Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

An ‘Opportunity’ for Bad Economic Policy


Workers on the job site (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayoral Photo Office)


Recently, Patrick Purcell, Jr. of the New York State Laborers-Employers Cooperation & Education Trust and Assemblymember Karines Reyes authored an op-ed regarding the Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance Act (REQAA) and its potential to positively impact the environment, the economy, and the workforce. The piece -- “An Opportunity to Boost the Environment, Economy, and Workers” -- is concerning because the authors paint an inaccurate picture, hiding the hidden detail within the legislation, the use of Project Labor Agreements, that is at the center of what Mr. Purcell’s organization supports.

The full story paints a very different picture and will likely change the way readers feel about the REQAA. Mr. Purcell supports this policy and PLAs because they drive work to those he represents: a very small number of workers compared to the overall workforce in New York state.

He claims that the REQAA provides significant economic benefits and states that workers affected by this bill will “have the financial resources to patronize their hometown shops and restaurants.” This is where Mr. Purcell has left out important details.

The REQAA includes language within the bill that encourages the use of a Project Labor Agreement on these projects. A PLA is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement that requires the hiring of union workers. The issue here is not the employment of union workers, but the required use of them instead of opening the projects up to the entirety of New York state’s construction workforce.

More than 70% of the construction industry workforce in our state is not affiliated with a union. They work for open shop contractors, the majority being small businesses. The REQAA Mr. Purcell is so fond of, includes language that discriminates against the vast majority of the state’s construction labor pool by not allowing their employers to use them on projects under these provisions.

How can any policy that stomps on businesses and prevents the majority of a workforce from working be good for the state’s economy? The authors of the op-ed omitted some very important details in pushing this legislation.

And, if it is not bad enough that the REQAA will bury businesses even deeper, consider this: when the labor pool is limited to less than 30% of the available workforce, but more workers are needed, they’ll be brought in from out of state. That doesn’t help a single worker or family in New York.

Additionally, the REQAA will ultimately hurt New York ratepayers who are already feeling the burden of some of the highest utility costs in recent years. Consumers will pay even more for utilities because, as studies show, the prevailing wage increases the cost of construction by up to 25%. It’s time for honesty: this is the reality when we force utility companies to pay more, they pass the added cost on to the ratepayers.

Instead of focusing on harmful policies, New York government should be figuring out how to cut costs for ratepayers. That can be done by lowering taxes we all have to pay on natural gas, broadband, cell phone service, electricity, and more.

Our elected officials have a responsibility to protect New Yorkers from harmful legislation while improving their quality of life. The REQAA does the opposite. It discriminates against most contractors in the state, prevents hundreds of thousands of workers and their families from benefiting from construction jobs their tax dollars are paying for, and it increases the cost of living in New York state. Our elected leaders should run far and wide from the REQAA.

***
Brian Sampson is president of The Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, part of a national construction industry trade association established in 1950 and founded on the merit shop philosophy. On Twitter @abcempirestate.

***
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.

Construction Industry Report More Evidence Scaffold Law Has Nothing To Do with Safety


Scaffolding in action (photo: Demetrius Freeman/Mayoral Photography Office)


The tragic increase in the construction death rate reported by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) during the first year of the pandemic should concern all New Yorkers and inspire change in our worker safety laws. Unfortunately, one of the state’s most notorious laws does little to protect construction workers and instead lines the pockets of the state’s politically connected trial lawyers: the Scaffold Law.

Touted as a “safety law” by the plaintiffs bar and their allies, that distinction is dubious given the increase in fatalities NYCOSH notes. How an organization can claim that the only-in-New York Scaffold Law keeps workers safe while announcing an increase in construction injuries is beyond me. And it begs the question: does this unique liability law do anything to keep workers safe or does it simply enrich a politically connected special interest? For taxpayers and construction firms, it means infrastructure funding squandered on expensive lawsuits, project delays, and exorbitant liability insurance rates.

The Scaffold Law, a century-old statute, passed in an era when workers had little to no protection on job sites, holds property owners and contractors fully liable for gravity-related worksite injuries, even if the injured party is primarily at fault. Scaffold Law litigation is a main driver behind sky-high construction costs in New York, and causes delays and inflated price tags for important projects.

While NYCOSH and trial lawyer lobbyists claim the Scaffold Law enhances worker safety, research shows the opposite to be true. By examining more than 3,000 incidents, accross 42 states, over a ten year period, the authors of a study peer-reviewed by the Transportation Research Board at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that the Scaffold Law, which only exists in New York, correlates to an increase in both fatal and nonfatal construction accidents.

That’s good news for personal injury trial lawyers ­– the law’s failure to enhance worker safety boosts their business by increasing claims and settlements. And they know it; attorneys advertise aggressively near construction sites and in working class communities, enticing construction workers to sue their employers, while maximizing their 33% cut of any settlement or verdict. New York’s lawsuit lending industry also benefits from the Scaffold Law and legal loan sharks are well known to hover near worksites and hospitals, handing out t-shirts and business cards.

New York must take action to combat the alarming rates of worksite injuries and deaths. The ineffective and costly Scaffold Law must be replaced with clear, specific regulations designed for the 21st century. Doing so will reduce the costs and delays caused by excessive litigation while protecting our construction workers.

***
Tom Stebbins is executive director at the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York.
On Twitter @LawsuitReformNY.

