Repairing vital infrastructure (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)

Despite a $3.5 billion investment to protect New York City from a repeat of the Hurricane Sandy disaster, Hurricane Isaias just revealed we remain deeply vulnerable to infrastructure failure. In terms of power outages, Isaias was the second most destructive storm in New York’s history, knocking out power to 267,000 people in New York City and Westchester County. Weeks later, many are still waiting for the lights to come back on. 

We’re barreling towards another man-made disaster ahead of what is anticipated to be a severe hurricane season and the public health crisis caused by a COVID-19 pandemic. The management and physical state of our utility infrastructure is needlessly exacerbating our situation.  

It’s essential that we recognize that the problems we face stem primarily from poor workforce management. And it’s time to do something about it.

Utility infrastructure is similar to a car, in that preventive maintenance is paramount to a well-functioning system. Unfortunately, the skeletal workforce that’s been pared back after years of attrition means that utilities routinely defer system maintenance, leaving the grid more vulnerable to widespread outages from extreme weather events.  

Around the time Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012, roughly 8,000 men and women worked at Con Edison in New York City. Today, that number is below 7,000, which means utilities like Con Edison are increasingly turning to systems of ‘mutual aid’ – often contracting with far-flung utilities for assistance. Typically, crews from neighboring states take on the bulk of ordinary storm cleanup without much trouble. In the aftermath of Hurricane Isaias, however, mutual aid crews were traveling from as far as Tennessee to restore power, which severely delayed the restoration of service to many customers. 

It’s time we strengthen our energy grid and mitigate the threats of future disasters by investing in our utility workforce. As the widespread damage and suffering from Isaias shows, we simply cannot afford to take a reactive approach. We need to start making the necessary preparations for the next storm now.  

Reinvigorating the utilities workforce would also be a much-needed stimulus to New York’s battered economy, helping to put people back to work. Given the deep budget holes currently faced by state and city governments, we could explore the possibility of a public-private partnership model to fund the necessary training and hiring. It’s a model that would make the investment go twice as far, boosting job-creation and economic growth. The Center for an Urban Future estimates New York City’s overall infrastructure requires a $47.3 billion investment over five years.   

These investments must be coupled with a strong commitment to equity — especially in light of the broad disparities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. We must do more to make sure the utility workforce reflects the rich diversity of our city’s population. Utility sector jobs are well-paid positions that offer a path to a better life, and they should be open to all New Yorkers.  

Boosting the workforce to properly manage the grid along with a concerted effort to diversify recruitment are the type of forward-thinking steps we need right now. They must be complemented by greater resiliency efforts from Con Edison and other utilities. It’s clear the current level of investment has been insufficient. One idea that should be revisited is burying overhead power lines, which are largely concentrated in the outer boroughs and are more likely to suffer storm-related damage. 

The coming challenges of the 21st century demand infrastructure that is resilient, modern, and properly maintained. That requires a workforce — and a government — that is ready to roll up its sleeves and get to work strengthening our grid right away. We cannot allow preventable disasters to wreak havoc on our energy system, which fall disproportionately on minority and low-income populations. As New Yorkers, let us rise to the challenge of building our city back, better than ever. 

***
Eric Adams is Brooklyn Borough President. James Slevin is President of the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, representing 50,000 active members employed in the energy, electric, gas, steam, water, and related professional, technical, and service industries. On Twitter @BKBoroHall & @The_UWUA.

Construction workers, New York (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)

Among the many conversations I’ve had about the upcoming election, one stands out in my mind.  It was with an old friend who is riding out the pandemic in upstate New York. She told me about an acquaintance of hers there, a white male construction worker, who is a steadfast Trump supporter. She could not understand why, given that he is struggling economically, he finds the ‘MAGA’ narrative so appealing. “What he is really angry about is all those Mexicans and Guatemalans around here who are taking jobs away from people like him,” she reported.

There’s no danger that New York State will land in the Trump column in November, and lately immigration has faded from the headlines, displaced by the Black Lives Matter protests and Trump’s demonizing of “rioters” and “looters” in the streets. This time around “law and order” is the focus of Trump’s presidential campaign. But we should not lose sight of the immigrant scapegoating that was his North Star in 2016. It remains a potent force for a sizable chunk of Trump’s base, especially white working-class Americans like that construction worker.

This Labor Day brings another reminder of the reversal of fortune that the nation’s white working class has endured over recent decades, as de-unionization and labor market restructuring drove economic inequality to sky-high levels not seen for over a century. Employment insecurity and precarity, already widespread before 2019, have been deepened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump and his allies continue to trumpet the immigrant threat narrative, blaming immigrants for “taking American jobs” and for the collapse in living standards that so many U.S.-born white workers have experienced. But this narrative – like so many others promoted by the president – has no grounding in reality.

