Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

With Marijuana Back on the Agenda, It's Time New York Lawmakers Get Serious About Social Equity


equityorg cityhall

Rally to call for legalization of adult marijuana use (photo: @equityorg)


Governor Cuomo's rollout of a reworked Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act means this may finally be the year New Yorkers get access to legal weed. And while a similar legalization push floundered in the statehouse last year, many are optimistic about its odds during the 2020 legislative session. Not only are the vast majority of New Yorkers in favor of adult-use sales, but legislators staring down the barrel of a $6 billion budget hole will be hard-pressed to turn down an estimated $300 million in annual tax revenue.

As for the New York lawmakers who haven't yet succumbed to the siren song of legal marijuana? Their colleagues may soon force their hand. Massachusetts currently allows for adult-use sales — and Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey are all aggressively eyeing legalization. Cuomo has even helped convene neighboring leaders to coordinate a regional approach to the effort. If the other states' proposals pass, New York will be forced to choose whether to follow their lead or risk watching those potential tax dollars pad the budgets of neighboring states — plenty of New Yorkers are already heading to Massachusetts to get legal cannabis.

Still, legalization is far from a done deal. Like last year, we're sure to see a showdown between Cuomo and the Legislature when it comes to the issue of 'social equity.' Many Democractic lawmakers want a guarantee that a percentage of New York's cannabis tax revenues will help fund programs and policies that serve the communities hit hardest by decades of marijuana arrests. Cuomo would prefer to put the money in the state's general fund, where he can distribute it as he sees fit.

As recent news reminds us, the past half-century of cannabis criminalization has had devastating consequences in low-income communities of color, in New York City and others around the state. And while legal marijuana may be minting a new class of cannabis industry millionaires, the spoils of the "Green Rush" are almost exclusively flowing to a small group of wealthy, well-connected, and disproportionately white players. This is unacceptable in any industry, but it's particularly infuriating given the fact the low-income, rural, and/or minority communities being shut out of the sector are the same people who've borne the brunt of our prohibitionist policies in the first place.

So yes, I agree with many of the Legislature's leaders — it's only right we use some of this revenue to repair the harms of the War on Drugs. That said, if the Legislature doesn't act more strategically, we'll end up wasting this unique opportunity to create a diverse, equitable, and sustainable new industry in New York State. 

Social equity funding may be the biggest difference between the dueling marijuana legalization efforts, but that disagreement pales in comparison to the macro-problems found in both proposals. Our legislators would be smart to look into the issues that have plagued other states post-legalization.

Despite having an extensive cultivation network, a glut of pro-legalization politicians, and the country's largest population of cannabis consumers, California is seeing its legal marijuana market implode. Prohibitively high taxes and exceptionally burdensome regulations have driven prices so high that patients and consumers are left with no choice but to buy products from unlicensed sources. As a result, experts estimate 85-90% of California's cannabis sales are made in the unregulated market. This shift has bankrupted smaller marijunana outfits and forced larger cannabis companies to constrict and consolidate. If California's problems continue to go unaddressed, they could very well work to increase organized crime's influence in the industry.

It's difficult to shed a tear when you learn about the troubles of shady operators like MedMen. That said, both Cuomo's Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act and the Legislature's Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act create a taxation and regulatory structure that would make it nearly impossible for even the most well-capitalized cannabis corporation to survive, let alone a small, rural, and/or minority-owned business.

We can't forget that a non-functional legal sector means no money for social equity initiatives. If we want these programs to thrive, we'd be wise to look to the regulatory environment in cannabis markets like Colorado — a place where the state's $2 billion in annual cannabis tax revenue can actually help fund social services. To his credit, Cuomo recently announced he'll be heading to other legal states to learn more about what strategies have and haven't worked in their marijuana markets.

Another knock on New York's legalization bills? The lack of nuance. Even if the Legislature manages to secure social equity funding, what's its plan for steering that money into the communities it's meant to serve? Given state-run programs are floundering across the country, the how is an increasingly important — and often underlooked — question.

