Governor Cuomo sworn in for a third term (photo: office of Andrew Cuomo)

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in the early 19th century that "intrigue and corruption are a natural vice of elected governments; but when the head of state can be reelected these vices spread beyond bounds and compromise the very existence of the country.”

Governor Kathy Hochul apparently agrees. In her January State of the State message, delivered five months after Governor Andrew Cuomo resigned under threat of impeachment and she assumed office, she proposed “three major steps to help…restore New Yorkers’ faith in their government.” The one that got by far the most attention, and the most praise, was her call for an amendment to the state constitution to limit those elected to statewide office to two consecutive four-year terms. 

Over its history, New York has changed the term of officer seven times, but has never adopted term limitations for statewide office. Meanwhile, elsewhere they’ve become the norm. Virginia limits its governor to a single consecutive term. Thirty-five states currently employ four-year terms and a two-term limit (in eight states the limits are absolute; 28 states allow a former governor to run again after a period out of office).

Governor Hochul’s proposal of term limitations draws particular attention because she is an incumbent Democratic candidate for election who might find these applied to herself. But it is Republicans - who have not won a statewide office for two decades - who have been the most persistent proponents of term limits in New York.

Lee Zeldin, the GOP convention’s choice to be its 2022 gubernatorial candidate, has called for a two-term limit for the governor to diminish “…rampant abuse and corruption that is born out of a system of limitless power.” As one element of his campaign Zeldin launched a website, TermLimitAlbany.com, and pledged to “self-limit” to two terms if elected. 

Both Hochul and Zeldin are after votes in this year’s primary and, they hope, general elections. Both want to find some way to make political gain from the scandals that drove Andrew Cuomo from office. They both know, as shown by the results of a Sienna poll taken earlier this year, that term limitations for the governor is overwhelmingly supported by voters of all partisan stripes: 78% of Democratic respondents, 77% of Republicans, and 78% of independents favored Governor Hochul’s proposal.  

These numbers add to the temptation to dismiss advocacy for gubernatorial term limits by candidates for the office as election year political maneuvering. Limiting the terms of statewide elected officers requires a constitutional amendment, which in New York State may be initiated either by a state constitutional convention or by a concurrent resolution of the Legislature.

New Yorkers in 2017 overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a convention. Concurrent resolutions are not subject to veto. There is no formal role for the governor in either process.

Though Hochul proposed limits for statewide offices only, presumably to enhance the prospects of success by the legislative route, there seems to be little enthusiasm in the Legislature for the potential precedent. One example: Carl Heastie, the Assembly Speaker, earlier pronounced himself “not a big fan” of the idea.

In truth, even if limits were adopted, experience elsewhere suggests that they are unlikely to have the effects that either Hochul or Zeldin predict. They will not increase trust in government. They will not reduce corruption. Yet they are still a good idea for rebalancing power in state government.

Trust: In 1958, when the question was first asked in national polls, about three-quarters of respondents in the United States said that they trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time. Today fewer than a quarter give a trusting response.

State and local governments have generally been trusted more than the national government, but the trend for them recently has been downward, as well (though at a lesser rate). When states are compared to each other on the degree to which they command citizen trust – which surprisingly has rarely been done — the results have been wide-ranging.

One Gallup poll completed in 2013, the most recent I could find, showed the state government of North Dakota at the top of the list, trusted by 77% of its citizens. Illinois brought up the rear, with 28% trust. New York, at 53%, was thirty-seventh. On average, the percentage of respondents in states without term limits for governor expressing trust in state government was slightly higher (64%) than in states with limits (56%). There just is little connection between the two.

Corruption: Recent years in New York have been marked by governors resigning under the threat of impeachment and legislative leaders sent to federal prison for corrupt behavior. There has been a regular drumbeat of additional allegations, investigations, and convictions for wrongdoing in office. But are these problems linked to the absence of term limits here? A look at all the states using four comparative measures of corruption showed that the answer to this question is “No.”

New York is indeed among the states with the highest levels of corruption but there is no pattern in the evidence that suggests that if we had term limits, we would have had less corruption.

Entrenched Incumbency, Concentrated Power: There have been 21 elections for governor of New York since the four-year term was introduced in 1938; 13 were won by incumbents and just three incumbents were defeated for reelection to this office over the entire 84-year period: Averell Harriman, Malcolm Wilson, and Mario Cuomo.

Six of the 13 people who have served as governor of New York since the four-year term was introduced in 1938 held the office for three or more terms: Herbert Lehman, Tom Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, Mario Cuomo, and George Pataki, while Andrew Cuomo resigned part-way through his third term (Lehman was elected to three two-year terms before the four-year term was implemented in 1938). Another, Hugh Carey, served for two terms before voluntarily stepping down. Collectively these governors held the job for more than 90% of these 84 years.

During that same period just eight people served as state comptroller, all but one of these for multiple terms. Arthur Levitt Jr., New York’s longest serving Comptroller, was elected six times. And there were 11 different Attorneys General, five of whom were elected two or more times. Louis Lefkowitz was longest serving among these. First selected by the State Legislature to fill a vacancy, he won five following elections to the post. 

Just in the course of doing their jobs, incumbents direct resources and build relationships across the state that sustain their reelection coalitions. Because they are very likely winners, campaign contributions disproportionately flow to them from those interested in influencing state policy. Campaign finance regulations make public the source of contributions to adversaries of the incumbent, increasing the risk for them. Potential opponents are discouraged or often proceed with insufficient resources to challenge effectively.

