for Brooklyn History; they document Denis’ work, and she can be deemed the first instrumental Puerto Rican woman in Latino politics in New York.

The fruitful efforts of the early political organizing efforts, coupled with the continued increase in the Puerto Rican population of New York, would lead to actual political representation. It was a slow and gradual process, but by 1937 these efforts would lead to the election of the first Latino elected in the history of New York, Puerto Rican Oscar Garcia Rivera.

Garcia Rivera, a St. John’s Law School graduate, would go on to serve in the State Assembly, representing the 17th Assembly District in East Harlem, now the 68th District.

Clinton Correctional (photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Starting July 18, 2022, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community  Supervision (DOCCS) has implemented a new statewide policy restricting the rights of  incarcerated individuals to receive packages from loved ones. The revised policy – Directive  #4911A – requires that all packages be shipped directly from vendors, and in-person visitors will  no longer be allowed to ship or bring packages from home. This measure will further isolate  incarcerated individuals from loved ones and curtail their access to fresh foods, homemade  goods, and religious necessities.

Our offices strongly oppose this directive, as we did with a similar pilot program in 2017-2018. It is our shared belief that Directive #4911A will not stop the smuggling of contraband and will instead impose unnecessary financial burdens on the families of the incarcerated and result in hazardous disruptions to the incarcerated population. 

DOCCS began trial implementation of Directive #4911A within the Wende Hub of western New  York this May. In a memorandum dated April 25, 2022, this policy is described as a necessary  step to "make the system safer and aid in reducing overdoses, violence and overall  rehabilitation of the population." The Prison Violence Task Force cites contraband as a leading  cause of violence, however, these findings have not been made available to the public or to us, the committee Chairs overseeing corrections in the State Legislature.

According to current regulations, all packages that enter a correctional facility are subject to search by x-ray, scanners, and physical inspection. We cannot verify that the “solution” DOCCS has implemented will stop contraband or decrease facility violence. The Correctional Association of New York (CANY), an independent state-authorized oversight body, has informed us that multiple FOIL requests for data regarding facility violence have been delayed. This lack of transparency leads us to the concerning suspicion that DOCCS is using the package policy punitively against the incarcerated population and their loved ones. 

Directive #4911A limits the number of food packages that incarcerated individuals may receive to three per month. This arbitrary limit fails to account for the varied shipping methods that  different vendors use. If a vendor splits a single package into three shipments, this will max out the monthly allotted packages for that incarcerated individual. Commissaries are not sufficient at  most facilities and many incarcerated individuals rely on food packages.

We are deeply concerned that vendors' lack of standardization and regulation will increase tension and stress in correctional facilities. The further destabilization of routines, already exacerbated by the  COVID-19 crisis, may in fact lead to an increase in violence, which this directive purportedly  aims to decrease. 

Before the implementation of Directive #4911A, our offices received dozens of concerned  letters, emails, and phone calls from incarcerated individuals and their families. Families  expressed financial, mental, and emotional apprehension. Where previously they could pack and deliver care packages within their means, they are now forced to factor in new and ever-increasing vendor fees and shipping costs. Families of the incarcerated already face heavy financial burdens in travel and must now budget to afford vendors’ charges. Since the test implementation in the Wende hub, we have continued to hear from individuals and families distraught over the added burdens this policy creates. 

Vendors are an unnecessary go-between, and any delivery delays may result in spoiled fruits,  vegetables, and other food items. Incarcerated individuals with religious diets (e.g., Halal,  Kosher, or vegetarian) may not have timely access to their specialized foods in accordance with  their practices. Additionally, specific religious articles may be difficult to access through vendors  – or may never be in stock. Directive #4911A creates obstacles for incarcerated individuals to freely practice their religious beliefs.  

As the Chairs of the Senate and Assembly committees overseeing our corrections system, we  sent a joint letter to DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci in early June requesting  clarification on our wide-ranging concerns regarding Directive #4911A. No response has been  received by either office.

Any solution to the issues of contraband must reflect a more holistic approach, not one that serves primarily to penalize families and disrupt a crucial point of connection between the incarcerated population and their loved ones. Our policies must make the burdens of incarceration less onerous. We are happy to work with DOCCS on developing  real solutions.

***
Assemblymember David Weprin represents parts of Queens and is Chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Correction. Senator Julia Salazar represents parts of Brooklyn and is Chair of the Senate’s Committee on Crime and Correction. On Twitter @DavidWeprin & @JuliaCarmel_.

