Planned Parenthood NYC 

Many of us have been involved in national actions like participating in the Women’s March on Washington, but now more than ever, it’s just as important to take action at our state and local level. On Monday, January 30, dozens of Planned Parenthood of New York City supporters, volunteers, and staff are getting on a bus to Albany to demand that our elected officials protect New Yorkers’ access to health care.

In the midst of the worst assault on reproductive rights that we’ve ever seen, we need leaders that will stand up for reproductive health and rights. There are local steps that must be taken. Recently, in response to the demands of New Yorkers, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced bold action to enhance access to affordable contraception through insurance coverage.

While this is a great step forward, it’s also only the beginning. Right now, our State Senate majority is hostile to sexual and reproductive health issues, and has failed to enact crucial legislation that would protect New Yorkers’ access to care. Now more than ever, our elected officials must move to ensure that reproductive health is protected.

Here’s what we’ll be pushing for on Monday in the capital:

Protecting Planned Parenthood & Ensuring Continued Funding
Under the current federal administration, we are facing threats to funding for Medicaid and Title X, programs that we rely on to provide essential health care to thousands of New Yorkers each year. Losing funding would have a devastating impact on the communities we serve, particularly for women of color and low-income women. In 2017, we are demanding that our state’s elected officials stand with Planned Parenthood and reject any attempts at the federal or state level to restrict access to reproductive health care.

Ensuring Access to Abortion through the RHA
New York State legalized abortion in 1970, three years before the Roe v. Wade decision. But with Roe now at risk, New York must take additional steps to make sure that abortion access is protected. We must update three key components of our current law: first, the Constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade must be written into New York state law. Second, we must remove restrictions that criminalize abortion providers. And, finally, our law must reflect modern medical practice by allowing Advanced Practice Clinicians to provide abortion care. The Reproductive Health Act (RHA) accomplishes all these goals and should become law during this session.

Improving Contraceptive Access
The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) made contraception more accessible than ever, but New Yorkers still face barriers in accessing the contraception they need. The Comprehensive Contraceptive Coverage Act (CCCA) ensures commonsense solutions so New Yorkers have the tools they need to lead healthy lives and fulfill their dreams. The CCCA removes out-of-pocket expenses for vasectomies and improves New Yorkers’ ability to access Emergency Contraception in a timely manner, in addition to provisions similar to those the governor has put forward.

At PPNYC alone, 64,000 New Yorkers rely on us annually for health care services. Our communities come to us for indispensable primary and preventive care, including contraception, breast and cervical cancer screening, pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, HIV testing, and more. And regardless of insurance status, immigration status, or ability to pay, we’re here for all people—no matter what. Time and time again, we have heard from patients and activists about the importance of being able to access affordable, high-quality care. Now is the time for New York elected officials to step up and protect access to health care, not just in New York City, but across all affiliates statewide.

The assault on reproductive rights will only intensify around the country, and New York has the unique responsibility to stay true to its progressive legacy. Now is the time to be a model for resistance. Now is the time for our elected officials to stand up for reproductive health and rights, and send a message that will resonate around the country: we won’t go back.

***
Joan Malin is President and CEO of Planned Parenthood NYC. On Twitter @PPNYCAction.

(photo: Riders Alliance)

Not long ago, as I entered the 149th  Street and Grand Concourse station in the Bronx where I live, I saw a group of undercover police officers surrounding a young man under arrest for jumping the turnstile. As I stared, I remembered my own run-in with the cops for fare evasion. Seeing this kid get arrested, my mind returned to that moment: the cold metal of the grate against the back of my head, the suffocation of the officer's forearm deep in my chest, and my fear that my attempt to spare my mother’s health—however well-intentioned—might put my own well-being at risk.

Let me explain.

When I was in 7th grade I was accepted into Prep for Prep, a summer program that provides academic and leadership development opportunities for low-income kids of color. At 14 years old, I wanted nothing more than to sit around and hang out with my friends. But my mother understood the importance of this opportunity for a low-income black kid from the Bronx and insisted that I not let this pass me by. At her urging, I attended classes on weeknights and weekends in Midtown.

The program provided two-trip MetroCards, but because of bus transfers, they weren’t enough to get me there. To help out, my mother, who has multiple medical conditions that require her to take life-saving pills every day, would use savings dedicated to her medical bills to buy me a MetroCard.