Why are so many social equity initiatives struggling? One reason is the fact they focus (almost exclusively) on creating licensing processes that prioritize businesses run by individuals that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. Facilitating entrepreneurship in rural and minority communities is a laudable goal, no doubt, but even if those programs help businesses navigate the byzantine patchwork of local and state regulations, they don't help them access the capital (a couple million dollars, at least) required to get a cannabis company up and running. 

For argument's sake, let's just say New York's social equity-focused licensing program—as written—is successful (an outcome that's eluded other legal states). The bill mainly focuses on prioritized business licenses—a critical issue of course, but still an effort that would impact a relatively small number of people. While I recognize legislators are looking for their ribbon-cutting moment, wouldn't it also be smart to put as much effort into building wealth via workforce development programs? Or create a more concrete plan for reinvesting tax revenues directly into underserved communities?

Given the sordid history and devastating consequences of marijuna prohibition, it's clear New York has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity—as well as a moral imperative—to create a diverse, equitable and sustainable legal cannabis industry. At the same time, as we evaluate social equity initiatives across the country, it's also quite apparent we need to come up with smarter, more impactful ways to start "righting the wrongs of the War on Drugs." 

***
Natalie Papillion is the Founder and CEO of The Equity Organization, a nonprofit focused on creating a diverse and equitable legal cannabis industry. On Twitter @npapillion & @Equityorg.

***
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.

Health Care Reform New York Should Tackle Now: A Rational Payment System


reacc rosw

(photo: Governor's Office)


A New Yorker who suffers a heart attack is typically rushed to the nearest hospital for treatment. In a life-threatening emergency minutes matter, so the practice is sound public policy. Yet, if it turns out the hospital is not in the patient’s insurance network, the sigh of relief is short-lived. The bill for the care can top $100,000. Surprise!

Unaffordable medical bills are the top financial concern of two-thirds of Americans. The crazy system we have created of public and private health insurers, in-and-out of network providers, and hospitals and doctors who can charge any amount they please but do not have to disclose their prices publicly, leads to outcomes that are outrageously unfair on a regular basis, particularly for urgent care.

Since access to healthcare is a fundamental human need, an effective federal government would create a national system based on rational principles. Sadly, the United States Congress has been unable to achieve this goal, something every other advanced country in the world has accomplished. Two committees in the current House of Representatives session are considering surprise medical bill legislation, but there is no way to know if those efforts will yield results. New York should not wait and leave its people subject to the whims of Washington’s partisan political wars.

The New York State Assembly has twice passed the New York Health Act, a proposal to create a statewide single-payer system to replace the current structure. The New York State Senate, however, has not approved the legislation that would eliminate private insurance altogether in favor of a Medicare-like government program that would cover all New Yorkers. If New York were starting fresh, that might be a sensible way forward. But we are not. Millions of New Yorkers rely on employer-sponsored, private-insurer health plans and do not want to be forced off of them. Improving the quality and accessibility of health care in New York must take that reality into account.

Decision-makers must also recognize that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers’ jobs and livelihoods are linked to the existing structure. Change must take place at a pace the public will support.

A better alternative is the creation of a state agency to set the amount any hospital or doctor can charge for a service and require all insurers to reimburse care providers the same amount. It is the type of system Maryland implemented long ago and that was recently adopted in Washington State.

A rational system that establishes a uniform fee appropriate for each service would replace the current one, which allows every provider to create its own price list. Fees would be transparent and consistent. It would put an end to today’s practice where providers charge different insurance companies different fees for identical services depending on the insurer’s bargaining power and network status.

Today’s system, in addition to creating unaffordable surprise bills, leads to cruel irony. Uninsured and underinsured individuals often end up being charged the highest price, while someone with a good job and good benefits at a large company is likely covered by an insurer who pays a far lower amount. The diabolically unfair logic of the system is part of the reason medical expenses are the single largest cause of bankruptcy filings in the United States, which is unconscionable.

