Your census form will arrive in the mail around March 14 unless, of course, you live in a New York state or a federal prison, where it will be distributed by the warden and collected in a sealed envelope and sent to the Census Bureau in Washington. How that return is counted -- and indeed if it is counted at all -- will have a major impact on power and politics in New York state over the next decade.
Since the 2000 census, the Census Bureau has estimated massive population shifts that should be confirmed by the results of the 2010 census. The bottom line is all legislative bodies across the country will face massive redistricting challenges.
In New York, the State Senate will likely move further into Democratic hands, particularly if the Democrats maintain control after the 2010 election. But whoever ends up in charge of redistricting will find it virtually impossible to ignore the fact that the population and power shift from upstate to downstate continues unabated.
Revised congressional, Senate and Assembly districts must be drawn to accommodate this and other population shifts. They also must take into account the commands of the Voting Rights Act to district in a way that allows of minority voters to exercise influence in the election of representatives. (Redistricting in New York is done by both houses of the legislature as a bill that then must be signed by the governor to take effect. If the legislative process fails, courts can intervene after a suit is filed.)
The census will provide the raw material for redistricting. The main clients for the Census Bureau are Congress, the state legislatures and the governors in the United States. A variety of factors will affect the outcome of the census, as well how it is used to divide the state.
Efforts are underway to count the so-called "hard to count" parts of New York City. Mostly the poor and immigrants reside in such neighborhoods. During the Census 2000, some upscale African American neighborhoods did not participate very well, at least initially. On the other hand, some immigrant areas did better than expected. Apparently, some data may have been falsified by workers struggling to meet what they saw as unrealistic deadlines.
Since substantial efforts are underway in New York City to count the "hard to count," one should expect that the 2010 census will do about as well as did the 2000 census.
What, then, to expect in terms of the Congress, the Senate and the Assembly for 2012?
The State Assembly is so overwhelmingly Democratic that the chance for major political change based upon population changes seems remote. Nonetheless, many members will find that they will represent significantly changed districts.
As for Congress, an analysis that I did for Real Elections Project shows that New York State is likely to lose at least one congressional seat, and that Louise Slaughter's Rochester area district is very under-populated. Nevertheless, the loss of one seat will require the redrawing of every congressional district so many areas will face major changes.
The real battle, however, will be in the New York State Senate. Last time around, with the Republicans facing the loss of seats in their upstate base, the GOP crafted a plan that it sprung on Democratic legislators and public at the last moment -- after numerous mandated public hearings were over. To avoid having to cut a Republican seat, the plan added a new seat to the Senate and carefully distributed the rest of the population shift to dilute New York City’s power. (By creating an even number of Senate seats, the plan bears some responsibility for the deadlock that paralyzed the Senate last summer.)
If the GOP should regain control of the Senate in time for redistricting, they may try a similar scheme. But such efforts would run into a difficult demographic reality. This decade, as in the last, population generally grew in the city and its environs and declined upstate. The accompanying maps and table, based upon population figures from the 2008 American Community Survey and estimated through 2010, show that almost all of the upstate districts have lost people, while most of the downstate districts, including New York City, the northern suburbs and Long Island gained population.
This means that to if districts are to be of relatively equal size, seats and voting power should shift away from upstate. Redistricting experts measure the departure from the ideal (total population equality) in terms of how much a specific district deviates in size from the average district. Since districts should be as equal as possible, measuring the degree of inequality is expressed as "deviation." Any plan with a total deviation (the difference between the largest positive and negative deviation) greater than 10 percent is legally suspect. Thus, deviations greater than 5 percent positive and negative are cause of serious concern.
Using this yardstick, 17 upstate districts have populations that are more than 5 percent below the ideal size, while 14 downstate and Long Island districts have deviations higher than plus 5 percent. This result is not at all surprising, since during the last redistricting round, the GOP majority did everything possible to pack population downstate and spread it out upstate. The party's stratagems prevented http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20020701/5/591 a massive redistricting upstate in 2002, but may not be able to avoid it in 2012.
Further exacerbating the population trend is the recent announcement that the Census Bureau will make data available so that the prisoners (and other so-called group quarters residents) might be excluded from the totals for state and local redistricting. The bureau will identify where such facilities are and how many people occupy them.
New York counts prisoners as being residents of the place where they are incarcerated -- not the community they came from. Given that most prisons are upstate and many prisoners are from the five boroughs, this inflates the upstate population. Any change in that would have the effect of decreasing the number of people counted for redistricting upstate even further.
Many advocates and a recent court decision, as well as a National Academy of Sciences report, support the idea that prisoners are really not residents of prisons, since they generally do not plan to remain in the surrounding community after they are released. Instead, they should be counted where they were living before they were incarcerated. The census data would only allow states to not count prisoners in prison. It would not solve the problem of where they should be counted. (The impact of just excluding prisoners is estimated in the attached Table, as well.)
State Sen. Eric Schneiderman has introduced legislation that would force the state to count prisoners as residents of their prior homes, using Department of Corrections Data. The bill's fate is uncertain.
In short, New York State faces massive redistricting once the 2010 census is released in the first quarter of 2011. As those downstate work to get their "hard to count" population enumerated, upstate residents and voters can feel even more of their power slipping away. If the State Senate joins the Assembly in being solidly in Democratic hands with stronger downstate representation, it is inevitable that government appropriations will follow this power shift. So, as you complete your census form, remember that the data generated have a tremendous impact on the distribution of, power and money.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.
