Housing (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

If you live in a New York City apartment building, chances are you don’t use a traditional metal key to open the front door. 

In recent years, countless residential buildings have converted to so-called “smart access” systems that rely on key fobs, pin codes, and smartphone apps for entry. These technologies can offer safety and convenience to residents.

They also pose a potential threat.

The reason is simple: every time a tenant taps their keyfob or enters their access code, it generates a piece of data that logs their entry. 

What will your landlord do with this data? Will they use it to pry into your personal life? Will they sell it to marketers? Could it be used as an eviction tool? Will it be kept forever? 

At present there are no laws that control how this data is used, in New York City or elsewhere in the nation. Your landlord is free to use this sensitive information however they please.

Time logs of when you or family enter the building could indicate patterns of work, travel, socializing, even walking the dog. This is no one’s business but your own.

Tenants need to know — with certainty — that the data generated by smart entry systems will never compromise their privacy and safety, nor make them vulnerable to abusive landlords bent on eviction.

That’s why we are fighting to pass legislation known as the Tenant Data Privacy Act (officially Intro. 1760) in the New York City Council. The bill is up for a vote in front of the full Council on Thursday, April 29. 

The bill would prohibit landlords from ever using a tenant’s building entry data for purposes of eviction or harassment. It would also specifically ensure that smart access systems are never used to collect information on the relationship status of tenants and their guests.

The legislation ensures that a landlord can’t share entrance data with third parties without express permission from residents. The bill has extra protection for minors, to ensure that even the most basic information is not collected on them without explicit permission from a guardian. 

And it obligates landlords to provide tenants, upon request, written policies about the type of data being collected, how long it’s kept, and the process for tenants to add additional household members or guests to the smart access system. And, critically, it requires that tenant data be permanently deleted after 90 days. 

The bill also includes similar protections against misuse of utility data by landlords in buildings that track usage of heat, electricity, and Wi-Fi.

What about smart entry systems used not for the front door but the entrance to your apartment? Our law would mandate that tenants have a right to a traditional metal key for their personal unit if that’s what they prefer.

This law would have teeth: landlords would be liable for a penalty of up to $6,000 for each violation.

Yes there are benefits to smart entry systems. Traditional mechanical keys can be lost, stolen, or easily copied, creating safety concerns for neighbors. Tenants with an access system that uses a smartphone app are able to maintain a record of who enters their home and when and, in some cases, even have the ability to easily grant and revoke guest access. 

This technology can also serve as a tool to detect if a super or other member of the building staff is entering your apartment without your consent. It can help domestic violence victims keep abusive partners out of their homes.

The Tenant Data Protection Act strikes a balance, allowing tenants the benefits of smart entry systems while protecting against the potential for abuse. The legislation has quickly gained momentum in the City Council, with 27 sponsors, and support from a growing coalition of tenants rights advocates and other leaders.

No one should ever worry that the simple act of opening their door could compromise their safety or privacy. We can and must take action now to keep tenants in New York City safe and vote to pass the Tenant Data Protection Act.

***
City Council Member Mark Levine represents District 7 and is Chair of the Council’s Health Committee. He is currently running for Manhattan Borough President. On Twitter @MarkLevineNYC.

Incarcerated women visit with family (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)

This April, as we do every year, we hear about the need to offer system-impacted people a “second chance” to re-enter society and live their lives freely. But to realize true, transformative change, we must acknowledge the reality of our country’s incarceration crisis: many people entangled in the criminal legal system never had a first chance to begin with. This is especially true for incarcerated women, who are so often left out of the conversation.

I know firsthand how our country harms and excludes women who are incarcerated from living free and full lives. I spent 27 years behind bars in a New York maximum-security prison — more than two of which were spent in solitary confinement. And while the contours of my story are unique, the theme is all too common: our country’s crisis of mass incarceration locks hundreds of thousands of women away from loved ones, discards lives, and rips apart entire communities. This is true in New York and every other state across the country. 

I went to prison at the age of 20, and quickly came to understand that many women shared stories like mine — abused and traumatized by relatives and adults we’d trusted, and did terrible harm that rippled outward. But that realization was cold comfort, as I quickly absorbed how violence behind bars is in the very fabric of incarcerated life. Incarceration compounds trauma, trapping women in a near-endless cycle of abuse, harm, and the constant devaluation of our lives.

The vast majority of women who are incarcerated are survivors of violence — including sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse — prior to incarceration. The majority of women in prison are also mothers. I can’t overstate the magnitude that cruelly keeping families apart has on children, impacting every aspect of their lives, like whether they’re able to concentrate in school or live with financial stability. Incarcerating mothers virtually guarantees that we will perpetuate trauma and pain across generations. 

If we as a nation are serious about rehabilitation before a person re-enters society, then we can’t reasonably expect it to happen in a dangerous place like prison. The simple truth is that we can’t incarcerate and punish our way to safer and healthier communities, and this holds true for offenses we deem violent and nonviolent alike. Everyone is more than the sum of their worst mistake, and true healing can only come from the grace of offering second chances to people who may never have had a real first chance. 

Behind every statistic of a woman locked behind bars is a person. But all too often, society strips away their humanity once they interact with the criminal legal system. I’m thinking of my friend Rosslyn Smith, who was just 17 when she was first incarcerated, and served a staggering 39 years prior to her release. I think, too, of my friend Valerie Gaiter, who served 41 years in prison before passing away behind bars two years ago. These and all women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and this fundamental truth can’t be realized as we cage tens of thousands of women with little concern for their actual well-being. We should instead be implementing policies that help incarcerated women return home and re-enter their communities. In addition to saving lives, creating meaningful pathways for release will save taxpayer dollars that are infinitely better spent on investing in our communities.