The rational system proposed would allow the state to exert influence on medical costs to prevent them from going up faster than wages and people’s ability to pay them. An annual statewide cap on price increases allowed across the system would prevent unsustainable rises in medical costs while allowing necessary adjustments and pricing flexibility for new innovations without limiting increases caused by growth in healthcare use.

To ease the transition such a change would require, New York State should phase in the rational payment system starting with private insurance plans for hospital procedures. Over time, the program can be expanded to merge the reimbursement rates for public and private insurance plans, and similar structures can be set-up for doctors and pharmacies.

The proposed system would make New York’s healthcare payment system rational, and more affordable. That would be a surprise people would welcome.

***
Chris McNickle writes about New York government and politics. His most recent book is Bloomberg: A Billionaire’s Ambition. On Twitter @NYChrisMcNickle.

***
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.

Cruising is a City Problem Bigger Than For-Hire Vehicles, Deserving a Complete Policy Response


gridlock alert ung

Traffic, mobility, for-hire vehicles & others need a solution (photo: NYC DOT)


Earlier this month, news broke that the New York City Council is considering new regulations on transportation network company (TNC) vehicles cruising city streets in search of passengers, with hopes that the move would ease Manhattan congestion. The measure would mirror the city’s recently-passed congestion fee, which similarly blames for-hire vehicles for clogging city streets with cars.

Like the congestion fee, this proposal is an incomplete policy mechanism that is unlikely to noticeably improve the urban problem it’s designed to alleviate. And like the congestion fee, it could set a bad example for municipalities elsewhere who seek to mimic New York’s policy decisions.

Automotive traffic congestion is a major societal problem. Its human cost is measured in jobs lost because of buses that never seem to run on time, daycare late fees straining family budgets, and dinners reheated in the microwave. Traffic also slows commerce, with truckloads of e-commerce parcels and industry inputs sitting in the same roadway backlogs as drivers and passengers. In short, state and local governments are working to improve traffic conditions every day for good reason.

One primary cause of traffic is “cruising” behavior — the act of driving around searching for someone or something on the street. The oft-repeated statistic from leading parking professor Donald Shoup is that about 30 percent of urban traffic consists of cruising, although the observed range can vary significantly among cities.

The New York for-hire vehicle proposal would target one form of cruising by one subset of road users in its effort to improve traffic congestion. TNC drivers certainly drive around alone, waiting for a fare to cause their phones to ping. But they’re not alone; many other people are doing a version of the same thing.

Taxis cruise around in search of hailing pedestrians on the streets. Food delivery drivers look for somewhere to idle while they pick up orders. And most commonly of all, individual drivers in personal vehicles wander the streets, intent on finding an empty parking spot beside a city-owned curb. Any political change that seeks to address traffic caused by cruising must reckon with the fact that cruising is a ubiquitous driving behavior that’s carried out by almost all drivers, not just those that move others around for a fee.

But that would be a far more challenging change to implement than shunting the burden onto a fraction of drivers. While this fraction spends a lot of time on the road, non-TNC drivers still make up the majority of traffic, and dealing with cruising by this majority would do far more for congestion than regulating TNC drivers alone.

Of course, it’s a lot harder to directly police cruising behavior by non-TNC drivers. Overcoming associated privacy concerns is one challenge that’s held back sensible transportation changes, like implementing a vehicle-miles-traveled fee in lieu of gasoline taxes. Ensuring that every driver has working tracking technology can quickly become a mess, as federal laws mandating electronic trucker hours record-keeping have recently shown.

If direct, widespread limits on cruising aren’t politically viable or technologically reliable, it may be better to view cruising as more of a symptom of poor transportation policy decisions than a disease in and of itself — and to treat the underlying causes instead. As professor Shoup has explained for decades, misaligned parking and road prices are what encourage wasteful traffic behaviors that include cruising.

Policymakers who want to get at the root cause of this issue are better off shifting their energies toward the political lift of raising the price of street parking to ensure spaces regularly change hands. Higher rates should be universal across the city such that residents who drive can expect to pay everywhere, preventing the incentive to cruise for free parking before it happens.