***
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 Climate Crisis Requires Bold Action: $15 Billion and Build Public Renewables Now


(photo: Philip Kamrass/ New York Power Authority)

Gov. Hochul at a solar farm event (photo: Philip Kamrass/New York Power Authority)


In 2019, I took a vote in Albany that I remain proud of to this day: after supporting the bill for many years, I voted to finally pass the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). I thought we were on track. The CLCPA made New York a true leader on climate, committing our state to a rapid decarbonization of our economy and ensuring that we invest in frontline communities most impacted by pollution and climate change.

The CLCPA includes aggressive benchmarks for getting off of fossil fuels: by 2030, 70% of our electricity must be from renewable sources, and by 2040 our state’s entire electric grid must be zero-emissions. These mandates line our state up with the emissions reduction timeline put forth by the Paris Agreement and make New York a climate leader — but only if we can meet them.

Three years later we have made pitiful progress in reducing our emissions, we’ve built almost no new solar or wind and actually burn more carbon today than in 2019. Just six percent of our electricity comes from wind and solar. For comparison, Texas, a state known for its conservative leadership and reliance on oil and gas, gets 17% of its electricity from wind alone, nearly three times as much as New York. We cannot in good faith claim climate leadership when our own energy profile lags behind so much of the country.

Earlier this month, I pressed leadership of NYSERDA -- the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority -- on New York’s renewable pathways, and they said we were on track, despite not even being halfway to our 2015 goals. This was shocking and disconcerting because if every renewable project in New York’s pipeline (of which only 4 of 63 have succeeded thus far) and the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) were fully operational, New York would still not meet the goals of having 70% of its energy come from renewable resources by 2030. It’s shameful, if this is what NYSERDA and Governor Hochul think is climate leadership.

That is why I sponsor the Build Public Renewables Act. The BPRA lifts the arbitrary generation cap on the New York Power Authority, the largest public power authority in the country, and enables it to own and build new renewable projects to ensure we meet the mandates of the CLCPA.

The Build Public Renewables Act would make the New York Power Authority accountable to everyday New Yorkers, and expand interconnection by removing uncertainty in the renewable buildout. We do not have time to waste, the recent spike in electric bills shows what happens when we are reliant on gas, we must build public renewables.

But renewables alone are not enough. It’s time to take a new tack, and put our money where our mouth is. That’s why I’m proud to stand with the NY Renews coalition and demand a $15 billion investment in climate, jobs, and justice for New York in this year’s state budget, due by April 1. This money will help us meet our climate goals, invest in frontline communities, and build a thriving, just economy for all. This $15 billion in concert with the Build Public Renewables Act would reestablish New York’s climate leadership. These two actions together would help us meet the ambitious and essential mandates of the CLCPA.

Ninety years ago, New York led on climate when Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt created the New York Power Authority, which became the New Deal model. New York can become a climate leader again. But we won’t get there with the same tired talking points of the past three years. Inaction now is disaster later. Half measures now is no better. Now is not the time for rose-colored optimism. We need to be serious, bold, imaginative, and we need to act at the scale of the crisis.

This means dedicating the necessary funding in the state budget to reach our climate goals. It means passing bills like my Build Public Renewables Act and Pollution Justice Act, which will allow our state to rebuild our energy system and economy for a sustainable future and eliminate dirty peaker plants.

Investing $15 billion for climate, jobs, and justice in this year’s New York state budget will put us on track to be the climate leaders we need to be. I’m calling on my colleagues and the governor to meet the incredible need of the moment and include all of these in our budget this year to truly lead.

***
Robert Carroll is the prime sponsor of the Build Public Renewables Act and represents Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Kensington, Ditmas Park and other neighborhoods in the State Assembly. On Twitter @Bobby4Brooklyn.

***
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 Yorkers Deserve a Breath of Fresh Air


Kids at rest (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)


While New Yorkers have been battling the COVID-19 pandemic, another public health epidemic is on the horizon that similarly affects their capacity to breathe freely: asthma. In 2019, over 1.4 million New Yorkers were living with asthma, and this number has likely grown since then. Over 40% of Americans live in places with unhealthy air quality — and people of color are over three times more likely to be exposed to polluted air than their white counterparts. Even short-term exposure to air pollution is linked to asthma and other respiratory conditions.

Asthma is the most common chronic disease among children and a leading cause of school absenteeism. People suffering from asthma must reconcile its physical, financial, and emotional costs on a daily basis.

While New York has already taken action toward curbing asthma, including establishing stocking guidelines so asthma medications like albuterol can be accessed in public spaces and schools, these guidelines are not codified into law and are challenging to enforce. Other efforts that mandate guidelines to improve health metrics can often be counter-productive to their intended efforts, and set up under-resourced communities for failure in reducing asthma rates by basing metrics for success against communities’ capacities and access to resources.

We must take action to combat this public health and environmental justice crisis and mitigate air pollution at the source. New polling from Data for Progress shows that U.S. voters agree — they are demanding that action be taken to combat air pollution. Among likely voters, almost all Democrats (86%), almost two-thirds of independents (65%), and nearly half of Republicans (43%) support stricter limits on air pollution. Black voters are particularly concerned about air pollution, with 85% of likely Black voters in favor of increasing environmental regulations to mitigate air pollution. That’s not to mention that by reducing air pollution – specifically particulate matter – and greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. could avoid 11,000 premature deaths and 1,600 asthma-related emergency room visits.