District | Senator | Party | First Elected | Residence | Estimated Population 2010 | Estimated Deviation | % Estimated Deviation | Population | Estimated Change | Estimated % Change | Estimated Prisoners | Estimated Deviation Excluding Prisoners |
1 | Kenneth LaValle | R | 1976 | Port Jefferson | 348,512 | 32,383 | 10.24% | 305,238 | 43,274 | 14.2% | 0 | 10.6% |
2 | John J. Flanagan | R | 2002 | East Northport | 348,742 | 32,613 | 10.32% | 305,951 | 42,791 | 14.0% | 0 | 10.6% |
3 | Brian X. Foley | D | 2008 | Blue Point | 313,863 | -2,266 | -0.72% | 305,989 | 7,874 | 2.6% | 0 | -0.4% |
4 | Owen H. Johnson | R | 1972 | West Babylon | 333,382 | 17,253 | 5.46% | 305,962 | 27,420 | 9.0% | 0 | 5.8% |
5 | Carl Marcellino | R | 1995 | Syosset | 325,865 | 9,736 | 3.08% | 305,450 | 20,415 | 6.7% | 0 | 3.4% |
6 | Kemp Hannon | R | 1989 | Garden City | 316,021 | -108 | -0.03% | 306,033 | 9,988 | 3.3% | 0 | 0.3% |
7 | Craig Johnson | D | 2007 | Port Washington | 327,036 | 10,907 | 3.45% | 305,501 | 21,535 | 7.0% | 0 | 3.8% |
8 | Charles Fuschillo | R | 1998 | Merrick | 311,252 | -4,877 | -1.54% | 305,908 | 5,344 | 1.7% | 0 | -1.3% |
9 | Dean Skelos | R | 1984 | Rockville Centre | 316,182 | 53 | 0.02% | 305,990 | 10,192 | 3.3% | 0 | 0.3% |
Long Island Total | 2,940,856 | 95,695 | ||||||||||
10 | Shirley Huntley | D | 2006 | Jamaica | 339,608 | 23,479 | 7.43% | 318,481 | 21,127 | 6.6% | 0 | 7.7% |
11 | Frank Padavan | R | 1972 | Bellerose | 339,018 | 22,889 | 7.24% | 318,482 | 20,536 | 6.4% | 0 | 7.6% |
12 | George Onorato | D | 1983 | Astoria | 302,555 | -13,574 | -4.29% | 318,484 | -15,929 | -5.0% | 483 | -4.2% |
13 | Vacant (Monserrate) | Was D | 336,495 | 20,366 | 6.44% | 318,484 | 18,011 | 5.7% | 0 | 6.8% | ||
14 | Malcolm Smith | D | 2000 | St. Albans | 333,981 | 17,852 | 5.65% | 318,481 | 15,500 | 4.9% | 0 | 6.0% |
15 | Joseph Addabbo Jr. | D | 2008 | Ozone Park | 326,700 | 10,571 | 3.34% | 318,484 | 8,216 | 2.6% | 0 | 3.6% |
16 | Toby Ann Stavisky | D | 1999 | Flushing | 331,878 | 15,749 | 4.98% | 318,483 | 13,395 | 4.2% | 0 | 5.3% |
17 | Martin Malave Dilan | D | 2002 | Bushwick | 329,649 | 13,520 | 4.28% | 311,260 | 18,389 | 5.9% | 0 | 4.6% |
18 | Velmanette Montgomery | D | 1984 | Brooklyn | 349,252 | 33,123 | 10.48% | 311,260 | 37,992 | 12.2% | 0 | 10.8% |
19 | John Sampson | D | 1996 | Brooklyn | 319,165 | 3,036 | 0.96% | 311,258 | 7,907 | 2.5% | 0 | 1.3% |
20 | Eric Adams | D | 2006 | Brooklyn | 316,927 | 798 | 0.25% | 311,259 | 5,668 | 1.8% | 0 | 0.5% |
21 | Kevin Parker | D | 2002 | Brooklyn | 332,960 | 16,831 | 5.32% | 311,259 | 21,701 | 7.0% | 0 | 5.6% |
22 | Martin Golden | R | 2002 | Bay Ridge | 316,595 | 466 | 0.15% | 311,260 | 5,335 | 1.7% | 0 | 0.4% |
23 | Diane Savino | D | 2004 | Staten Island | 326,256 | 10,127 | 3.20% | 311,259 | 14,997 | 4.8% | 0 | 3.5% |
24 | Andrew Lanza | R | 2006 | Staten Island | 347,083 | 30,954 | 9.79% | 311,258 | 35,825 | 11.5% | 767 | 9.9% |
25 | Dan Squadron | D | 2008 | Brooklyn | 335,843 | 19,714 | 6.24% | 311,258 | 24,585 | 7.9% | 0 | 6.5% |
26 | Liz Krueger | D | 2002 | New York | 346,965 | 30,836 | 9.75% | 311,260 | 35,705 | 11.5% | 0 | 10.1% |
27 | Carl Kruger | D | 1994 | Brooklyn | 315,681 | -448 | -0.14% | 311,259 | 4,422 | 1.4% | 0 | 0.2% |
28 | Jose M. Serrano | D | 2004 | Spanish Harlem | 328,693 | 12,564 | 3.97% | 311,261 | 17,432 | 5.6% | 0 | 4.3% |
29 | Thomas Duane | D | 1998 | New York | 364,179 | 48,050 | 15.20% | 311,260 | 52,919 | 17.0% | 350 | 15.4% |
30 | Bill Perkins | D | 2006 | Harlem | 325,817 | 9,688 | 3.06% | 311,263 | 14,554 | 4.7% | 660 | 3.2% |
31 | Eric Schneiderman | D | 1998 | Washington Heights | 291,273 | -24,856 | -7.86% | 311,257 | -19,984 | -6.4% | 0 | -7.6% |
32 | Ruben DĂaz | D | 2002 | Soundview | 342,758 | 26,629 | 8.42% | 311,260 | 31,498 | 10.1% | 0 | 8.7% |
33 | Pedro Espada Jr. | D | 2008 | Bedford Park | 316,101 | -28 | -0.01% | 311,258 | 4,843 | 1.6% | 0 | 0.3% |
34 | Jeffrey Klein | D | 2004 | Throgs Neck | 325,052 | 8,923 | 2.82% | 311,251 | 13,801 | 4.4% | 0 | 3.1% |
35 | Andrea Stewart-Cousins | D | 2006 | Yonkers | 317,719 | 1,590 | 0.50% | 311,016 | 6,703 | 2.2% | 0 | 0.8% |
36 | Ruth Hassell-Thompson | D | 2000 | Williamsbridge | 324,061 | 7,932 | 2.51% | 311,259 | 12,802 | 4.1% | 186 | 2.8% |
37 | Suzi Oppenheimer | D | 1984 | Mamaroneck | 322,366 | 6,237 | 1.97% | 310,865 | 11,501 | 3.7% | 1,811 | 1.7% |
Downstate Total | 9,204,631 | 353,019 | ||||||||||
38 | Thomas Morahan | R | 1999 | Clarkstown | 337,005 | 20,876 | 6.60% | 320,433 | 16,572 | 5.2% | 590 | 6.7% |
39 | Bill Larkin | R | 1990 | New Windsor | 326,445 | 10,316 | 3.26% | 304,986 | 21,459 | 7.0% | 0 | 3.6% |
40 | Vincent Leibell | R | 1994 | Patterson | 323,184 | 7,055 | 2.23% | 299,689 | 23,495 | 7.8% | 1,054 | 2.2% |
41 | Stephen Saland | R | 1990 | Poughkeepsie | 306,888 | -9,241 | -2.92% | 298,789 | 8,099 | 2.7% | 5,298 | -4.3% |
42 | John Bonacic | R | 1998 | Mount Hope | 318,665 | 2,536 | 0.80% | 298,208 | 20,457 | 6.9% | 4,660 | -0.4% |
43 | Roy McDonald | R | 2008 | Wilton | 312,604 | -3,525 | -1.11% | 300,304 | 12,300 | 4.1% | 0 | -0.8% |
44 | Hugh Farley | R | 1976 | Schenectady | 312,531 | -3,598 | -1.14% | 300,641 | 11,890 | 4.0% | 1,091 | -1.2% |
45 | Betty Little | R | 2002 | Queensbury | 298,855 | -17,274 | -5.46% | 295,991 | 2,864 | 1.0% | 10,391 | -8.5% |
46 | Neil Breslin | D | 1996 | Albany | 296,682 | -19,447 | -6.15% | 294,026 | 2,656 | 0.9% | 0 | -5.9% |
47 | Joseph Griffo | R | 2006 | Rome | 283,051 | -33,078 | -10.46% | 290,288 | -7,237 | -2.5% | 2,850 | -11.1% |
48 | Darrel Aubertine | D | 2008 | Cape Vincent | 293,423 | -22,706 | -7.18% | 289,932 | 3,491 | 1.2% | 4,233 | -8.3% |
49 | David Valesky | D | 2004 | Oneida | 285,279 | -30,850 | -9.76% | 290,514 | -5,235 | -1.8% | 2,305 | -10.2% |
50 | John DeFrancisco | R | 1992 | Syracuse | 289,462 | -26,667 | -8.44% | 291,064 | -1,602 | -0.6% | 0 | -8.2% |
51 | James Seward | R | 1986 | Milford | 288,707 | -27,422 | -8.67% | 288,702 | 5 | 0.0% | 2,486 | -9.2% |
52 | Thomas W. Libous | R | 1988 | Binghamton | 282,392 | -33,737 | -10.67% | 290,843 | -8,451 | -2.9% | 205 | -10.5% |
53 | George H. Winner Jr. | R | 2004 | Elmira | 289,204 | -26,925 | -8.52% | 292,782 | -3,578 | -1.2% | 2,426 | -9.0% |
54 | Michael Nozzolio | R | 1992 | Fayette | 294,361 | -21,768 | -6.89% | 289,191 | 5,170 | 1.8% | 2,841 | -7.5% |