It hurt me to see my mother make that sacrifice. No parent should ever have to choose between their health and a MetroCard for themselves or their family. But a lot of people make exactly these kinds of near-impossible choices every day to pay for their travel. In fact, a study by the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) found that one in four low-income New Yorkers reported being unable to travel to doctor appointments, jobs, and other necessities because of the cost of a MetroCard. The same report found that the cost of a 30-day unlimited MetroCard often makes up over 10 percent of a family's budget, forcing individuals to make painful sacrifices, including on essentials like rent, food, and other bills.  

I saw my mother struggle with that decision every day—until the day when I decided I couldn’t stand to be the reason anymore. I lied and told my mother that I already had the fare to get to the program—and jumped the turnstile. I wanted to give my mom a break. I wanted to help her out for once after all that she had done for me.

Of course I was stopped by the cops. After a terrifying encounter, they let me off with a warning—but we all know that I was an exception to the rule.  

James Baldwin once wrote in an article for Esquire Magazine, “Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.”  This is certainly true in New York City, where, as CSS found, 58% of low-income riders rely on the transit system—but are all too often unable to afford to use it. This is the inescapable trap of poverty: the poor pay more for everything.

This is true of transit as well: we pay more for a single-ride MetroCard because the fare structure incentivizes buying unlimited monthly MetroCards. Those who can’t afford to shell out a lump sum of $116 (and rising) are paying more than the wealthier for their trip. We pay more because we don’t make enough to take advantage of the pre-tax transit benefits program middle-income and wealthy New Yorkers enjoy. And we pay more when we get caught begging for a swipe or jumping the turnstile -- we get fined hundreds of dollars, get carted off to jail, or worse.

Like my neighbors, I know all too well how poverty forces people to make tough, sometimes illegal, choices simply to get around. Unlike my neighbors, every fall I have a temporary escape from poverty. In no small part because of the opportunities that Prep for Prep provided, I’m a junior at Harvard University. College isn’t just a place to earn a better life for myself in the future; it’s also a reprieve from the chronic trauma of poverty and the exhaustion that comes from having to calculate the cost of every action.  

That’s why I’m joining CSS and the Riders Alliance in the call for #FairFares and asking Mayor de Blasio and our City Council to fund half-priced MetroCards for low-income New Yorkers.

Public transit should connect every New Yorker to good jobs, affordable housing, and the rich cultural opportunities that this city allows young and eager minds like me. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are left out of those opportunities—but we can change that if we make public transit truly accessible to every member of the public, including the poor.

If my mom hadn’t sacrificed for me, I wouldn’t be where I am today—but the point is that no one should have to make the kinds of sacrifices my mom made to help their kids succeed. With Fair Fares, 800,000 more New Yorkers could be eligible for half-priced MetroCards that could save them up to $700 a year. Imagine how many parents could help their kids thrive with these savings if the Mayor would stand up for every New Yorker’s right to access public transit?

***
Robert Rush is a junior at Harvard University. He grew up in the Bronx and is a member of the Riders Alliance, a grassroots non-profit that fights for better, more affordable public transportation in New York City.

Corey Johnson, the author (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)

January 20 marked the beginning of a dangerous new era for our country. For the first time in many of our lives, we now have a president who rose to office on the power of racist, sexist, classist, and xenophobic campaign promises. These are promises he is already working to keep.

Of course, Donald Trump's agenda does not truly represent our nation. The day after his inauguration, millions of people marched in cities around the world to reject Trump’s divisive ideology.

The Women’s Marches on Saturday sent a clear message about where we stand as a people. But speaking truth to power is only the start. We must now organize our communities and engage with our democracy in unprecedented ways. The fates of our economy, our health care system, our environment, our national security, and our most vulnerable populations depend on it.

We can start by creating change right here at home in New York.

As Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently put it, “When they go low, we go local.” Indeed, there’s an enormous opportunity to create change at the local level and ensure that our City and our State remain on a progressive course.

We have made great strides here in New York, from a rising minimum wage to a strong health care marketplace, and we will have to fight hard not to be taken backwards in the Trump era.

That is why I call on all New Yorkers to get engaged, get involved, and make sure that when local elections take place in 2017 and 2018, we choose representatives who are committed to executing your vision for our City and state. The New York State Senate, for example, is still controlled by Republicans, despite the fact that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one. This should not be.

Nationally, 2018 will present us with an opportunity to elect federal representatives who can stand up to Trump in the halls of Congress. New Yorkers need not look very far for seats we can flip – a third of New York’s 27 members of Congress are Republicans!

