Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

The Mayor’s Mission and the Mess at Rikers


Mayor Adams visits Rikers Island (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


The U.S. criminal justice system is at a crossroads. After the killing of George Floyd, there were bipartisan calls to address the failures of a historically unequal justice system. Across the country, reform candidates won office for District Attorney, Judge, and Sheriff. But the pandemic era uptick in crime has brought backlash. The recent recall of San Francisco’s progressive prosecutor Chesa Boudin is upheld as evidence of the decline of American support for justice reform, and one indicator that elected officials should slow their support for reforms.  

The reality is more complicated: Most Americans are both worried about crime and safety, and support criminal justice reform. This is true particularly for the communities of color who are disproportionately victims of crime and overrepresented in America’s jails and prisons.  

In the words of New York City Mayor Eric Adams, “public safety and justice are the prerequisites to prosperity.. He is right – these concepts go hand in hand. Achieving both benefits everyone.

In New York City, little exemplifies that more than closing the irredeemable jails on Rikers Island.

Half of the people jailed at Rikers Island have a mental illness, including over 80% of women. 27 people jailed at Rikers have died in the past year and a half, and an improving but still profound staffing crisis has denied people access even to basic medical care. The dilapidated jails themselves provide the main source of weapons in the facilities. It is no wonder that people who spent time at Rikers have a higher rate of rearrest than similarly situated individuals; exposure to violence has real repercussions – for all of us.

This crisis is not new, but as Mayor Adams recognizes, addressing it could not be more urgent.

These considerations led to the decision to close Rikers in 2017. It was a realization made after heeding the calls of people who had been incarcerated at Rikers, families of those whose loved ones had died inside, people who worked there, and countless officials, including former Commissioners of Correction.

Transformation cannot occur on an island isolated from public transit, families, attorneys, and the courts. Nor would staying on Rikers make fiscal sense: trying to rebuild jails on the decaying landfill that makes up three-quarters of Rikers Island would cost significantly more and take far longer than the new system of borough facilities being built to replace Rikers and other existing jails.   

Mayor Adams and Correction Commissioner Louis Molina have embraced the moral imperative to make change in the jails. The mayor has visited Rikers Island four times since taking office, reflecting this as a serious personal priority. Work is underway to demonstrate progress regarding staff absenteeism, violence, and broken cell doors.

The mayor and commissioner have also endorsed closing Rikers for good. They now have the historic opportunity to demonstrate that they can do both of these things – address the crisis at Rikers today, and execute on the mission to close it altogether. With a jail population and correctional staff that is over 90% Black and Latino, this is a matter of not just safety, but also of racial justice. 

A key piece of the answer is ensuring that the new system of borough facilities is not limited by the de facto practice of U.S. correctional agencies, or vulnerable to the same failures. New York City can draw inspiration from international models such as Norway, places demonstrating that it is possible to have secure buildings that are humane and dignified while minimizing violence. Commissioner Tom Foley of the Department of Design and Construction has visited European facilities; there is reason to be heartened about the possibility for change.

A path to both safety and justice in New York also includes continuing to reduce the jail population. Since the high point of incarceration in New York City in the 1990s, the city has witnessed a significant decline in both the crime rate and the jail population, making it both the safest large city in the country and the one with the lowest rate of incarceration. We can build on and continue this legacy. 

Almost 1,400 people have been at Rikers more than a year waiting to go to trial, keeping both them and victims in limbo waiting for resolution of their cases, including accountability and justice. Case processing reforms alone, some of which are underway, could reduce the jail population in New York City by well over a thousand people.

Sufficient funding for supportive housing (affordable housing and wrap-around services for people with serious mental illness and substance use disorders) and enhancing diversion programs like supervised release would cut waitlists, boost effectiveness, and increase safety. This would also give judges better options for people who lack stable housing, who often feel they lack safe alternatives to the streets or Rikers

Stopping violence, and gun violence in particular, of course goes beyond Rikers Island. But there is no path to a safer New York City, and no path to a city that is more racially just and fair, that does not include ending the incubator of violence that is Rikers. 

In the recent words of Mayor Adams, “If we get it right in New York City, it gets right across the whole country.” Now is the time to demonstrate that in New York City and nationally, justice and safety can go hand in hand. And on the urgent task of closing Rikers Island, safely reducing the jail population, and transforming the city’s jails, New Yorkers must support the mayor’s leadership in getting this done.  

***
Dana Kaplan is senior adviser to the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform, is an Art for Justice Fund fellow and former deputy director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.

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

To Beat Extreme Heat, New York City Needs to Look to the Streets


Street heat (photo: Benjamin Kanter/Mayoral Photo Office)


It's summer in New York City, and the word on the street is heat – literally. Some of the hottest places are the pavement itself, including the city’s 6,300 miles of streets and highways. To more effectively address urban heat islands, New York City would benefit from a cohesive, science-based approach that studies how to best integrate existing and emerging technologies for cooling these surfaces.

Two recently proposed laws by the City Council would require cool pavement pilots by the Department of Transportation and Department of Parks/Department of Environmental Protection. Such studies would serve as an important piece of the puzzle, helping to address many key questions about the viability of urban heat island mitigation approaches in New York City. This includes issues not only directly related to heat reduction, but also matters of safety, durability, longevity and maintenance.

