A teacher at work (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
I had missed the call from my son’s school because I was on yet another Zoom. When I called back, my world turned on its head as I heard words like “suspicious package” “white powder,” and “lockdown.”
When I reached my son’s school on the Upper West Side, I found the block cordoned off, flashing police cars and ambulances lining the block, people in stark white hazmat suits going in and out of the school and terrified parents like me waiting on the periphery.
This ordeal would drag on for hours but the teachers kept their cool and kept my little guy and his schoolmates fed, happy, and safe.
Teachers are heroic. We ask them to be everything to everyone, but, as a nation, we have paid a lot of lip service to honoring them. New York City has worked hard over the years to support pedagogues and partnered with grassroots organizations like March For Our Lives to advocate for change. Last week, we celebrated our teachers during Teacher Appreciation Week. Now, we are calling on our nation to commit to supporting educators and providing them with the resources to not only do the jobs they are hired to do — teach — but the critical work they end up doing: being our children’s protectors and social workers.
Schools should be havens, places where all students, teachers, and staff feel safe. Sadly, as a society we have drifted away from that ideal. At March For Our Lives, young leaders have recounted to us time and again the feelings of dread and fear they feel in their own schools, too. We were founded in the wake of a horrific mass shooting, and over the years young people have fought to lift up the great needs in our nation’s schools and communities — the real world challenges that include the threat of violence.
Nearly 40,000 people are killed by firearms each year, and in recent years firearms have become the leading cause of death in children and adolescents. Teachers are often on the front lines caring for the trauma and emotional toll that this loss inflicts on our communities and on our young people, and yet they’re too often overburdened and under-resourced. The pandemic has only exacerbated these challenges.
At March For Our Lives, as we’ve expanded our mission beyond school-based mass shootings to confront gun violence across our communities, we’ve heard time and time again that we need laws and trusted adults to look out for kids — to work to create the safest environment for all of us by investing in solutions that prevent violence from occurring in the first place like violence intervention programs, so that places like schools remain places of care and learning rather than fear.
In New York City government, our leadership has recognized that COVID-19 is taking a profound toll on the mental health of our youth. And so the city took action by increasing direct mental health support for thousands of students in the neighborhoods hardest hit by the novel coronavirus.
Spearheaded by the city’s Taskforce for Racial Inclusion and Equity, mental health workers are working with students at 350 schools in the most economically vulnerable neighborhoods. Students who have experienced trauma – whether that be a severe illness or death in the family or a parent’s job loss – now have access to group therapy sessions.
Not only are these mental health specialists providing direct services to students, but they are also providing mental health education to caregivers and school staff so that they can help address students’ mental health needs. It’s a model we believe is worth replicating across the nation.
As we look to all the ways to build back better from covid, we need to add more supports and resources for teachers into our plans for a “new normal.” There were already gaping disparities in education pre-pandemic. As a society, we are going to have to work even harder to overcome these inequities that have only grown worse in the past year.
More than a year into this pandemic, with millions of students across the U.S. still learning from home, undoubtedly parents everywhere have gained a new appreciation for all teachers do. So let’s not just talk the talk, but walk the walk.
As for my son, while I stood by helplessly outside the school with the other parents, his teacher texted to say the kids were playing, making art, and blissfully unaware of the chaos around them. Apparently, the police officers were “special guests.” He still thinks that was “the best day ever” at school. He was actually bummed to leave school – for which I am eternally grateful. Teachers are superheroes.
***
Penny Abeywardena is the Commissioner of NYC Mayor’s Office for International Affairs and Alexis Confer is the Executive Director of March For Our Lives. On Twitter @PAbeywardena and @AlexisConfer.
***
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.
(photo: Edwin J. Torres. Mayoral Photo Office)
New Yorkers know that love of neighborhood is synonymous with love of small businesses. But in 2020, we suddenly learned just how thin the reserves of our shops, restaurants, and bars can be. Many New Yorkers responded by doubling down on that love of local; meanwhile, too many businesses felt deeply let down by their elected officials as they faced mounting rent debt and great uncertainty. And so when small business owners vote in June’s Democratic primary to elect the next mayor, many will be voting for the candidate they believe can best revitalize the main streets of our neighborhoods.
Most candidates are talking about small businesses. Good.
There is widespread agreement to cut more red tape. We may finally get that one-stop portal for all permitting needs. There may be stimulus through sales tax holidays. But these are mostly lightweight fixes. None of them address the more worrisome trend that since the early 1980s, small business start-up has been declining while concentration in most industries has grown.
Between 2000 and 2015, we lost 108,000 independent retailers. Pre-pandemic, Black business ownership was only at 2% in New York City. To create a thriving small business economy, the next mayor has to address this city’s long-term commercial affordability challenge, which plays out in two ways: in how market rents are determined and in who gets access to capital for business start-up and growth.
Between 2007 and 2017, retail rents rose by 22% citywide, a rate that was much greater in pockets like Williamsburg and doubled in neighborhoods like Soho. Now the pandemic has brought incredible variation to the marketplace. Here’s a snapshot: CBRE data shows that rents are especially down in Manhattan’s higher-end retail corridors. According to reporting in The City this March, “The deals [being discussed] include periods of free rent - along with rent being a percentage of the sales in the first two years, followed by a reset to market rents in years three and four.” This was echoed by the Wall Street Journal, which cited brokers seeing lease resets returning rents to 2019 levels. It also reported very short-term leases being signed as well as landlords keeping spaces off the market to lock in higher rents later under a recovered economy.