It will take nothing short of an all-out blitz to turn many of these seats from red to blue, and we need to start organizing now. As the Women’s Marches showed, there is nothing like action. It is time for everyone who cares to be engaged.

While we act locally, we must demand that our representatives in Washington, D.C. cede no ground to Trump and his extreme agenda. As New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler says, we must not normalize his extreme views on issues like immigration, religious freedom, women’s rights, and climate change. Keep the heat on your federal representatives to ensure that they do not buckle in the face of pressure. Anyone who compromises on our essential values should not be re-elected.

Let your federal representatives know how you feel. As an elected official, I can tell you that these calls really do matter.

So step up and be heard. Take your rightful place at the forefront of our democracy. The election may be over, but it’s never too late for passionate and dedicated individuals to put our country back on the right path.

***
Corey Johnson represents District 3 in the New York City Council, which covers the neighborhoods of Hell’s Kitchen, Chelsea, the West Village, and parts of Flatiron, SoHo and the Upper West Side.‎ On Twitter @CoreyinNYC.

(photo: NYC DOE)

First, do no harm. Ha!

On Tuesday, the New York City Council will hold an oversight hearing on teacher recruitment and retention. The Council announcement states that a hearing is necessary because “there’s a growing teacher shortage across the United States, although it is impacting some states more than others. This is the result of a nationwide trend that has seen the number of college students enrolled in education majors decrease by 35% in the past five years, as well as an increase in teachers leaving the profession.”

This attention follows on the heels of the recent New York State Regents proposal to roll back rigorous 2014 teacher certification requirements and congressional efforts to rescind recently enacted U.S. Department of Education regulations.

We’ve got to stop the madness.

The constant revision of teacher preparation and certification requirements has real consequences, with the bad far outweighing the good. The reason for the problems identified by the City Council -- to be further illuminated at Tuesday’s hearing -- are of our own making. The fact is that policy-makers are in the dark because we really don’t know what is required to make a good teacher. Not a great teacher, mind you, since certification, despite the political cant, is about formulating minimum standards for public school job entry. A Google Scholar search of the field reveals hundreds of articles published in the last year alone on this highly technical subject, which no regulatory policy can hope to encompass.

The system of certification and retention is a sieve that screens more for those who persevere through the procedural maze than for talented educators. Every state comes up with its own scheme, blundering around in the politically-appointed regulatory kitchen since no workable recipe has been found. Private school teachers need no certification. Many charter school teachers are uncertified, provided exceptions under state law.  Tens of thousands of New York City public school students are taught every day by staff teaching “out of license.”

And every time some new half-baked hurdle is raised, an industry of preparation programs and their students is thrown into chaos. I work in higher ed. Curriculum changes are a big deal. Sometimes whole courses need to be developed, taking months to refine and sometimes longer to be reviewed and approved by layers of faculty committees and administration. Even small changes in course content require time for instructors to research, identify readings, determine assignments, and create assessments. And for every new course or curriculum tweak, other once-favored material needs to be adjusted or dropped. Students are whipsawed among confusing mandates, across overlapping certificate categories, with variable, dizzying deadlines. What is easy for politicians and regulators to order becomes a hornet’s nest to implement.

And then, once set, it starts all over again as current city, state, and federal actions attest. We run in place with the urgency of lame hamsters on a wheel, every step dictated by some imperfect previous step and the political imperatives of change. Or, borrowing a more eloquent metaphor to describe our vain, pedestrian predicament, “we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

[Read: Teacher Recruitment, Retention Will Be Focus of City Council Hearing]

***
David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center.  He is the author of American Public Education Law, 3d edition (2016). On Twitter @BloomfieldDavid.

NYPD officers and dogs in the subway (photo: @NYPDnews)

Over the past five years, in the course of our research and advocacy efforts, we at PROP have become convinced that the NYPD's unjust policies not only violate our country's central founding principle of providing equal justice for all, but also that the department's racist practices are so entrenched, so long-standing, that only fundamental and far-reaching changes can end -- really end -- abusive and discriminatory policing in our great city.

Relevant facts and PROP findings show the dire need for real reform:
-In 2015 the NYPD made over 20,000 arrests for the possession or sale of small amounts of marijuana; and 92.5% of these arrests involved New Yorkers of color. This, despite the research showing that white people use and sell the drug in equal or greater proportions than African-Americans and Latinos.