There are many common sense solutions right in front of us, in New York and across the country, that would save lives, rekindle communities, and ensure children can stay together safely with their moms and loved ones.

Some of the reforms to the system as it exists now are being considered by New York elected leaders this year, including ending reincarceration for technical parole violations (Less Is More), creating more meaningful and fair opportunities for parole release (Fair & Timely Parole), and expanding parole eligibility for older New Yorkers in prison (Elder Parole). 

We need to act immediately to safely reduce the number of people trapped in prison and begin the work of rebuilding our communities. And I encourage us to think even bigger — what would it mean to live in a country without a brutal prison system that doles out more harm than it solves? How much further could the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on incarceration go if invested in job training, education, housing, healthcare, and a true social safety net that addresses the root causes of poverty and violence? 

This would be a world that is infinitely safer for all women and families, and one that isn’t as unimaginable as many would have us believe. This month and beyond, I hope you’ll join me in supporting the right of all women to live in freedom and safety, including the most vulnerable and least protected among us. 

***
Donna Hylton, founder of A Little Piece of Light, is an activist and author who advocates for the rights of system-impacted women. She is a founding member of The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls and an alumna of the first cohort of Leading with Conviction Fellows of JustLeadershipUSA. Donna was incarcerated for over 25 years. On Twitter @DonnaHylton.

Homeless outreach in the subways (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)

It’s easy to bash Bill de Blasio, and to be fair, he deserves it. When it comes to street and subway homelessness, Mayor de Blasio has failed in the same troubling pattern time and time again. When pressure mounts for him to act, he creates a “new initiative.” Examples include HOME-STAT, Outreach NYC, the since-terminated coercive Subway Diversion Program, and The Journey Home. Typically, these initiatives increase the role of the NYPD in homeless outreach, promise additional housing that doesn’t come to fruition, and show more creativity in their presentation than their implementation.

Homeless New Yorkers have had enough, as have many providers and advocates. Our next Mayor — to be elected this year and inaugurated January 1, 2022 — must lead with bold, transformative policies that reimagine homeless outreach from start to finish. Working with nine directly impacted homeless New Yorkers, we lay out a starting point here and through our new plan, the #HumanPlan.

The responsibility to implement the #HumanPlan may not lie solely at the feet of the next Mayor. If our next Mayor falls short as our current one has, the City Council must be more willing to use its legislative authority to protect homeless New Yorkers.

A bill introduced three years ago in the City Council, Intro. 146, is a perfect example of where the City Council could provide the leadership necessary to help people secure housing. It is desperately needed and truly transformative legislation, and if passed, it would increase the city’s virtually unusable housing vouchers to fair market value. The City Council, without the Mayor, could pass it today. It has a veto-proof majority and broad support from advocates and many politically-active homeless New Yorkers.

Enough is enough, and we cannot afford another four years of inaction and disappointing leadership. To truly address street and subway homelessness, we need commitments from the incoming Mayor, City Council, and Borough Presidents to create, fund, and implement an integrated housing plan that addresses the full need for permanent housing for all individuals experiencing street and subway homelessness, while also treating people with dignity.

To begin, here are four things our next Mayor, City Council, and Borough Presidents need to do to truly address New York City’s street and subway homelessness crisis. 

1. Reimagine Street and Subway Homeless Outreach
Seldom discussed in conversations around homelessness is the fact that, under the New York City Department of Homeless Services’ direction, the city-contracted outreach teams do not give people on the streets basic needs items like socks or water bottles.

The approach, under a motto “a hand-up, not a hand-out” falsely assumes that homeless people are making a choice to be on the streets, and if they were just a little bit more desperate, they would instead choose to come into shelters. This perspective quite literally equates socks, in the minds of officials, as a perverse incentive to stay on the streets. In reality, the only choice homeless New Yorkers are making is to avoid dangerous shelters.

The message from outreach workers, in moments of desperate need such as when someone is without socks, is that they cannot be helpful. Wet, cold feet? We can’t offer you something to warm them up.

How can people trust that outreach workers can secure them housing when they can't even secure basic necessities?

Outreach teams should not only be able to give out basic needs items, but they should build around it. Private programs like New York City Relief should be replicated by city-funded outreach teams, so homeless New Yorkers can come and see them while having a warm meal. 

2. Completely Remove NYPD from Homeless Outreach
Removing the NYPD from homeless outreach does more than just end the criminalization of homelessness. It helps outreach teams do their jobs better.

Nunu, who has lived on the streets for several years, explains why outreach workers should arrive with water bottles rather than with police officers: “Outreach teams come up to you in public with officers, and it looks bad. It makes us look like we’re doing something wrong on the streets because they’re not coming to us with food and water.” When outreach workers arrive with NYPD, Nunu and countless other homeless New Yorkers decline engagement because they feel this approach sends the wrong message — that they’ve done something wrong or that they’re in trouble.

Simply put, allowing the outreach teams to work independently of the NYPD allows them to build and maintain trust. Combining the removal of NYPD from homeless outreach with the introduction of giving out basic needs items will send the right message to homeless New Yorkers: Outreach workers are here to help you, not to criminalize you.

3. Actually Adopt True “Housing First” Model in Supportive Housing
Yes, New York City says it does “Housing First,” but no, we absolutely do not.

A true “Housing First” model is predicated on the idea that everyone is housing ready, and the onus is on housing providers to be “consumer ready.” Believe it or not, in New York City, case managers prepare homeless New Yorkers for interviews to try to get them into supportive housing units they’ve already been deemed eligible for by the city’s Human Resources Administration (HRA). They do this because many providers screen out the most vulnerable clients instead of screening them in.