But New York can do much more to be a leader in mitigating asthma and air pollution, like expanding and electrifying public and private transit, through new biking infrastructure and expanding electric vehicle incentives. We can bolster asthma care for children by expanding our  asthma-medication stocking in schools and subsidizing asthma-related healthcare costs so that medical care is affordable. And state government can ensure the voices of impacted communities are heard by establishing an advisory body to increase minority representation in asthma-mitigation efforts and funding its recommended actions.

In New York City, Senator Myrie (a co-author of this piece) has proposed legislation to reduce household pollutants by limiting the use of bug bombs in multi-unit buildings. Bug bombs — proven ineffective in fighting pests — are a significant cause of indoor air pollution for New Yorkers and a threat to health and safety. Common sense legislation like this is a vital first step toward combating air pollution and making New York communities healthier and safer. Let’s urge our state legislators to pass this bill.

We must take action to combat this public health and environmental justice crisis and mitigate air pollution at the source. Reducing exposure to air pollutants, improving access to healthcare and asthma-safe conditions, and empowering children, parents, and educators with better asthma management techniques to mitigate asthma and other respiratory issues offer a long-overdue start. Comprehensive, targeted asthma reduction and mitigation policies can help improve public health, reduce climate change, and advance environmental justice.

In a country where your ZIP code can be more predictive of your health than your genetic code, it’s lawmakers’ duty to enact the policies that make clean air a right for all and not just a privilege for the few.  

***
State Senator Zellnor Y. Myrie is a Democrat representing the 20th Senate District, which includes the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Brownsville, Crown Heights, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Park Slope and Sunset Park. Julia Jeanty is the Policy Manager at Data for Progress, where she oversees Data for Progress’s policy portfolio — developing original policy analysis and representing DFP’s work in policy working groups and beyond. On Twitter @SenatorMyrie & @Julia_Jeanty.

***
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 Mayor's Budget, Federal Funding Cliff, and Impact on Low-Income Communities of Color


Mayor Adams at a food pantry (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


New York City and local governments across the state are drifting toward a fiscal cliff, one that will affect everyone from Staten Island to Champlain. The unprecedented flow of federal funding that culminated in the March 2021 American Rescue Plan will run dry over the next few years. This jeopardizes our nascent recovery and will be most disastrous for communities that were already the most economically insecure. It doesn’t have to be this way.

To understand the risks that federal pullback poses to hard-hit communities, which are disproportionately those where incomes are lowest and people of color and immigrants live, one needs to look no further than the last recession. In February 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a broad stimulus package that provided relief to households, hard-hit sectors and communities, and local governments. While the law was effective in kickstarting recovery, it provided a short runway. Federal relief spending peaked in early 2010 and began a steady retreat by mid-2011. The ensuing recovery was halting and uneven.

Nationally, unemployment reached a peak of 10% in October 2009, then began a steady decline. While Manhattan mirrored this trajectory, the same was not true of the Bronx. The borough’s unemployment rate first peaked at 13.3% in December 2009. More than two years later, as the economic recovery was well underway in much of the country, the effects of the federal pullback reversed the Bronx’s recovery, along with communities across the country that had been economically insecure prior to the recession. After modest improvement, unemployment in the Bronx returned to 13.3% in February 2012. It didn’t fall below 10% until April 2014.

At the national level, the unemployment rate for Black workers followed the same path, remaining near all-time highs throughout 2011 even as unemployment for white workers was well on its way to recovery. These communities’ lost years of economic recovery did immense long-term damage, widening the racial wealth gap and crippling economic mobility.

Unlike the last recession, the federal response to COVID-19 provided emergency relief on an unprecedented scale. It averted a deeper, prolonged recession because basic human services expanded for those hit hardest by the pandemic.

Fiscal support for New York City spared it from having to make recession-exacerbating public sector layoffs as revenues contracted, while also supplementing essential human services programs. Federal funding for New York City’s human services programs rose 22.7% between fiscal years 2020 and 2021, reaching $5.3 billion, according to recent analysis conducted by FPWA using its proprietary Federal Funds Tracker tool. This analysis, however, gives cause for grave concern.

Taking a closer look, it becomes clear that without temporary emergency relief to just six programs that received the most federal aid, human services funding would have fallen by 5.7% last year. As federal relief funding begins to expire in the coming years, this declining baseline funding will place growing strain on the city’s human services. Fiscal pullback will come amid persistently high need for services because COVID-19’s toll on hardest-hit communities will extend for years to come.

Let’s take one of New York City’s largest human services programs as an example, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF funding, already on a downward trend prior to the pandemic, continued to lose federal financial support last year despite caseloads that remain 18.7% above pre-pandemic levels and with no apparent decline ahead.

And while Medicaid received emergency federal relief funding, a recent report from the New York State Comptroller highlights the likelihood that elevated post-pandemic caseloads will persist past the expiration of enhanced federal funding.

These services were critical to communities most affected by the pandemic and averted a deeper, more damaging recession.

It is a policy choice, not an inevitable outcome, that the hardest-hit communities suffer eroding human services funding and economic insecurity for years to come. Under-resourcing these communities, predominantly home to people of color and immigrants with low incomes, has been a persistent and deliberate policy choice at all levels of government for generations. It’s led to the status quo where New Yorkers with low incomes, especially people of color, are consigned to an economic underclass.