-Recently, defending his police reform record on WNYC radio, Mayor de Blasio stated, "we stopped the arrests for low-level marijuana possession." In fact, during the first nine months of 2016, the NYPD made nearly 14,000 misdemeanor arrests for marijuana possession, about 12% more than the figure for 2015.

-The largest category of NYPD arrests in 2015 was fare evasion, with over 29,000 arrests, 92% involving New Yorkers of color. During 2015, NYPD officers also issued nearly 124,000 summonses for fare evasion, bringing the total number of punitive interactions between officers and New Yorkers for this offense to over 153,000 for the year, or an average of nearly 420 per day.

-Of the NYPD's juvenile arrests in 2015, 94.9% involved African-American or Latino young people.

-Of the New Yorkers locked up on Rikers Island and in other city jails, about 88% are African-American or Latino.

-Over the past two years, PROP's Court Monitoring Project, where volunteers observe proceedings in arraignment parts of the city's four major boroughs, found that over 90% of the observed cases involved New Yorkers of color. Virtually none of the defendants was even charged with a predatory or dangerous offense.

These and similar undeniable facts, among other things, have shown us that NYPD daily practices are marked by a stark racial bias. We know, too, that political leaders, whatever their motivations, have at worst lied to the public about this ugly truth or at best misrepresented the harsh reality of NYPD practices.

Given our well-founded skepticism about mainstream leaders' willingness to address the problem of discriminatory and abusive policing and our understanding of how deeply embedded the problem is in the NYPD's institutional policies and culture, we at PROP have chosen as a principal strategy for 2017, a year of city-wide municipal elections, to focus our determined efforts on injecting sweeping reform proposals into the public debate.

Our recommended changes will aim to advance substantive remedies that no mainstream politician will currently support. Not because they don't make sense or are not the right things to do, but because they are too politically charged.

PROP's proposed reforms for fundamental change will include:
-Abolishing "broken windows" policing that targets low-income New Yorkers of color for engaging in petty infractions that have been virtually decriminalized in well-off white communities.

-Eliminating the quota system for evaluating officers' performance that emphasizes only their punitive interactions with New Yorkers and that, in effect, incentivizes bad policing.

-Reducing the budget, personnel, resources, and power of the NYPD -- the guiding principle being, in part, the time-honored shibboleth that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," applied to the unchecked power of the NYPD.

-Transferring traffic enforcement -- in 2015, NYPD officers issued over 1 million traffic summonses -- to another government agency.

-Having mental health professionals, not police officers, be the first responders to emergencies involving persons in psychiatric crisis.

America teaches her young people that she provides equal justice for all, not equal justice for all except if you're a person of color, except if you're poor. America teaches that under her legal system, you're innocent until proven guilty, not that you're innocent until proven guilty except if you're poor, except if you're an American of color.

Our goal for 2017 is grandiose and, admittedly, quixotic: to, starting with New York City, call America home, to create an America, starting with the Big Apple, that adheres to the founding principles of which she is so justifiably proud. And it's only by agreeing to and instituting fundamental and far-reaching changes, starting with her policing and criminal justice systems, that America can fulfill its stated vision of a just, livable, and inclusive society for all its people.

***
Bob Gangi is the executive director of PROP, the Police Reform Organizing Project. On Twitter @PROPNYC.

City Council Member Carlos Menchaca, the author (photo: William Alatriste)

Barack Obama may have given his farewell address, but he still has work to do. In his speech, the president rightly celebrated America’s history of welcoming immigrants and their contributions to our country. But Mr. Obama’s legacy on immigration is mixed. He has both deported more people than any prior president and acted in America’s best traditions by letting the Dreamers - undocumented youth brought to the United States as children – emerge from the shadows. There is one final step that President Obama can, and should, take to cement his legacy on the side of history we know is in his heart.

Most immigrant families in the United States are mixed status, meaning most have children who are citizens and immigrant parents, including Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs). The incoming administration’s promise to deport 2-3 million people with legal infractions threatens to rip these American families apart, because the threshold for deporting legal permanent residents is so low. Experts argue that this 2-3 million number cannot be reached without deporting people for minor offenses, such as traffic tickets. This is why I recently joined 60 local elected officials from across the country in asking President Obama to grant a blanket pardon to legal immigrants who have minor infractions and pose no threat to the country. He can prevent the breakup of these American families.

