Cleaning up at Rikers (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
The United States is the world’s largest jailor. As a result of our criminal justice system, we regularly put innocent people behind bars. Conservative estimates say 20,000 people are currently in jail or prison throughout the nation for crimes they did not commit.
Wrongful convictions can occur for many reasons: police and prosecutors fail to turn over exonerating evidence; police threaten and intimidate vulnerable people who falsely confess; eyewitnesses mistake innocent people for actual culprits; defense lawyers ineffectively represent innocent defendants; and, prosecutors prejudice juries with improper arguments.
We often hear the adage “it is better to allow 10 guilty people to go free than to convict one innocent person,” but DNA evidence and revelations of police and prosecutorial misconduct far too often reveal that is not a reflection of how our system of criminal justice actually works.
When our system convicts the innocent, it fails us all. The least lawmakers can do is ensure victims of flawed prosecutions, once exonerated, are justly compensated — even though no amount of money can get their lives back.
Take the case of David Bryant. He was 17 years old in 1975 when an eight-year-old girl in his neighborhood was raped and killed with a knife. The crime scene was a blood-soaked stairwell where an officer had seen David months earlier. On this basis alone, hours after the murder, David was roused from bed by police and taken in for questioning. Officers brutally interrogated David for 10 hours. All in the name of getting a confession, they knocked David to the floor several times, repeatedly screamed at him, and left him, a minor, alone and without food for the duration. Exhausted and starving, David finally told his interrogator what he wanted to hear. He confessed.
David was convicted at trial where the primary evidence was his “confession,” which he denied making voluntarily and was evidently made to simply end his inappropriate interrogation. The other evidence was manufactured by officers who intimidated other kids to provide false information about what David did the day of the murder. And, at trial, his lawyer never had his blood type compared with the blood type of the murderer.
After 43 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, David is finally free. New blood evidence exonerated him. After reading about David’s case in a newspaper in 2013, the only witness who at trial linked him to the young girl came forward to describe how cops had intimidated him to lie at David’s trial.
Shockingly, under New York’s unjust conviction statute, David cannot be monetarily compensated. It is overwhelmingly clear that David was innocent, railroaded into a confession, and falsely convicted at just 17 years of age. However, our current flawed law disqualifies David for compensation on the technical ground his lawyer provided deficient representation by not presenting the blood evidence which would have cleared him. Under the current law, this disqualifies him from compensation and is considered a “technical” basis for reversing his conviction.
The law also does not recognize situations where an innocent person has their conviction vacated because of the government’s failure to turn over evidence which favors the defendant.
This is wrong. Therefore, along with Assemblymember Dan Quart, I am proposing amendments to our unjust conviction statute that will fix this injustice by allowing for fair compensation whenever any exonerated person can prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that they are innocent.
This is the least we can do to redress wrongful conviction travesties is to ensure adequate financial compensation.
***
State Senator Brad Hoylman represents parts of Manhattan. On Twitter @bradhoylman.
***
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.
Tenants in New York City (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
Tenants in New York are struggling. Rent prices are through the roof, rising more than 30% from last year. People are getting kicked out of their homes at rates we haven’t seen since before the pandemic.
Add to this the growing costs of inflation and a looming decision by the New York City Rent Guidelines Board to raise rents on stabilized apartments even higher, and you have the makings of a historic crisis for tenants across the board.
With just days left in the 2022 state legislative session, lawmakers in Albany must listen to the voices of tenants crying out for help by passing the Good Cause bill, which will give tenants the power to challenge outrageous rent hikes and unjust evictions.
With few protections in place for working families facing eviction, predatory landlords and private equity firms are using this moment to pad their bottom line. In New York, if you’re not in a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment, your landlord can raise your rent as high as they want, whenever they want, and they can kick you out of your home for any reason, even as payback for raising safety concerns.
As a result, all across New York City, landlords that are essentially private equity firms in disguise have been jacking up rents as high as 100% when tenants go to renew their leases and evicting long-time tenants with virtually no notice, all to flip properties and make a profit.
Take the case of Irene Cepeda, a Make the Road New York member who has lived in the same apartment in Bushwick for 22 years and paid her rent on time every month. Irene is now facing a sudden rent hike of $1,200 per month, which amounts to the same thing as an eviction. Her kids are worried sick about the prospect of moving away from the neighborhood they grew up in.
Good Cause would protect tenants like Irene getting hit with sticker shock when they renew a lease. The legislation ties rent increases to the rate of inflation, requiring landlords to justify rent hikes greater than 3% or 150% of the Consumer Price Index. And if a landlord wanted to deny a lease renewal, they would need to be prepared to justify it in court.
