Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

New York's Broadband Gaps


In seven neighborhoods in New York City, businesses still can’t get high-speed Internet access (known as broadband) at prices they can afford according to a new reportby the Center for an Urban Future. These neighborhoods include Long Island City, Williamsburg, Hunts Point, Red Hook, Sunset Park, DUMBO, the Brooklyn Navy Yard and several other commercial areas.

“It is unacceptable that in huge areas of the city, in some of the fastest growing business sectors, small businesses have to choose between dial-up access and broadband that costs $1000 a month or more,” said City Councilmember Gale Brewer, the head of the Technology in Government Committee, who is leading the council’s investigation of this issue. “There has been a market failure in providing affordable broadband access -- a failure that is hobbling the economic growth of businesses outside of Manhattan.”

The “broadband gap” is a problem because the high-speed, “always-on” Internet is critical for New York’s economic competitiveness since the neighborhoods affected are the areas with the greatest potential for growth in industries such as health services, the arts, film and music production, air transportation and food production, which typically locate their offices outside of Manhattan’s central business districts.

Broadband refers to the high-speed Internet delivered in a variety of ways -- over copper wires by the telecommunications company (called a “digital subscriber line” or DSL), cables by the TV company, a T-1 line, fiber optics or wireless. The benefits of broadband include the ability to use much cheaper (sometimes even free) telecommunications services provided by companies such as Vonage, Lingo and Skype, which only work with a high-speed Internet connection. These companies allow you to make phone calls over your Internet connection for a fraction of the cost charged by Verizon. Tech-savvy businesses and non-profit organizations have already started using these alternative services for all of their telecommunications needs in order to save money.

There are several reasons for the broadband gap, says Phaedra Thomas of the Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation, an organization which provides business services to 2,400 businesses that represent over 40,000 jobs in two of these districts.

First, in terms of DSL service, the copper wire infrastructure is too old, which makes for slow transmission speeds and frequent service interruptions. Second, these neighborhoods are too far from the main telecommunications office to get service. Third, cable modem service is not available since these businesses are primarily commercial areas without demand for cable TV. Finally, at around $600 a month, higher-quality solutions (such as T-1 lines) are not affordable for these businesses.

Other obstacles to broadband access in these areas include the lack of competition between multiple providers, the low demand for broadband, the difficulty of accessing and installing wires in some buildings, and the lack of knowledge about broadband options expressed by small businesses.

Currently, the city is considering playing a more active role in closing the broadband gap by conducting more research about broadband connectivity, educating businesses about broadband, promoting sharing of a broadband connection by businesses and founding a citywide broadband commission.

Another policy being considered is to start a municipal wireless broadband initiative. "Wireless may be the only solution going forward," said Agostino Cangemi of the city's Information Technology and Telecommunications Department.

Philadelphia has already received widespread attention for its wireless initiative, which does not use public or school technology funds and instead relies on a public-private partnership. Philadelphia plans to create the infrastructure for high-speed affordable Internet access by summer 2006 for an initial investment of $10.5 million to construct and $1.5 million annually to support. However, Verizon has already successfully lobbied at the state level to make such municipal telecom projects illegal in many states. The Philadelphia project was granted an exception since it will be nearly complete before the law goes into effect.

Broadband for Affordable Housing

While solving the broadband gap for New York businesses is critical to the city’s economic future, there is another obvious gap in high-speed Internet access that might be just as important to the city’s future: affordable housing. Currently, there is a pressing need for more affordable housing units and plans are going forward to build them. It is imperative that these new units are pre-wired for broadband because it can be done for only a few hundred dollars per unit or .1 percent of the unit’s cost. However, it is much more expensive to install broadband after the building has been constructed.

Low-income people need access to the Internet in their homes because sometimes that is the only place where they may have the time or the privacy necessary to conduct research on personal health and financial issues, apply for a job online or take a distance-learning course.

Despite this, there are arguments that, even at one-tenth of one percent of the cost, funds should be used to build more affordable housing instead. In addition, installing broadband alone will not improve the opportunities of low-income residents. There is also a need for cheap Internet access, computer equipment and training. In a new City Council resolution, city officials recommend that affordable housing residents earning less than 80 percent of the median area income should get Internet access for free or for less than $10 per month.

“The benefits of this technology are so compelling that no less than 20 states and the District of Columbia, ranging from California to Kentucky, have amended their housing finance policies to encourage all new development of affordable housing to include high-speed Internet access,” said Mark Levine of One Economy, a national non-profit.

There is wide-spread support for the City Council resolution; included among the supporters are the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the New York City Housing Authority. But without legislation at the state level mandating the pre-wiring of affordable housing units for broadband, it is unlikely that builders will choose to implement this on a wide scale.

Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.

City Council Committees - 2005


2005 City Council Committees

Approved January 19, 2005
Updated June 20, 2005

Standing Committees

Aging
Maria Baez, Chair
Maria del Carmen Arroyo
Domenic Recchia
Kendall Stewart
Helen Foster
Erik Martin Dilan
Dennis Gallagher

Civil Service & Labor
Joseph Addabbo, Jr., Chair
Larry Seabrook
Dennis Gallagher
Sara Gonzalez

Consumer Affairs
Philip Reed, Chair
Joseph Addabbo Jr.
Charles Barron
John Liu
Oliver Koppell
Maria del Carmen Arroyo
Vincent Gentile

Contracts
Robert Jackson, Chair
Yvette Clarke
Joseph Addabbo Jr.
John Liu
Margarita Lopez
Kendall Stewart
David Yassky

Cultural Affairs, Libraries & International Intergroup Relations
Dominic Recchia, Chair
Eric Gioia
David Weprin
Philip Reed

Economic Development
James Sanders, Jr., Chair
Diana Reyna
Yvette Clarke
Eric Gioia
Domenic Recchia
Alan Gerson
Letitia James

Education
Eva Moskowitz, Chair
Bill DeBlasio
Leroy Comrie
Domenic Recchia
Albert Vann
Robert Jackson
John Liu
Helen Foster
Andrew Lanza
David Yassky
Oliver Koppell

Environmental Protection
James Gennaro, Chair
Margarita Lopez
Peter Vallone Jr.
Bill DeBlasio
Oliver Koppell
Dennis Gallagher
Dominic Recchia

Finance
David Weprin, Chair
Tracy Boyland
Gail Brewer
Bill DeBlasio
Lewis Fidler
Margarita Lopez
Eva Moskowitz
James Oddo
Christine Quinn
James Gennaro
Eric Gioia
Joel Rivera
Robert Jackson
Madeline Provenzano
Bill Perkins
Leroy Comrie
Helen Sears
Dennis Gallagher
Simcha Felder
Al Vann
Michael McMahon
Oliver Koppell

Fire & Criminal Justice Services
Yvette Clarke, Chair
Hiram Monserrate
Tony Avella
David Yassky
Alan Gerson

General Welfare
Bill Deblasio, Chair
Gale Brewer
Bill Perkins
Larry Seabrook
Christine Quinn
Annabel Palma
Maria del Carmen Arroyo

Governmental Operations
Bill Perkins, Chair
Madeline Provenzano
Michael Nelson
Christine Quinn
Eva Moskowitz
Joseph Addabbo Jr.
Peter Vallone Jr.
Philip Reed
Leroy Comrie

Health
Christine Quinn, Chair
Yvette Clarke
Philip Reed
Kendall Stewart
Albert Vann
Helen Sears
James Oddo
Kendall Stewart

Higher Education
Charles Barron, Chair
Gale Brewer
Miguel Martinez
Larry Seabrook
Margarita Lopez
Bill Perkins
Joel Rivera

Housing & Buildings
Madeline Provenzano, Chair
Joel Rivera
Diana Reyna
Lewis Fidler
Gale Brewer
Robert Jackson
Leroy Comrie
Melinda Katz
Tony Avella
James Oddo
Letitia James

Immigration
Kendall Stewart, Chair
Charles Barron
Lewis Fidler
Miguel Martinez
Annabel Palma

Land Use
Melinda Katz, Chair
Michael Nelson
Albert Vann
Charles Barron
Simcha Felder
Hiram Monseratte
Eric Gioia
Tony Avella
Leroy Comrie
Erik Martin Dilan
Bill Perkins
Christine Quinn
Miguel Martinez
Joel Rivera
Maria Baez
Michael McMahon
Andrew Lanza
Oliver Koppell
James Sanders, Jr.
Vincent Gentile
Annabel Palma
James Oddo
Larry Seabrook

Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse & Disability Services
Margarita Lopez, Chair
Helen Foster
Gale Brewer
Vincent Gentile
Kendall Stewart
Annabel Palma
James Gennaro

Oversight and Investigations
Eric Gioia, Chair
Miguel Martinez
Tracy Boyland
Peter Vallone Jr.
John Liu

Parks & Recreation
Helen Foster, Chair
Joseph Addabbo Jr.
Dennis Gallagher
Letitia James
Gale Brewer
Alan Gerson
Maria del Carmen Arroyo
Erik Martin Dilan
Robert Jackson

Public Safety
Peter Vallone Jr., Chair
David Yassky
James Gennarro
Melinda Katz
Hiram Monserrate
Helen Foster
Philip Reed
Eric Martin Dilan
Sara Gonzalez
Vincent Gentile

Rules/Privileges & Elections
Leroy Comrie, Chair
Christine Quinn
Bill Perkins
Madeline Provenzano
Maria Baez
Joel Rivera
David Weprin
Melinda Katz
Yvette Clarke
A. Gifford Miller
James Oddo
Diana Reyna
Lewis Fidler

Sanitation & Solid Waste Management
Michael McMahon, Chair
David Yassky
David Weprin
James Gennaro
Larry B. Seabrook
Andrew Lanza
Robert Jackson

Small Business
Micheal Nelson, Chair
Simcha Felder
David Weprin
Letitia James
Annabel Palma

Standards & Ethics
Helen Sears, Chair
Peter Vallone Jr.
A. Gifford Miller
David Weprin
Melinda Katz
Madeline Provenzano
Philip Reed
Joel Rivera
Andrew Lanza
Diana Reyna
Bill Perkins

State & Federal Legislation
Joel Rivera, Chair
Helen Sears
Joseph Addabbo Jr.
Erik Martin Dilan
Michael McMahon
Lewis Fidler
Hiram Monseratte
Maria Baez
Vincent Gentile

Technology In Government
Gale Brewer, Chair
Tracy Boyland
Bill DeBlasio
James Sanders, Jr.
Letitia James

Transportation
John Liu, Chair
Eva Moskowitz
Diana Reyna
James Sanders, Jr.
Helen Sears
Larry Seabrook
Miguel Martinez
Andrew Lanza
Joseph Addabbo, Jr.
Oliver Koppell
Sarah Gonzalez

Veterans
Hiram Monserrate, Chair
Michael Nelson
Tony Avella
Alan Gerson
Letitia James

Waterfronts
David Yassky, Chair,
Joseph Addobbo, Jr.
Gale Brewer
Alan Gerson
Eric Gioia
Michael McMahon
Vincent Gentile
Sara Gonzalez

Women's Issues
Tracy Boyland, Chair
Diana Reyna
Sara Gonzaliez
Charles Barron
Oliver Koppell

Youth Services
Lewis Fidler, Chair
Alan Gerson
Miguel Martinez
Albert Vann
Maria del Carmen Arroyo
Simcha Felder
Dennis Gallagher


Land Use Subcommittees

Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime
Simcha Felder, Chair
Charles Barron
Oliver Koppell
Leroy Comrie
Bill Perkins
Annabel Palma
James Oddo

Planning, Dispositions & Concessions
Miguel Martinez, Chair
Michael Nelson
Hiram Monserrate
Joel Rivera
Andrew Lanza
James Sanders
Vincent Gentile

Zoning Franchises
Tony Avella, Chair
Eric Gioia
Maria Baez
Melinda Katz
Michael McMahon
Christine Quinn
Albert Vann


Subcommittees

Juvenile Justice (Public Safety)
Sara Gonzalez, Chair

Public Housing
Diana Reyna, Chair

Revenue Forecasting
Oliver Koppell, Chair

Senior Centers (Aging)
Eric Dilan, Chair


Select Committees

Civil Rights
Larry Seabrook, Chair

Community Development
Al Vann, Chair

Lower Manhattan Redevelopment
Alan Gerson, Chair

The Speaker of the Council, Gifford Miller, the Majority Leader, Joel Rivera, the Minority Leader, James S. Oddo, and the Public Advocate, Betsy Gotbaum are ex-officio members of all committees.

Auto Insurance Fraud: Driving Rates Up In Brooklyn


Also:
Insurance and Its Threats in NYC

If you drive a car in Brooklyn, chances are you've encountered many headaches during that endless search for a parking spot. What, you might ask, could be worse? How about this: People in Brooklyn pay the highest car insurance rates in the state.

Someone who lives in Brooklyn and drives a 2004 Chevy Malibu would be charged an average of more than $3,000 for six months of required insurance coverage, while the average cost for the same car in the Bronx is about half that amount.

Why is this so? It is largely due to auto insurance fraud.

"DOC IN THE BOX" INSURANCE FRAUD

Brooklyn's rates are so high because the borough is home to some of the largest and most efficient auto insurance fraud mills in the country. Millions of dollars in false insurance claims are fraudulently submitted and paid each year and, according to a recent study (in pdf format) conducted by the Insurance Research Council, increased claims abuse and fraud were particularly high in Brooklyn in every category.

These criminal enterprises are centered on fake clinics known as "Doc in the Box" operations, which use an intricate system of fake victims who claim false injuries and then, after being "treated" by one of these clinics, fraudulently bill medical and auto insurance companies. Though New York State law requires medical doctors to operate clinics, most of these operations are not under the supervision of a doctor and instead are under the operation of unlicensed management teams. Instead of using the clinics to treat injuries, the Doc in the Box operators are in the business of fabricating and perpetrating insurance fraud.

All of this adds up to astronomical costs for the average Brooklyn driver.

TOO MUCH FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO HANDLE?

The Brooklyn District Attorney's office, which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting these local criminals, has not been able to keep up with these vast criminal enterprises in recent years. Recent auto fraud cases - to the extent they have been brought - have dealt only with cases being brought against the low-level "victims" and not the people responsible for running these vast schemes.

These results occasionally produce a good sound bite, but do not decrease fraud levels enough to lower premiums for the average Brooklynite. It is fair to argue that the Brooklyn D.A.'s office is without serious direction when it comes to prosecuting auto insurance fraud successfully, and that it is relying on antiquated investigative techniques.

BETTER ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES NEEDED

At the state level, the Attorney General's Auto Insurance Fraud Unit has been quite successful in regard to producing meaningful convictions. Like many other aspects of the Attorney General's office, the Auto Insurance Fraud Unit represents a model that local prosecutors should adopt. Among the reasons for its successes is a real commitment of resources to combat this sophisticated law enforcement problem. This includes assembling a highly professional staff on both the prosecutorial and investigative sides.

The same thing could be happening in Brooklyn. The Brooklyn D.A. should be using techniques such as wiretapping and undercover work to put forward a series of cases that work up the chain of command. Going after the Doc in the Box operations requires long-term commitments of resources from a smart and professional prosecutor's office. The Brooklyn D.A.'s failure to do this is evident in the lack of high-level prosecution - cases that other law enforcement teams, including the Attorney General's, are consistently putting together.

Since many of the auto fraud cases also cross jurisdictional lines, it would make sense to work with other local prosecutors to investigate and prosecute. The D.A. also needs to work together with the State Legislature to propose new, anti-kickback legislation, similar to the type used to fight against Medicaid fraud, that would effectively prohibit the clinics and law firms from paying middlemen who act as conduits between the "victims" and those who are perpetrating and certifying the fraudulent claims. Frankly, there is little public evidence that the Brooklyn D.A. has done this.

The prosecution of violent crimes is obviously an important part of protecting the citizens of Brooklyn, but, as the chief law enforcement officer in the borough, it's up to the D.A. to take on insurance fraud rings in the same aggressive and responsible manner other felonies require.

Mark G. Peters, the former chief of the New York State Attorney General's Public Integrity Unit, is running for Brooklyn District Attorney.

Testimony by New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller On Governor George Pataki's Proposed Budget


Testimony by New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller New York State Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees Joint Hearing on the 2005-2006 State Executive Budget

Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Chairman Farrell, and members of the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify today. Most of all, I want to thank you and your fellow members of the State Senate and Assembly for being such loyal friends to New York City and the eight million men, women and children who live there.