Pardoning this group of immigrants fits with the president’s recent actions on criminal justice and immigration. His clemency initiative and Deferred Arrival for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program seek to fix the broken criminal justice and immigrant systems that harm American families.

Having already designated Legal Permanent Residents with minor convictions as low priorities for deportation, President Obama could protect these American families further with a presidential pardon.

Some will object, arguing that America is a country of law and order. We agree, and support the deportation of those posing a risk to our community. We also support the American belief that punishment should fit the crime. Someone who had a minor infraction such as shoplifting or excessive traffic violations as a teenager could be eligible for deportation 20 years later as a responsible adult with children who are citizens. These deportations make no sense, and hurt families and children without enhancing the wellbeing of the country.

The group making this request, Local Progress, is composed of local elected officials that know, work with, live in, represent, and are part immigrant communities. We know that deportations cripple families and harm neighborhoods and the economy. We also know that the American Dream lives in our communities and that the country benefits from these newcomers and their children. Pardoning this group would prevent the unnecessary breakup of our American families, and allow parents to stay where they belong, raising their children in the communities they have helped build.

Watching President Obama’s farewell speech, I could not help but think about the many families in my Brooklyn district that have lost a family member to deportation. The effects are harsh. When a father gets deported, the family loses income and can lose their apartment. The education of children can be disrupted, and those remaining long to be with their missing family member. For the children – citizens, immigrants, or both – it is a hurt that does not go away. It is a step the U.S. government should not take lightly, or for symbolic political reasons.

I stand with my fellow elected officials to ask President Obama to grant these pardons. I also call on my fellow New Yorkers to call the president’s office and tell him to grant clemency to the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who stand to lose under President Trump. Before he leaves office, President Obama can help cement his legacy with such a pardon. He has the power, and should use it, as other presidents have done in the past. There is still time.

***
Carlos Menchaca is a New York City Council Member and Chair of the Council’s Immigration Committee. On Twitter @cmenchaca.

Bridge construction (photo: Gov. Cuomo's office)

As legislators return to Albany for the 2017 session, bolstering the state’s infrastructure clearly ranks high on their “to-do” list. While Governor Cuomo and the Legislature made vital investments last session with passage of the $27.1 billion transportation multi-year capital plan, there was also unfinished business which must be addressed this year to ensure those dollars will deliver the cost-effective results taxpayers expect.

Despite bipartisan legislation allowing some New York City agencies to use design-build contracts, it was surprisingly left languishing in committee last session. City Department of Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg says gaining design-build authority is a top legislative priority. “I still have to use traditional design-bid-build, which, frankly, will add years to the project and tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars. It just makes no sense,” Trottenberg recently said.

Design-build would be the single most effective step to update aging infrastructure and build new schools and public housing. Yet, despite bipartisan support, New York City is not allowed to capture the innovative and collaborative efficiencies design-build has delivered elsewhere in the state.

Design-build isn’t new and it’s not radical; however, it does require public owners (like cities, states and the federal government) to provide flexibility in the procurement process, allowing designers and builders to collaborate earlier in the process, creating projects which allocate risks more efficiently and improving delivery time and budget.

Even though New York lags behind many other states in approving design-build authority, the state’s successes are impressive. The emergency reconstruction of State Route 42 in Greene County, after its damage from Hurricane Irene, was completed in just four months, ahead of schedule and approximately 10 percent under budget using design-build. The state Department of Transportation projects the $550 million replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge will be completed 3.5 years earlier thanks to design-build.

The largest capital project in the state used design-build for the New NY Bridge (replacing the Tappan Zee) which is projected to cost $1.7 billion less than originally planned while delivering 18 months ahead of schedule. And even though the city’s efforts at securing design-build have been futile in recent years, the state, led by Governor Cuomo, has been able to provide project specific authorization for the city. Specifically the billion-dollar expansion of the Jacob J. Javits Center and the Penn Station renovations will use design-build contracts.  

Given the many New York design-build successes over just a few years, it’s impossible to understand why the Legislature has not granted all state agencies permanent design-build authority. Instead, we face a seemingly never-ending cycle of budget re-authorizations to allow the design-build delivery method; leaving agencies, contractors, subcontractors, and the workers they employ in a biannual legislative limbo. It’s even worse for New York City leaders who have no design-build authority even though they see the potential to save $2 billion over 10 years.