The New York Hospitality Alliance’s December survey of more than 400 restaurants and bars found that 86% of businesses reported failing to renegotiate their leases. I know of a Gowanus performance venue currently being asked to renew their lease at a considerable increase while another business peer inquired on a property and was told that the landlord was only considering chain tenants. By contrast, the business improvement district (BID) for Park Slope’s Fifth Avenue has seen more new leases signed than the number of businesses that closed in 2020. In sum, deals are happening but we would be absolutely naive to think the pandemic will only bring about long-term affordability and small business opportunity.
This lack of affordability has been driven by the interplay of big brands, banks, and developers. Online retailers have realized that they still need brick and mortar locations while multinational chains have been eager to expand beyond the high-end retail corridors of Manhattan into other boroughs. In such cases, rent is often parked as an advertising cost and affordability is not a function of revenues estimated to be earned in that location. And as smaller landlords have exited in place of larger developers, the latter tend to hold commercial mortgages underwritten by mostly national banks that have stringent requirements on rent rolls and a comfort for chain store tenants.
These banks are also determining who gets access to capital that can help create affordability for entrepreneurs. The four dominant banks in the U.S. have been lending less to small businesses since the Great Recession. Black entrepreneurs in New York City have overwhelmingly identified access to capital as their number one challenge. Under the pandemic, more small business owners have taken on debt and some are in personal bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Shake Shack has announced that it is borrowing $225 million to fund a massive expansion.
The result is that giant corporations, banks, and developers are all too often determining the landscape of our neighborhoods while small businesses are seen as a problem to fix through mostly technical assistance. So what is the next mayor to do?
One approach is to let markets be markets and accept that New York City has a “sticky rent” problem but create ways to get tax dollars back to small business tenants or to landlords who rent to small business tenants under favorable terms . A different approach would be to try to actually lower the rents themselves by creating caps on increases in high residential neighborhoods, either directly through a regulatory board or indirectly by altering the marketplace of what kinds of businesses can bid on a space, such as the zoning permissions San Francisco uses to keep chains out beyond their downtown corridor or the law North Dakota uses to keep out chain pharmacies. A vacancy tax on viable commercial spaces would be another tool in this approach. At the same time, the next mayor needs to consider how to grow both the assets and locations of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to get capital into the hands of more entrepreneurs.
Revitalizing our main streets across the five boroughs for the long-term is a massive challenge but with the right dose of ideas, research, and courage, we can make progress. The next mayor must lead the way.
***
Natasha Amott is a small business owner and active in small business advocacy. On Twitter @Natasha_Amott.
***
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.
Quintona Armwood, the author
About eight years ago, I lost my apartment when I was pregnant with my son, Kailyn. After experiencing for myself what it’s like to be homeless, to not have a permanent place to live, I got a job as a security officer at a homeless shelter. I could relate to the shelter clients, so I set out to help them get back on their feet.
I loved my job then and I still do now. However, because of the poor work conditions at the shelters, I am only a few steps away from being homeless myself again.
The $16.50/hour that I receive is still not enough for me to afford my own apartment. Today, I live with my mom and work two full-time jobs: one as a security officer at Crystal’s Place shelter in the Bronx and another as a medical assistant at a private clinic. Because I work about 16 hours on an average day, I leave my son in my mother’s care. On the days when I’m lucky, I get to come home when he’s still awake and tuck him into bed.
I have to make hard choices every day. Whether it is between being able to support my son through school or putting food on the table, being able to pay my electricity bill or taking my son to a professional to address issues related to his ADHD.
Every day, I ask myself if I am failing my son as a mother. I ask myself if I am failing my mother, a military veteran who has sacrificed so much for me and for our country. In reality, the system is failing people like me.
As private shelter security officers, we work in dangerous and stressful environments with little pay, no meaningful benefits, and little training on how to actually perform our duties. Even though we are expected to protect New York City’s most vulnerable, we cannot even sustain and protect ourselves. We perform essential duties for our city, yet still have to often rely on government services such as Medicaid for our own health and safety.
We have the opportunity to change that once and for all. The Safety In Our Shelters Act, or SOS Act, (Intros. 1995/2006) in the New York City Council would raise the standards for workers like me and ensure that privately run shelters are providing decent wages, benefits, and training opportunities to security workers.
With the SOS Act, I would have the training I need to de-escalate conflicts that may arise in the shelters so I can better protect shelter clients. Instead of relying on Medicaid, I could have health insurance through my job like all essential workers should. I could make enough money to address my son’s special needs, or perhaps even be home to cook him dinner, spend time with him, and kiss him goodnight.
As the daughter of a military veteran and a single mother, I know what it means to make sacrifices for what you love. I also know what it means to fight for what’s right. The New York City Council has repeatedly stood up for workers like me and given us a shot at a fair life in this city. We ask them to pass the SOS Act without delay.
***
Quintona Armwood is a security officer and a mother.
***
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.
Latino leaders in the Bronx (photo: Ruben Diaz Jr.)
This piece is part of Latino Vote ‘21, a series of columns on the Latino vote and the 2021 New York City elections.
I mentioned in my previous column introducing this series on the Latino vote in the 2021 New York City elections that the growing Latino presence in New York has meant a slow but steady increase in Latino voting participation. This increase may possibly lead to greater Latino representation across the city. This city election cycle -- with all of city government on the ballot in June primaries and a fall general election -- can prove this theory right or wrong.