Officials at all levels of government must make sure that the city’s and state’s economic comeback is truly inclusive by fully funding vital human services in New York City and throughout New York State. It’s just, it’s overdue, and it’s essential if our city and state are to come back stronger.

***
Andrew Perry is Senior Fiscal Policy Analyst at 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.

New York History Lessons on Spending, Borrowing & Saving for a Rainy Day


ny power autho

The Erie Canal (photo: New York Power Authority)


Governor Kathy Hochul’s $216 billion budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 includes a little-publicized provision to increase the state’s reserve funds, also called “rainy day” funds. Those are funds that the state reserves for downturns, hard times, and fiscal emergencies. 

A 2019 report by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, “The Case for Building New York State’s Rainy Day Reserves,” explained that the state actually has two statutory rainy day funds – the Tax Stabilization Reserve and the Rainy Day Reserve. At the time of the report, the two funds together held just over $2 billion, about 2.8% of General Fund spending. In other states as diverse as California, Texas, and Michigan, the percentage is far higher, the comptroller reported.

“Rainy day reserve funds are needed to mitigate economic or other circumstances that could force cuts to essential services and harmful tax increases,” Comptroller DiNapoli explained. Rainy day reserves date from 1938, when the state was still feeling the impact of the Great Depression. Since then, the amount set aside for rainy day events has varied, and sometimes governors or legislatures have dipped into them for non-emergency purposes.

The “Director’s Presentation” by Division of the Budget Director Robert Mujica that accompanied Hochul’s budget proposal pointed out that the state’s finances have been badly damaged three times by sudden events in recent years: 9/11, the recession that began in 2007, and COVID-19. Such shocks can lead to pulling back on funding for important initiatives. He cites the state’s 2008 commitment to provide more school aid, which had to be curtailed when budget resources diminished. “Reserves are the best defense against a ‘repeat performance’ in the next crisis.” 

The state has a budget surplus now, in part due to federal covid aid. Hochul’s budget includes a commitment to bring the state’s reserves up to 15% of the state’s operating fund spending by 2025.

Will the Legislature go along with the proposal? Mujica cites “short memories and optimism” as potential deterrents to this fiscal prudence.

New York’s history suggests that Mujica is right.  

Sometimes New Yorkers have shown fiscal caution and an inclination to hold back for rainy days. More often, they have not  done so due to faith that the state’s good fortune would continue, or, if it was in abeyance, would return soon. Some examples:

State government, established in 1777, resorted to taxes, loans, and sale of loyalist property to support its Revolutionary War efforts. When that proved not to be enough, the state issued paper money backed only by the vague pledge that the bills would be redeemed in the future. New York emerged from the war awash in red ink. But the first federal bailout, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s “Assumption Plan,” in 1790, assumed responsibility for all state debts, including New York’s. That was a lucky break for the new state. It wiped the deficit off the books. As the state’s economy grew after the war, taxes flowed into the state treasury, keeping New York solvent.

In the early 19th century, after the federal government had declined New York’s request for support to build a canal across the state from Troy to Buffalo, the Legislature, at the urging of Governor DeWitt Clinton, voted to build it with New York’s resources. The Legislature established a Canal Fund that would be derived from special taxes and, when the canal opened, from canal tolls. Canal Fund commissioners began issuing bonds as construction began in 1817. The bonds were a risky bet but investors, mostly New Yorkers, confident in the young state’s prospects, snapped them up. The canal opened in 1825. New York’s first experiment with deficit funding paid off. The canal led to the development and prosperity of New York City and the rest of the state. The bonds were soon paid off, and the tolls eventually abolished.  

Along the way, though, the overly-optimistic state overspent on Erie Canal enlargements, constructing other canals, and aiding early railroads. By 1842, the state debt was nearly $26 million (exact comparisons are difficult, but that would be about $984 million today). The State Comptroller warned the state was on the slippery slope to bankruptcy. The Legislature enacted an emergency “Stop and Tax” law that levied a special property tax to bring down the debt. An 1846 state constitutional amendment mandated voter approval for future debt. In 1854, with economic prospects brighter, confidence returned and New York voters approved resumption of bond-supported canal expansion. 

By the end of the 19th century, the canal was too small for large ships and was being rendered obsolete by railroads. The Legislature voted $9 million in 1895 for enlargement and repair. A scandal erupted when it came out that most of the money had been squandered on overcharging and shoddy work by contractors. Some leaders said that massive spending was enough, it was time to abandon the canal or build a railroad on its right of way.

But a commission appointed by Governor Theodore Roosevelt (1899-1901) recommended a new, larger canal to replace the Erie and capable of carrying huge barges in 1900. The price tag was high, $101 million, the equivalent of more than $3 billion today. Railroads objected and people in upstate areas far from the canal were not supportive. But the majority of voters, hoping the new Barge Canal would replicate the Erie Canal’s impact on the state, approved the $101 million Barge Canal bond issue in 1903.

That was the largest bond issue by any state to that time. The canal was completed in 1918 but the investment did not pay off. The canal quickly slid toward obsolescence from rail and highway competition. It is still in operation today, mainly for tourism and recreation. The state has renamed the Barge Canal the Erie Canal but it did not mimic the success of its namesake. 

Governor Thomas Dewey (1943-1955) began construction of the New York State Thruway in 1946. It was supposed to be built with appropriations from the regular state budget but when escalating costs made that impossible, Dewey proposed a new Thruway Authority with authority to issue up to $400 million in bonds to be paid off mainly by tolls on the new road. The Thruway would be the “new Erie Canal” that would ensure New York’s prosperous future, he promised.

Voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1951 to allow the state to guarantee the Thruway Authority’s bonds. The superhighway was completed in 1957. It was mostly a good investment for New York, speeding travel, stimulating new industries and communities along the route. But it helped speed the demise of the railroads and the Barge Canal and the tolls remain today.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller (1959-1973) was a strong executive who was eager to resolve problems and build things. He was impatient with restraints. In a 1962 speech, he decried “the timidity of leadership that rarely glimpses the dawn of any new concept but passively awaits the high noon of crisis.” Rockefeller vastly expanded the State University, built the Empire State Plaza government complex in Albany, and increased state government in other ways through legislative appropriations and, notably, substantial bond issues. Some of these bond issues were authorized by the voters; others were in the form of bonds issued through public authorities and other routes that did not require voter approval. State Comptroller Arthur Levitt was a critic of this “back door” borrowing technique, which he called a “subterfuge” to avoid going before the voters. Rockefeller’s initiatives and investments reflected New Yorkers’ confidence in their future and paid off and helped the state. 

But his liberal use of deficit financing set a trend for future governors, and for reports of criticism and caution by future state comptrollers. The comptroller’s 2021 “Financial Condition Report” identified $70.7 billion in “State-funded debt,” the second highest in outstanding state debt nationwide, about $3,500 per capita.

Which path should New York State take in 2022?

Governor Hochul has mostly chosen the path of confidence and optimism, investing in expanding New York’s future prospects rather than paying down the debt or, as some Republican leaders have advocated, cutting taxes. In her January State of the State address, she explained that much of her confidence stems from her reading of New York’s robust, successful history. That puts her in line with many of New York’s most successful, progressive governors in the past. 

On the other hand, beefing up the rainy-day fund (if she can get the Legislature to go along and include that in the budget it passes) sounds a notable theme of prudence and caution.  

That sort of expansive view of the future balanced with a measure of fiscal prudence may be just what New York needs now. It may also be just what Hochul needs to get elected in her own right in the fall.

***
Bruce W. Dearstyne is a historian in Albany, NY. He is the author of The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State’s History and The Crucible of Public Policy: New York Courts in the Progressive Era, both published in 2022 by SUNY Press.

***
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 Climate Investment New York Needs to Make Now


(photo: office of Cuomo)

Construction jobs on the line (photo: Governor's Office)


In 2019, New York passed one of the strongest climate bills in the country, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

The CLCPA requires nothing less than a total transformation of our economy. Our state must reach net-zero emissions by 2050, and between now and then we must rapidly increase renewable energy production and decrease fossil fuel pollution. Critically, the law also requires that 35-40% of state climate and energy spending be directed to communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis — a nation-leading environmental justice requirement that has been copied by other lawmakers and even the Biden administration.

All of this is great news for New York. But fully transforming our economy, investing in frontline communities, and meeting the mandates of the CLCPA aren’t free, and three years later, we’re still waiting for the money to show up in our communities. That’s why my organization, the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, is part of a coalition supporting a $15 billion climate, jobs, and justice fund in the next New York State budget, due by April 1.

$15 billion is the bare minimum of what we need to meet our climate goals and invest in frontline communities. It’s just 7% of Governor Hochul’s proposed $216 billion budget — a small price to pay to address one of the biggest crises of our time while taking advantage of it to create jobs, particularly in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. NYSERDA, a state authority under Governor Hochul’s administration, said meeting the mandates of the CLCPA will take $10 billion per year to start, with the amount increasing over time. The same report also found that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the CLCPA avoids $260 billion in economic impacts of damages caused by climate change.

Making these investments is fundamentally an issue of racial and economic justice. Climate catastrophe and fossil fuel pollution are coming for us all, but for Black, brown, immigrant, and low-income communities, disaster has already arrived. The communities represented by NYC-EJA’s member organizations, from Sunset Park to the South Bronx, are breathing in toxic levels of pollution from peaker power plants, trucking facilities, waste transfer stations, and highways. They are flooded during increasingly severe superstorms and hurricanes, which leave behind disease-causing mold and mildew even after the streets dry out and the skies clear up. As summers get hotter and hotter, people in environmental justice communities suffer disproportionately from heat stroke and related illnesses, because our neighborhoods lack the infrastructure to keep cool.

It’s not random that communities of color suffer the worst impacts of pollution and climate change; it’s by design. Burning fossil fuels, and allowing the seas to rise, temperatures to increase, and storms to worsen requires that some people will suffer the consequences. In a country built on the marginalization and subjugation of people of color, it is unfortunately no surprise that our communities continue to be offered up as sacrifice zones by people in power.

This $15 billion climate, job, and justice fund can begin to remedy these injustices and build a just, thriving future for all New Yorkers. The money would put our state on a path to replace pollution-causing fossil fuels with renewable energy, solarize and retrofit public schools and housing, and make mass transit greener and more reliable, especially for communities on the margins. It would create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs for our communities. In fact, if we keep the investments up, we could see 150,000 good, green jobs created over the next ten years.

The fund would also provide a “climate stimulus” to low-income and working New Yorkers. These climate stimulus payments would include transit vouchers to encourage riding the bus and train, grants for homeowners to make their houses more energy-efficient, and credits to reduce the cost of heating homes and small businesses in the winter. We don’t have to choose between prosperity for all and a renewable future: we can have both. 

