Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller State of the City


Remarks as delivered February 24, 2005:

Good afternoon.

Public Advocate Gotbaum, Majority Leader Rivera, Deputy Majority Leader Perkins, Majority Whip Comrie, Minority Leader James Oddo, members of the Council, Speaker Vallone, Borough President Carrion - welcome.

We're pleased to be joined by a number of members of the State Senate and the State Assembly.

I want to thank my wife and family for all their love and support.

And I want to thank my colleagues and the people of New York City for the extraordinary opportunity to serve as Speaker of this Council.

I am grateful for this opportunity to report to you on the state of our city, to recall our record of accomplishment and to chart a course of action for the days ahead.

Standing here, it's hard to believe that only three years ago we met for the first time in this Chamber as a new legislature.

That morning, you could still smell the smoke from Ground Zero, still feel the shock from that terrible day.

There are so many images from that time that are impossible to forget, but the one I remember most was sitting in the memorial service for the 343 fallen firefighters. I remember seeing the entire floor of Madison Square Garden filled with families who had lost a loved one, and seeing so many children who were the same age as my two sons are now.

I will never forget their sacrifice and I will never forget that image because, for these three and a half years, my work as Speaker and the work we have done together has been about building a better world for those children and a stronger city for every New Yorker.

We started out during one of the most uncertain moments in our city's history. We faced the worst fiscal crisis in a generation and had to make difficult choices to begin to rebuild our city's future.

But because the City Council held fast to our values, I am proud to report that the state of our city is stronger today than it was when we began our work here together.

This Council has confronted great challenges. And we have responded by making the right choices for New York's future.

We've practiced fiscal responsibility, while upholding New York's quality of life and protecting our most vulnerable. We have defended critical investments and improved essential services making life better for New Yorkers.

This City Council managed to cut $3.2 billion from the budget and still make kids our top priority, invest in working families and never forget the seniors who built this City.

We put education first, restoring hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts that would have harmed our children and hindered our schools at a time when we could least afford it.

We protected the standard of living and the dignity of New York's elderly by restoring more than $11 million for senior centers and meals.

We kept up the fight against HIV and AIDS by protecting $19 million for prevention and outreach programs focusing on communities of color.

We took a stand for the hopes and dreams of thousands of young people struggling to afford a college education by stopping $18 million in cuts that would have eliminated the Vallone scholarship program.

We defended affordable day-care for thousands of parents by saving 2,500 day-care slots and adding 5,700 more so working families could build a better future for their children.

We protected tens of thousands of Mitchell Lama units, dedicated $40 million to create additional affordable housing and used our rezoning authority to ensure thousands of new affordable housing units would be part of our City's development.

We created the City's first ever Earned Income Tax Credit that's helping 700,000 working New Yorkers take the step from poverty to prosperity.

And we invested $10 million last year in programs to address the root causes of long-term structural unemployment, because no one should declare victory over unemployment when half of African American and 43% of Latino men are out of work in our City.

And let me say that this year my colleagues and I are committed to doubling that investment - and we call on Mayor Bloomberg to join forces with us in a united front against joblessness.

I am proud that together, the New York City Council fought for the right choices in our City's budget. And I am also proud of the choices we made in passing new laws.

Because extending a living wage to 50,000 workers who are trying to climb into the middle class was the right choice for New York's future.

Protecting our children from brain damage and lifelong learning disabilities that result from exposure to poisonous lead paint was the right choice for New York's future.

Making sure that employees of City contractors get equal benefits, regardless of sexual orientation, was the right choice for New York's future.

Providing a school nurse to every child in this city was the right choice for New York's future.

And guaranteeing access to emergency contraception for the victims of sexual assault was the right choice for New York's future.

We've worked with the Mayor and his administration on legislation when it was the responsible thing to do. We've passed hundreds of laws with the Mayor that will better the lives of our constituents and help prepare our city for the challenges ahead.

But we've also stood up to this Mayor when it was the right choice for our City's future. In three years, we have overturned 27 mayoral vetoes, and we have always fought for the values and priorities of the people we represent.

That's why we are here. Each of us ran for office because we believe in the people of this City.

And every member of this Council has contributed to making New York a great city in the 21st century.

But in particular, I want to acknowledge the contributions of five people who have done an extraordinary job for the people of their districts and for everyone in our City. Five people for whom, like me, this is their last State of the City as members of this Council.

Please join me in thanking Tracy Boyland, Margarita Lopez, Bill Perkins, Madeline Provenzano, and Philip Reed for their service.

We've accomplished a lot together. But we all know there's still much more to do.

As New Yorkers, we look forward, not backward. We know that New York City still faces many tests in the years to come. We also know that the future belongs to those who are willing to accept great challenges and make the right choices.

Thinking about choices reminds me of a story about my son, and you all know how much I like to tell stories about my sons. Two years ago, when I was running in my last race for City Council, my wife decided that it was time for my older son to learn to vote.

Addison, she said, today is election day, and we have to vote. We can vote for Daddy, or Daddy's friend Jennifer. She was trying to be fair, my wife is scrupulously fair. Addison looked confused. Well, Addison, she said, voting is like choosing, and we have to choose between Daddy, or Daddy's friend Jennifer. Addison still looked confused. (He had only just turned 3.)

Well Addison, she said, in the morning, when Daddy takes you to school, he takes you to the deli and you have to choose whether you want a bagel or a donut. This is like that. You have to choose between Daddy and Daddy's friend Jennifer. At this point, Addison seemed to get it.

So she took him into the voting booth, held him up and said: okay Addison, do you want Daddy, or Daddy's friend Jennifer. And Addison looked at her and said: I want a donut!

The moral of this story is that the choices we make are really about the needs of New Yorkers.

And a critical choice that we must make right now is whether or not to spend public resources on a stadium for the West Side of Manhattan.

I've heard this Administration talk about how building the stadium is the greatest test we face. And I can't think of a better statement to demonstrate how the Mayor has the wrong priorities for our City's future.

Because when stadiums become a more important priority than schools, then the Mayor is making the wrong choice.

The bottom line is that I have fought and will keep on fighting against this stadium so that my children and your children won't end up paying for this terrible mistake.

Because this stadium won't help our city.

It won't help us financially.

Mayor Bloomberg has told New Yorkers the stadium will cost us $300 million in City money. What he hasn't said is that if the State doesn't come up with its $300 million for the stadium, we're on the hook for it. He hasn't disclosed the potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure costs for amenities like a so-called "game porch" and pedestrian walkways. And he hasn't told us that the Jets aren't going to pay taxes on this site, that they'll be getting breaks on the contributions they do make, and that they won't pay a fair price for the land.

When you add it all up, not only will this stadium cost taxpayers more than $1 billion, the experience of almost every other City tells us that we won't make that investment back.

This stadium also won't help our traffic problems.

The Mayor says that this 75,000 seat stadium will add only 174 cars on game day coming through the Lincoln Tunnel. In reality, the number of extra cars could be as high as 17,000 for midtown - and the Administration's plan doesn't include a single new parking space.

To the tens of thousands of New Yorkers stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, that kind of planning will give a whole new meaning to the term Tailgating.

The West Side stadium also won't help us get the Olympics.

The Mayor says that New York will lose the 2012 Olympic games if we don't build this stadium right away. In reality, he's setting up a false choice for New Yorkers. We don't need to build a stadium today for an Olympics that is seven years away - particularly when there are better venues in our city, like in Queens, on which to build.

And it won't help us create more jobs.

The right choice is to build housing, commercial and open space on this land, bringing thousands of jobs right now. And we should develop an Olympic stadium in Queens. That way, we'd bring twice the jobs to New York that we would by just building a West Side Stadium.

The fact is: the stadium is the wrong choice. The right choice for the far West Side is a vision for a vibrant, 24/7 community that will attract new businesses, new jobs and new residents.

This year, we passed an historic rezoning for the rest of West Midtown that included common sense priorities: more commercial space, more housing and more affordable housing, a network of parks and open space, an extended 7-line and an expanded Javits Convention Center.

Now, it's time to extend those priorities to the rest of the West Side.

Today, I am proposing a plan to rezone the 13 acres of the West Side that the Mayor wants for this stadium so that we can instead realize a vision for a thriving, vibrant West Side that sparks continued growth in the rest of our City. And I ask that you join me in support of that plan.

It would mean more funds to stabilize our transit system so we can avoid the repeated fare hikes of the last two years, more commercial space where our entrepreneurs and workers can realize their dreams, more parks where our children can grow and play, more access to our underutilized waterfront, and more housing where New Yorkers can raise their families.

Incredibly, the Mayor says that if we build housing on the far West Side this City will have "too much housing." Too Much Housing? Too much housing when our police and firefighters and teachers can't afford to live where they work? Too much housing when middle-class families are forced out of our City? Too much housing when the seniors that built this City struggle to keep their homes?

This site presents an incredible opportunity to develop the housing we need - both market and affordable housing. And we need more housing in New York City.

Second, we need more parks and open space and this site presents an opportunity to expand on the success of the Hudson River Park in a real way that gives people access to one of the greatest waterfronts in the world.

Third, there should be a commercial component but one that complements midtown and downtown - not competes with them. For example, this is the perfect site to develop hotels that support the expanded Javits Center that I so strongly believe in.

And, finally, the Mayor says that without a stadium there will be no 7-train extension. That's just wrong. That extension was never about providing access to a stadium alone. It is about developing the West Side in a way that creates more jobs and more opportunities for all New Yorkers and serves an expanded convention center that should be at the heart of our plans for the West Side's future.

And to make sure we make the right choice for this valuable property, the MTA must agree that its competitive bidding process will actually be competitive, by taking bids consistent with our rezoning vision, or else it will leave us with a process rigged for the stadium.

It's not too late to make the right choices. But we need to act now.

Over the last year, the Mayor has tried to pull an end-run around this Council to get approval for his stadium. He's sought to bypass the people's elected legislature by backdoor approvals through obscure and unaccountable state bureaucracies. He's tried to arrange a massive expenditure of public funds without any oversight from the City's publicly elected representatives.

So I will introduce legislation to stop the Mayor's plan to finance the stadium through a slush fund and make sure that every public dollar our City spends goes through our public budget process. And I ask you to join me in supporting this legislation.