We begin our exploration in the Bronx, the borough Latinos call “El Condado de la Salsa” (the borough of Salsa music), with five City Council districts that are contested and have large Latino populations — Council districts 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18.
I am deliberately omitting district 16, which I briefly highlight here because interestingly enough the district is majority Latino, from that list. However, even there, Latino voting participation lags behind other ethnic groups, with African-Americans and a growing African population being the next largest groups. The district has been represented by African-Americans for decades, the most recent being Vanessa Gibson, who is now running for Bronx borough president. Helen Foster represented the district before Gibson, and replaced her father, Wendell Foster. While Latinos make up the largest group in the district, no Latino candidates are on the ballot for the June primary this year.
Our look into the Council districts begins in the northwestern part of the Bronx, the 11th district. Eric Dinowitz, son of Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz, recently won a special election, besting a number of candidates, one of whom was a Latina, Mino Lora, who is running again in the June primary. The 11th Council district demographically points to a trend that is happening in other parts of the city—Latinos have outpaced other ethnic groups in voting population numbers. Interestingly, Latinos are now the largest ethnic group in this district that has been historically represented by non-Latinos.
In addition to Lora, who has received the endorsement of a number of progressive groups and leaders, Marcos Sierra, a current Democratic District leader, is the other Latino in the race. Having two Latinos on the ballot does not bode well for either of them since it presents the likelihood of a divided Latino vote.
Further east, the 13th Council district is currently represented by Mark Gjonaj, who is not running for re-election. It is likely that Latinos will gain representation with this open seat, especially since Marjorie Velazquez, a top candidate for the position, has garnered much support and is the only candidate in this race that has received public matching money (she narrowly lost to Gjonaj four years ago). A Velazquez win will not only increase Latino representation at the Council but also increase female representation in that august legislative body that has seen a significant gender imbalance.
Further west lies the 14th Council district. I believe this open seat, currently represented by term-limited Bronx borough president candidate Fernando Cabrera, will be the most contested seat in the Bronx. There are six candidates on the ballot and five of the six have already received over $100,000 in public matching money. Several, like Haile Rivera, Yudelka Tapia, and Adolfo Abreu have had long-standing relationships and community work in the district. Fernando Aquino, also contending for the post, was a communications director for former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and Pierina Sanchez has garnered the support of numerous elected officials and labor unions. This race is one to watch.
Right next door to the 14th is the 15th Council district. Oswald Feliz recently won the special election there to replace Ritchie Torres, who won his election to Congress last June. Some of the other candidates that ran in that election will vie for the post again in June, including Ischia Bravo, who garnered labor support in her bid for the seat. Feliz, whose victory surprised many observers, had the support of Congressional Rep. Adriano Espaillat.
Feliz’s victory in the 15th Council district is the first for a Dominican. The seat has been represented by Puerto Ricans for decades. This victory marks a shift that has long been observed because of the steady increase of Dominicans in New York. It is clear that Dominican voters have now become a powerhouse in the Bronx. Though according to modeled data by the likes of prominent voter data companies L2 and Catalist, Puerto Ricans still outnumber Dominicans in the voting population, Dominicans are quickly inching their way to the top. Feliz’s victory points to this reality.
The last Council district we are looking at in the Bronx is the 18th. After serving a term in the Council and losing to Ritchie Torres in last year’s congressional race, the Rev. Ruben Diaz Sr. has decided not to seek re-election. Several candidates are vying for the seat, including some returning contestants like Michael Beltzer and Amanda Farias. There’s also William Rivera, the district manager of Community Board 9, who recently received the endorsement of outgoing Bronx Borough President, Ruben Diaz Jr. Others who are on the ballot and have received public funding include Mohammed Mujumder, who received the maximum.
The two front-runners seem to be Farias and Rivera. Farias has earned the support of many labor and activist organizations and elected officials across the city, and has received the maximum in public funds. Rivera, who has also received the maximum and now Diaz, Jr.’s endorsement, will be a top contender and would need to use every penny possible to offset the organizing efforts of labor and others on behalf of Farias. A Farias victory would see the return of Latina representation at the Council in this district some years after the district was represented by Annabel Palma.
All in all, the quality of Latino candidates in the Bronx >-- the city’s most-Latino borough -- is impressive, especially since there appears to be an increase in political activity among young Latinos, evident by the number of hotly-contested races featuring young Latino candidates.
My next column will look at another hotly contested race in the Bronx, this one the big enchilada—the Borough President’s race.
This piece is part of Latino Vote ‘21, a series of columns on the Latino vote and the 2021 New York City elections.
***
Eli Valentin is an adjunct lecturer at Union Theological Seminary, a frequent guest political analyst at Univision NY and author of the forthcoming, 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.
Horse carriage ride (photo: @shinyasuzuki)
Flashback to the 2013 New York City mayor’s race where one front-and-center issue that ultimately helped propel Bill de Blasio to City Hall was whether to ban horse-drawn carriages in New York City. Eight years later, not much has changed except for little to no attention on the issue in the 2021 mayor’s race. As long-time horse advocates, we believe this business to be inhumane and dangerous — both for the horses and the public — particularly in a congested city like New York.