Not only does Good Cause give tenants more power to fight outrageous rent hikes, but it also empowers tenants to demand repairs and speak out against harassment without fearing retaliation from their landlord. Such retaliation is all too common right now. Weeks ago, for example, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a scathing memo calling out landlords for trying to crack down on tenants who have been organizing for safer conditions.
We’ve seen it in our own neighborhoods. Another Make the Road New York member, Grisel Pacheco, was forced to leave her apartment in Ridgewood after her landlord refused to repair a broken kitchen sink pipe. She and her three children needed to move to a new neighborhood, far from their schools and support network.
Evictions aren’t just harmful for those who lose their homes. They make it harder for children to succeed in school. They destroy support networks and communities. And they make our neighborhoods less safe. Good Cause isn’t just about protecting tenants - it’s about keeping our communities healthy and safe.
If you’re a landlord playing by the rules, you have nothing to fear from this bill. Good Cause wouldn’t stop landlords from taking action against tenants who are disruptive or who refuse to pay the rent, nor would it deny landlords the right to deny a lease renewal to occupy a unit themselves or have a family member move in.
What this bill would do is provide real relief to tenants who are facing unsustainable rent hikes and provide protections from abusive and predatory landlords. New York’s Congressional delegation and more than a dozen of the state’s largest labor unions support this bill. Multiple cities in New York, including Albany and Poughkeepsie, have passed their own version of Good Cause.
The pandemic has left working families in New York in survival mode for the past two years, on top of what was already an affordable housing crisis where so many were severely rent-burdened and one large rent increase away from losing their homes.
We have just days left in the state legislative session to make a difference for tenants and accelerate our recovery. We can rebuild our state and ensure that all New Yorkers can keep a safe roof over their heads without fear of harassment or eviction. It’s time to pass Good Cause.
***
Julia Salazar is a State Senator representing the 18th district in Brooklyn. Jose Lopez is the Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York. On Twitter: @JuliaCarmel_ & @JLopez_MRNY.
***
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.
A rally for the Clean Slate Act (photo: Emil Cohen/NYC Council Media Unit)
With the end of this year’s legislative session in Albany quickly approaching, we must seize the opportunity to pass critical reforms that will have a real impact on advancing racial and economic equity in our state. The Clean Slate Act holds the potential for meaningful progress in our fight for justice, directly impacting 2.3 million New Yorkers. The passage of this bill by the State Legislature will affirm New York’s principles and prioritization of equity, and it is past time for serious legislative action to afford fairness and dignity to all our residents.
Since 1922, FPWA has fought to achieve social and economic well-being for greater New York’s most vulnerable by advocating for just public policies and strengthening human service organizations. Each year, we reach approximately 1 million New Yorkers through our more than 170 member organizations.
Our centennial year marks an unprecedented moment in New York’s history; as we emerge from a public health and economic crisis, race-based inequities and the deepened needs of New Yorkers have been laid bare. FPWA is committed to advancing policies that will bring impactful and sustainable change, which is precisely why we strongly support and call for the immediate passage of the Clean Slate Act (S.1553C/A.6399B), sponsored by Assemblymember Catalina Cruz and Senator Zellnor Myrie.
Where individuals have have completed their sentences and have no new criminal convictions during the waiting period, the Clean Slate Act would automatically seal misdemeanor conviction records after three years and felony conviction records after seven years for all convictions except sex offenses. With this reform, criminal records will be sealed for civil purposes with some exceptions such as for gun licensing. To be eligible under Clean Slate, a person must have served their full sentence and cannot be on community supervision, including probation and parole.
It is simple: the Clean Slate Act would allow an eligible person who has served their time and paid their dues the opportunity to fully invest in their rehabilitation by giving them a fresh start; a clean slate. A clean slate that would remove known debilitating barriers to employment, housing, and education, and allow access to critical supports necessary for real mobility and opportunity.
This is not just a matter of economic justice. This is a matter of morality, of redemption, and of dignity. Even after serving their sentences and returning to their communities, too many with convictions live in a state of perpetual punishment that tears families apart and maintains a painful cycle of intergenerational trauma and economic insecurity.
The impact of this continued and additional punishment beyond sentences already served reverberates across children, families, and entire communities. Children that grow up in poverty are far more likely to remain living in poverty throughout their lives. By lifting the barriers to full participation, individuals can obtain the jobs and housing necessary to lift their households out of poverty. By design, our systems - including the legal system - criminalize poverty. Today, our brothers and sisters return to their communities to find themselves locked out of opportunity, locked out of the very essentials that we all need to live with dignity – a job, a secure roof over our heads, an education. How is this justice?
If we are committed to advancing equity and inclusion in New York, we must take steps to end the perpetual punishment of those who are justice-involved. Clean Slate offers the only path forward for New York. Clean Slate is an inclusive, common-sense bill that will have an immediate impact on the quality of life for New Yorkers in every corner of the state. It is an anti-poverty bill with broad-based support that will strengthen our state's economy.