One of the most exciting components of the $15 billion climate, jobs, and justice fund is that it will provide grants to local organizations in frontline communities for programs that improve resiliency, increase energy efficiency, and decrease fossil fuel pollution. Frontline communities are already leading the way in creating climate solutions, but we need the Governor and Legislature to make sure we get the funding we need.

Some amazing projects already exist: in Sunset Park, UPROSE started Sunset Park Solar, a cooperatively-owned solar installation that will make cheap, green electricity available for low-income tenants in the neighborhood. They’ve also developed a community-wide plan to create green jobs and improve resiliency along the industrial waterfront — a plan that helped attract North America’s largest off-shore wind assembly hub to the Sunset Park waterfront.

Or look to the South Bronx. The POINT CDC has created a “Be a Buddy” program, which connects volunteers with seniors and other vulnerable people in the community to check in during heat waves, storms, or other climate events. With money from the $15 billion climate, jobs, and justice fund, we could see programs like this expand and bloom across the state.

What we can’t afford to do is wait. The climate crisis is happening now, and people on the frontlines deserve real funding behind our climate solutions. It’s time for the Governor and Legislature to put their money where their mouth is, and follow through on making New York a real climate justice leader. Let’s invest $15 billion in climate, jobs, and justice this year. 

***
Eddie Bautista is Executive Director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance and a member of the Steering Committee at NY Renews. On Twitter @eddiebautista08 & @NYCEJAlliance & @NYRenews.

***
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.

State Budget Paradox: Flush with Money, Spending Plans, and a Large Dose of Caution; Is There Room for One More Big Program?


(photo: Mike Groll/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul)

Gov. Hochul presenting her budget (photo: Mike Groll/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul)


Pandemic Dollars + Improved Tax Receipts = Plenty to Spend
Governor Kathy Hochul released the New York State Executive Budget on January 18, 2022, setting the framework for an adopted budget before April 1 of this year by the Legislature and governor. The state is astonishingly flush with money, both federal pandemic relief funds and dramatically-improved tax receipts.

The Division of the Budget is predicting healthy surpluses in state funds alone, with over $5 billion in the current fiscal year, 2022, over $6 billion in the coming budget year, FY 2023, and surpluses for the entire planning horizon through FY 2027, even after all the federal pandemic relief funds are finally spent in FY 2025.

There’s plenty to spend. The governor’s budget includes an undesignated $2 billion “Pandemic Assistance Fund” from the current fiscal year state surplus to be negotiated with the Legislature. There is a $2.2 billion property tax rebate proposed to be distributed to homeowners this fall, and $1.2 billion for bonuses for health care workers to reward their work during the covid pandemic and retain their employment.

All of these items are funded from the state surpluses and don’t lock in any new spending commitments!

There is also $12.75 billion in federal pandemic assistance from the 2021 Biden Rescue Plan that the state is permitted to spend pursuant to federal approval of a New York plan. The Hochul administration has not yet specified that plan.

Budget Takeaways and a Paradox
Two major factors are driving the budget that seem a paradox, while there’s an opportunity for Governor Hochul and the new Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, to collaborate in a way that political enemies Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio did not. 

While it’s an extraordinarily liberal spending plan, the paradox is that it’s a plan to avoid spending too much in case New York’s problems take a turn for the worse. Meanwhile, Hochul and Adams can collaborate to operationalize the subsidies needed for ambitious affordable housing programs that are not conceptualized in the current budget.

A Liberal Spending Plan
Below are planned expenses over the next four years for education and health care, the two largest parts of the budget, from state operating funds (see p. 84, NYS DOB 5-Year Financial Plan); the numbers are in 1000s:

  FISCAL YEAR                                    ’22         ’23          ’24          ’25            ’26        ‘27

jmb 1

Starting in FY 2023, school aid increases from $31.178 billion to $38.357 billion, about $7.2 billion, over four years, nearly 6% a year. There is also $13 billion in federal pandemic relief funds available for schools to be spent over several years.

State Medicaid spending, growing from over $25 billion in FY 2023 to $31.6 billion in FY 2027, is covering health care expenses for 7.7 million New York residents, more than one-third of the state’s population. The State Medicaid spending is only showing the state government’s share of the program. Total Medicaid expenses including federal and local government shares currently exceed $90 billion a year and are anticipated to reach $100 billion in 2027.

But Caution Over New York’s Uncertain Future: Weak Economic and Employment Recovery
The second takeaway is the deep caution in the plan, based on the risks of New York’s uncertain future. New York’s “pot of gold” is occurring despite the fact that the state’s employment recovery is the second lowest across the country since the pandemic low in April 2020 (only Hawaii, also a heavily tourism-dependent state, has a weaker recovery). Spending like the property tax rebate referred to above, from the state’s surpluses, are one-time expenses intended not to recur. In fact, the plan for the surpluses over the next few years is to save most of the money and put it into reserves.

State budget director Robert Mujica, who also held the position under former Governor Cuomo, argues that New York State was badly prepared for the three 21st Century calamities that forced big cutbacks for government in New York. First, 9/11, then the 2008-9 Great Recession, and, of course, the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The plan is to bring the state’s reserves to 15% of state operating funds spending (p. 18, DOB 5-Year Plan):

jmb 2

Reserves at the end of the current year, FY 2022, are expected to be $8.9 billion and the plan is for them to grow to over $10 billion by FY 2025, and later reach over $19 billion. New York could then cope with a recession or another pandemic. Mr. Mujica makes no mention in the rationale for major increases in reserves of a dangerous out-migration of residents or the subset of wealthy taxpayers fleeing the state.