The Safety Net Project at the Urban Justice Center acquired the reasons for the rejections via the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The results were appalling, and showed the extent to which the Department of Social Services (DSS) and Department of Homeless Services (DHS) take a hands-off approach to the supportive housing application process. People were rejected because of their mental illness, the very reason supportive housing would likely have been a great fit in the first place. (Note: Intro. 147, a bill that would document and publicize the reasons for supportive housing rejections, has been sitting in the City Council for three years.)

Our incoming city government leaders must end this practice, often referred to as “creaming” or “cherry-picking.” The way to do this is simple: End the supportive housing interview process (again, people are already deemed eligible, they shouldn’t have to interview!). At the same time, they must expand the availability of supportive housing by proactively working to identify and open sites across communities. As it stands, there is only one available supportive housing unit for every five eligible applicants.

A supportive housing bill of rights would help supportive housing tenants too. The City Council introduced, but has not passed, Intro. 2176, which would require supportive housing providers to supply a supportive housing bill of rights to tenants.

4. Make the CityFHEPS Vouchers Work for Street Homeless New Yorkers 
The current CityFHEPS voucher, the city’s voucher that homeless New Yorkers can use to find housing, leaves voucher holders with virtually no options. The voucher amount is so low that even the smallest of apartments are often out of reach for them. A recent report from NY1 showed that month-over-month, just 4% of voucher-holders find apartments.

 Unsheltered homeless New Yorkers always point out that there are many homeless New Yorkers living on the streets who do not need the additional ser vices offered at supportive housing. Unfortunately, because the vouchers do not work, homeless outreach teams typically try to get their clients into supportive housing rather than find housing through a voucher. Outreach workers see the “one available supportive housing unit for every five eligible applicants” as better odds than finding housing through the CityFHEPS voucher.

If we bring the CityFHEPS voucher up to fair market rate or the Section 8 rate, educate outreach providers on how to house people through the voucher, and provide them the resources to do this, we would see an immediate drop in street and subway homelessness. This can be done through mayoral leadership or through the City Council’s Intro. 146.

The four recommendations above, if implemented alongside plans like “Right to a Roof” that ensure the right to housing for all New Yorkers, would set our next administration up for success. Homeless New Yorkers, advocates and many providers are sick of empty rhetoric. They want to see action and compassion, not police and empty promises.

One question remains: Will they be up to the challenge?

***
By an Anonymous Homeless Outreach Worker, an Anonymous Department of Homeless Services Official, and Josh Dean, Executive Director of Human.nyc. On Twitter @humandotnyc.

Two of the authors have been granted anonymity over fear of speaking publicly and risking their livelihoods.

Rendering of Governors Island rezoning (photo: Governors Island Coalition)

The Friends of Governors Island’s (FGI) main rationale for the proposed Governors Island Rezoning Plan — making Governors Island financially self-sufficient and accessible year round — isn’t supported and doesn’t justify turning the "172-acre oasis" into essentially a backyard for  high-rise, high-density development. Their April 2 op-ed at Gotham Gazette states, "Those of us who love Governors Island know the magic...The things that make this place so beloved are not going anywhere.” But the path the authors support contradicts that statement. Given all that they've contributed to the evolution of Governors Island, it is extremely disappointing to see Friends of Governors Island selling a plan that allows 250-plus-foot-high structures to loom over parklands, a historic district, a school, and urban farmland.

Public Disapproval
There is a strong lack of support for the upzoning from Community Board 1, Borough President Gale Brewer, and several City Planning commissioners. At the April 5 City Council hearing on the plan, 57 testified against, 23 in favor. New Yorkers have a serious need for the welcoming, open, expansive, parkland quality that Governors Island currently provides. The current upzoning proposal must be withdrawn. 

The economics
This upzoning won't pay for the Island’s needs, at least not until 2050 according to Friends of Governors Island's partner organization, the Trust for Governors Island's own speculative projections. It would be infinitely more economical to bypass developers and subsidize Governors Island directly. Community Board 1 says the Trust's financial analysis is insufficient. A City Planning commissioner said approval would be akin to the city giving the Trust a blank check for an unspecified project.

Imagined Climate Research Center
Any discussion regarding a climate research center here is irrelevant. This is a proposal to upzone the south island, period. There's nothing legally requiring a climate center tenant and the proposed C4-1 zoning blankets south island. An educational institution lease would only be for 30 years. In fact Governors Island is already productive as a climate hub, thanks to the work of Earth Matter, GrowNYC, Billion Oyster Project, the Harbor School, NYC Audubon, Waterfront Alliance, and others.  

"Year-round access”
"Why would I want to go and visit Governors Island if it looks like everywhere else in my city?" - Virginia Ryan, 9 years old.

The Trust for Governors Island has recently shifted from finances to "year-round access" as its main pitch. Year-round access to what? The backyard to a Hudson Yards 2.0? Hotels, offices and shopping? A university? That's not what people come to Governors Island for. Gover nors Island is currently in use all year round by the Harbor school and other operations. Is Trust for Governors Island holding out on us?

Privatization
The public will lease the land, but won't developers own what they build? Potential parkland will be privately occupied indefinitely.

Assurances
Trust for Governors Island and Friends of Governors Island: "Of course, there should be guardrails in place, and the zoning should pay special attention to design guidelines."

"Should"? "Guidelines"? This underscores that the Trust can't be relied on to not sell out the island to the de Blasio administration’s economic recovery blitzkrieg of destructive rezonings. Trust for Governors Island Board Chair Alicia Glen has referred to Governors Island as “a nice piece of real estate.”  

Buildings
Many solid historic buildings lie unused on the island. Any new building should be kept to minimum and not exceed the four-story height of buildings in the historic district.