55 | James Alesi | R | 1996 | East Rochester | 324,059 | 7,930 | 2.51% | 301,947 | 22,112 | 7.3% | 0 | 2.8% |
56 | Joseph Robach | R | 2002 | Greece | 277,400 | -38,729 | -12.25% | 301,862 | -24,462 | -8.1% | 81 | -12.0% |
57 | Catharine Young | R | 2005 | Olean | 282,090 | -34,039 | -10.77% | 293,587 | -11,497 | -3.9% | 2,962 | -11.4% |
58 | William Stachowski | D | 1981 | Lake View | 282,681 | -33,448 | -10.58% | 298,637 | -15,956 | -5.3% | 0 | -10.3% |
59 | Dale Volker | R | 1975 | Depew | 288,895 | -27,234 | -8.61% | 292,189 | -3,294 | -1.1% | 7,161 | -10.6% |
60 | Antoine Thompson | D | 2006 | Buffalo | 273,986 | -42,143 | -13.33% | 298,636 | -24,650 | -8.3% | 0 | -13.1% |
61 | Michael Ranzenhofer | R | 2008 | Clarence | 295,493 | -20,636 | -6.53% | 298,490 | -2,997 | -1.0% | 0 | -6.3% |
62 | George Maziarz | R | 1995 | Newfane | 291,182 | -24,947 | -7.89% | 301,784 | -10,602 | -3.5% | 2,281 | -8.3% |
Upstate Total | 7,454,525 | -448,700 |
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.
![]()
|
|||||
Finance |
230,366
|
247,143
|
7.28%
|
||
Other Sectors |
1,380,109
|
1,571,381
|
13.86%
|
||
Percent in Finance |
14.30%
|
13.59%
|
|||
Outer Boroughs | |||||
Finance |
39,717
|
39,562
|
-0.39%
|
||
Other Sectors |
1,115,297
|
1,387,362
|
24.39%
|
||
Percent in Finance |
3.44%
|
2.77%
|
|||
New York City | |||||
Finance |
270,083
|
286,705
|
6.15%
|
||
Other Sectors |
2,495,406
|
2,958,743
|
18.57%
|
||
Percent in Finance |
9.77%
|
8.83%
|
|||
Rest of Metro Area | |||||
Finance |
163,613
|
188,191
|
15.02%
|
||
Other Sectors |
3,147,039
|
3,344,789
|
6.28%
|
||
Percent in Finance |
4.94%
|
5.33%
|
|||
Total NY Metro | |||||
Finance |
433,696
|
474,896
|
9.50%
|
||
Other Sectors |
2,495,425
|
2,958,762
|
18.57%
|
||
Percent in Finance |
7.14%
|
7.01%
|
![]()
|
![]()
|
New York City is reeling from the Crash of 2008. Unemployment in the city has increased from 5.1 percent in May 2008 to 8.9 percent in May 2009. New York City's Independent Budget Office predicts a substantial decline in employment and revenue for the next three fiscal years.
The Bloomberg boom has become the Bloomberg bust, and it may be with us for the next several years. Furthermore, as the city recovers it seems unrealistic to expect that the finance sector, the city's economic driver, will soon regain its full luster. It may well be a long, long time before it once again spins off new high paying jobs in finance, much less in industries that cater to finance and generates the billions in tax revenues that the city and state have come to depend upon. A close look at the finance industry in New York reveals not only what everyone know -- that it paid well -- but that the largesse extended to people in a variety of occupations, who will now all bear the brunt of its decline.
Through 2007, the finance sector rode a wave fueled by its packaging of mortgages as derivatives, creating and selling insurance for these mortgages and securities, rating these instruments as triple A, and selling them through financial institutions to various funds and institutions worldwide. Indeed, many in finance made literally millions, some multi-millions, doing this business. The lawyers handling the deals also became wealthy.
As analysts and journalists explore the wreckage wreaked by the finance sector upon the city, the country and global economy, it is now obvious that much of the prosperity was based upon a huge bubble. The bubble generated billions of dollars in bonuses, profits and tax revenues, and thousands of jobs. The growth and prosperity of this sector really began as the city emerged from the crash of 1987, through the 1990s, and rose again after the tech crash in 2000 and 9/11.
Just before the meltdown the finance sector employed some 475,000 full-time workers in the New York metropolitan area, including parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, Long Island and the northern suburbs in New York State. Of these, 287,000 or 64 percent worked in New York City. Of the city workers, 86 percent worked in Manhattan.
Interestingly, though, while jobs in finance increased by 7 percent from 2001 to 2007, the number of jobs in all other sectors increased by even more. In 2007, jobs in finance accounted for 7.01 percent of all jobs in the metropolitan area, down slightly from 7.14 percent in 200.
(Table 1has information on the full-time employment of workers in the finance sector between 2000 and 2007).
The crash and meltdown have led to the unraveling of much of the finance sector. All investment banks have now become conventional banks, Lehman and Bear Stearns are no more, Merrill Lynch is part of the Bank of America, Wachovia of Wells Fargo and many banks have announced layoffs, and most are now partially owned by the U.S. government. Though Goldman seems to have dodged much of the bullet, as has JP Morgan Chase, the same cannot be said of Citigroup and some of the other large banks, former investment banks, brokerages and insurance companies, such as AIG.
The financial area lost 37,400 jobs in the metropolitan area from May 2008 to May 2009, decreasing 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported. "Over the year, New York City shed the most financial activities jobs since September 2002 with the city's securities, commodity contracts, and investments industry accounting for almost 60 percent of the area's job contraction in the sector," the bureau found.
As finance led the city and region into a boom, it is now leading them into the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. As Table 2 shows, jobs in finance cover a wide array of occupations. Many jobs are sales jobs; others are directly related to finance and management. For instance, sales was the number one occupation in finance followed by financial managers, and other financial specialists were number three. However the top 30 finance occupations includes computer professionals; secretaries; software developers; office supervisors; bank tellers; guards, watchmen and doorkeepers; receptionists and other garden variety occupations. Obviously, the need for salesman and managers has substantially declined. But the reductions in finance also include the other ancillary occupations that supported the industry.