This is a stand we must make. Since the Charter made the City Council the final authority on passing budgets, no mayor has tried to remove an expenditure of this size from public review. It's wrong. And even if you support the stadium, this is still a precedent that you and I cannot allow to stand.

This Administration is wrong when it says that a stadium is the greatest test we face.

Because we all know that our greatest test is educating our children.

And while every New Yorker should give Mayor Bloomberg credit for taking responsibility for the school system, no New Yorker who has seen the results can doubt that too much attention has been focused on bureaucratic reshuffling and not enough on the fundamentals: smaller class sizes, more quality teachers, safer schools, and stronger after-school programs.

Think about the difference between successful suburban schools and unsuccessful urban schools. The first thing you notice when you walk into a suburban school is that it's nice. It has lighting. It has a seat for every child. It has an art room, a music room, a science lab, and a gym where kids can exercise. It has the basic tools that kids need to achieve.

This sends a simple message to every child in that school, every parent in that neighborhood, and every teacher who works there: Your education is important enough to give you the most basic resources needed for success.

In New York City, we send the exact opposite message every day. We send three-quarters of our high school students to overcrowded schools and then tell them to have lunch at 9:30 AM every morning. We ask kids to pass science Regents tests and then we don't give them science labs. We ask kids to become truly literate and then we deny them the arts and music programs that study after study show improves literacy.

This City puts kids in schools like IS 10 in Astoria, which I visited last week, where snow blows through broken windows and into the classrooms where our kids are trying to learn.

This City sends a powerful message every day to kids and teachers in our public schools that it's not serious enough about their education to give them the tools they need to succeed.

We have to change that. We have to change the message we send to children in New York City by fixing every broken window in every school - not just some.

Last year, my colleagues and I agreed on a capital plan with the administration that would finally allow us to build the new schools our children need and fix the ones that fell into disrepair long ago.

But four weeks ago, the Mayor cut that plan in half - taking out $1.3 billion and throwing into jeopardy many of the projects we need to improve our children's education.

This cut is going to cost us a lot more than just dollars and cents. This cut means that 117,000 children in our city won't get their bathrooms repaired, that 46,000 children won't get new science labs, and that 130,000 children will be forced to go without the security upgrades their schools need to keep them safe.

We know the right choice is to face this crisis now, and fix these schools before we lose another generation of children.

The Mayor refers to these cuts and cancellations as mere "delays." He says they'll get the money "eventually." But make no mistake about it - education delayed is education denied.

Dr. Martin Luther King talked about how the word "wait" almost always means "never."

Well, the time for waiting has passed. The time for action is now - and no elected official can stand up in front of the people and say that education is your number one priority unless you are willing to make it your number one priority.

Let me be clear: I will not pass a budget that includes these cuts.

We started our work together on this Council by putting education first, and we should end it by putting education first. So we will not pass a budget that doesn't protect our schools.

We are ready, willing, and able to do whatever's necessary to keep the schools capital plan intact.

Not only will we restore funds to the capital budget, we will make the fundamentals our priority to give our kids the education they need.

First, that means reducing class sizes. We will bring class sizes down by building new schools and better using the facilities we have.

Second, we will attract and retain the best teachers by treating them with respect, providing better teacher training, and, yes, paying quality teachers what they deserve.

Because when you tell every teacher in the city that there is only one way they may hang their bulletin boards, you're driving good teachers out of our schools.

When you hold a stopwatch over every teacher in the city and tell them that they must spend exactly four minutes teaching one subject and then six minutes on the next, you're driving good teachers out of our schools.

When you pay teachers in the city less than their peers in the suburbs, you're driving good teachers out of our schools.

We need to make teaching in New York City an attractive option. We need to give teachers the little things that will make a big difference, like a workspace where they can grade papers, and expanding the Council's successful HIP program to connect parents with teachers.

And while we do what it takes to put a good teacher in every classroom, we will make it easier to remove poor teachers from our schools so that the few who aren't doing their job won't ruin the reputation of the many who are. We'll offer poorly performing teachers help first, but ultimately good teachers don't want to see incompetent people in the classroom next door.

Third, we will make sure that every one of our more than 1,300 schools is safe - not just a handful of troubled schools. This Mayor has announced two separate, zero tolerance policies. And why do we still not have zero tolerance? Because principals have been told that if they suspend too many children, they'll lose their jobs. That's wrong.

Right now principals are given all of the responsibility and none of the authority they need to get the job done. We should work with principals and give them the tools they need to create safe and secure environments for their students and staff. And we should begin by having school safety officers report directly to them, not just to the local police. And those school safety officers need better training and a career track that's meaningful.

Fourth, we will provide children in our city with real after-school opportunities. Right now the administration is proposing an after-school overhaul that under-funds these programs by $16million. We will strengthen after-school programs by making them more effective, but also by providing the real resources they need to succeed.

When it comes to educating our children, we know what works - smaller class sizes, more quality teachers, safer schools and stronger after-school programs.

But we also know that the greatest obstacle standing in our way is the worsening abuse that Washington and Albany inflict on our city every year.

The priorities I've outlined today are the right choices for our city's future. But we will not be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century unless we finally get our Fair Share.

Three years ago when I began our campaign to get New York's Fair Share, the federal and state governments took a combined $20 billion more from the city than they returned to us. Today, according to the Mayor's own Office of Management and Budget, they take more than $24 billion.

Ladies and gentleman, we are going backwards -- by $4 billion.

That's $4 billion more that we don't have now for cops and firefighters. $24 billion that we don't have for teachers, for parks and libraries. For all the things our City must do.

We need the Mayor of New York to refuse to put up with this treatment and provide real leadership. We need the Mayor to take a stand and speak out against the very people who are doing this to our City.

We simply can't afford to let President Bush and Governor Pataki off the hook anymore.

We are shortchanged on anti-terrorism funding and health care funding. We are shortchanged on education funding and transportation funding. Formula after formula robs our city at a time when we can least afford it.

The result is that we are over-taxed and under-served. We are losing businesses and residents to cities that can offer more services and lower taxes.

The children and families of New York deserve better. We demand better. And we will not rest until New York gets its Fair Share.

If we can make the right choices for New York's future, then I know there is nothing we can't accomplish as a city.

We can protect our city from terrorism and crime, provide safe and clean streets and neighborhoods with a good quality of life.

We can fix our transportation system, provide housing, and promote economic growth in every borough.

And we can build the schools our children need for a lifetime of learning and prosperity.

Because in the end, there is simply nothing wrong with New York that can't be fixed by what's right with New York.

My wife and I wouldn't dream of raising our two sons anywhere else.

New York is still a magnet for talented and innovative people. We come from different nations and from different parts of the country. But we all come for the same reason that people have been coming to New York for the last 350 years - to live in the heart of a new world, to build a better life in a city that represents the entire human race.

Every morning of every day of every week, millions of men and women in our city get out of bed, and then work all day long to realize the promise that New York holds out to every citizen of the world - the promise of a better life for all those with enough imagination to see it and the guts to make it happen.

It's their common sense wisdom and priorities that we try to put into practice in this Chamber.

I thank you for the incredible opportunity I've had to lead this Council over the last three years. I couldn't be more proud of the work we've done together. And I know we will, together, continue to make the right choices to build a better future for our great City.

Thank you, and God bless America and God bless New York City.

 

Helping New York's Small Businesses


New York may be the center of corporate finances and big business, but in most of the city's households and neighborhood, small business reigns supreme. More than 2 million New Yorkers work for small businesses, which account for the vast majority of all businesses in the city.

Policy makers often neglect this backbone of the New York City economy. But on February 15, at a panel sponsored by the Center for an Urban Future and the Center for New York City Affairs at New School University, five experts offered their views on what government at all levels should - and should not do - to help New Yorkers start small businesses and to help existing ones thrive. These are excerpts from their comments.

PIGEONS, POLITICS, AND PERMITS

About 98 percent of all business in New York City have fewer than 100 employees, and overall those small businesses employee 2 million workers. When you compare the numbers from 2000 and 2003 the number of new business has actually declined. That's a bad thing for New York City's economy.

There is a huge role for local government to play. Take the Roosevelt Avenue commercial strip. We have hundreds and hundreds of small businesses. [We have been] trying to get them to see, whether you are selling shoelaces or selling flowers or a delicatessen, that they have a huge common interest. Government can steer that -- let's get together, let's form a group, let's meet once a month. Then maybe with some investment from the public sector and some investment from the private sector, we'll bring in the Doe Fund -- the people in blue uniforms who clean streets.

We did that in Queens, and now Roosevelt Avenue is cleaner today than it's ever been in my entire life. That matters to a small business owner because, if you have clean streets, you've got more foot traffic and people come into your store more often.

Right now, if you want to open up a restaurant in New York City, you must fill out eight different applications for different federal and state agencies. You have to become a navigator trying to get through some of the most complex red tape that you could ever imagine.

And that shouldn't be. In the City Council, I'm proposing two things. One is a master application to open a restaurant and, two, a one-start center for small business people. Note, I say one start, not one stop, because it shouldn't be where you're stopping but where you're beginning

When you're in a small business, you care about raising money. All too often in government, it's about status quo and its about deflecting criticism. To give you one example: Along Roosevelt Avenue, the 7 train is a magnet for pigeons. The business owners were driven crazy. It decreases foot traffic because people don't want to walk where they're going to have to dodge pigeons. So I complained about this to the Metropolitan Transportation Agency and to the Sanitation Department. Then I started getting phone calls from small-business owners who said they're writing us tickets because the ground is soiled. I said, "They're blaming you for the pigeons?" and they said yes. This is government at its very worst. The pigeons do their business, it decreases business and then we punish the small businesses for attracting pigeons. We need to have a mentality that government should be here to help and not be a hindrance.

On the role of the federal government, I'm not one to diminish the importance of rhetoric. I'm happy that President Bush talks about the ownership society, but you need to match your deeds with your words. And when you're slashing the Small Business Administration budget you're not putting your money where your mouth is.