Open Space
Most of all the “increased open space” that the Trust for Governors Island is presenting is “woven open space similar to Battery Park City" — boxed in by 10- to 30-story buildings and non-public areas.

"Long-time coming"?
Yes, but the current top-down proposal was sprung on the public just late last September and is being pushed through process during a pandemic in an election year. As Community Board 1 points out the plan "is nearly three times larger than what was considered as part of the 2013 FSGEIS. . .the public’s understanding for the development program was based on those earlier models and the drastic increase in scale of development is unacceptable." Community Board 2 in Brooklyn declined to comment on the Trust’s rezoning plan due to the rushed process.

Public hearings on land use (via ULURP) being held virtually due to COVID-19 are insufficient and should be suspended as is currently the case by court order in on the 960 Franklin Ave rezoning plan, for the proposed mega-project across the street from the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens.

An alternative
A M.A.G.I.C. "Alternative South Island Visualization" exists.

***
Roger Manning and Allie Ryan are Co-founders of Metro Area Governors Island Coalition (M.A.G.I.C.). On Twitter @gi_coalition.

Immigration celebration (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)

When it comes to immigration, the United States suffers from a deeply split personality: are we a “nation of immigrants,” a country built on immigrant contributions, where Lady Liberty welcomes those fleeing persecution and seeking opportunity? Or are we a country that itself persecutes those perceived as different, that closes our borders to newcomers, and whose very institutions seek to preserve whiteness?

We’re both, of course. But with the Citizenship Act of 2021, we have the opportunity to cement the part of our immigration history that does us proud. The Citizenship Act presents a sweeping vision for immigration reform -- one that recognizes immigrants as an essential fiber of our common tapestry. It’s a bill that prioritizes the dignity and humanity of our immigrant siblings in ways that shouldn’t be refreshing, but are. New York’s local and state governments have the opportunity to embrace these changes and effect implementation in important ways.  

As an elected official and nonprofit leader in New York City, we recognize the essential role local communities and local policy play in our national immigration system. National policies have a direct impact on our neighbors, community members, business owners, students, and families -- and our local efforts can affect the national picture. 

The Citizenship Act of 2021 proposes sweeping and welcome changes to our immigration laws. It includes provisions that would allow millions of undocumented people to access a path to full legal status. It reforms the current visa system, which is outdated and slow, in order to facilitate family unity. It sets up an office within Customs and Border Protection to address misconduct within that agency. And, important to our shared commitment to supporting the unique needs of vulnerable immigrants such as children, the law uses a “best interest of the child” standard to ensure treatment of child migrants that goes beyond the minimal standards set via lawsuits and settlement agreements. It pledges to provide government-paid lawyers to particularly vulnerable people, including children. It even establishes a pilot grant program that will distribute grants to state and municipal governments, as well as community-based organizations, to assist immigrants.  

Those municipal pilots will be critical, as successful engagement in immigration issues on the local level is essential to preserving the unique character and strength of our state and city. To do so, New York City government must be ready to work together with local organizations like Safe Passage Project, which represents immigrant children facing deportation, so that if passed the law reaches everyone it is intended to help. Safe Passage and other local legal services organizations have, over years of representing clients in complex and often harrowing legal matters, built trust within our clients’ communities. As the Trump administration rolled out cruel changes to the immigration system over the last four years, we were there, helping New Yorkers navigate the new labyrinth. We accompanied them as they fought a hostile system. We represented them in individual cases, and sued the government (and often won!) to stop the changes at the source . 

The Citizenship Act of 2021 is the exact opposite of what took place under the Trump administration. Take Operation Matador for example. This much-touted Trump initiative purported to round up and deport dangerous gang members, but in fact resulted in local law enforcement targeting young teens of color for offenses such as wearing their native country’s soccer jerseys. School “safety officers” branded these teens as murderous criminals, when in fact they simply sought stability and safety with family members on Long Island. 

With the Citizenship Act of 2021, we have a chance to turn a new leaf. Instead of reactivity or, worse, complicity, we can choose restoration and justice.

We must remain vigilant against unscrupulous or unlicensed practitioners who would prey on immigrant communities as the law is rolled out. We must demand law enforcement reform and community alternatives to policing. Finally, we must continue to embrace innovative public-private partnerships on immigration issues that have been successful over the last few years. The ICARE Initiative, for example, was a groundbreaking partnership between the Robin Hood Foundation and the New York City Council that funded deportation defense attorneys for unaccompanied children in New York. Since its founding in 2014, ICARE has represented more than 2,500 such children. We have the opportunity to build on this success as we welcome changes on the federal level.  

Despite a challenging economic environment, now is not the time to pull back our commitments to immigrant New Yorkers. We look to the city and to private donors to maintain or increase their financial commitment to defending young New Yorkers from deportation. Together, we can ensure that the promises of the Citizenship Act are kept in New York.

***
City Council Member Carlina Rivera represents parts of Manhattan. Alexandria Rizio is an attorney with the Safe Passage Project. On Twitter @CarlinaRivera & @SafePassageProj.

The Mayor at school (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)

On Monday, many New York City students will return to their classrooms -- 50,000 for the first time this year. Many more will go from two days to five days per week in-person. 

But 650,000 of our students are still learning fully-remotely. Many “in-person” high-school students are just on Zoom in classrooms instead of at home.

Meanwhile, among both in-person and remote families, trust in the New York City Department of Education to meet their children’s needs has eroded. The process for communicating with families and school staff has been rocky, confusing, behind closed doors. Schedules and reopening dates continue to change at the last minute, making it virtuall y impossible to provide children with the consistency they need for meaningful learning. 

