Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

Vision 2022: An Open Letter to New York City Council Members


Gale Brewer gov event

Gale Brewer, the author (photo:  (Kevin P. Coughlin / Office of the Governor)


As New York City faces the continuing challenges of COVID-19 and new opportunities, the next Speaker of the City Council will need to have the experience, relationships, and know-how to make government work for Council Members and their constituents.

Traditionally, the New York City Council has functioned in a top-down decision-making process. As Speaker, I'll lead a more member-driven body that empowers Council Members to vote their conscience.

I know that from my own experience on the Council, individual members are not always properly supported. That’s a primary reason why I'm running to be Speaker. I'll make sure that Council Members have more budget to hire talented staff, are assisted with expenses such as renting a district office (with funds that are separate from personnel budget), and that there are no favorites or needless intrigue with the Council's central staff on issues related to land use, the city budget, and bill drafting.

Should you elect me as your Speaker, I will leverage the significant political capital and goodwill that I have earned over decades of public service. I will collaborate using my working relationships with key leaders and partners in government, the nonprofit sector, and business to position you to succeed in delivering tangible improvement in the lives of your constituents.

As we enter 2022 with an extraordinarily diverse Council, the most diverse in history, we need to make sure that all of our borough delegations, caucus groups, and constituencies are represented in leadership and that they chair significant committees. I would consider broadening the leadership and enhancing the role of the committees to ensure that they are more productive. We need more voices at the table.

My track record, including eight years as Manhattan Borough President and 12 years on the City Council, has proven that I know how to lead in a collaborative way by being receptive to the ideas and needs of my colleagues, labor unions, advocates, and everyday New Yorkers.

That’s how we tackled discrimination in hiring by passing the Fair Chance Act, how we successfully took on big business by winning paid sick leave for hourly workers, and how we improved data-sharing in government by passing the Open Data Bill. As Borough President, I strengthened the Manhattan Community Boards by mirroring the demographics of the Community Boards to the districts and, through training, professionalized the work of both the staff and the members. These improvements proved essential as my office and the Community Boards faced and completed 200 ULURPs in the last eight years.

There are many good people running for Speaker, but I believe that I am better prepared to make city government work more efficiently and with greater benefit for all New Yorkers.

As many of you already know, I am low-key. I do not seek the spotlight. I speak my mind, I open my own doors, I carry my own bags and I order my own coffee — no sugar, with half-and-half. My focus will be an open and responsive speakership that delivers results for members. I have no plan or intention to use this position as a stepping-stone, and thus will have no ulterior agenda in my speakership in the kinds of decisions we as a body undertake.

Throughout my career, I have been passionate about cultivating and mentoring the next generation of leaders, including thousands of interns, students at CUNY — where I teach, including current and former staff, some of whom serve or have served at the highest levels of government. If elected Speaker, I commit to serving in the role for only four years, so colleagues will have the opportunity to bring their own perspectives to the Speaker position.

I have long-believed that strong, collaborative leadership within the Council enables it to work productively with and independently from the Mayor. Remember (a tidbit I like to tell my students), the State Constitution requires municipalities to have a legislative body; not a mayor. The Council is supposed to set the policy. The Council must be a strong, independent branch of government – a co-equal branch – but being strong does not mean that the Council and Mayor can’t work together.

Policy and budget proposals must be analyzed by the Council, and the Council should be an oversight body while partnering with the Administration to better serve the needs of every New Yorker. That is why I am hopeful and excited to partner with my fellow Council Members to make New York City, the greatest city on this planet, even greater than before.

Thank you for your leadership and partnership.

Gale A. Brewer
Candidate for New York City Council Speaker
Council Member-elect (D-6th Council District)
27th Manhattan Borough President

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Apocalypse Now: Can Eric Adams End the Helicopter Onslaught?


jmm apoc

Central Park, from doors-off helicopter flight (photo: Julia Vitullo-Martin, the author)


Thanksgiving! “One of NYC’s most beloved days of the year,” announces notorious doors-off helicopter company, FLYNYON, advertising its $489 seats over Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer immediately responded by contacting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the NYPD “for answers. Both say it’s handled. Yet the website continues to advertise these tix.”

New York has only one path out of the helicopter mess we’re in and that’s via our next mayor, Eric Adams. He has declared war on lawlessness of all kinds—and we need him to launch a war on the lawless skies over New York.

Despite a 2010 ban by the New York City Economic Development Corporation on helicopter tour flights over Central Park, the Empire State Building, Governors Island, and Brooklyn, a prohibition on all Sunday tour flights, and a 2018 ban on doors-off tour flights, flights over scenic areas continue and complaints are higher than ever. Central Park itself seems to endure a near-constant buzz on weekends—150 flights on Sundays, said the New York Times. 

The problem is that much of the worst behavior originates out of town. FLYNYON, which chartered the helicopter that crashed into the East River in 2018, killing five young sightseers, originates in Kearny, NJ. Other tour companies fly from several other New Jersey cities, Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut, and points farther away. New York cannot directly regulate flights coming  elsewhere since the FAA oversees the American National Airspace System, preempting local rules.

While Mayor de Blasio has said he opposes “non-essential” helicopter flights, he has taken no action. Can Adams be effective where de Blasio has failed? Adams will have two important advantages. First, he’s one of the most attractive new Democrats nationally, and will be able to get an audience in Washington. Second, he will have a powerful bi-state anti-helicopter coalition behind him of 35 elected officials plus private groups, already formed by Brewer.

She summarized the problem neatly in a letter to federal Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Environmental Protection Administrator Michael Regan: “Helicopters are hovering over our homes and public spaces, flying in between tall buildings and tormenting our residents with incessant noise. These aircrafts operate over our cities, towns, and boroughs night and day, often without regard for public safety or quality of life.”