At the heart of the Clean Slate movement are human beings — 2.3 million New Yorkers and their loved ones — suffering from the ongoing and often permanent bar against full participation in economic and civic life.
By helping to ensure that all New Yorkers can access stable employment and housing at a time when they are most needed, Clean Slate will revitalize our communities, which are safest when basic needs are met and individuals have the resources necessary to thrive.
As a state, we herald the principles of redemption and rehabilitation, but we are not allowing people to move beyond their past mistakes. Supporting Clean Slate simply does just that. Justice must not be delayed any longer for the 2.3 million New Yorkers held as prisoners by their convictions and subjugated to a lifetime of inequity.
***
Raysa S. Rodriguez is Chief Program and Policy Officer, FPWA. On Twitter @FPWA.
***
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.
Housing (photo: Edwin J. Torres/ Mayor's Office)
No matter who you are, these past two years have been difficult for New Yorkers across the state. The COVID-19 pandemic was not only a health crisis where we lost tens of thousands of our loved ones, but also an affordability crisis. Too many of our neighbors lost jobs, routines, social connections, and more. Hundreds of thousands were thrown into economic instability, made even more difficult by circumstances that predated the pandemic: the housing crisis.
Everywhere you look, it’s painfully obvious that our city’s housing ecosystem is on the brink. At the same time as property values in some neighborhoods approach unheard of highs, tenants in other neighborhoods contend with stagnant wages and rent increases beyond their means. All around us, new luxury developments are springing up while efforts to increase the supply of truly affordable housing — housing that working families can afford to rent or own — fail to live up to their promise and costs.
In a city as large and resource-rich as ours, no individual or family should have to confront the painful reality of being unable to afford a home. No one should be unhoused. No one should be forced to lose their home because it becomes exorbitantly overpriced or without good cause or justification. Everyone should be entitled to a safe and healthy home that is within their means to afford.
Conversations and advocacy around the housing affordability crisis in our city and state typically focus on limiting rent increases, preventing evictions, and the imperative to build more truly affordable housing. And these conversations, while incredibly important, don’t address all of the factors that contribute to a wildly astronomical housing market and drive out working- and middle-class families from neighborhoods all across our city. Any long-term solution to our housing crisis that truly gets to the heart of affordability should also take into account rising property taxes, one of the chief reasons for rent increases and a lack of new affordable housing.
Property taxes are usually only thought of as a part of a homeowner’s affordability calculus but they play a significant role in contributing to the lack of affordable rental housing in New York City. We live in a delicate housing ecosystem where one person’s rent payment is another person’s income, which becomes a mortgage payment, an insurance payment, a water bill payment, a property tax payment, and so on. This means when costs go up, it affects both tenant and owner alike. Simply put, exorbitant costs and property taxes levied upon us by the city push up the price of our rents.
Neighborhoods in and around my district are not immune to the effects of the city’s broken property tax system. I surveyed the public property tax records of 40 three- and four-unit buildings for the last four years across three southern Brooklyn neighborhoods: Bay Ridge, Bath Beach, and Sunset Park. Three-fourths of the buildings I surveyed had two or more consecutive years of at least 5% property tax increases. One building in Bay Ridge saw its property tax bill go up 19% over two years; another in Sunset Park saw a whopping 24% increase over three years; two in Bath Beach had nearly 20% increases over three years.
The inequities of our property tax system are real. They affect the affordability of our communities, for both homeowners and tenants, alike. Do these increases justify exorbitant 100% rent hikes, as we’ve seen in some parts of the city this past year? Of course not. But we can’t ignore the impact that property taxes have on the housing ecosystem, including how they affect rent prices, and especially in outer-borough communities. These costs, just like many of the other factors that go into housing expenses, need to be taken into account when we determine whether rents are fair and affordable, or not. Not taking all of these factors into account will just result in an ecosystem that is out of balance and without a sustainable financial underpinning.
In the remaining days of the state legislative session this year, there is a lot of advocacy in support of S3082, the Good Cause Eviction bill. In a nutshell, the bill would prohibit a landlord from evicting a tenant without good cause, and would allow a tenant the right to renew a lease. Failing to pay rent is good cause for an eviction, unless the tenant is not paying rent because the rent has been unreasonably increased. The bill establishes that a rent increase is presumed to be unreasonable if it exceeds 3% or 1.5x the annual rate of inflation as measured every August, whichever is greater. Broadly speaking, this bill would apply to apartments that are not rent-stabilized and not owner-occupied.
While I fully support the principle behind this bill - the idea that a tenant shouldn’t be evicted without good cause - and that rent increases should be reasonable and justifiable - I don’t think the calculation of what is or is not reasonable accurately reflects the true costs of housing. Linking increases to a factor of the inflation rate - or a flat amount of 3% - is a good step towards recognizing that housing costs inevitably go up. But those calculations don’t account for property tax increases, which in many cases bear no relation to inflation.