We’ve long wanted to see the end of the urban carriage horse trade. However, one key thing did change between 2013 and now and that is innovation. There is now a new alternative that would preserve this long-time New York City tourist tradition, including the jobs that come with it, while protecting the wellbeing of the horses and the public.
The question we asked ourselves is how could we achieve a similar effect as an outright ban, but also get the drivers and their union to agree it would be beneficial for all? To find the answer, we turned to our friends across the border and to what a growing number of cities around the world are starting to implement in electric-powered carriages.
In August 2019, we traveled to Guadalajara, Mexico on a fact-finding mission to learn about the new electric carriages replacing the longtime horse carriages in that city. Two years earlier, Enrique Alfaro Ramírez, the mayor of Guadalajara at the time, signed a law to ban the horse carriages, stating, “we cannot continue to mistake the idea of tradition with animal abuse.” We were impressed with what we saw in this lovely, historic, global city – the second largest in Mexico and one of its most important cultural centers.
At the time of our visit the transition was halfway complete and we talked to several drivers operating the electric carriages. They told us how much they enjoyed the experience; how their income was much higher; how they did not have to worry about their horses’ upkeep; or the disapproving public – something all carriage drivers deal with in a very controversial business. With the assistance of a local attorney who also runs an animal protection organization, all the horses were placed in good homes.
We returned to New York eager to share what we learned and to start a serious dialogue about this exciting new option -- to reimagine New York City with electric carriages. Unfortunately, the pandemic brought everything to a screeching halt, including the city’s tourism industry with many cultural institutions, restaurants, and hotels forced to close and nearly $5 billion in local tax revenue gone.
As tourists slowly trickle back to New York City as we approach the summer season, we have an opportunity to build back better, which includes exploring a renewed industry of electric carriages that will not only save existing jobs but create new ones. And we are starting to see a worldwide movement.
In addition to Guadalajara, electric carriage rides are offered in Mumbai, India; Cologne, Germany; and Dubai, UAE, to name a few. Some cities have outright banned the trade, eliminating the horse carriages with no replacement alternative, including Salt Lake City, Chicago, and Asheville in the U.S. and international cities including Barcelona , Old San Juan, and Montreal.
New York City could become the first U.S. city to make this shift as responsible and compassionate tourism has evolved and people become increasingly concerned about the commercialized use of animals in tourist entertainment, like what we see around Central Park. In early 2020, a carriage horse named Aysha collapsed in Central Park and later died. Another horse collapsed in the park in December but was forced to get up and continue to work. These disturbing incidents, two examples of many, are a black mark on the business and the city. A horse in congested and chaotic traffic is a horse at risk. It does not have to be this way.
As with Guadalajara, electric carriages will need wide-ranging support and we recognize this isn’t a change overnight. The newly-elected mayor, the new City Council speaker and Council, the unions, business community, and all the key players would need to come together next year. But we should be talking about it right now.
In Guadalajara, no one thought this was possible, but after much work and negotiations, what once seemed impossible became a win-win for all involved. We know many things will need to be worked out, including how the evolution is funded; new regulations to allow the electric carriages to operate; installing charging stations; and determining where the carriages would be parked overnight – and developing a plan to ensure that the horses are placed in sanctuaries or good homes.
But it’s all doable. New York is a city of endless possibilities and opportunity. We just need the will to implement a viable alternative that improves the quality of life for all, while preserving the business in a different form. Come January, we hope the next mayor seizes that opportunity.
***
Elizabeth Forel & Susan Wagner are Co-Founders- Committee for Compassionate & Responsible Tourism.
***
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.
Ourdoor dining (photo: @nycgov)
In March of 2020, COVID-19 brought the pulse of our vibrant city to a devastating halt. New Yorkers were directed to stay in their homes, subways shut down and buses cleared out, offices closed, small businesses shuttered, and the vibrant action stopped in the restaurants that are so essential to our culture and quality of life.
Now, I may be biased, but I believe that Brooklyn has some of the best food options the city has to offer -- and some of the hardest working service workers, too! So when businesses in our communities reached out for urgent relief while the pandemic raged, I sponsored and passed legislation for outdoor dining to be allowed all across New York City.
It worked. Restaurants expanded onto our sidewalks and into our streets. Relieved owners received a newfound ability to serve customers in a safe manner after months of lost revenue. Residents were delighted to leave their homes and apartments, helping to relieve cabin fever and offering a glimmer of “normalcy.” Kitchen and wait staff had work. We also found an amazing opportunity to reimagine our streetscape, reclaiming precious sidewalk and street space for New Yorkers — building community and providing an economic lifeline.
The outdoor dining program saved countless restaurants from bankruptcy while creating more space for residents to enjoy our street life, lifting the spirit of our city in an otherwise dark period. As we emerge from this pandemic, outdoor dining is a successful program we should keep, not just for our neighborhoods, but for all the small businesses still fighting to survive. With the obvious benefits for employers, employees, and our city as a whole, it deserves to keep going, especially if we learn from past lessons and make key improvements.
We must make the program more accessible to small businesses in every corner of our city by increasing educational outreach, providing technical assistance so businesses are set up for success, and streamlining the cure process for infractions.