Of course, an incumbent’s decisions while in office also generate opposition. But on balance, as Assemblymember Ron Kim noted: “When an incumbent is allowed to run for reelection in perpetuity, they can become too powerful to unseat.”

Lame Duck: Rebalancing Governing Power: It is not uncommon in states with a gubernatorial term limit for the governor to begin to be regarded as a “lame duck” on the day after he or she is elected to a second term. One study suggests that certainty about when the governor must depart office leads to increased inter-institutional conflict, and the executive’s greater reliance on such formal powers as the veto, in making state policy.

Another consequence is the departure of key staff, who are likely to need to find other employment when the state’s elected leadership changes, even if there is no change in partisan control of the executive. New York governors who have decided to leave office at the end of a term tend to delay making a formal announcement of their choice as long as possible to forestall the full onset of the lame duck effect.

Hugh Carey was an exception; he announced his retirement a year before the close of his second term. Carey later said that he did this to “prepare for an orderly transition.” His Secretary, Bob Morgado, a top aide, recalled that the governor “was very, very chagrined to face a lame duck period and potentially some malaise” but chose to do so in the short-term to protect his long-term legacy of reestablishing NY State’s fiscal integrity. (See Making Experience Count, Gerald Benjamin and T. Norman Hurds (eds.) (Albany: The Rockefeller Institute, 1985).)

System Effects: Opening Political Opportunity. One of the reasons Alexander Hamilton opposed a term limit for president was that it would result in a cohort of former office-holders “wandering among the people like discontented ghosts, and sighing for a place which they were destined never more to possess.” What would former governors do who were “term limited out”? One answer is, “they would do what they have always done after serving”: Seek the presidency or a cabinet post; become rainmakers and deal-makers in downstate law firms, banks, and brokerages. Perhaps run for the U.S. Senate. This would be a significant change: no governor has become a U.S. Senator since Herbert Lehman. 

As for the other statewide elected officials, they can always run for governor, or Congress, or high-profile local positions (big city mayor, county executive). There would certainly be more realistic opportunities to proceed up the political ladder for aspiring local politicians in both major parties. The number of elections for statewide posts without an incumbent running would double. As important, these opportunities would be certain to arise at predictable times, making planned efforts feasible. And there would be a ripple effect through the state’s political system, increasing competition, accountability, and, perhaps, participation. 

Policy Impact: Hard Choices Easier? After reviewing the “sparse” literature on the subject, Casey Burgat of the School of Public Management at George Washington University reported that statewide leaders are more likely to act on their own views, and are less responsive to voter priorities, when they are term limited.

Leonardo Bracini’s and Abel Broduer’s findings from their work on governors’ administrative responses to the covid pandemic are reinforcing of this general conclusion. When the effects of ideology were removed, the executive’s political party and existence of term limits were the only factors of those studied that affected his or her decision to implement stay-at-home orders, and to do so more speedily. Bracini and Broduer summarize: “When governors do not face reelection, they are less concerned about their reputations and, in turn, this has significant effect on their economic policy choices;…[t]he same seems to apply to policies concerning health and safety.”

Term Limits: On Balance a Good Idea. Current candidates for governor are over-claiming the impact. A two-term limit for statewide elected offices is not likely to increase public confidence in state government nor dramatically diminish corruption. But in a state with a modern tradition of governors and other statewide elected serving three or more terms such a limit would reduce the extended dominance of state politics and government by the governor and a few others. Elected leaders would be less risk-averse in decision-making. Governors would be less formally powerful, and for at least a portion of their time in office, less able to work their will. Increased political opportunity will likely result.

On balance, a two-term limit for statewide elected offices is a good idea.

***
Gerald Benjamin is Emeritus Founding Director of The Benjamin Center at SUNY New Paltz.

Older New Yorkers at a senior center (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

I’ve spent my entire professional life helping New Yorkers age with dignity. Never have I seen a challenge more pressing than our current need to keep older adults connected to the technologies and tools that drive almost every aspect of our lives.

The pandemic brought to light the challenges and new obstacles faced by older adults who were left behind without access to technology and the critical skills needed in an increasingly digital world, particularly in the workforce. Whether adults are trying to stay longer in the workforce that requires technology, navigating telehealth to connect to health services, or just keeping in touch with friends and family through the extended pandemic health crisis – COVID-19 has made it clear that being able to stay connected with technology is critical.

According to Hunter College’s Brookdale Center for the Aging, one-quarter of New Yorkers ages 60-79 do not have internet access at home and in total, nearly half-a-million older adults are disconnected from the internet. Even for older adults who have access to technology devices, three-quarters of those older than 65 said they needed someone else to set up their electronics, per a 2017 Pew Research study.

Meaningful access to technology for older adults is often made possible by community-based organizations that are working to close the older adult digital divide and support our growingly diverse aging population in New York City. Throughout the pandemic, community-based organizations were the lifeline for many older adults, providing critical support to keep them connected in their community, from virtual programming to combat social isolation to training and education programs to expand older peoples' access to technology. However, more must be done by the city to close the older adult digital divide and we have no time to waste. 

In particular, the digital divide has only exacerbated the work prospects for many older adults. Older people encounter many challenges with technology in the workplace and commonly experience discrimination that is rooted in ageism — the discrimination based on negative assumptions on age — that hinders older people’s ability to enter or stay in the workforce. According to a recent AARP survey, 77% of older workers say they have seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace.