Our recent analysis using Landsat 8 satellite data from the past five summers (2017-2021) highlights the importance of including pavement in New York City’s extreme heat equation. The image above shows how much the temperature deviates at a given location compared to the citywide average. 

Some of the hottest areas easily visible by eye on the map are largely covered in pavement, including JFK and LaGuardia Airports. While it’s challenging to see the individual streets and sidewalks here, we know they are made of the same types of materials that amplify the urban heat island. Environmental justice areas are disproportionately affected by heat due to their relatively high ratios of paved areas to greenspaces. As a result, they are particularly relevant to consider in this context.

In terms of absolute temperature, paved areas can reach 120 - 150 ⁰F. This is due to the fact that many of these surfaces are composed of asphalt, which is very effective at both absorbing (due to its dark color) and retaining heat. While less often discussed, heat retention by pavement can also adversely affect human health at night by reducing people’s ability to recover during heat waves.

The coolest areas easily visible on the map are largely greenspaces, where tree cover and lack of pavement work in tandem throughout the day to limit heat absorption and retention. While we should expand greenspace and green roofs as much as possible, we should think of these options as parts of a system. Additional heat-reduction benefits can be achieved if thoughtfully coupled with attempts to cool our pavement. Furthermore, in areas where we can’t realistically expand our greenspace, addressing street heat takes on increased importance. 

One option for consideration is to reduce the solar reflectance of pavement, commonly referred to as cool pavement. These applied coatings reflect up to 30-50% of incoming solar energy, compared to 5-20% for untreated asphalt depending on its age. In a one-year pilot in Phoenix, Arizona in 2020, streets treated with cool pavement showed average surface temperatures 10.5-12.0⁰F lower than standard asphalt during peak afternoon hours. Temperatures below the surface also averaged 4.8⁰F lower on the cool pavement. When planned carefully, such reductions in temperature not only limit urban heat islands directly, but can also reduce cooling needs of nearby buildings. 

Los Angeles has undertaken its own ambitious efforts to reduce urban heat under the Cool LA program. By 2028, it plans to cover 250 lane-miles of city roads. One challenge they’ve encountered is that reflective pavement coatings can raise localized air temperatures, increasing the heat experienced by people using these surfaces. As a result, these coatings have been used more frequently to date on roofs or parking lots. For locally affected buildings, which may absorb heat from treated pavement, reflective coatings on their exteriors can minimize these effects.

These issues do not mean that cool pavement technology is unworkable in cities like New York. Rather, they indicate that it needs to be done thoughtfully, taking into account human health and equity concerns, as well as optimizing interactions with the local built infrastructure. In fact, LA is pressing ahead with its program due to the core need to address urban heat as temperatures rise, working with researchers to address these challenges. New York City can and should do the same evaluations, starting with the recently proposed cool pavement pilots.

While increasing the reflectance of pavement gets the most attention, there are a handful of newer, related cool pavement technology options that may be useful for New York City to consider as well. There are also lots of other cool ideas currently available or in the works, including using the energy from pavements to heat buildings. Others focus on engineering a host of “super-cool” materials to increase the ability of structures to reflect and/or emit heat.  

Finding the best ways to evaluate and apply all of this information will take expertise. Fortunately, a program already exists in New York City. Town + Gown (T +G) – a citywide research program within the Department of Design and Construction (DDC) – works to draw from knowledge in New York City’s academic institutions and practitioner city agencies to address challenges in the built environment.

Such efforts can help evaluate how and where cool pavement might be successfully integrated into New York City’s street designs, carefully weighing the multiple uses and maintenance considerations this important infrastructure system must meet. For example, there is already work underway in New York City on permeable/porous pavements, which can help address stormwater management issues and also reduce the urban heat island.

In the conversation about urban heat, the trees overshadow the conversation. While they’re a key part of the equation, we need to branch out and give the streets more attention. With a bit of careful planning and scientific input, we may be able to make New York City an even cooler place.  

***
Yosif Zaki is a graduate student with expertise in data analytics at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. He is also a volunteer for Science for New York (Sci4NY), an effort to have policymakers and scientists in NYC work together to address key challenges facing the City. Nancy Holt, PhD, leads Sci4NY. She holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry and formerly worked on climate change issues at the U.S. Department of State. On Twitter @Sci4NY.

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

Build a Workforce Pipeline for New Yorkers with Disabilities


Mayor Adams visits the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities (photo: @NYCDisabilities)


New York City has an historic opportunity to engage people with disabilities more fully in the workforce. With nearly 1 million New Yorkers living with a disability, seizing the opportunity should be a top priority. It’s time to build a pipeline to address the needs of employers and New Yorkers with disabilities.

The opportunity stems from three simultaneous dynamics: a low unemployment rate nationally; a high unemployment rate for people with disabilities in New York City; and more flexible working arrangements as a result of the remote working necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a recent report by Center for an Urban Future, nearly 17% of New Yorkers of working age with a disability were unemployed in 2021 – up from 7.4% in 2019. “This disastrously high unemployment rate has persisted for much of the past two years,” the report states, “even as the unemployment rate for New Yorkers without a disability has fallen sharply since the summer of 2020.” 