Under its freedom-to-fly principle the FAA promotes the aviation industry, in order to “keep air travel moving freely and safely.” To the FAA the skies are a highway, skyway is the FAA term, that should be open to all, just as highways are open to all. But just as Americans are now re-thinking highway and road policies, we should be re-thinking skyway policies. Congressional Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, and Nydia Velazquez have introduced the Improving Helicopter Safety Act to ban non-essential flights.

Lawless Skies
“New York is just one giant landing field,” contended an anonymous Twitter account, encapsulating New York’s current situation after a pilot landed his helicopter in a vacant lot in Brooklyn, picked up two passengers, and flew off to Lakewood, New Jersey, pursued by an NYPD helicopter. On landing, the pilot had a “cordial” conversation with the NYPD officers, said Kevin McKenzie, the on-site manager at Lakewood Municipal Airport. No arrest. No legal ramifications. The NYPD referred the Daily Mail to the FAA, which is reportedly investigating the incident.

As if this wasn’t enough, @BanTheHellies, a ferocious anti-tour-heli account, tracked pilot Ilan Nahoom touring the harbor after the Brooklyn pick-up, circling the Statue of Liberty at 100 feet, then climbing rapidly to 600 feet, barely clearing the Verrazano Bridge. All illegal, but not a peep out of the NYPD.

Meanwhile, even as New Yorkers made 17,733 calls to the city’s own 311 portal about helicopter noise through the end of September of this year—triple last year’s—311 has since given up on accepting more, because “much of the airspace over New York City is uncontrolled.” Tour helicopters fly pretty much at will under the FAA’s Visual Flight Rules.

Corporate and commuter helicopters heed directions from the airport towers. A major reason that New York City is tortured by ever louder, lower-flying, aggressive helicopters is that the towers direct pilots to fly low to avoid jets, which also themselves seem to be flying low these days, often at 3,000 feet and under, according to FlightRadar.

Commuter Flights
Ponder the map below of the FAA flight routes for the metropolitan area: The primary southern route from JFK across New York to Newark—Brooklyn—is labeled the Park Route because it crosses Prospect Park as well as the Brooklyn Botanic Garden at its northeastern corner. And while the directions on the map clearly urge pilots to “fly neighborly” and to request heights of 2,000 feet, nearly all helicopters fly well below 1,500 feet, often at 900-1,100 feet. At this height, the heavy Sikorskis and Bells used for corporate commutation are deafeningly loud, “ruining our places of refuge,” tweeted Adrian Benepe, president and CEO of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden.

FAA

The northern route from the airports or the Hamptons (or when flying from New Jersey’s Teterboro or Caldwell) directs helicopters to New York’s other sacred park, Central. I keep FlightRadar open on my computer and have seldom seen a corporate or commuter flight above 1,200 feet. I know to look because the commuter flights roar low and loud through the skies above my building.

Rob Wiesenthal, CEO of Blade Urban Air Mobility, which schedules flights to the airports, the Hamptons, and many other destinations, says of flying into New York’s Class Bravo airspace, “the airport will advise the pilot where to enter the airspace as well as the route and altitude they are to fly. Often they will prescribe you to fly the tracks route, which crosses parts of Brooklyn.” The tracks are the parks.

This is an important aspect of what makes the commuter flights so objectionable: as currently routed, commuter flights inevitably disturb the peace of untold numbers of New Yorkers. As Brooklyn Botanic Garden CEO Adrian Benepe says, “Noise is 80% of the problem.”

Wiesenthal argues that it should be possible to confer with the FAA and airport towers to ease the situation. “We need to help our operators obtain permission to use routes that fly over fewer residences and at altitudes that reduce the level of sound that can be heard on the ground. We’re hopeful that Mayor Adams and his team can help us collaborate with key regulators such as the FAA and the local air traffic control to minimize the sound impact of aircraft in Brooklyn.”

And not just Brooklyn, I would add, but all of New York. Can Mayor Adams intervene? He’s not the kind of leader to accept an ongoing, permanent assault on his city.

It’s worth remembering that despite the territoriality of federal agencies and the egregiousness of federal judicial decisions declaring New York City powerless, anti-helicopter activism has had important victories over the last few years. Led by all-volunteer Stop the Chop, advocates in 2021 convinced New York’s tourist office, NYC & Company, to stop promoting helicopter flights. In 2016 activists helped negotiate a 50% reduction in tourist flights from the Downtown Manhattan Heliport, from 60,000 to 30,000, and eliminated all tourist flights on Sundays. The Downtown Manhattan Heliport has been a good citizen ever since. Activists in the Hamptons in 2012 forced a re-routing of helicopters to a water route along the North Shore.

But fundamental change will require federal action because, as District Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote overturning local helicopter regulations in National Helicopter Corp. v City of New York in 1997, Congress expressly preempted any state laws which relate to the "price, route, or service of an air carrier." But New York has a large, strong congressional delegation that has come to its aid in the past. All New York needs, argues Manhattan Institute senior fellow Nicole Gelinas, “is a congressional amendment to restrict the airspace in certain areas to emergency helicopters. Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have gotten it done; in the Senate, he once amended the Clean Air Act to outlaw tolls on the Brooklyn Bridge. If the city’s politicians can’t convince New York senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader, to restrict the airspace above Central Park and other theoretically quiet urban oases, it’s because they’re unwilling, not unable.”

If ever New York had a mayor capable of negotiating from a position of strength on its behalf it’s incoming Mayor Adams. He’s clearly up to the task. New Yorkers just have to convince him to act on behalf of our parks, waterfronts, and landmarks.