--Eric Gioia, New York city council member

THE POWER OF TAXES

Local state and federal policy makers can have a tremendous effect Many small businesses are afraid when the legislature is in session. No action in some instances is better than taking action. Although there are some instances where taking action is important

From the federal perspective, the president proposed and Congress approved some tax rules. One of the areas where small businesses have benefited is the increase to $100,000 deducted for expenses. If someone invests in the business and purchases equipment, they can take up to a $100,000 deduction on their income tax return for that investment. Joe Guido, who is president of Foro Marble in Brooklyn, has been a Small Business Administration success story for decades. When this specific tax relief was enacted, he called me and said, "Mike, I've just made an order for a piece of equipment for $50,000 and I'm hiring a person and I'm only doing it because I know I will be able to deduct this expense from my income tax." That's a real life example.

Two other points that I think are important: Health care is very critical to small businesses and employees. The administration has a proposal to try to make health care more affordable.

The U.S. government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the world. The Small Business Administration has a division of government contracting and business development, and their focus is to try to help people gain access to government contracts. We have conferences around the country where small businesses can go on line and complete a profile and then federal agencies or large corporations can complete another profile with what goods or services they are trying to purchase, and we try to match the two. We have been able to track over $28 million in contracts that have been awarded [[as a result of these efforts]]. Fifty percent of those contracts have gone to minority owned businesses.

-- Michael Pappas, regional administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration

LITTLE MONEY, BIG EFFECTS

My mother started her business, Lillian Vernon, in 1951 with $2,000, and that $2, 000 grew to a company that is on the stock exchange. So I understood, growing up, what a small amount of money does.

Microloan programs [making loans of a few thousand dollars] are expensive, You're taking someone who has an idea, does not have a credit history, may not have a checking account at that point, and giving them small amounts of money to start a business. A lot of these businesses are home-centered, home day-care centers where frequently women, often minority women, take care of five, six, seven, eight kids in the neighborhood and thereby help six or seven other families go to work and keep a job.

Particularly in New York, with a very, very large minority population and a large immigrant population, these programs are very important because a lot of people are just afraid to go to a bank. They don't think they have the clothes to walk into a bank, they don't know if their English is good enough to go into a bank, and so these programs really do strike a very responsive chord, a very much-needed chord.

First and foremost what [local] government can do is create the environment, create the environment in education, create the environment in terms of a trained workforce, create the environment in a sense of optimism and confidence and a good business environment

Fred Hochberg, dean of the Milano Graduate School at New School University and former deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration:

GOING GLOBAL

Sometimes we have a passion for a product or service that we want to launch. We think it is the best thing in the world, and we do not want anyone else to tell us why this cannot work. We go through this, and a couple of businesses later, we learn from it. So, technical help can be much more helpful than just getting money.

It would help if we can ease regulations somewhat, such as being certified as a minority business. There's a federal certification, New York City has its own certification, New York State has its own certification, the Port Authority has its certification. How much time can a small businessperson spend on getting the certification?

Small businesspeople could get some assistance from the government in the international arena. The international area is great for major corporations because they have huge budgets and can set up departments. Small businesses themselves just cannot have that structure to do that. Having one person represent the state of New York in one office is not enough.

One of the best examples I've seen is the Hong Kong Trade Development Council. They have an office here. They have catalogues of everything you can think of. They are very creative. They have an airport tax and part of that airport tax goes to fund that agency. They hold events all over the world, trade shows and so forth. Most of the businesses are very small.

No government agency can ever satisfy 100 percent of the business owners. To the extent that they can help, it's great, but the businessman needs to help himself.

--Fred Teng, president of DVS New York LLC and a member of the National Small Business Development Centers Advisory Board

FINDING CAPITAL, FILLING GAPS

The role of government is always important.

Businesses are always - always - going to need capital, so the access of capital issue always exists. It is not only an issue of the federal government; it is an issue of the banks as well.

Microlending continues to get the short end of the stick. While there are programs out there, the microlenders take the highest risk and because they take the greatest risk, the fees are high. I think there's an underlying issue as it relates to start-up companies that we need to address and that's an educational issue - how prepared are people to go to a microlender and establish themselves as a business and get all of the resources that they need. We developed a technical assistance manual as a result of all the calls that we were getting and for ourselves, as we were trying to understand the lay of the land, as to who is doing what for the small business community. We had to identify entities�non-profit and profit -- that fund microloans,

The role of government is always important. Wherever we find a gap, wherever we see an issue, government should be involved.

--Madeline Marquez, executive director of the Bronx Initiative Corporation

City Council Stated Meeting - February 16, 2005


Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.

Quote of the Day:
"The reality is that if you suffer sudden cardiac arrest in New York City, you’re going to die." – Staten Island Councilmember James Oddo.

Meeting Summary:
On February 16, the New York City Council unanimously passed legislation (Intro 211-A) that requires defibrillators - devices that deliver an electric shock to counter irregular heartbeats - be available in many public places, including city-owned buildings, parks, stadiums, senior centers, nursing homes, and golf courses.

Proponents argue that better access to these devices will reduce the high fatality rate of those who suffer sudden cardiac arrests. In the case of cardiac arrest, the chance of a successful resuscitation falls by ten percent with each passing minute; the current rate of survival in New York is about one percent.

New York State already requires that schools have defibrillators on hand. The State Legislature has also passed legislation that requires that the devices be placed state-owned buildings and in health clubs with more than 500 members. Republican City Councilmember James Oddo has been an advocate of the devises for seven years, but funding for defibrillators has repeatedly been cut from the city budget.

The council also passed a bill (Intro 346-A) that will allow residents to sue business and individuals who defraud the city. Supporters say the measure will encourage New Yorkers with knowledge of fraud to come forward. The council estimates that the bill, modeled after federal legislation that has been in place since the mid-1800s, will add $30 million to the city’s coffers each year.

“We all know that the taxpayers do get ripped off by people who cheat the city, and we’re far from able to catch folks the way it is now,” said Brooklyn Councilmember David Yassky, the bill’s sponsor. “You need whistleblowers that are willing to come forward and make that case.”

The council also voted on two bills to help senior citizens. One measure (Intro 172-A) will create a citywide prescription drug discount program that would benefit an estimated 2.1 million city residents. The program will allow New Yorkers who join the program to purchase prescription drugs at participating pharmacies at a reduced price. Another bill (Intro 215-A) allows Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption recipients to receive rent reductions if their landlords don’t repair violations.

The City Council also approved a package of legislation regarding the rezoning of Manhattan’s West Side, which would give tax credits to developers who create affordable housing.

Brooklyn Councilmember Charles Barron voted against it, arguing that he wanted to be consistent in his opposition to bills regarding the proposed Hudson Yards project.

The council also swore in a new member, Maria del Carmen Arroyo, who will represent the 17th district in the Bronx. Arroyo won a special election in the South Bronx on February 15 to fill the seat left vacant after Jose M. Serrano was elected to the State Senate.

The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2005.

Why Gerrymandering Must Go



Try to fit the Gerrymandered districts together: Play Gotham Gazette's Poli-Tetris.

Related:
Reform Is On the Way
By Assemblymember Michael N. Gianaris

Two Brooklynites go to sleep at the same time in the same Assembly district. The next morning, one wakes up in the 52nd, the other in the 57th. Neither left his bed. What happened?

This is not a physics problem, it is a political one – or rather, it was a political solution to a political problem posed by a candidate who ran for the New York State Assembly.

Hakeem Jeffries ran for the Assembly against incumbent Roger Green in the 2000 election, and won more than 40 percent of the vote— too close for comfort in the world of New York electoral politics. Two years later, when the state had to draw up new district lines, Jeffries discovered that he no longer lived in the same district as Green. His home was on a block that had been "redrawn" into a different Assembly district.

The state legislature – Green’s colleagues – are in charge of drawing district lines, and the guidelines for doing so have presented little if any obstacle to this type of political maneuvering, most commonly known as gerrymandering.

“It’s just not right,” said Assemblymember Sandy Galef (Westchester/Putnam). “We need to get this process out of the hands of legislators.” Galef has sponsored legislation nearly every year since 1998 that would set up an independent redistricting commission through a constitutional amendment – just one of several proposals throughout the country, as well as throughout the state, that aim finally to clean up the suspect process. It will not be easy.

As It Stands

The constitutions of both the United States and of New York State require the state to redraw state legislative and Congressional district every 10 years, in order to keep the district of roughly equal population size. This is intended to ensure that each citizen's vote is of equal weight. But the guidelines for this redistricting are vague at best.

 

For certain, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires protection for specific minority voting blocs to ensure that their vote is not diluted. However, this does not extend to all groups and the requirements to gain even this protection are problematic.

In New York State redistricting is officially done by the six members of the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), who are appointed by legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle. The task force thus takes on the aura of a disinterested bipartisan body. In reality, the leaders of each house have agreed to split the spoils. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver controls redistricting for the Assembly and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno controls redistricting for the Senate. And if that power divide isn't distressing enough, state law and legal precedent have established that district lines CAN be drawn in order to ensure that party representation and incumbency are protected.

Incumbency Protection

In Texas, redistricting was used by the Republicans in two successive congressional elections to knock Democrats out of office. But New York legislative leaders are more subtle, content to protect all incumbents. That is why, for three decades, the Republicans have safely controlled the state Senate and the Democrats have controlled the state Assembly.

In Roger Green's case, the newly drawn lines placed a major obstacle in challenger Hakeem Jeffries' path to office — he would have had to move to serve the district he formerly lived in.

Also in 2000, challenger Susan Lasher mounted a nearly-successful effort at unseating incumbent Adele Cohen in the Democratic primary for the New York State Assembly. Cohen won the election, but by a mere 100 votes.

Lasher's strong showing at the polls was based largely on her support from the growing Russian-American constituency in the Coney Island/Brighton Beach section of the district; she garnered over 75 percent of the votes there. When district maps were redrawn after that election, portions of Brighton Beach had been removed from the district, while greater portions of Bay Ridge were added, an area where Cohen garnered a large percentage of her votes (2002 Map - 1992 Map). "They cut the lines to cut the [Russian-American] community up into pieces," Lasher said.