From the taquerias and dim sum restaurants of Sunset Park to the roti shops in Flatbush, what makes New York City’s restaurant scene so tantalizing is its diversity. We need to ensure that restaurant owners in outer-borough communities of color -- those neighborhoods hit hardest by the pandemic -- have the tools necessary to successfully utilize the outdoor dining program. We can do this by increasing targeted, multilingual, educational outreach about the program and how to use it. Encouraging more restaurants to participate not only helps the individual businesses, but will also uplift communities that have suffered the most during this pandemic. Increased outdoor dining will attract more customers to locally owned businesses and create more vibrant outdoor spaces, powering neighborhood recoveries.
Getting an outdoor dining program up and running at a restaurant is just one piece of the puzzle. We also need to make it easier for restaurants to successfully use the program. This means ensuring that technical assistance and support is readily available. Let’s set businesses up for success by equipping restaurant owners and workers with knowledge about how to set up a safe and compliant outdoor dining space and avoid fines. While several agencies are able to levy fines, information about how to avoid and cure violations should be easily accessible from one central source and available in all languages. Restaurant owners and workers need to spend this time making their businesses successful, not navigating a needlessly complex bureaucracy of city government in order to avoid being fined.
As we begin to emerge from pandemic restrictions, we have to look back and assess our government’s response to the challenges we faced. We can be proud of what we did with outdoor dining, creating a policy that extended a critical lifeline to our residents, reimagined how our streets and sidewalks could be used, and provided our neighbors with a safe and much-needed escape in a time of great isolation.
Moving forward, we need to make sure that the program becomes permanent and harness its benefits while improving access and usability so that all small business owners can take advantage of this opportunity as we recover. Our restaurants have intersectional relationships with our communities, creating jobs, particularly for immigrant communities, serving as local gathering spaces, and giving hard-working New Yorkers a place to blow off steam. I want to build on this creativity and excitement, and if elected Brooklyn Borough President I will continue to explore innovative solutions that open up our public spaces in ways that benefit all Brooklynites.
***
City Council Member Antonio Reynoso represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens. On Twitter @CMReynoso34.
***
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.
Voting (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayoral Photo Office)
In April 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo virtually forced the New York legislature to make severe changes to New York’s ballot access laws, by inserting those changes into a budget bill, which had to pass in order to avoid chaos. If those changes are not reversed, New York voters will invariably see only two candidates on their general election ballots in 2022 for almost all congressional and statewide races. In 2024, for president, chances are also high that they will see only the Democratic and Republican nominees on the November ballot.
One change increased the petition for statewide office from 15,000 to 45,000 signatures required to appear on the ballot. However, for 2020 only, Governor Andrew Cuomo reduced it to 30,000 signatures by executive order due to the pandemic. Even with that reduction, not one statewide independent petition succeeded in 2020. In the entire history of New York’s government-printed ballots, which originated in 1890, this was only the second time when not one statewide petition succeeded in a presidential or gubernatorial election year. The only other instance was in 1956, when the only two groups that tried, the Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Workers Party, had their statewide petitions challenged and rejected.
In the spring of 1992, when Ross Perot was starting to run for president as an independent, the New York petition requirement was 20,000 signatures. Although Perot was very popular in the national polls, and was rapidly getting on the ballot in all the other states, New York legislators were concerned that Perot would not be able to get on the ballot in New York. So they eased the petition requirement, to 15,000 signatures. The bills that made that liberalizing change, S7922 and A11505, were obviously motivated to avoid the embarrassment of Perot getting on the ballot in all states except New York, because the effective date for the reduction in signatures for other statewide office was set in 1993, but the reduction for president went into effect the day the bill was signed. Governor Mario Cuomo signed the bill on May 8, 1992. Perot did then get on the ballot in New York and all other states.
If the 1992 session of the legislature had a plausible fear that 20,000 signatures was too difficult for someone as popular as Ross Perot, it makes no sense that Governor Andrew Cuomo chose 45,000 for future statewide petitions, unless he desired to block all future statewide independent petitions.
The severity of the statewide petition increase was not obvious in 2020, because New York already had eight ballot-qualified parties. The Libertarian, Green, and Independence Parties were each free to nominate someone for president without a petition, and did so. Therefore, New York voters had five candidates for president on the general election ballots: Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian), Howie Hawkins (Green), and Brock Pierce (independent). The SAM Party, which was also on the ballot, chose not to have a presidential nominee. The Working Families Party listed Biden; the Conservative Party listed Trump.
But, the 2020 ballot access change had another provision, increasing the requirements for a group to meet the definition of a ballot-qualified political party. It increased that definition so severely that four of New York’s parties are no longer automatically on the ballot. If they want to run in 2022 and future years, they will first need to get 45,000 valid signatures for their top-of-ticket nominee. To put the difficulty of getting 45,000 signatures in perspective, note that in 2020, not one independent candidate, and not one minor party, successfully completed any petition anywhere in the nation that exceeded 5,000 signatures, for any office. Granted, petitioning in 2020 was especially difficult due to the covid health crisis.
Defenders of the new definition of “political party,” a group that polled at least 2% for the office at the top of the ticket every two years, in gubernatorial and presidential elections, argue that the Working Families and Conservative Parties meet the new definition, so that New Yorkers will still have four parties to choose from. But in New York, the Working Families Party has never, in its 23-year history, nominated anyone for statewide office who was not the Democratic nominee. For the U.S. House, the Working Families Party also almost never runs anyone other than the Democratic nominee. In 2020 it had only one nominee for U.S. House who was not also the Democratic nominee, and that was an unintended accident, and if the Working Families Party had won in court, even that one nominee would have been replaced by the Democratic nominee.
