In December, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg outlined his plan to build or renovate 65,000 homes over the next five years, he was praised for his ambition. It represented the most significant housing proposal in the city, many said, since 1986 when Mayor Ed Koch promised to build some 100,000 new homes.
But as the details of the mayor's housing plan become clearer - and as lawmakers and residents of individual neighborhoods look at what it means for their communities – some say the mayor's plan falls short.
Last week in its first round of budget hearings, the City Council took the lead in voicing some of the first public criticism of the mayor's plan – of the budget, his proposed zoning changes, and conflicts with neighborhood priorities.
First, the council is concerned about the housing budget. While Bloomberg has committed $3 billion over the next five years for his plan, he has nevertheless cut the capital budget for housing by 16 percent. On top of that, the mayor is slashing specific housing programs, one of which provides legal assistance for tenants who are being evicted.
Second, a fundamental part of the mayor's plan is the difficult task of reforming the city's zoning and building codes. The mayor is particularly interested in building on abandoned waterfront and underutilized manufacturing areas across the city. While some argue that these changes are essential, local lawmakers, community groups and real estate developers all have their ideas about what should and should not be done. (Read Councilmember David Yassky's article on his ideas for the Brooklyn waterfront.)
Third, each neighborhood wants a say in what happens. New York City Council members - who have the power to vote on the fate of an individual building project, deciding whether it is built or rejected - are already saying that the mayor's plan will not necessarily help their communities.
"Only one-third of the people in my neighborhood in Harlem can participate in this program," said Councilmember Bill Perkins. "This is top down planning. And those at the bottom are getting left out."
FINDING THE MONEY FOR THE PLAN
The mayor's housing plan calls for $3 billion in spending; about two-thirds of the money will come from the city's capital budget - the portion of the budget for long-term building projects. The New York City Council – which must approve the budget - has said it agrees with many elements of Bloomberg's plan.
"It is quite similar to what I have been saying for several months, which is use the capital budget as effectively as possible … which means renovating existing apartments that are in dilapidated condition," City Council Speaker Miller said. "I'm glad the mayor is agreeing with that now."
But given the city's $4 billion deficit and a sluggish economy, the mayor is also looking for more creative ways to raise money.
The mayor's plan calls for raising $500 million through a complex system of financing. According the Independent Budget Office, the details of how this money will be raised are still unclear, but at a recent hearing the city testified that the money would indeed materialize.
The mayor's plan calls for auctioning off remaining city-owned vacant land. However, some question whether such auctions should continue and cite a recent study that found that hundreds of lots sold since 1996 remain empty and unused.
"The land has been sold away, housing costs are out of control, and vacant lots are a hazard in my community," said Marie Pierre of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). "Many landholders need to build affordable housing on their property or give it back."
The mayor is also proposing some severe cuts, which alarms housing advocates. Last year, the mayor reduced the capital budget for housing by 16 percent. In addition, the mayor is calling for $324 million in cuts to the Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development over the next four years.
"The proposed $324 million cut indefinitely defers building and preserving at least 5,000 homes for New Yorkers hardest hit by the housing crisis," said Lloyd Brown a vice president of Bank of New York and member of the coalition group, Housing First.
Also some of the City Council's favorite programs are eliminated in the mayor's plan, including legal assistance for tenants who are being evicted, grants to 60 community groups for tenant organizing, and a landlord training program that aims to educate owners on how to run a safe building.
The council said it will fight to get these programs reinstated.
It is also not just a matter of finding the money, some argue, but making sure it is spent on the people who need it most.
About half of all of the apartments to be built or renovated under the mayor's plan will go to families that make between $88,000 and $157,000 a year, according to a recent study by the Independent Budget Office. About 16 percent will be designated for families that make less than $50,000 a year and about two percent for housing the homeless.
"Most of the people who come into my office have housing complaints or are dealing with eviction," said Councilmember Robert Jackson. "My priority is ensuring that those people are helped."
REFORMING THE CITY'S ZONING
New York City's zoning laws were drafted in 1961, when the city's population was much smaller and the manufacturing industry played a more significant role in the city's economy and landscape.
"Everyone agrees that New York City's zoning and building codes are ridiculously outdated," said Michael Schill of New York University's Furman Center for Real Estate and Policy.
Mayor Bloomberg's plan calls for major revisions of the city's codes to make construction easier and less expensive. He especially wants to target abandoned waterfront and underutilized manufacturing areas like East Harlem, Long Island City, Port Morris in the Bronx, and Greenpoint, Brooklyn. (The Department of City Planning has some of these rezoning plans on its web site.)
But some caution that this will be technically and politically difficult, especially building on so-called "brownfields," abandoned lots that contain environmental hazards.
At a recent forum, former City Planning Commissioner Joe Rose called brownfield development an "expensive bureaucratic morass" and questioned if the mayor's proposed code reforms will yield the promised results. In 1999, Rose also proposed an overhaul of the city's zoning codes, but the plan eventually stalled.
The City Council – which must approve all zoning changes – will also be tested. The council has a limited staff, will face heavy lobbying from various interest groups, and because of term limits, about a third of the current council members will be forced out of office in the next two years, giving them little time to focus on complicated zoning issues.
"Right now, some council members are very concerned about how they can ensure that some of this new housing built in their area is affordable," said Councilmember Melinda Katz, chair of the land use committee.
DEFENDING LOCAL CONCERNS
Many local communities have already spent years drafting their own development plans which include housing, parks and commercial areas while paying close attention to neighborhood concerns. Many local lawmakers are wary of the mayor's specific proposals.
"We need to work with affordable housing developers and the mayor to make sure we are being creative," said Brooklyn Councilmember Diana Reyna. "We can't just have one program handed down to us."
Some council members are already clashing with the mayor.
Recently Councilmember Bill deBlasio called for a limit on the height of a proposed apartment building on Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn, unless the developer included apartments for low- and middle income residents. The move alarmed the Department of City Planning which quickly held a press conference, saying that limiting the height of buildings in that area would be "criminal."
And in the past, council members have demonstrated that they will vote against the mayor if another member asks them to.
Last April, a Bloomberg administration plan to provide 40 low-income apartments on Sterling Street in Brooklyn was halted when Councilmember Yvette Clarke opposed it. Clarke said that the tenants in the building had not been consulted on the plan. The rest of the council voted with Clarke. The administration is still working to resolve Clarke's concerns, but no definitive agreement has been reached.
Some housing advocates say that while all of these concerns – the budget, rezoning issues, and community concerns – must be taken into account, they hope that all of the parties involved can work together to move the mayor's plan forward.
"Housing is very complicated and no one wants to admit how much it costs" said Carol Lamberg of the Settlement Housing Fund. "We often spend so much time debating what would be best, that it is impossible to get anything done. I hope that everyone can step up to the plate."
Related Article:
Waterfront Housing For Everyone by David Yassky
Other Links:
Mayor Bloomberg's Housing Plan
(Gotham Gazette 12/02)
Transcript of Mayor's Housing Speech - December 10. 2002
Bloomberg Plan: "New Marketplace: Creating Housing for the Next Generation"
(in PDF format)
Come on along and listen to the lullaby of Broadway...
The familiar tune took on a melancholy air as played by a brass band during a musicians’ protest outside the League of American Theatres and Producers headquarters late last month. An increasingly tense contract dispute between the producers and the American Federation of Musicians Local 802 seemed to be heading to the unthinkable -- musical theater without live music.
The Broadway musicians’ contract expired March 2, and players voted to go on strike in a 420 to 15 vote. Though some progress was made in negotiations, the musicians went on strike at 12:01 a.m. on March 7, affecting some 325 working players and 1,000 other union members, not to mention scores of scheduled rehearsals and performances. The last work stoppage was in 1975.