Unwinding parking subsidies remains a challenging political issue, but one that stands to improve urban traffic wherever changes are made. Unfortunately, New York’s cruising reform proposal misses this entirely. One would hope traffic-reforming politicians in the city and elsewhere will opt for a more complete policy response.

***
Nick Zaiac is a resident fellow in transportation and infrastructure at the R Street Institute. On Twitter @NickZaiac & @RSI.

***
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 Renewed Appreciation for Freedom, and for Serving My Community


alkbrook1

Alec Brook-Krasny (photo: @AlecBrookKrasny)


Twenty years ago, when I first ran for office, I was not like most other candidates. Democracy was not something I was born into. Instead, I left the country where I grew up and traveled across the world to trade the oppression of the Soviet Union for the freedom of the United States. As a result, when I asked my neighbors to elect me to the New York State Assembly, it was because I wanted to give back to the community and country that had welcomed me with open arms and helped me to achieve the American Dream.

Twenty years later, as I now announce my candidacy for the New York City Council, I am still not like most other candidates. But what sets me apart is not just that I had to fight to find freedom. Now, what sets me apart is that I have had to fight to hold onto my freedom.

In 2017, I was falsely accused of crimes I did not commit.

It was easy, at first, to feel lost. Overwhelmed. Even defeated. After years of dedicating myself to the community and public service, my life had become synonymous with a lie. No matter how strongly I maintained my innocence, no matter how much evidence my lawyers and I turned over showing that I had done nothing wrong, it seemed like everyone else, especially the prosecutors, refused to listen.

But once the shock wore off, and the reality of the situation sunk in, I knew I had to stand my ground. Innocence must not compromise. Baseless as the charges against me were, I knew that once a jury heard my case—once my peers sat in judgment—the facts would carry the day.

Three years since, after being fully exonerated, I feel lucky. Not lucky to have won—I always believed that the truth would succeed—but lucky to have been in a position to win. Lucky that I found great lawyers—lawyers who never wavered in defending me and never suggested I plead guilty to crimes I did not commit. Lucky that I had resources—mounting a defense costs huge amounts of time and money, and for me, even when I ran out of money, my lawyers still stuck by me, so great was their belief in my case. Lucky that I had support—friends, family, my community, and many more all stood strongly behind me.

Most of all, I am lucky to have been the exception, not the rule. 

Countless others will never have the chance to properly defend themselves. Without access to top lawyers, without resources, without a support system, anyone can fall through the cracks. For those people, the overlooked, ignored, forgotten, I will fight. I will ensure that our justice system provides the necessary tools to help people not need luck. Laws like the expanded right to counsel, discovery reform, eliminating cash bail, and increased funding for alternatives to incarceration are all positive steps towards a justice system that is equal and bent toward compassion for all it serves.

Twenty years ago, when I first ran for office, I asked my neighbors to give me the privilege of representing them. During my time in the Assembly, we achieved so much. We increased financial support for public schools, Coney Island Hospital, and subsidized housing. We enacted anti-violence programs that made our communities safer, especially for seniors. And we worked together to recover, rebuild, and revitalize after Superstorm Sandy. After all that, leaving the Assembly was one of the hardest decisions I ever made, but it was the only way for me to provide for my family.

Today, however, I am forced to ask myself: what good is providing for your family if our institutions fail to protect them? Whether by rebuilding our criminal justice system or fixing public transportation, lifting up struggling schools or supporting workers and small businesses, I am running for City Council to answer that question head-on. I am ready to stand for Bensonhurst, Coney Island, Gravesend, Sea Gate, and beyond, to make sure that the future is as bright for our children as it ought to be.

***
Alec Brook-Krasny is a former Assemblymember and candidate for City Council in the 47th District. On Twitter @AlecBrookKrasny.