As I document in detail in a new book, the immigrant threat narrative confuses cause with consequence. In industry after industry – including construction – the degradation of wages and working conditions preceded the influx of immigrants.

Starting in the 1970s, employers moved to undercut or eliminate unions, and turned formerly well-paid jobs with health and pension benefits into low-wage jobs with few appealing features. In the same period, business-promoted deregulation and skyrocketing subcontracting further contributed to the mushrooming of low-wage, precarious work. In response, U.S.-born workers increasingly abandoned or rejected newly degraded jobs, if they had the option. Only then did employers recruit immigrant workers to fill the resulting vacancies. In short, it was labor degradation that led to low-wage immigrant employment, not the other way around.

Pitting immigrants against their U.S.-born co-workers is just one of many examples of Trump’s divisive rhetoric. Both groups have suffered from employers’ intransigent anti-unionism and from neoliberal policies driving labor degradation, and both groups would benefit from working together to challenge those policies. One arena in which they can do so is the labor movement.

U.S. unionism is at a historic ebb in numbers and power, but immigrants – especially those who arrived in the U.S. many years ago – have a unionization rate only slightly lower than that of U.S.-born workers. In New York, one of the few regions of the U.S. where organized labor remains relatively strong, with union density roughly double the national average, foreign-born workers actually have a slightly higher unionization rate (21%) than their U.S.-born counterparts (20%), as Stephanie Luce and I document in a new report analyzing 2019-20 data.

It turns out that immigrants, the vast majority of whom came to this country in search of economic opportunity, are disproportionately eager to become union members if the opportunity arises. Although recent immigrants – especially the undocumented – often face obstacles in gaining access to unionized jobs, though that changes once they get their bearings in the labor market, and changes even more if they become U.S. citizens. The unionization rate for New York City immigrants who are naturalized citizens is a whopping 28%. In the nation as a whole the rate is 12%, slightly higher than the 11% unionization rate for U.S.-born workers nationwide.

In recent months, the city has hailed its “essential workers” – another disproportionately foreign-born group. The loud recognition of their work at 7 p.m. in the evening no longer marks the end of each day, but on Labor Day, let’s once again remember their role in keeping so many New Yorkers alive, and also challenge the immigrant threat narrative promoted by Trump and his allies. White working-class Americans have every reason to be enraged about their declining living standards, but the target of their anger should be employers and the neoliberal public policies they promote, not immigrants.

***
Ruth Milkman is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies and the CUNY Graduate Center, and the author of Immigrant Labor and the New Precariat.

NYCHA Chair Greg Russ (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

With so much attention focused on the COVID-19 catastrophe and the 2020 elections, our leaders and the media have all but overlooked the importance of a plan to improve the lives of 300,000 low-income and working-class New Yorkers, many of them people of color. The plan merits support from all of New York’s elected officials.

New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Chair Gregory Russ has produced an innovative “Blueprint for Change.” In conjunction with other programs now underway, it promises to restore all of NYCHA to a state of good repair, and simultaneously to put the single most important source of affordable housing for limited income New Yorkers on a viable financial path for the long-term.

It is the first time in decades that anyone has offered a serious plan to fix and maintain NYCHA rather than partial measures and stop-gap solutions. It offers a bold mechanism for filling an intimidating $25 billion gap in an even more daunting $40 billion capital plan to fix “leaky roofs and exteriors, mold, faulty and unreliable heating systems, broken elevators, poor or nonexistent site lighting” and other problems plaguing 2,413 NYCHA properties, according to a 2018 physical needs assessment. 

The plan is right for the times. NYCHA’s Blueprint for Change will anchor the city’s desperate need for affordable housing while providing thousands of good union construction and maintenance jobs to support post-covid recovery. It will include apprenticeship programs for unemployed and underemployed NYCHA residents that have been sorely lacking for years. Energy efficiency will be upgraded, reducing operating expenses while contributing to New York’s Green New Deal, and in response to covid-heightened awareness of healthcare injustice, it can include creation of medical clinics within NYCHA developments.

Unlike some other NYCHA repair proposals tenants have not trusted, this one keeps control of New York’s public housing assets with a public entity. At its heart is creation of a Public Housing Preservation Trust to receive federal funds through a program that issues Tenant Protection Vouchers. The voucher program includes many arcane details, but essentially is designed to provide market levels of rent to eligible tenants. Those amounts are far higher than NYCHA receives now based on a cap of 30 percent of tenant income. 

The purpose of Tenant Protection Vouchers is to allow people living in unacceptable public housing to afford to transition to homes that meet housing standards. NYCHA believes all 110,000 of its units not covered by other improvement plans are eligible.