When we faced a serious fiscal crisis after the attacks of September 11th and when Governor Pataki could spare us nothing more than a few kind words, it was the membership of both houses of the State Legislature, Republican and Democrat alike, who came together and rescued our schools, our hospitals, our neighborhoods, and our quality of life.

I will never forget what you did for our city and I want you to know that I will do whatever I can to help you restore this Legislature’s legitimate budgetary powers. Last month’s ruling by the State Court of Appeals is more than just wrong on the merits. It is potentially a disaster for the people of this state. If so-called budget reform means making an irresponsible governor a more powerful governor, then maybe we need to think twice about the true meaning of budget reform.

If the power to delay is the only power that this Legislature can exercise in negotiating this year’s budget, then I urge you to use that power with maximum vigor, because I would rather you pass a late budget than a budget that looks like the one proposed by the Governor.

This is the fourth time I’ve appeared before you to talk about the Governor’s budget. And, frankly, I’m tired of appearing before this committee every year and asking you to do the job that New York City’s mayor ought to be doing.

I’m tired of hearing the Mayor talk about the Governor’s good intentions and how the Governor is trying to do the right thing when it’s obvious that the Governor isn’t trying to do the right thing for New York City.

A week ago we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”

Well, nothing matters more than the future we give our children – and the Governor’s budget is a threat to our children’s futures. If the Mayor won’t stand up to this threat, then I must ask you to do it for him.

I also ask you to do it for each of the 1.1 million children who attend public schools in our city and whom the Governor has shamelessly and repeatedly cheated out of their fair share of State education aid. After arguing for years in a court of law that those children were entitled to nothing more than an 8th grade education, the Governor is continuing to stand against the Campaign for Fiscal Equity by funding only a fraction of the amount needed to fix our schools and give our children the excellent education they need and deserve.

As we sit here today, there are hundreds of thousands of children attending school in buildings that are falling apart and bursting at the seams with overcrowding. Increased capital support is essential for helping us address the overcrowding crisis, yet the Governor’s budget includes no capital funding and the Mayor has yet to say how we are going to finance the capital improvements our schools so desperately need.

The Governor’s shortchanging of our schools is irresponsible, immoral, and unacceptable. I ask you to fight to restore the funding in state aid to public education to an adequate level that will allow us to meet the challenges facing our schools. I also ask you to stand up against the Governor’s proposal to finance education on the backs of the working poor by establishing video casinos in the five boroughs.

It is simply wrong to heap further hardship on working and middle class New Yorkers and that is why I am also asking you to oppose the Governor’s plan to extend the sales tax on clothing purchases under $110. This represents a new tax that will hurt every part of New York City, but especially in Staten Island where businesses must compete with lower sales taxes in nearby New Jersey.

The Governor’s budget proposal would squeeze working New Yorkers at the cash register but it also hurts them when they ride the subway or bus to work in the morning. The Governor and his MTA appointees have subjected these New Yorkers to the highest bus and subway fare hikes in history, with even more in store for the near future. I ask that you consider a new proposal to help them, because the burden of ensuring solvency for the MTA should not fall exclusively on the backs of those least equipped to carry it. A mass transit problem deserves a regional solution, and the institution of a regional revenue sharing program does just that. New York City’s transit riders already pay more than their fair share and, with ridership at its highest levels in half a century, we should do everything possible to discourage further fare hikes.

Finally, I want to turn to the topic of Medicaid reform. While I support the idea of cost caps so that localities won’t be burdened with the rising costs of Medicaid, I do not believe that we should enact these changes on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. The Governor’s billion dollars in cuts could also do serious damage to our health care industry, which provides more jobs than any other industry in New York City.

The Governor’s claim that his Medicaid plan will offer the City $400 million in savings is simply false, since the burden of new costs on the Health and Hospitals Corporation would eat away half of that amount. Both private and public hospitals would suffer under this plan, with $86 million in new costs coming from the elimination of 2% annual increases paid to hospitals. Seniors would also suffer from $19 million in cuts to nursing homes.

All of the issues that I have discussed can be traced to two drawbacks in our relationship with Albany which are really two sides of the same coin: First, as many of you have heard me say, the City does not receive its fair share from the State, sending $7 billion more each year to Albany than it gets back in return; and second, the City is given insufficient latitude in determining its own fiscal and revenue policies.

As you have helped us so many times in the past, I hope that you will help us now in trying to claim more of our fair share and a greater measure of autonomy that will allow us to meet long-term challenges without having to rely too much on the State.

In closing, let me thank you again for the outstanding service you have rendered to New York City. In our moment of crisis, you were there for the City and I want you to know my colleagues and I in the City Council will continue to be there for you.

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg Testifies About Governor George Pataki's Proposed Budget


MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG TESTIFIES BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE JOINT FISCAL COMMITTEES ON THE 2005-2006 EXECUTIVE BUDGET

Chairman Johnson, Chairman Farrell, distinguished members of the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees:

Thank you for this opportunity to address your committees regarding the proposed Executive Budget for State Fiscal Year 2005-2006.

I come to you from a city that has faced enormous challenges, and sustained serious losses, over the last several days. The weekend’s winter storm tested the ability of our City agencies to respond to emergency conditions—and they performed superbly in keeping New Yorkers safe under extremely severe conditions.

But yesterday, in battling two separate fires, three of New York City’s bravest, Lieutenant Curtis Meyran, Firefighter John Bellew, and Firefighter Richard T. Sclafani, fell. Several other city firefighters sustained serious injuries.

Their bravery, their sacrifice, and especially, the loss of the three courageous men who perished yesterday weigh heavily on our hearts, and remind us of the constant dangers that are valiantly faced by those who protect the rest of us. We also offer our prayers and condolences to the loved ones that they leave behind.

All of us have duties to the people of New York—and that is why I come before you to seek your urgent cooperation in repairing a number of serious flaws in the Governor’s budget. Because there are elements on both the revenue and expenditure sides of this proposed budget that, if not corrected, will fall short of meeting the needs of our people and sustaining the future of our city.

More seriously than that, some would hurt New Yorkers by undermining our ability to provide all our people with first-rate health care, improve our quality of life, and ensure the high-quality education that is the basic civil right of all our children.

On the revenue side, these include: ensuring fair treatment to New York City homeowners in the “Co-Star” and Family Health-Plus programs; and providing accelerated sales tax relief by holding to our promise to end the regressive sales tax on clothing.

On the expense side, we must begin to reform Medicaid in a way that protects the health of our most vulnerable New Yorkers, the viability of local governments, and the future of the health and medical research sector of our economy. We must also do more to provide capital support for our vital mass transit system. And the State must meet its obligations to New York City’s school children and comply with the court order in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.

These are significant challenges. The Legislature and the Governor must meet the needs of 18 million people. We understand that it’s not easy; we have 8 million New Yorkers of our own to serve.

But I am confident that the Legislature and Governor can work together with our Administration to resolve these and other issues. After all, we have a strong record of success to build on.

First as to the revenue side of the Governor’s budget. Many elements in it will have no cost to State taxpayers but will provide significant relief to the City. These include, for example, tort reform, expansion of the red light camera program, and repeal of the State Wicks Law.

The Governor’s budget also proposes fiscal relief for local governments around the State. However, a number of these proposals either exclude the City or deny City taxpayers the same benefits as taxpayers across the State. They must be corrected.

The City is, for example, not included in the across-the-board increase in revenue sharing provided to all local governments. This is the second time in the past five years that the City has been specifically excluded from increases in this flexible and consistent source of revenue.

The Governor’s budget also proposes “Co-Star. ” It would provide additional State tax relief to homeowners in localities that keep growth in local government spending below the 3% rate of inflation. This may be possible in some of our counties. But non-discretionary costs and unfunded mandates make it impossible in New York City.

Here’s what I mean. In the City’s preliminary budget that I will present on Thursday, we will project that Medicaid, pensions and fringe benefits for City employees, and other expenses beyond our control will grow by a total of almost 8% in the next fiscal year.

I see no reason why New York City homeowners should be excluded from Co-Star because of circumstances so completely beyond their, or our, control.

The Governor also proposes to accelerate the State’s takeover of the local costs of the Family Health-Plus program. We like that idea—but once again, New York City is excluded from the same treatment as the rest of the State. Currently, the Governor’s budget calls for the State to assume the total cost of Family Health-Plus in every other part of the state by October 1st, but would delay full relief for New York City until next January. There’s nothing fair about that, and it should be changed.