The players and producers are at loggerheads over a single issue -- the minimum number of musicians that productions are required to hire under union rules. There have been minimums for decades but, over the years, the numbers have evolved to meet the changing needs of musical theater.
In 1993, Local 802’s longtime president, Bill Moriarty, renegotiated the contract in recognition of the fact that modern musicals do not all need a full-scale orchestra, just as they do not all need large choruses or kick lines. The “special situations provision” of the contract built more flexibility into minimum requirements. According to Moriarty, the provision has been applied to musicals as diverse as Smokey Joe’s CafĂ©, On the Town, Footloose, Chicago, Aida, Mamma Mia, and Movin’ Out. Producers are now required to hire between three to 26 musicians, depending on the size of the theater. For example, the cavernous Majestic, with 1,607 seats, requires 26 players, while the smaller Belasco, with 1,018 seats, and Ambassador, with 1,125, require only three.
Moriarty has said that he would be willing to revise the minimums -- perhaps decreasing them in certain cases -- but he is not willing to do away with them altogether. The union fears that Broadway producers have their eye not on “artistic discretion” to designate the number of musicians needed, as they claim, but on maximizing profits. The musicians worry that ending minimums is a slippery slope toward replacing live players with recorded sound. Indeed, some shows that flop in New York recoup their costs on out-of-town tours, where in many cases recorded sound is used to supplement, or in some cases replace, orchestras. Non-equity road tours of The Music Man and Miss Saigon currently employ Sinfonia technology, and OrchEstra synthesizers have been used in regional productions across the country, as well as in Broadway pits. Still, the technology is relatively new and untested in larger houses.
Producers, for their part, accuse the unions of “featherbedding,” pointing out that Actors’ Equity and other union contracts do not guarantee employment for their constituents. They argue that conductors and musical directors should have the right to decide how many musicians a show needs. As evidence of the problem, they point to the “walkers” provision, by which musicians are paid in order to meet quotas but do not actually play in shows. (Moriarty claims that this provision is rarely invoked, though there is currently a walker in Hairspray.)
“We are committed to allowing our artists and producers to have the freedom to create and produce the kind of theater they want,” reads an official statement from the producers. “And our tradition of live music from great composers and performed by great artists will continue -- unless the musicians refuse to play. If the musicians refuse to play, the show must go on.”
In this spirit, the producers have loudly proclaimed that they are prepared to replace the orchestras with digital music, if necessary. There are some signs that they are getting cold feet, however. The union has successfully transformed the issue into one of preserving live music against technological and commercial inroads; and many conductors, composers, and actors have rallied to their cause. In addition, there have been murmurings that the actors and stagehands would refuse to rehearse and perform should the musicians go on strike, and so far no machine has been built to replace them. Audiences would most likely protest paying full price for recorded sound.
David Chase, the musical director of Flower Drum Song, told Backstage that it’s in nobody’s interest to degrade the uniqueness of Broadway theater. “I believe 90 percent of the producers want live theater," he says. "I don't worry about them. I worry about the 10 percent that say, 'I look at the bottom line. Look at how much I can save.' I understand the bottom line. It's a commercial venture. But theater is based on certain compacts with the audience. But what happens if you change that contract with the audience? I think if you ask anybody that comes to the theater, 'Would you like to see a show with music on tape or supplied by a virtual orchestra, and pay the same price'—I guarantee that producers won't lower the musical's price—most people would say, 'I'd rather have a live orchestra.'”
After finishing her business degree, Lek Supaluk thought she could make more money working in New York City than in her native Thailand. Unable to find any employers to sponsor her working visa, she began looking for a way around the system.
“I bought an I-20,” said Supaluk referring to a document that allows foreigners to apply for student visas. “On record I enrolled in a language school but I never go to class because my school is in Los Angeles.” She thought she found a magic formula to stay in the United States.
But her luck might run out. This type of minor immigration law violation is no longer tolerated. Last month the Immigration and Naturalization Services started a new computerized system called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information or SEVIS. The $36 million system is supposed to track foreign students and close the loopholes in student visa procedure.
Schools now must report detailed information about their foreign students. The required information includes academic, personal and financial data about the students and their dependents, any disciplinary action, off-campus employment and whether they are studying full time.
“Up until now, there has never been a real system to track foreign students. They only have to register with the INS once to get the I-20.” said Peter Pachter, Director of Overseas Students at American Language Communication Center, a language school in midtown. “There were rules and regulations that students had to comply with but the INS never seemed to follow through with the enforcement.”
In 1996 Congress passed the law establishing the INS-run Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students. But the electronic monitoring system never took off because of a lack of funding.
INS spokesperson Chris Bentley has said that immigration officials historically have not scrutinized students too closely. It became an opportunity for fraud. Larry Weing, a New York immigrant inspector in the 1970s, told the Washington Post that “there were schools that were I-20 mills… Students were coming in on student visas to work rather than go to school.”
But all that changed after the September 11 terrorist attacks. One of the hijackers entered the country on a student visa. Other two came in as tourists and were requesting to adjust their status to students. In one of the major blunders in its history, the INS approved their application six months after their death.
Although SEVIS would help reduce fraud cases like Supaluk’s, many believed that it created an additional burden on foreign students who do come here to study. “People make mistakes entering data and sometimes a system can crash,” said Joana Petrova, a student from Bulgaria. ”These mistakes determine if a student has the right to remain in or return to the United States.”
New York City colleges and universities have the largest number of international students, more than 15,000, according to the INS.
“We are moving from a climate of a benign attitude toward minor violations of status, such as dropping to 11 credits or failing to renew documents in a timely fashion, to one of rigorous enforcement of the letter of the law and swift and harsh penalties,” said Gail Szenes, Director Office for International Students and Scholars at New York University.
Some foreign students said they “understand why America has to do this” but pointed out that students are not the only ones who enter this country.
“Keeping detailed information on students doesn't address the fact that 7 million people from other countries enter the United States each year, whereas 600,000 individuals are studying here at any one time,’ Szences said.
Critics also argued that SEVIS will not help in fighting terrorism and questioned if the costs and time spent on the system will be worth it.
“The system was very slow in the beginning,” Pachter said. “We had to add an additional staff member to deal with SEVIS.”
Implementing SEVIS has been a tremendous burden and cost for NYU. “We had to purchase new hardware and software, and dedicate many staff to work exclusively for the last six months to get new systems in place,” said Szences. “I do not believe that knowing when a student drops from 12 to 11 credits is going to help fight terrorism.”
An immigrant from Bangkok, Thailand, Chaleampon Ritthichai is the editor of The Citizen.
There has been almost daily news coverage of a fatal boating accident that has exposed the failure of New York City's 911 tracking system . That is not the only news so far this year involving technology issues and government action, or inaction.
For a list of technology laws passed in 2003 so far, go to Gotham Gazette's Searchlight Voting Records.
LEGISLATING COMMON SENSE
As we made clear in Gotham Gazette's issue of the week on cell phones, -- and as you made clear on the accompanying message board -- many New Yorkers cringe at the ringing of cell phones. A law, restricting the use of cell phones in places of public performance, was passed by the City Council on February 13. Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the bill on the premise that it would be impossible to enforce, but the City Council overrode the veto and turned the bill, which had been introduced by Council Member Philip Reed, into law.
This law, which is the first such law in the nation, imposes a $50 fine for violations. Cell phone use is prohibited in theaters, libraries, museums, galleries, movie theaters and concert halls, except in the case of emergency. Whether or not this law is adequately publicized by venues and enforced, it is hoped that it will raise cell phone user awareness of the aggravation they cause.