Looking at New Jersey, which is a model that many advocates point to in support of enacting the Good Cause Eviction bill, the law requires full consideration of all the expenses - and inversely, profitability - of a landlord in determining what is or is not reasonable.
Take 2019 as an example, when the annual inflation rate was 1.8%. Under the current Good Cause Eviction bill, rent increases up to 3% would be presumed reasonable (1.5x the inflation rate=2.7%, which is less than 3%). But in that same year, 30 out of the 40 buildings I surveyed had property tax increases greater than 6% alone. So while the presumed 3% increase would be used to pay for added costs associated with the housing market such as fuel, water, insurance, etc.,the total cost of the tax increases would be more than double what would be presumed to be reasonable.
Tenants absolutely need to be protected from unreasonable and unjustified rent increases. But any effort to protect tenants has to be done in a way that is financially sustainable to the underpinning of the totality of the housing ecosystem that we live in. In the absence of comprehensive property tax reform (which remains an incredibly important issue to resolve once and for all), it is important that our legislative efforts to rightfully protect tenants also balances these considerations. In the final days of the legislative session, I’m hopeful that we can strike the right balance. My position remains the same and I’m eager to find the solution that will make this work for everyone.
New York’s recovery means a thriving economy and an affordable place to live for working- and middle-class families. We must make our housing systems fairer and more affordable for all New Yorkers in the long-term, so homeowners and renters can stay in their homes and landlords can afford to cover their legitimate costs.
***
State Senator Andrew Gounardes represents parts of Brooklyn. On Twitter @agounardes.
***
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.
At a celebration of Latino heritage (photo: John McCarten/City Council)
Bienvenidos to “Latino Vote ’22,” the latest series in Gotham Gazette on the Latino vote in New York. Last year’s columns on the ever-growing Latino vote looked at specific races and boroughs in New York City’s 2021 elections, as well as the impact of the Latino vote on the mayoral election.
This year’s series will explore specific races in predominantly Latino districts across the city as well as larger trends and dynamics related to Latino representation in New York politics and government.
The latest redistricting saga, the lines drawn by a court-appointed “special master” finally approved, has created some intriguing dynamics in many majority-Latino or Latino-plurality districts throughout the city. This series will take a look at some of the key, competitive races.
It will also take additional dives into the 2022 races for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. For the first time, the Lieutenant Governor race will have two Latinas (Ana Maria Archila and Diana Reyna) and one Latino, Antonio Delgado, who is Governor Hochul’s appointee to fill the position left vacant by Brian Benjamin’s resignation. The Latino vote is becoming increasingly pivotal in the governor’s race. As a mark of that, Governor Hochul and the State Democratic party have announced a new effort aimed at Latinos, Nueva York Initiative.
This new series begins with a podcast episode, also building off our 2021 audio series. I am delighted to be joined by former New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Lucia Gomez, the political director of the New York City Central Labor Council, as we share insights on the recently-completed redistricting process. We ask: Have Latino neighborhoods been split electorally? Is there potential for Latino vote dilution? What does New York’s legislative redistricting mean for Latino representation at the state and federal levels?
That discussion will be published May 30, and found starting then at the Gotham Gazette website or on podcast platforms (iTunes, etc) within the “Max Politics” feed, home to Gotham Gazette’s ongoing podcast hosted by editor Ben Max, and titled in part “Latino Vote.”
Grab your cuchifritos, a tasty mofongo, or a delicious taco and, since the summer is upon us, try the famous Puerto Rican limber, and join us for this latest journey, Latino Vote ’22.
***
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.
Gov. Hochul signs the Adult Survivors Act (photo: Mike Groll/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul)
This is a troubling time in America. With the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the fight over women's reproductive rights is becoming more focused on state capitals, where at least half of the states in this country are likely to ban or seriously restrict abortions (and, in some cases, certain forms of birth control) even in cases of rape and incest or the serious injury or death to the pregnant woman. This will cause immeasurable harm to women and girls, including the victims of sexual assault.
In the midst of this darkness, a small bit of good news emerged this week from New York State’s capital, where the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) -- a law that will allow survivors of sexual assault whose claims are long time-barred to once again bring those claims.
And make no mistake, such sexual assault is endemic in America. According to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), the largest non-profit anti-sexual assault organization in the United States, every 68 seconds an American is sexually assaulted. The legal system is simply failing these victims.
To begin with, the criminal justice system often provides little help to the survivors of sexual assault. For example, for several years we ran New York City’s Department of Investigation which, among other things, oversaw the NYPD’s Inspector General. During our time at DOI, we did a lengthy investigation of the NYPD that demonstrated, in stark terms, how poorly one of the nation’s premier police forces investigated sexual assault and how little then-senior leaders of the Police Department cared about getting it right.