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

New York Needs to Invest in the Catskills for the Good of the Whole State


catskills aerialphoto

The Catskills from above (photo: @CatskillCenter)


Albany’s budget is tough this year, with an unprecedented $6.1 billion gap to close. New York State has adopted the nation’s most ambitious climate change agenda, which will cost $33 billion over five years, and Governor Cuomo proposes keeping the State’s Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) at a record $300 million.

Environmental spending may seem like a luxury when budgets are tight, let alone unprecedented environmental spending. But doubling down on the state’s environmental agenda is the responsible choice—not a luxury.

This year’s EPF appropriations as outlined in the governor’s budget plan will fund climate change programs ($20 million), solid waste programs ($39 million), open space ($152 million), and parks and recreation ($89 million). It funds mitigating and adapting to climate change, stimulating renewable energy, protecting farmland, fighting invasive species, improving water quality, supporting tourism growth, and seeking environmental justice. These smart investments in our future also generate statewide economic development, sustainable growth, and fiscal returns.

State funding has helped ramp up Catskills tourism to 12 million visitors a year and counting (currently more than the Adirondacks  and roughly twice the visitorship of the Grand Canyon).  Last year Lonely Planet named the Catskills one of the Top 10 Best Regions for Travel.

Even with New York’s other world-class industries, as the state's third-largest employer, tourism is key. In the Catskills, tourism generates $1.3 billion a year in direct spending, $161 million in state and local taxes, and supports 18,500 jobs. These numbers are growing fast, with an 11.3% jump in 2019 Catskills tourism over 2018.  

The Catskills are a unique part of the world: pristine forests, abundant wildlife, vital waterways, unique communities, and unparalleled recreational opportunities—all within an easy drive to New York City, which gets most of its drinking water, some of the nation's purest, from Catskills reservoirs.

Catskills public lands are managed both by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection, and receive no Parks Department funding. Like the rest of the world, our resources are threatened by climate change, development pressures, and other factors. Continued tourism growth, thriving communities, and environmental protection depend on state investment in the region.

Every year I help lead a coalition of several dozen local groups and volunteers to Albany for Catskill Park Day, where we make the case to state legislators and the governor’s office for directing funding to the Catskills. In 2015 we obtained $500,000 in the DEC’s “Aid to Localities” budget, which paid for new trails, access improvements, and parking areas. In 2016 the Assembly's budget included $4 million for the Catskills in the EPF, but it was zeroed out in the final budget negotiations. The next year, we secured over $15 million in state funding.

This year, we asked Governor Cuomo to increase the overall EPF and allocate $15 million in his budget to manage and grow Catskills tourism through infrastructure improvements, fund the Catskill Visitor Center, install renewables in the region, conduct local research on invasives and Lyme disease, and support economic development of Catskills towns.

Although the governor understands the need to invest in the region, and included some of the coalition's requests in his executive budget for next fiscal year (FY2021), this legislative session will be the acid test of whether this kind of spending can survive the budget process.

Some will ask if we can afford to invest in the Catskills given the $6.1 billion gap. But the region is a key environmental resource, an integral part of the fight against climate change, an engine of tourism and upstate economic growth, and contributes to what makes New York unique. The question ought to be, can we afford not to?

***
Jeff Senterman is the Executive Director of the Catskill Center. On Twitter @JeffSenterman & @CatskillCenter.

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

To Protect New Yorkers’ Health, New Patient Protection Laws Must be Enforced


doctors health care

(photo: Governor's Office)


When it comes to determining the proper course of care for a serious health issue, decisions should be made by a patient and their health care provider. But too often, health insurers have been undermining providers’ decisions in efforts to cut costs — forcing them to navigate burdensome bureaucratic roadblocks before agreeing to cover prescribed treatments and services. That can result in patients facing delays in care or going untreated altogether.

To address this problem, New York lawmakers recently worked to protect patients by requiring health plans to ensure timely access to care. Unfortunately, new findings suggest that these new requirements are frequently not being met, and it should be the priority of patients, health care providers, and advocates throughout New York to ensure that these new laws are being enforced.