The Conservative Party generally nominates the Republican nominee. For president, it has never nominated anyone who was not also the Republican nominee. For other statewide offices, it has not run someone who was not the Republican nominee since the U.S. Senate race in 2004. For the U.S. House, it almost always nominates the Republican nominee. In 2020, there were only two districts in which it ran someone against the Republican nominees. Therefore, the presence on the ballot of the Conservative and Working Families Parties barely adds to the list of candidates.
In 2020, in the U.S. House races, 17 of New York’s 27 races had at least three candidates on the ballot, but that was almost entirely due to the fact that the Libertarian, Green, and SAM Parties had their own nominees. Without those parties on the ballot in future elections, virtually every U.S. House race, and the vast majority of state legislative races, will have only the Democratic and Republican nominees on the ballot.
New York has been one of the states with the most third party and independent choices on the ballot for its entire history, and New Yorkers have been the voters most likely to elect such a candidate to Congress, compared to the voters of the other states. Individuals who were not Democratic or Republican nominees were elected to Congress from New York in 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1970. In the last 100 years, no other state can match that level of political diversity in congressional elections. If New York wants to keep its storied political diversity, the ballot access changes of 2020 must be reversed.
***
Richard Winger is the publisher of Ballot Access News.
***
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.
NYPD recruits (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography)
An officer slams a driver on the hood of a car during a traffic stop, then punches the driver’s sister twice in the face, and escapes punishment. Another officer draws his gun on an 11- and a 13-year-old playing in a city park, and sees the charges against him dismissed without trial. A lieutenant pushes a man from a crowded sidewalk into traffic, and has his guilty verdict vacated. Dozens of cops with repeated disciplinary citations, including one serial abuser of humiliating full-body searches, rise through the ranks of the NYPD unimpeded.
Right now, this is how oversight of the NYPD functions – or, more accurately, fails to function. In New York City, despite the existence of a so-called oversight body, the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the discipline of police officers for even the worst misconduct comes down to the whims of one man: the Police Commissioner, who is legally empowered to toss out guilty verdicts, ignore investigative findings, and vacate punishments that in many cases were only imposed at all after years of legal wrangling.
Over the last 20 years, the NYPD reduced or eliminated punishment in a whopping 71% of the most serious cases of police misconduct. Recent years have seen little improvement. In 2018, the Police Commissioner dismissed officer punishments issued after a trial in 62% of cases. In 2019, the Police Commissioner reduced or eliminated officer punishments in 49% of non-trial cases, and in 38% of serious charges warranting trial. In the first half of 2020, the NYPD declined any punishment at all in 48% of serious cases that went to trial. Check out the monthly statistics put out by the CCRB and it’s the same story: in cases minor and major, the Commissioner steps in to lessen or vacate officer punishment.
The problem here isn’t just an oblique issue of justice, although it is unjust. When police officers know they are unlikely to be punished for their misconduct – indeed, will likely continue to receive promotions and accrue status – they behave accordingly. As a former CCRB investigator, I saw officers skip out on interviews for weeks. When they did participate, they “forgot” most details of an incident. Today, officers continue to lie to the CCRB without consequence. It is not an agency that is taken seriously.
If it sounds bleak, it is. But I have good news. Last month, the New York City Council passed a resolution formally asking the state government to enact legislation that would remove the Police Commissioner’s exclusive authority to determine police discipline — authority which, by any fair accounting, he has abused.
Now, it is the state’s turn to shoulder some of the responsibility for the largest police force within its borders. While I’ve argued that New York City can go it alone, the current City Council believes it needs the State to pass a new law that modifies the Police Commissioner’s discretion and gives real teeth to the city’s NYPD oversight mechanisms. And on that, I have more good news: there is a bill ready to be taken up, passed, and signed.
Bronx Senator Jamaal Bailey and Queens Assemblymember Catalina Cruz are sponsoring such legislation (S5252). The bill is narrow, and makes two changes to the law. First, it would remove the Police Commissioner’s authority to reject or modify disciplinary determinations made by the CCRB. Second, it would preserve officer due process while moving disciplinary trials to an independent body (they are currently heard in, you guessed it, the NYPD’s internal court system, another conflict of interest).
These two changes would have a profound effect on policing in New York City, and by focusing solely on accountability for officer misbehavior, are refined and targeted to what should be an uncontroversial reform. This is not defunding – and I say that as a Defunder. Cops who don’t break the rules would never even know this law was passed. This is as close to the lowest hanging fruit of reform as it gets, and yet, it would still provide a measure of accountability that could radically change NYPD culture.
All too often, when a police officer kills an unarmed person, we later learn that he or she had a history of misconduct and nobody stepped in. Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who killed Eric Garner, had seven civilian complaints, with two substantiations – in total, he lost two vacation days and kept actively patrolling the streets right up until the day he choked Garner to death. We can never know if better oversight would have prevented Garner’s killing, but if we are serious about stopping these needless deaths, just doing nothing cannot be an option.
Governor Cuomo wants police reform – indeed, he is demanding it. The vast majority of Assembly members and Senators, moderates and liberals alike, have called for serious fixes to a clearly broken system. In New York City, we want to do our part, and our elected officials could not have been clearer: we need Albany to act. Let us make these vital changes to the law, before we lose one more life to a rogue cop.
***
John Teufel is a lawyer, writer, and activist based in Brooklyn. On Twitter @JohnTeufelNYC.