The civil justice system has its own limitations, with short times to bring lawsuits that often do not allow survivors to process what has happened to them in time to seek justice.
The fight to protect the survivors of sexual assault, like the fight to protect reproductive rights, will now also play out in the various state capitals. New York’s path to the ASA is instructive in this regard.
In February 2019, New York State passed a “lookback window,” the Child Victims Act (CVA), extending the statute of limitations for survivors of child sexual abuse in criminal and civil cases in New York. In civil cases, prior to the CVA, the victims of child sexual abuse had only a short window of time, after turning 18, to bring a civil lawsuit against their abuser. The CVA permitted child victims of sexual abuse whose claim was previously time-barred to bring an action. Other states have passed similar statutes and earlier this year, Louisiana became the 22nd state to pass such a lookback statute.
We have experience representing survivors under the CVA and have seen firsthand how the CVA allowed survivors of sexual abuse to hold powerful institutions — including private and public schools — liable for abuse that those institutions had tolerated for years. The CVA allowed victims of sexual abuse to finally hold institutions like the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts of America accountable for enabling the abuse of thousands of children. It helped more than 10,000 victims bring sexual abuse cases and seek justice for the wrongs committed against them.
New York State has now taken the next step in this fight for justice by passing the Adult Survivors Act. The bill goes into effect in six months. Based on the CVA, the ASA will create a one-year lookback window for survivors of sexual abuse who are over 18 years of age and whose claims are presently time-barred.
Given the historical stigma attached to sexual assault, as well as the career threat that reporting assault by a superior at work can entail, it is no surprise that many sexual assault survivors did not report their assaults at the time they occurred or in the years immediately following. With time, however, some survivors are able to come forward. Unfortunately, by the time they do so, the statute of limitations has often passed, and so legal redress is unavailable. The ASA, by creating a lookback window, will solve this problem. Like the CVA, it will allow survivors to finally hold powerful institutions and individuals accountable for their conduct.
New York did well in passing this law. Survivors of sexual assault in every state need similar laws. Now that organizing is increasingly focused on state capitals, that organizing should include some version of the ASA to provide justice for survivors of sexual assault. Victims of child sexual abuse had to wait years both in New York and many other states to get lookback statutes. Adult survivors throughout the country should not need to wait a similar amount of time.
***
Lesley Brovner and Mark Peters are the founding partners of Peters Brovner LLP, a boutique law firm that focuses on, among other things, helping survivors of sexual assault. They previously ran the New York City Department of Investigations.
***
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.
Penn Station redevelopment rendering (photo: MTA)
A landmark open government bill passed the New York State Senate last week with a unanimous vote and the Assembly this week. The bill (S8419A-A9622-C)) would amend the urban development corporation act in relation to community advisory committees and usher new sunshine into how New York does some of its economic development business. After the Senate passes the slightly updated version that went through the Assembly, Governor Hochul should sign this bill into law immediately.
Sponsored by State Senator Jessica Ramos and Assemblymember Michaelle Solages, the bill is intended to fill the gap in transparency requirements for Empire State Development (ESD), a state authority. If the bill is passed into law, ESD would be mandated to make all its community advisory committee (CAC) materials, reports, and meeting minutes available to the public in a timely fashion. It would also make all CAC meetings open to the public.
When then-Governor Andrew Cuomo introduced the massive Penn Station area redevelopment project in 2020 at the height of covid, he refused to let my community board, the very community board where the project lies, provide local input. As the land use chair of Community Board 5 in Manhattan, the project fell under my purview. But ESD, the state agency leading Cuomo’s grand plan, decided that I would not participate because I was “opposed to the project,” as stated by ESD leadership to Community Board 5. While ESD was correct that I was opposed to the project, it should never be a reason to deny community participation. ESD’s tactics amounted to community suppression. As we continued to demand the right to fully participate, it became a bitter fight. We stood firm.
Only after I blew the whistle and told my story to the New York Post did ESD agree to let me attend and fully participate in the community advisory committee, without any threat of removal if I dared express my opposition to a plan that from the get-go was fatally flawed. ESD reconvened an expanded CAC, to which I was finally formally appointed and embarked in a series of weekly committee meetings.
But there was one huge caveat: the community advisory committee meetings would not be open to the public, and all attendees were on gag order. No information, data, reports or studies discussed during these meetings would be permitted to be shared with the broader public. The minutes of the first meeting note under point 9. CONFIDENTIALITY: “All CACWG members are reminded that CACWG meetings are confidential in nature.” We were especially put on notice not to talk to the media.