Our City University students—many of whom work one or more jobs and bear enormous responsibilities in looking after children or other family members—also would also be burdened by the proposed tuition increases included in the Governor’s budget. We should do all we can to encourage, not discourage, them in their studies.

These and other issues in the Governor’s budget will be described in detail in the written submission my staff will make to you in the coming days. I urge you to take steps to address them.

The Governor’s budget also accelerates the expiration of the personal income tax surcharge enacted after the recent fiscal crisis. It would, in fact have a retroactive sunset of December 31st, 2004.

The sales tax surcharge also would expire on schedule this May 31st. I want to commend the governor for standing by his pledge to sunset the sales tax surcharge—an economic disincentive that drives shoppers and jobs to New Jersey and Connecticut.

Ending that surcharge as promised also is essential to keeping faith with taxpayers who came through for the city when it mattered most. That’s the same reason why we enacted the City property tax rebate, which we could not have done without your help and approval last year; it will be included in next year’s budget as well. It provides much-needed relief to city dwellers who pay a higher-than-average share of the State’s taxes.

But in the arena of tax relief, I believe that we can do better than that. Rather than accelerating the sunset of the PIT surcharge, I urge instead ending the sales tax on clothing and shoes to expire on June 1st, as originally scheduled. Holding to that pledge would provide much fairer tax relief to a much broader number of New Yorkers than the PIT proposal would.

After all, the PIT surcharge only applies to the top two income brackets in the State. But everyone pays the sales tax on clothing. And the PIT surcharge is also a deductible item on Federal income tax returns; the sales tax on clothing certainly is not.

With New York City’s economy gaining strength… with our population growing… and with our quality of life improving… our long-term prospects are excellent. They will be made even stronger if the State government continues to work with us to address our most urgent problems on the expense side of the budget.

Foremost among these is Medicaid. New York State’s Medicaid program is among the most generous in the nation. As a result, Medicaid spending is becoming increasingly burdensome for local governments who see its mounting expenses as a threat to our ability to ensure public safety and provide the vital services that are our responsibility.

In New York City alone, State-mandated Medicaid expenses are expected to cost $4.9 billion in the coming fiscal year. These mounting expenses—and the fact that local governments have no input into program design—is why this has become an issue of intense concern to county governments across the state.

That’s why for the last three years I have come to Albany and testified before this joint committee in support of the position of the New York State Association of Counties: A hard cap of the local share of Medicaid at 2003 levels, with all future growth to be paid by the State.

The Governor has taken an important first step toward Medicaid reform with his proposal for a “soft” cap on the local share of Medicaid at 2005 levels—soft, because it requires local governments to assume small and gradually diminishing annual increases in Medicaid costs. This would save the City of New York hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and would encourage more responsible Medicaid spending.

Easing the pressure on local government budgets is an important part of solving the Medicaid problem in New York State.

But it is only one element of a complex equation. Because in containing Medicaid costs, we must neither sacrifice quality of care to our most vulnerable New Yorkers, nor unwittingly jeopardize the stability of our public and private hospitals.

Unfortunately, we face such potential problems. On the plus side, the Governor’s budget projects that New York City will save approximately $400 million in cost containment and Medicaid cap proposals—and as Mayor, I find that good news. But it is offset by the impact these proposals would have on our public and private hospitals.

Under the Governor’s proposals, our Health and Hospitals Corporation would sustain an approximately $275 million annual reduction in support from the Medicaid program.

There would, for example, be a statewide assessment on all hospital receipts of seven-tenths of one per cent. This does not sound like a lot—but for a system the size of HHC, it is. This would, in fact, be an annual cost of up to $30 million to HHC. This “gross receipts tax” would also impose serious new financial burdens on our private hospitals.

A change in the benefit structure of the Medicaid-funded Family Health-Plus program would also add to HHC’s expenses by eliminating patient reimbursement for mental health services.

But in New York City, the reality is that patients denied mental health care by Family Health-Plus would in all probability wind up as uninsured patients in our public hospitals, which have a mandate to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay. The cost of their treatment would be borne by New York City’s taxpayers.

I will cite a third and final example: The Executive Budget also proposes to retroactively alter the method for determining Graduate Medical Education payments to our City’s teaching hospitals. These GME payments are crucial to maintaining the fiscal stability of our hospitals and providing quality medical training. Changing the GME rates could cost public and private hospitals $275 million annually.

Let me add that the Governor’s budget also throws new burdens on our public and private hospitals by limiting support to local health departments, including New York City’s. We’ve made enormous strides in reducing smoking and managing such chronic diseases as diabetes and asthma, which cut down on costly hospitalizations.

Little wonder, then, that the Greater New York Hospital Association sees grave problems in the Governor’s budget. And the result is that the long-term health of our economy, as well as our population, is jeopardized. Because in New York, many of our health care institutions are also deeply involved in medical research—and medical researchers, and the breakthroughs and jobs they produce, will inevitably gravitate to the most hospitable environments.

Right now, New York is not doing enough in this arena. California and New Jersey are forging ahead in promoting stem cell research; we are not. Despite the Governor’s long-standing support for fostering biotechnology in New York State—evidenced again in this proposed budget—New York still lags in this important and growing industry. The chill that our hospitals feel in Medicaid cost containment could further hamper our efforts to nurture biotechnology in New York.

Containing the cost of Medicaid has the long-term effect of pushing decisions about Medicaid coverage back in the hands of the Legislature. But can you look yourselves in the mirror and say, “We have the medical and technical knowledge necessary to make such truly life and death judgments? We know how to run a hospital?”

There must be a cap on local Medicaid spending, and one should be approved this year. But at the same time, I also urge you to avail yourselves of the enormous wealth of talent our state has in the areas of medicine, medical research, public health, hospital administration, and insurance.

Empanel a commission of our best minds in these fields. Ask our star-studded Doctors and Hospital Administrators to serve. Seek their guidance, and let them make the decisions about how to best care for the Medicaid patients of our state, and how our hospitals and research institutions can adapt to and thrive in the new environment we are creating.

All local governments need relief. But we should approach decisions on Medicaid coverage and reimbursements, and on ensuring the quality of health care all New Yorker receive, with the advice, counsel, and support of the leaders of our critically important health care industry. Government decisions will benefit from their knowledge.

Maintaining and improving our mass transit system is also critical to the long-term economic health of our city and state. And I am deeply disappointed by the failure of the Governor’s proposed budget to adequately support the MTA’s capital needs.

Look at the MTA’s core program of keeping the existing subway system in good repair. The Governor’s proposed support for that is some $2 billion less than the MTA’s request—well short of what is needed simply to keep the existing system operating efficiently.

The Second Avenue subway and Long Island railroad access to Grand Central Terminal also are seriously under-funded, putting the future of these major projects in jeopardy.

I remain firmly convinced, as I testified last fall, that the MTA can do far more that it has to put its own financial house in order, by reducing unnecessary spending and increasing the productivity of its operations. But that does not change the scope of its capital needs.

The residents and government of New York City are more than doing our share. New York City straphangers already pay a greater share of the transit system’s operating costs than the riders of any other transit system in the nation.

The City contributes about $400 million a year directly to cover MTA operating and capital needs. On top of that, the City will now increase its annual subsidy to the MTA for the operation of seven franchise bus lines that serve New York City by another $200 million.

Also, the one and only major new transit project that is included in the Governor’s budget is the one that New York City alone is paying for: The $2 billion extension of the Number “7” line. This is just one more example of the City bearing the costs of the State’s inaction.

We are, in fact, the only local government in the MTA’s service area that has contributed capital monies to the rebuilding of the system over the last two decades. The other 11 counties in the metropolitan area have not, despite benefiting from the resulting improvements to the bus, subway and commuter rail system.

We’re prepared to continue to support the system’s capital needs, and its operating expenses, in the future. But taxpayers in the suburban and upstate counties must do their share, too. It’s an essential investment in the long-term future of the New York metropolitan region—the economic engine of the Empire State.

The future of our city and state ultimately depend most heavily on the successful reform of New York City’s public schools.

Thanks to the authority you granted us three years ago by passing the New York City School Governance Reform Law, we’ve overhauled and streamlined the management of the nation’s largest school system.

We’ve established accountability where none existed. We’ve improved the recruitment and training of the next generation of school principals. We’ve ended the discredited practice of social promotion, and set and enforced standards in the classroom. We’ve made our schools safer.