Nonetheless, with research and evidence filling our sails and the opportunity to reimagine services for older New Yorkers, Greenwich House set out to establish a new intergenerational work and skills development center to address the digital divide within the workforce for older adults. At our newly created Workforce Center, we’ll help fill the digital gap and connect older adults to the technology they need to continue to adapt to and thrive in the changing work world.

The Workforce Center will incorporate services that build older adults’ enterprise workforce skills, including their digital literacy and specific technology skills, as well as provide counseling and direct connections to work, and access to local and citywide service opportunities. We also hope to identify the needs of each older adult who visits, and offer resources to develop the skills needed to meet this digital divide even if that means finding access to free wifi and devices for the older adult to use at home.  

Every New Yorker should have meaningful access to technology. 

While there is still more work to be done across the city, we hope the Workforce Center will move the city forward in the right direction by increasing awareness of the older adult digital divide and providing support for older adults by developing the knowledge and skills that would enable them to get back into — or stay in — the workforce. 

***
Laura Marceca is Associate Director of Older Adult Services at Greenwich House.

Rooftop solar (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

In 1883, Charles Fritts coated selenium with a thin layer of gold on a New York City rooftop to create a current activated by exposure to light, and thus the first solar panel was born. Though it achieved an energy conversion rate of just 1 to 2%, his work spurred the beginning of photovoltaic solar panel innovation across the world.

Since championing the first solar panel in history, New York City has fallen short on a list of solar leaders, ranking 36th in the nation for solar panel installation on a per-capita basis.

Our current zoning laws severely hinder solar capacity for buildings. To reach the city's urgent climate goals, New York City should revise the Zoning Resolution to allow solar panels to cover 100% roof area coverage on solar trellises up to 20-feet above rooftop height on multi-family buildings citywide.

In New York City, innovative measures have gone into effect over the last decade that expand access to solar technology. One key measure was the passing of Zone Green in 2012, which allowed solar energy systems up to four feet in height as a permitted obstruction on the roof of a building. For R6 to R10 districts, where multi-family residential buildings are permitted, the systems could potentially go up to 15 feet but are limited by the zoning text to only 25% lot coverage of the roof. Most recently, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is proposing Public Solar NYC, an initiative that would add at least 600 megawatts of solar capacity to the city's grid over the next eight years using New York's 1.6 billion square feet of rooftop.

Zone Green was impactful - solar panel capacity citywide quadrupled between 2013 and 2016, from 25 megawatts to 92 megawatts in 2016. These numbers contribute to the city’s overall goal of installing 1000 MW of solar technology citywide by 2030, which is estimated to save the city more than $70 million in annual energy costs, and decreasing its yearly carbon dioxide equivalent by over 105,000 metric tons. According to the New York City Comptroller’s Office on its recently published Climate Dashboard, the city is more than 70 MW behind in this year alone to be on track to meet the 2030 goal.

Despite this surge, Zone Green has since proven limiting for complete solar panel coverage on roofs and Public Solar NYC is sure to hit zoning roadblocks, impeding solar energy generation citywide.

Although the zoning text allows solar energy systems on roofs up to four feet high, it is very hard to fit adequate panels on a roof with all the other required uses, from mechanical and plumbing equipment to condensers and bulkheads, and keep to that height limitation. A typical new housing development can only cover about 33% of its roof with solar panels as it competes with these other uses. 

Allowing solar energy systems to be elevated up to 15 feet certainly helps with this “competing uses on the roof” problem. A floating trellis for the panels can be elevated above other uses such as the bulkheads, mechanicals, and access in case of a fire. However, the current text only allows panels to cover 25% of the roof if they are elevated above four feet. Updating the zoning to allow 100% lot coverage for solar panels on roofs with 15-foot solar trellises would be an important step in reaching the city’s goal of 1000 megawatts by 2030. A floating trellis for solar panels would allow necessary safety and building systems to remain on roofs untouched while also accommodating solar panels.

The recently passed Special Gowanus Mixed-Use District adopted this change to permit 15-foot solar trellises and 100% lot coverage for solar. Inspired by this amendment, a recent solar study conducted across 15 Quality Housing projects found that increasing roof area coverage to 100% for 15-foot solar panels would increase the amount of wattage generated by solar panels by 290%.

This additional capacity is critical to advancing renewable energy production and to diminishing the load on transmission lines that connect the city to power stations upstate. Beyond adopting the Gowanus Special District text for solar panels citywide, the city should assume a 20-foot solar trellis height allowance. Another five feet would increase flexibility while increasing the efficiency of power generation by allowing greater circulation under the solar panels. Many of New York City’s leaders in green infrastructure, building, and design have signed on to support this change.

Zoning is a powerful tool that can support planning efforts and policy goals. Adapting Zone Green to increase and expand solar energy systems on large buildings would be a transformational step for the city to reach its climate goals and accelerate the city’s renewable energy transition.

*** 
Madelaine Britt is a Policy Analyst at Citizens Housing & Planning Council. Julie Tighe is President of New York League of Conservation Voters. On Twitter @chpcny & @nylcv.

Juan Ardila, the author, on the subway

Keeping everyone safe is the most important function of government. As a leader, I take that responsibility very seriously. The recent subway shooting in Brooklyn is devastating. As has been the dramatic rise in hate crimes and increase in gun violence during the pandemic. These events and trends cause anxiety across communities. Every New Yorker must feel safe in their homes, on our streets, and in our subways. 