Many remote students still don’t have access to reliable internet or are in ultra-large classes where they don’t get the support they need. And too many of our students, families, and teachers, particularly people of color, have lost loved ones this year with little institutional support or understanding from our school system. So it’s no wonder many families and teachers remain hesitant and frustrated. 

In order to rebuild the trust of families, students, and educators and fully open up our schools in the fall -- safely and supportively for all our students -- we need to do a much better job of planning together. And we need to start now.

First, we should immediately establish School Reopening Councils in every school, at the district level, and at the citywide level. They should include the principal, teacher and staff representatives, caregiver and student reps from both in-person and remote cohorts, and diverse students including those with IEPs. We should use a little of the $6 billion our schools will be receiving from the American Rescue Plan to pay teachers and caregivers for the time needed to participate, so that all families can afford to do so, and so that teacher and staff time over the summer is compensated.

We can’t keep waiting for every decision to be made in secret, between Mayor de Blasio and UFT President Mulgrew -- in a process that doesn’t include families or rank-and-file staff. The unions representing workers have a critical role to play, but we need an open dialogue, guided by data and the lived experiences of our school communities, with all stakeholders at the table.

The School Reopening Councils should start by surveying students, families, and staff on what they need to feel confident coming back to school in the fall. We have urgent work to do to build trust and solidarity, where it has unfortunately been badly strained. These reopening councils should then be given as much flexibility as possible to propose scheduling and programming plans for the 2021-2022 school year driven by the real, on-the-ground needs of their school communities. 

At the same time, City Hall and the Department of Education must provide clear guidance. The mayor’s cavalier answers and last-minute announcements aren’t going to rebuild anyone’s trust. We need clarity now on a wide range of health and safety questions: What level of citywide vaccination, and what threshold of COVID-19 cases do we need to hit together this summer in order to fully reopen schools? We had metrics as we closed things down. Where are the metrics for opening them back up? What safety protocols will need to remain in school buildings this fall? What will happen for families who still want to remain enrolled in remote learning? 

We believe that every adult in our school buildings should be required to be vaccinated for COVID-19, and we should move quickly to vaccinate younger students as soon as the FDA/CDC authorize it. We need City Hall to establish those rules now so families have a clear understanding of what the school year ahead will hold. 

Health and safety guidance must also be disseminated to families consistently in their home languages. Too many families have been left out of the conversation this year because of language barriers.

Finally, the mayor should make it a practice to inform principals and school communities first of changes to policy before announcing changes on Twitter or in the press. 

For principals to plan for reopening, they need to know soon which staff members are planning to come back, so they can spend the summer hiring for vacancies. That means the Department of Education also needs to establish clear guidelines now for what medical accommodations they will allow.

Meanwhile, every single school needs the resources and autonomy to meet the social, emotional, and academic needs of its students -- in ways they never have before. And they need to get the necessary budget now, so they can start planning with families. 

It’s great that schools will receive 100% of their Fair Student Funding for the first time ever. But that’s just $600 million of the $6 billion that our schools are getting from federal American Rescue Plan funding. Most of it is one-time funding, so we have to be thoughtful about how we use it. 

At a minimum, every school must have a full-time guidance counselor, nurse, and school social worker next fall. It’s outrageous that they don’t already (and that there are more NYPD school safety agents than counselors and social workers combined). Schools should also get one-time funding for community-based arts, culture, movement, and outdoor programs, organized around healing and resilience. Finally, the city must fully remove police from schools to reassure families of Black and brown students that buildings will be safe not just from covid, but from police violence and criminalization. There is no way to make schools the restorative, healing places they must be with police and metal detectors at the door. 

The city should also direct schools to focus on community building and students’ social-emotional needs throughout September. To support this, we should continue this year’s policy of making state tests “opt-in” rather than mandatory, so teachers will feel comfortable taking the time they need to get to know their students and focus on restorative learning experiences through open dialogue, writing, art, music, storytelling, and nature. 

Separate from the federal American Rescue Plan funds, new recurring Foundation Aid funding from the New York State Legislature -- won after years of tireless organizing by the Alliance for Quality Education, KidsPAC, and many others -- should go primarily to reduce class sizes. Smaller classes will help address covid fears and give remote-learning families more confidence to come back to school buildings, will help teachers meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of their students, and will improve educational outcomes in the long-term. It’s a win-win-win.

With good communication, ample resources, trust, and time, we can fully reopen our schools with confidence. If we start now, if we involve all stakeholders, if City Hall provides clear guidance, if we insist on prioritizing social and emotional as well as academic needs, then we can teach our kids the most important lesson of all: that when we work together, we can keep each other safe, and help each other thrive. But only if we start now.

***
Brad Lander is a New York City Council Member and candidate for Comptroller. Naila Rosario is president of NYC Kids PAC, a parent-led political action committee focusing on New York City schools. Liat Olenick is a New York City public school teacher and activist. On Twitter @bradlander, @rosario_naila & @Liat_RO.

An empty library (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Too many New Yorkers are feeling the effects of being disconnected. The digital divide — a persistent gap in access to low-cost, high-speed internet and devices — is affecting their educational plans and, potentially, their livelihoods. The solution is multi-pronged, and will require those in positions of influence, from policymakers and funders to private-industry leaders.

When New York City announced its Internet Master Plan in January 2020, it estimated that 40% of households — 3.4 million residents — were partially disconnected from the internet, having either home or mobile service, but not both. Worse, 1.5 million residents were totally disconnected with no access to service. 

According to the city’s study, 46% of households living in poverty lacked broadband access at home, and lower-income households that were connected spent up to 10% of their monthly budgets on high-speed internet. 

That was before COVID-19. Since then, the five boroughs lost 560,100 private-sector jobs, and connectivity access points, such as libraries and community centers, were forced to limit public access due to the pandemic. 