The Blueprint has an important twist. NYCHA intends to pool the voucher funds received and to use the stable income stream created to support bond issues. The capital raised—six times the annual voucher revenue—will fund NYCHA’s capital improvements. In effect, the plan repurposes an existing federal program to protect individual tenants into a means of protecting 300,000.

The plan requires cooperation by the city, state, and federal governments, never an easy feat. But the city has a compelling obligation to improve the condition of NYCHA’s buildings. The state too has reason to act, and with Democrats in control of the State Legislature and the governor’s office, the politics in Albany are well-aligned. 

It is hard to imagine the Trump administration favoring a plan to help poor New Yorkers of color. Yet, NYCHA’s historic ineptitude led to appointment of a federal monitor in 2019 to ensure compliance with Department of Housing and Urban Development rules. Continued failure could force the federal government to take responsibility for NYCHA, something it does not want to do.

Moreover, at the moment, polls favor Democrats to win the White House this November, and the party is running a spirited campaign to recapture the U.S. Senate. It seems sure to hold onto the House of Representatives, so favorable federal treatment for the NYCHA Blueprint may soon become likely.

The biggest city in the greatest state in the richest country in the world has a moral obligation to produce adequate housing for every one of its residents—and where the housing market falls short, the government needs to step in. 

New York’s political class is understandably focused on elections at the moment. But the day after ballots are cast, no matter what the outcome, every elected official in New York should begin searching for a way to convert NYCHA Chair Russ’ Blueprint into an active project. The well-being of 300,000 long-suffering New Yorkers depends on it.  

***
Chris McNickle writes about New York government and politics. He is author of Bloomberg: A Billionaire’s Ambition. On Twitter @NYChrisMcNickle.

Mayor de Blasio at a ceremony (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)

This is not the time to cancel the NYC Urban Fellows Program, as the de Blasio administration appears on the verge of doing. It is a time to inspire young people to work in government. We need more opportunities for young people to work in government, not fewer. It is misguided and short-sighted to cut a program that managed to survive the 1975 fiscal crisis, and every New York City budget crisis that has followed.

The New York City Urban Fellowship is a very popular public service program that has stood the test of time – surviving and only getting stronger over 50-plus years and through seven mayoral administrations dating back to Mayor John Lindsay. It also helped give rise to the current mayor, and he shouldn’t forget that.

Much like President John F. Kennedy, Mayor Lindsay had a real knack for recruiting the best and the brightest young staff. They came to government with their passion for civic engagement, as well as energy and ambition, and they found opportunity, exhilarating hard work, and focus that many have said lasted throughout their careers.

The New York City Urban Fellows Program was one of the successful tools that was created at City Hall during the Lindsay years to channel the energy and enthusiasm “to do good” that many college graduates were expressing. The idea of the program was pretty straightforward: create a highly competitive, nine-month fellowship to introduce promising college graduates to public service. Fellows were given a wide array of choices. They could work in the Mayor’s Office or one of the many city agencies or neighborhood offices to gain hands on experience in serving New Yorkers in need of assistance. The fellowship also includes a weekly seminar where participants gather and learn about New York City government from various guest speakers including city commissioners.

As a senior at Fordham University in 1981, interested in public service but hesitant about taking the law school route, I stumbled across a flyer on a bulletin board in the Political Science Department that introduced me to the New York City Urban Fellows Program.

I was selected and went into the program with my eyes wide open, wanting to make a difference in the city where I was born, raised, and educated. It was a challenging and at times a frustrating experience. Along the way, I met lifelong friends and was inspired by mentors, many who have dedicated careers to making our city a better place.

Two years after my fellowship year, I was tapped to lead the Program.  At the time, the Koch Administration was still wrestling with the 1975 fiscal crisis. To continue the program, I worked with Deputy Mayor Ronay Menschel to secure funding support from various foundations and corporations. NYU Wagner School of Public Administration chipped in by organizing a weekly seminar series.   

For two years with the help of many alumni, we figured out a way to keep this fellowship afloat and scraped together outside funding. When the economy bounced back and with a balanced budget, Mayor Koch understood that the fellowship exemplified a great tradition of support for public service and restored city funding in 1985. Through the ups and downs over the years, the Urban Fellows Program has flourished. Mayor Bloomberg celebrated its 40th Anniversary with a festive event at Gracie Mansion with a strong core of the now more than 1,000 alumni that have had the opportunity to serve our city.

Unfortunately, the incoming class was recently told that the program will be suspended this Fall because of city budget shortfalls. It is supposed to start next week.