Public safety requires competence and effectiveness. Yes, we need to fight tooth and nail to pass legislation that eliminates the flow of illegal guns into New York, and expand our gun control laws. But If we are to deal responsibly with crime, we must deal effectively with all of its causes, including poverty, inaccessibility to mental health services, inadequate housing, drug and alcohol misuse, and more.

Recent events have continued to show that there is no causal connection between police staffing and budget on one hand and crime on the other. The unprecedented expansion and intensity of policing over decades to deal with so many of society’s most complex problems has not reduced crime; an immense police presence did not keep crime from rising during the pandemic. A crime increase is a symptom of the failure of government at every level.

Police too often see themselves as soldiers in battle with communities of color rather than their protectors. Arresting Black and Latino teenagers for turnstile jumping and harrassing immigrant street vendors has nothing to do with keeping us safe. It is counterproductive and it destroys the community’s trust. 

As criminal justice expert Professor Alex Vitale writes, “This form of policing is based on a mindset that people of color commit more crime and therefore must be subjected to harsher police tactics. Police argue that residents in high-crime communities often demand police action. What is left out is that these communities also ask for better schools, parks, libraries, and jobs, but these services are rarely provided.”

We need policies that protect all of us, not just the few. We all must join together to seek the necessary investments in our communities that will create opportunity and safety, that will protect our families, both now and in the future. Resources are the key to safety and stability. That’s why, as I seek to represent parts of Queens in the State Assembly, I’ve created a five-point plan to keep all our communities safe.

First, we need to expand anti-gun violence programs. That includes utilizing the courts to file lawsuits against gun dealers who evade responsibility for the flow of guns to New York City. Let's also make New York first in the nation to institute a program for mandatory firearm insurance. We must hold financially liable those who choose to purchase guns that are used in crimes. It shouldn’t be easier to own and operate a motor vehicle than a gun. We should require mandatory training required to purchase a gun and ongoing registration of firearms to make sure they are accounted for. 

Second, we must establish police accountability and build community trust. I support increasing police transparency and codifying the reach and abilities of a Special Prosecutor for cases of death from police interaction, and reducing unnecessary arrests for low-level, ticketable offenses.

Third, to reduce homelessness, we must work to adequately fund public and affordable housing and work to keep families and seniors in their homes. There is legislation to help the millions of New Yorkers who are tenants stay in their homes. “Good Cause Eviction” will stop unjust evictions and help reverse the increase in homelessness. This bill stops landlords from removing tenants from apartments without an order from a judge. The judge would decide if an eviction is for a good cause, including failure to pay rent or violating terms of the lease.

Next, New York has failed to adequately provide mental health services to those who need them and we are paying the price as a city because of it. According to the Urban Institute, more than half of incarcerated people are experiencing mental illness, and many crime victims have unmet mental health needs. We must treat health problems with health professionals, not law enforcement. Crisis Stabilization Centers are one key tool in this work, and we must create more of them. Instead of sending people to jail, we can have the option to provide rapid support services to anyone who walks through the door. It’s time we integrate these mental health experts into our public safety resources.

Finally, we must invest in our youth and expand social services. Every day after school, millions of children are left unsupervised and unenrolled in activities. It should be no surprise that this is when there is a peak in juvenile crime. We can directly address this by providing subsidized programs and initiatives for sports, arts, and youth employment. Research shows that after-school programs significantly reduce rates of arrest and recidivism. We should also mandate social workers in all middle and high schools across the state and make school psychologists available to students at every school. Our neighborhoods must lead the change with exceptional education and youth resources to help our kids get on the right path. 

With these common-sense solutions, I’m confident New York will become safer, more just, and more compassionate — not just in the short-term but in the long-run. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own communities and it’s our job as leaders to ensure they do. 

***
Juan Ardila is a Democrat running for the State Assembly, District 37, representing the Queens neighborhoods of Long Island City, Maspeth, Ridgewood, Sunnyside, and Woodside. On Twitter @JuanArdilaNYC.

The makings of a community center (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

After 35 years running a non-profit service provider in New York City that served over 65,000 homeless families and 135,000 children, I have retired. I never could have imagined that the homeless situation in the city today would still be worse than when it all began in the 1980s. Back then, I served as First Deputy Commissioner for Homelessness in the Koch administration. After all that time, l have seen and learned a great deal about family homelessness. 

First, contrary to popular belief, homelessness isn’t necessarily just about housing, as much as it’s about a family’s ability to maintain housing.

In fact, homeless families fall into three distinct groups: the first group is made up of recently-unemployed poor families with strong employment and tenancy histories. They typically become homeless due to some unexpected crisis, represent about 20% of the shelter population, and can be immediately rehoused with the greatest probability of not becoming homeless again.

The second group is comprised of mostly young, single, female heads of households with one or more young children. Many have incomplete educations and virtually no meaningful work or independent living experience. They have a difficult time maintaining housing for the long-term, exhibit a high probability of returning to shelter, and make up roughly 45% of the family shelter population.

The third group is considered chronically homeless. Many are survivors of domestic violence, experience mental health or substance abuse issues, are typically older, and experience multiple episodes of homelessness. These are the chronic users of the shelter system and represent some 35% of the population. 

So, what is the answer to reducing family homelessness? Almost four decades of homelessness policies have come full circle with little to show for success. Although thousands of families have been moved to permanent housing, many still return to shelter, and thousands more keep entering the system. Simply providing housing hasn’t worked but restructuring how we provide temporary shelter and services will.

With three different groups, the one-size-fits-all policies of “housing first” will never work. Instead, the homeless family population must be triaged for short-, intermediate-, and long-term stays, and serviced within a different kind of shelter in tandem with policies targeted to their specific needs. 