***
Julia Vitullo-Martin is a long-time editor and writer on cities. On Twitter @JuliaManhattan.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Mayor Must Veto Bill Passed by City Council That Will Only Make AI Bias Worse


tech workers appnexus

Technology at hand (photo: Edwin J. Torres/ Mayoral Photo Office)


For years, people have worried that one day robots would replace all of our jobs, but today, they already can decide if you get one. And even worse, they’re racist. That’s the dystopian reality of artificial intelligence tools screening job applicants, automating and amplifying racism and sexism. Racism runs rampant in human hiring, but AI is even worse. And thanks to a bill that the New York City Council just passed, the robots are likely here to stay. If signed or allowed to age into law, the legislation would give the green light to employers who use these biased tools and the tech companies that make millions by selling them.

In 2014, Amazon developed a new AI-powered tool to cut costs. But the system amplified Amazon’s own past bias, selecting men for technical roles and promotions. Candidates who went to women’s colleges were penalized because existing employees hadn’t attended those schools. Amazon was an early example, but it’s far from the only one. 

Globally, 55% of companies use AI hiring and evaluation software. Chances are that AI has reviewed your own applications, and you never even knew it. This civil rights catastrophe is what drove the City Council to take recent action, passing a new AI hiring bill. Sadly, the passed bill, if it becomes law by mayoral signature or inaction, is going to make things worse…a lot worse.

Months ago, advocates warned that the Council’s proposal was too weak to stop the tech companies selling racist and sexist technology. So the Council amended the bill, but made it even weaker. The result is civil rights in name only, a toothless requirement for companies to “audit” their algorithms without any enforcement to actually make sure they comply.

Algorithmic audits aren’t like the financial audits companies typically go through. Part of the reason is that the field is so new. Mandating an algorithmic audit today would have been like requiring financial audits before developing modern accounting rules. It can tell us a lot, or it can’t tell us almost nothing, and the choice is completely up to the auditor.

Even worse, on the rare occasion a company fails this weak audit, finding that software has “disparate impact”,  there are no consequences. The auditor only must make a “summary” of the audit available to the public. But AI is all in the details. A summary isn’t going to tell us what we need to analyze these tools for ourselves. The only way to understand AI is to look at every aspect of how it works, starting with the data used to train an algorithm, and continuing through every ramification of how the software is used in practice.

And what happens if a company ignores the audit requirements completely? Almost nothing. Rather than letting those who AI harms have their day in court, the law places the burden of enforcing all of this in the hands of the New York City Commission on Human Rights. The venerable agency does tremendous work for New Yorkers, but its staff was clear to the City Council that it doesn’t have the capacity to take on this new work. Rather than listening to the agency and advocates and letting workers sue companies that use biased AI, the Council kept enforcement with the Commission and avoided the possibility of real accountability.

The city should be blocking discriminatory software, not supporting it. But we are doing just that by allowing corporations to claim their discriminatory products earned our stamp of approval. Rather than blocking discrimination, this weak measure will encourage more companies to use biased AI. Vendors will tell companies that as long as they comply with these weak new rules, they’ll be safe to automate with AI. New York has the chance to become a leader in digital rights, but if it becomes law this bill will make us a leader in supporting discriminatory tech. 

We should applaud the City Council for acting on discriminatory AI, but this bill would worsen the problem. Any law that does not require deep transparency, implements a categorical ban on biased systems, and provides a private right of action will only allow terrible technology to automate racism and sexism into the fabric of New York City.

Mayor de Blasio must veto this bill and ask the Council to submit one that includes stronger protections. 

If this mayor and City Council refuse to act against the tech lobby, it will be up to their successors next year. Our current mayor may have one foot out the door, but biased AI is here to stay.

***
Albert Fox Cahn is the founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), a New York-based civil rights and privacy group, and a visiting fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project. Evan Enzer is a D.A.T.A. Law Fellow at S.T.O.P. and a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. On Twitter @FoxCahn & @EvanEnzer.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Mayor Adams: Show New York You Care About Animal Rights


bp adams presser

Eric Adams at a dog run (photo: Eric Adams Flickr)


The election is finally over, and Eric Adams will be New York City’s next mayor, winning handily with 66% of the vote before the counting of absentee ballots. Sadly, the excellent animal issues platform put forth by the Republican/Independent candidate, Curtis Sliwa, might well be forgotten.

For the most part, the media ignored it – including at the two televised debates, with only one animal issue question, “will you ban horse-drawn carriages?” but no discussion. It was easier to mock Sliwa and his wife for the many cats they have rescued than to ask thoughtful questions about his ideas.

It is hoped that Mayor Adams will consider these progressive proposals and act on them – because both the animal shelter and horse-carriage issues have gone on for far too long without a solution and with our elected representatives turning a blind eye.

Adams has said he is “open to further discussion about prohibiting the operation of horse-drawn carriages.” His support for animal issues actually goes back many years and includes pets in housing, support of the Foie Gras ban, opposition to geese slaughter, and his trademark plant-based diet.

Through the Bureau of Veterinary and Pest Control Services, animal issues are still under the domain of the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), whose mission is to protect and promote the health of New Yorkers – people, not animals. And with a name like that, it’s no surprise.

The idea for a Department of Animal Welfare goes back to 1997 when the Shelter Reform Action Committee, of which I was co-chair, worked on a ballot initiative to create a separate Department of Animal Affairs, with its own Commissioner. It failed, largely due to then-Mayor Giuliani’s opposition. But what was true then, 24 years ago, is just as true today. Animals need their own representatives without this built-in conflict of interest.

The issues that need to be addressed include the animal shelter system, whose problems have been exposed in the media many times over the years and in an audit by the City Comptroller released September 15, 2020. But as Nathan Winograd says in his blog, NYC Audit Shows Continued Animal Neglect, some issues have never been properly addressed, such as the killing of thousands of healthy, adoptable animals each year; unsanitary conditions; inadequate adoption efforts; and poor leadership.

But instead of a complete overhaul with public input, DOHMH awarded Animal Care and Control (ACC), the quasi-governmental shelter system, with a 34-year contract worth over $1 billion after a badly-publicized hearing that drew the ire of activists saying it would limit competition and innovation — and of at least one City Council member, Robert Holden. How and why did that happen? Almost two years later, more Council members — Holden, Alicka Ampry-Samuels, Inez Barron, and Speaker Corey Johnson — spoke out demanding an investigation into the ACC after a New York Post expose.