I understand that the fiscal picture is very bleak and requires deep and painful cuts. But it is my hope -- and the hope of a group of promising young public servants -- that Mayor Bill de Blasio quickly sees this decision as wrongheaded. This is a modest program with a big impact in recruiting and cultivating public servants as leaders. It has been instrumental in inspiring many public service careers including Mayor de Blasio, who was an Urban Fellow 36 years ago.

Especially now when our country is so divided, we need to make every effort on all levels of government to make public service appealing and improve civic engagement. Programs like the NYC Urban Fellows, inspire and bring young people from all backgrounds together. This year’s graduating class included students from Baruch, Brooklyn, Hunter, and City Colleges. There’s very good reason this program has been successful for over a half century – it works and has now been replicated in cities across the country. Let us continue and build upon this success.

***
Rob Walsh was the New York City Small Business Services Commissioner from 2002-2013 during the Bloomberg Administration. He now serves as a Senior Advisor to the Manhattan College President and is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University School of International & Public Affairs. His segment the Bottom Line for Small Business can be heard weekly on 1010 WINS Radio.

School will be either blended or all-remote (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office )

The City prudently delayed the reopening of schools this week, meaning all students will learn from home until at least September 21. Meanwhile, nearly 400,000 public school families had already opted for their children to learn fully remotely indefinitely — continuing a dramatic shift in the way we educate our kids. All of our 1.1 million public school students will rely on remote learning this school year, either entirely or significantly.  

But the learn-from-home experience for students can be very different depending on wealth and income, exposing yet another painful consequence of our city’s systemic inequality. This is also just the latest hardship endured along racial lines for families dealing with the COVID-19 crisis; people of color make up more than four-fifths of those opting for remote learning as of August 28. Many of these families cannot risk infection because of pre-existing health issues. 

And those families are also far less likely to have access to adequate technology and Internet service. Nearly half of households living in poverty do not have broadband Internet. The vast majority of those families are Black and brown. Make no mistake, unless access improves rapidly, their kids will not receive a quality education. The effects of that could permanently impair those students’ ability to succeed. 

It is the fundamental responsibility of government to protect the people it represents from harm. Part of that responsibility is guaranteeing the right to a quality education. In this new paradigm, that means the digital divide is no longer merely an example of inequality — it is an example of injustice. Just like all New Yorkers have a right to healthy food, clean water, and safe shelter, they have a right to quality information access. 

If we start with that truth, current efforts to provide broadband access, computers, and other equipment to millions of New Yorkers will have to be accelerated. That means a significant investment beyond what is already being spent. 

But government budgets are devastated because of the pandemic-created economic crisis. Even if we prioritize spending on remote learning and this sea change in education, new dollars will have to come from somewhere. 

Local Internet providers have pledged to help. But they have also been slow to close the digital gap. These utilities operate at the pleasure of New Yorkers, who grant them their franchises. Verizon pledged to wire every building with FiOS in 2008 when the City signed a provider deal. It has not. It is time to motivate Verizon with a deadline. If the company does not provide access for every public school family that needs broadband by the end of the calendar year, we should go shopping for a new provider. 

The tech companies that make laptops, phones, and tablets also need to do more. The City spent $269 million on 300,000 iPads this year. That is nearly $900 a device with three months of Internet service. In other words, we are paying near retail to buy from behemoths like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, which have seen their market value explode during this crisis. They should be ashamed and offer us much larger discounts going forward. 

Finally, tech companies like Facebook and Amazon, as well as those listed above, are making billions off of our personal data. By requiring those companies to report their sales of commercialized data, and applying a modest transaction fee, we can raise enough new revenue to ensure every New Yorker’s right to information and the means to access it. 

State Senator Andrew Gounardes and I are working on a legislative framework to do just that. Once ready, the State and City should move swiftly to approve it. 

Consider the success of our levy on the world’s previous most-lucrative commodity, oil. Gas taxes paid for an interstate highway system and much of our local infrastructure — and the cheap transportation of goods that came with it. But that was paid by consumers. This time around, let us make sure that the corporations are paying their due. 

Failure to take these steps will certainly result in lower test scores and lost potential for our children, especially the most vulnerable. Even more unforgivably, it will assure an even deeper racial and economic divide than the one we have now. School is starting. We must answer the bell.

***
Eric Adams is the Brooklyn borough president. On Twitter @BKBoroHall.

Mayor de Blasio at a community schools celebration (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)

As New York City prepares for a return to school, city leaders are once again turning to community-based organizations (CBOs) to play a central role in supporting the reopening of schools. This is understandable. CBO partnership has always been a pivotal cornerstone of success for our young people and families and it is again critical to the success of all of these reopening plans. But recent, deep financial cuts to the sector – and the potential for further cuts – makes this untenable.