New York City’s unemployment rate was 6.2% in June. The U.S. unemployment rate was even lower at 3.6% in June. Job openings nationally totaled 11.3 million at the end of May.

The growing demand for workers, coupled with more flexible working conditions, creates a fertile environment. But preparing people with disabilities to meet the demand often requires training – and, in the case of high-school-age youth – pre-training. 

We know that reality well, as we run a nonprofit organization, the Institute for Career Development (ICD), that trains and pre-trains people with disabilities in New York City for career opportunities.

The training covers a broad range of jobs in such areas as building repair, custodial services, human services, retail, and information technology. ICD’s IT Academy, for instance, offers the first fully-accessible certification-based technology training programs for New Yorkers with disabilities.

The challenge, however, is that public investments in career development for people with disabilities are declining even as the opportunity grows. As the report by Center for an Urban Future reveals, New York City funding for programs serving New Yorkers with intellectual and developmental disabilities has plunged 82% over the past two decades, from $70.7 million to $12.6 million. 

What New York City needs is a robust pipeline to expand the number of individuals with disabilities in the workforce. That pipeline should have three key components.

First, it should provide specific funding to support the training and pre-training of individuals with disabilities. That funding needs to be earmarked specifically for people with disabilities. Too often workforce training funds include people with disabilities but never actually reach them. 

Pre-training is needed to support youth who might otherwise fall through the cracks between schooling and career development. Research recently conducted for the Institute for Career Development by the nonprofit consulting firm The Bridgespan Group identified a significant gap in serving people with disabilities in New York City. That gap is in the transition from school to career, during which school-based support ends and career opportunities – as distinct from job opportunities – have not yet arisen. Filling that gap through pre-training would substantially enhance career opportunities earlier in life.

Second, the pipeline should fund apprenticeships for individuals with disabilities. All too often, interested potential employers have doubts about how well people with disabilities will fit into their work environment. The best way to remove those doubts is to give people with disabilities an opportunity to prove themselves. Let potential employers see for themselves how effectively individuals with disabilities can fulfill the specific job responsibilities required.

It’s especially appropriate to maximize opportunities for people with disabilities at a time when the work environment has adopted the more flexible working conditions – due to the COVID-19 pandemic – that people with disabilities have long advocated. For years, people with disabilities urged greater corporate consideration of work-life balance – with allowances to address family needs or visit a doctor during the day. In the wake of the pandemic, such considerations are now standard practice. It’s only right that people with disabilities should benefit from them as well.

Third, the pipeline should incentivize the hiring of individuals with disabilities. Incentives such as tax benefits for employers or public employment goals should provide the extra push to get employers to embrace the potential of New Yorkers with disabilities.

The federal government, for instance, has a 7% goal for hiring individuals with disabilities. The City of New York should provide incentives to underscore its commitment as well.

The New York City workforce would benefit greatly from fuller engagement of people with disabilities. It’s time for New York City to build the pipeline needed to transport that human energy so that it can revitalize the economy as well as the lives of New Yorkers with disabilities.

***
Diosdado G. Gica and Joseph T. McDonald III are Co-Presidents of the Institute for Career Development, based in New York City.

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

The Decimation of Roe Makes the Need for Affordable Housing More Urgent Than Ever


An abortion rights rally in New York (photo: Mike Groll/Governor's Office)


The Supreme Court’s horrific decision to overturn Roe is not only a severe blow to women’s autonomy over their bodies, it is a powerful reminder that addressing the real impacts of sexism and gender inequality is not on the national agenda as much as it should be.

Right now, women — especially women already living paycheck to paycheck — are at serious risk of falling off the economic cliff, resulting in dire consequences not just for them, but for their families and communities. For most people, including women, housing is their single biggest expense. And it’s increasing.

That is why with the economy slowing, inflation rising, and the pay equity gap exacerbated by covid, developing housing that is affordable and sustainable is more important than ever.

Women are paid less than men. Way less. White women fair best, making roughly 79 cents for every dollar a white man makes. Women of color make even less. Black women earn just 63 cents for every dollar white men earn, and Latinas fare even worse, making just half of what white men make.

Women are also increasingly likely to be the sole or primary breadwinner in their families. And the economic impact of covid has disproportionately hit women, either by forcing them out of the workforce because of caretaking duties or by putting women out of work in industries like teaching and healthcare, where women are overrepresented. This is on top of the fact that women-headed households are already having more trouble making rent.

Now, the Supreme Court has added forced childbearing to this already financially toxic sea. Women will be forced to spend hard-won savings or borrow money to travel for abortion. They will lose jobs because they have to be absent from work as they seek care. Others will be forced to have children they can’t afford.

All these things together mean women are at great risk of losing their housing.

To help mitigate the growing economic challenges women face, we need more housing that is affordable. That means two things need to happen, and they need to happen quickly.

First, we need new housing models. “Affordable housing” is often defined as housing that a) costs less than one-third of someone’s gross income and b) is available only for families who earn well below the median income of a geographically defined area. Avoiding “rent burden” is a good financial metric, and it is also fair to target lower- and moderate-income families in jurisdictions where the cost of market-rate housing would make them rent-burdened.