In general, as table 3, above, shows, these jobs in finance paid better than similar work in other sectors.
Grouping the occupations, one finds that for all types of jobs, the median earnings in finance were higher, often substantially higher than in other sectors. Indeed, for all full time workers, finance median earnings were more than double those in other industries, and for the top 10 percent of earners, finance paid almost five times as much as other sectors. Many finance jobs were in sales and management, two areas where earnings were much higher for those in finance, however all workers were paid more in this sector, even support staff, which paid 14 percent more than their counterparts in other fields.
Aside from being very highly paid, compared to others, those working in finance were different in other ways, as Table 4 shows. They are younger than the average New York City worker and more likely to be male, live with a spouse and reside in an owner occupied dwelling. More of them are white and Asian and fewer are black, Hispanic or multi-racial. They are less likely to be foreign born and much more likely to be college grads -- 69.4 percent versus 42.3 percent. In short, they were richer, whiter, and more educated than other city workers.
The decline of the finance sector is now in full swing. Already, about 10 percent of the finance jobs have been lost. More are being lost daily. Manhattan and the tonier sections of Brooklyn have faced sharp declines in housing prices, and even in rent. Laid-off financial executives and sales people are looking for other lines of work.
The collateral damage of both the bubble and bust will affect all New Yorkers. Those such as high-end car dealers, real estate developers and the like, along with restaurant owners and even storefronts selling Chinese take-out already have been affected. Though some New Yorkers may get satisfaction from seeing the finance sector and its rich employees take a beating, in fact, all of us will be worse off from the crash. Because even if the gains may be seen as "ill gotten," we all depended upon them. Replacing or rebuilding the sector will not bring back the days of wine and roses. Soon the boom of the early 21st century may be just a distant memory, as we all learn to live with much more straitened circumstances.
Andrew Beveridge, professor of sociology at Queens College and the Graduate Center of CUNY and instigator of www.socialexplorer.com, has been in charge of the demographic topic page since January 2001.
At a community center in Sunnyside, Rosalva Rodriguez, a Colombian immigrant, sits working on a quilting pattern. The room is filled with the sound of consecutive Bingo numbers, called in both Spanish and English to an elderly crowd.
Rodriguez of Woodhaven talks openly about her immigration status. She says she has a green card, and her sons are both citizens. She's extremely knowledgeable about the upcoming 2010 Census, citing its implications and benefits, and says that she will, of course, participate.
But Rodriguez is a rarity among New York's hard-to-count immigrant community.
Many are scared to share their information, reported the U.S. Census Bureau at a recent press briefing. But on a survey where population is directly tied to federal funding and congressional representation, New York officials and organizations want to ensure every person is accounted for. In particular, calculating the city's estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants has proven to be a substantial hurdle in achieving accuracy. For many of these individuals, the 2010 Census represents a murky unknown -- a vast question mark, which many fear could lead to a one-way ticket home.
"They are scared to participate because they think this survey will work to deport them," says Rodriguez in Spanish.
Adds a woman quilting beside her, "They think the information collected from the census will later go to immigration [enforcement], and then immigration will tell on them."
This is the exact mentality the Census Bureau is trying to combat. On June 2, a coalition of immigrant organizations, government officials and census representatives held a press conference for ethnic and community media.
The panel urged the 50-some reporters to get the word out to their constituents, allay their fears and promote the benefits of taking part in the national count.
"I want to assure you that participating in the census is safe," said Allison Cenac, senior officer in the New York regional census office. "We just want to get New York City counted… No one will be deported or lose their homes."
Not only safe, officials said it is highly advantageous for undocumented immigrants to take part, since their involvement would lead directly to increased federal monies for services used daily by non-citizens, such as subways, hospitals and schools. Officials reiterated that the information would not be handed to other government agencies, and that sharing of census data was a punishable offense.
Though the census won't be mailed out until March of next year, the bureau has already started an aggressive campaign to reach undocumented individuals, according to Stacey Cumberbatch, the New York City census coordinator. They've partnered with local grassroots and immigration nonprofits to tailor their outreach to specific ethnic and religious communities. In addressing the wide range of languages -- 146 are spoken in city public schools -- the Census Bureau has translated their website into 18 and will mail out language guides on how to obtain a form in 59 languages, said Cumberbatch.
To increase response among all demographics, the form is the shortest in a participant's census history, and it does not include questions about social security numbers or income. Census representatives are also stressing the role of ethnic and community newspapers in getting the word out.
"No one can get this information to your communities like you guys can," said Juana Ponce de Leon, the executive director of New York Community Media Alliance.
By using these trusted, local mediums as outlets, the bureau is hoping they will get the message across to hard-to-count communities. If not, said one official, the effect would be "devastating."
"If undocumented folks do not participate they do not exist," said Cumberbatch.
An overwhelming number of organizations and politicians have heeded the call of the Census Bureau and have urged participation in their communities.
But Reverend Miguel Rivera, chairman and chief executive officer of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, is leading a boycott against the national count. His organization represents over 20,000 pastors in 34 states, who are asking their undocumented constituents to protest the census unless "comprehensive immigration reform" is established first. Rivera claimed one million members, about a quarter of the group's affiliates, have already expressed support.
"Yes, our presence here and an accurate count are very important, but only if we have the same rights as everyone else," said Rivera. "The reality is, for the last eight years, and many more, we have been waiting for some solution."
Rivera said a boycott would have occurred with or without his help. He argued, however, that an official protest pushed by the coalition would effectively "bring the immigration issue to the forefront of dialogue" and "finally put pressure on Congress." Additionally, he claimed there are no benefits for the participation of undocumented immigrants in the census, aside from allocation of resources to public schools.
Census organizers and community groups promoting an accurate count are calling the movement counter-productive and illogical.
"It's slightly absurd," said Alan Kaplan, civic and electoral participation program coordinator for the New York Immigration Coalition. "It will lead to an undercount of a population which desperately needs to be counted correctly in order to show their power, their strength, and get their federal dollars."
Marlene Cintron, executive director of the New York State Senate Puerto Rican/Latino Caucus, echoed the point, emphasizing the political value of the census.
"This effort threatens to undermine our badly needed representation at all levels of government," said Cintron. "It's extremely important that all of us be counted so we receive… a bigger share of individuals that will represent us."
But, Rivera contended, this is the exact point he takes issue with. He said that since undocumented immigrants are counted, yet cannot vote, they are not able to choose who is representing him. The result, he said, is an increase of delegates pushing an anti-immigration agenda in areas with a strong conservative base, like parts of Long Island.
"The people who actually get to vote are the ones who are grateful for that effort from undocumented people," said Rivera.
Back in Sunnyside, Rodriguez says she understands why Latinos would join this boycott, considering restrictive laws and the aggressive policies of agencies like the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
"It's logical. It's logical that people think this because they have seen what the government has done," she says. "They have seen two men at the door at four in the morning…" she adds, her voice trailing off.
Kaplan said regardless of the national clergy coalition's support, in the end, their efforts will hurt their own communities.
"Whatever media coverage, whatever their gain, it's going to be discounted by the fact that their communities will be underrepresented."
According to a 2008 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are 11.9 million "unauthorized immigrants" living in the U.S. Though Hispanics constitute about three quarters of that figure, Kaplan said it's critical that efforts to count non-citizens reach even the smallest factions.