The nonprofit sector's capacity has been stretched by the need to quickly build entirely new program models that prioritize the health and safety of children and staff during the coronavirus pandemic. And earlier this summer, on the evening of the last day of the city’s most controversial and volatile budget process in decades, education advocates learned at the last minute that the city’s flagship Community Schools Initiative had been cut by $9.16 million, impacting nearly 30,000 students, their families and communities.

This decision was made without the opportunity for the Council or the public to weigh in about their impact. The de Blasio administration's lack of transparency with these cuts was an egregious display of abuse of the powers of mayoral control of city schools.

New York City’s Community Schools, which provide a range of social services in the school setting, have been identified by city and state reopening councils as an intrinsic element to the school reopening plan. As the Department of Education (DOE) prepares to execute a new learning model for the upcoming school year, the Community Schools network is an integral part of the process and the chances for success. However, the DOE has yet to inform community school providers how the $9.16 million cut will impact programming and services.

Additionally, the DOE has failed to inform community school providers of the role we will play in meeting the child-care needs that will result from the blended learning model. Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo recently announced that more cuts to school aid across the state are coming, which would cut $2.4 billion from New York City schools. Last week, City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza warned that 9,000 DOE jobs will be lost and all schools would need to go remote if the state decides to make these cuts. Schools cannot afford to lose the resources and support that CBO partners bring to the schools they work in on top of this.

Throughout this pandemic, the human services sector, including Community Schools, continued to provide crucial services for the hardest-hit communities, such as meals, trauma care, and support for parents, including with their children’s remote learning. These services have been and will continue to be critical to address the learning loss and trauma New York City students and their families are facing. The mayor’s own Education Sector Advisory Council emphasized how critical services provided by Community Schools will be in the new school year.

These cuts, which caught City Council members off guard, were implemented with no input from the communities they will impact. Mayor de Blasio and the DOE have circumvented a public, transparent due process – sending a devastating message to thousands of working families, especially in communities of color that were most impacted by COVID-19.

The rate of COVID-19 deaths in the city’s communities of color and low-income zip codes is many times greater than in wealthier, whiter areas. Community Schools disrupt the oppressive patterns of systemic racism that perpetuate de-prioritization and underinvestment in economically distressed communities. They level the playing field so that all children in New York City can have a better chance to thrive and succeed.

Restoring trust with families is a key piece of reopening schools successfully, but glaringly missing from the list of engaged stakeholders are the CBOs charged with providing in-school and out-of-school services. Among them are the community school providers who have developed deep community trust and developed expertise in running a blended model of learning in the Regional Enrichment Centers the city opened during this pandemic. The mayor and DOE should consider CBOs as an equal partner and leverage the trust they have built in communities and their expertise to successfully reopen schools.

Students, families, and communities need more resources, engagement, and equitable, collaborative partnerships now more than ever. Smart and swift investments must be made to support the provision of these resources, especially in our most vulnerable communities.

The community schools strategy presents the most cost-effective and evidence-based approach to reopen New York City schools in a way that centers students’ physical, emotional, and mental safety and well-being. To cut these services at a time when they are needed the most is unconscionable.

It’s just weeks from the start of the school year, and we’re still in the dark. If reopening schools, whether in-person, remotely, or blended is a priority, the mayor and Department of Education must restore this funding now.

***
Terrence Winston is Coordinator of the Coalition for Community Schools Excellence. On Twitter @CoalitionforCo2.

Inside the State Senate chamber (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)

The New York State Senate and Assembly, both now in Democratic hands, last month gave first passage to several changes to an earlier constitutional amendment, adopted in 2014, creating a so-called Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw district lines every ten years for those two houses and the state’s Congressional districts. If passed by the Legislature again next year, and then approved by the voters, these amendments to that earlier amendment will go into effect in time to be used for the drawing of district lines in 2022. That would mean that the version approved by the voters in 2014 would never be used. Every one of the 40 Democrats in the state Senate voted for these changes. In the Assembly 91 of the 101 Democrats were in favor — while nine members, all from outside New York City, voted against. 

Truth be told, I was not a big fan when we New Yorkers voted to place the so-called Independent Redistricting Commission in the state constitution in 2014. I say “so called’ because there was nothing independent about the commission. Eight of its ten members, two each, were appointed by the majority and minority leadership of the Assembly and Senate, and the commission’s recommendations went back to the two houses for adoption. If they failed to pass, the Legislature retained the final authority to do the job itself. 

In my view, self-interested politicians should not decide on any of the conditions or rules under which they are elected or reelected. Truly fair redistricting, I thought then and think now, requires the final decision on district lines to be made by persons who meet two basic criteria: they are not seeking election in those districts and are not beholden to anyone who is. 