***
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 Wall Street rally for public banking (photo: @PublicBankNYC)
In recent memory public banking was an idea that belonged either to a distant utopian future or a distant populist past. But today, not only is public banking on the agenda of major New York politicians, but competing visions of public banking are on offer.
The coalition Public Bank NYC (PBNYC) is running a grassroots effort to create a public bank for New York City, while mayoral candidate Andrew Yang proposes to initiate public banking through the mayor’s executive authority. Despite the two camps sharing certain goals, they do not represent the same movement.
Whereas PBNYC’s core goal is to disentangle the city’s finances from Wall Street, Yang includes collaboration with Wall Street companies as part of his public banking proposal. At the same time that Yang’s proposal signals growing support for public banking it also complicates the issue of just what is meant by “public banking.”
PBNYC is a coalition of more than 40 community, labor, and cooperative groups including the New Economy Project and New York Communities for Change. The collective mission of PBNYC is the creation of a municipal chartered bank. That would mean a bank that is both owned and managed by the City of New York, and so is accountable to New York voters. One of PBNYC’s goals for a public bank is the reduction of underbanking. Many of New York’s poorest communities suffer from a lack of access to financial services, especially historically redlined communities of color. Such a lack of access drives individuals to use alternatives like check-cashing services, prepaid debit cards, and high-interest loan services, which are expensive and generally do not contribute to a credit score. One role of a public bank, then, would be to fill this gap left by the market through partnerships with community-based credit unions and loan funds.
But PBNYC’s core goal for a public bank is divestment of public funds from Wall Street. New York City finances its public institutions with tens of billions of dollars of municipal funds collected from taxes and other sources. The city government entrusts these funds to private banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which invest the funds in the stock market to generate additional revenue. These private banks are known to invest in the fossil fuel industry and the private prison industry, and to engage in banking practices such as high overdraft charges that PBNYC deems harmful to New Yorkers. For these reasons, PBNYC states that a public bank should take on the role of investing the city’s municipal funds, both to stop subsidizing Wall Street banks and to make the investment of public funds more transparent and democratically accountable.
Once municipal funds are in the hands of a public bank, PBNYC says they can be diverted out of extractive industries and into green energy, small businesses, workers’ cooperatives, and community land trusts. To realize their mission, PBNYC is putting its organizing behind several legislative initiatives.
One is the New York Public Banking Act, which is sponsored by Queens State Senator James Sanders in the State Senate and Bronx Assemblymember Victor Pichardo in the State Assembly. The Act would not itself create a public bank, but would instead create a legal framework for the creation of a future public bank, as none of New York’s current laws were written with a public bank in mind. The bill is currently in committee in both houses.
PBNYC also supports the banking reform legislation put forward to the New York City Council by City Council Member Mike Levine of Manhattan. If passed, the legislation would mandate that the city government be more transparent in its dealing with the banks that manage municipal funds, and would establish the Council’s official endorsement of the New York Public Banking Act. On April 28 members of the coalition testified at a hearing where the Council was discussing Levine’s legislation.
At the hearing, Andy Morrison of the New Economy Project said, “Together these bills represent the first steps toward formation of a democratic financial institution that can ensure that New York City’s public money is used for the public good, to advance racial equity and a just recovery [from COVID-19].” The public banking legislation in the City Council and the State Senate is the present culmination of PBNYC’s long and ongoing struggle to establish a public bank for New York City.
In January, Andrew Yang entered the field of New York’s public banking movement. The entrepreneur and 2020 presidential candidate, best known for championing universal basic income, announced that he was running for mayor of New York, and that public banking was on his agenda. His platform includes a proposal for what he calls a “People’s Bank of New York.”
The People’s Bank would not, in fact, be a public chartered bank. Rather it would be a nonprofit corporation that would use loans from city government to support existing credit unions, community banks, minority depository institutions, and loan funds. Yang has stated, however, that the People’s Bank “will build the case for a true public chartered bank.” Yang’s core goal for the People’s Bank, and for public banking generally, is the reduction of underbanking. He also hopes to use the People’s Bank to distribute regular cash grants to the poorest New Yorkers and, like PBNYC, to financially assist small businesses.
Superficially, the respective public banking visions of PBNYC and Yang seem to overlap, but there are marked differences between the two. For one, PBNYC represents a grassroots movement for public banking, whereas Yang plans to enact his public banking agenda by getting elected and using the executive authority of the mayor’s office.
Jamie Tyberg of New York Communities for Change expressed the concern among some members of PBNYC towards public banking initiatives that are not connected to working people’s experiences at a grassroots level, saying: “If you’re not struggling to pay rent, if you’re not living paycheck by paycheck, then you’re not understanding how Wall Street has been our enemy and the main force of destabilizing our communities, and therefore you won’t be able to provide the best solutions.”
A second major difference between PBNYC and Yang is over financial technology, or “fintech,” companies. Fintech companies research and develop new technologies for financial institutions. A key aspect of Yang’s People’s Bank proposal is the establishment of an “Innovation Lab” wherein city government would partner with fintech companies to “bring the benefits of fintech products to more consumers.” But there is widespread skepticism toward fintech companies within PBNYC.
In testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services in January, representatives of the New Economy Project said that “companies identifying as ‘fintechs’ claim to ‘eliminate banking deserts’ or ‘empower communities’ redlined by banks, when in fact they are exploiting communities’ unmet needs and perpetuating inequality in our banking system.”