The system of legislative control of the redistricting process that marginalized Hakeem Jeffries and alienated Susan Lasher, has profound consequences for every New Yorker. It has created a government that is now commonly called the most dysfunctional in the nation. The troika of Albany leadership -- Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Governor George Pataki, who have dominated New York State politics for nearly a decade -- has overseen a government that routinely fails to pass a budget on time, has seen reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws wither for 10 years despite widespread support, and has done nothing in the face of a court order to overhaul education funding to provide schoolchildren with the sound, basic education that they deserve. No discussion of the troika's dysfunction would be complete without mention of the 800-pound gorilla, Medicaid, and the utter inability to develop a plan to implement the federally mandated Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

The politicians and political pundits would like you to believe that things are getting better. They dubbed 2004 a bad year for incumbents. But only seven incumbents running for re-election were not elected for another two-year term.

In fact, overall, New York State ranks near the bottom in terms of turnover in its legislative races. In 2002 no incumbent lost a general-election race in New York. Over the past twenty years, only 30 incumbents have lost general election races. This is an incumbency return rate statewide that hovers around 98 percent.

However, the push for redistricting reform is gaining ground. It happened in Montana in 1972, in Arizona in 2000, and in Iowa in 2001. No fewer than eight states are currently pushing to make redistricting a truly non-partisan process. More and more of the public seems to be responding to what is clearly widespread abuse.

California and New York Moving Ahead?

Out in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has his sights set on accomplishing legislative redistricting reform by hook or by crook. He has sounded the call and has let the legislature know that if they don't act to appoint an independent commission to draw district lines he will take the issue directly to the voters.

While cynics point out that his short-term goals may be set on breaking up the power monopoly held by the Democrats in Sacramento (the House is 48-32 Democrat to Republican and the Senate is 25-15 Democrat to Republican), the long term benefits and the impetus this will provide to reform movements around the country could be monumental. Wrestling power and high-tech redistricting tools away from well-financed and entrenched California incumbents could prove harder than defeating Dolph Lundgren in Rocky IV (or was it Sly Stallone who did that?).

What California has that New York doesn't is a well-oiled citizen initiative process that the Governator can flex if his muscle isn't powerful enough in Sacramento.

Here in New York we have Assemblymember Michael Gianaris (Queens), a likely candidate for Attorney General, who is looking to stamp his name on the history book of reform in the state, and a growing outcry of fed-up citizens. Gianaris is working on legislation that will be introduced in the near future that would accomplish legislative and congressional redistricting through the legislative process. He will soon have the task of not only convincing enough Assembly Democrats, but the Republican-led Senate as well, that this is in the public's best interest.

Gianaris' legislation would alter the commission's composition to give the minority party more leverage, yet would not give the power to an entity entirely independent of the legislature. He says that would signal the death of the bill.

"Allowing the minority party the opportunity to participate in the process will ensure a more balanced approach to redistricting," states Gianaris, "and it is likely that plans approved by both sides of the aisle will result in a more inclusive government that distributes power more equitably."

In addition to the creation of a new redistricting commission, Gianaris' bill would create a host of new and important guidelines, including a requirement that would prevent the commission from drawing lines to favor or oppose any political party, or any incumbent federal or state legislator. While it will still be up to the commission to interpret these guidelines as they see fit, ultimately, the courts may have the last say, and having this clause included could be just the tonic the state needs to create a more responsive and accountable legislature.

 

 

 

 

Reform Is On The Way



Try to fit the Gerrymandered districts together: Play Gotham Gazette's Poli-Tetris.

Related:
Why Gerrymandering Must Go
By Doug Israel

While the Assembly and Senate have begun a process to reform the rules that govern how each house legislates, much remains to be done in order to fundamentally alter the underpinning that makes Albany so inefficient and ineffectual.

Here in New York State we have an artificially divided legislature that owes more to political gerrymandering than a conscious decision by the voters to split their government. It is no secret that our district boundaries have resulted in some of the least competitive elections in the United States. In the just-concluded 2004 election cycle, fully 25 percent of state legislators were uncontested for reelection and many more than that faced only token opposition that posed no threat whatsoever. The lack of competition leaves legislators with no incentive to keep from digging in their heels on an issue and resisting compromise.

That is why I have introduced legislation that would strike at the core of this problem. My proposal would establish an independent commission that would become responsible for the decennial task of reapportioning legislative districts, removing the undertaking from the legislature itself and removing, along with it, the conflicting motivation for legislators to draw districts that primarily ensure their own reelections rather than connect communities that share natural boundaries and local concerns.

The commission would be comprised of members appointed equally by the majority and minority leaders of both legislative houses, with a final member chosen by these appointees serving as Chair. In the event that the leaders’ appointees are unable to agree on a Chair, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals would make the final appointment. No longer will legislators be allowed to serve on the commission, and no longer will the commission’s decisions be decided by only two legislative leaders.

This commission would conduct extensive public hearings in every metropolitan area of the state before creating its plan. Another series of public hearings would occur subsequent to the plan being released to the public, so that comments regarding the specific proposal could also be received.

Community Cohesion Not Party Favoritism

The most substantial change affected by my proposal, however, would be the establishment of new criteria and restrictions on what the commission may consider in drafting its plan. For the first time, there would be a prohibition on the drawing of district boundaries with the goal of favoring or opposing any political party. The commission would not be permitted to use party registration data to maximize the likelihood of success of either party in an election. This provision alone would single-handedly end the all-too-common practice of drawing disjointed and abnormally shaped districts in order to squeeze the maximum number of voters of one political party into a district. Instead, natural boundaries and the cohesiveness of communities would drive the drawing of the maps and a more representative balance of Democrats and Republicans would exist in each district, leading to more competitive elections.

After the extensive public process outlined above, the commission's formal proposal would be presented to the legislature for approval. Significantly, the legislature would be unable to amend the plan before voting to accept or reject it. Should the legislature reject the commission's first proposal, a second map would be created by the commission addressing the legislature's reasons for failing to approve the initial plan. Again, the Assembly and Senate would only be permitted to vote yes or no without amendments. Only after three plans are submitted to the legislature by the commission can the district boundaries be amended by the legislature.

With these provisions in effect more candidates would emerge in newly competitive districts and voters would be empowered like never before by the opportunity to select among diverse candidates with divergent views. Elected officials would either become more responsive to the public's concerns or risk losing their elections. Ultimately, the logjam that typifies Albany's approach to the state's problems would be removed at the source and by the ultimate arbiters of public policy - the voters.

 

State Senate District 34 - Bronx/Westchester


GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES

Stephen Kaufman (Ind/Con)
Jeffrey Klein (Dem)
John Fleming (Rep)

PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS:
Winner: Jeff Klein (Dem)
Winner: John Fleming (Rep)

PRIMARY ELECTION CANDIDATES

Stephen Kaufman (Rep/Ind/Con)
Jeffrey Klein (Dem)
John Fleming (Rep/Con)
Egidio Sementilli (Dem)

CAMPAIGN FEATURE:

Filling a Criminal's Shoes

In New York, it seems the only way to defeat an incumbent politician is to put him in jail.

For 28 years, Guy Velella, a powerful Bronx Republican who served in both the New York State Assembly and Senate and as the chairman of the Bronx Republican party, was untouchable. Velella had a reputation of bringing millions of dollars in state aid to the Bronx, doling out political favors, and redrawing district lines in his favor - and he rarely faced a serious challenger.

Even a criminal investigation into whether Velella took bribes from companies seeking contracts to paint the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge did not slow the veteran state senator.

With an investigation underway, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani still campaigned with him, Mayor Michael Bloomberg attended his fundraisers, and Republican State Senators - including Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno - donated $150,000 from their campaign funds to help pay his legal fees.

And voters – in an overwhelmingly Democratic district – reelected Republican Velella in 2000 and 2002, even after he had been indicted.

"Everybody's a crook," said Riverdale voter Ed Brennan after the 2002 election. "They all steal. I don't care."

Velella's legacy finally ended this year when the senator pled guilty to taking money from people bidding to paint bridges for the state. Velella is currently serving a one-year sentence at Riker's Island.

Yet the imprisoned senator still hangs over the campaign to fill the open seat in a horseshoe-shaped district that encompasses the north and east Bronx and parts of southern Westchester. Five different candidates want to reassure voters that they, like their predecessor, will be able to get results for the Bronx.

"Guy Velella delivered for the district, there is no question about that," said Jeffrey Klein, a Bronx Democratic Assemblymember who is leaving his seat to run for the open senate seat. "And I can deliver for the district as well."

Klein, who has been in the State Legislature since 1994, said if elected he will make things like increasing school funding and raising the minimum wage his priorities. He also acknowledges that in light of Velella's conviction and persistent gridlock in Albany, the system needs reform.

"The only means of reform we have is the Democrats," said Klein. "And first and foremost, I am the real Democrat in this race."

Klein's main opponent is Democratic Bronx Assemblymember Stephen Kaufman, who is also giving up his seat to run in the open race. Kaufman was first elected to the State Legislature in 1998 and previously served for eight years in the New York City Council.

Kaufman calls himself the "independent, unbossed, and unsupervised" candidate, and will run on the Republican, Conservative, and Independence party primaries. He also has a history of bucking the Democratic establishment. In 2000, he was part of a failed attempt to unseat Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver from his position.

Much of Kaufman's support now comes from Republicans like Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and State Senate Leader Joseph Bruno, who have all endorsed him.

But while Klein faults Kaufman for not being a real Democrat, another opponent criticizes Kaufman for not being a real Republican.

John Fleming, a former police detective who also performed security for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, said he is running to bring Republican solutions to the area's problems.

"I think the Republican Party has gone too far to the left," said Fleming. "I believe in a two party system."

Fleming said if elected he will focus on tax reform, controlling Medicaid costs, and getting homeland security funding for New York. "With my background in law enforcement, I believe I can lobby at the federal and state level to get more money for homeland security," he said.

Also running is Democrat Egidio Sementilli, a marketing specialist and head of local day care center, who criticizes both Klein and Kaufman for being part of the political problem in Albany.

"Collectively they spent 30 years in Albany," said Sementilli, "and what would they differently do now that they could not have done already? What did they do on school aid? What have they done about taxes?"

Sementilli said he would expand day care services, force Mayor Michael Bloomberg to give the current surplus back to tax payers, and put an end to "politicians paying off people with bogus projects" like a plan to replace the City Island bridge.