Large out-migration from the state was a fact in 2021, however. The U.S. Census reported that the state lost 319,000 residents between July 1,2020, and July 1, 2021, the most in the nation, although Washington, DC had a higher percentage decrease.

New York lost 352,000 to domestic out-migration, while international migration, a major source of population gain of over 100,000 a year to New York for decades, slowed to a minimal increase, 18,000. Trump-era immigration policies and the temporary closure of U.S. borders due to covid slowed international migration dramatically to the whole country, not just New York.

New York raised income taxes last year on the state’s wealthiest taxpayers (those earning more than $2.2 million married filing jointly). Budget director Mujica was asked last month if the increase was driving departures from New York, and said, “We haven’t seen any evidence of that.” He said the federal cap on deductions for state and local taxes could be a larger factor.

New York residents have been moving to the south and the west for decades; the question is whether the out-migration is a step-up from normal and poses a risk to the economy, and whether immigration trends will reverse so that New York can depend on that usual boon to its population and fortunes. Despite Mr. Mujica’s seeming lack of concern, I am sure the Division of the Budget will be intensely monitoring how many wealthy taxpayers are filing returns this year and years after, and how many residents are leaving.

Despite long-standing outmigration from New York, we just experienced an 800,000 population gain in the state, three-quarters of which was in New York City, from 2010 to 2020, according to the U.S. Census. And some of the recent drop could be temporary due to covid. Taxpayers who have moved out of state, to New Jersey or Connecticut, or even other states whose employment remains linked to New York, can still be paying income taxes here because their employer’s base is here.

A Massive Unemployment Tax Liability
A dilemma for the state and its employers is a $9.3 billion outstanding liability to the federal government for a loan taken by New York to help pay unemployment claims during the pandemic, when the need was massive.

Under normal Unemployment Insurance Law, when layoffs occur, employers have their unemployment insurance rates and taxes rise to replenish the state’s Unemployment Trust Funds. Since so many employees were laid off during the pandemic, that means steep rises in unemployment taxes for thousands of New York businesses to help make the Trust Funds whole.

According to a report by State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, tax increases of $1 billion in 2022 are set and will increase over several years. The report discusses several ways the federal government has authorized states to repay the loaned funds, including one-time options involving the use of general state funds, the use of federal covid relief funds, and even issuing state bonds to help provide relief for businesses. The Empire Center for Public Policy has urged Governor Hochul to use some of the $12.75 billion in federal covid relief funds available to the state to help businesses repay this extraordinary obligation.

For the moment, the dichotomy between the largesse in the state’s treasury and the relatively weak employment gains is explained by the fact that the incomes of the state’s wealthiest and most affluent taxpayers, boosted by gains in the stock market, have held up during the pandemic, along with extra money from the income tax increase in 2021.

A Bonus: Proposed Budget Creates an Opportunity for NYS & NYC to Collaborate on Affordable Housing
There is a real opportunity for Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams to collaborate around housing. The governor’s budget plan includes a new $4.5 billion housing capital plan with intentions to produce or preserve 100,000 affordable units, including 10,000 new supportive housing units, over five years. Although Mayor Adams has not put together his own housing plan, Mayor de Blasio’s Housing 2.0 plan is ongoing, with thousands of low- and moderate-income housing units still anticipated.

While in many cases affordable units can be cross-subsidized with market-rate units in development projects, cash subsidies are essential for poor, needy, and working class New Yorkers and both the governor’s and the city’s housing development plans, including whatever ambition is expressed by the new mayor, will need operational subsidies as the units come on line.

The New York Housing Conference has endorsed the state government creating a Universal Rental Assistance program similar to the federal government’s Section 8 Housing Voucher Program.

New York City’s Section 8 waiting list has 30,000 households, and the city received 8,000 emergency Section 8 vouchers in the federal American Rescue Plan. If the city’s Section 8 waiting list is 30,000, I estimate the rest of the state could have 20,000 households on Section 8 waiting lists in various municipal housing authorities. In December, Governor Hochul signed legislation to supplement the city’s emergency rental subsidy for those experiencing homelessness to bring it to the federal Section 8 level, and there is $100 million in the budget for this program, named Transitional Rental Assistance.

It could cost $1 billion a year to fund 50,000 rental assistance vouchers and set-aside housing units for homeless New Yorkers. The governor could request (and even compel) the city to share costs for the vouchers in the city. With joint funding and integrated planning, new low- and moderate-income units and vouchers can bring major relief. The state and city could start down this path, always hoping for the federal government to come through with additional vouchers of its own.

The state is planning to add over $10 billion to its reserves to reach $19 billion in the next three years. The goal is great, but does the state really need to put all of that money aside? Clearly it could partially fund a state housing voucher plan with some of the money it intends to put into reserves. The surpluses are anticipated to continue past 2025, and it will take time to implement 50,000 new vouchers. If migration out of state clearly begins to impair the economy, or if another recession occurs, the state and city can put on the brakes on this or other spending. 

Overall, the governor’s executive budget is sensible, but with the state in such great fiscal shape right now, it is not too risky to add this one major new program -- a state housing voucher to reduce homelessness -- and keep its ultimate cost under control.