But that’s far too narrow of a definition of affordability. Housing isn’t “affordable” if it requires a mean and expensive two-hour commute or saying ‘no’ to a new job because it’s too difficult to get to and moving’s not on the table. It’s not “affordable” if it means forcing a child to change schools or moving to a neighborhood that feels unsafe.

For decades, the prevailing policy and financing approach has been to segregate market-rate housing from affordable housing. In practice, it means wealthier people generally find housing that meets that financial metric — and that also preserves their quality of life. We haven’t given those with fewer financial resources those same options.

Beyond that fairness issue, dividing families on the basis of income is one of the things that exacerbates social inequities, leading to significant differences in economic, education, and health outcomes. 

It’s time to do it differently. We need a true mixed-income housing approach that brings people together and gives them the same access to quality schools, healthcare, economic opportunity, and social infrastructure.

Second, we need private investors to be a larger part of the solution and invest in these different models. 

Providing affordable housing can’t just be the job of the public sector. We need private investors to understand the financial and social benefits of mixed-income housing and for the public sector to establish policies and programs that incentivize and reward investors to think outside the box. 

By forging true public-private partnerships that are predictable but flexible, we can increase housing production and provide more affordable homes to the people who need them.

The need for housing that is safe and affordable for women is only going to grow. We know from experience that to address women’s needs, women have to be at the table. Gender does matter. So let’s make a concerted effort to direct capital and opportunities to firms that are run by women — whether that’s architects, developers, or in my case, real estate fund managers. Let’s give them a chance to do it differently and do it better.

To be clear: Building housing that works for women isn’t the answer to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The answer to that is to keep fighting until those rights are restored. 

In the meantime we have to do everything we can to make sure women have the support they need to stay afloat economically in stable, affordable housing.

***
Alicia Glen is a national housing expert and the former deputy mayor for housing and economic development for New York City. She is the founder and managing principal of MSquared, a women-owned real estate development and impact investing platform building mixed-income housing that is affordable. On Twitter @AliciaGlen.

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

The Latest Education Budget Fiasco Shows We Must Scrap New York’s School Funding Formula


Mayor Adams, Chancellor Banks, and students (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)


The Trojan Horse called “Fair Student Funding” that allocates $10 billion of city funds to our 1,700 public schools needs to be scrapped. The attractively alliterative system inadequately funds the real needs of schools and, according to an unreleased 2021 Fair Student Funding Task Force study, funnels “additional resources to high schools with “higher achievers” who are disproportionately whiter and wealthier than the overall school population. It concludes “this is not an equitable funding system.”

Fair Student Funding is at the heart of the current school budget crisis, with the mayor mired in debate with an abulic City Council and a lawsuit that may allay his $215 million cut to city schools but fails to address the long-term problems of declining student enrollment and erosion of federal pandemic relief funding.

Fair Student Funding (FSF) was also central to temporary rejection of FSF-based school allocations by the Department of Education’s Panel for Educational Policy (PEP), a usually docile mayor-controlled body, when it mutinied over the system’s inadequacies and inequities. In a hasty compromise in exchange for the PEP’s approval, Schools Chancellor David Banks agreed to look into FSF’s weighting of student needs including, for example, providing additional funds for students in temporary housing and foster care.

But nibbling around the edges of how FSF arbitrarily weights student-based expenses does nothing to get at the root problem of what Banks himself calls “this mess.”

First, Fair Student Funding is based on district-wide assumptions out of touch with school realities. Mayor Adams based his budget reduction on total public school enrollment but individual schools don’t run on these gross totals. The bulk of a school’s budget is salaries and what matters to principals is not overall enrollment but how many teachers and others are needed for a given grade or class. Teachers and paraprofessionals and guidance counselors and others need to be hired based on these sub-groups.

Further, as New York Post reporting showed, when Mayor Adams promised to “fully fund” Fair Student Funding, fingers crossed behind his back, he knew he could save money by decreasing FSF’s per-student allocations by assuming an across-the-board average teacher salary reduction, irrespective of a school’s actual payroll.

Second, FSF only funds about 65% of school needs, so the chancellor’s focus on FSF is a distraction from the larger issue of how overall school budgets are allocated by the central administration.

Check the DOE budget website where no less than five other large, highly-manipulable, opaque streams are listed. Add to this the countless off-budget grants and donations such as those from wealthy parents, which go 100% to their kids’ schools, and we see that the entire scheme of school funding needs an overhaul.

No one trusts the DOE to fix this. Not only is Banks disregarding work already done by the ill-fated 2021 FSF Task Force. He compounded this disregard by designating First Deputy Chancellor Daniel Weisberg to lead the redesign effort. This is classic political rope-a-dope.

Weisberg is too busy to spend much time on the study and he played a leading role in the Bloomberg administration’s original design of FSF under Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. He can hardly be expected to kill his darling. Besides, he doesn’t seem to care how expenses are weighted, just minimizing the bottom line.