Whoever wins in November will have to navigate both city and suburban politics because the district straddles both the Bronx and Westchester. And even the Bronx sections in the district have widely different needs. Riverdale, in the northwest part of the Bronx, is one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city, while sections like Soundview are among the poorest.

Both Kaufman and Klein point to their local accomplishments as proof that they can serve the whole district. Klein said he established a 1-800 number for graffiti, hosted annual events to address asthma, and organized clean-up events across the area. Kaufman said he helped save schools for handicapped children from budget cuts, stopped a gas pipeline from cutting through the Pelham Bay neighborhood, and drafted bills against illegal dumping.

But the main issue for all the candidates may be to reassure voters them that the Bronx will not suffer now that Guy Velella is in jail.

"People are sad [about the conviction] because a lot of people liked him," said Kaufman. "But they are also concerned that the area won't get the funding it once did."

Working Families Party candidate Michelle Andrews did not return phone calls for this article.

CANDIDATE BIOGRAPHIES

Michelle Andrews (no information available).

John Fleming works as a vice president in a security and investigation firm in New York and a real estate firm based in Long Island. He is a retired police detective who coordinated security operations for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He has worked on mayoral and congressional campaigns, and served as Public Safety Coalition director for Senator John McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign.

Stephen Kaufman has represented the 82nd Assembly District in the Bronx since 1998. He served in the New York City Council from 1974 to 1982. He is a lawyer at Alpert & Kaufman.

Jeffrey Klein has represented the 80th Assembly District in the Bronx since 1994. He has worked as chief-of-staff for Congressman James Scheuer and as a Democratic state committeeman and district leader.

Egidio Sementilli has been a long time activist and volunteer in the Bronx, working on several local election campaigns. He ran for State Assembly in 1998. He has been a member of Community Board 6, while also doing volunteer work for the Belmont community.

CAMPAIGN TRAIL

10/11/04
The candidate who won the Republican primary, John Fleming, is now receiving the support of the Republican leaders he once scorned and is running a vigorous campaign. And he has some marquee names, principally Rudolph W. Giuliani, strongly supporting his bid. For the Democrats, winning the seat is crucial to their long-term strategy of gaining the seven seats they need to gain a tie with the Republicans in the Senate. But the Republicans are just as determined to hold on to the seat. To underscore that point, state Republican leaders have been pouring money into the campaign of Mr. Fleming, 46, a former police detective who coordinated security operations for Mr. Giuliani when he was mayor. Mr. Giuliani is scheduled to hold a fund-raising event for him, and so is Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader. ( NY Times)

10/06/04
Democrat Jeff Klein and Republican John Fleming are scheduled to debate on Wednesday, October 20, at New Rochelle City Hall. The candidate debate is sponsored by the League of Women Voters of New Rochelle and is open to the public. The third candidate running for State Senate District 34 seat, Stephen Kaufman, declined an invitation to participate in the October 20 debate. (Pelham Weekly)

10/04/04
Despite loses in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman insists he is still actively campaigning on two minor-party lines for a Bronx-Westchester seat in the state Senate. A Democrat, Kaufman had originally been supported by New York's Republican leaders in the primaries, after Republican Senator Guy Velella was forced to give up his seat. Republican voters, however, rejected Kaufman in favor of John Fleming. Kaufman also lost the Democratic nomination after a majority of Democratic leaders supported for Assemblyman Jeff Klein over Kaufman. Kaufman has secured both the Conservative and Independence lines. (CBS)

10/04/04
Claiming he is "truly the independent candidate," Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman denied rumors that he will withdraw from the race for a State Senate seat. Kaufman described his opponents, Fleming and Klein, as extremists, too far right and too far left, respectively. (1010 Wins)

09/23/04
After an intense battle, Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein definitively defeated Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman in the Democratic Primary for the 34th Senate District Seat on September 14, 58 percent to 35 [ercemt. Despite support from Republican Governor Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and a win in the Bronx, Kaufman lost the Republican nomination. Performing poorly in Weschester, he lost to John Fleming. Kaufman did, however, win the Conservative and Independence party bids and says he is "still in the race." (The Bronx Times )

09/08/04
Supporters of State Assemblmember Jeffey Klein are expected to gather today to denounce ads linking Klein to abuses at nursing homes. Those slated to attend include State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, as well as City Comptroller William Thompson. (Crain's Insider)

09/08/04
Both Jeffrey Klein and Stephen Kaufman are winning backing in their contest for the State Senate. Klein has support from Senator Charles Schumer, former Governor Mario Cuomo and the Bronx Democratic Party, while Kaufman boast support from the state AFL-CIO and unions representing city teachers, police, firefighters and sanitation workers. (Crain's Insider)

09/07/04
The Riverdale Review charges that candidate Jeffrey Klein’s law firm has defended operators of nursing homes that “have been repeatedly cited for violating the rights of the elderly.” Riverdale Review)

U.S. Representative Eliot Engel endorsed Steve Kaufman in the race for the State Senate from the 34th District. "Steve Kaufman is the best choice for State Senate," Engel said. "He has worked tirelessly to create jobs, reduce the cost of healthcare and put more money into schools." Riverdale Review)

 

08/29/04
New York Times Endorsement: Mr. Velella, a Republican, kept a long hold on a district with heavily Democratic registration through a deeply pragmatic approach. He used his clout as a member of the Senate majority party to provide goodies to his district, in the form of pork-barrel programs and personal political favors. The downside of his system is now apparent -- Mr. Velella is in jail for conspiring to take bribes from people seeking to do business with the state. The Republican establishment -- which recently managed to send the imprisoned Mr. Velella a stipend check to reward him for his role as deputy majority leader this year -- wants to hang on to this district. So the party leaders, still in that pragmatic mode, have decided to back a Democrat, Assemblyman Stephen B. Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman, who refuses to say whether he will turn Republican if elected, is taking no chances. He is running on four party lines -- Democratic, Republican, Conservative and Independence. It's hard to imagine anyone who fits into all these categories, especially in the wildly partisan politics of the State Capitol. In the Republican primary, John Fleming, a former detective, is mounting an impressive challenge to Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Fleming, a veteran police officer who worked with former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, is ready to fight for reform -- real reform that starts at the top with the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno. While we do not agree with Mr. Fleming on some important issues, he recognizes the real-world needs of the state, including fixing the harsh, expensive and ineffective Rockefeller-era drug laws. We urge Republican voters to choose Mr. Fleming. In the Democratic Party, Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein opposes the omnipresent Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Klein is an energetic legislator who has displayed ambitions for statewide office. That may be what is propelling his promises to stand up for reform, but we will take reform in Albany wherever we can get it, especially if he manages to shed his connections to the Bronx Democratic Party establishment. He gets our endorsement. If Democrats nominate Mr. Klein, and Republicans go for Mr. Fleming, voters in the old Velella district will have a clear and decent choice for the general election in November. (New York Times)

08/26/04
Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz, generally considered a liberal Democrat, has endorsed Steve Kaufman in the race for State Senate, even though Kaufman is also running as a Republican as well as a Democrat. When asked to explain the choice between Kaufman and Jeffrey Klein, Dinowitz said, "I've worked with both of them in the Assembly for 10 years and I know both of them very well, and I've found that Kaufman is more straightforward. . . . I don't always agree with him but I can trust him." (a href="http://www.bronxmall.com/norwoodnews/news/page2.html" target="new">Norwood News)

7/30/04
Assemblyman Stephen B. Kaufman has called the decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit to bring more money to New York City schools ‘irresponsible.’ Unable to schedule a meeting, some 20 students, parents, educators and advocates marched on Mr. Kaufman’s office July 23. [Kaufman] dismissed the march. ‘They’re full of crap,’ Mr. Kaufman said. ‘How dare they picket me.” ( Yonkers Tribune)

7/28/04
Westchester County Legislator Clinton Young, D-Mount Vernon, yesterday joined fellow Legislator Vito Pinto, D-Tuckahoe, in dropping out of the race for the 34th Senate District and endorsing Klein in a likely Sept. 14 Democratic primary against another Bronx Democratic Assemblyman, Stephen Kaufman. (Journal News)

7/22/04
The top two contenders for Velella’s seat, Assemblymen Stephen Kaufman and Jeff Klein, each submitted about 5,000 signatures to the State Board of Elections, five times the number required to get on the Democratic primary ballot and probably a large enough excess to overcome any challenges by opponents. Kaufman submitted an additional several thousand signatures to get on the Republican and Conservative Party ballots, where he faces opposition from retired Detective John Fleming of Riverdale, and on the Independence Party ballot, where he will run unopposed. (Bronx Times Reporter)

7/12/04
Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Pataki, and the Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, will co-host a $1,000-aplate fund-raising breakfast for the presumptive Republican nominee, Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman, at Mr. Bloomberg's Upper East Side townhouse. (The New York Sun)

07/09/04
As a commanding state senator from the Bronx, Guy J. Velella worked the corridors of power in Albany for nearly three decades, serving constituents and, occasionally, himself. Since pleading guilty last month to conspiring to take bribes, however, Velella, negotiates a sullen concrete corridor on Rikers Island to his new jailhouse job: He is a commissary clerk dispensing candy, chips and toiletries to other inmates from behind a plexiglass barricade. (NYTimes)

07/09/04
A rare pitched battle for an open State Senate seat in the Bronx drew political heavyweights out yesterday to endorse a candidate running for the seat vacated by the disgraced Guy J. Velella. In a sign of the intensifying battle and the importance attached by the parties to controlling that seat, two Democratic rivals from the 2001 mayoral campaign, Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer, praised Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein, calling him a "real Democrat" and portrayed Mr. Klein's opponent in the Democratic primary, Assemblyman Stephen B. Kaufman, as a tool of Republicans. (NY Times)

06/22/04
The second district where the Democrats are concentrating their efforts covers the northern Bronx and a portion of Westchester County. In that district, Guy J. Velella, the veteran Bronx Republican, resigned from the State Senate last month and pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to take bribes. Republicans are so unsure of winning that seat that they are planning to support a Democratic assemblyman who will seek the nomination of both parties and then join the Republican caucus if he is elected. (NY Times)

06/15/04
The thing that is wrong with politics is the thing that is wrong with Stephen Kaufman, who has been a Bronx City Council member and an Assemblyman for more than 30 years. He is the emblem of a bad breed. Term limits was invented for do-nothing drones like him. What makes Mr. Kaufman relevant is that he is running for the state Senate seat vacated by Republican Guy Velella, who has pleaded guilty to bribery charges. Mr. Kaufman is running in both the Democratic Party primary and as a Republican in the general election. A few years ago, Mr. Kaufman condemned nonpartisan elections, saying, "I'm against that – parties stand for something." (The New York Sun.)