Those with work and tenancy experience should be immediately helped getting reemployed and rapidly rehoused; the younger, homeless heads of households must be given priority access to complete their schooling and job training for work that will enable them to maintain housing long-term; and those experiencing chronic homelessness should receive access to intensive services in a more controlled setting to effectively address the severe social problems they face—an approach that no leader has taken seriously to date or expressed the political will to meet the challenge. 

During the Koch years the city built four specially-designed residential family shelters, which were to be turned into community centers when the homeless crisis ended. Although that never happened, it was a good idea. The city should refocus on that concept and replace the opening of traditional shelters with new alternative residential community centers to serve homeless families in communities of need.

They would be actual community centers with a transitional homeless residential component and a mandate to provide comprehensive job training and employment services; adult and youth educational programs; and child care and health care, among other supports, to meet not only the needs of homeless residents, but also those of the whole community at large.

They would primarily be located in feeder communities—the places with the largest number of families coming into shelter and providing triaged service levels to effectively ensure families get the appropriate help they need, while keeping them in their neighborhoods near family, friends, school, and work. Not a one-size-fits-all policy, but rather a new, multifaceted approach to the problem. 

Community residential centers would help ease the NIMBY fears of having traditional homeless shelters in their communities, unlike today’s facilities. By integrating the community into facility programming alongside homeless families, not at odds with each other, but bringing resources into the community where the overarching problems can be solved together, the delivery of homeless services would be taken to a whole new level. The emphasis would be on positive, productive interactions. The end result would be to make these facilities centers of neighborhood pride rather than scorn. 

For over 30 years, there has been little change in city policies to address family homelessness. Instead, new initiatives are typically old ones that have been repackaged and renamed, but new community residential centers would erase all of that. Not a traditional shelter that simply warehouses homeless people, but an educational community of opportunity and learning situated in under-resourced neighborhoods from which homeless families typically emerge. In fact, these centers could be easily sited for development on the New York City Housing Authority’s abundance of underutilized land — where better to begin?

In a city that spends over $2 billion annually on homelessness, five times what it was in 1990, community residential centers are a blueprint to the future and a cost-effective way to reduce and prevent homelessness. It is an old idea whose time has come, enhanced by lessons learned and often forgotten.  

After almost four decades of this work, here is how I see it. New York City is at a crossroads. It can promise more affordable housing, but it will never be enough. It could choose to go on developing more traditional shelters, continuing the costly, ineffective policies of an ever-expanding shelter system that houses people who become homeless over and over again. Or it could begin to forge a new path forward, redefining how best to assist homeless families to achieve the stability they need in order to maintain the housing they want. 

In short, a new mayor affords a new opportunity to advance a new policy to address an old nemesis and to boldly go where no mayor has gone before.

***
Ralph da Costa Nunez was President/CEO of Homes for the Homeless and the Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness from 1987 to the end of 2021.

Outreach to New Yorkers (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Mayor Adams, in launching the Dynamic Mayor’s Management report (DMMR) and the creation of a Chief Efficiency Officer, promises to “track how well we’re delivering services to New Yorkers and identifying areas where we need to improve.” The Chief Efficiency Officer is charged with developing updated performance measures to make the city more “efficient, transparent and accountable.”

Nowhere in the mayor’s April 6 statement announcing the DMMR nor in the Executive Order is there mention of the only data that measure the outcomes of city services rather than administrative inputs or outputs. Resident surveys provide a perspective on municipal services not available from other sources. As noted by the Controller’s Office for the City and County of San Francisco, “One of the most direct ways to measure the outcomes of the City’s effort – that is, the extent to which services are having their desired efforts – is to ask the users of those services.”

Use by U.S. Cities
San Francisco does it, Philadelphia does it, San Diego does it. Phoenix, Dallas, Austin, Portland, Ore., Kansas City, MO, Scottsdale, and Detroit also do it. But so do small cities, counties, and towns such as Southlake, TX (pop. 32,376), Glynn County, GA (pop. 84,500), Yountville township, CA (pop. 2,900). What they do is conduct comprehensive, uniform, recurring resident surveys as an integral feature of their performance assessment, operation, and reporting.

New York doesn’t.

Resident surveys are used widely by U.S. municipalities to evaluate the impacts and quality of their services. Among the top 10 most-populous U.S. cities in 2020, six survey their residents; the biggest four don’t.              

Consensus on Value of Resident Surveys
A consensus exists among government officials, management experts, and program analysts that government services must be “customer driven.” Government organizations should pay attention to residents’ perceptions and assessments of the quality of the services they provide. According to the International City and County Managers Association, “The best way to encourage good performance is to measure it, and the best indicator of government performance is citizen satisfaction.”

And the Government Accounting Standards Board says: “It is important for reported performance to include measures of citizen and customer perceptions about the results of the service or program. Without this information against which to compare other, more quantitative measures of performance, a complete picture of results is not obtained.” 

Goals and Benefits of Resident Surveys
The principal goals of resident surveys are: increased resident participation, strengthened municipal management, and strengthened municipal policy-making.  

Resident surveys concentrate on the outcomes or the results of government services – how satisfied people are with their schools and parks; how safe they feel in their neighborhoods. Most administrative measures focus on inputs and outputs. While these are certainly important for internal accountability, public accountability – what the public really wants from government – centers on results. 