New York election (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Since Democrats reclaimed full control of New York state government in 2019, the Senate and Assembly have taken the lead in enacting a series of pro-voting rights reforms. The backlog was long, but they delivered major victories on early voting, automatic voter registration, and other pro-democracy actions with the goal of ensuring all New Yorkers have equal access to the ballot box and that our election systems are safe and secure.

But for every step forward, another significant challenge seems to emerge. In recent years, an unprecedented global pandemic required significant changes to election administration, which exposed strains in the system, including the way our votes are counted and handled. The State Senate held five hearings across the state, collecting testimony from over 100 individuals to determine the major concerns facing voters and potential solutions to those issues.

And now, as we inch closer to the midterm elections, it’s clear that New York will be stretched to the max to handle the onslaught that is certain to greet election administrators in every corner of the state this fall.

This problem is not unique to New York. All states need a true partner in the federal government to help invest in the election infrastructure necessary to get this done right. That is why it is critically important that Congress fully fund President Biden’s budget request, which proposes $10 billion over the next decade to bolster state and local election administration needs. This is a leap from just $1.3 billion in the prior decade. 

According to a recent study released by the Elections Infrastructure Initiative, New York requires an estimated $2.79 billion in funds to cover the overhaul needed to modernize and administer state and local elections infrastructure. New York ranked third in the nation for election infrastructure needs in this report, just behind California and Texas. 

The study found that in New York $38 million is needed to replace our state’s old voting machines, $48 million is needed to revamp statewide voter registration systems, $13 million is required to bolster post-election audits, and $51 million is needed to pay for cybersecurity improvements and maintenance. If anything, these figures underestimate the dire situation our state and local Boards of Election are in after years of funding neglect. 

The good news is that President Biden’s budget proposal will address many longstanding concerns about election administration. Not only would these federal resources ensure state and local elections officials receive a reliable stream of funding, they would also help make it easier for New Yorkers to vote-by-mail.

This investment is needed to bring confidence to the election administration process and will allow local Boards of Election to expand voting access while modernizing systems and ensuring the safety and security of New York’s elections. 

Not only is federal funding for state election management a win-win for New York, it’s also extremely popular. A new national poll from Data for Progress found that nearly 70% of likely voters nationwide believe that federal lawmakers should be providing election officials the tools they need to make our elections run smoothly. From requiring better internet access to improving security systems to upgrading voting machines and mail sorting equipment, huge majorities of Americans were in favor of these federal investments. That includes 69% of Republicans who support this assistance.

Investing in election infrastructure is popular, it’s long overdue and it’s badly needed to ensure election officials have the resources necessary to continue to safely and securely administer elections. I commend President Biden for including this transformational investment in his budget request and urge our state’s congressional delegation and representatives across the country to support this vital initiative. This is a down payment on our democratic future. 

*** 
Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky is Co-Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections.

Gov. Hochul makes an offshore wind announcement (photo: office of Governor Hochul)

With 500,000 acres set for offshore wind development in the New York Bight and Governor Kathy Hochul’s investment of $500 million to support the industry earlier this year, New York is well-positioned to scale the sector from the ground-up the right way: with a focus on equity, community benefits, and reversing the historic impacts of environmental racism, which for decades concentrated noxious infrastructure in predominantly lower-income communities of color that had no say in the process.

But to realize an equitable transition to wind energy and sustain a thriving industry, we need more than traction within the private sector. We need New York policymakers to make the same all-in commitment the city and state made over the past decade in boosting another high-performing sector with untapped potential: life sciences.

The New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) recently announced the city is home to more life science employment opportunities than any metropolitan region in the country. That’s a quantum leap from the 1990s. So, what changed? 

Over the past 15 years, the city and state implemented a comprehensive strategy, encompassing a variety of programmatic initiatives and cross-sector collaboration — from sponsoring the development of a world-class technology innovation and academic hub on Roosevelt Island, to offering incentives for commercial life science development through the EDC’s IDA program, to facilitating internship programs to bring youth into companies, to committing $1 billion through the city’s LifeSci NYC initiative; to supporting new life science businesses in New York through the state’s Life Sciences Tax Credit program. 

For offshore wind, we need the same kind of thoughtful programmatic interventions, including academic partnerships supporting energy research and workforce development, city- and state-funded incubators, internships for young adults, industry networking events and education programs, and training and support for MWBEs seeking to break into the sector.