Student test scores are rising; the number of schools under state “registration review” has been cut in half and is now at an all-time low. Graduation rates have climbed each of the last three years.

We are, in short, on our way to creating the best big-city public school system in the nation.

State legislation laid the groundwork for these achievements. State financial support has played a critical part in our efforts.

And now more than ever, State leadership in meeting the educational needs of our 1.1 million school children is essential.

By lifting the cap on the number of charter schools that can be created in our city, and by proposing measures that will help us further reform the School Construction Authority, the Governor’s budget includes some welcome steps in this direction.

These new construction reforms will allow the SCA to further lower the cost of construction, which is especially important given the enormous capital needs the City faces.

But far more must be done, both in helping us meet our normal, fixed expenses, and also in redressing the State’s long and well-documented failure to provide New York City school children with a sound basic education.

To begin with, we need a firm State commitment to covering a fair share of the fixed expenses of the New York City public school system. The Governor’s budget provides our city with an additional $85 million in education funds for the coming year.

I applaud the Governor for recognizing that while New York City has 37% of the state’s public school students, the extraordinary needs of those students require that we receive more than 37% of the statewide increase in State education spending.

This represents a start—but only that. The fixed expenses of the New York City Department of Education continue to increase far beyond the $85 million the Governor proposes. Before we provide any additional funding for the schools, or start new programs, we must find the resources to maintain existing programs.

Fixed costs such as pensions, debt service, student transportation and fringe benefits are estimated to increase by almost $350 million dollars in the City’s next fiscal year. The budget for Fiscal 2006 that I will release Thursday will address these needs and I hope that the State will provide, at the very least, its equitable share of these fixed expenses in the upcoming year.

The greatest disappointment in the Governor’s budget is its failure to adequately address the court order and masters panel report in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.

The budget fails utterly to address the State’s need to contribute its fair share to our five-year capital program. It is absolutely essential to easing overcrowding, reducing class size in the lower grades, and building the labs, gyms, and other facilities that no one can dispute are desperately needed in New York City schools.

Allowing the City’s Transitional Finance Authority to borrow an additional $2.8 billion, as the Executive budget proposes, is not what I call state aid.

The State’s inaction in meeting the capital needs of City schools for the last two years leads to the inevitable conclusion that we cannot anticipate any assistance in the current fiscal year, either. The City therefore has no choice but to amend our current capital plan to reflect that failure.

I want to make it plain, however, that the City will continue to move forward in meeting the capital needs of our school system. We will continue to provide an historic level of funding for the capital plan: $6.5 billion over five years. And our preliminary ten-year capital plan will continue to reflect a matching $6.5 billion commitment from the State.

The Sound Basic Education grant to New York City in the Governor’s budget comes to $2 billion over five years—less than 40% of the amount recommended by the CFE masters panel. It is built on the regressive and financially unstable foundation of video lottery terminals.

Raising state revenue via these terminals is regressive because the people most inclined to play them have the least amount of disposable income. And income from such gambling is notoriously unpredictable- just look at the history of gaming industry stocks.

New York City’s major educational costs, such as our contracts with suppliers, our 130,000 Department of Education employees, and our debt service, are fixed. We can’t meet those fixed expenses with such wildly variable revenue sources. We must balance our budget each year. Also, we can’t wait for funds that may well be tied up in years of litigation.

The proposed grant also requires the City to provide a 40% match to the State’s monies. This fails on grounds of both equity and practicality.

First of all, let me remind you that residents of the five boroughs already annually pay $11.1 billion a year more in State taxes than we receive in State spending.

In fact, New York City supplies more than 40% of State tax revenues. That means we would already provide more than 40% of the State’s share of the proposed Sound Basic Education grant.

Requiring another 40% payment from us on top of that in the form of a local match would saddle New York City taxpayers with a wildly disproportionate share of complying with the CFE court order.

To add insult to injury, the State proposes to fund its 60% share of this grant from dedicated funding from VLT parlors, five of which would be located in New York City. This means that New York City residents are either directly or indirectly paying for the entire resolution of the CFE court order.

For years the people of New York City have been severely shortchanged by State education funding policy. It is manifestly unfair to ask us to redress the effects, let alone bear such an outrageously large share of the burden.

We are already more than doing our part. Since 2001, the City has increased public school funding by more than $1.5 billion, a figure almost double the additional $777 million provided by the State over the same period of time.

Requiring the city to pay any part of the CFE settlement would also be enormously counterproductive. Because virtually every dollar the City would commit to this matching grant would be a dollar taken from services going to public school children and their families.

It would force us to eliminate day care slots… to cut back public health clinic hours… or to make it harder and harder for the city to detect and prevent instances of child abuse and neglect.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is still time for the State to reasonably and realistically meet its Constitutional obligation to provide New York City’s school children with the sound basic education that is theirs by right. I ask you to seize this opportunity.

We can also seize an important opportunity to keep New York City’s economy growing for decades to come. Last month, the Legislature and Governor took the first step when you approved the long-awaited expansion of the Javits Convention Center. Conventions and trade show are critical to our tourism industry, which supports more than a quarter-million jobs in our city, and which closed out 2004 hosting a record of nearly 40 million tourists to New York City. Many of the nation’s other major cities are well ahead of New York in constructing modern convention facilities. But your passage of that legislation, and the Governor’s signing it into law, puts New York City back in the game. It lets us start to build the subway we need to get the Far West Side, and the expanded convention center.

But the other leg of our three-legged stool must also be approved: the New York Sports and Convention Center. Without all three legs, it’s awfully difficult to balance the stool – or, in this case, to get private developers to invest. The lack of the catalyst the Sports and Convention Center would provide would be devastating to the schedule we need for jobs NOW!

These three steps are all integral and inter-related in developing the now largely desolate Far West Side of Manhattan, where the Javits Center is located. The next step will be building a deck over the rail yards in this area, upon which we will construct a building capable of hosting major events, of being the future home field for the New York Jets, and of being a major arena for the 2012 Olympics, should the city be chosen to host the Games.

The Governor wisely includes in his proposed budget the authority to issue $300 million in State bonds for constructing this rail yards deck—money which the City is pledged to match. This investment will be repaid many times over through the creation of 7,000 permanent jobs, thousands of construction jobs, and $1.4 billion in City and State tax revenues over and above the cost of retiring the 30-year bonds.

The increased tax revenues will pay for essential services—for City teachers, police officers, and firefighters, and for State employees, for decades to come. The Sports and Convention Center will also turbo-charge the economic engine of the Empire State. For that reason, it is very important that the Public Authorities Control Board approve plans for the Sports and Convention Center before a delegation from the International Olympics Committee visits New York City next month. Failure to do so also will quickly end the city’s chances of being picked to host the 2012 games.

On Thursday, I will present the City’s budget for Fiscal Year 2006. We are required by law to balance our budget, and in order to do that, the preliminary budget will include measures required to close a projected deficit of some $3 billion. The primary cause of this gap is the City’s growing non-discretionary spending on such items as pensions, health benefits and the City’s share of Medicaid. These annual costs for the City have gone up a total of $7 billion since Fiscal 2001. Our municipal employees may not see the results of many of the fringe and pension add-ons approved by the State in their pay stubs and W-2s—but our taxpayers must come up with the money just the same.

When our Administration took office three years ago, the city’s economy was hemorrhaging jobs. City government faced a $5 billion budget gap—a gap that grew to $6.5 billion a year later. Putting the City’s fiscal house in order required making painful decisions. Since 2001, we have cut some $3.8 billion from City tax levy expenditures since 2001. Over the same period, we have reduced the size of the City-funded municipal workforce by some 16,000 people. We proposed an 18.5% increase in the City property tax rate. Had we not acted then, our City would now face the unpleasant job of closing a gap in the next fiscal year of $9.6 billion—three times what we project for Fiscal 2006.

The support of our State legislative leaders was critical in helping us achieve what we have and, for that, let me say thank you. During our first two years in office, you approved $2.7 billion in measures instrumental to our budget-balancing efforts and economic recovery. The results speak for themselves. Today, crime, already at historic lows when we assumed office, is down another 14% from three years ago. In 2004, New York City had the fewest murders since 1963… the fewest fire deaths since 1916…and the fewest traffic fatalities since 1910.

Our streets are cleaner than they have been in 30 years. We’re expanding our parks and opening up our magnificent and long-neglected waterfront. We are approaching the midpoint of the largest affordable housing initiative the city has seen in 20 years.