Additionally, resident surveys allow for the analysis of individual differences in how people use and experience city services – for example, differences by race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, and geography. Most administrative measures of service quality cannot identify who uses and how they are affected by the service.  

In a study of what people want from local government performance reporting, the Government Accounting Standards Board found that outcomes and resident perceptions were the performance measures of most interest to the general public. The New York City Independent Budget Office has recommended that the city “identify and report on results that matter to the public and reflect the way the public sees and uses city services.”

Giving Residents Voice
Rigorously constructed and conducted and appropriately analyzed surveys give residents “voice,” enhancing the quality of governance. Resident surveys are possibly the most efficient, if not the only, way to obtain information on:

• constituents’ satisfaction with the quality of specific services and facilities, including the identification of problem areas;
• facts such as the number and characteristics of users and non-users of various services (and the frequency and form of use);
• reasons why specific services/facilities are disliked or not used;
• community needs assessment, identification of high priority but inadequate community services, potential demands for new services;
• residents’ opinions on various community issues, including feelings of confidence or trust toward government and specific agencies/officials;
• residents’ assessments of real policy options — results provide guidance (but not mandates) for official action;
• socio-economic and demographic data to complement/supplement other sources.

Resident Surveys and Policy
Resident surveys, as outcome data, can inform New York decision-makers and agency managers throughout the policy process:

• Policy formulation: Help public officials to determine what residents need, want, prefer, or demand; help make choices, set priorities, change practices;
• Policy implementation: Help public managers determine how best to deliver services. As long as respondents have some knowledge about an implementation issue, questions can concern projects, programs, procedures;
• Policy evaluation: With service delivery, the consumer’s perception is the pertinent reality. Even the most efficient department is not doing its job well if residents are not satisfied with the various dimensions of department output – e.g. quality, timeliness, range, scope, accuracy, reliability, convenience, utility, prices.

Current Mayor’s Management Report
A common feature of reporting agencies in the February 2022 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report is a section titled “Agency Customer Service.” Under the subheading “Customer Experience” are agency outputs, not customer outcomes.

A few agencies report some form of “customer satisfaction” but I have been unable to locate any discussion in the document or website of the universes sampled, sampling method, dates of conduct, method of contact, number of respondents contacted, question wording and order, or frequency of contact.

***
Douglas Muzzio is a professor of public affairs, Marxe School, Baruch College, CUNY.

Taking stock of history and policy (photo: Paige Polk/Mayoral Photography Office)

In the period following the Civil War, slavery had ended, but the horrors of racial violence persisted. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized newly-emancipated Black Americans with lynching, mob violence, and other vile forms of intimidation and brutality. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871—also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act—which gave Black Americans the right to file a lawsuit against government officials who engaged in acts of racial assault or who refused to protect them from groups such as the Klan. 

But nearly a century later, the Supreme Court set an unjust legal precedent that rolled back these hard-won rights. 

In 1967, the Court modified the original act by introducing the doctrine of qualified immunity in the case of Pierson v. Ray, where it was decided that government officials accused of committing constitutional violations are entitled to claim qualified immunity as a defense if they acted “with probable cause in making an arrest under a statute that they believed to be valid.”

And who were the officials at the center of this case, the ones who acted in a way they “believed to be valid?” Police who arrested a group of Freedom Riders protesting racial injustice in segregated Mississippi. 

Over the decades, qualified immunity has swelled into a nearly impenetrable legal shield that prevents abusive government officials from facing the consequences for their brutal transgressions. It's now 2022, and victims of state violence continue to be disproportionately people of color. For example, a study conducted by Rutgers University’s School of Criminal Justice reveals that African-Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. 

The long line of governmental abuse of Black people in this country did not begin with qualified immunity. But this harmful doctrine, a relic of the Jim Crow era, certainly enables it. To create a more just future for all New Yorkers, we must end qualified immunity today.

The good news is, New York can. 

Our state legislators in Albany can fix the Supreme Court’s tremendous misstep by passing a bold public safety measure, bill S1991/A4331, that will enable New Yorkers whose constitutional rights have been violated to sue those rogue officials in state court, where the defense of qualified immunity would be prohibited. 

Not only is ending qualified immunity the right thing to do, it’s also the popular thing to do: a recent poll revealed that an outright majority of New Yorkers, 58%, favor repealing the doctrine for public officials. State residents from Western New York to Long Island are sending a message that they want policymakers to protect our civil rights and make New York safe for everyone. 

It’s important to note that ending qualified immunity is not meant to “punish” cops.

This bill doesn’t zero in on police officers. Rather, the objective here is to give voice to the victims of state violence, to provide a clear pathway to justice for New Yokers whose civil rights have been trampled on by any bad governmental official, not simply law enforcement. 

As it stands, the legal system breeds impunity. This has got to stop. We must change the system in order to protect our communities from governmental abuse. As we reflect upon the past, we also renew our commitment to creating a more equitable future. Ending qualified immunity will make New York safe for everyone.  

***
Derek Perkinson is the New York State field director and crisis director for the National Action Network, a leading civil rights organization founded in 1991 by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Twitter @NationalAction.

At the scene of a subway shooting (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Like all New Yorkers, I was shocked and horrified by the recent subway shooting. 

Gun violence in New York City has skyrocketed over the past two years. Reported crime citywide has increased by 41% since the beginning of the year over the same period last year. Shootings increased by 31.6% in January alone. Attacks on city subways have gone up as well, with felony assaults in the subway rising by 25% since 2019. These crimes have a particularly destructive impact on the social fabric, leaving many residents and commuters shaken and afraid to use public transit. 