Testifying before the City Council last month and defending the $215 million cut to schools, Weisberg challenged the Council members to move money around, creating their own “winners and losers,” while he held fast to the widespread, devastating school staffing cuts by his own agency (that the mayor and Council have been negotiating to reverse).

Instead of  Banks’ suggestion of a new commission heavily weighted to administration personnel and interests, we need the non-mayoral PEP members including representatives of the borough presidents, city comptroller, and independent parent members to constitute their own task force using those officials’ staff resources along with the city’s Independent Budget Office to craft a new school allocation system based on professional expertise from across the country.

Banks’ idea of adding volunteer members from the PEP and community is a scam unworthy of someone committed to real change. These people have neither the time nor experience to design a complex budgeting system for the largest school district in the country with a budget in excess of $30 billion. The symbolism is both demeaning and offensive.

In keeping with good public policy and democratic procedures, the PEP will have the legally-mandated last word on approving the new system. But the technical design assuring fiscal equity and adequacy among almost 1 million public school students needs serious and objective expertise under non-mayoral PEP guidance, qualities the administration has yet to demonstrate.

***
David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center. On Twitter @BloomfieldDavid.

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

I Started College at 16; Many Other Students Can Too


DOE Chancellor Banks at Bard High School Early College (photo: @BHSEC)


Although prom, soccer games, and spirit weeks are all memorable parts of my high school experience, my favorite time of the year takes place two weeks before the semester ends; course selection. Each semester, 300 students in the 11th and 12th grades refresh their mailboxes, eagerly awaiting the pamphlet filled with all the college courses that will be offered the following semester. 

I attend Bard High School Early College Queens, so in addition to 17 filled notebooks, I will leave with a high school diploma, an associate degree, and 60 transferable college credits - all free of cost. But my biggest takeaway from this unique high school will be my experiences in college classes.

When walking to my seminar class, I always hear the chirping of crickets or hissing of snakes from the animal behavior class in the lab. In my freshman year literature class, my professor changed the final for the class to reflect the civil rights protests that were occurring at the moment. The decision was impactful for many students, especially those of color, and made them feel seen in the classroom. I recently took a course on the Harlem Renaissance and more often than not, the conversations in class would lead to similar discussions about modern day social issues.

Once we complete traditional high school classes in our freshmen and sophomore years, our college courses in junior and senior years do not adhere to standardized curriculum and testing, and professors create their own syllabi, class materials, and assessments. At Bard High School Early College Queens, professors teach both high school and college-level courses, and 97% of the faculty have a doctorate in the area that they teach. Not only does this result in 90-minute conversations about 20 pages in a book, but my teachers are always open to discussion outside designated class times.

The flexible curriculum and an education that is not isolated from the outside world are two of my favorite parts of the early college model, and the ability to have control over courses of study keeps students extremely motivated.

More importantly, early college instills a sense of belonging in students, especially those who are typically underrepresented in academia. Early college plays an active role in making college an expectation rather than an option for all students. Students who are first-generation college goers or from low-income backgrounds stop viewing college as a daunting prospect because their first two years of college are in a familiar environment. At my school in Queens and the Bard High School Early College in Manhattan, 50% of the 1,284 member student population is first generation American and 70% are low-income. 

By the time they graduate and go on to another institution, they have already been exposed to a college environment and have the confidence to continue their studies. In fact, Bard Manhattan and Queens have the highest on-time bachelor’s degree completion for low-income students of all public schools in New York State.

It is no surprise that the early college model has become increasingly common across the country, with similar positive outcomes on graduation rates, college enrollment and degree completion. Taking courses without having to worry about cost or practicality helps reinforce that college is not just for career preparation and networking, but is also a place to learn. The ability to interact with complex topics while still maintaining the innocence of being a teenager and living at home is a privilege that I will be eternally grateful for. 

I never thought I would be ready for college until I realized that I was already in one. I invite New York State and City leaders to make high school more memorable and meaningful at an earlier age by opening more of these schools, and provide thousands more young people the same life-changing opportunity that I am having.

***
Aarsha Joshi is a Year 1 student (Junior) at Bard High School Early College Queens and Student Fellow in Public Policy with Bard Early Colleges.

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

Combat Disinformation by Funding Independent News Media


Online news and (dis)information in the spotlight (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)


Disinformation may be the single greatest threat to American democracy, prosperity, and even our health. Without a common set of facts, it is nearly impossible to find agreement on our common destiny.

Disinformation permeates and poisons public discourse. Donald Trump’s Big Lie has undermined confidence in our elections; Facebook fuels climate denialism; and misinformation about vaccines has prolonged and exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is not a coincidence that the spread of disinformation has accelerated as independent news media has declined. Newspapers are now shutting down at the rate of two per week.

However, as much as I still love reading an honest broadsheet or a spicy tabloid, the solution to disinformation does not lie in traditional print media. The cost-efficiency and publishing speed of online journalism, combined with the comparative advantage of digital advertising, has permanently disrupted the media industry.

Many projects and experiments are underway to find ways to combat the disinformation crisis. Notably, independent digital platforms have demonstrated the ability to report the news with the same vigor as legacy media. Some of the strongest are nonprofits. In New York City, we have been blessed by the coverage of The City, Gothamist, and, of course, Gotham Gazette, among others. Elsewhere, MinnPost, the Texas Tribune, CTMirror, and dozens of other news sites have inherited journalism’s mission of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

These nonprofits depend on a mix of private philanthropy and low-dollar individual contributions. Private support is welcome but won’t scale to match the need for independent community-based media across the country.