Today, our economy is growing again, and there is increased business confidence in New York’s future.

Now in order to maintain this progress, we need additional resources for New York City—resources which I will describe in the budget presentation on Thursday.

Before taking your questions, I want to conclude with one last observation. A welcome feature of the Governor’s budget is that it includes $180 million in Federal funds to comply with the Help America Vote Act, or “HAVA.” Congress passed HAVA in 2002 in order to prevent the kind of problems that made Florida notorious in the 2000 Presidential election. These HAVA funds give us the opportunity to modernize voting machines throughout the state by the federally mandated deadline of 2006. New York City is home to approximately 42% of the state’s eligible voting age population. The New York City Board of Elections, the largest Board of Elections in the State, should therefore receive at least 42% of the Federal HAVA dollars appropriated to the State, either though direct grants, or through the State’s purchase of new voting machines.

Ensuring the integrity of our elections is a great opportunity to begin to make good on our obligation to provide the people of New York State with the open and accountable government they have made it clear they want and expect.

Our Administration is prepared to work with the Legislature and the Governor to accomplish that…and also to craft a state budget that responsibly and fairly meets the needs of all the people of our state.

 

City Council Stated Meeting Report: January 19, 2004


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.

Quotes of the Day:

"[The Far West Side] will not only be a 24-7 community; this is a precedent setting application and rezoning because of the affordable housing that will now be contained in this district." - Councilmember Melinda Katz

"Tragically enough, if you're trying to find out about what car to buy, or what toaster oven to buy, until now it has been a lot easier to get that information than to find out about child care centers and whether they're safe." - Councilmember Bill Deblasio

Meeting Summary:

After a hearty debate, the City Council approved a plan to rezone a 59 square block area on the Far West Side of Manhattan. By voting to approve the plan, the council agreed to a deal made last week between the Council Speaker Gifford Miller and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Proponents of the resolution (resolution 760) pointed to the increase in affordable housing as the plan's greatest virtue. The plan provides for about 28 percent of housing built to be affordable, a significant increase from the 19 percent included in the previous plan. To accommodate the existing community, the density of commercial development in certain areas was lowered.

In exchange, the City Council agreed to pay for a greater percentage of the plan upfront, a move supporters say will save the city upwards of $1 billion.

Speaker Miller took pains to point out that no money used to fund the rezoning would be used for a proposed football stadium - which he opposes - or to extend the Javits Convention Center.

"I will continue to fight against it because I think it's wrong," Miller said of the stadium. "But it's not before the Council, unfortunately. I wish it were." Miller declined to comment on whether the Council would consider a resolution voicing opposition to the stadium.

The mayor immediately issued a statement praising the resolutions, but several councilmembers expressed concern. Councilmember James Sanders said he was uncomfortable with the definition of affordable housing. Councilmember Charles Barron described the incentives given to developers to create affordable housing as a tax break. Councilmember Lewis Fidler joined him in saying that the Council should wait to consider the plan until after seeing Mayor Bloomberg's preliminary budget later this month. They were the only two "No" votes in a 45 to 2 vote in favor of the resolution.

The council also unanimously passed a package of legislation intended to make it easier for parents to get information about conditions at day care centers. The four bills (Intros 516-A, 473-A, 475-A, and 522) require the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide quarterly reports on childcare to the City Council, and to make inspection reports of childcare centers available through its Web site and the city's 311phone system. Childcare centers must also post signs near entrances telling parents how to access reports on conditions.

The reforms were the result of a high profile case this summer in which seven-month old Matthew Perilli suffocated in an understaffed daycare center in Forest Hills. His parents, Vincent and Maria, attended the council meeting yesterday, and urged the city to enforce the new legislation.

The council also unanimously overrode the mayor's veto on a bill (94-A) that establishes a minimum amount of service for the Staten Island Ferry.

Three councilmembers also received new committee chairmanships:

  • Councilmember Domenic Recchia to chair the Cultural Affairs Committee
  • Councilmember Michael Nelson to chair the Small Business Committee
  • Councilmember G. Oliver Koppell to chair the Revenue and Forecast Subcommittee, part of the Finance Committee.

 

 

Evicting The Vendors From The Bed-Stuy Market


The 30 members of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Cooperative Market are in many ways typical of the thousands of fiercely self-sufficient street vendors in neighborhoods across the city, who on any given day are hawking everything from hotdogs to mud cloth. Most of these “micro-entrepreneurs” cobble together a living without the basic legal, political and even physical protections that traditional store-front merchants can take for granted.

But the story of the Bed-Stuy market seems especially senseless and even cruel. Four years ago, some 200 vendors were pushed off a two-block strip on Fulton Street – some of whom had sold their wares there for two decades -- to make way for Fulton FIRST, a commercial revitalization project. Intending to deflect public criticism and vendor resistance, New York City’s Department of Small Business Services offered the Fulton Street vendors an arrangement similar to that in Washington Heights, Harlem and East Flatbush, an off-the-curb, gated outdoor “market” -- temporary fold-up tents on a city-owned plot of concrete. The Bedford-Stuyvesant Market had built-in liabilities that included a physical plant that began to crumble the day it was erected.

Now, those same vendors are scheduled to be evicted. What happens next may function as a referendum on the role of street vendors in the development of low-income neighborhood economies.

Community Economic Impact

During the Dinkins and Giuliani administrations, there were massive, coordinated police sweeps in Harlem, East Flatbush, Washington Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant, designed to purge illegal street vendor activity to make way for commercial revitalization efforts. This exposed some raw tensions in these neighborhoods, with local merchants and middle-class residents of color pitted against low-income, foreign-born entrepreneurs of color. For instance, at Bedford-Stuyvesant community board meetings, predominately African-American homeowners casually disparaged the vendors for creating a “third world” atmosphere on Fulton. This middle-class antagonism created the political cover needed by the Giuliani administration to clear the vendors off the street.

 

These vendor relocation efforts in low-income neighborhoods beg some classic questions: Is gentrification the same as community development? Whose interests are served by community renewal?

An article in City Limits Magazine reported that Fulton Street store front owners, who used to accuse vendors of chasing away their business, admitted that business dropped significantly after the streets were cleared of the foot traffic once whipped up by curbside vending.

The Fulton FIRST project, driven by the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, provided the pretext for the removal of the Fulton vendors and was supposed to turn Fulton into a shopping destination that would attract higher end chains and merchandisers. Fulton Street now has new outdoor lighting and is noticeably cleaner and less congested than when the vendors dominated the scene, but many argue that it is also no longer the vibrant and colorful thoroughfare it used to be . Either way, the large-scale transformation that was supposed to be triggered by the departure of the vendors has conspicuously stalled.

On 125th Street the change in the post-vendor landscape has been far more dramatic and impressive. The removal of the vendors did in fact pave the way for a more upscale commercial strip. What Harlem lost in the way of gritty urban charm it found in a glossy, corporate makeover.

The economic impact of unlicensed street vending is difficult to measure given the quasi black market nature of the business. Before their ranks were decimated by the Harlem vendor sweep of 1994, more than a thousand vendors made a living on 125th Street. And not only did these vendors themselves patronize other businesses, they attracted thousands of shoppers each day from across the city.

The Shabazz Market vendors, who number under a hundred, all make the same complaint as their Bed-Stuy and Flatbush counterparts – that they make far less than they did on the streets. But there are upsides.

Few would deny for instance that the Shabazz market, with its abundance of African art, has become a welcomed tourist shopping attraction to 116th Street. And while the neighborhood markets hold only a fraction of the vendor populations they were established to accommodate – the vast majority of street vendors opted not to join these markets and presumably become instantly unemployed – they still represent sizable concentrations of gainfully employed people. In the case of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Market, most of the vendors live in the surrounding area and have a strong social, cultural and economic interest in it.

In 2003, the Bedford-Stuyvesant Cooperative Market, by conservative estimates, generated a modest, but respectable, three quarters of a million dollars in sales. Many of vendors in fact did so well that they left the market to start free-standing, “legitimate” businesses.

Perhaps most significantly, the Bedford-Stuyvesant Cooperative Market over the years has attracted a loyal customer base made up of bargain hunting, poor and working-class people from the surrounding area. In response to the news that the market might be closed down, more than a thousand petitions, over the course of a few hours, were signed by customers demanding that it be allowed to remain open.