Some of this work is underway. The New York Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has set a precedent for inclusive development by mandating 30% MWBE inclusion. Last year NYSERDA also developed, with the support of my team at Karp Strategies, an offshore wind curriculum for teenagers that is now available online as a resource for any middle school or high school classroom in New York. The NYCEDC has initiated a training program we are helping develop designed to upskill MWBE firms. 

But there is still so much work to do on top of these first steps to set New York up as a clean energy leader. Here are three policies the city and state can set in motion now:

First, just as the Bloomberg administration provided Cornell Tech 12 acres of city-owned land when it won the bid to transform Roosevelt Island into an applied sciences’ campus in 2011, so the city and state today can look at property that they control, and prioritize land disposition across sites that could support the development of clean energy.

EDC has taken a step in this direction, issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to analyze an unused site on Staten Island for potential wind energy use. Turbine components can stretch the length of a football field so proactively addressing the issue of land availability, especially waterfront property, would help mitigate a crucial bottleneck in the growth of offshore wind.

Second, the city and state should ramp up efforts to create the green and blue workforce we need for industries like offshore wind and solar to thrive. Let’s build dramatically on the state’s investment in an Offshore Wind Training Institute through a partnership of SUNY’s Farmingdale State College and Stony Brook University on Long Island. 

It is critical that educational opportunities are available to people in every part of the state and we should continue investing in training programs at public colleges as Governor Hochul has at LaGuardia, Hudson Valley, and Kingsborough. Beyond partnering with academia, state and local governments should be working with employers to expand the career development opportunities available to local residents, and holding developers accountable for prioritizing workforce development in their plans.

Finally, despite New York state’s nation-leading investment in offshore wind, the reality is $500 million only scratches the surface of the funding we need to compensate for chronic underinvestment in the port infrastructure that we must now modernize. The city and state need to go well beyond the $1 billion that New York City alone has committed to fostering the life sciences industry in order to address deferred maintenance that will choke the growth of offshore wind.

With so much momentum behind the growth of New York’s offshore wind industry at the city, state, and federal levels, now is the time to lean into an equitable transition to a cleaner energy system that delivers a windfall of shared economic benefits. The City and State should continue to seize this golden opportunity.

***
Rebecca Karp is Managing Principal of Karp Strategies.

A family volunteers with Bronx is Blooming, a grantee of The New York Community Trust

School children spend months dreaming about the start of summer vacation — a magical time uncluttered by the concerns of homework, teachers, and early bedtimes.

For their parents, however, summer inevitably conjures up fears of a familiar two-word phrase: “I’m bored!”

Thankfully, there are ways to engage children in worthwhile activities that teach valuable life lessons and keep them entertained during summer’s dog days.

One way to do that is by introducing them to volunteerism and charitable giving.

Philanthropy can be a powerful way to share values — opening a path to discussions about social issues and our collective responsibility to make the world a better place.

It’s a way to learn about the world and each other — and when it’s experienced at an early age, it’s a habit that sticks. When children learn the value of giving, they tend to carry that lesson into adulthood.

Here are some tips to help you and your family discover new ways to work together and share the joy of helping others this summer:

Nurture the Youngest Donors
If children have developed the motor skills to hold a dollar in their hands, they have the capacity to give that dollar away. 

Find ways to bring giving into everyday life. You can have your children help you pick items for a food drive and drop them off together, this can precede discussions about giving direct financial support.

Invite Your Children to Give
Ask your child to identify a cause they care about and then, together, research organizations working in that area. This helps foster their feeling of ownership and autonomy.

This is also an opportunity for children to learn how to better understand how nonprofits work or make difficult choices among competing needs.

Follow an organization together to see what kind of impact your gift has made.

Some of the donors at my organization, The New York Community Trust, create donor-advised funds for older children and give them the opportunity to make choices about where to grant money in the fund.

Learn Together
Organize a family documentary night or group reading on a particular issue to spur conversation about giving or invite family members to attend events with you.

For example, The Trust hosts briefings on philanthropic giving throughout the year that are open to donors and their guests.

Establish a Family Tradition
Create a family giving ritual where all come together during the summer and discuss how the family will make grants in response to current needs and events.

For younger children, serve a special treat as an incentive to participate fully.

You also can schedule it at another time of the year — for example, the day after Thanksgiving — so that it becomes a tradition.

Get Hands On
While giving money is important, so, too, is giving time. One of the best ways for children to learn about giving back is through volunteer activities. Many organizations have a difficult time finding volunteers during the summer months.