Public goods require public support. It is past time that we expand the mission, and the budget, of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support digital platforms. Since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967, the CPB has sustained public television and literally invented National Public Radio. And despite controversy (e.g., the recurrent “Big Bird” hearings), we are much the better for it.

As proposed by the Federation of American Scientists, the Knight Foundation, and others, Congress should recast CPB as the Corporation for Public Media. Give it the funding to catalyze robust online local news media platforms, and then steer clear of political interference by empowering local governance.

Disinformation is not the only cost of the decline of independent nonpartisan news media. It has also widened the window for government corruption.

Of course, supporting local independent news media, by itself, will not disrupt the damage disinformation causes. Congress must also regulate social media platforms in order promote transparency and restrain the spread of false and dangerous information. False speech about election administration should be made a crime. And foreign actors should be held accountable for interference in American elections.

But as Jefferson said, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press.” So does our health, our planet, and our democracy.

***
Dan Goldman is a candidate for Congress in New York’s 10th Congressional District, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and was chief House counsel in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. On Twitter @danielsgoldman.

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

The Forgotten History of Latino Politics in New York


Oscar Garcia Rivera in 1937, the year he took office (photo: The Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College)


Tuesday, June 28, 2022, marked an important shift in Latino politics in New York, represented in part by Assemblymember Jose Rivera’s Democratic primary loss to George Alvarez. The significance of Rivera’s defeat goes beyond an election loss by someone who has been in office for four decades. Rivera represents the last of what can be deemed a third generation of Puerto Rican Latino elected officials, someone who was part of a generation that paved the way for the younger generation of current Latino political leaders.

Many of these younger leaders and members of the city’s broader Latino communities may have little understanding of the significance of Rivera’s life and career. This lack of historical perspective, important for understanding the trajectory of Latino politics in New York, one filled with long and difficult struggle, was made evident to me in a conversation I had with one leader who expressed bewilderment when I mentioned that Fernando Ferrer was the first Latino to win the Democratic nomination for the mayoralty in New York. The young leader had no idea who Ferrer was.

Rivera’s loss represents yet another confirmation of a gargantuan historical and demographic shift taking place in Latino politics in New York. To understand how we, as Latinos, have arrived at this point, we must have perspective on, and appreciation of, the events and people that led us here.

The need to tell our political story as Latinos has been burning inside me for years and has only intensified since that conversation with the young leader last year, in light of Dianne Morales’ run for the mayoralty, debate over representation at the statewide level amid two lieutenant governor vacancies, and other recent developments.

The following presents an outline of what has become a book I am writing on the history of Latino politics in New York. Rivera’s defeat, like his victory over an Irish incumbent 40 years ago, has a history. And it must be told. Here’s a snapshot of it.                

Puerto Rican Migration, Cigar Makers, and Numbers Runners, Oh My!
The history of Latino politics in New York is largely the history of Puerto Rican politics in New York. Though a new chapter in this history has been emerging, the fact remains that up until 1991, when Guillermo Linares became the first Dominican elected in the history of New York, almost all Latino elected officials in New York were Puerto Ricans.

 The long and difficult struggle for Latino political representation begins 100 years ago with an unlikely cast of characters: cigar makers and numbers runners. By the mid-1920s, a large number of Puerto Ricans began to arrive on the shores of Gotham City. This first spurt of Puerto Rican migration was a direct result of the passage of the Jones Act in 1917, which forced on the island of Puerto Rico economic consequences that are still being felt today. Eight years after the Jones Act, an additional 40,000 Puerto Ricans arrived in New York, drastically increasing the community’s overall population from a mere 2,000 just a little over a decade before.

 Most workers in the early Puerto Rican labor force were cigar-makers populating factories all over the city, including those like El Morito on 86th Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, a location now surrounded by luxury high-rises and about a half-mile from East Harlem, which would become one of the early hubs of the Puerto Rican community.

The cigar-makers (tabaqueros) were a learned bunch. Bernardo Vega, one of the first to chronicle his life as a Puerto Rican migrant in New York post-1917, describes the type of colleagues he encountered at El Morito. There was Juan Hernandez, director of the workers’ paper, and Enrique Rosario Ortiz, Tomas Perez, and Matias Nieves, whom he describes as people active in the worker cause and in the wider Latino community. With such outstanding workers, it is no surprise to read from Vega that they hired lectors to read to all the workers for an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon. Morning reading sessions were devoted to the latest news of the day. Afternoon readings were headier and included political and literary tomes.

 The tabaqueros were not only learned, they were also extremely organized. These organizational abilities and structures are what eventually led to political recognition. The tabaqueros were instrumental in fighting for workers’ rights, fair wages, and fair labor practices. They organized a number of small strikes, which culminated in a bigger strike in 1919.