Sliwa’s signature issue was to make the city’s animal shelter system No Kill – something other cities have done successfully. Not an easy feat but despite their claims, the ACC has failed to institute the proven policies and programs necessary to become truly No Kill, which means not killing healthy and treatable animals; accessible spay/neuter services; public/humane education and increased, responsible adoptions.  

The other ongoing issue that continues to plague this city is the horse-drawn carriage business and the desire by many to shut it down for public safety and humane reasons. The Committee for Responsible and Compassionate Tourism has explored this issue, including a fact-finding trip to Guadalajara, Mexico, the first city to transition to electric horseless carriages.

They’ve suggested phasing out horse carriages and replacing them with electric carriages, which will preserve jobs and provide more income for drivers since they will not be limited by weather restrictions that apply to the horses. Horses would be placed in responsible and caring homes. Since 2017, a growing number of cities around the globe are using electric horseless carriages with great success, with the town of Alcudia in Majorca being the latest, with the association of horse-carriage drivers actually proposing this idea to the administration.    

It is not a matter of whether the drivers love or treat their horses well. It is, instead, about the environment in which these horses are forced to work – the heavy traffic, congestion, cramped stalls, lack of turn-out to pasture – but mostly a horse’s nervous and sensitive nature, which can cause them to spook and bolt, and at 1,500 to 2,000 pounds cause serious injury or death to themselves or innocent passersby. 

New York City is the largest city in the country, of course, and it is irresponsible and a threat to public safety to continue to allow horse carriages to operate here.

Something must give on these difficult and challenging issues. There are solutions and it is hoped that Mayor Adams, a vegan who has acted positively on other animal issues, will answer this call. Animals have no voice of their own, and it is up to those who care to speak for them.

The way New York City eventually handles these issues in the new administration will be a mark of our collective character and capacity for decency, ethics, morality, and empathy. I truly hope we succeed.

***
Elizabeth Forel is co-founder, Committee for Responsible & Compassionate Tourism. On Twitter @CompassionNYC.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Rediscovering the Power of Unions


2 unite here com

Labor movement (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


It was called “Striketober.” While politicians in Washington bickered over infrastructure, jobs, and the social safety net, unionized workers across the heartland went on strike to get their fair share directly.

At one point in October, over 90,000 unionized workers issued strike authorizations — including 10,000 John Deere United Auto Workers (UAW) members, 37,000 nurses and other health care workers at Kaiser Permanente, and 60,000 film and television workers organized with  International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE).

That trend has continued into November, as John Deere workers in Iowa, Kansas, and Illinois recently rejected the latest contract proposal from management and are continuing their strike.

From hospital staff in West Virginia, steelworkers in Ohio, and educators in Pennsylvania, workers are rising up against poverty wages, long hours, and dangerous working conditions.

In total, over 22,000 workers across the country are currently on strike. This includes over 3,000 student workers at Columbia University — currently the second largest strike in the country. Columbia, with its $14 billion endowment, is threatening to alter its pay schedule for student workers while docking wages and stipends for those on strike.

Decades ago, when unions were strong, it wasn’t uncommon to see millions of workers on strike each year. While New York has one of the highest rates of union membership in the country at 22%, union membership has rapidly declined over the last few decades there and beyond, from a peak of over 33% of American workers in 1944 to just under 11% in 2020.

And as unions weakened, inequality skyrocketed. The share of income going to the top one percent of Americans has doubled from 11% in the 1940s to over 22% today. It is this pervasive inequality that is driving tens of thousands of U.S. workers to strike.

At John Deere, workers have expressed growing frustration over proposals from management to slash pensions and wage increases while the company has enjoyed record-breaking profits. John Deere is projected to rake in up to $5.9 billion this year, far exceeding its previous high of $3.5 billion in 2013.

Meanwhile, CEO John May gave himself a 160% raise — and shareholders a 17% raise on dividends. As one worker described it, “We are the last thing they think about.”

President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, while reduced in scope due to powerful corporate Democrats wielding their influence, includes a number of policies to strengthen worker protections and hold corporations accountable.

One provision in particular, lifted directly from the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, would fine employers $50,000 to $100,000 for each violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The bill would also invest over $2 billion in enforcement of workers’ rights, helping government officials more effectively protect workers by investigating and enforcing labor laws.

That would be a big victory. Better wages, health care, paid leave, and real curbs on inequality may always face headwinds in Washington. But as workers across the country are rediscovering, a strong union can win those things directly.

***
Rebekah Entralgo is the managing editor of Inequality.org at the Institute for Policy Studies. On Twitter @rebekahentralgo@inequalityorg.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

How The Sackler Opioid Settlement Can Help Address Rising Substance Use in New York


fl0cmcmvist

Clean needles (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayoral Photo Office)


This past summer, local headlines blared about disorder and debauchery in Washington Square Park, raising alarms about drug use, homelessness, and rowdy youth. The city imposed a curfew, conflict and unrest took center stage, and the heart of the highly-visible social and human challenges were largely overlooked and overshadowed. 

But from that discord emerged a striking model that has shown promising results at Washington Square Park, and that should be funded and replicated at similar known “hot spots” around our city.

The work was initiated by the Manhattan Borough President’s Office, and brought together a coalition of over a dozen local nonprofits – with experience in treating substance use disorder, homeless outreach, and public health. The group formed an informal “Social Service Working Group” that quickly expanded to include representatives for every local elected official, Community Board 2, and the city Departments of Parks, Social Services, and Health.

The group reflected on historic patterns and new challenges brought on by COVID-19, the ongoing opioid crisis, and more. Options were shared, plans developed, and a coordinated approach began to focus on harm reduction and the human toll these local and national crises have exacerbated.