This gag order put us, community leaders, in a Kafkaesque situation: members of my own community board would ask me for updates on the Penn plan, and I would be prohibited from providing even a basic report about the facts. Information with major implications was revealed to members of the CAC, including potentially spending billions of taxpayer monies. But the small CAC group was not at liberty to share it with any outside party.
Alarmed by the total lack of transparency and accountability, the good government group Reinvent Albany submitted a FOIL request to obtain the materials from ESD. After a long and arduous process, Reinvent Albany was finally provided with the materials.
Only after Reinvent Albany published the documents to its website was the public at large, the media, and independent auditors such as the city’s Independent Budget Office able to grasp the full breadth of the plan, including its potentially devastating financial and fiscal implications.
Getting access to information from any government agency should not have to be so onerous. The public has a right to know how decisions that involve billions of dollars and could put taxpayers on the hook are made.
The bill passed by the State Senate and the Assembly aims to address the lack of transparency and underscores the lack of accountability from ESD on how it disburses money, or plans to issue and repay debt, and, as importantly, how it justifies such actions.
The bill’s memo notes, “Further, through these advisory bodies, ESD has provided information regarding the potential spending of billions in taxpayer dollars to a small group of individuals who in theory represent the community, but are not required to proactively share this information with the public at large.”
In the case of the Penn project, not only were we not required, we were barred by ESD from sharing any information with the public at large.
The bill’s memo refers to the Penn project by name and specifically notes its lack of transparency: “For example, for the Community Advisory Committee for the Penn Station Area project, it was not until after a FOIL request was filed for CAC materials that ESD posted a portion of the materials provided to the CAC on its website, months after this information was first made available to CAC members.”
The bill would also make community advisory meetings open to the public, allowing neighbors, the media, civic groups, and others to attend and be informed in a timely fashion.
After the bill’s passage in the Senate last week, Senator Ramos said in a statement, “New Yorkers should not have to go through an arduous FOIL process to see how the Empire State Development Corporation is spending the billions of taxpayer dollars it receives in our annual budget.”
The companion Assembly bill (A09622) passed yesterday. It is now back in the senate for ratification of an amendment. The bill’s passage and the governor’s signature will be a major accomplishment in delivering transparent, equitable decisions serving the greater good rather than special interests.
Governor Hochul modestly revised the Penn plan last year but she continues to push for its approval. With ESD’s continued activity around the project plan, the legislation is especially timely.
Good government requires trust and trust can’t exist without openness, accountability, and transparency. New Yorkers deserve nothing less.
***
Layla Law-Gisiko is Chair of the Land Use, Housing and Zoning Committee of Manhattan Community Board 5 and a member of the Penn Area GPP Community Advisory Committee Working Group. She is also a Democratic candidate for State Assembly in New York’s 75th District. On Twitter @laylaLawGisiko.
***
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.
Mayor Adams gets health care (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
If you spotted a nickel on the ground, would you stop to pick it up? Probably not—it seems too small, too insignificant. Why bother?
But that small amount is how we value primary care within the context of our whole health care system. It is estimated that only 5–7 cents of every dollar spent on health care is devoted to primary care, despite the fact that primary care is proven to have the best return on investment of all health care services.
Primary care is a cornerstone of vibrant, thriving communities; it helps keep families healthy, children ready to learn, and adults able to pursue education and participate in the workforce. People who have access to primary care are significantly more likely to get preventive care like cancer screenings, flu shots, and counseling related to eating well, exercising, and quitting smoking. They’re also better able to manage chronic conditions like diabetes and asthma. Primary care also saves money; when more people have access to primary care, we see fewer hospital visits, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer surgeries.
It’s a rare “win-win” in health care—better health as well as lower costs.
Investing in primary care is also key to improving racial health equity. Predominantly Black and Latino communities have lower-quality health care facilities and fewer primary care providers than communities that are mostly white.
This isn’t a problem to be solved simply by throwing more money at the health system; New York’s health care spending is already 20% higher than the national average. Yet our rates of cardiovascular diseases, low birth weight, diabetes, preventable hospitalizations, drug-related deaths, and excessive drinking compare poorly with many other states’.
We don’t need to spend more in total, but we need to spend differently and smarter. We need to rebalance our health care dollars by allocating a greater percentage of our existing spending to primary care.
New York can learn from the dozen or so states that have already introduced or enacted policies to invest more of their health care dollars in primary care. For example, when Rhode Island increased the share of its commercial insurers’ primary care expenditures by 5%, the state’s total health care expenditures fell by 14%.
Increasing the share of health care dollars that support primary care could also help ease the strain on New York’s health care workforce, which has only become more challenging since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. One reason for a shrinking primary care workforce is the differences in payment between primary care and specialty care. Both Rhode Island and Oregon were able to increase their supply of primary care providers after they began reporting and increasing primary care spending.