While the 1919 strike did not necessarily lead to improved conditions, employers and others could not ignore the tabaqueros—these Latino men (overwhelmingly Puerto Rican) were brilliant, conscious of their own value (as Puerto Ricans and as a labor force) and highly organized. Many took notice, including an Italian-American politician who would eventually become mayor of New York City, Fiorello LaGuardia.

 Interestingly, many of these tabaqueros were socialists, including Bernardo Vega and Jesus Colon, another key figure in early Latino politics in New York. The workers’ cause became an impetus for embracing socialist principles, which Puerto Ricans in New York had brought with them from the island.

All this led Bernardo Vega to initiate the first Puerto Rican chapter of the Socialist Party in New York. Other prominent early groups, like the Alianza Obrera Puertorriqueña, became hubs for the gathering of Puerto Rican socialists. One fascinating fact about the early Puerto Rican socialists is that they believed in the necessity of coalition-building for the cause of economic justice. Thus these same groups invited over 200 Jewish socialists to partake in conversations around workers’ struggles both in Puerto Rico and New York.

Indeed, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist background has deep roots in early Puerto Rican politics in New York.

 Puerto Ricans arriving in New York began to realize that in New York they would also face poor economic conditions, though perhaps not as severe as the conditions they had left behind. The economic struggles made early efforts to organize politically a daunting task. Effective organizing meant proper funding. Where would an economically struggling community turn?

 Besides the tabaqueros, numbers runners (boliteros) were pivotal in what would become the early efforts in Latino politics in New York. The boliteros were among the early financial backers of the first Puerto Rican political clubs and organizations. One of these boliteros was Carlos Tapia, whom Nestor David Pastor would describe as the Puerto Rican Luke Cage. Tapia, with his linebacker size, was instrumental in the struggle for political empowerment and in defending Puerto Ricans against racism and police brutality. He would go on to co-found one of the very early Puerto Rican Democratic clubs in New York, the Betances Democratic Club in Brooklyn.

Tapia owned his own bodegas and restaurants and would go on to push these same clubs and organizations to cease receiving funding from the boliteros. By that point, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Puerto Rican political organizations had garnered enough experience and channeled enough energy to gain the attention and support of some of the Democratic County organizations in the city.

 Right alongside, and often in front of, these men were pioneering Puerto Rican women who also dedicated their lives to the social and political empowerment of Puerto Ricans. Noteworthy among these women is Antonia Denis. Unfortunately, not much information remains about Denis’ life and work.

All of the early pioneers are gone and very little documentation remains of the efforts of Denis and others. What we do know is that Denis was instrumental in the start of the Betances club as well as other political and cultural organizations and that she was known to be a one-woman voter registration and voter turnout champion.

Denis also was a pivotal figure in the early efforts to commemorate Puerto Rican culture and contributions through cultural festivities like the Puerto Rican Day parade. Fortunately, some audio recordings of interviews exist at the Center for Brooklyn History; they document Denis’ work, and she can be deemed the first instrumental Puerto Rican woman in Latino politics in New York.

The fruitful efforts of the early political organizing efforts, coupled with the continued increase in the Puerto Rican population of New York, would lead to actual political representation. It was a slow and gradual process, but by 1937 these efforts would lead to the election of the first Latino elected in the history of New York, Puerto Rican Oscar Garcia Rivera.

Garcia Rivera, a St. John’s Law School graduate, would go on to serve in the State Assembly, representing the 17th Assembly District in East Harlem, now the 68th District.

***
Eli Valentin is a political analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Life. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.

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

New York Prisons Cut Crucial Lifeline to Incarcerated Individuals and Families Through Arbitrary Package Policy


Clinton Correctional (photo: Wikimedia Commons)


Starting July 18, 2022, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community  Supervision (DOCCS) has implemented a new statewide policy restricting the rights of  incarcerated individuals to receive packages from loved ones. The revised policy – Directive  #4911A – requires that all packages be shipped directly from vendors, and in-person visitors will  no longer be allowed to ship or bring packages from home. This measure will further isolate  incarcerated individuals from loved ones and curtail their access to fresh foods, homemade  goods, and religious necessities.

Our offices strongly oppose this directive, as we did with a similar pilot program in 2017-2018. It is our shared belief that Directive #4911A will not stop the smuggling of contraband and will instead impose unnecessary financial burdens on the families of the incarcerated and result in hazardous disruptions to the incarcerated population. 

DOCCS began trial implementation of Directive #4911A within the Wende Hub of western New  York this May. In a memorandum dated April 25, 2022, this policy is described as a necessary  step to "make the system safer and aid in reducing overdoses, violence and overall  rehabilitation of the population." The Prison Violence Task Force cites contraband as a leading  cause of violence, however, these findings have not been made available to the public or to us, the committee Chairs overseeing corrections in the State Legislature.

According to current regulations, all packages that enter a correctional facility are subject to search by x-ray, scanners, and physical inspection. We cannot verify that the “solution” DOCCS has implemented will stop contraband or decrease facility violence. The Correctional Association of New York (CANY), an independent state-authorized oversight body, has informed us that multiple FOIL requests for data regarding facility violence have been delayed. This lack of transparency leads us to the concerning suspicion that DOCCS is using the package policy punitively against the incarcerated population and their loved ones. 