***
Jim Brennan was a member of the New York State Assembly for 32 years, where he chaired four committees. On Twitter @JimBrennanNY.

***
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.

An Opportunity to Boost the Environment, Economy, and Workers


(photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Street construction (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


We have at times been led to believe that legislation can typically only fall in one of the following categories: environmental improvement, economic boost, or labor-friendly. In fact, we have actually seen instances where this is true and the goals outlined within a bill are at odds with others.

But New York has an opportunity this session to support and pass legislation that clearly encompasses all three: the Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance Act (REQAA). Long bill name, huge potential impact.

The REQAA would require that workers be paid prevailing wage when crews have to cut open a street to do utility work. And attaching prevailing wage to this type of job, which is very common, is far more consequential than you might think. First, prevailing wage means trained, highly-skilled workers are doing the job – workers whose skill-sets ensure timely and efficient repairs, so you’re not without power, heat, cooling, etc. for extended periods of time. If these skilled workers are making repairs to a damaged utility line, they would be able to stop a gas leak more quickly.

Better for the environment, better for everyone paying a utility company for service.

Importantly, paying prevailing wage means the workers doing these dangerous jobs are paid a livable, family-sustaining wage. In short, they can afford to feed their families, live a solid middle-class life, and have the financial resources to patronize their hometown shops and restaurants.

Better for a deserving workforce, a shot in the arm for the economy.

It’s important to recognize that New York’s energy landscape is evolving, and the job market for people who work in this field is, too. Passing the REQAA would be a prime example of making sure that as the energy industry is advancing, it takes the workers with it.

The REQAA is an opportunity for labor, environmentalists, and economists to fight together for a better future for New York State. Don’t you think we owe this to all New Yorkers?

***
Patrick Purcell, Jr. is the Executive Director of the New York State Laborers-Employers Cooperation & Education Trust. Assemblymember Karines Reyes proudly represents the 87th District of New York State. On Twitter @KarinesReyes87 & @NYSTriFunds.

***
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 Other Theodore Roosevelt Statue at the American Museum of Natural History: A More Fitting Tribute to the Conservation President


theodore roosevelt sculpture

Theodore Roosevelt in the AMNH (photo: amnh.org)


The American Museum of Natural History in New York recently arranged for the removal of the controversial equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt from the front of the museum, where it had stood since 1940. The decision to remove the statue came about in response to charges that the statue reflects racist and colonial values. Given all the national publicity related to this event, the public could easily conclude that Roosevelt's special connection to the museum is no longer being honored, but such is not the case.

The museum still has a bronze sculpture of Roosevelt on display in its Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Hall. This bronze sculpture depicts Roosevelt as a real person sitting on a bench with room for visitors to sit beside him.

These two statues differ dramatically in how they represent Roosevelt. Designed in 1939 by James Earle Fraser, the equestrian monument depicts Roosevelt as if he were a colonial ruler.  He looks larger than life and a bit aloof as he sits astride his horse, flanked by African- and Native-American men walking a step or two behind him. 

The bronze sculpture of Roosevelt sitting on a bench is a much more approachable depiction of Roosevelt. Created by Studio EIS in Brooklyn and unveiled in November 2012, this life-sized sculpture is based on photographs that were taken of Roosevelt when he and naturalist John Muir went camping together in Yosemite in 1903. Soon after this camping trip, Roosevelt set into motion a plan that resulted in a tremendous expansion of the land set aside for national forests and new national parks. In this sculpture, he looks like a rugged outdoorsman, which is exactly what he was.

Although the equestrian monument stood at the front of the American Museum of Natural History for more than 80 years, it really has very little to do with Roosevelt’s connections to the field of natural history.  In contrast, the sculpture of Roosevelt sitting on a bench in the middle of the American Museum of Natural History speaks directly to his long-standing interest in natural history and his support for the American Museum of Natural History.

Roosevelt’s interest in natural history is reflected in his reading. One of his favorite books from his childhood was John George Wood’s Homes without Hands: Being a Description of the Habitations of Animals, Classed According to Their Principle of Construction, a scientific treatise that originally came out in 1866. He continued to read books about natural history throughout his life. His library at Sagamore Hill, Roosevelt’s home in Oyster Bay, New York, is still extant, and it includes hundreds of books that relate to natural history. 

His interest in natural history extended into the realm of field work. When he entered Harvard in 1876, his dream was to study the natural sciences in the field and become an ornithologist like his role model John James Audubon. The sculpture of Roosevelt sitting on the bench captures this side of Roosevelt. He is depicted holding the pair of binoculars that he often used when observing wildlife.

Roosevelt’s association with the American Museum of Natural History also goes back to his childhood.  In fact, his father co-founded the museum in 1871. Even as a boy, Roosevelt donated specimens from his own taxidermy collection to the museum. As an adult, he remained an ardent supporter of the museum, so it is fitting that this sculpture is located just steps away from the museum’s exhibits of North American mammals and other wildlife.

Roosevelt is sometimes described as the conservation president, and the sculpture of him sitting in the middle of the American Museum of Natural History celebrates this side of President Roosevelt.

***
Mark I. West, Ph.D., is the Bonnie E. Cone Professor in Civic Engagement and a Professor of English at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and author of the forthcoming book, Theodore Roosevelt and His Library at Sagamore Hill.

***
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