Over the past six months, and without any dedicated funding streams, the organizations were able to deploy social workers and certified peer specialists for outreach several times a day, seven days a week. The teams engaged individuals experiencing substance use disorder, mental illness, and homelessness, helping connect them to harm reduction services, treatments, and shelter options.

The collective efforts have already made thousands of one-on-one contacts resulting in hundreds of New Yorkers receiving supports as they struggle with some of our society’s most stubborn social issues: poverty, addiction, and mental illness. 

As promising as the effort has been, the work is unsustainable without additional funding to extend services into next spring and beyond. And sadly, the stressors of the times are not restricted to one park in the Village. We know that historically there are several public spaces across Manhattan and every borough in our city that see concentrated human and social service needs. Areas around Penn Station and the 125th Street corridor have concerned public- and private-sector stakeholders for years. But as the Washington Square Park coalition has proven, we can address these multi-layered challenges if we can find the resources to truly advance change. 

The good news is that New York State is about to see a windfall of cash from the Sackler opioid settlement. According to Attorney General Letitia James, the State is now in possession of $1.5 billion that will be spent in local communities. It is absolutely critical that we do not waste this money and that we use it to strategically address issues of addiction on our streets.

In the long-term that means public and private investments in affordable housing, supportive housing, detox beds; and in the short-term that means investments in behavioral health programs, mental health professionals, and targeted preventative and intervention services. We have both a moral, and strategic obligation to do so, and we now also have the resources. Let’s not squander the opportunity

***
Gale A. Brewer is Manhattan Borough President. Darren Bloch is CEO of the nonprofit Greenwich House. On Twitter @galeabrewer & @darrenbloch.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The City Council Should Vote Yes on the Blood Center Project


blood center east manhattan

Blood Center project rendering (image: Ennead)


As current and future leaders of four of New York City’s five boroughs, we strongly urge the full City Council to vote “yes” at the upcoming meeting, Tuesday, November 23, on the New York Blood Center’s proposal to modernize and expand its antiquated Upper East Side building to secure the future of a nonprofit that is essential to hospitals across the city and position our city as a global public health capital.

For projects of citywide importance like the Blood Center’s, we must balance the needs of the larger city with the important local concerns of the community. We believe the proposal approved by the City Council Land Use Committee last week does strike that balance, with millions of dollars to support local institutions and a building height reduction of more than 100 feet for a facility that supports safe, affordable blood for New Yorkers and lifesaving research.

The Blood Center provides over 90% of New York City’s blood supply and nearly 100% of the supply for NYC Health + Hospitals. Before the Blood Center was in place, more than 100 institutions operated in an unreliable environment providing blood at varying levels of safety, availability, and affordability. Today, our city needs the Blood Center more than ever as the United States grapples with a severe national blood shortage exacerbated by the pandemic. 

The Blood Center also leads pioneering research in support of cures for blood-related diseases like HIV, Hep C, and sickle cell that impact tens of thousands of New Yorkers. It’s internationally recognized research results in over 150 publications per year in prestigious journals, tens of millions in National Institute of Health funds per year, and broad support from New York City universities and researchers who have submitted 25 letters of support for its proposal. 

After a pandemic that laid bare the urgency for biomedical research, Center East would strengthen New York City’s pandemic-response infrastructure with space for biotech companies and research institutions to accelerate medical research. The Blood Center already makes our city more resilient to pandemics with research that has supported the development of vaccines and treatments for diseases like SARS, ZIKA and most recently COVID-19. 

The project not only secures critical health resources for hospitals across the city but creates thousands of union construction jobs and would break down barriers to life science careers for traditionally underrepresented groups in the industry including Black and Latino New Yorkers. The Blood Center is working with local institutions including the City University of New York (CUNY) to create new academic programs to provide a direct pipeline into the life sciences. 

In summary, this is the right project at the right time for New York City. We support the Blood Center’s proposal for the crucial resources it secures for our city’s safety-net providers and blood supply; research that supports New Yorkers underserved by our healthcare system; and good-paying jobs that will help drive an equitable recovery.

We thank our colleagues in the City Council for their leadership and vision on this project to date and once again urge all Council Members to vote in favor of this critical project as it advances to a full vote later this month.

***
Donovan Richards is Queens Borough President and a former City Council member. City Council Member Antonio Reynoso is Brooklyn Borough President-Elect. City Council Member Vanessa Gibson is Bronx Borough President-Elect. City Council Member Mark Levine is Manhattan Borough President-Elect. On Twitter @DRichardsQns, @MarkLevineNYC; @ReynosoBrooklyn, @VanessaLGibson.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Democrats Defeat Themselves on Expansion of Vote by Mail, A Pro-Democracy Measure


drop off abs edit

Absentee ballot drop-box (photo: @BKVoters)


Three proposed amendments to the New York State Constitution, two on expanding voting rights and one on legislative redistricting reform, were defeated by the voters in this year’s general election. Two other ballot proposals were passed. In order to appear on the ballot for voters to approve or disapprove, all five proposed amendments had to pass two consecutive classes of the state Legislature.

We are still awaiting the full counting of many thousands of absentee ballots, but preliminary numbers based on in-person voting provide unofficial results.

Proposition Four, an amendment to permit no-excuse absentee voting, would have eliminated the longstanding requirement that a reason is necessary to vote by mail. During early voting and on Election Day, it lost 1.57 million to 1.21 million votes statewide, or 56.5-43.5%. Meanwhile, 350,000 voters did not cast on a vote on the proposal, leaving it blank.

Thus far, Proposition Four has won in New York City 479,000-335,000, or 59-41%, but 200,000 of the 1 million residents who voted in the city’s mayoral election also left Proposition Four blank. Proposition Four got clobbered outside the city, though it is likely that a high percentage of absentee voters both inside and outside the five boroughs will have approved of the proposal dealing with absentee voting.