Directive #4911A limits the number of food packages that incarcerated individuals may receive to three per month. This arbitrary limit fails to account for the varied shipping methods that  different vendors use. If a vendor splits a single package into three shipments, this will max out the monthly allotted packages for that incarcerated individual. Commissaries are not sufficient at  most facilities and many incarcerated individuals rely on food packages.

We are deeply concerned that vendors' lack of standardization and regulation will increase tension and stress in correctional facilities. The further destabilization of routines, already exacerbated by the  COVID-19 crisis, may in fact lead to an increase in violence, which this directive purportedly  aims to decrease. 

Before the implementation of Directive #4911A, our offices received dozens of concerned  letters, emails, and phone calls from incarcerated individuals and their families. Families  expressed financial, mental, and emotional apprehension. Where previously they could pack and deliver care packages within their means, they are now forced to factor in new and ever-increasing vendor fees and shipping costs. Families of the incarcerated already face heavy financial burdens in travel and must now budget to afford vendors’ charges. Since the test implementation in the Wende hub, we have continued to hear from individuals and families distraught over the added burdens this policy creates. 

Vendors are an unnecessary go-between, and any delivery delays may result in spoiled fruits,  vegetables, and other food items. Incarcerated individuals with religious diets (e.g., Halal,  Kosher, or vegetarian) may not have timely access to their specialized foods in accordance with  their practices. Additionally, specific religious articles may be difficult to access through vendors  – or may never be in stock. Directive #4911A creates obstacles for incarcerated individuals to freely practice their religious beliefs.  

As the Chairs of the Senate and Assembly committees overseeing our corrections system, we  sent a joint letter to DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci in early June requesting  clarification on our wide-ranging concerns regarding Directive #4911A. No response has been  received by either office.

Any solution to the issues of contraband must reflect a more holistic approach, not one that serves primarily to penalize families and disrupt a crucial point of connection between the incarcerated population and their loved ones. Our policies must make the burdens of incarceration less onerous. We are happy to work with DOCCS on developing  real solutions.

***
Assemblymember David Weprin represents parts of Queens and is Chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Correction. Senator Julia Salazar represents parts of Brooklyn and is Chair of the Senate’s Committee on Crime and Correction. On Twitter @DavidWeprin & @JuliaCarmel_.

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

Biden’s Budget Will Protect New York Elections, It Must Be Funded


New York election (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


Since Democrats reclaimed full control of New York state government in 2019, the Senate and Assembly have taken the lead in enacting a series of pro-voting rights reforms. The backlog was long, but they delivered major victories on early voting, automatic voter registration, and other pro-democracy actions with the goal of ensuring all New Yorkers have equal access to the ballot box and that our election systems are safe and secure.

But for every step forward, another significant challenge seems to emerge. In recent years, an unprecedented global pandemic required significant changes to election administration, which exposed strains in the system, including the way our votes are counted and handled. The State Senate held five hearings across the state, collecting testimony from over 100 individuals to determine the major concerns facing voters and potential solutions to those issues.

And now, as we inch closer to the midterm elections, it’s clear that New York will be stretched to the max to handle the onslaught that is certain to greet election administrators in every corner of the state this fall.

This problem is not unique to New York. All states need a true partner in the federal government to help invest in the election infrastructure necessary to get this done right. That is why it is critically important that Congress fully fund President Biden’s budget request, which proposes $10 billion over the next decade to bolster state and local election administration needs. This is a leap from just $1.3 billion in the prior decade. 

According to a recent study released by the Elections Infrastructure Initiative, New York requires an estimated $2.79 billion in funds to cover the overhaul needed to modernize and administer state and local elections infrastructure. New York ranked third in the nation for election infrastructure needs in this report, just behind California and Texas. 

The study found that in New York $38 million is needed to replace our state’s old voting machines, $48 million is needed to revamp statewide voter registration systems, $13 million is required to bolster post-election audits, and $51 million is needed to pay for cybersecurity improvements and maintenance. If anything, these figures underestimate the dire situation our state and local Boards of Election are in after years of funding neglect. 

The good news is that President Biden’s budget proposal will address many longstanding concerns about election administration. Not only would these federal resources ensure state and local elections officials receive a reliable stream of funding, they would also help make it easier for New Yorkers to vote-by-mail.

This investment is needed to bring confidence to the election administration process and will allow local Boards of Election to expand voting access while modernizing systems and ensuring the safety and security of New York’s elections. 

Not only is federal funding for state election management a win-win for New York, it’s also extremely popular. A new national poll from Data for Progress found that nearly 70% of likely voters nationwide believe that federal lawmakers should be providing election officials the tools they need to make our elections run smoothly. From requiring better internet access to improving security systems to upgrading voting machines and mail sorting equipment, huge majorities of Americans were in favor of these federal investments. That includes 69% of Republicans who support this assistance.

Investing in election infrastructure is popular, it’s long overdue and it’s badly needed to ensure election officials have the resources necessary to continue to safely and securely administer elections. I commend President Biden for including this transformational investment in his budget request and urge our state’s congressional delegation and representatives across the country to support this vital initiative. This is a down payment on our democratic future. 

*** 
Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky is Co-Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections.

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



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


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