The economic and educational impacts of the pandemic have increased the urgency and raised the stakes in an already dire situation. For K-12 learners, for adults whose dreams include a postsecondary degree, and for those who need reskilling to increase their chances of finding employment, access to education is vital. Of particular importance during the pandemic is access to online education, which is one of the fastest growing segments of higher education in the United States.

Mayor de Blasio’s administration should be praised for its ongoing efforts to bridge the digital divide. As part of the city’s ambitious $2.1 billion Internet Master Plan, the mayor announced plans in March to award telecommunications companies more than $150 million in contracts for projects that would bring affordable broadband to 600,000 city residents. The city also recently upgraded internet service at 50 of its public-housing community centers and buildings. 

Recognizing the gravity of the opportunity gap amid the pandemic, city agencies deployed hundreds of thousands of internet-ready devices to K-12 learners and additional thousands to the elderly. 

But what about those in between? 

Out-of-work or underemployed adults need access to devices and low-cost broadband now, to apply for jobs and pursue online educational programs. As the city rightly focuses on connecting children and older adults, it cannot forget the needs of New York City’s vital workforce.

I urge policymakers to recognize high-speed broadband access as a fundamental need, such as water and utilities. Federal, state and city efforts to expand broadband access will help, but a comprehensive solution can best be found by combining efforts from both private and public sectors.

In August, Western Governors University launched a $1 million scholarship program to grant high-speed internet access and devices to students who lack these resources. The Online Access Scholarship program is part of a broader WGU initiative aimed at working with policymakers, funders, and private industry to close the digital divide. This will allow prospective students in New York City’s five boroughs to begin a degree program that will make a difference in their lives while strengthening the city’s economy. 

New York City should be commended for seeing the value in public-private solutions. Its pact with AT&T has brought free Wi-Fi to more than 20 city parks for the past decade. Recently, the de Blasio administration issued a request for proposals, asking telecommunications companies to step up with “any and all ideas” to establish the rapid and equitable deployment of low-cost broadband in 33 neighborhoods. 

Some smaller locales have successfully deployed public-private partnerships at scale. Take the Virginia counties of Accomack and Northampton, which created the independent, not-for-profit Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority, an all-fiber network, powered by private inter net providers, that has installed hundreds of miles of cable and services around 350 buildings, including schools and businesses. 

Chattanooga, Tenn., is another example. The city already has its own municipally-owned and operated internet service. But gaps remain for economically disadvantaged families. In 2020, Chattanooga launched a public-private partnership that connects 28,000 eligible students — those who meet the criteria for federal free and reduced-price school meals — with a high-speed internet connection and a Wi-Fi router at no cost. 

The State of New York’s recently-passed fiscal year 2021-2022 budget includes legislation requiring internet service providers to offer — and advertise — $15-per-month plans for low-income households. Also in the budget is a partnership with Schmidt Futures and the Ford Foundation to launch ConnectED NY, an initiative to connect 50,000 students in economically-disadvantaged school districts to free internet through the end of the 2022 academic year.

All the city’s residents need equitable access to high-speed broadband as we head into a post-covid recovery period. It is an investment in our neighbors, families, and neighborhoods. It is an investment in the labor force and the talent pipelines that support businesses and local economies. 

We cannot afford to let lack of broadband access serve as a barrier between individuals and learning opportunities, or between our businesses and the talent pool our city needs to thrive and grow. Moving forward in a landscape dramatically changed by COVID-19 will require all of us working together to raise the bar academically and economically in every borough. 

***
Rebecca L. Watts, Ph.D., serves as a regional vice president for Western Governors University (WGU), a non-profit, accredited university focused on competency-based learning that serves more than 130,000 students, including 2,900 in New York and nearly 1,000 in the greater New York City area. She holds a doctorate in higher education leadership from Ohio University. On Twitter @WGUnortheast & @WGU.

Gov. Cuomo (photo: Don Pollard / Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo)

The balance of power and attention is weighed heavily in favor of public official s accused of sexual harassment and assault, rather than those coming forward with accusations. This dynamic is misaligned and should shift toward legitimizing victims.

Governor Cuomo is accused of bad behavior by eight women in the form of sexual harassment and assault in various contexts ranging from the workplace to private gatherings: Lindsey Boylan, Charlotte Bennett, Anna Ruch, Karen Hinton, Ana Liss, Jessica Bakeman, Alyssa McGrath, and one anonymous woman. A significant amount of media attention is devoted to what Cuomo is thinking, feeling, doing, and what his next steps may be, especially whether or not he will resign. 

Looking at punishment basics, we can learn from how we typically handle bad behavior from children. Less attention, no reward, and a time out are conventional approaches. With Cuomo, we are doing the opposite — he enjoys an extreme amount of local and national media attention and there is no limit to his executive power as investigations and possible impeachment proceedings unfold. In light of this dynamic, what is lost is the focus on and legitimacy of the alleged victims. In some ways, this is not surprising because Cuomo is a well-liked, charismatic bully. The question becomes, how does this imbalance influence the investigative process and larger quest for justice?

As the top government official in New York State, Cuomo is negatively impacting the legitimacy of the investigative process. A large number of prominent lawmakers are calling for Governor Cuomo’s resignation and impeachment. Yet, Cuomo adamantly refuses to step down, arguing that due process is necessary. By remaining in office, Cuomo authorized the Attorney General’s investigation of accusations against him, provided an attorney to staffers who will be interviewed by the Attorney General’s Office, and launched his own parallel investigation. 