But the most significant difference between PBNYC and Yang is over divestment from Wall Street. Divestment forms the core of PBNYC’s mission, whereas it is entirely absent from Yang’s proposal. There is thus a concern over the usage of the language of public banking by figures like Yang who do not share a commitment to divestment.
“Divesting from Wall Street is non-negotiable for us,” said Tyberg, “and so if you don’t have that at the core of your plan then that means you are not speaking with us, that means you don’t know what the actual problems are, that means you don’t know who is causing these problems. Or maybe you do and you want to maintain [those problems]. Then you can say that, just don’t use our language.”
Although PBNYC does not take a position on political candidates, and Andrew Yang has made no statement as to PBNYC’s proposals, their differences over divestment may mark the beginning of a wider political struggle over the meaning of the term “public banking.”
There are nonetheless those who hope for unity in New York’s public banking movement. State Assemblymember Ron Kim of Queens has both co-sponsored the New York Public Banking Act and endorsed Andrew Yang for mayor. Kim is optimistic that PBNYC’s and Yang’s visions will converge in the long run. He supports the People’s Bank proposal because he thinks it would be “a step in the right direction” that could “help uplift the underbanked communities.” PBNYC itself made the statement that it is “encouraged that so many candidates are coming out in support of public banking.” Regardless of differences, the fact that more mainstream politicians are showing at least nominal support for public banking is seen as a promising development.
In New York, public banking has gone from a marginal idea to a relatively mainstream progressive idea. For proponents of public banking, that carries the strong benefit of increased support for the idea among both politicians and the public. But it also carries the difficulty of competing visions, and disagreements over just what is meant by the term “public banking.” Whether PBNYC’s and Yang’s visions can be reconciled is yet to be determined. What is ultimately at stake is the wellbeing of working New Yorkers. As PBNYC stated, “Fundamentally, any public bank proposal must be laser focused on advancing financial, housing, worker, and climate justice. We welcome all candidates to join this important fight."
***
Sam Copeland is a freelance journalist.
***
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.
Note: this article has been changed to remove mention that NYCC endorsed Scott Stringer for mayor, given that the organization rescinded its endorsement.
Construction workers (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayoral Photo Office)
The construction industry workforce all across this state is keeping New York’s economic engine revving, building new homes, businesses, hospitality and retail venues in communities from Buffalo to the Bronx.
Yet for all their hard work, many are still being ripped off, or getting paid far less than what they were promised, and what they are legally entitled to be compensated.
Whether they are being knowingly underpaid by contractors for overtime hours or the contractor who hired them pays their wages but neglects to fund their taxes and benefits, wage theft comes in many forms and yes, it runs rampant.
It especially hurts those who are most vulnerable, people of color and new immigrants, as well as those who don’t have a union to stand behind and protect them from unscrupulous subcontractors and the general contractors willing to hire them just to cut costs.
Under a new bill (S2766/A3350) currently making its way through the New York State Senate labor committee, aggrieved workers would be able to turn to the general contractor on a job if the subcontractor commits wage theft.
General contractors would no longer be able to look the other way when shady characters try to make their profits on the backs of workers.
These bad actors often like to pay cash under the table, while pocketing millions of dollars a year in what should be workers’ wages and benefits. The pain they inflict goes beyond the workers; it also affects all New Yorkers given that important tax revenue is withheld from the State Department of Taxation.
The subcontractors who cheat their workers are also often the worst offenders when it comes to running dangerous job sites that threaten the safety of workers and the public.
Luckily, this bill aimed at cracking down on wage theft has passed the New York State Assembly and if the State Senate follows suit, the legislation will help to hold these contractors to account and protect workers, especially those in the construction sector, from being victimized.
There are some general contractors who are notorious for going with the lowest bid no matter what. Even when a bid comes in that is unrealistically low—at a price for which most legitimate contractors wouldn’t even be able to afford the equipment, let alone pay their workers fairly—they will accept it because, frankly, they don’t care what happens, as long as the job gets done and they make a profit.
When shameless subcontractors come in to take over a project and outbid their honest and reputable competitors, it’s the workers who are threatened most.
Their M.O.: Once their predatory behavior is uncovered, these subcontractors can often simply go out of business, change their company names, and hide behind other maneuvers that make them hard to track down. When their workers try to go after them and get justice, along with thousands of dollars in lost wages, they are met with endless hurdles and bureaucracy that make getting paid for the work you already provided like being dropped in the middle of a maze.
Further, many of these workers, whether because of immigration status or a lack of resources, feel like they don’t have the time and knowledge to pursue justice for themselves.
General contractors are already similarly liable when there is a public construction project that is subject to a prevailing wage. In those cases, they are required to be bonded, and that personal indemnity discourages them from taking on any subcontractors who are going to be a risk to them by cheating workers or otherwise bending the rules.
This important legislation would also ensure that a general contractor on a private construction project is bound to make sure subcontractors are paying proper wages, incentivizing them to keep the bad actors out.
Different iterations of this bill have come and gone in previous legislative sessions but the political climate in New York right now is ripe for reform, without further foot-dragging.
At all levels of government, a renewed respect for labor and the value of an honest day’s work is in the air. New York needs to take the opportunity to protect workers by eliminating wage theft once and for all.
***
Kevin Barry is director of the construction division of the United Service Workers Union (USWU-IUJAT).
***
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.