"We're not only dealing with Latinos in the city. We're dealing with small groups who aren't necessarily being reached out to," he said.
Kaplan named other groups like the African population in Staten Island and South Asian and Arab immigrants in Queens -- each present specific challenges to be counted.
Lester Farthing, director of the regional census office, said that the attacks of September 11, 2001 produced a particularly difficult problem for an accurate count.
"We realize our greatest challenge is working against the fears of what happened with 9/11," said Farthing.
Mohammed Razvi, executive director of the Council of Peoples Organization agreed that the aftermath of the attacks created an atmosphere of distrust among South Asians toward the government.
"They already had a misconception and the atrocities that occurred after 9/11 where people were apprehended just because of their name, without a warrant or any wrongdoing made it even more of an uphill battle," he said.
Razvi said this further compounded their tendency of being underrepresented.
"We are so unbelievably undercounted. I think we were undercounted for almost 100,000 people [in 2000]," said Razvi. He offered a reason: "I think this is the misconception of people coming from a third world country that the government coming and taking your information is a dangerous thing."
Razvi is working against this fallacy by holding town meetings, talking to imams and recruiting community members to become census representatives.
Getting the attention of each diverse group, said Cumberbatch, needs a different approach.
"It may be the mosque, it may be the soccer league," she said. "It's where people live, work, play, worship. We try to look at for different groups on how to access."
It appears undocumented immigration participation in the 2010 Census comes down to one thing.
"It's trust. That's it and nothing else," said Razvi. "That's the way to move forward. It's unfortunate that these are the communities that need the most services that they are entitled to but lack of involvement in the census hinders the service that they will be given."
Cintron said this is why organizations, politicians and the government have started galvanizing support nine months before the first census is mailed out.
"It's going to impact us for ten whole years and that's why we want to start this now and why we're having this conversation now. We have to figure out ways to get people interested."
The contretemps over Judd Gregg's aborted nomination to be commerce secretary reveal once again the fault lines over the 2010 census between Republicans and Democrats. Gregg's difference with the administration over economic policy attracted much of the attention, but the census also reportedly played a major role in the whole affair.
The Census Bureau is in the Commerce Department, and the nomination of Gregg, a Republican senator from New Hampshire, prompted an outcry from black and Latino groups who feared a census under Gregg's direction -- in the Senate, he had voted against fully funding the 2000 census --would result in an undercount of minorities and immigrants. In response, the Obama administration guaranteed that it would watch over the census from the White House. That in turn sparked complaints from the GOP and right-wing bloggers about political interference by the Obama administration in census 2010.
Gregg has returned to the Senate, but the controversy over next year's national headcount remains. None of this is surprising or new, since how the 2010 census is conducted will greatly affect the division of power and the allocation of money in New York State and the city, as well as elsewhere in the United States. Framed as neutral counts of the "whole population," the U.S. census, as all censuses, concerns the allocation of political power and money. The 2010 count will:
Who gets counted depends on how the counting is done. That has been the source of controversy for decades.
The city has claimed an undercount in every census since 1950. Things turned particularly ugly in 1980. A suspicious fire in the census office responsible for counting Bedford-Stuyvesant occurred the weekend before Washington was to send a team to investigate a massive undercount in the area. This and other problems led to a lawsuit demanding an adjustment for the 1980 count.
To resolve the issue, the Census Bureau agreed to add a survey, revisiting some households in person, to make it possible to adjust the 1990 census. Adjusted counts were prepared, and the Census Bureau staff and director recommended using them, but Commerce Secretary Robert Mossbacher, who went on to run George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign in 1992, rejected the plan.
Information also existed to adjust the 2000 Census, but thanks to the work of Kenneth Prewitt, then director of the Census Bureau, and the funding that Judd Gregg and others tried to block, the 2000 census stood without adjustments, a decision with which most professional demographers agreed. The release of the 2000 census made it plain that the 1990 Reagan-Bush census was seriously flawed. especially with respect to populous states with big cities and large minority and immigrant populations.
The census count, however, continues to be mired in controversies. These include:
Simply put, a professionally run Census Bureau with a commitment to count the "whole population" using modern methods and techniques will be a boon to New York City (see the results from 2000). On the other hand if there is little or no commitment to a complete count (see the recent blog posting of Bruce Chapman, bureau director during the 1980 controversies and now president of the pro-Creationist Discovery Institute), New York City will be undercounted again. It is his original blog post that stirred up the right-wing blogs and politicians to accuse the administration of interfering with the census. If this attack upon the census is successful, New York City might be miscounted and appear to lose population.
That this would happen during the Obama administration seem unlikely. Nonetheless, the census is at very high risk according to the Government Accounting Office, and with the count only 13 months away, it is well past time to confirm a census director. The choice of many is Kenneth Prewitt, who ran the successful 2000 Census and appears to be willing to step into that role again. New Yorkers should hope that he does.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.
John Liu, a Taiwan-born former business consultant who moved to the U.S. at the age of 5, made history in New York politics in 2001 as the first Asian American elected to the City Council. This year he will write a new page by becoming the first Asian American to run for a citywide office as he campaigns to become the city's next public advocate.
An increasing number of Asians, many, like Liu, from Taiwan or born to immigrant parents from Taiwan, are competing for office in the city, particularly in Flushing, as their counterparts from Hong Kong are doing the same in Manhattan's Chinatown. While representing a possible new force in the city's already diverse political life, their emergence reveals generational splits and other divisions within New York's growing Asian communities.
Although Liu has not officially declared his candidacy for public advocate, the political director and treasurer of his campaign, Mei Ru, has confirmed his bid, and a fundraiser was held on Jan. 7. Chinese and English-language newspapers see him as a front-runner in the hotly contested race. Brooklyn Councilmember Bill de Blasio and civil rights attorney Norman Siegel have already announced their candidacies for the post, and Queens Councilmember Eric Gioia also is expected to enter the race.
According to the blog PolitickerNY.com, Liu's campaign aides have confirmed that he has hired Bill Lynch Associates, a public relations firm headed by former deputy mayor Bill Lynch, as his general consultant. He also has reportedly sought help from two well-known political marketing specialists, Jimmy Siegel and Celinda Lake. Among those running for the public advocate, Liu topped the campaign fundraising chart with more than $3 million.
Liu represents City Council District 20, which covers parts of northeast Queens, including Flushing, Queensboro Hill, Kissena Park, Harding Heights, Auburndale and some of Whitestone. His district is home to the city's largest Asian community. Some New Yorkers jokingly refer to the area as "Flu Shing Province of China" because of its large Chinese population, and Chinese signs and businesses can be seen in every street corner. Many Koreans live in the area as well.
Among the Chinese-speaking population in New York, Flushing is the "Mandarin-speaking" Chinatown because the residents are primarily Mandarin speakers from Taiwan and central and northern China. Manhattan's Chinatown is Cantonese-speaking since most people there are from Hong Kong or Canton (now Guangdong) Province.
Liu, a Democrat, did not make history on his first try. He ran for City Council in 1997 and lost to six-term incumbent Julia Harrison, who earned notoriety for comments many perceived as anti-Asian.