LIFE SAVING CELL PHONES
As much as cell phones can be a public nuisance, they also have the potential to save lives. Unfortunately, this month, the lives of four teenage boys were lost. On January 24, one of the boys placed a frantic 12-second 911 call from a sinking boat off the coast of City Island in the Bronx. The call was mishandled by a 911 operator (whose supervisor is now facing disciplinary charges) and emergency crews were never dispatched.
According to a January 29 New York Times article by Kevin Flynn, the boating accident has "underscored an intolerable delay in creating a tracking system to trace the location of emergency calls from cell phones in New York." Currently, emergency calls from cell phones can only be traced to the nearest cell tower, which could be miles away from the caller.
Since 1991, $162 to $200 million in surcharge fees intended for an advanced tracking system have been collected from cell phone users. Despite this, the city is planning to spend $25 million on the 311 system that is for non-emergency calls. The 311 system is expected to reduce the burden on the currently flooded 911-system.
Mayor Bloomberg said that 911 operators and their supervisors need more training so that standard emergency procedures are followed. The 911 system also may need more staff to keep up with the growing log of emergency calls that has grown 30 percent in the past five years without a similar increase in the number of operators.
Days after the horrific event, New York police officials said that the city was still three years away from installing an advanced system that could track phone numbers and pinpoint their locations. But, the accident has prompted the police to speed up their efforts to install an advanced tracking system by the end of the year according to testimony before the City Council Public Safety Committee.
DIALING TOO MANY DIGITS
A new federal law went into effect on February 1 that requires New Yorkers to dial 1 plus the area code in order to make phone calls. However, many people reported dialing seven-digit calls as usual without problems. According to Verizon, this was due to "blind spots" in the telephone system that overlooked the missing numbers. But, these will be weeded out relatively quickly.
The law was prompted by a penchant of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for fostering competition among local telephone companies in cities with multiple area codes, no matter how inconvenient it seems to consumers. While the New York Public Service Commission protested the regulation, the FCC declined to waive the requirement.
EFFICIENCY
The City Council has also issued two reports on on-going initiatives to make government agencies more efficient. One of the reports updates an October 2002 report on e-procurement. The other is on the human services extranet project begun in 1997 (report forthcoming on the City Council Select Committee for Technology in Government Reports page.)
Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.
New York City Council Stated Meeting Report
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting, where the 51 members of the council introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of what bills were passed.
STATED MEETING - FEBRUARY 26, 2003
Quote of the Day:
"There were over 2,000 rapes last year in this city and rapes tragically continue to rise. By passing these bills, we will know that if a woman is raped and goes into an emergency room, she will be offered this important medical intervention." – Councilmember Christine Quinn on legislation to make emergency contraception more readily available.
Meeting Summary:
On February 26, the New York City Council passed three bills that aim to give women greater access to emergency contraception.
Emergency contraceptives are high-dose birth control pills that if taken within the first 72 hours after unprotected intercourse or rape can reduce the chance of pregnancy. The legislation was the result of a council investigation http://www.council.nyc.ny.us/pdf_files/reports/ecp.pdf (in PDF format) last year that found that nearly half of all pharmacies in the city do not carry the emergency contraceptive drugs Preven or Plan B, which were both approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997. The council's legislation does not address the drug RU-486.
The three bills passed by the council are: - Legislation (Intro 278-A) which would require pharmacies that do not carry the drugs to post signs indicating that they are not sold at that location. - A bill (Intro 281-A ) requiring hospitals that contract with the city to inform rape victims that emergency contraception is available and to offer it if requested. - A measure (Intro 285-A) requiring the Department of Health to make emergency contraception available at health clinics, centers, and stations.
The bills passed with little debate, although several council members voted "no" out of religious or moral objections. The piece of legislation requiring pharmacies to post notices was the most controversial, but still passed with 36 "yes" votes, 8 "no" votes. (Democrats Michael McMahon, Tony Avella, Allan Jennings, Simcha Felder, and Peter Vallone Jr. and Republicans Dennis Gallagher, Andrew Lanza, and James Oddo voted against the measure.)
The council also passed two resolutions. One calls on the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would allow undocumented immigrant college students to obtain resident status. Another urges the New York State Legislature to restore the right to vote for those who have committed felonies and are now on parole.
However, an anti-war resolution did not reach the council floor for a vote.
Some members were hoping that New York City would join some 100 other local municipalities that have already passed resolutions voicing opposition to a possible war in Iraq. But a vote on the resolution - which has the support of the majority of the City Council and Speaker Gifford Miller – was delayed over details in the wording. Some council members want kinder words for President George W. Bush, harsher words for Iraqi President Sadaam Hussein, or different criteria for what could justify a war. Now council members on both sides of the issue complain that the resolution has been watered down and has lost even symbolic significance.
"It's so vague, it could mean anything you want it to," said Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr. who plans to vote against it.
The next stated meeting is scheduled for March 12.
Â
One of the greatest achievements of the civil rights struggle was the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which removed most of the obstacles that kept African Americans away from the ballot box and enabled Americans who did not speak English to vote. But the voting rights movement never reached the last excluded segment of our democracy: our prisoners.
A legal action filed last month seeks to fill that gap in voting rights law. It argues that New York State's laws that take the right to vote away from many people convicted of felonies disproportionately harms black and Latino communities. As a result, these laws violate the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act and international law.
Currently, 1.4 million African American men in the country - 13 percent of all black men - are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. This is seven times the rate for all Americans.
While laws vary from state to state, in New York only convicted felons who serve time in prison lose their right to participate in the democratic process. They cannot vote for the entire time they remain behind bars and for any time they are out of jail on parole, when they are required to check in regularly with an officer and meet various other requirements. People convicted of felonies but sentenced to alternatives to prison such as probation retain their right to vote.
In New York, race and ethnicity have a lot to do with whether a convicted felon gets sent to prison. Blacks found guilty of felonies are twice as likely as their white counterparts to be sentenced to prison as opposed to probation. Blacks comprise less than 16 percent of New York State's population but account for almost 51 percent of the 71,000 people in prison and 50 percent of those on parole. Latinos, about 15 percent of the state population, are almost 30 percent of the prison population and 32 percent of those on parole.
The disproportionate arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of African Americans and Latinos has diluted minority voting strength in New York State since only incarceration triggers the denial of voting rights.
Our three organizations seek to change this. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Community Service Society of New York and the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College have filed a class action lawsuit charging that New York State laws denying the vote to individuals who are incarcerated or on parole are unconstitutional and discriminatory. They argue that these laws were originally intended to deny full rights to African Americans, and their continued application today disproportionately harms black and Latino communities.
The suit, Hayden v. Pataki, was initially filed in September, 2001, by Joseph Hayden while he was a prisoner in New York. Hayden, who is now on parole, was to represent all black and Latino prisoners denied the right to vote.
Now the three organizations want to add three groups to the original complaint: blacks and Latinos incarcerated on a felony conviction, blacks and Latinos on parole for a felony conviction, and black and Latino voters from specific communities in New York City who are collectively denied an equal opportunity in the political process because of the disproportionate disfranchisement of African Americans and Latinos. These communities include East Harlem, Washington Heights, the Lower East Side, Hunts Point, Morrisania, Soundview, Central Brooklyn, East New York, Jamaica and St. Albans.
The request to expand the Hayden case was made to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last month. The court is awaiting a response from the governor's office and the New York State Board of Elections, the defendants in the case. Then it will decide whether to allow the expansion.
New York State has a long history of racial discrimination in its voting laws. Like so many other states, New York enacted these laws when racial discrimination against African Americans was legal and commonplace. As far back as 1777, the framers of the state's first constitution gave only free men and property holders the right to vote.