06/11/04
With powerful GOP state Senator Guy Velella resigning after a bribery conviction, the borough has lost a key player who delivered funding and legislation in the Republican-controlled upper house. But two state Senate races are shaping up as Republican-tinged with the Democratic contenders arguing they could fill the Velella gap. (Daily News)

06/10/04
With Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman, who currently represents the 82nd Assembly District, and Assemblyman Jeff Klein, who currently represents the 80th Assembly District, considered the two main contenders for the Senate seat vacated last month by Guy Velella, the coming weeks and months should prove quite interesting in terms of who is or isn't running for office in the Bronx this November. (Bronx Times Reporter)

06/1/04
Thanks to Republican power broker Guy Velella's guilty plea to bribery charges last month, voters in his 34th Senatorial District in the Bronx and Westchester were denied the opportunity to hear the unguarded, innermost thoughts of their longtime elected official, as captured on bugs placed by state police investigators on the former senator's phones. But now that the race to succeed the eight-term senator is already hot and heavy, with candidates battling to claim ownership rights to the Velella legacy, a brief glimpse into some of the things that were weighing on the former senator's mind in recent years might be enlightening. (Village Voice)

05/27/04
Bronx Democratic Party Leader Jose Rivera also said yesterday that the party is backing Assemblyman Jeff Klein (D-Pelham Parkway) over his fellow Assemblyman Steve Kaufman (D-East Bronx) for the Bronx/Westchester state Senate seat vacated by Republican Guy Velella, who pleaded guilty this month in a bribery case. (NY Times)

05/27/04
Westchester Republicans voted overwhelmingly last night to support a Bronx Democrat, Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman, for the state Senate seat vacated this month by GOP stalwart Guy Velella. (The Journal News)

05/27/04
In what is quickly becoming the year's most interesting local political campaign, Assemblymen Stephen Kaufman and Jeffrey Klein will both compete for the State Senate seat vacated last week by Guy Velella, and Kaufman will also seek the Republican Party nomination. (Bronx Times Reporter)

05/25/04
Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein of the Bronx formally announced his candidacy for state Senate yesterday, setting up at least a three-person Democratic primary for the seat vacated by former state Sen. Guy Velella. (The Journal News)

05/24/04
With Guy Velella knocked out of the state Senate by a felony conviction, Republicans are weighing endorsing a Democratic assemblyman to run for his seat in the Bronx. Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, in the strongest signal yet that Republicans are wooing conservative Assemblyman Stephen Kaufman to switch parties and run for the seat, last week called him "extremely capable." (New York Daily News)

05/21/04
The total failure of leadership by the Republicans and Democrats who are supposed to be running New York's state government often escapes the notice of average citizens. Lately, however, the corrupt nature of Albany's political culture has surfaced in unusually vivid ways, perhaps giving voters an idea of how morally and intellectually bankrupt the Capitol scene really is. Republican senators lost the powerful chairman of their Campaign Committee last week when Guy Velella quit the Senate, then pleaded guilty to a bribery-related charge. The Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno, and 19 other Republicans had coughed up more than $150,000 from their various campaign funds to help pay Mr. Velella's legal bills. (NY Times)

05/18/04
The first time Guy Velella, the now disgraced ex-state senator, realized he might be in trouble was in early 2000. On February 11 that year he placed an urgent call to Vincent Velella, his father and law partner. (Village Voice)

05/16/04
Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein, D-Bronx, who has been raising funds for the 2006 state attorney general race, said he was seriously considering running for the 34th Senate District, which includes parts of the Bronx, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle and Yonkers, as well as all of Pelham and Eastchester. (The Journal News)

05/16/04
Bronx Democrats are lining up to vie for the state Senate seat vacated Friday by veteran Republican Guy Velella, who is expected to plead guilty tomorrow to bribery charges. (Daily News)

Learn More:
• Albany's Dysfunction
• Blame Albany
• How Albany Controls New York City
• Will Albany Scandals Lead to Reform?
• Albany Rules?
• Upstate Downstate Debate

Eye on Albany Campaign 2004 home

 

 

 

My Journey With the Rockefeller Drug Laws


In 1984, I had a wife and child and worked hard to makes ends meet in my radio installation shop in the East Bronx. But I was frustrated with my situation. Business was bad. I was also a gambler, which did not help. Desperate for money to pay bills, I made the biggest mistake of my life.

word got around to a drug dealer who dealt in the bowling alleys of Westchester County. I was asked to deliver an envelope containing four and one half ounces of cocaine. At first I refused, but after a while my desperate state overtook my better senses, and I agreed -- and walked into an undercover drug sting operation. The drug dealer worked for the police and was trying to save himself from a life sentence. The more people he got involved, the less time he got.

In 1985, I was found guilty. Because I was a first-time non-violent offender, the judge gave me a break, or as much of a break as he could. He sentenced me to serve a term of 15 years to life. The draconian punishment was a result of New York State's Rockefeller Drug Laws. These laws mandated a minimum sentence of 15 years to life for sales of two ounces or possession of four ounces of a controlled substance. I was sent to Sing Sing prison, one of the most dangerous prisons in America. I was shocked to find that a majority of the 2,300 prisoners there were also serving sentences under the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

Like all prisoners who serve long sentences, I learned what doing hard time was all about. It was not just marking X’s on your calendar, it was about learning to live in the present, no matter how terrible it was. Thinking of the past and hoping for the future were as painful as they were futile. I had to forget about life on the outside in order to maintain my sanity on the inside. I had to let go of the rope to survive. I thought about time only in reference to the day at hand and the functions associated with it - the headcounts and bells and other mechanisms by which the prison maintained order and security. Even death had become a routine part of prison life.

PAINTING MY WAY TO FREEDOM

Faced with violence and a self-defeating environment I prayed for a way to survive. My prayers were answered when I discovered art. I began to paint. It was through my painting that I transcended the negativity of imprisonment and found meaning in my life.

In 1988 one night sitting in my 6 x 9 cell I picked up a mirror and saw an individual who was going to spend the most productive years of his life in a cage. I picked up a canvas and painted my self -portrait titled 15 Years to Life. In 1994 the painting appeared at the Whitney Museum of American Art. It generated tremendous publicity and in 1997 Governor George Pataki granted me clemency. I had literally painted my way to freedom.

When released I had struggled with my identity. My direction in life was unclear until I spoke at Spottford Correctional Facility for youth in the South Bronx. I was shocked to see my audience comprised of boys and girls ten to 15 years old who were dressed in prison uniforms. All were black and Latino and they were being molded into becoming victims of the prison industrial complex. It was then I decided to use my art and story as a vehicle to become an agent of change and transformation.

I volunteered with various activist groups who regularly visited the State Capitol to advocate for repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws.

WHY THE LAWS PERSIST

Some people have asked why such harsh and counterproductive laws have persisted for so long. One reason is money. Prisons are big business. Since 1982, 33 prisons have been built up-state.

 

Another reason is what I consider institutionalized racism; 75 percent of the 17,000 people locked up under these laws come from seven inner-city neighborhoods.

A third reason is New York politics. In October of 2004, New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice conducted a study that determined that New York State had the “most dysfunctional legislative process in the nation.”

The reality of New York politics smacked me in the face when during an early meeting a politician said that while he knew drug law reform and rehabilitation were necessary and right, he did not “want to look soft on crime.” It made me furious and I wanted an explanation. Another Assemblyman made it worst when he answered. “We all understand” he said, “but the Democrats just lost three seats in the House and we attribute it to appearing soft on criminal issues. We can’t afford to lose any more seats!”

“So that means that change will never occur,” I shot back. “You politicians are more concerned with your careers than implementing changes that would make the system work better.” He shrugged and didn’t reply. After several equally dismal meetings, I knew that I was wasting my time. I realized that the only way to change the laws was to change public opinion.

CHANGING PUBLIC OPINION

In 1998 I met Randy Credico, the director of the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice. Together we helped organize the "Mothers of the New York Disappeared", a group of ex-prisoners and family members of those incarcerated under the Rockefeller drug laws. Within six years, through street-level protests that generated tremendous publicity, the group managed to bring to the public its agenda of eliminating these terrible laws.

 

In 2001, for the first time in the 27 years since the Rockefeller laws had been passed, the governor of New York along with the Senate and Assembly all agreed that the laws had to be changed. But, still, for the next several years, nothing happened. The politicians could not agree on what the changes should be. Meanwhile, thousands of human beings were rotting away in prison while their families suffered.

At least the 2003 legislative session ended with a bang, because hip hop entrepreneur Russell Simmons got involved, launching the largest drug war protest in New York City history. Over 50,000 people crowded the streets near City Hall. Celebrities such as Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon teamed up with Hip Hop stars like P. Diddy and Jay-Z to fight for repeal.

At a party launching my memoirs, "15 To Life", given by the Whitney Museum of American Art in October, 2004, there were more than 300 people in attendance, several of whom, including State Senator David Patterson, former U.S. Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Governor Rockefeller’s granddaughter, spoke out against the laws.

Finally, in December of last year, it was announced that the Rockefeller drug laws would be reformed. I was ecstatic. I thought that finally after all these years of struggle our dream would come through.

WATERED-DOWN REFORM

However, upon examination of the changes, I discovered that the new reforms were so watered down as to be of little meaning. The weight standards have been doubled, so that now the mandatory minimum sentences kick in after sales of four ounces of a controlled substance or possession of eight ounces. And then the mandatory minimum sentences have been reduced from 15-to-life to 8-to-20 years for A-1 felons, the most serious category of felons. But these changes affect only about 400 current prisoners -- leaving more than 16,000 behind, with no relief in sight.