New York Cares, a volunteering database for New York City, allows you to filter volunteer opportunities by location, dates, and family friendliness. Young children respond to ritual and repetition, so if you are able to engage in these activities regularly, all the better. For example, both of my boys had a volunteerism requirement at their high schools.

It’s never too early to teach your children the value of giving, whether that means time, talent, or treasure.

Summer is a great time to plant the seed for a lifetime of giving by teaching your child the value of philanthropy.

***
John Oddy is vice president for donor relations at The New York Community Trust, the community foundation for New York City, Westchester, and Long Island. On Twitter @NYCommTrust.

Housing to be built (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)

New York’s housing crisis is at a fever pitch – and there is new data to prove it. In a new report, the national pro-housing group Up For Growth found that New York State’s housing shortage worsened dramatically during the 2010s.

The Empire State was 161,925 units short in 2012, but 233,592 units short just seven years later. The New York City metropolitan area, which includes parts of several states, fared even worse, with the shortage ballooning from 245,000 to 342,000 units in the same period. With the pandemic economy and inflation rates, these figures are surely even worse in 2022.

None of this is a surprise to anyone who has sought an apartment in New York lately, but it does raise an important question: how did this happen?

Unfortunately, the answer is simple: we have not built enough housing, in large part because local governments have made it illegal to build apartment buildings throughout most of the region, including many parts of the five boroughs. Low-income households have been hurt the most by this artificial scarcity, as they are outbid by high earners for pricey single-family homes. It is time to finally reverse that trend and create the affordable and sustainable city and state that New Yorkers deserve.

The need is urgent. Consider the results of the city’s most recent Housing and Vacancy Survey –between 1991 and 2020, adjusted for inflation, the city’s overall median monthly rent went from $900 to $1,500. And that is just for occupied units – if you need an apartment, it’s much worse. The median renter household in New York City makes $50,000 a year but would need to make $110,000 a year to afford the $2,750 median asking rent for available apartments.

Half of the city’s renter households spend more than 30% of their income on rent, and a third of renters spend more than 50% of income on rent.

Add this up and you get a fair housing disaster. As the Regional Plan Association has shown, single-family zoning – the most restrictive type of zoning – is directly correlated with segregation throughout the New York City metro area. Specifically, the more single-family zoning a community has, the more likely it is to be almost exclusively white. This trend also holds in New York City.

However, Up For Growth’s research also helps us imagine a better future. It shows that if local governments reformed this exclusionary zoning to allow enough multifamily buildings, New York would see an additional $116.7 billion of gross domestic product statewide, $56.1 billion of additional personal income for New Yorkers, and 40,248 new jobs across just 20 years.

In other words, more housing is good for equity, fair housing, and the economy. It is a win-win-win.

At the same time, we shouldn’t minimize the huge efforts made by city planners and policymakers. According to a recent Furman Center report, New York City produced 185,000 units of multifamily housing between 2010 and 2020. Of those, almost 30% were affordable units for households making 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) or less.

The development of 60,000 units of affordable housing is an enormous achievement, and is the product of a highly-productive public-private partnership between the industry and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). And there are promising signs under the Adams administration’s new plan.

First, Mayor Adams and the City Council are making an unprecedented investment of $32 billion in affordable housing over the next ten years, with $22 billion in capital for development/preservation and $10 billion for the Public Housing Preservation Trust in order to renovate NYCHA units.

Second, the mayor has proposed the City of Yes, a set of zoning text amendments that would increase the allowable floor area and height of affordable buildings, while ditching expensive parking requirements that eat subsidy dollars. This effort will also help fair housing efforts by giving affordable housing an advantage when compared with market-rate buildings.

Third, HPD is looking to become more efficient and get tenants into units faster. It will no longer reverify every new tenant’s income, instead moving to an audit system that will cut a time-consuming, unnecessary step from the lease-up process. They are also moving the Section 8 briefing online, eliminating the demeaning Section 8 absent parent form, and killing the practice of requiring a person to sleep in a homeless shelter for four months before being eligible for housing.

While the city can’t do this alone – Albany too must step up – it does have the tools to take care of the area of greatest need: the intense shortage of deeply affordable housing, where there is virtually no vacancy at the lowest rent. As we have seen, building more housing is a realistic area of tremendous opportunity for New York – and it is one that we simply cannot afford to miss.

 ***
Jolie Milstein is the President & CEO of the New York State Association for Affordable Housing, a trade organization representing more than 300 affordable housing professionals statewide. On Twitter @NYSAFAH.