As we look ahead to the COVID-19 pandemic loosening its grip, we must improve our health system, because the old way wasn’t good enough. Let’s bring stakeholders together, analyze the data to determine where resources are currently going, and then shift some of those resources toward primary care best practices and policies that increase health equity and improve community health.
And we should agree on a definition of primary care because there isn’t a standard one in New York or at the national level. That definition should include any location primary care is provided, and any type of provider delivering care, including doctors, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants. It shouldn’t matter where or by whom the care is provided—what matters is the care received by the patient.
With an agreed-upon definition in hand, we can create a baseline measurement of primary care spending. Then we can decide the best ways to increase the proportion of health care dollars that goes to primary care services, set targets for enhanced investments in primary care, and test out pilot programs to identify the most promising models.
The pandemic disrupted everything, but now we have a chance to build back a better health system. By emphasizing primary and preventive care, we can both improve health outcomes and save money—without increasing overall spending. If we seize the moment, New York will be a healthier place for all.
***
David Sandman is President and CEO of the New York Health Foundation. Louise Cohen is Chief Executive Officer of the Primary Care Development Corporation.
***
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.
Mayor Adams makes a youth employment announcement (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)
As people who are deeply involved in our communities, we are the first to understand the value of safety and peace. We have lost loved ones to gun violence and crime, and have lived through the failed policies of over-policing. We acknowledge the rapid increase of both of these since May 2020, two months after the lockdowns that shut down our flourishing communities. The lockdowns have caused a documented increase in addiction, suicide, mental health distress, learning loss, and economic turmoil, all of which must be acknowledged as drivers of the recent increase in violence.
History shows that we cannot arrest and incarcerate our way to public safety. We can no longer tolerate a city budget that reflects this false notion. With the release of the mayor’s executive budget proposal, it is clear that we have work to do before this year’s budget deadline to move in the right direction.
Mayor Adams has frequently noted the need to invest in upstream solutions to community safety, and his executive budget shows progress toward that goal. For example, we applaud Mayor Adams’ efforts to address dyslexia among New York City students and support alternative forms of violence intervention through the city’s Crisis Management System. However, the budget also shows an increase in the Department of Correction uniformed headcount of 578 in the year ahead, increasing DOC’s budget to $2.74 billion.
The Department of Correction has historically been a wildly bloated and inefficient institution and is now the nation's most expensive and richly-staffed jail system, while failing to keep people in its custody alive. The distressed correctional system existed long before the current administration took office, but Mayor Adams has a unique opportunity to address its shortcomings and increase investments in transformative solutions that have proven to uplift communities. A budget increase for DOC is also out of step with the overall trend in the jail population. New York City’s average daily jail population fell 61% from 2011 to 2021, but instead of the DOC budget being reduced by the same amount, it grew by 20%.
Just as important, an increase in the DOC budget is out of alignment with what our communities really need to foster public safety, and what was envisioned by the Commission on Community Reinvestment and the Closure of Rikers, established by City Council’s Local Law 193 in 2019.
The tragedy of investing in incarceration versus real solutions is especially vivid when we look at how young people in marginalized communities are served by the city budget. As of May 1, there were 1,258 young people ages 18-25 incarcerated in New York City jails. At an astronomical annual cost per incarcerated person of $556,539, New York City will spend approximately $700 million to jail these young people at Rikers for one year, while exposing them to violence and trauma that will increase rather than decrease their likelihood of future arrest.
Let’s consider what $700 million could do to support small businesses, increase employment rates, comprehensively address staggering literacy deficiencies, and provide weekend and evening community recreational programming so that our communities can begin recovering from the effects of the last two pandemic years. Notably, the mayor’s budget did not include funding requested by the City Council to further expand summer youth employment, the Saturday Night Lights Program, or the housing for runaway and homeless youth, and the budget for the Department of Youth and Community Development is set to shrink by $86.9 million overall.
Our own experiences illustrate how much more impactful alternatives to arrest and incarceration can be. As a young person, I, Darren, had experience with potential gun violence. Walking home from junior high school with two of my classmates one day, we were jumped by a group of older teenagers. I was scared, confused, and angry. Due to my personal horrible experience with the police, calling them for protection was not an option for me. The next two days, I carried a gun to school with me.
Luckily, I neither saw the older teens nor was I stopped by the police. Yes, my arrest would have removed that weapon from the streets. But it would not have solved the underlying conflict and cycles of aggression, protection, and retaliation I was getting caught up in. Even incarcerating all the young people involved would not solve the problem, since conflicts in the streets often carry into jail and prison. And in a horrible cycle, conflicts in jails and prisons carry back into the communities we aim to keep safe.