Some pockets of Cuomo supporters caution not to make Cuomo the next Al Franken, the former Minnesota senator who resigned amidst sexual harassment and groping accusations. And they are right, but not for the reason they propose. The travesty of the Franken situation is not in the outcome for Franken, himself, who still engages in political commentary and hosts his own podcast. Instead, it is Franken’s accusers who did not receive an opportunity for justice, because his resignation halted any future investigation. 

Cuomo's position of power affords him a bully pulpit to delegitimize alleged victims. He continues to make public appearances and has made many statements about the women coming forward with allegations against him. He claims these accusations are either misunderstandings of his playful actions by unassuming women or politically motivated attacks on him by power-hungry women. What is more dangerous, Cuomo has attempted to reframe the scandal from sexual harassment and assault to one of political opposition, with himself being the true victim of cancel culture.  

An important focus of the MeToo movement is to create community and legitimacy around those coming forward with sexual harassment and assault claims. The organization issued an official statement on Governor Cuomo, emphasizing MeToo’s commitment to advocating for an honest process that prioritizes impartiality, systems change, and accountability for victims of sexual harassment and assault. 

The fact that we are talking about this at all is a sign that we are moving away from business as usual, and it is not lost on us that this shift coincides with the rise of prominent women elected officials in New York City and State. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Kirstin Gillibrand, who have called for Cuomo to resign, along with Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading one Cuomo investigation, show us that gender balance in positions of power will likely cotinue to improve the culture surrounding sexual harassment and assault, and help give accusers legitimacy. 

However, by allowing the Governor to influence the messaging surrounding the accusations and to let him attempt to muster public support we are rebuffing that attempt and delegitimizing the victims.  

To refocus this lopsided attention away from Cuomo, he should be placed on leave and Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul should assume the governorship until all investigations conclude. 

It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel each time a public official is accused of behaving badly. The mishandling of Cuomo as these scandals unfold highlight the need for procedural norms to become commonplace. Limiting Cuomo’s power while he is under investigation would ensure a more transparent and fair process that ultimately ensures justice for both the accusers and the accused. 

***
Maria J. D'Agostino is a Professor in the Department of Public Management, Founding Co-Director of Women in the Public Sector at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY and co-author of Governing in a Global World: Women in Public Service. 

Nicole M. Elias is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Management, Founding Co-Director of Women in the Public Sector at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY and co-editor of Ethics for Contemporary Bureaucrats: Navigating Constitutional Crossroads.

Gov. Cuomo with Court of Appeals judges (photo: governor's office)

The police murder of George Floyd and the resulting uprisings across the country led New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to try and cast himself as an anti-racist criminal justice reformer. He spoke of the “injustice against minorities in America by the criminal justice system" and emphatically added, “Today...enough is enough.” He signed criminal law legislation and pronounced that the changes “take us one step closer to righting the many injustices minority communities have faced because of a broken and unfair system."

While Cuomo was referring to policing, the criminal legal system is multi-layered and “righting the many injustices” will never occur by only focusing on the police. Police activity is passed through by prosecutors and thereafter subject to review by judges at the trial and appellate levels, and, potentially, by the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court and the final arbiter of police actions. The courts, too, are instruments of injustice.

While Cuomo’s progressive credentials have long been disputed, little attention has been paid to his impact on New York’s courts. This is a serious mistake. The Court of Appeals is Cuomo’s court. He appointed each one of the court’s seven judges, something that had only happened once before in New York history when his father, Mario, had occasion to select each judge on the court. And although his Court of Appeals is not readily characterized by political labels, one thing is certain — on criminal legal matters it has been overwhelmingly pro-prosecution.  

If Cuomo is serious about fixing an “unfair system” laden with injustice, he now has an opportunity to do something about it in this critical arena – the Court of Appeals. With the need to fill three seats on the court by year’s end, Cuomo has the chance to assemble a court dominated by people who have demonstrated firm commitments to protecting people’s rights to be free from overbearing, arbitrary, and racist policing and to rectifying a criminal legal system that regularly turns a blind eye to injustice.  

People who have been convicted of a crime can file a criminal leave application (CLA) to individual judges of the Court of Appeals asking for the court to review the legality of their conviction. Grants of these applications from the current slate of judges — meaning a willingness to hear someone’s legal challenge — are down to the lowest point in decades. In 2017, the court granted only 25, or 1.11%, of 2,244 requests. Only two judges, Jenny Rivera and Rowan Wilson, account for far more CLAs than their colleagues. It is not Judges Rivera and Wilson who are out of touch. Their number of grants is in line with what had been the court’s record on CLA grants over previous decades.    

Those fortunate few who manage to have their cases reviewed by the court face yet another hurdle: the court’s decisions on criminal appeals reveal indifference and antipathy to the rights of the accused. In 2018, excluding cases where the court issued an unanimous decision, Judge Rivera sided with the accused in 89% of the cases and Judge Wilson in 77%, but the remaining five judges ruled in the accused’s favor only 30%, 25%, 23%, 11%, and 4% of the time. 2018 was not an aberration. In 2017, one of the judges, Michael Garcia, ruled in favor of the prosecution in 100% of the court’s non-unanimous cases, and overall, the court sided with the prosecution in 82% of the cases it reviewed.  

Omar Alvarez’s case is a prime example of the Court of Appeals’ willful disregard of the rights of people convicted of crime. When Alvarez was 19 years old, he was charged with and convicted of several violent crimes, including murder, and sentenced to 66 2/3 years to life.  Alvarez filed a motion that alleged his appellate lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel. His appellate lawyer waited three years to do anything, and then only acted after learning that the case had been put on the court’s dismissal calendar. The lawyer ultimately filed an appellate brief rife with typos and grammatical errors and devoid of citations to support any legal claims. The lawyer’s statement of the facts contained six lines of text and the entire brief was only 20 double-spaced pages, including separate cover pages and table of contents. The prosecutor’s statement of the facts ran 60 pages, and their entire brief was 175 pages. Further, and most crucial, Alvarez’s appellate attorney inexplicably failed to seek review of the most glaring issue in the case: a de facto life without parole sentence imposed on a teenager.  