The votes on Proposition One, which included several changes to legislative redistricting, and Proposition Three, repeal of the current constitutional 10-day deadline to register to vote before an election, had similar results. They carried in New York City but were defeated outside the city nearly two to one. Proposition Four, which would have paved the way for continued use of voting by mail on a wide scale, was defeated during in-person voting in 54 of the 57 counties outside the city, carrying only Westchester, Ulster, and Tompkins Counties.

The mail ballots now being counted will shift the margins on Propositions One and Three as well, likely in favor of both proposals but unlikely enough to get either approved.

The rejection of Proposition Four was particularly galling for me, as I had been the sponsor of this constitutional amendment in the State Assembly for many years before my retirement in 2016 after serving 32 years.

In early 2009, after becoming impressed with how voting by mail was increasing voter participation in states like Washington and Oregon, I introduced the bill and carried it for eight years before finally getting it passed the State Assembly in 2016, the year I left. Getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot is no easy task; it takes two successively-elected classes of both Houses of the Legislature passing the proposal each term to place it on the ballot for the people to vote on. It took a Democratic Party takeover of the State Senate before no-excuse absentee voting could pass in that house.

The proposal was voted on by both state legislative houses in the 2019-2020 term and again in the new term in 2021 to reach the ballot this fall.

How could giving people the unimpeded right to vote by mail have lost in heavily Democratic New York, just a year after a presidential election where the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a massive expansion of vote by mail, in New York and across the whole nation?

Voting by mail was a major national issue, seen as a dramatic way to protect public safety during the pandemic. Donald Trump spent months both before and after the election denouncing mail balloting. Regardless of Trump’s ranting, 46% of the American electorate voted by mail in the presidential election, and in some states voting by mail was nearly universal. In New York, where Biden won 61% of the 8.7 million votes, more than 1.7 million New Yorkers voted by mail, about 20%.

Biden won 76% of New York City’s 3 million votes, and an extraordinary 23% of the city’s voters, 663,000, voted by mail. The expansion of mail ballots in New York had begun after COVID-19 exploded. New York’s April 2020 presidential primary was delayed until June. Then-Governor Cuomo issued an emergency order permitting COVID-19 as a reason to vote absentee and ordered the state’s election boards to send out absentee ballot applications to every Democratic voter (the Republican presidential primary was cancelled). There were 1.7 million votes in the Democratic presidential primary despite the fact that Joe Biden had already effectively won the nomination.

Despite the massive plunge in the turnout from 2020 to 2021, the ballot propositions might not have been doomed if the leadership of the Democratic Party and opinion leaders had paid closer attention. After all, the New York Conservative Party spent $3 million against the propositions while the Democratic Party spent virtually nothing on the propositions.

The margins by which the propositions were defeated are likely to still tighten as mail ballots are counted and given that they are disproportionately Democratic. It would be a surprise if the people who voted by mail just now, would vote “no” on voting by mail. Unfortunately there probably aren’t enough mail ballots to alter the outcomes.

There were only 75,000 mail ballots in New York City, a little less than 8% of the 1 million votes counted in person in the five boroughs. There were 2 million in-person votes outside the city, according to election night results from the State Board of Elections, again without counting the mail ballots. Even if mail ballots were an additional 10% of the vote outside the city, or 200,000, even lopsided "yes" votes for the proposition would not be enough for all the mail ballots to alter the outcome, although they could cut into the margin of defeat substantially.

Then there is the New York City election itself. In the city, Democrat Eric Adams had 676,000 in-person votes. “Yes” on Proposition Four had 479,000 votes, 200,000 fewer than the number who voted for Adams and roughly the same number as left the proposition blank. “No” on Proposition Four has 335,000 votes in the city, similar to the vote for Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, who has 293,000 votes for mayor prior to the absentee count. Conservative Party nominee Bill Pepitone got another nearly 12,000 votes. That means the “no” vote was essentially a Republican vote.

There was little meaningful publicity on the propositions. I received calls from local residents asking about them on Election Day because they had not heard of them, and my wife said she had heard nothing about the propositions when I mentioned them to her about two weeks before the election. She is an avid follower of political news. The New York Times editorial board buried its support for the propositions by subsuming it in a late October piece about how bad the New York City Board of Elections is, even though reform of the Board of Elections was not on the ballot.

Meanwhile, on Long Island: Nassau County Executive Laura Curran, a Democrat, is losing to her Republican opponent Bruce Blakeman by about 12,000 votes out of 260,00 cast there, with about 21,000 mail ballots still to be counted this week. In 2020 in Nassau County, there were about 731,000 votes cast in the race for president, meaning the vote this year dropped by a staggering 60%.

The “no” vote on Proposition Four in Nassau was 151,000, the “yes” vote was 87,000, more than 35,000 votes below Curran herself. About 20,000 in-person voters in Nassau left Proposition Four blank. It looks like all the Democrats needed was a little information. If the New York State Democratic  Committee had just done one mailing, even to just the 1.7 million Democrats who voted in the presidential primary last year, that might have been enough.

Being able to vote by mail as an integral part of the election process is still an extraordinary benefit and believers in good government and healthy democracy should not give up.

Governor Newsom just signed a new law in California requiring every voter to get a mail ballot for every election. New York has made some good changes regarding mail ballots. Every election board must now have an online application, but requiring a reason to vote by absentee will continue. In 2020 and 2021, COVID-19 qualified as a reason not to physically vote in person, but one hopes covid will go away sooner rather than later.

I hope Assemblymember Clyde Vanel, the sponsor in that house, and State Senator LeRoy Comrie, the sponsor in the Senate, will continue their efforts. My successor in the Assembly, Robert Carroll, is actually the sponsor of the amendment repealing the 10-day registration deadline, and he has made clear he will keep fighting.

Next time let’s hope supporters of the measure don’t take victory for granted.