For decades, divided partisan control of the state Legislature produced New York’s infamous bi-partisan gerrymander. Republicans controlled drawing the lines for the Senate, Democrats for the Assembly, and then they voted for each other’s plans.  The so-called Independent Redistricting Commission amendment was a response to reformers’ pressure to do something about this. It was the appearance of action masking the absence of real change, accepted by some as “a good first step.” 

The 2020 proposed constitutional amendments if adopted will bring a welcome end to two practices long used by Republicans to retain Senate control: Increasing the number of seats in the body and counting downstaters imprisoned in GOP-dominated upstate rural areas - and not allowed to vote - as residents there, beefing up their population, and therefore their legislative representation. If the amendments pass the size of the Senate will be fixed at 63 members and the provision of a previously passed statute will be constitutionalized, to assure re-enumerat[ion] of incarcerated persons..[at] their place of last residence for the purposes of drawing district lines.”

Less savory, other changes first passed this July would undo two provisions of the original 2014 amendment designed to protect the interests of the minority parties in both houses (at that time the Republicans in the Assembly and the Democrats in the Senate). These are the alternative voting rules specified for the commission to recommend a redistricting plan, and the two houses to approve its recommendations, under alternative partisan circumstances in the Legislature.

To send a plan to the Legislature a redistricting commission now requires seven votes, including that of at least one of the two appointees of each of the four legislative leaders. (This explicitly specifies the mathematical consequence of requiring a supermajority of 7 in a group of 10 members to act, when each of four leaders appoints two commission members.) This provision protected the minority parties in each house, not always previously looked after by their co-partisans when deals were reached between the two majorities. It was also an insurance policy for the then-precarious, now-vanquished, Republican majority in the Senate. 

In the 2020 proposed amendment, just given first passage, the seven-person super-majority has been kept, but the requirement that at least one of these be chosen by each appointing authority has been removed.

The size of the majority in both houses required to pass a commission-recommended plan under the provision in place differs, based upon whether control of the legislature is divided or in one party’s hands. If divided control (the case when the original amendment was passed) a simple majority is needed in each house. If one party controlled both houses (the case now) two-thirds in each house is required. 

Then as now Assembly Democrats held more than two-thirds of the seats in that body. The Senate, however, was closely divided in 2014. This supermajority requirement potentially empowered the Senate Democrats in the redistricting process to a greater degree than before. It also preserved leverage for Republicans if they lost control of the Senate, as then appeared inevitable and has, of course, since occurred. 

Finally, what if deadlock occurred in the commission? (Not an unlikely eventuality, if experience is any guide.) The commission was then to send its most supported option or options to the Legislature, where an affirmative vote of 60% in each house would be needed to pass one of these plans, or an alternative.  

The changes passed this year make the required majority 60%, both if the two houses of the Legislature are in the hands of a single party or the commission is deadlocked. They also make it explicit that, absent a commission recommendation, the Legislature may adopt a plan of its own devising.

Democrats now hold 40 of 63 Senate seats (63.5%), enough to control the outcome of redistricting under the new revisions in all partisan circumstances, but not enough if there is deadlock on the commission under the unrevised rules. Hence, assuming they can retain this size majority this November, or grow it, and the proposed constitutional amendments gain the required second passage and voter approval, redistricting next year and the year after will be more firmly in the hands of the Democratic majorities in both houses. 

The complexity is admittedly a bit mind-boggling, but it comes down to this: The Democratic majority members in the state Legislature – many of whom are self-declared champions of political reform – want to alter a constitutional provision passed to achieve independent legislative districting before it has ever been used, giving themselves greater control of the process. Ironically, the untested provision itself almost certainly achieved only the illusion of reform. Also ironic, given New York’s politics and demographics, there is no chance that districts can be created that will place Democratic control of both houses at risk in the years ahead. With their current ample majorities, Assembly and Senate Democrats could advance real independence in drawing district lines for themselves and for Congress with little or no political risk. But instead they have chosen to preserve the illusion of reform, while further empowering themselves to act in their own self-interest. Maybe Plunkett of Tammany Hall was right after all: “Reformers are only morning glories,” at least on some mornings in July.

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

Time to crack down on zoning fraud, the author argues (photo: mayor's office)

Most of the world now knows the Kushner name for the widespread political corruption of the Trump administration, but the family company has been ripping off New Yorkers for years. How did a slumlord developer get all the way to the White House? 

Fittingly the answer lies with the President’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who paved the way as Mayor of New York City by shifting enforcement of vital building regulations to an honor system. But an honor system only works when there are true consequences for violating it. Enforcement has been tepid at best, emboldening bad actors to falsify plans to build structures that violate zoning and other building codes with impunity, thereby lining their pockets with millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. The solution is to stop defaulting to civil regulation and start criminally investigating professionals and entities who file false statements. 