In 1821, as a limited number of blacks became free men and property holders, the state constitution was changed to explicitly apply higher property requirements only to men of color. That same year, the state constitution was amended to deny the vote to anyone convicted of what it called "any infamous crime." By the mid-1800's, the "infamous crime" disqualification was renewed in New York State with the full understanding that blacks were 13 times more likely than whites to commit an "infamous crime."
It took the Civil War and the passage of the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to nullify these laws. Nevertheless, New York State re-enacted the "infamous crime" provision in 1894. This antiquated provision still remains in our State Constitution and is interpreted today to include all felonies, i.e., crimes that may result in jail sentences of one year or more.
Official discrimination against African American and Latino citizens in New York continued throughout the 20th century with literacy tests, English-only election procedures and discriminatory purging of voter rolls. It took the Voting Rights Act to restore a fair election structure in New York. The act targeted three counties in New York City - Bronx, Kings, and New York - requiring special measures to guard against discriminatory voting laws and policies. These provisions remain in force today.
Disproportionate disenfranchisement is made even worse by the fact that the U.S. Census counts prisoners as residents of the communities in which they are incarcerated, not as residents of the communities from which they come. The state uses these Census numbers to shape redistricting decisions that determine state and federal representation. Since all prisons built in New York State since 1982 are upstate, the voting strength of communities of color - mostly located in New York City - is further weakened.
Some argue that people who violate the law should not have a say in determining what the laws should be. Others fear that including convicted felons in the body politic would weaken law enforcement institutions. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has remarked that allowing convicted felons to vote would mean that "rapists, murderers, robbers and even terrorists or spies" could vote.
These arguments reflect the typical knee-jerk reaction against anything that appears, however minimally, to benefit persons convicted of crimes. In fact, allowing persons who are convicted of crimes to vote may make it less likely a person will break the law again. After all, voting gives people a stake in society and reflects the basic truth about what it means to be a citizen of the United States.
Prisoners and parolees are merely seeking a voice in society. They ask rightfully: What is America afraid of? What legitimate penal interest is served by taking away our vote, our badge of citizenship?
The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. Eighteen European democracies permit incarcerated prisoners to vote, as do Canada and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., only the states of Maine and Vermont do so. No democracy other than the United States bars parolees from voting.
Martin Luther King once wrote, "No nation can long continue to flourish or to find its way to a better society while it allows any one of its citizens to be denied the right to participate in the most fundamental of all privileges of democracy -- the right to vote." At the time - 1965 - King was referring to the need for a law that would ensure the right of all African Americans to vote. But his words apply today to the effects of New York State's discriminatory disenfranchisement laws.
Juan Cartagena is General Counsel for the Community Service Society of New York. Janai Nelson is Associate Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Joan Gibbs is General Counsel at the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College. The three organizations represent the plaintiffs in Hayden v. Pataki.
New York City Council Stated Meeting Report
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting, where the 51 members of the council introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of what bills were passed.
STATED MEETING - FEBRUARY 12, 2003
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"Two thousand years ago, there was a man from Galilee who did not agree with Caesar and he too was sacrificed and punished." - Queens Councilmember Allan Jennings on losing his position on the finance committee.
MEETING SUMMARY:
The February 12 meeting of the City Council was divided between real legislation and internal politics.
To the cheers of advocates in the balcony, the New York City Council passed a bill it said would "influence the national scene" on welfare to work. Intro 93-A would allow welfare recipients to count GED and English language classes toward work requirements. The bill will now go to the mayor, who has 30 days to sign or veto it.
The council voted to override the mayor's veto of a bill (Intro 257A) that would restrict the use of cell phones in theaters and concert halls. Violators will now face a $50 fine and eviction from the venue for talking on, listening to or having a cell phone ring at movie theaters, plays, musicals, museums, or libraries. The mayor said it is impossible to enforce, but the bill©ös author, Councilmember Phil Reed, said it would raise the level of civility. The council needed 34 votes to override the mayor's veto; the measure passed with 38 in favor, 5 against, and 2 abstentions.
In an effort to make the city more courteous, the council also approved a recommended "code of conduct" (Intro 322-A) for little league teams, coaches, and parents to keep games or fans from getting violent.
But the majority of the meeting was dedicated to rancorous, internal debate.
Last November, six council members voted against the 18.5 percent property tax increase. Yesterday, those dissenting members - Democrats Allan Jennings, James Davis, and Tony Avella in particular - were "disciplined" by the City Council leadership and stripped of some of their committee responsibilities.
Avella, who lost his position on the rules and elections committee, accepted the decision without comment.
However, Jennings, spreading his arms wide like he was being crucified, likened himself to Jesus and the speaker to Caesar. "Mr. Speaker, I forgive you," Jennings said.
And Davis, a former police officer, compared the experience to being fired from the NYPD after complaining of police brutality on the force. "Is this a political mafia or is this a democracy?" he pleaded.
Speaker Gifford Miller defended the action as a necessary step in making the council a unified counterbalance to the mayor. "Each of you is only in power to the extent that the whole body is in power," Miller said.
After an hour and a half of debate, the action finally came up to a vote; most council members sided with the speaker. The changes to the committees were approved by a vote of 40 to 4, with one abstention. (Click here for a full roster of the new City Council committees and members.)
The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for February 26, 2003.
This is an important moment in the life of our great city. And the dedication of the people present in this room - and the millions of others whom you represent - gives us confidence in our ability to meet the challenges we face and to secure our future as the world's greatest city.
Around the world, New Yorkers have earned a reputation for being gutsy, creative, tough, brave. Some characterize us as loud and opinionated. But that's what comes from speaking our minds with candor and making our point with vigor.
It is in this spirit that I come before you today to discuss the state of our city.
We in the council began the past year with many questioning the ability of a brand new body to lead this city. We answered those questions by discharging our duties responsibly.
The council succeeded in making city government more efficient and cost-effective, and in addressing some of this city's lingering injustices.
And we did this together - 51 members of the council representing every community in the most diverse city on earth. Everything this body achieved, we achieved as a team.
Because we understand that what we do here in this room has a real and lasting impact on people's lives…. Every budget we pass affects millions of New Yorkers and every piece of legislation has a real life story behind it.
In a tough environment, the council flexed its legislative muscle in defense of real people. And I want you to meet a few of the real life faces behind some of the bills we passed this year.
Too many New Yorkers are unable to lift themselves out of poverty despite working full time. That's why we passed a living wage bill…to help hard working people like Marie Watson, Niteka Petgrave and Yu Wa Chan who are here with us now…these women all work as home health aides, caring for the elderly. The living wage bill means that they can keep the jobs they love, their clients will benefit from their experience and expertise and they can still afford to pay their bills and build a better future for their children and grandchildren.
Last year, we also passed a displaced workers bill, which has already saved the jobs of many workers and will save the jobs of many more…workers like Ardian Meta. Mr. Meta cleans offices at a midtown company. When the company changed contractors he would have been laid off - and lost his family health plan - were it not for this important law that protects workers during these transitions.
We also passed a bill to protect people from losing their homes. Sadly, many New Yorkers fall victim to predatory lenders who cheat them with credit terms they know can never be repaid. Repeated refinancing of homes drives people deeper and deeper into debt. That's why I am proud we passed the most innovative and effective legislation in the country to prevent predators from taking the homes of people ever again.
We also passed and fought for important initiatives to:
The council stepped up to make some very tough decisions. And we got results.
But as everyone knows, New York City continues to face a daunting budget deficit.
Tackling this deficit was job number one last year; it remains job number one this year.