***
Jim Brennan was a member of the New York State Assembly for 32 years, where he chaired four committees. On Twitter @JimBrennanNY.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Infrastructure Implementation: Apprenticeship Programs are Vital to Building New York Back Better


200 now created

Construction workers (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayoral Photo Office)


With the federal infrastructure bill now law, New York is primed to receive more than $100 billion in direct investment in public works projects across the state, inclusive of upgrades to mass transit systems, roads, highways, and bridges, and other essential and critical elements of New York’s future.

The diverse array of infrastructure projects soon to break ground statewide also comes with a greater demand for skilled work – work that members of the unionized construction industry are equipped and eager to take on. But the unprecedented scale of the work at hand will also require countless new skilled, union workers. Yet again, the federal infrastructure law meets the mark: with tens of billions of dollars worth of investment in workforce development infrastructure and worker protection, along with the creation of 1 to 2 million new registered apprenticeship slots.

These millions of new apprenticeship slots are an excellent way to top off National Apprenticeship Week -- which happens to be this week – as well as a reminder of the importance of pre-apprentice and direct-entry programs to the future of our workforce. 

Pre-apprentice, apprentice, and direct-entry programs have become a centerpiece of the unionized construction industry. These programs provide opportunity for entry-level workers to receive job and safety training both on-site and in the classroom that prepare individuals for the worksite and incentivize long-term commitments between employees and employers. Not only that, but these programs elevate the importance of diversity in the workforce and ensure a ready, safe and productive workforce for years to come. 

Over the past few decades, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York has committed itself to connecting tens of thousands of New Yorkers – particularly New Yorkers from historically marginalized communities – to the unionized construction industry through our best-in-class pre-apprenticeship and direct-entry programs, including The Edward J. Malloy Initiative for Construction Skills, NY Helmets to Hardhats, Nontraditional Employment for Women, and Pathways to Apprenticeship. These programs work with distinct populations – from veterans to those who are formerly incarcerated – helping to not only place them in a job but to help them build their own middle-class career.

Just this past year, the New York City Building Trades launched a first-of-its-kind apprenticeship program called the Apprenticeship Readiness Collective (ARC), which is dedicated to connecting individuals from the city’s historically marginalized communities to opportunities with our pre-apprenticeship and direct-entry programs. Since its inception, the ARC has been working with city government to lead outreach and recruitment efforts aimed at workers from areas where at least 15% of the neighborhood lives below the federal poverty line.

We know firsthand – and thousands of New Yorkers in the unionized construction industry do as well – the exceptional opportunity generated by pre-apprentice, apprentice, and direct-entry programs. We’ve seen the lives of countless individuals changed for the better due to the career pathways created by these programs, and with the large-scale investment in apprenticeship programs from the federal government, that’s certain to be the case for tens of thousands more – and we’ll all be better off for it.

This generational investment in apprenticeships will strengthen the pipeline for more women and people of color to access these workforce development opportunities and ensure the infrastructure we build as a result of the federal infrastructure plan is best-in-class. With the Biden administration’s Build Back Better Plan set to create and save more than 15 million jobs over the next decade, and increase the share of infrastructure jobs from 11 to 14% of all jobs nationwide, the opportunity to build and grow the middle class in a historic fashion is at our fingertips.

National Apprenticeship Week is an important reminder of the critical role that these programs play in our economy and in jumpstarting middle-class careers. As we begin to build back New York, and the nation, it’ll be the unionized tradesmen and tradeswomen – many of whom were once pre-apprentices and apprentices – leading the way forward.

***
Gary LaBarbera is the President of the 100,000 member Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York. On Twitter @NYCBldgTrades.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Finally, a CUNY Budget Request We Can Support


bmcc cuny asp

BMCC (photo: @CUNY)


The relationship between the CUNY Board of Trustees and the city and state governments that fund the university is complicated. Appointed by the same elected officials from whom the institution requests funding, the Board of Trustees often fails to ask for the budget the University really needs. Last year they didn’t even request money to cover fringe benefits, a basic cost of operations.

This year, however, is different. The Board is finally listening to the students, faculty, staff, and other advocates who have said that the University, which is essential to reducing racialized income inequality and building a strong middle class in our city, needs more funding if it is to effectively meet its mission.

The Board’s request for $313 million more from Albany in the upcoming budget represents a 16% increase over the current state budget. The request for an increase of $103 million from New York City amounts to a 20% bump. Fully funding the total request would allow CUNY to hire over a thousand full-time faculty, and invest in mental health services, student wellness, and childcare centers.

This total requested increase of $416 million reflects the pent-up need caused by years of public disinvestment. Between 2008 and 2021, per-student state funding for CUNY senior colleges decreased by 18%, when adjusted for inflation. The previous state administration regularly refused to pay for raises for public workers, leaving entities like CUNY to rob Peter to pay Paul, cannibalizing programs, maintenance and operations in order to pay for contractual raises.

The request is also an acknowledgement of CUNY’s potential to help create a more equitable future for the people of our state.

The Trustees know that CUNY is underfunded. They have seized this unique political moment for the good of the students and communities that CUNY serves, pressing also for more funding to pay for community college and critically-needed capital upgrades. The request notes that "CUNY colleges have had to defer routine maintenance for years because of fiscal pressures. The result has led to facility degradation in the near term and significantly increased facility operating and routine maintenance expenses." 

Over the years, the University has responded to government underfunding by reducing the number of full-time faculty, depending more and more on underpaid part-time adjuncts, and increasing tuition. This year’s budget request would change that, allowing the University to address its shortage of full-time faculty while providing “a defined career pathway for part-time teaching faculty.”

Critics of this budget request note that CUNY enrollments are down, like they are at colleges throughout the country. This misses two important points. First, this budget request is not just about funding for this year – it’s about reversing decades of underfunding at CUNY.