The problem stems from the unpoliced self-certification program.

Given the fast pace of development, the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) doesn’t review every plan, and regulators don’t necessarily have the bandwidth to scour for falsehoods. Under Giuliani, the city expanded the abilities of licensed architects and engineers to attest to the DOB and other relevant agencies that a project complies with the law. The thinking was that these design professionals were licensed by the city and state and therefore could be trusted to always tell the truth. This ignored the obvious conflict; their livelihoods were dependent on the very developers who stood to profit from violating zoning protections.

On the rare occasion that authorities find a false statement, the punishment is a lowly fine, like the $210,000 in the Kushner case, even though under New York law it’s a felony to submit false paperwork and each false document carries a term of imprisonment of up to four years. The complete lack of oversight allowed the Kushners to harass and eventually chase out long-time tenants from the East Village and the Lower East Side to make way for wealthy, market-rate tenants. 

As the former head of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Construction Fraud Taskforce, I’ve fought rampant, unchecked self-certification. More than a decade ago, it was key to convicting executives who falsified the concrete strength of iconic New York City landmarks like the World Trade Center, Yankee Stadium, and Second Avenue Subway. More recent examples include 1059 Third Avenue and 249 East 62nd Street, aka the “condo on stilts.” At 62nd Street, the building’s mechanical void — unoccupied floor spaces usually created to help structural integrity — raised concerns about the added height and sturdiness of the building. Turns out that the architect had filed one set of plans with the fire department, and another with DOB. And after community groups and the Manhattan Borough President complained about irregularities with the mega-project on Third Avenue, which exposed similar false claims, the developers changed the plans. That’s good, but it’s not enough. It shouldn’t be up to ordinary New Yorkers to enforce our laws, that’s the role of the District Attorney.

We need a strong city with good housing, schools, hospitals, and public spaces — not just shaky glass towers filled with pied-à-terres. Developers have long competed in a race to the top by shirking necessary regulations. It’s time for prosecutors to finally pay attention to the fraud building up in front of their faces and that is killing the economic prosperity of our residents and the city. Without consistent criminal enforcement fraud will continue to be a risk worth taking.

***
Diana Florence is a candidate for Manhattan District Attorney and the former head of the Manhattan DA’s Construction Fraud Task Force. On Twitter @DianaJFlorence.

New York City Hall (photo: mayor's office)

There is no question that today’s young people demand more from those in power and seek to correct broken systems. The recent wave of protests, petitions, and activism following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans at the hands of the police brought front and center a change-making generation that refuses to stay silent against horrific injustices. We are outraged and reacting in the most effective ways we know how.

Our efforts have made many strides: catalyzing policing reforms, toppling Confederate statues, and thrusting accountability onto lawmakers to make our cities better. As our frustrations in this nation have grown, and as I reflect on my own family experiences, I want to encourage more young people to pursue careers in government.

My grandmother would often tell me the story about how her father rebelled against a cruel British overseer in then-colonial British Guiana. She described my great-grandfather’s courage and commitment to change that resulted in him being evicted from his home and blacklisted from work in neighboring villages. My grandmother, on the other hand, honored her father’s legacy of rebellion in a different way. What she did, and her recommendation for visionary young people who wish to effect change in their society, was to join the civil service. 

As I’ve learned from my family and come to believe for myself, change can truly be made from within. The Guyanese people did not get real justice in the country they built until a wave of young Guyanese citizens, like my grandmother, joined the civil service and ultimately effected policy that dismantled the country’s slavery-akin labor laws. The same will be true in the United States. More forward-thinking young people working in and leading the public sector will lead to more effective change -- but we must be determined to make this reality.

That’s the work I have set out to do, while encouraging other members of my generation to join me. I’m currently a student at the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education/CUNY School of Medicine. Last November, I won the Paul A. Volcker Careers in Government Essay Contest, a competition led by the Volcker Alliance aimed at encouraging students to pursue careers in public service. For the past three years, I’ve worked part-time at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Witnessing the impact of the work I’ve done in New York City local government, even as a college student, has reinforced my commitment to public service. Government can be judged based on how it mobilizes for the most vulnerable and how it reacts to crises. Now more than ever, our country deserves effective leadership. 

The good news is that we have a generation of young people that can bring a wealth of knowledge and influence to the public sector. We are technologically-savvy. We are curious and inquisitive. We are respectful of cultural differences and tolerant of divergent viewpoints. We are resilient. We are advocates. We are many colors. Change cannot happen until public leadership reflects the people it serves. 