Last year, the council worked with the mayor to adopt nearly $2.7 billion dollars in spending cuts and we proposed an additional $500 million in further cost savings that we're going to continue to fight for. And in what had to be the most difficult step taken in 2002, we negotiated down the mayor's proposed 25 percent property tax increase to 18 and a half percent.
We understand that this is a financial strain for many working New Yorkers…that it's a sacrifice in these difficult times.
But we simply had no choice. We needed the revenue to sustain the essential services New Yorkers depend upon.
Unfortunately, our budget problems are still not solved. We face a deficit next year of more than $3 billion dollars. And I want to commend Mayor Bloomberg for his honesty about the severity of our predicament.
New Yorkers are tough, and I believe we are prepared to take steps necessary to ease future burdens. As for how the council will respond to the specifics of the mayor's recently released preliminary budget, I will say this now:
The council's job is to listen to the people … to hold hearings and deliberations… to thoughtfully and conscientiously consider the budget and its impact on our quality of life.
This is what allowed us, during the course of the last budget negotiations, to not only say "education first," but to actually put education first.
To not only advocate for our city's seniors and children, but to actually protect senior centers and day care services from dangerous cuts.
We are prepared to scrutinize the budget… line by line, comma by comma… as we protect essential services and find additional savings. We will also creatively work to find new revenues.
With deficits looming in the city and state, we will make every penny count.
But if we are to discuss our needs realistically, then we must also discuss, just as frankly, the causes of this fiscal crisis. There are four significant factors.
First of all, we were bombed.
We were the site of the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. We saw thousands of our loved ones die in just a few moments. The human cost of this tragedy is immeasurable.
But the economic impact is also enormous. The comptroller put the overall cost to our economy at $95 billion dollars for just the first two years. And the GAO estimated that, as a direct result of the September 11th attacks, we lost $3 billion dollars in local revenue.
Second, we are experiencing a national recession that is particularly harmful to key sectors of New York's economy. Wall Street's downturn alone has cost our city nearly one billion dollars in local revenue. We need to broaden our economic base so that our fortunes will not be so directly linked to the ups and downs of the stock market.
Third, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we should admit that we probably lived a little too high during the boom 1990's. We could have paid down more debt and put more aside for the rainy day that we knew would come, although I don't think anyone could have anticipated such a downpour.
We must not make that mistake again. And so the council will be sending up to Albany legislation to enact a real rainy day fund that will help this city put away money in the good times we know will return so that we have resources in the bad.
But I want to direct your attention today to a fourth cause…a more consistent and less acknowledged component of our city's fiscal stress.
In recent decades, a structural imbalance of both responsibilities and payments has developed between the federal, state and city governments.
Just last year, New York City sent Washington $6.3 billion dollars more than we got back… and we sent Albany $3.5 billion dollars more than we got back.
This imbalance fuels a cycle of crisis. In boom times, it makes us less competitive. In difficult times, it is crippling. At all times, it costs our city jobs and growth.
Simply put: we pay more than our fair share, we get back less than our fair share, and the result is that we are forced to compete with both hands tied behind our back. It's been going on too long, it's wrong and it's time we put an end to it.
Let's start with Washington. The government mandates federal programs and fails to fund them, leaving states and localities to pick up the check. More accurately, the federal government fails to fund some programs while fully funding others.
For example, each year Washington distributes $32 billion dollars in agricultural support to farmers. Federal funds flow in and no matching funds are required of the states and localities. Arkansas received $832 million dollars in farm support last year and didn't contribute a nickel of its own.
Why must states match federal funds for TANF -- temporary assistance for needy families -- but not for permanent assistance for needy farmers?
Medicare is another fully-funded federal program, one to which states aren't required to contribute.
Why, then, should all states and localities be required to match federal funds for Medicaid but not Medicare? Why does the federal government pay for the health care of seniors but not poor people?
Where is the logic?
Where is the justice?
This is not an academic question. The federal government's inconsistent and unfair funding formulas suck billions of dollars out of New York City year after year after year.
$6.3 billion dollars in 2001…. 6.3 billion dollars.
They take our money, distribute it elsewhere and we never see it again. Is it any wonder why New Yorkers are so highly taxed?
New York City spends nearly $4 billion in matching funds for Medicaid. That's $4 billion dollars that our residents have to pay in taxes. That's almost the same amount as our entire personal income tax receipts.
Think about that.
Close to 80% of our entire personal income tax… four out of the first five dollars that every New Yorker pays in their personal income tax goes to pay matching funds for a program we have no control over. That money could be used to pay for teachers, cops and firefighters. Other cities don't have this burden and it undermines our competitiveness.
What we need from Washington is responsible leadership.
And what are we being offered instead?
Well … let's take a look at the economic stimulus plan that the president proposed last month.
First of all, there is nothing stimulating about a tax cut on dividends. Most working Americans who get dividends do so through their 401 k plans.
They're already not paying taxes on dividends. And even under the president's plan, they will pay taxes when they finally retire and take their money out. Those who will realize savings from the dividend cut will reallocate the savings within their stock portfolios. This is not going to create one single job.
But it's worse than that. The proposed exemption on dividends is a disaster for cities, who rely on the benefits of municipal tax-free bonds.
By making our bonds less attractive, president bush's proposal will directly increase the cost of raising capital to improve and maintain our subways, roads, parks and schools.
The exemption on dividends would also reduce New York City's revenue by over a hundred million dollars in tax year 2003, with New York state losing around $550 million in revenue.
The president's economic plan may leave no multi- millionaire behind, but it soaks America's local governments and decimates the services that working people depend upon.
So what do we need from Washington?
Today I ask the federal government to take several actions that would dramatically improve the city's ability to realize genuine and sustainable recovery.
First: release the three billion dollars the city deserves in disaster aid. That's how much the GAO says the city lost in local revenues as direct a result of September 11th.
It's actually a simple measure requiring congress to pass a bill to remove the recently imposed cap on the community disaster loan program.
This was a good, common sense program that the federal government used to offer to cities that were struck by a disaster. Other cities and counties got this when they were struck by hurricanes or floods.
Why shouldn't New York get this assistance when we have been bombed by Al Qaeda? All New York City wants is what other local governments were granted in the past.
Second, we need Washington to provide full funding for public safety needs relating to anti-terrorist activity. The current budget of the New York City police department includes $110 million in national security expenditures to combat terrorism and protect foreign dignitaries.
When did Washington decide that cities and towns are responsible for national defense?!?
Third, and most importantly, let's deal with unfunded mandates. The federal government needs to pick up the cost of Medicaid and other mandates and stop heaping a disproportionate share of the weight on the backs of local governments.
But until they do this, Washington should give New York City… and every other city in America that's drowning in red ink… what we need most - real revenue sharing.
Right now the bush administration is perpetuating a cycle of crisis in every city in the country. With one hand, president bush offers the illusion of billions in tax cuts. And with the other, he forces city and local governments to raise their taxes on homeowners. It's a shell game.
During an economic downturn, the burden on local governments increases at the same time as revenues fall. There is greater joblessness, homelessness, and more pressure on police departments to keep crime low. And we have to respond to all these challenges with fewer resources.
Without help from Washington, local governments have to respond by increasing the taxes at their disposal. Take a look at what's happening in Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau counties. They've been forced to raise property taxes too.
Across the country, there is a growing realization that the system is not working. Forty-six states have budget gaps:
All of these states are hampered by a system that holds America back.
If the president was really serious about stimulating our economy and addressing the needs of working people, he would support federal revenue sharing.
Let's take the $80 billion dollars that the president set aside in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use it instead to finance a federal revenue sharing program to help all Americans.
With this program, the federal government could distribute money among localities, who in return would agree to use the funds they receive for two purposes: to keep our cities safe, educate our children and allow our seniors to grow old in dignity… and decrease property taxes.