Second, that critique misunderstands the ebb and flow of college enrollment. Research shows that college enrollments in the U.S. typically increase during a recession. Enrollment at CUNY increased 11% between the fall semesters of 2007 and 2009 during the Great Recession. It increased 7% between fall 2000 and fall 2002 during the Recession of 2001. There is usually a delay between the start of a recession and the college enrollment rush. COVID-19 is no doubt a complicating factor, but CUNY is wise to be ready for a similar increase with this recession. The University needs to be ready for when more New Yorkers turn to it for a new career, new skills, and better chance at life.

I am excited that the CUNY Board of Trustees has come to Albany and New York City Hall with a budget request that can begin to meet the needs of the hundreds of thousands of students, many of them students of color, who rely on a CUNY education as a way to enter the middle class. After years of underfunding for CUNY, there is much ground to make up and import work to do in the next budget season. 

***
State Senator John Liu represents parts of Queens and is the chair of the Senate Committee on New York City Education. On Twitter @liunewyork.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

New York City’s Next Big Chance to Help Save Itself and the Planet


gasfree core

The #GasFreeNYC push (photo: @weact4ej)


It’s hard to wrap one’s head around, but the city’s future existence is in serious danger as more climate pollution spews into the atmosphere. Simply put: with over 500 miles of coastline and the subway and utilities underground, there may be no way for New York City to survive substantially higher sea levels. To save our city, and so many other precious places, every government, worldwide, needs to take action to slash climate pollution. 

Fortunately, the New York City Council is considering ending gas in new construction and gut renovations, as several large West Coast cities have already done. This vital bill, Intro. 2317, is prime-sponsored by Council Member Alicka Ampry-Samuel and supported by 23 other co-sponsors and Speaker Corey Johnson. 

While the climate emergency is a crisis, it’s also an opportunity to build a healthier, safer and more fair society. Ending gas in new construction and gut renovations would help both slash climate-heating pollution and fight inequality. 

Banning gas would create jobs in clean energy, as developers would build to higher energy efficiency standards and install electric-powered heat pumps, boosting employment in design, construction, and electrical work, creating good new jobs in clean energy. Building on the massive job creation of NYC’s Local Law 97, which requires large buildings to slash their climate-heating pollution, it would further New York City’s economic development as a leader in green buildings.

Passing a gas ban would also prevent deadly air pollution. RMI and university researchers estimate that such air pollution from combusting fossil fuels to power, heat, and cool the city’s 1 million buildings causes about 1,000 New Yorkers’ deaths per year. 

Moreover, the quality of air that people breathe is unequal: Black and Latino New Yorkers breathe dirtier air because of increased air pollution in neighborhoods segregated by society’s many inequalities. New Yorkers could also rest a little easier knowing that their building wouldn’t catch fire, explode, or asphyxiate them because of a gas leak. 

The benefits of ending fossil fuel dependency are clear. Thankfully, it is also practical and affordable because advancing technology and economies of scale have slashed costs. Construction costs are now about equal. And energy efficient new buildings minimize utility bills because energy use is so much lower than in wasteful, drafty older buildings.

We have identified almost 80 building projects of all sizes and uses that demonstrate fossil free development. Take Alloy’s 100 Flatbush Avenue. It’s a 44-story tower currently under construction. When completed, it will be the tallest fossil free building in the U.S., following the path-breaking world’s tallest fossil free super-high energy efficiency building, a 26-story residence at Cornell Technion on Roosevelt Island.

RiseBoro, a social services and affordable housing provider, is also demonstrating in the real world that it can deliver low energy bills to low-income seniors in its HUD-supported housing, without fossil fuels. RiseBoro is now building a nine-story, 164-unit affordable building in Inwood for low-income seniors. RiseBoro will guarantee low, affordable energy bills for residents because it will be energy-efficient and use heat-pump technology. All of RiseBoro’s future development will be fossil-free.

These and other developments show the practical, affordable nature of the bill’s requirements, which should apply to new permit applications starting in one or at most two years. Other cities have applied their requirements in one year. The City Council bill’s current timeline is two years.

Mayor de Blasio -- who to his credit has supported banning gas, which has helped advance the issue -- has so far been vague about the timeline on which he believes requirements should take hold on new permit applications. 

The Real Estate Board of New York, Exxon, and the American Petroleum Institute are among those lobbying hard against the bill. They can be counted on to try and weaken the bill’s timeline, if they can’t stop it altogether. As we push for this bill’s passage before the end of the year, when the terms of this mayor and City Council class will end, the key negotiation will be over the bill’s timeline.

One of the mayor’s top climate appointees, Office of Sustainability Director Ben Furnas, pointed out in a Gotham Gazette interview that a 2025 timeline - four years away - would match the International Energy Agency’s advocacy for ban on sales of new fossil fuel boilers worldwide by or in 2025. That’s one critical minimal condition, worldwide, to avoid blowing past “red lines” on climate.

It’s clear that New York City must act more quickly. A ban by all governments across the globe clearly won’t happen by 2025, especially if wealthy cities like New York refuse to go faster. Indeed, a slower timeline by the City of New York than other cities that have already passed gas bans could be detrimental if other cities, pressed by their respective developer lobbies, incorrectly concluded requirements should be delayed. 

Each year about 2,500 new buildings are built in New York City. Right now, New York City consumes about a whopping 5% of all gas used in buildings nationwide. It’s time to wean ourselves from an addiction to fossil fuels. 

New York should build a fairer and safer society. Passing a gas ban on new construction and gut renovations will be a major advancement. Similar to when New York City committed to divest several of its pension funds from fossil fuels in 2018, the bill’s enactment will help spark further action worldwide. This bill heads to a public hearing on November 17. After the hearing, the City Council should swiftly enact it.

***
Pete Sikora is the Climate & Inequality Campaigns Director for New York Communities for Change. On Twitter @PeteSikora1.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.