While New York City remains far safer than during the peak-crime years following the fiscal crisis, the escalating gun violence demands swift and immediate action from all levels of government.

First, Congress: the subway attack illustrates the tragic consequences of Congress’ utter failure to enact reasonable protections against the misuse of deadly weapons. 

The alleged subway shooter, Frank James, reportedly purchased the semiautomatic handgun used in the attack secondhand at a pawn shop in Ohio. In fact, almost two-thirds of guns used in crimes in New York State are first purchased outside the state. The reason is obvious. New York has robust firearm laws that require gun purchasers to be licensed, and licensure is granted only after a thorough background check by law enforcement. Accordingly, most guns used in crimes here are brought into New York from other states – like Ohio – with more lax regulations.

In the 1990s, then-Representative Chuck Schumer took a big step toward shutting down the illegal flow of guns by leading the enactment of the Brady Law. I worked as counsel to Rep. Schumer at the time and helped draft the law. Brady was a simple but powerful concept. It required gun stores to perform a criminal background check on any prospective gun purchaser before completing a sale. 

Brady was highly effective at first, but over time gun traffickers found a loophole. Brady applies only to licensed gun dealers, not to so-called “private sales.” Unscrupulous gun traffickers discovered and exploited this loophole by selling – and buying – firearms at gun shows. Today, more than 50% of gun sales evade the background check requirement. It is far past time for Congress to close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks for gun show sales.

Congress should also adopt a national version of New York’s “red flag” law. In 2019, New York established a procedure for competent officials, such as teachers or police officers, to identify individuals exhibiting an inclination to harm themselves or others. I helped draft this law as New York’s Director of State Policy. These individuals may not purchase a firearm without further inquiry by a judge or law enforcement.

In light of Frank James’ numerous social media posts contemplating gun violence, it seems plausible that a nationwide red flag system, like New York’s, would have prevented him from purchasing a deadly weapon.

Finally, Congress must renew the Assault Weapons Ban, another law spearheaded by Rep. Schumer in the 1990s. The law sunsetted in 2004 and Congress has neglected to reinstate it. The law prohibited not only military-style semi-automatic rifles, but also large-capacity magazines which allow shooters to spray-fire dozens of bullets in a matter of seconds. James brought three such devices into the subway, carrying a total of 90 rounds of ammunition. These magazines would have been illegal if the Assault Weapons Ban were still in effect.

While Congress has the most work to do, New York State and City should also take action to reduce gun violence.

The New York City Police Department should collaborate with the State Police on gun trafficking investigations. Every single firearm used to commit violence in New York should be traced from its original purchase to its ultimate harmful use. In most cases, there will be an illegal sale along that path – and the trafficker should be prosecuted.

Both the State and the City should also invest more in violence interrupters and community mobilization, both proven prevention strategies. Too many young people feel the need to arm themselves precisely because they are acutely aware of the violence that surrounds them. Yet more guns lead only to an escalating cycle of violence. Education, and one-on-one work with individual at-risk young people, can break this cycle. We must change community norms to the point where the appearance of a gun is truly shocking – not just another Tuesday.

***
David Yassky is a former New York City Council Member who is currently running for the State Senate in District 23, including parts of Brooklyn and Staten Island. On Twitter @Yassky4Senate.

Get out to the park (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Many New Yorkers know that Friday, April 22 marks Earth Day 2022, but few know that this year’s celebration has a theme: Invest In Our Planet. Clearly, this city’s knack for financial investment is unparalleled, yet when it comes to investing in our planet’s future, we continue to lag behind major U.S. cities in key areas such as electric vehicle adoption. And while investments like Mayor Adams’ pledge of 1% of the city’s budget to the Parks Department are wonderful, they are only just the beginning.

Thankfully, you don’t have to be a policymaker, business leader, landowner, or even an adult to invest in New York City’s environmental future. In fact, all it takes to invest in our planet is educating yourself – and your family, friends and coworkers – about our natural surroundings and how to protect their beauty for generations to come. Living amidst a sea of concrete and glass, it’s easy to forget that the very basis of our city is harbors, islands, peninsulas, and coastlines, and we as New Yorkers are inextricably linked to our waterways and green spaces.

Through my nearly 20 years of teaching environmental science, and in my current role as Director of Education at City Parks Foundation, I've come to understand that to protect the city’s environment, we must understand it. It’s also clear that educating ourselves and our youth about New York City’s ecological systems, including the impact humankind has on its flora, fauna, and water systems, is critical if we hope to identify the source of climate change and address its root causes.

In the spirit of education and action, here are six quick and easy ways New Yorkers can reconnect with and protect their natural surroundings this Earth Day.

1. Advocate for reduced electric lighting at night in New York City.
This simple change would promote the health of all wildlife, but especially birds and pollinators, by reducing stress and boosting reproductivity. And by the way, less artificial light at night is better for human health too. In your own home, you can help by turning off exterior flood lights and closing curtains and blinds during bird migration season (late April through mid-May). On a broader scale, you can support this effort through Project Safe Flight.

2. Find a nearby garden or open green space and volunteer to steward it.
The best learning is through hands-on experience, and New York City’s green spaces need more volunteers. Plus, there's no better way to make new friends! If you’re looking for ways to dive in and take care of your favorite local park, you can join the It’s My Park community volunteer program and organize a neighborhood clean up. Alternatively, if you are looking to give back with your coworkers, City Parks Foundation also offers corporate volunteer projects during which you can transform our city’s parks and green spaces by planting, painting, weeding and raking – all while cultivating deeper team bonds. 