Nor was Liu the first Asian American to run for New York City Council. Pauline Chu, a former president of Community School Board 25, ran against Harrison in the 1991 Democratic primary and lost. Harrison then defeated Chun Soo Pyun, a former president of the Korean Businessmen's Association, by a large margin in the general election.
Ethel Chen, a retired librarian and onetime head of the Asian American Democratic Association in Queens, had a string of unsuccessful runs for office, as did Meilin Tan, a Republican. Both remain well-known figures in the Flushing community, and other candidates seek their support.
In 2001, Harrison had to vacate the seat because of term limits, and that time, Liu got enough support from within and beyond the Asian American community to win. He was re-elected in 2003 and 2005.
Liu's victory in 2001 provided a much needed boost in confidence for New York's Asian American community. Three years later, Jimmy Meng, a former president of the Flushing Chinese Business Association, became the second Asian American to win an important local election, capturing Flushing's seat in the New York State Assembly.
Meng had lost to Barry Grodenchik in 2002. Two years later, though, the situation was reversed, and Meng won the Democratic nomination, defeating Grodenchik. He then went on to gain a landslide 70 percent of the vote in the general election, defeating Meilin Tan.
However, Meng's campaign created some controversy. Simon Ting, an aide to Meng, later was indicted on charges that he faked voter registration documents. Meng did not run for re-election in 2006, citing health problems.
The contest to replace him revealed sharp schisms in the Flushing Asian community. In 2006, the race pitted his daughter, Grace Meng, against Ellen Young, a Taiwanese immigrant who served as a district aide to John Liu.
The intense race ended when Meng dropped out of the race after Young charged she did not live in the district as required by law. Young won the primary and general election, becoming the first Asian American woman elected to the New York state legislature.
But the rivalry between Young and Meng -- and between the Meng family and Liu -- did not end. Last year, they had a rematch in the Democratic primary that was widely viewed as a power struggle between Liu's camp and his rivals. The feud also focused attention on generational differences among Asian politicians.
Meng, a lawyer and chairwoman of the Queens Chinese Women's Association, garnered support from Harrison and Terence Park, who both ran against Liu before. Meng also claimed that her American-born background gave her an edge over Young.
"I'm someone who was born and raised here. I'm comfortable with the culture. I'm comfortable with the language," Meng said during the campaign. Meng's camp assailed Young for not having a college degree (she finished junior college in Taiwan) and, they said, of not being able to reach beyond the Chinese community. Young's immigrant background, once seen as an asset, had become a liability. Meng won by a double-digit margin.
While Queen's has now elected three Asian politicians, with more almost certainly on the way, the primarily Cantonese-speaking Manhattan Chinatown has not been able to send any Asian Americans to City Council or the state legislature -- even though it has been the center for New York Chinese American life since the first large wave of Cantonese immigrants settled here in the late 1800s.
Chinatown sits in District 1, one of the most ethnically and economically diverse districts in the city, covering SoHo, TriBeCa, Greenwich Village, Battery Park City, the Financial District, Little Italy and the Lower East Side.
After the district's creation in 1991, Kathryn Freed, a lawyer, defeated Asian American candidates in consecutive elections to serve as the area's council member. In 2001, Freed had to step down due to term limits. Alan Gerson, also a lawyer, won the Democratic primary, defeating six opponents including three Asian Americans: housing advocate Margaret Chin; Rocky Chin, a public-interest attorney; and Kwang Hui, a labor activist.
At the beginning of the 2001 campaign, many political observers expected District 1 would choose an Asian American council member. Many attribute the failure to do so to the fact that Chinatown is primarily a place of work, business and entertainment for Asian New Yorkers, not the neighborhood where they live. In addition, many Chinatown residents are undocumented and so cannot vote. Meanwhile, Asian American voters seem to have difficulties presenting a united front I the area.
Chinatown has, however, elected Chinese judges to the Civil Court. The Second Municipal Court District, which covers roughly the same area as City Council District 1, elected Doris Ling-Cohan to the Civil Court in 1995. In 2006, Margaret Chan, an immigrant from Hong Kong, was elected to the same court.
2009 will see more efforts to elect a Chinese American to represent District 1 in City Council, although Gerson is believed likely to seek re-election. Margaret Chin, who just announced her fourth bid for the City Council, left her position as the deputy executive director of Asian Americans for Equality to focus on her campaign. An immigrant from Hong Kong who came to the U.S. at the age of 9, Chin has been an advocate for affordable housing, access to social services and government assistance for low-income immigrant families.
Jan Lee, a third-generation Chinatown resident and business owner, also has expressed interest in the race to run but has not made a final decision on whether to run.
With Liu seeking to move on, several established community leaders and a new generation of political leaders in Flushing hope to fill his City Council seat.
Yen S. Chou, president of the Chinese American Parent-Student Council and a member of District 26 Community Education Council, is among them. An educator who has devoted her career to helping immigrant families, Chou was elected to Community School Board 26 before the Bloomberg administration restructured the Department of Education. Also a native of Taiwan, she has attracted support from many community leaders and organizations.
Meanwhile, other political families could challenge the Mengs. James Wu, Ethel Chen's son, has been an active member of the Democratic Club of Queens. A Democratic district leader in Queens, he has registered his City Council bid with the City's Board of Elections.
Oliver Tan, the son of Meilin Tan, teamed up with his mother, and was elected a Republican district leader in 2007, a position his mother has held since 1992. Oliver Tan also served as the manager for Peter Koo's failed State Assembly campaign in 2008. Tan would face formidable odd in the Democratic district, but is expected to rise in Queen's Republican circles.
The Flushing politicians share a connection to Taiwan, but there are generational differences between them.
Pauline Chu, Jimmy Meng, Ethel Chen and Meilin Tan represent the first generation of New York Asian American politicians. All four were born in China but moved to Taiwan as young children and were educated there. They are part of a massive tide of immigrants from Taiwan who started to form a community in Flushing in the 1970s. Now Flushing is home to the largest Mandarin-speaking community in New York, including many newcomers from China who arrived after the 1990s.
John Liu represents what scholars refer to as the "1.5 generation" -- those born abroad but who moved to the United States before their teens and so share characteristics of both first and second generations.
The second generation, by definition, was born in the United States to immigrant parents from Taiwan. These include Grace Meng, James Wu and Oliver Tan. They inherited their parents' resources and are eager to develop their own paths.
Grace Meng is by far the most successful of these politicians. Her work as a coordinator for her father's campaign and her increased involvement in the community after her loss in 2006 paid off. Meanwhile, her campaign strategy to present her as the open-minded candidate who can reach beyond the Chinese community has proved to be effective. Her victory is an indicator that the new generation's time might be just around the corner.
For New York State, the 2008 "change" election represents the final consolidation of power of a new demographic majority, as control in the State Senate shifts from upstate Republicans to downstate New York City-centric Democrats. The massive efforts to gerrymander the State Senate after the 2000 Census, including the arbitrary addition of a downstate seat to leave upstate and Long Island intact and maintain Republican control, only lasted for three elections: 2002, 2004 and 2006.