Broken Promises, Looming Eviction

Over the years explicit promises made by city officials to help raise funds for the market and make it commercially viable with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of capital improvements were never honored. As their tents blew away and collapsed, the vendors were forced to engineer their own makeshift wooden shanties. While the majority of the vendors faithfully pay a maintenance fee that provides for basic services like electricity and security, it is not enough to stave off the physical deterioration of the market.

 

The winter of 2005 has only been worse. The private landlord in charge of the market announced that the vendors would soon be evicted because of rent arrears. But at a recent meeting with the vendors, Michael Smith, the assistant commissioner of the Department of Small Business Services, soberly informed them that his agency, which had been scarce since offering the vendors shelter and support in exchange for their cooperation and peaceful exit from Fulton Street, would not intervene to help the vendors develop a new market. Instead, he would, he insisted, help them get back on their feet in other ways.

Before Smith could finish ticking off his agency’s tepid offerings (like “small business training”) the vendors’ patience ended abruptly. “Time after time you guys sit here in front of us, in your suits and ties and go blah, blah, blah,” said Donovan Corniffe, a West Indian vendor who runs a lucrative electronic games business at the Market. “And now you tell us we have to leave. You ain’t never done nutin’ for us, nutin’.”

Councilmember Al Vann and State Assemblymember Annette Robinson, who swapped public offices since the vendor relocation, have been unresponsive no-shows on the issue, despite attempts from the vendors to get them involved.

Meanwhile, the small not-for-profit that used to manage the market, citing its own financial challenges, is in the process of dissolving.

The picture is not as bleak in other neighborhoods. The handful of neighborhood-based groups that have sprung up over the last few years to advocate for vendor rights suggest there is a growing awareness of the important role that street vending plays in low-income areas of color. Organizations like East Harlem’s Esperanza del Barrio , and Bushwick’s Latin American Workers Project, for instance, are both fighting for the right of their constituencies to vend freely, without penalty or police harassment.

An appreciation for the value that street vending can add to a neighborhood was demonstrated by the Imam Izak-El Pasha of Masjid Malcolm Shabazz in Harlem who championed the development of the Shabbaz Market in Harlem using City money, and Jamaican-born Councilmember Una Clarke, the godmother of Flatbush vendors, who leveraged city funds to build and maintain the Flatbush market.

The struggles of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Cooperative demonstrate that, if nothing else, neighborhood markets can only be sustained through public or private subsidy, whether it be through rent-free land, grants, or a combination of both. But above all else, the laws of supply and consumer demand, as well as political demand, will determine the fate of the Bed-Stuy Market. If the vendors can get organized and prove themselves indispensable to the surrounding area, and if the Market’s customers determine that the Market is worth fighting for, then maybe neighborhood leaders and public officials will start to give a damn.

Mark Winston Griffith is the former Executive Director of the Central Brooklyn Partnership which used to provide organizing and management support to the Bedford-Stuyvesant Cooperative Market. 

State of the City


In his annual State of the City address last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in Ronald Reagan fashion, introduced Lieutenant Joseph Ferrera, a 40-year veteran on the New York Police Department, to help illustrate that "New York is among the safest cities in the nation."

But New York's police officers, who are working without a contract, say they are losing their most experienced people to the suburbs where salaries are higher.

Bloomberg also hailed Tennesee Banola, a student from P.S. 119, who after attending summer school was promoted to the fourth grade.

Yet, the city's school system - still in the midst of the mayor's reforms - remains riddled with problems. Test scores are low, classrooms are crowded, and many parents feel left out of the process.

To Tomas Vallejo, a mail clerk who recently bought his first home in Cypress Hills, Brooklyn, the mayor said, "Tomas, bienvenidos al sueño Americano."

However, New York's housing crisis prevents many from obtaining "the American Dream." The average price of an apartment in Manhattan is $1 million and one out of every four households pays more than one-half of their income toward rent.

The New York painted in the mayor's speech is a place where crime is dropping, schools are getting better, and affordable housing is being built.

But in the city of Bloomberg's critics, each of the handpicked guests meant to put a human face on his accomplishments could just have easily represented what is wrong with New York.

Some have called the mayor's State of the City speech, "the opening round" of a campaign battle that will play out in the city over the next 10 months. It was also an opportunity for Bloomberg's opponents - one Republican and five Democrats - to begin to outline how their plans for New York differ.

So what is the actual state of the city? What is the mayor's view? What are his promises? And what do his critics say he failed to mention?

BUDGET
CRIME
EDUCATION
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
JOBS
PARKS
TRANSPORTATION

BUDGET

What Is the State of the City's Budget? Although the city's fiscal situation has improved since Mayor Bloomberg took office in 2002, the city will still have a $2 billion budget deficit this year and a $3 billion deficit the next year.

Budget experts point to other possible troubles ahead.

One major issue is the state's $6 billion deficit. Governor George Pataki has not said how he plans to address the issue, but many fear the funds for city programs will be cut.

Another question in the city's budget is unresolved labor negotiations with half of the city's workforce, including police, firefighters, and teachers who do not have contracts.

New York City also borrowed heavily to pay for schools, bridges, and roads and now faces the highest debt in the nation. The city also has some of the highest taxes in the country.

What Is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View? In his State of the City speech, the mayor only briefly mentioned the city's budget issues. He will outline his preliminary budget by the end of January and have to provide more specifics at that time.

He did not mention the state's fiscal problems.

He did not mention labor disputes.

He did not mention growing debt.

What Does the Mayor Promise to Do?
But he did pledge to continue offering some tax breaks. The mayor said he would give homeowners a $400 tax rebate as he did last year. The city also now offers low-income New Yorkers a city version of the Earned Income Tax credit. A family of four that makes less than $35,000 a year can receive up to $215 back from the city.

What Do the Mayor's Critics Say?
Early in the election year, Mayor Bloomberg's opponents are reluctant to explain in detail how they would address critical issues like inadequate state funding, labor negotiations, and debt - and they offered only broad criticism of the mayor's tactics in solving fiscal issues.

Republican Steve Shaw criticized the mayor's "tax-and-spend policies" over the last three years and promises to cut taxes.

For months, City Council Speaker Gifford Miller has argued that the mayor must do more in Albany and Washington, D.C. "It would be nice to have lower taxes, but we can't have real tax relief as long as Republican administrations in Albany and Washington take $18 billion more than they give back in services every year," said Miller.

Miller also notes that the Earned Income Tax Credit was the City Council's proposal, not the mayor's.

Former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer has criticized the mayor's past budgets and the $400 property tax rebate. "If you're giving me a check in the mail while you're cutting after-school programs, cutting my firehouse, that doesn't make sense," Ferrer said last summer.

CRIME

What Is the State of the City's Crime?
Crime in New York City continues to fall. In 2004, the city had the fewest murders since 1963. New York is now rated among the safest of the nation's biggest cities.

The city also continues to face the mammoth challenge of preventing and preparing for future terrorist attacks.

What Is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View?
When Rudolph Giuliani left office, many New Yorkers feared that crime would increase. At every occasion, Mayor Bloomberg reminds his audience that crime has continued to go down under his watch.

"To some, these are just statistics, but to me, these numbers represent lives saved and families spared the hurt and anguish of being victimized," the mayor said.

What Does the Mayor Promise to Do?
In his recent speech, the mayor outlined three new public safety initiatives in 2005: - Continue the work of Operation Impact, a special unit that targets high crime areas, and add 1,000 recently graduated police officers to the unit. - Upgrade the city's Compstat system, the high-tech crime tracking system, to provide same-day information on emerging crime patterns. - Deploy an 80-member police anti-graffiti task force.

The mayor also vowed to continue fighting for additional homeland security funding in Washington, D.C.

What Do the Mayor's Critics Say?
Bloomberg's opponents have a difficult time arguing against low crime rates, but they believe more could be done to keep the city safe.

City Councilmember Charles Barron, who represents East New York, argues that neighborhoods like his have not seen the same dramatic drop in crime as much as the city, and he criticizes the mayor's tactics. It was an officer in the mayor's Operation Impact program that shot 19-year-old Timothy Stansbury last year in the hallway of his public housing building last year.

"Complaints against the Police Department are up in my neighborhood," said Barron.

When it comes to homeland security funding 1006, all of the Democrats say Bloomberg should have done more lobbying in Washington, D.C. to make sure that New York gets its fair share of anti-terrorism money.