In these politically divisive days, it’s no small feat to find legislative proposals on which virtually everyone can agree. Design-build should be one of those proposals. Allowing innovation and collaboration to flourish on design-build projects in New York has stretched limited public funds by consistently delivering time and cost benefits on the vital infrastructure projects citizens support. New York is making the investments, now it must deliver the most cost-effective results possible. Providing permanent design-build authority for all New York State agencies while removing barriers for the City of New York is a win-win for lawmakers and the taxpayers they represent.

***

Steven Ruether is Liberty Region President for the Design-Build Institute of America. On Twitter @DBIAnational.

(photo: Sofie Hecht/Gotham Gazette)

In New York City, tiny, vulnerable, nonprofit organizations too often lose the real estate they own to for-profit developers. These unjustifiable losses are a complete mix-up of city and state tax policy, through the mechanism called the tax lien sale. New York City needs to fix this problem by removing nonprofits from the tax lien sale.

Nonprofits of various sizes -- religious institutions, universities, and community gardens alike -- frequently own property. These organizations, due to their nonprofit status, according to the New York State Constitution and New York State law and are tax exempt. Yet every year, New York City facilitates the sale of some of these properties to private speculative developers, and it is never the mega universities or big churches that end up in this mess, but small, local nonprofits.

New York City is correctly concerned with maintaining its tax base to keep the city functioning. In 1996, the Giuliani administration drastically changed the way the city deals with owners who don’t pay their property taxes out of concern for the lost tax revenue. One aspect of that change was the introduction of the tax lien sale for all property owners, including nonprofit owners even though they do not owe these taxes in the first place.

The tax lien sale works like this: if you, as a property owner, don’t pay your property taxes, the city places a lien on your property and sells it to a tax lien trust, an investment vehicle only rich ("accredited") investors can use. The trust then adds interest and fees and collects the "past due" taxes even when they were not technically due. If the property owner doesn't pay those fees, the trust initiates foreclosure and then sells to a buyer, usually a developer, at a post-foreclosure auction.

If you are a nonprofit owner, to avoid the tax lien sale you need to successfully apply for a tax exemption. When your tiny organization has a staff of two or three people, sometimes the administration is imperfect and you don’t file an exemption form when you acquire the property, which can lead to the loss of your property because of the tax lien system.

To continue avoiding the tax lien sale, your nonprofit needs to annually file a renewal form with the Department of Finance. So, if your community garden board misses a few pieces of mail because the former president retired and the new generation of garden caretakers doesn’t have every city agency sending mail to the right place, the renewal might not get filed. And the tax lien warnings may go unnoticed.

In a year or two, New York City thinks this property has a civic duty to pay taxes (which it does not) and is delinquent in that duty. The lien gets sold, and then your garden or church gets foreclosed. The worst case scenario happens when a developer shows up with court papers at your garden’s fence and tells you “we own this now and you must go.”

So, even though the state constitution provides for the exemption of property taxes for nonprofits, and even though New York law provides that your property is exempt from the date you acquire the property as a nonprofit, the City Department of Finance is still permitting the tax lien sales of nonprofits.

As D.W. Gibson reported earlier this year, the Black Veterans for Social Justice in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn learned this year that tax debt on their property had been sold. Tax debt that, under state constitutional principle and state law, they do not owe. They are working on untangling this mess before their building ends up in foreclosure.

Tax revenue from property owners is an important piece of how the city functions. But this cannot be an excuse for seeing a small community nonprofit, especially in an already pressed neighborhood, fall into foreclosure.

The city should collect taxes from luxury real estate developers. The city should exert more muscle to collect fines from delinquent landlords who permit their buildings to collapse around tenants. The city should focus its hunt for lost revenue on the actual organizations that legally and morally should be paying it.

The rules around tax lien sales are up for renewal this year. New York City must exempt nonprofits from the tax lien sale altogether. New York City should not be seeking lost revenue from the most vulnerable populations. This problem can be fixed.

****
Richard Semegram is a tenant lawyer and an advisory committee member of 596 Acres. On Twitter @richagram.

Gov. Cuomo (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)

Governor Cuomo’s plan to make tuition free for many New York State residents who attend SUNY or CUNY two- or four-year schools would be an exciting step toward ensuring students across the state can access New York’s prized public university systems. The newly-announced Excelsior Scholarship proposal could help 940,000 families who qualify for the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) with annual incomes less than $125,000. The program is designed to fill the gaps in tuition aid after state and federal grants have been used.

This is a big deal that New Yorkers should celebrate.