In New York City, this program would provide more than a billion dollars in budget relief and more than a billion dollars in property tax relief for homeowners. That's a two-thirds rebate on the property tax increase that the city was forced to enact last November.
That's the kind of stimulus New York and the nation need … stimulus for all of us and not just the lucky few. And I am pleased to say that Congressmen Weiner and Sweeney will soon introduce bipartisan legislation to accomplish just that. And Senator Schumer has already introduced a bill to support federal revenue sharing. All of their efforts deserve our support.
Now, there are those who say this is unrealistic. But they need only look a few short decades back. That's when Congressman Ed Koch led the fight to pass a similar program, which was then enacted by President Richard Nixon. Back then, revenue sharing was a rational, sound measure to relieve budget deficits in states and cities around the country. It remains so today.
We can change policy in Washington.
And if America is going to get moving again… if New York City is going to get moving again… then we must change policy in Washington.
But it doesn't stop there. We need change in Albany, too.
Because in case after case… instance after instance… the state shortchanges New York City in a wide and costly variety of ways.
Currently, the state shortchanges the city with:
The list goes on and on and on and on… and to add insult to injury, consider this: when the governor established 75 economic development zones across the state, only 10 went to New York City.
It's gotten so that whenever I hear the word "formula" in Albany, I wince…because I know that it means, one way or another, New York City is about to get cheated.
Take the transportation formula. Currently New York City moves about 84 percent of the state's transit riders but receives only 63 percent of all state aid for mass transit. This costs us $325 million.
Finally, the state's repeal of the commuter tax was a cynical exercise that has cost New York City $1.5 billion dollars to date.
Given this state of affairs, what is Albany offering New York City?
The governor says his top priority is to avoid tax increases. Strong words. But let's look at his actions.
Take his proposal for a transit-fare increase. The governor likes to pretend it isn't a tax. But what else do you call it, governor, when you take money from the pockets of working people?
Before we even consider a fare increase, the governor ought to give New York City the transit aid we deserve.
And let's look at his tuition hikes for students at our state and city universities. Making it harder for people to get a college education doesn't just kill jobs, governor, it kills hope and opportunity.
I urge the governor to reverse this decision…. And while you're at it, meet your obligation to fully fund associate degree programs at all of the city's four-year institutions.
John Jay College… the College of Staten Island… Medgar Evers College… and New York City Technical College… all are still denied the state funds to which they are entitled.
And as it turns out the governor is proposing new taxes. Now he wants to put back the sales tax back on clothing items under $110.
The mayor and the city council pushed for getting rid of this tax to create retail jobs and ease the burden on lower-income families. How did it become the one tax the governor was willing to impose?
Unfortunately, the news gets worse from here.
The governor actually found a way to cut $1.2 billion from Medicaid without saving the city any money at all. Just a week ago, most of you wouldn't think that was possible.
Now he wants to take over the cost of prescription drugs, (a burden that the federal government is actually considering assuming), and increase the city's share of hospital, clinic and outpatient costs to 37%.
We're already paying 25% more than almost any locality in the country. In the midst of our fiscal crisis, he wants us to pay more?
Now New Yorkers admire chutzpah. But we don't like having our pockets picked. And the governor's Medicaid proposal is a disaster for our city, our health care industry and all working New Yorkers.
But amazingly it gets even worse. The governor's cuts in education aid add up to more than $700 million dollars and fall directly upon the most vulnerable among us - our children.
We're trying to turn our schools around. We cannot possibly absorb these cuts to public education and our children cannot be forced to languish in a second-rate school system.
Remember this: it costs the state more to sacrifice a generation of students than it does to invest in them.
Governor Pataki, please, stop your assault on public education.
If the governor was serious about addressing our real problems, he wouldn't resort to false solutions…
We need real help. New Yorkers have stepped up to the plate already. We have cut our budget dramatically and raised our property taxes. Now it's time for Albany to match our commitment.
Today, I call on the state to give us the opportunity to address our own fiscal problems. Give us the power to enact a $1 billion commuter tax. Twenty cities currently have some form of commuter tax - including Yonkers. The state imposes its own commuter tax. Why should we be treated differently?
Let New York City decide its own fate… and let us provide real fiscal relief for our citizens and our commuters alike… because our commuters have just as much stake in the fiscal integrity of the city as our residents.
Next, I ask the state to, once and for all, give our city the right to begin property tax reform through an absentee landlord surcharge.
Right now, absentee commercial landlords enjoy the same property tax rates as those who actually live in their single family homes.
This eludes both fairness and logic. Renting apartments is, after all, a business. And if absentee landlords paid commercial property taxes as they should, the city would realize hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue - revenue we desperately need.
It's time for Albany to change its ways…. And it's time for all of us to dedicate ourselves to restoring balance and fairness to the system.
Because only when we get our fair share will our city be as productive and competitive as the talents of our citizens allow.
Only when we get our fair share will our schools truly meet the needs of all our children. Only when we get our fair share will our police officers and firefighters have all the resources they need to keep crime low and protect our families from harm.
Our city's relations with the state and federal governments are fundamentally unfair. We are overtaxed and we are undeserved.
And we are fed up.
Today, I propose an organized, concerted effort, a campaign called "fair share," to realign federal, state and city responsibilities and the balance of payments between them. It is a campaign for equity and responsibility.
I am a realist. I know when we are standing at the bottom of a very steep hill, looking up. But I also know that we are not alone. We have so many dedicated and effective allies in this battle. We have two extraordinary U.S. Senators -- Senators Schumer and Clinton -- who have fought for the community disaster loan act and federal revenue sharing.
We have an outstanding congressional delegation, led by the Honorable Charles Rangel, to argue our case on Capitol Hill.
We have a State Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, who has always stood up for New York City and will continue to fight.
And we have committed state assembly members and state senators who fight for us in the trenches everyday. I know we will prevail.
Our history is full of imposing mountains and rugged hills made plain by the determination and commitment of our people. We've spanned rivers and tunneled beneath them; built skyscrapers and subways.
Is it really beyond us to order our affairs of government in a responsible and equitable manner? I don't believe it is.
We have already begun to reach out to cities across our nation who will join us in this fight for federal revenue sharing.
Over the last month, I have heard a chorus of support from mayors, council presidents and county executives from California to Georgia…from New Mexico to Connecticut. Like New York City, they all want to be treated fairly.
What we are doing here is building a movement…. A movement where public officials and private citizens alike will join in the fight to help New York City get the resources we need and deserve. We can get justice in Washington, justice in Albany… we can boost New York City high above the inequitable formulas and cycles of crisis that threaten to hold us back.
We will become New York City boosters… foot soldiers in the fight for equity and fairness.
In the months ahead, we'll be rolling out a series of grassroots ideas to fuel this campaign. And everyone will be encouraged to participate.
We have recently created a website -- nycboosters.com. It will be a great resource to raise public awareness and let New Yorkers know what they can do to help. We ask all New Yorkers to log on. There you will soon find information about rallies and bus trips to attend… we will be asking you to write letters and make phone calls. The important thing is that we bring to the attention of every New Yorker the terrible injustices our city faces. And we need to confront our leaders in Washington and Albany with one voice, united.
The good news is that we have plenty of opportunities to drive our points home. New Yorkers are civic-minded people. We belong to thousands of organizations that support causes and candidates across this country.
New York City is a regular stop on the campaign trail for almost every political office in the nation. When candidates ask for our support and contributions, we usually ask them where they stand on a variety of issues that are important to us. From now on, when a candidate asks you for your support, I want you to ask them:
What are you doing for New York City? Do you support revenue sharing?