The good news is that there are alternatives. A credible messenger acting as a mediator could have ultimately resolved that issue and deterred me from causing more harm in a way that law enforcement could not have. Again we applaud the City’s increased investments in credible messenger models, but more funding is needed to support these programs’ expansion into more areas, including schools, and to give their practitioners adequate salaries to reflect the difficult and round-the-clock work these skilled professionals are engaging in.
The effectiveness of this model has been proven by organizations like BronxConnect, which I, Wendy, have the honor of leading. Since its inception, BronxConnect has understood the need for credible messengers to bridge the gap for youth in danger of incarceration or rearrest.
We have recruited staff and mentors from the community whose backgrounds mirror participants' life experiences. Over 25% of BronxConnect staff are incarceration survivors, which allows them to develop rapport with justice- and violence-impacted populations. Over 90% of youth in our alternative-to-detention programs have remained free from arrest and remand, while 97% of successful graduates of the alternative-to-incarceration (ATI) program were felony conviction-free for at least three years.
Over BronxConnect’s time as a funded Cure Violence provider, we have seen a 52% reduction in shootings and no homicides in our catchment area. Our work has shown that safety and justice are not two mutually-exclusive outcomes. We can achieve both. The answer to gun violence in our communities cannot just be more police. If we want to advance public safety in our communities then we need to invest in our youth and the programs that help them succeed, and we need to commit to addressing the root causes of violence.
A budget is a moral document — it shows who and what we value. New York City, the greatest city in the world, needs a budget that reflects our investment in communities, small businesses, and the potential of all young people. This will produce true community safety. Everyone wants and deserves to live in a safe community.
***
Darren Mack is the Co-Director of Freedom Agenda and Co-Chair of the Youth SubCommittee of the Commission on Community Reinvestment and the Closure of Rikers. Reverend Wendy Calderon-Payne is the Executive Director of BronxConnect. Freedom Agenda and BronxConnect are among those leading the Campaign to Close Rikers. On Twitter @iamdarrenmack & @BronxConnect.
***
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.
Edie Falco, animal welfare advocates & NY lawmakers support Puppy Mill Pipeline Bill (ASPCA)
Last year, the ASPCA helped rescue over 500 dogs who were living in horrific conditions at multiple properties across Iowa that were operated by Daniel Gingerich, a USDA-licensed breeder. Despite documenting more than 200 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) at Gingerich’s properties – including dogs he allowed to die without being treated by a veterinarian, and dogs he failed to provide with adequate food and water, or to house them in safe and sanitary facilities – Gingerich continued to operate for months and likely bought and sold thousands of dogs during that time.
Based on documents filed with the state, more than one-third of New York’s puppy-selling pet stores – including stores in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Westchester, and Long Island – imported puppies from Gingerich to be sold to unsuspecting New Yorkers.
Gingerich was licensed by the USDA in October 2019 to commercially breed dogs and sell puppies wholesale to pet stores across the U.S. and he is not the first to profit from this irreparably broken system. Thousands have gone before him, permitted to operate despite documented – and undocumented – violations of the law.
Why? Because the USDA does not provide meaningful oversight of breeders or any assurance that dogs whose safety and well-being rest under its authority are kept in humane conditions. Daniel Gingerich and scores of other commercial breeders continue to operate despite known chronic violations of the law showing the long-term suffering of animals in their care.
It is up to New York to do more to prevent this cruelty from flourishing within our state. Daniel Gingerich and others like him exist because the retail sale of puppies is still legal in many states – including ours – providing an outlet for puppy mills to continue selling dogs kept or raised in unspeakable conditions, far from the public eye.
The Puppy Mill Pipeline Bill (A.4283/S.1130) – legislation introduced by Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris of Queens and Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal of Manhattan – would stop these cruel businesses from profiting off New Yorkers by ending the retail sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in pet stores across the state.
The pet industry would like you to believe that it’s unfair to restrict the handful of pet stores that still sell puppies, kittens, and rabbits from buying from “legal” licensed mills. But federal laws intended to protect these animals are so poorly enforced that a licensed facility can violate the law over and over again with virtually zero risk that the USDA will shut them down, so there is no way to assure New Yorkers that the puppies sold in stores were raised humanely.
Of the 1,000 pet businesses in New York State, fewer than 75 still sell puppies. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these stores sell food and other products, offering services such as grooming and boarding, or partnering with local shelters or rescues to host adoption events to drive consumers to their stores. The success of these businesses illustrates that stores can make money without capitalizing on cruelty.
With just a few days left before the New York State Legislature adjourns, time is running out to protect our state’s consumers, public health, and animal welfare. The Senate recently approved the Puppy Mill Pipeline Bill by a wide margin with strong bipartisan support, and we urge the Assembly to swiftly follow suit by passing this legislation to finally end the retail sale of puppies in pet stores.
***
Bill Ketzer is senior director of government relations for the ASPCA. On Twitter @ASPCA.
***
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.