 

These changes do not address the core of the problem of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. What needs to happen is the restoration of judicial discretion. We want judges to have the power to look at the totality of facts and base sentences on the consideration of each case and when appropriate, sentence offenders to treatment. We want to change the power structure of the Rockefeller drug laws. The 62 District Attorneys of New York State now control the outcome of drug cases from their conception. Our argument is: how could they be fair when these prosecutors’ careers live or die by their rates of conviction?

The reforms have now gone into effect and prisoners who had served lengthy sentences under the Rockefeller drug laws have started filling motions for resentencing. Although I applaud the opportunity for these individuals to be reunited with their loved ones, I want to send a message to the governor and the legislature. We will continue to fight for true reform and will not stop until that goal is reached.

Anthony Papa will have a book/talk on Febuary 10, at 6pm at Hue-Man Books and February 12 at the Schomburg Center for Research In Black Culture

City Council Stated Meeting - February 2, 2005


Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.

Quote of the Day:
“There was a guy named `Heavy Louie’ who used to do these types of loans. [Now] it is legalized larceny by the government and it’s a heavier interest rate than even Heavy Louie charged.” – Councilmember Michael Nelson on regulating so-called payday loans.

Meeting Summary:

On February 2, the New York City Council passed two bills to help protect New Yorkers from so-called "pay day loans,” short-term loans with extremely high interest rates.

New York state caps interest rates at 25 percent, but out-of-state lenders can still operate in the city and often charge between 400 and 900 percent interest. Many of the individuals who take such loans have had a difficult time establishing the proper credit or have a poor credit history and are ineligible for a traditional bank loan.

“People in quick need of cash are literally getting ripped off,” said Councilmember Leroy Comrie, who drafted the bills.

The legislation (Intro 176 and Intro 177) requires that lenders:
- Provide written disclosure of the loan’s terms in English and in Spanish
- Provide demographic information on borrowers to the Department of Consumer Affairs
- And outline fees, interest rates, and other charges in advertising.

The council also passed resolutions calling on the federal government to close loopholes used by out-of-state companies and calling on the MTA to prohibit payday loan advertisements on signs and billboards.

Another bill on the council’s agenda was the “demolition by neglect” bill (Intro 403-B), which gives the Landmark Preservation Commission the power to fine property owners who allow their historic buildings to decay.

“I remember, with absolute horror and disgust, watching a New York City landmark – the RKO Keith’s Theater in Flushing – be destroyed by willful and deliberate neglect,” said Councilmember Tony Avella, who helped draft the bill. “And at the time, the city was powerless to do anything against the property owner.”

Some religious groups, including the Archdiocese of New York, opposed the bill, arguing that it will put an unfair financial burden on congregations that are struggling to maintain their aging buildings. Many council members expressed concerns about how the bill will affect religious groups, but said that the measure would only be applied to those who were “intentionally trying to circumvent the landmarks laws.”

The measure passed by a vote of 47 in favor, 0 against, and 1 abstention from Brooklyn Councilmember Eric Dilan.

The council also passed a measure (Res 388-A) to help preserve affordable housing in the city by extending tax exemptions for buildings in the Mitchell-Lama program for 50 years.

Created in 1955, the Mitchell-Lama housing program offered low-interest mortgages and tax breaks to developers in exchange for affordable rents. There are approximately 100,000 apartments still in the program.

Currently, property tax exemptions for Mitchell-Lama buildings end as soon as the mortgage is paid off, so owners have little incentive to keep their building in the program. As a result, many buildings are going private and renting apartments at market rates. The council's resolution, which has the power of a bill, would extend property tax incentives to encourage buildings to stay in the program.

“We have an affordable housing crisis in this city,” said Speaker Gifford Miller. “And we must begin by preserving what we have.”

All of the bills, with the exception of the landmark preservation bill, passed by a vote of 48 to 0.

The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for February 16, 2005.

 

So Many Wonderful Controversies


Gotham Gazette's Reading NYC Book Club held a conversation on January 27 at the New Amsterdam branch of the New York Public Library with Elizabeth Kolbert, the New Yorker staff writer whose articles about New York politics have been collected in a new book, "The Prophet of Love and Other Tales of Power and Deceit." An edited transcript appears below.

Elizabeth Kolbert (reading from her book): Before I worked in Albany, I had always wanted to be a political reporter, perhaps because I had no real idea what the job entailed. I arrived there on December 31, 1986, the eve of Mario Cuomo's second inaugural, and almost immediately was assigned to covered a scandal involving an assemblywoman named Gerdi Lipschutz. A 63-year-old former dental assistant from Queens, Lipschutz had served in the Legislature for six terms and had risen to the chairmanship of the Assembly Majority Steering Committee. At the behest of her county's Democratic organization, she had also, prosecutors revealed, maintained two "no-show" employees on her legislative payroll. First, her indignant colleagues shunned her; later, they voted to strip her of her seniority and deprive her of her legislative stipend - or "lulu" - and collectively called on her to resign. On her last day in office, it fell to me to follow her out to her car in the Capitol's underground garage. I can still recall the baleful look that she shot me when I asked her if she had any final observations to share about her situation.

In principle, Albany is a state capital much like any other, with struggles that are no more or less edifying; as a practical matter, anyone who has ever spent much time there knows different. (William Kennedy, Albany's Virgil, who has described the city as "a state of mind," notes that "wickedness has been our lot for more years than any man alive can remember.") I ended up reporting on Albany for five legislative sessions. During that time, the State Senate Minority Leader, Manfred Ohrenstein, was indicted on 564 counts of grand larceny and conspiracy, and the Assembly Speaker, Mel Miller, was indicted on 19 counts of conspiracy and mail fraud. Both cases were eventually dismissed. (Shortly after I left, the state's chief judge, Sol Wachtler, was charged with extortion after demanding a payoff from his ex-girlfriend and threatening to kidnap her daughter.) The commanding officer of the New York State militia was discovered not only to have accepted bribes and falsified official documents but also to have been a bigamist, and two janitorial workers were reprimanded for having had sex - repeatedly - on a desk at the headquarters of the New York State Department of Transportation. The state's drug-treatment commissioner was forced to resign after allegations that he had steered contracts to friends who failed to provide any actual drug treatment. He became a pushcart vender and on warm days sold hot dogs in front of the Capitol. He called himself the Knishener.

Late last month [April 2003], I went back to the capitol to see how Albany would handle this year's $12 billion budget gap, the worst since the Great Depression. On the first day I spent in the city, the state's legislative leaders emerged from a meeting with Governor George Pataki to say that they still hoped to reach an agreement with him on a spending plan, which was interpreted to mean that they had reached an impasse. On the second day, the governor asserted, "In times of challenge, New Yorkers have always stood together in making the right decisions," which was understood to signal a complete breakdown in negotiations. By the end of the week, the Legislature had approved a $93 billion budget that violated just about every condition Pataki had laid down. The governor has labeled it "patently unconstitutional." At one point, standing in the Capitol's Red Room, he declared, "I will do everything in my ability to prevent this plan from becoming law, including exercising my veto powers." Depending on how things play out, the struggle between the governor and the legislature will either merely prolong the state's fiscal problems or, more likely, compound them.

Gotham Gazette: So what's wrong up there?

Elizabth Kolbert: They get reelected and keep going up there every year. That doesn't provide a great deal of accountability. It's particularly screwed up because there are traditions that have allowed a complete abrogation of responsibility.

People have a lot of theories as to why that is the case. Redistricting is a big one. They carve up the districts so that the Democrats control the Assembly and the Republicans control the Senate and it will ever be thus.

Chances for Reform?

GG: What are the immediate prospects for reform?

 

EK: I really don't know. You've got to think a lot of the members are really, really concerned. They have no real clout and almost nothing to do. A lot of them are not bad people.

GG: What about the reforms that have been enacted so far -- will they make any difference?

EK: You mean like having to show up to vote? I think it will make a marginal difference. Senate Minority Leaders David Patterson - and he's a nice guy, he's a smart guy -- said that in all the years he's been in Albany-- he's counted -- something like maybe 75,000 bills have passed through the Senate and in only four cases was the outcome of the bill in doubt. When a bill gets to the floor, it is going to pass. That is just an Albany rule. If it is not going to pass, it doesn't get to the floor.

So it's really the committee system that is broken. Bills only get reported out of committee when they're going to get to the floor. That is not how it should be. And that reform they haven't talked about yet.

Book club member: How do we as constituents do anything when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Governor George Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno are the three people who control things?

EK: I don't think the legislature is passing a lot of bills that don't have support. When you go to Albany, you pass through the Assembly chamber. The Democratic majority goes into that room. And when they go in there, the assemblyman says, "I can't vote for that bill. It will kill me in my district." That debate goes on. So there is influence in that sense.

Book club member: Is it worse today?

EK: I got there in 1987 and I think it was better then because, to be honest, the caliber of people was better.

Book club member: What's the first step toward actually changing this?

EK: There was talk of a constitutional convention. I do think people demanding a certain level of accountability would help -- a lot of people marching up there.

There are two things that legislators are afraid of. One is their money, their campaign money, which Shelly [Silver] controls, of course, and the second is votes. But you have to convince them that this is the issue they're not going to get elected on.

People are always talking about having referendums and initiatives to get things done. It sounds nice on paper, and it sounds nice talking here - and maybe it would be a good idea -- but a lot of the proposals in California are very destructive. They're contradictory.

That's popular democracy but it also can be manipulated. So it's not entirely clear to me that that would solve the problems.

Rudy, Mike and NYC vs. Albany

GG: How did you decide to spend your life covering New York politics?

 

EK: I kind of stumbled into it. I was a junior reporter at the New York Times - low man on the totem pole - and I got sent to Albany one year. I was incredulous at first. It's depressing on a civics level. But the personalities and the human comedy are quite interesting. And I do want to say about Mario Cuomo, that while he was a nut in some ways, he was a brilliant orator and he had a lot of ideas.

I don't know that it's that fascinating any more. Whatever you want to say about the current governor, he's not a rhetorician

GG: Why did you call your book "The Prophet of Love"?

EK: The Prophet of Love is the title of a profile on Rudy Giuliani, which is a bit ironic. And it just seemed like an appropriate title for the book.

Book club member: Can we talk about how Albany's control of the city came about?

EK: The city is a creation of the state.