Yet, only increasing tuition aid is not enough alone to ensure true financial access. The proposal is a “last dollar” award, backfilling aid after state and federal grants, and therefore the program does not help low-income students who already have the full costs of their tuition covered by Pell and TAP but struggle to afford other expenses associated with earning a degree, such as books, child care, housing, transportation, and more.

In fact, non-tuition expenses make up the majority of the full cost of attending four-year and two-year public institutions. The Excelsior Scholarship program must come with a commitment to help cover these additional costs to allow students who enroll to actually stay in school, access the resources they need, and finish their degrees.

In addition to potentially leaving out the most at-need students who require more support than tuition coverage, the Excelsior Scholarship proposal turns a blind eye to some of New York’s neediest communities who would greatly benefit from a pathway to a free degree. Only students attending school full-time and who graduate on-time would be eligible to participate. This excludes part-time students, many of whom are balancing work and family responsibilities, requiring more than just free tuition to be able to attend college full-time. For the more than 84,000 undergraduate students at CUNY who attend part-time, representing almost 35 percent of undergraduate students, the Excelsior Scholarship falls short.

Another group excluded from this program are the more than 8,300 undocumented students currently attending SUNY or CUNY. The governor must hold true to his promises made to immigrant New Yorkers over the last few weeks by expanding the Excelsior Scholarship program to undocumented students and once and for all giving them access to state grants like the Tuition Assistance Program to access college.

The plan also claims it will increase on-time graduation rates by providing four years of tuition-free education, but we know being able to afford tuition doesn’t guarantee completion. It’s promising the governor is focused on improving graduation rates considering that less than 50 percent of four-year SUNY students and less than 30 percent of CUNY students graduate within four years. However, any plan to bolster timely completion must come with a commitment to significantly expanding opportunity programs that include academic and financial supports and services that support students while in school. This includes bringing to scale initiatives like CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) to ensure that disadvantaged students from underserved communities can equitably access and make the most of a free public higher education when given the opportunity.

Addressing the cost of tuition is a critical step toward getting more young New Yorkers to complete college, but tuition is not the only barrier to success. To meet the needs of New York’s students, to make sure they get the skills and training needed to meet the demands of the economy and combat New York’s high young adult unemployment crisis, Governor Cuomo and state legislators need to expand this burgeoning plan to include the most vulnerable students.

The governor’s foundational investment and enthusiasm toward making college more accessible by making it more affordable is a promising step forward. However, we need to ensure this program is expanded to include those New Yorkers with the least access and with greatest challenges to earning a college degree.

***
Kevin Stump is the Northeast Director for Young Invincibles, an advocacy and policy organization working on higher education, health, and jobs issues impacting 18-34 year olds. YI is also a part of President Obama's College Promise Task Force. On Twitter @KevinStump and @YoungInvincible.

Hudson Falls, upper Hudson River (photo: NY DEC)

Who is responsible for keeping the Hudson River free from pollution? Actually, it is a responsibility shared by Federal and State authorities. Sometimes they agree; other times, they may be at cross purposes. That can make for some interesting political debate and interplay between the federal and state governments.

Two current environmental issues are good examples.

Cleaning up PCBs in the Hudson
GE dumped PCBs, toxic chemicals resulting from its manufacturing facilities in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, into the Hudson for many years. Most of the chemicals settled to the bottom but some drifted downstream. They were ingested by fish, leading to a ban on eating fish caught in the river. After years of controversy and discussion, GE agreed to pay for dredging the river from Fort Edward to Troy, under supervision of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a federal Superfund project. Dredging work began in 2009 and concluded in 2015 with the removal of some 310,000 pounds of PCBs. GE called it a "major environmental success" and declared it had met its cleanup responsibilities.  

EPA monitored the work and expressed satisfaction as it went along. EPA is scheduled to test sediment and fish mostly near the site once more in 2017 and then was expected to certify that GE had met its obligations. When the dredging concluded in 2015, EPA allowed GE to dismantle its PCB processing plant at Fort Edward with the implication that the work was done. The Cuomo administration did not object. Political pundits pointed out that at the time the administration was trying to convince GE to move its headquarters from Connecticut to New York. GE ended up moving to Boston instead.

But the PCB issue is not resolved.

In strongly-worded letters to the EPA in November and December, 2016, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Basil Seggos expressed "significant concerns" and asserted that "EPA's work is not done." The river is still "much more contaminated than EPA originally predicted." He added, "it is clear that the dredging performed will not meet...targeted fish PCB concentrations and EPA will not be able to deliver on the projected benefits to public health and the environment from this cleanup unless additional actions are undertaken." Much more sampling and testing are needed, along the entire length of the river from Fort Edward all the way to New York City.