New York's generous fundraisers, business organizations and labor unions are already united by a deep and abiding love for this great city. Now we need to band together to ask candidates this one simple question: what are you doing for New York City? Do you support our commuter tax?
I can promise you that when every presidential candidate comes here I won't be shy in asking, what are you doing for New York City?
Mr. President and Governor Pataki: something's got to give. Because so far, the citizens of New York City have been doing all the giving.
The numbers tell the tale of inequity. Yet as significant as those numbers are, they don't begin to tell the story of this city's enormous contributions to our state and to our nation.
New York City is truly the finance capital of the world. But we represent a lot more than money. We're also the cultural and intellectual capital of the world. We're home to the stock market… and the United Nations… and the world's greatest cultural institutions. We're home to the most extraordinary… most diverse… most industrious… innovative and accomplished citizens on the planet.
We have public schools where the kids speak more languages than the delegates at the U.N.
We're a hub for global transportation and an incubator for today's most important ideas and tomorrow's most compelling vision.
And that's just a small sampling of the intangible, incalculable contributions our city makes to our nation and the world every day. Because of those extraordinary qualities, New York City will rebound. We will recover and we will come back stronger than ever.
In the end, we are still the greatest city in the world. I can't imagine living anywhere else. My wife and I can't imagine raising our two kids anywhere else.
After September 11th, the entire nation poured out its heart and demonstrated to the world an astounding commitment to the people of New York City.
We are all tremendously grateful. And it is this spirit of generosity and faith in humankind that inspire us to move forward … to seize this moment in history and rededicate ourselves to building a better, more competitive, and more just 21st century city.
And when we have succeeded, we will look back and say to ourselves and our children that we helped the greatest city on earth meet its greatest challenge.
I thank you all for your confidence in the future of New York City.
In his State of the City address at the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg talked about what he accomplished in the last year, mainly that crime is at the lowest point in 40 years. He laid out his future plans: cracking down on sex crimes, developing the west side of Manhattan, marketing the city's image around the world, and improving education. And perhaps inspired by the budding flowers in the arboretum, the mayor even took time to mention the little things that could be seen as positive: the Bronx Zoo buys 400,000 hamburgers and hotdogs a year and there are some 340 songs about New York.
But more than specifics, the mayor tried to present an optimistic view of the future.
"Right now, it's winter in New York," the mayor said. "I'm here to tell you spring - and a time of renewal - is on its way."
After the speech, many public officials in the audience seemed to share the mayor's sunny forecast.
Council Speaker Gifford Miller praised the mayor for calling for a commuter tax. Councilmember David Weprin was happy that new bridge tolls were not mentioned. Even Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who has been engaged in an ongoing battle with the mayor to preserve her job, said Bloomberg's speech was "full of hope."
The mayor's Republican colleagues, who are still fuming over the recent 18.5 percent property tax increase, offered the harshest criticism.
"Pausing for a moment to feel the people's pain over the property tax was nice, but it didn't go far enough," said City Council Minority Leader James Oddo. "If we raise taxes again in June, it won't mean much."
While the details of the mayor's plans will be laid out more soberly in his budget proposal this week, the address offered a broad vision of how the mayor sees the city. (Read the full text of the mayor's speech.)
Bloomberg focused on five major themes
This is what the mayor said, what he sees as his accomplishments, what he plans to do in the future, and what his critics say he hasn't done or shouldn't do.
"The first responsibility of city government is public safety," the mayor said in his speech. "The NYPD is simply the best police force in the nation. Despite a smaller department, the realities of the post-9/11 world, a recession, the NYPD has brought down crime to the lowest levels in 40 years."
While crime rose nationwide, New York City's crime rate reached its lowest level since 1963, down 5 percent in 2002. According to the police department, most serious crimes  murder, robbery, assault, and car theft  have continued to decline. Rape is the only violent crime in New York that has been on the rise, increasing 5 percent in the last year.
Even though the statistics say New York is safer, many New Yorkers don't feel safer. A November CBS/New York Times poll found that nearly a third of New Yorkers say the city is "less safe" than it was four years ago.
Last July, the mayor launched Operation Spotlight to target the 10,000 low-level criminals - drug offenders, shoplifters, and prostitutes - who repeatedly commit quality-of-life crimes. The mayor says that the number of offenders who do jail time has increased by 50 percent.
In an effort to fight noise, which is the most common complaint to the police quality-of-life hotline, Bloomberg launched "Silent Night," designed to quiet unruly neighbors, curb drag racing on city streets and silence car alarms in 24 of the city's noisiest neighborhoods. (Read more about the city's crackdown on noise.
Not all areas of the city have experienced the same drop in crime. In January 2003, the police department put 800 officers on patrol in 61 of the city's high-crime areas. Because of this effort, the mayor says, serious crimes in these areas have decreased 45 percent in the first three weeks of the new year.
The mayor said he will respond to the increase in rape with a new program called Project S.T.O.P. (Specially Targeted Offenders Project). The plan calls for a new DNA tracking database in order to help in prosecuting sexual crimes and specially trained prosecutors who will make home and workplace visits to high risk sexual offenders.
The mayor's critics question how much funding he can cut from the police department budget and still keep crime down.
"Telling the police department to do more with less is an invitation to rising crime levels," said Queens Councilmember Hiram Monserrate and former police officer. "It took 15 years for the department to recover from the cuts made in the last fiscal crisis of the 1970's."
Earlier this month, Police Commissioner Ray Kelley said he might have to cut as many as 1,000 officers and forgo hiring another 500 to cut $94 million more from next year's budget. Since then, the mayor and commissioner said they had come up with other ways to reduce costs without layoffs. But given the city's fiscal crisis, the possibility of layoffs will remain an option.
"Taxes and frugality are far better than crime, filth and abandonment. And as to the short-term political fallout, I would rather be less popular, knowing that New Yorkers are safe, than promise a rose garden I know we can't deliver."
The major challenge for the mayor has been the city's $7 billion deficit, what has been called the "worst fiscal crisis in the history of the city." To date, the mayor and City Council have reduced the budget gap by $2.5 billion through borrowing, cuts to city services, increases to fees like parking tickets, and an 18.5 percent property tax hike.
The mayor says the city is doing more with less.
The mayor has cut funding from every city agency  with the exception of homeless services. Bloomberg instituted a hiring freeze for all city agencies and instructed the fire department not to bring in the next class of recruits. He laid off 103 members of the Sanitation Department and agreed to cut 450 jobs at the School Construction Authority and 150 jobs at the Board of Education facilities division.
All of these cuts are necessary, the mayor said.
The mayor also convinced the City Council to approve an 18.5 percent property tax hike that will generate about $1.7 billion a year for the city budget.
First, the mayor is calling on city workers to increase their productivity in hopes of saving some $600 million. He told unions they should not expect raises. "The stringent budget we're proposing assumes no compensation increases whatsoever," said Bloomberg.
Second, City Hall is also looking to Albany for $1.4 billion in aid in the next year. The mayor called on Governor Pataki and the State Legislature to pass a personal income tax on people who work in the city but live elsewhere  in effect, reinstating a commuter tax. (Read arguments for and against the commuter tax.) Bloomberg is also asking the state to pay a larger share of its share of Medicaid costs.
Finally, the mayor argues that help must come from Washington to pay for counter-terrorism efforts and rebuilding lower Manhattan.
THE CRITICS: The unions argue that the city workforce must not be cut and that their workers need raises to keep pace with the cost of living.
"Our members are not sacrificial lambs to be offered up on the altar of productivity," said Lillian Roberts of District Council 37. "We will fight any efforts to balance this budget on the backs of our members."