3. Learn the basic techniques for promoting wildlife health in your gardens, parks, and even household planters, such as Leave the Leaves.
The basis of any healthy environment is the presence of locally-evolved plants and beneficial insects. Many New Yorkers mistakenly throw away leaf litter and other debris during their Spring cleaning efforts, but most don’t realize that these materials are home to thousands of species of plant and insect life – including caterpillars, moths, and other critical insects. Research shows that urban centers can be meccas for plants and animals, and by avoiding these basic mistakes, we can make sure New York City is too!

4. Reduce your plastic consumption and food waste.
Look for products with reduced and non-plastic packaging. You can also help clean up your neighborhood to keep plastic waste out of our green spaces. Learn about local composting efforts and get involved! 

5. Get out and take advantage of the myriad ways to experience the natural world in New York City's parks and waterways. 
Did you know that New Yorkers have access to free rowing, kayaking, canoeing, and hiking in natural areas that are as pristine as any of our state and national parks? It's true! CityParks Learn's Coastal Classroom program offers rowing instruction to middle school youth in Coney Island. There’s also free programming to get outside and enjoy sports programming in New York City’s parks for free.

6. Support each other to find safe and joyful ways to get outdoors. 
Parks are for everyone, of every race, ethnicity, age, and identity. The more of us that get out and enjoy our parks and green spaces, the more advocacy and stewardship there will be to make them spaces we all enjoy. Getting involved – and urging your neighbors to do so as well – will help sustain our natural world for the next generation of all New Yorkers. 

Clearly, there is no shortage of actions we can all take to protect and enjoy New York City’s natural ecology, and this short list marks just the beginning. Earth Day marks the perfect time to recommit yourself to protecting the green spaces and nature in your community, but truly, the battle to make a difference for the environment should be a year-round effort. 

Throughout the year, City Parks Foundation offers education, sports, and arts programming to help thousands of New Yorkers – adults and children alike – reconnect with the city’s parks and open spaces. And by keeping the majority of these programs free, we are working to ensure that cost is never a barrier preventing New Yorkers from cultivating a relationship with their natural world. 

As New Yorkers, we know that New York City is one of the greatest cities in the world. This Earth Day, let’s keep it that way by taking steps to protect its iconic coastlines, green spaces, and wildlife.

***
Chrissy Word is the Director of Education for City Parks Foundation, a leading nonprofit which runs programming in hundreds of parks, recreation centers and public schools across New York City. On Twitter @CPFNYC.

Resource fair (photo: Benjamin Kanter/Mayoral Photo Office)

In my work at a community center, I frequently help people who are experiencing homelessness in New York City, and I did that even when I was homeless myself. I am a program director at O’dwyer Gardens Cornerstone, a NYCHA community center in Coney Island, Brooklyn. Many of my clients are under-housed or currently experiencing homelessness, and the work that I do is crucial for the wellbeing of all New Yorkers.

My center offers wraparound services that help our residents transition into greater financial stability, including access to workforce development, health care, youth services, and after-school education. Community centers offer intergenerational support to families to address many of the issues that result from systemic poverty. 

As you can imagine, this job involves many long hours, and was only made more difficult during the pandemic. While many people around the world transitioned to working from home in 2020 and 2021, remote work was not an option for many of New York’s human services workers, myself included. I risked my health every day while working in person and providing critical services during the darkest days of the pandemic. My clients needed my help more than ever during this tumultuous period, and this made my already demanding job even more stressful.

Despite working at this facility for four years, and having a role that involves supervising other employees, I do not make enough money to make ends meet. 95% of my paycheck goes towards my rent, which means that I have almost nothing leftover for other necessities like food, transportation, and medical care. New York City sets my rate of pay through government contracts, so my employer cannot pay me more unless the government decides to. I have already been priced out of the community where I work, and commute over two hours each way from the Bronx to Coney Island. I lived in Coney Island for over 20 years, and I love serving my community there. I want to be able to move back.

As recently as November of 2021, I found myself in the same situation as some of my clients. I was homeless. I did not qualify to live in the facility where I work. Meanwhile, the application process for affordable housing can take several years, and when I have applied–several times–I was denied because my income is too high, or never received a response at all. I also make too much money to qualify for food assistance programs, but not enough to actually afford food while also paying New York City’s sky-high rent. In this regard, many of my clients are better off than I am, despite my working full-time at a job that I love. 

Unless something changes soon, I could be facing homelessness again in the fall when my current lease is up, and I know some of my coworkers, including other managers, and many other New York human services workers are facing the same difficulties. My organization, like most human services nonprofits, is mostly funded through government contracts, and those contracts do not cover the actual cost of providing services and greatly undervalue the work that I do. My organization tries to fill the gaps, but they can only pay their employees more if the city increases wages on contracts. I am asking that Mayor Adams, City Council members, and our other elected officials help those who help our city so much. They must increase our government contracts so that the people who help those in need don’t find themselves in such dire need as well.

I love my job, and I love helping my community. However, in order to keep doing my job that is so essential to our city, I need to be paid a living wage. I am blessed to be given a platform to advocate for the people who are experiencing the same struggles that I am, but many of us don’t have the means or courage to speak out about it. New York City must pay my fellow human services workers a fair wage, so that we can continue to provide the services that the city and its people so desperately need.

***
Brian Trezevant is a program director at a supportive housing site in Coney Island, Brooklyn.