Of course three dissident Democratic senators from New York City could vote to keep a Republican as Senate leader, but given the great differences in the Democratic and Republican constituencies, this would make it difficult for them to address issues important to their New York City constituents. So, with the power all but certain to be in Democratic hands, one can expect that, barring a reversal in 2010, the Senate redistricting that will follow the 2010 Census will entrench the party's control for many, many years.
Certainly, that is what the Republicans did. They held the majority in the Senate for 70 years (since 1939), except for a brief hiatus from 1965 to 1967 in the wake of Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election.
If the margins in the Assembly, where Democrats held 102 out of 150 seats before the election, are any guide, the Republicans should not expect to achieve a majority anytime soon after the 2010 Census is used to redistrict for the 2012 election. Even in a jurisdiction where one party holds a wildly lopsided majority -- as the Democrats do in New York City -- parties can still draw district lines to maximize the number of seats they hold. The disparity between Republican Senate and Assembly seats in the five boroughs makes this clear. Until the 2008 election, Assembly Democrats had arranged things to keep the Republican to only two Assembly members in the city. On the Senate side, though, Republicans managed to draw the lines so the party got four districts.
One would expect that after redistricting no more than one Republican Senator would remain. Indeed, this year while two of the senators, Andrew Lanza and Martin Golden, had easy victories this month, longtime Republican Sen. Serphin Maltese lost his bid for re-election. The fourth Republican, Frank Padavan, holds such a narrow lead over his Democratic challenger that the votes still are being recounted.
The GOP losses would probably extend beyond the city. The number of upstate senators would likely decrease by one or two due to changes in the allocation of seats upstate versus downstate. The senators representing those new downstate districts would in all likelihood be Democrats. This would lead to massive redrawing of lines upstate, downstate and on Long Island, which would be done to the benefit of the Democrats. Given all this, it is possible that after redistricting, the New York State Senate would have 38 Democrats and only 24 Republicans.
When one examines the underlying geography and demography of the new power base in the Senate, the change becomes even starker. This power shift will have major consequences for a variety of issues.
The first map shows the location of the Republican and Democratic districts and the two seats that switched to Democrat hands for the state as a whole, while the second map examines New York City and its environs. As is obvious from the first map, the change from Democratic to Republican control constitutes a massive shift of power from upstate and Long Island to New York City and Westchester.
The underlying demography makes it plain that the GOP senators and the Democratic senators represent very different constituencies. Twenty-three of the 32 Democratic Senators are from the city. Another two seats overlap the city and Westchester, and two more are in Westchester, while Long Island now has two Democratic seats. There are only five Democratic seats upstate: two in and near Buffalo, one in Albany County, one near but not including Syracuse and one quite far north, including St. Lawrence County.
As to the Republican seats, three are in the city, including one on Staten Island, one in Brooklyn and (for now at least) one in Queens. The GOP has seven of the nine seats on Long Island but 20 seats -- a full two thirds (20 of 30) of all Republican districts -- are upstate.
![]()
|
|||
GENERAL |
|
|
|
Urban |
96.9%
|
77.2%
|
|
Non-Hispanic White |
42.8%
|
83.0%
|
|
Non-Hispanic Black |
23.1%
|
5.7%
|
|
Non-Hispanic Asian |
7.2%
|
3.5%
|
|
Hispanic |
23.5%
|
6.0%
|
|
Foreign born |
29.6%
|
10.3%
|
|
Average household income (1999) |
$60,880
|
$63,026
|
|
FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD | |||
Married Couple |
39.0%
|
55.1%
|
|
Female Headed |
18.2%
|
10.8%
|
|
Non Family |
38.0%
|
30.1%
|
|
Never Married 15+ |
28.8%
|
21.2%
|
|
Now Married |
35.4%
|
44.4%
|
|
Same Sex Unmarried Partner Households |
0.8%
|
0.5%
|
|
Opposite Sex Unmarried Partner Households |
4.6%
|
4.8%
|
|
EDUCATION |
|
|
|
No high school diploima |
25.5%
|
16.0%
|
|
At Least Bachelor's Degree |
27.9%
|
26.8%
|
|
Advanced Degree |
12.2%
|
11.3%
|
|
K-12 in Public School |
83.7%
|
88.3%
|
|
HOUSING |
|
|
|
Rental |
62.9%
|
29.1%
|
|
Owner Occuped |
37.1%
|
70.9%
|
The demographics of upstate are radically different than downstate, including New York City. Given that, residents of the Republican districts have different interests and concerns than those of the Democratic districts. As of the 2000 Census, the Democratic districts were more urban (96.9 percent versus 77.2 percent) than the GOP districts. While 83 percent of the inhabitants of Republican districts are non-Hispanic white, for the Democratic districts the figure is 42.8 percent. As the table shows, Democratic districts are much more black, Hispanic and Asian than the GOP districts.
While 55.1 percent of the households in the GOP districts are married-couple households, for Democratic districts the figure is only 39 percent. Almost twice as many households in Democratic districts than in Republican ones are same-sex couples, though such households still constitute a tiny minority. Democratic districts are also more likely to have both college educated people and residents who did not complete high school than Republican districts. Only 37 percent of the housing in Democratic districts is owner occupied, compared to over 70 percent in GOP districts. The proportion of foreign-born people in Democratic districts is 29.6 percent, and only 10.3 percent in Republican districts. Furthermore, the immigrants in those Democratic districts are much more likely to be from the Caribbean or from South or Central Africa than those in GOP districts.
Such demographic characteristics translate directly into interests in New York State policy. People in Democratic districts would be much more concerned with matters concerning rental housing, such as rent stabilization -- explaining why so many tenant advocates have seen a Democratic Senate as key to the success of their cause -- while those in GOP districts would be more attentive to various methods to reduce real-estate taxes. Since funding of schools is the number one use of state funds, the new Democratic majority may send more money for education to the city and downstate, or the cuts, when they come, would more likely affect upstate.
The efforts to build prisons upstate and to put many SUNY branches upstate may also be under pressure from the new majority. Policies that lead to filling upstate prisons may not be seen in such a positive light.
In short, every policy that has in the past benefitted upstate residents at the expense of those in the city and nearby could be mitigated or even reversed. The power of the GOP to hold legislation hostage to the majority in the Senate will be gone. Now all of the “Three Men in a Room,” will be Democrats, probably from New York City, and the power of the Democrats in both houses of the legislature could well increase, as soon as they resolve their struggle over the leadership of the Senate. Their constituents, it seems, should expect gains from their newfound power.
Whatever happens to the housing market now, New York's booming real estate market of 2000 to 2007 means that many more households in New York City cannot afford their homes. Indeed, the explosive rise in the housing market has spurred some hedge and equity funds to speculate on rental buildings that are subject to rent regulation in the hopes that continuing rise in market rents, along with capital improvements and apartment turnover, will make it possible to deregulate many of the homes in those buildings. This has happened even though some of the complexes are at risk of default and even foreclosure. The sale of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village was emblematic of housing built for the middle class being marketed to those in much higher income brackets.
As New Yorkers look to the election of a new State Senate and watch with horror as the financial crisis continues to unfold, many housing advocates are pushing for substantial re-regulation of the New York City's rental housing. Of course landlord groups, girding for a possible Democratic takeover of the State Senate, are pushing back.