Social service providers say the most vulnerable New Yorkers  the poor, elderly, and children  are being asked to shoulder too much of the burden.
Others  particularly the mayor's Republican colleagues  argue that more tax increases will be worse than cuts.
"This is not a revenue problem, this is an expenditure problem," said Council Minority Leader James Oddo. "We have to cut spending."
Others argue the mayor is too optimistic about aide from Albany and Washington and needs to lobby harder. Governor George Pataki said he will not approve a commuter tax or any other tax increase. And President George W. Bush's recent economic plan did not include the aid to state and local governments that many hoped.
"He's still being awfully charitable to the president and the governor," said Brooklyn Councilmember Bill deBlasio.
"The signs from Washington have not been good," said Rep. Jarrold Nadler.
"The voters have a right to know what their elected officials said they'd do -- and they have a right to know what they've actually done. The public should hold their elected officials accountable for results. And they can start with me."
Bloomberg believes he was elected on his business background and his promise to bring an "outsider's" perspective to government.
Bloomberg made his billions off of a computer system and media company that provide financial news and information, and he has used technology as a tool to reform government. New Yorkers can now pay parking tickets, view property statements, obtain birth and death certificates, or report housing code violations online.
The mayor also streamlined the annual management report from a multi-volume document into a 186-page report and launched an interactive online feature called "My Neighborhood Statistics," which allows New Yorkers to type in their address and generate a web page with maps and statistics about where they live.
The city's new 311 non-emergency phone number, set to launch sometime in February, will centralize the 8 million complaints that currently come in to 41 different hotlines. The new call center will also be equipped with technology to make agencies more accountable. Each of the requests will be documented so that there is a record of how well and how quickly city agencies respond. Satellite technology will give the operators information about the location that each person is calling from, so that the 311 center can create a map of New Yorkers' complaints.
With the city struggling to close its budget gap, the mayor is calling on the City Council and State Legislature to pass tort reform that would limit the city's liability in lawsuits. Last year, New York City paid out almost $600 million in claims and judgments as a result of lawsuits, up from $21 million in 1978.
The mayor also says the city's contracting procedures are too costly and too antiquated. And he hopes to merge different city agencies, like the Department of Correction and Department of Probation.
In the next few weeks, Bloomberg has promised to release a list of every promise he made during his campaign so voters know what has or has not been accomplished.
Many expect the mayor to revisit the idea of non-partisan elections, an idea he pursued this year but was that rejected by his own Charter Commission. For the Democrat-turned-Republican mayor, not having a political party next to his name on the ballot would constitute a major government reform.
While most agree the city's 311-call center is a good idea, implementing it will be a major undertaking.
Based on the experience of other cities, the number of complaints is expected to double. And while it will be easier to complain, that may not mean things like potholes, burned out streetlights, or run-down buildings will be fixed any more quickly.
"In the end, people are still looking for a human to help them, not just a computer," said Queens Councilmember Leroy Comrie, who likes the call center, but doubts it will decrease the number of complaints he receives from constituents.
On the issue of tort reform, citizen advocates like the national public interest group Public Citizen argue that it serves as a check on municipal recklessness. The State Legislature and City Council have been reluctant to pass measures that would be seen as protecting government, not citizens.
On non-partisan elections, critics argue that the issue has not been studied enough, it may decrease voter participation, and will only benefit only minor political parties.
"We'll continue to transform New York physically -- giving it room to grow for the next century -- to make it even more attractive to the world's most talented people. We'll invest in neighborhood livability, cultural organizations, education, research and medicine."
The city's jobless rate has risen to 8.5 percent, the highest point since 1998. The New York economy  dependent in large part on Wall Street and still trying to recover from the terrorist attacks of September 11  is losing businesses and jobs.
New York City will play host to the 2004 Republican National Convention. And with the mayors' support, the city won the U.S. bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.
WHAT THE MAYOR HOPES TO DO: Bloomberg hopes to convince the state and the Port Authority to adopt his vision for lower Manhattan including parks, residential areas, and improved transportation. (Read the details of the mayor's plan for downtown.)
The mayor also used his State of the City speech to reiterate his ideas for developing the west side of Manhattan, including expanding the convention center and building sports facilities. Part of this effort involves the extension of the 7 subway line, which Bloomberg says will create 15,000 construction jobs.
The city also has an ambitious $3 billion plan to create and preserve more than 65,000 homes and apartments in neighborhoods over the next five years. Approximately 25,000 new housing units would be built and an additional 38,000 would be preserved in existing buildings.
In the future, the mayor hopes to do a better job of marketing New York City around the world. He will soon appoint a Chief Marketing Officer who will organize a "road-show" to sell the city's image. The first stop will be in London in March.
Critics worry that preparing for the Olympics could take resources away from other vital development projects, including rebuilding downtown. Some economists question the plans to cover the city's costs through a controversial financing scheme. Residents of the far West Side, which would be home to the new Olympic Stadium, say it could destroy their neighborhood.
And not everyone is convinced that extending the 7 train is a good idea.
"There has been absolutely no study . . . about the benefits of extending the No. 7 line for transit riders," said Joe Rappaport, policy advisor for the Transport Workers Union Local 100. "If you wanted to improve service to the West Side you could do that much more quickly through bus rapid transit which would cost in the hundreds of thousands to implement, or a light rail system which would cost in the tens of millions, as opposed to extending the No. 7 train, which would cost in the hundreds of millions."
Overall, many public officials said the State of the City speech did not provide enough new ideas for economic development, especially for the outer boroughs.
"I didn't hear anything new or fresh for the Bronx," said Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr.
"The best advertisement for our city will be when we're able to say that all 1200 of our public schools are success storiesĹ . We focused on creating a new and accountable administrative structure, instituting a standardized curriculum for more than 80 percent of our schools, and making the school system parent-friendly."
Most New Yorkers agree that something must be done about the city's public schools. Three out of four city schools do not perform adequately. Seven out of ten eighth graders failed this year's state required reading exam. And only half of New York City high school students graduate in four years.
Mayor Bloomberg proposed the most sweeping changes in education in 30 years. He gained control of the city schools in January and recently released his plans to set up a standardized curriculum for the vast majority of schools, eliminate community school district offices, establish a parental liaison person in every school, and replace community school boards. (Read more about the mayor's education plan)
The mayor said in his speech that gaining control of the city's schools was the "easy part." Now he must win state and federal approval for the parental involvement and curriculum. The true test, the mayor said, will be "giving all our students the education they need and deserve."
While the United Federation of Teachers has endorsed the mayor's education plan, many education advocates and parents say it is too heavy handed.
Carolyn Prager of the Advocates for Public Representation in Public Education called the plan "management by intimidation" and feared it would drive teachers, principals, and educators from the system.
Just how parents will be involved in the process is still unclear. Former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer said, "No mere change in structure will repair the problem that parents feel that schools are not open to them." (Read Ferrer's ideas about parental involvement in schools). The City Council has also proposed its own plan for involving parents in the process.
G. Reid Lyon, an advisor to President Bush, told the New York Times that the chancellor's phonics-based reading curriculum had no track record and may not get approval from the federal government. "We can find no published research indicating that this program has been tested with well-defined groups of kids and shown to be effective," Lyon said.
Read the full text of the mayor's speech.
When is it against the law to use your cell phone? Do people who rent their apartments still have to pay the property tax? And what is Mayor Michael Bloomberg concerned may kill New Yorkers - cigarettes, traffic, or budget cuts? Test your knowledge of what is happening at City Hall with our interactive quiz.
Simply click on the circle next to the answer you think is correct, and an answer will appear in the box below. Keep trying until you get the correct answer. To learn more about the subject, link to the Gotham Gazette story after each question.