"I urge the mayor to take his message to Washington and demand more Homeland Security money," Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields has said. "This is a dangerous and ludicrous funding formula that ignores higher-risk target cities."

EDUCATION

What is the State of the City's Education?
The New York City school system has 1,300 schools, 85,000 teachers, and 1.1 million kids. It is the most expensive item in the city's budget.

Three years ago, the mayor began instituting his education reforms, promising to cut bureaucracy, raise test scores, and get parents more involved. While many new initiatives have been put in place, they have not yet produced dramatic results.

Another major issue facing the city's schools is the result of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.

In November, a court-appointed panel recommended that city schools should receive an additional $5.6 billion a year phased in over the next four years. Next year, the panel recommended an increase of $1.4 billion, but did not say how much should come from the state and how much should come from the city.

If the city's funding equals nearly a quarter of the money, it will have to pay an additional $330 million next year and a total of $1.4 billion by 2009.

What is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View? In his speech, Mayor Bloomberg boasted, "We are making our school system the best in the nation" and outlined the major efforts of his education reforms.

In the last three years, the mayor has:

 

But even the mayor admits that his reforms have still taken hold everywhere in the city. "Not every student, not every classroom or school, has improved," the mayor said. "We've only just begun."

What Does the Mayor Promise to Do?
Mayor Bloomberg's major new initiative is the creation of a $14-million vocational program to help 2,600 high school dropouts. The program, called "Learning to Work" will mix classroom and work experience and students can earn a GED diploma.

Bloomberg has said he does not think the city should have to pay any portion of the increase in school funding as a result of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit.

What Do the Mayor's Critics Say?
There are plenty of critics of the mayor's education reforms.

City Council Speaker Gifford Miller accuses the mayor of repeatedly vetoing bills passed by the council that would give it greater oversight of the school system. "We want accountability along with [school] control," Miller said.

"Education policy that can best be described as in disarray," said Anthony Weiner. "He should have said he would get to the root causes of the virtual lawlessness in the classrooms…much of it has to do with taking the authority away from teachers and principals."

"We are concerned that the mayor's Department of Education itself sees parental involvement as optional to its efforts to reform city schools," Fernando Ferrer said last year.

HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS:

What is the State of the City's Housing?
Many believe that housing is the most critical issue facing the city. Vacancy rates are at record lows, 70 percent of New Yorkers pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and about 40,000 New Yorkers sleep in homeless shelters each night.

What is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View?
Mayor Bloomberg says that affordable housing is being built all across the city. He points to new developments in Williamsburg and East New York, and the recent rezoning of the West Side of Manhattan, which will create an estimated 3,300 affordable apartments in the area.

He says that the city has helped more than 28,000 homeless men, women, and children find permanent homes.

What Does the Mayor Promise to Do?
The mayor hopes to create 200,000 affordable apartments by 2008. And he has pledge to "to eliminate chronic homelessness in this city within the next five years."

In order to achieve this, Bloomberg said he would lobby the state government in Albany for funding to build 12,000 units of supportive housing.

The mayor also promised to reform the intake process for homeless families and shut down the Emergency Assistance Unit in the Bronx, a place where in the past, people waiting for housing have slept in hallways and chairs.

What Do the Mayor's Critics Say?
While the mayor has made bold promises about new homeownership, new affordable housing , and an end to homelessness, his critics question the actual results.

"We have heard the plans for tens of thousands of new units of housing, now we need to see those units being built," said Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields.

JOBS

What is the State of the City's Jobs?
The city has made an economic recovery since the months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Still the city's economic recovery lags behind the rest of the nation. Wall Street employment is flat, salaries are not increasing, and experts do not expect that the city will regain all the 200,000 jobs lost since the year 2000 until the end of the decade.

What is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View?
In his speech, Mayor Bloomberg pointed to the good news: 34,000 jobs were created in 2004, and he expects 50,000 new jobs to be created in 2005.

And he sees job growth in all five boroughs.

In the Bronx, the mayor says the new Hunts Point fish market will create 500 new jobs.

In Staten Island, he plans to redevelop the industrial area known as "The Homeport."

In Brooklyn, a new cruise ship dock in Red Hook will create an estimated 600 new jobs.

In Queens, the mayor looks to new business improvement districts to help boost the local economy.

In Manhattan, the mayor promises to continue the revitalization of downtown.

What Does the Mayor Promise to Do?
One of the mayor's biggest job creation strategies is his Hudson Yards plan, which includes the rezoning of the West Side of Manhattan, building a new stadium for the New York Jets, and expanding the Jacob Javits Center.

"The re-development of the Far West Side will create 230,000 new construction jobs alone," Bloomberg said. "And I think all New Yorkers should have a fair chance at these jobs."

He promised to create a "Commission on Construction Opportunity," made up of developers, contractors, union representatives, and politicians like U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel to help ensure that people of color have access to new jobs.

What Do the Mayor's Critics Say?
The mayor's critics say Bloomberg is not doing enough to create real jobs for average New Yorkers.

And all of the potential challengers are opposed to the West Side Stadium.

"[Bloomberg] sees stadiums as top priorities, but I guarantee not one in 100 New Yorkers would consider publicly financed sports stadiums priorities," said Republican Steve Shaw.

"We all want Wall Street to thrive, but we want our neighborhoods and the families who live there to flourish, too," said Fernando Ferrer. "And in a city where so many working families are struggling to keep their heads above water, the mayor offers a myopic vision and misplaced priorities."

And C. Virginia Fields did not seem impressed with the mayor's pledge to get African-Americans jobs in the construction industry. "We know about the 50 percent unemployment rate for African American males in New York," said Fields. "Now we need to know what is being done to reduce those numbers."

PARKS

What is the State of the City's Parks?
The city has made a renewed effort to build new parks in recent years, particularly along with Manhattan waterfront.

But overall funding for parks has not increased, and there are wide disparities in the condition of city parks. In a recent evaluation by New Yorkers for Parks, half of the city's parks received an "A" or "B," but a quarter received a "D" or "F."

What Is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View?
Last year, the mayor says he added 150 acres to the city's park system, primarily along the waterfront. This year, the city will begin construction of the Harlem Piers, adding another access point to the Hudson waterfront. He will soon agree to the final plans to build a park on top of the Fresh Kills Landfill, which will be the largest park built in the city in 100 years.

What Does the Mayor Promise to Do?
In his speech, Mayor Bloomberg highlighted his commitment to spend $220 million to improve park system in the Bronx.

"It's the biggest investment in the city parks in nearly 70 years," the mayor said, "and it will produce an incredible green legacy throughout the Bronx."

What Do the Mayor's Critics Say?
Although the Bronx will enjoy millions of dollars in improvements, it comes at a price: a water filtration plant built in the middle of Van Cortlandt park.

The $220 million the mayor has promised was part of a deal with local Bronx politicians to get their approval for the plan.

City Councilmember Charles Barron was one of only six council members to vote against the filtration plant, arguing that the project would bring noise, traffic, and pollution, but no real benefit to neighborhood residents.

TRANSPORTATION

What is the State of the City's Transportation?
There are currently $17 billion worth of new transportation projects being proposed for the city, including the Second Avenue subway, a rail link from lower Manhattan to JFK airport, an extension of the number 7-subway line to the West Side of Manhattan.

But state and city funding for projects is shrinking and no one is sure how to pay for them.

What is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's View?
Of all of these projects, Mayor Bloomberg only mentioned one in his State of the City address - the rail link from JFK airport and Long Island to lower Manhattan.

"In 2005, we will succeed in converting unused federal tax benefits into funds for that purpose," the mayor said.

What do the Mayor's Critics Say?
While most of Bloomberg's opponents think a rail link is a good idea, they stress that it is not the only - or even the most crucial new transportation project.

C. Virginia Fields and Gifford Miller are campaigning for the Second Avenue Subway.

Anthony Weiner wants ferry service to Queens and more express bus service in the outer boroughs.

Related Links:
Gotham Gazette's Campaign 2005 Mayoral Race
Text of Bloomberg's State of the City Address 2005
Anthony Weiner's Response
Gifford Miller's Response
Fernando Ferrer's Response
C. Virginia Fields' Response
Charles Barron's Response
Steven Shaw's Response

Past State of the City Speeches:
Text of Bloomberg's State of the City Address 2004
Text of Bloomberg's State of the City Address 2003
Text of Bloomberg's State of the City Address 2002

 



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