I urge you to consider pursuing a career in government. Helpful tips I’ve learned along the way that can help you get started include:

• Find a cause that you are passionate about.
• Research your cause, keeping in mind there is likely a public sector job related to this cause that will help you advance change.
• Search for government internships and jobs around your college and online, and/or join organizations that support those interests.
• Advocate and protest on as many fronts as you can.   

In New York City, you can search for positions in city government by area of interest.  If you want to look far and wide, check out governmentjobs.com to see opportunities all across the country at once. If you’re trying to discern whether government is the right fit for you, another great option is paid fellowship programs like the Presidential Management Fellowship in federal service, Govern for America with states, Lead for America with underserved localities, or Coding it Forward for tech workers. You don’t have to be a policy or government major. The expertise that the government needs is wide-ranging.

As my frustrations with those in power have grown, I’ve reflected on the words of fellow Caribbean-American and personal hero, the late Congressional Rep. Shirley Chisholm, who once said, “You don’t make progress by standing on the sidelines…You make progress by implementing ideas.” As we all strive to embody the change that we seek, I believe that we can all be inspired by the lessons from my grandmother, from Rep. Chisholm, and from many others to utilize our defiance and take our abilities to the highest levels of impact through work in the public sector.

Join me. 

***
Arslan Mohamed is a student at the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education/CUNY School of Medicine and winner of the 2019 Paul A. Volcker Careers in Government Essay Contest.

The Mayor and Chancellor visit a school (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)

Deciding if and how we reopen schools this fall has been incredibly difficult and complex for city leaders. Keeping students, teachers, and support staff safe is of paramount importance in any reopening plan — but access to the resources and support that in-person instruction provides is a lifeline for many students.

Only a few weeks out from the first day of classes, it is clear our city is not equipped to safely bring 1.1 million students back to school. For the immigrant populations and communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by this pandemic, the weight of this decision is even heavier, and the consequences of any decision will no doubt fall harder on the most vulnerable among us.

This is a hard decision for everyone involved. But without a concrete plan to protect educators, school staff, students, and their families, Mayor de Blasio and the Department of Education must delay in-person learning. 

Since the beginning of this pandemic, immigrant communities in our city have felt the full force of its destruction. Nearly one in five of the essential workers staffing New York City’s grocery stores, social services organizations, and other frontline businesses are non-citizens and more than half are foreign born. Half of the city’s working class immigrants lost their jobs due to the pandemic, but undocumented immigrants can’t take advantage of rent subsidies or food stamps and did not receive a federal stimulus check. Health disparities that existed far before the pandemic have been exacerbated, with Black and Latino New Yorkers dying from the virus at about twice the rate of white New Yorkers.

Any decision about schools reopening needs to take into account how vulnerable these populations have already been to COVID-19 and place their needs front and center. Like many immigrant families, when I came to this country at age 12, I lived in a multi-generational home with my parents and grandmother. For our families, sending kids to school not only puts them and their parents at risk, but makes it harder to protect our senior population, especially those with pre-existing conditions. I came here without even knowing the alphabet, and it was through the support of my grandmother and teachers at my New York City public schools that I learned English and succeeded in the classroom.

If our schools don’t reopen for in-person learning, there are a number of challenges we still need to address. Many students lack internet access, live in crowded apartments, or are English language learners who need in-person support. Any remote learning or hybrid reopening model must ensure that immigrants and students of color have full access to the resources and technology they need to succeed in an online setting and address the ongoing child care crisis that has left parents with an impossible set of choices. The city must continue providing free child care for essential workers and any other parents who need assistance throughout this pandemic.

Most importantly, it is critical that the Department of Education and city officials keep an open line of communication with parents and students, ensuring that immigrant families have access to resources and guidance in the languages they are most comfortable with. The DOE should follow guidance from the New York Immigration Coalition Education Collaborative, which put forward a comprehensive communications plan that prioritizes reaching immigrant families, those with limited English proficiency, and parents who have low digital literacy. The DOE needs to reach these families where they are, and quickly.

Educators and workers have told us that schools can be reopened safely, but they will require adequate funding for PPE, cleaning supplies, and proper ventilation. So far, the Department of Education has not shared detailed plans or resource commitments. Little to no information about the proposed child care program that thousands of parents will depend on has been released. Just weeks before classes start, the Mayor announced that schools can include outdoor classrooms and should plan accordingly, but provided no road map. It’s clear that the DOE still does not have a clear plan, and teachers and parents are operating in the dark.

There is far too much at risk — especially for immigrants and communities of color who have already suffered so much — for the nation’s largest school district to make such a monumental decision without being fully prepared. Until we have a real plan in place, we must delay in-person learning and focus on ensuring that remote learning is as effective as possible, for all communities.