The Court of Appeals seemingly gave short shrift to the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

In her dissent, Judge Rivera wrote that the brief “violates ever y rule about effective advocacy taught to law students across the country.” She even took the extraordinarily unusual step of attaching a link to the brief for all to see. In his dissent, Judge Wilson referred to the “atrocious quality of appellate counsel’s brief,” and urged that the failure to ask the appellate court to reduce the sentence, by itself, was ineffective assistance of counsel.  

Judge Wilson also highlighted the U.S. Supreme Court cases that discuss the reduced culpability of youth. Those cases recognize that the parts of the brain that deal with behavior control are not fully developed until into our 20s, and that, as a result, youth are susceptible to recklessness and impulsivity, are vulnerable to negative influences, and, critically, have the capacity to change.  

Judge Wilson also noted a significant fact that the court’s majority ignored: Omar Alvarez had in fact changed in significant ways. He had amassed a positive institutional record in prison. He was also gravely ill. His cancer was not diagnosed until it had metastasized and caused compression around his spinal cord. He was a paraplegic, confined to a wheelchair and unable to control his bladder and bowels. Speaking directly of Alvarez’s 66 2/3 to life sentence, Judge Wilson wrote that “The possibility of a transformation like Mr. Alverez’s is precisely why our system should rarely if ever sentence young people to life without some realistic opportunity to seek parole.”

Directly calling out the other judges who found no fault in the attorney’s failure to seek resentencing, Judge Wilson asked, “Were Mr. Alvarez your son, would you have instructed his lawyer not to ask the Appellate Division to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to give him the chance to prove he had earned parole?”

The court’s majority – the other five members – referred to the “minuscule” issues raised by the motion and without any apparent sense of shame wrote that “the brief filed by appellate counsel was somewhat terse, could have been better drafted, and is not a model to be emulated.” In so easily dispatching Alvarez’s appeal, the Court revealed its general attitude toward the pleas of thousands of people whose cases are either never reviewed or whose convictions are readily upheld without serious scrutiny and sense of humanity. 

The court is not the answer to the criminal legal system’s many faults. However, it impacts lives in profound ways. It is Cuomo’s court, and he can and must fix it. In his words, “enough is enough.”

***
Steven Zeidman is a professor of law at CUNY School of Law. On Twitter @SteveZeidman.

Greening buildings (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography)

In 2019, the City Council and Mayor de Blasio passed into law one of the most ambitious pieces of climate change legislation in the country. Local Law 97 will impact 57,000 buildings across the city, with the goal of reducing citywide emissions by 40% by 2030. This is great news for the environment -- commercial and institutional building emissions are the second largest source of carbon emissions in the city, equal to the entire transportation sector. However, if you’re a commercial real estate owner looking at the need to retrofit your entire building, you’re looking at a pretty hefty bill to comply. 

At the moment, real estate owners will need to put up about $20 billion for Local Law 97 to be successful. For context, last year they spent about a quarter of a million dollars on these types of projects. And, while there are some financing programs available to help with energy efficiency upgrades, the city needs to provide significantly more upfront funding for the law to succeed. If elected the next City Comptroller, I’ll work to fix that -- and improve the city’s ability to deliver more services to its residents -- by instructing the Bureau of Public Finance to issue at least $10 billion in new financing and bring the city that much closer to reaching its carbon emission reduction goals.

Social Impact Bonds are bonds that pay out interest and principal based on savings accrued through measures that have social benefit. Basically, they pay for success. In the case of Local Law 97, the Bureau would issue bonds, with proceeds of those sales directed to local green banks, like the NYC Energy Efficiency Corporation, or other nonprofit entities tasked with providing Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) financing to building owners to retrofit their buildings. One of the best case studies for investing in energy efficiency is the Empire State Building, which spent $30 million on energy efficiencies retrofits. It’s saved the building $4.5 million a year and will pay for itself within 10 years. Over 30 years, this $30 million investment will have saved over $135 million. But $30 million is a lot of money, and few will have that sort of up-front capital. 

Making social impact bonds available for these activities could significantly improve how many owners comply with Local Law 97, ultimately helping to create more union retrofitting jobs for New Yorkers, pump demand for related work, and put us on track to meet our environmental goals. That’s a big win-win-win. With the right outreach, issuing these bonds could also help address a major deficit of the law -- it does little to promote financing of energy efficiency retrofits in buildings below 50,000 square feet. How many jobs could this create in total? Urban Green Council estimates that retrofits for commercial and residential buildings would create 141,000 jobs by 2030. I would work hard to ensure as many of these as possible are at minority- or women-owned businesses.

Energy efficiency isn’t the only place these bonds could be used. Social impact bonds can be used to reduce recidivism, address homelessness, even help create workforce programs. They help combat perverse incentive structures by ensuring that we pay for results. 

This all might sound wonky, but the impact on people’s lives is real. Cleaner air, more good quality jobs for residents, more homeless people helped into homes. COVID-19 devastated the city’s budget and caused the largest economic downturn in living memory. The moment demands more from the city’s elected leaders. It demands we think creatively about how to provide better services while spending less money. As your next Comptroller, I’ll be looking for every way I can use the office to lead the city’s recovery from COVID and make sure that our city residents, not special interests, get the services they need. Social Impact Bonds are a big way we can do that.

***
Zach Iscol is a Democratic candidate for New York City Comptroller. On Twitter @zachiscol.