"It's simple," Seggos explained. "DEC is calling on the EPA to finish the job and hold GE accountable for cleaning up the Hudson River. If EPA won't do the job and protect New Yorkers and the environment, DEC is ready to step in and lead."

The war of words escalated in December. EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck wrote Seggos on December 21 to say, "we strongly disagree" with the "baseless accusation" that EPA has not done its job. She rejected his demand for additional sampling beyond what EPA was already planning, adding that "NYSDEC is free to pursue that sampling itself if it so chooses."

EPA will make its decision early this year on whether GE needs to do more dredging.

Keeping oil off the Hudson
A consortium of maritime and oil companies has proposed construction of 10 "anchorages"  along the shores of the Hudson River, from Kingston to Yonkers, to store large barges carrying crude oil south from Albany. The anchorages would include a total of 40 berths, or parking spaces, for the ships. The proposal resulted from a decision by Congress last year ending a ban on export of oil produced in the lower 48 states.

Proponents say that the action by Congress will increase the amount of oil moving by rail to the Port of Albany and then down the Hudson by boat. Their proposal will produce jobs, help lower energy costs, and boost the economy, they say.

Opponents counter that the anchorages are unnecessary and will cause environmental damage to the river.

The U.S. Coast Guard has legal responsibility for reviewing and deciding on the proposal. It has received more than 10,000 comments from interested citizens, environmental groups, local governments, and others.

New York state government weighed in with two long letters in December.

A joint letter to the Coast Guard from the New York Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Public Service Commission, and Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, set forth a long list of concerns about the proposal and called for more study, concluding that the proposal "lacks sufficient justification and detail." The state agencies expressed concern about the number of anchorages, lack of specificity about how many barges would be accommodated or how long they would stay, impact on state parks and other state-owned lands, the risks of accidents and spills, and the impact on fish, particularly two species of endangered sturgeon that inhabit the Hudson. But they couched their reservations not as outright opposition but instead mostly in terms of assertions that there needs to be lots more study and consultation.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who sometimes makes a point of expressing positions on public issues that are independent from those of the Cuomo administration, sent his own letter, not to the Coast Guard but to the head of its parent agency, the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Schneiderman asserted that the Coast Guard should discontinue consideration of the proposal until it is reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which Schneiderman asserts is required by law. But he went on to express more direct opposition than his colleagues in the other New York State agencies. “No one has demonstrated a manifest need for so many new anchorage sites along the river; no one has demonstrated a need for long-term anchorage at any of those specific locations...." The barges "would create significant security and hazard risks" particularly since the anchorages "would essentially allow barges to serve as oil storage facilities on the river,” he wrote.

The Coast Guard will decide on the barge anchorage proposal early in 2017.

The Hudson River and public policy
The Hudson River's extraordinary historical importance magnifies the importance of these issues. "Far more than a short river flowing through New York State, the Hudson is a thread that runs through the fabric of four centuries of American civilization -- its culture, its community, and its consciousness," wrote Tom Lewis in The Hudson: A History. It is "the valley where nature's creation and human creation meet, the river that connects so much of America's past with its present and future, unchangeable in presence yet always changing."

The PCB and oil barge issues illustrate a number of themes. Public opinion recognizes the commercial importance of the Hudson River. But people seem more concerned these days with the river's historical, aesthetic, scenic, and recreational values. Commercial exploitation has been at least partially upstaged by insistence on preservation for public benefit. There is a consensus that public authorities need to enforce policies to keep the river clean and, to the degree practical, that polluters need to clean up their pollution under government supervision.

But major policy decisions turn primarily on scientific evidence, and some imprecision is inevitable. When has there been "enough" dredging of PCBs? How much harm will giant oil barges cause to protected fish habitats? When federal and state perspectives and standards differ, which should prevail? How should economic and commercial benefits be balanced against environmental concerns?

These questions will be debated as the two issues discussed above play out in 2017. They are judgment calls that, inevitably, whether we admit it or not, are tinged with political considerations. But they are the sorts of issues that will continue to reverberate in environmental discussions here in New York, and indeed across the nation, in coming years.

***
Dr. Bruce W. Dearstyne's latest book is The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History, published in 2015 by SUNY Press.