Republicans in the State Senate have traditionally resisted regulation of the rental market and fought rent stabilization and other similar measures. If the State Senate switches to Democratic control, the Democrats, who tend to support some kind of rent control, would hold both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. Advocates see this as their best chance in decades to strengthen controls.
What is the current state of the rental situation in New York City -- and what would happen if the law remains as is? Data available from the New York Housing and Vacancy Survey and information on trends provide some indication.
Various programs that provided some degree of affordability for rental housing in New York undeniably are eroding.
The deregulation of apartments continues. Looking at all regulated apartments, including those constructed before 1974 and regulated by the 1974 tenant protection act, those under rent control and Mitchell-Lama rentals, the Housing and Vacancy Survey estimates 1,166,911 apartments were regulated in 2002. By 2005, that figure had declined to 1,132,472 -- a loss of 34,439 apartments. Of the apartments still regulated in 2005, some 109,254 rented for $1,500 or more, putting them in striking distance of deregulation. Of these apartments, 38,927 already were above $2,000 per month. In short, the loss of another 100,000 apartments to rent stabilization was just a matter of time in 2005.
Until data from 2008 Housing and Vacancy Survey is released next spring, no one can reliably estimate the continuing loss of regulated apartments. However, the rent level that triggers removal of a vacant unit from rent stabilization continues to be $2,000, and turnover is widely estimated at about 6 percent per year. Furthermore, many apartments that are stabilized above $1,500 in 2005 could, with proper renovation and capital improvement, see their rents immediately increase to above $2,000. Overall, one could expect that another 50,000 units probably have been lost in the three years since the last Housing and Vacancy Survey.
When the State Legislature comes back into session, after the election of 2008, it will up to the Assembly, the Senate and the governor, to revisit the fate of rent stabilization in New York City. Without some sort of intervention, the end of rent regulation in New York City will be just a matter of time. As it continues to be phased out, the composition of many neighborhoods in New York City, especially in the more desirable areas, becomes more and more segregated with respect to income.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
When Patricia Martinez, an employee of Monroe Community College, applied for health care benefits for her spouse, Lisa Ann Golden, whom she had married in Canada, the college denied the benefits, saying it covered only opposite sex spouses. But early in 2008, an appellate court in northern New York ruled that by failing to recognize the marriage, the employer had unlawfully discriminated based on sexual orientation. The court concluded, "The sole reason for defendants' rejection of the marital status of plaintiff is her sexual orientation."
A valid same-sex Canadian marriage such as Martinez's and Golden's, is entitled to recognition in this state, and the plaintiff's health care benefits must be extended to her same-sex spouse, wrote Justice Erin M. Peradotto for the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Martinez v County of Monroe, received little attention until this spring, when the state's new governor, David Paterson, issued a memorandum directing all state agencies to treat the valid same-sex marriages of other jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage -- Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Massachusetts and California -- as they would any other marriage. This was similar to earlier directives by former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi and his successor, Thomas DiNapoli.
The governor, in making what he called "a strong step toward marriage," was following the Martinez court mandate. He cautioned state agencies that violations could subject the government to lawsuits and that recognition of same-sex marriages is "consistent with state policy."
For more than a century, New York has recognized the valid marriages of other jurisdictions, except if they involve conditions that are illegal in New York or against public policy, such as polygamy or incest. However, homosexuality is not illegal and does not violate public policy, nor is there any law in this state prohibiting recognition of such marriage. The Martinez decision relied on the absence of any law banning same-sex marriage even though the state's highest court had previously held in Hernandez v Robles that, under existing law, gay men and lesbians have no right to enter marriage. In other words, the state does not allow gay marriage but also does not prohibit its recognition.
Unlike the majority of states, New York has not adopted the theory of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and has not adopted legislation denying comity or the usual constitutional requirement of giving full faith and credit to acts -- marriages or not -- that are valid in other states. In a country comprised of many states, individuals and businesses are generally free to move from one state to another without disruptions. Gay marriage has become a glaring exception. Same sex couples might be married in one state, but not married when they cross state lines. This is what recognition is meant to avoid.
In a challenge to the governor's position, New York State Sen. Martin Golden (apparently not related to Lisa Ann Golden, spouse of Patricia Martinez) and others represented by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, which is opposed to same-sex marriage, brought a "taxpayer" lawsuit claiming the governor had acted outside his authority. This was the fourth case brought by Alliance on behalf of New York taxpayers -- the others challenging earlier directives from Hevesi and DiNapoli.
The suit argued Paterson's directive would create a "wrongful expenditure" and waste taxpayer money because it would, for example, lead to state funds paying health and other benefits for two people instead of one.
Ruling on the case, Acting Justice Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court, sitting in the Bronx, dismissed the lawsuit. She acknowledged that state funds are involved, but cited lack of specificity as to what funds would be expended.
Alliance has lost its other three cases as well. The group, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., has appealed all four.
In discussing the taxpayer action, Billings wrote, "The governor's directive is an incremental but important step toward equality long denied." In her 27 page decision, the judge said, "When partners manifest the commitment to their relationship and family by solemnizing that commitment elsewhere, through one of life's most significant events, and come to New York, whether returning home or setting down roots, to carry on that commitment, nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring them to abandon solemnizing commitment."
None of the directives, nor the various lawsuits are about registered domestic relationships or civil unions, and they do not create a right to marry in this state. In accord with the Martinez decision in Monroe, Billings emphasized that the legislature may enact a ban on recognizing out-of-state marriages, or, on the other hand, create a right to marry. Absent such legislation, the decision said, "The governor's directive is another permissible, if not mandated, step toward the objective of equality for a group for whom legal as well as practical barriers to equality persist."
Billings held that same-sex couples "expect equal treatment with other married couples in legal protections and economic benefits for the couples and for their children: owning property as a unit, insurance, workers' compensation, health benefits, medical decision making, wrongful death claims, intestacy, inheritance and espousal privilege, for example. The emotional, familial, financial, and legal stability that accompanies marriage establishes a strong presumption in favor of the marriage's continued validity."
Still, barriers remain. Ken Sherrill, professor of political science at Hunter College, who married his long-time partner, Gerald Otte in Canada in August 2003 said, "While my spirits are lifted by the governor's actions, I have yet to experience any of the substantive benefits. Without implementation, the order isn't worth the paper it's written on, and the state has yet to issue guidelines, rules and regulations for implementing the policy."
A second problem, Sherrill points out, is that many of the issues involve health and related benefits under contracts with out-of-state vendors. Like Martinez in Monroe, Sherrill was denied certain benefits for his spouse. But the Martinez policy was with a New York company, while Sherrill's union, PSC-CUNY, though part of the state payroll, carries New York State United Teachers' catastrophic care insurance issued by Marsh Affinity Group Services of Illinois. Marsh, according to Sherrill, refuses to accept a Canadian marriage license as proof of the marital relationship.
"We have to see if government agencies or unions representing public employees should be barred from contracting out fringe benefits to corporations that do not recognize marriages like mine," Sherrill said. "Obviously, one solution is to find other vendors."
In the suit, the Office of the Attorney General's Monica Connell represented the governor. Attorneys for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, were represented by Susan Sommer, with pro bono assistance from Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Brian Raum argued the case for Alliance Defense Fund.
Emily Jane Goodman is a New York State Supreme Court JusticeÂ