Mike Miscione: In 1870 they passed what is known as the Tweed charter, which also became known as the home rule charter, that gave New York City much more control of the finances and activities of New York City. That led to the greatest scandal in the history of the City of New York - the Tweed Ring scandal, which was personified in the construction of the Tweed Courthouse. So people are always saying "New York control," but this can be a cautionary tale of what happens when you give control to the City of New York. At the time, the State of New York, which was largely Republican controlled, did a lot of very progressive, very important things in New York City, and they were able to do that because they were isolated from Tammany control.

EK: Your point is well taken. If you look back really far back - or maybe not even that far back, I don't want to be too despairing - New York has had visionary government at various points and had visionary leaders. You look at things like the [water] reservoir system, a major accomplishment for its time. We live off the vision of a lot of the people who came before us. So, I think there have been moments of inspiration and genius.

I think that Mayor Bloomberg when he pushes for the stadium is trying to be part of that tradition. I'm not sure he's got the right take on it, but I think he is aware that, if it weren't for the people who had really thought 50 or 100 years ahead, the city would be completely different and much worse.

GG: In the book there are three profiles of Rudy Giuliani. You leave him on a high note. It's how he handled September 11. Since then, he's gone up and seems to be coming back down. What do you think is ahead for him?

EK: I wish I knew. I know the Republicans are going to try to get him to run against Hillary Clinton. He says he's not going to run against Hillary. He clearly would like to go right to the White House. Whether he does need to do anything between or whether he's having a good time making an absolute fortune, I don't know.

Book club member: What about running for governor?

EK: He runs a very good rhetorical campaign and could do a job of that. I really don't know whether he could be a good governor. He might well be. Governor is an executive position just like mayor. It's less newsworthy. You're not in the news. It might be kind of tedious.

I think an Eliot Spitzer- Giuliani race would be a fascinating race. I'd like to be there for that.

Book club member: Would you say the state is unmanageable?

EK: No, I wouldn't say the state's unmanageable. Why the city was always called ungovernable was because you actually have to deliver services. You actually have to run things. When you run the state, you really are not running very much. That's one of the reasons why it avoids scrutiny and why it doesn't make the news.

A lot of it is just passing through money. You send your taxes to Albany and they get sent right back -- to Mike Bloomberg to spend on schools and on Medicaid. It's a huge amount of money that is passed around and divvied up, which is why the budget is really all the state focuses on for months and months. And that is where their power comes from: sucking in a tremendous amount of money - look at your state tax dollars - and then redistributing it. They are not out there plowing the road. They are not out there picking up the garbage.

Howard Koeppel: I'm fascinated by the dynamic between the city and the state. We here in the city are always saying, "Oh, we've been shortchanged by Albany," and I don't doubt that. By the same token, though, I've traveled all around the state. In towns like Buffalo and Niagara Falls, main streets are boarded up and the economies are in shambles. Is the balance right, in terms of financing, or is the balance off? Who really deserves more? How can we, in good conscience, ask for more money when these places are in such dire condition?

EK: That's a very good question. New York's argument often boils down to, "We have X percent of the students and we don't get X percent of the money." Now, the guys in Albany would point out that the city raises its money in very different ways from the suburbs and small cities and that that money is, as they like to say in Albany, basically "fungible." So when we spend money it goes into one big pot and you can spend it for education or not, it doesn't matter. If you do all the calculations it's very, very difficult to decide whether the city is getting shortchanged or not.

People would argue up and down and from one end to the other. Certainly, as you point out, the city is economically in a lot better shape than a lot of these other cities so you would be hard-pressed to say, "Let's just take money from Buffalo and give it to New York City." But, in terms of the money the city sends to Albany, the city generates a lot of the money - all the major corporations are here and they're sending money to Albany -- so how do you apportion that?

Hilarious Hillary

GG: In your writing about Hillary Clinton you focus on the fact that she wasn't from New York, came here, and had a lot of trouble. You mentioned the St. Patrick's Day parade, that she didn't see the potential danger in that. You go through a couple of other things. So, why do outsiders have such a tough time navigating New York politics?

 

EK: There are two pieces about Hillary in here. One is when she is a senator and it's pretty complimentary to her. I think she's worked very hard for New York and is in a difficult position as a minority senator. I've followed her around for a long time and she's very involved in almost ridiculously nitty-gritty issues.

But to go back to her original campaign, she did some totally hilarious things. She wore that Yankees baseball cap. She said that she had passed through Elmira as a kid — I mean it was just laughable.

New York politics is very complicated -— ethnically very complicated. It has a long, long history; you're stepping into a lot of battles, and the St. Patrick's Day parade was a great one. She said, "Oh, yeah, I'd love to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade," completely unaware of 10 years of court battles. Many, many things that in other places would be pretty non-controversial in New York are wildly controversial. That's the function of being such a polyglot city and having so many wonderful controversies, and why it's great to write about New York.

But she is a student of things and she's very methodical; she methodically learned about New York. But before, she just didn't instinctively get it. She didn't realize, "Oh my God, there's a minefield here and there's a minefield there." So she found out a lot about them by simply stepping on them, and it was hilarious.

She's a Midwestern girl, from Illinois. She said, and I think it was true, that she related to upstate, that it was much more Midwestern. And she's very popular upstate. I once went with her to a meeting of, she said it was the farm advisory board. She sat around with a bunch of farmers and seemed very genuinely interested in the dairy issues. And there she was.

Book club member: What is it about New York State that attracts so many carpetbaggers?

EK: Well, we're willing to elect them.

The Education Of Michael Bloomberg

GG: The other newcomer, who's not so new to New York City, but to politics, is the mayor. He wasn't incredibly popular when he started, and I was wondering about your thoughts on how he's managed to recover and learn to better navigate the city's politics.

EK: His problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that he came into politics and said (he's never told me this but people around him would say this and act this way): "This a city, it's like any other organization, it's an employer of 250,000 people, and it should be run like a business, rationally with certain rational principles."

What he ran up against was that people didn't really want government to be organized rationally. It is organized the way it's organized because of enormous numbers of constituencies and enormous numbers of interests. He came up against that, and it was an education at every turn. I think he has learned that politics and running a government are not like running a privately held corporation. He's much more sensitive to that right now.

The question is, is that good or bad, because obviously, you have to be willing to go up against a lot of these interests if you want to get something done. That is the problem with running New York City: with every single move you make, there are many entrenched interests, sentimentally entrenched and financially entrenched, and there's tremendous resistance to change. Every garden will be fought over, every corner will be fought over. "We will fight you in the trenches, we will fight you in the streets." What's great about New York is that people really care about it, but from the standpoint of making systemic change—even if everyone sees that something is broken—you have 500,000 ideas on which way to fix it.

So sometimes, you can argue, the mayor - whoever that is -- has to say, "We are doing it this way," and has to put all of their political capital behind it. To a certain extent, he did that with the schools and the chips will fall where they will. Was it the right way to do it? Once again, I don't know. But it was a way to do it, and he did do it.

GG: You have a chapter about the budget and how the mayor addressed the budget deficit. Do you think the mayor has carried us through the financial hard times?

EK: He did, and he paid a huge price for that. He started by telling everybody he was raising property taxes by 18 percent, and ever since then he's told everyone they're going to get a rebate. But if he hadn't been willing to bite that particular bullet - property taxes are considered a pretty big bullet to bite in New York City -- the city would have been in pretty bad shape. It turns out the economy picked up so it wasn't year after year of bleeding red ink. But he had to get through that year, and it wasn't an easy year. He looked at the numbers and he did what he had to do and that, I think, is the kind of quality about him that is valuable.

Book club member: The City Council had to go along with it

EK: Yes, but the City Council doesn't take the hit in the way that the mayor takes the hit. Because of the Financial Control Board and all of that from the city's fiscal crisis, the city can be taken into receivership very easily. The mayor knew that, and the council knew that. If we don't get out of this year close to a balanced budget, the Financial Control Board is going to take over. That's a huge hammer.

Past Mayors, The Future Of This Mayor

GG: What are your thoughts on the mayor's race?

 

EK: Bloomberg has so much money and he's done a reasonable job. There's not a tremendous animosity toward him that someone could marshal—even if people don't love him, he's fine.

Henry Stern: Bloomberg is really an honest mayor. Every generation forgets how hard it is to get honest mayors, someone who is not accommodating people’s hanky-panky because of their communal connections. We had many mayors doing that. Koch was an exception. So were Giuliani and Bloomberg. Young people have no idea of the "good old days" when jobs were filled by political patronage.

EK: A lot of people would take exception to the particular history that you just offered but your basic point is that reform administrations run into a lot of trouble. This one may well have too except that Michael Bloomberg happens to have $4 billion to his name. If he didn't, he would be in a very different situation because he too would be reliant on the interests that finance campaigns. To his credit, he availed himself of that independence but that means that for electoral purposes he is—I don't want to say unbeatable—but very, very, hard to beat.

GG: What parts of that history would you revise?

EK: I don't consider myself an expert on this at all but obviously people would take issue with the characterization of the Koch administration. People would also take issue with the characterization of the Giuliani administration.

Henry Stern: The people Koch appointed turned out to be exceptionally honest and hard working. But there were people he held over from the Abe Beame administration. Those involved in corruption, Koch didn't appoint them, they were the preexisting clumps and previous county leaders who were an entirely different power structure.

EK: I don't want to demean his administration in any way but it ended in the graft scandal, so I don't think that many people would call it a reform administration. I personally don't think of Giuliani as a reform mayor. There was a tremendous political patronage operation so I don't think you can call that a reform administration.

I'm no expert but I think if you asked most historians, in New York City politics, reform administrations come once in a blue moon, and I think that Mike Bloomberg may indeed be one of them.

I'll Be Back

GG: We can't help but notice that you have moved out of New York, and that your last articles have been about the presidential race, "The Protestant Work Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism," and global warming. Are you planning any more pieces on New York, or did your experiences in politics and hanging out with those restaurant inspectors chase you from the city for good?

EK: My husband teaches college in Williamstown, Massachusetts at Williams College and for many years he commuted to Williams from New York. Then we did a switcheroo, and I commute to New York from Williams. So, I took a sort of hiatus from New York City politics. But it's true that after a while you need a break from New York politics. It's been a long run. But I think for the mayoral election I will be back.

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years