With health care costs continuing to spiral, many health insurers have explored ways to rein in spending. Policies such as prior authorization, which requires health care providers to receive approval from an insurer before prescribing a costly treatment or service, or step therapy, which requires patients to try and fail on alternative, typically older medications before moving on to newer and sometimes costlier treatments, have become widely integrated among health insurance plans in recent years.

However, these policies often end up creating unnecessary burdens by delaying treatment and undermining what practitioners deem to be the most effective course of care. Providers have long complained that prior authorization requests can often take anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks to be approved — or worse yet, denied — leaving patients without necessary care during this lengthy and frustrating process.

In fact, a 2018 survey from the American Medical Association found more than one in four physicians reported that these cumbersome requirements “led to a serious adverse event” for patients under their care.

New York lawmakers took action in recent years to strengthen patient protections, passing a pair of bills that would increase efficiency with prior authorization and grant more timely exceptions to step therapy requests. For example, under the new laws, health insurers must now respond to prior authorization requests in 72 hours for routine care and 24 for urgent situations. Similarly, patients can receive an exception to step therapy protocols if the plan’s required treatment is expected to be ineffective or the patient already tried and failed on the required treatment.

But many providers have come forward to express concerns that health insurers are not abiding by these new requirements. According to a recent survey of New York providers, for example, just 30 percent say that health plans are meeting these approval request times “every time,” and 33 percent say that the paperwork process has not been simplified or see no difference.

Meanwhile, more than 79 percent of providers say that the changes in step therapy laws either have made the process to request an exception more difficult or have not made a difference. Worse, given their frustrations, many providers do not seek to appeal the denial and instead will simply prescribe another medication — which may not be as effective as the originally prescribed treatment.

While health plans are still adjusting to these new regulations, these findings suggest there is significant room for improvement when it comes to increasing access to care. Physicians and patients should go through the appeals process to petition insurers for their treatments and file complaints for egregious behavior. At the same time, lawmakers and regulatory agencies can take a more proactive approach to ensuring that these policies are being enforced appropriately, including collecting data from insurers to measure compliance.

The passage of these bills was a landmark moment for patients, providers, and advocates throughout New York in guaranteeing better access to health care. Now, they must make their voices heard to state lawmakers and regulators in order to ensure that they are able to realize the promise that these bills once held.

***
Stacey Worthy is a staff attorney for Aimed Alliance, a non-profit health policy organization that seeks to protect and enhance the rights of health care consumers and providers.

***
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.

Why We Need a Comprehensive City Plan Now


first lady chirlane opening dev

(photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


New York City’s housing crisis is getting worse. While a significant number of luxury units sit vacant, the population of homeless children is growing, we have only a 1% vacancy rate in public housing, and more than half of New Yorkers spend over a third of their income on housing. We have a serious problem on our hands.

According to basic economics, the solution to demand exceeding supply is an increase in supply. A scarcity of units causes prices to rise; the most effective way to ease this upward pressure on rents is to build more, and to do so quickly. New residential units start a “migration chain” that filters down to lower income brackets, as well; the benefits of new construction filter down the property ladder even if the new construction is a luxury high-rise. Development alone is not enough -- we need to incentivize the creation of affordable units and provide low-income families with additional assistance -- but unless we build more, we have no hope of making housing more affordable in New York City.

And yet, we are struggling to build. According to Mayor de Blasio’s “Where We Live Now” plan, there were 163,000 new housing units built in the 2010s, down from 198,000 the decade before. Even the 1930s saw greater production of new housing.

Though conceptually, most people would agree that to fix our shortage we need to build new units, in reality most people don’t want new construction on their streets. Resistance to new development comes from a variety of different fears. Though blocked views, loud construction, and overcrowded trains are easy to dismiss as NIMBYism, other concerns are more nuanced. New development can change neighborhood character, and many communities fear that it can accelerate gentrification and displacement (though research contradicts this claim).

Despite these objections, we need to build more housing. Currently, it seems like any proposal, no matter how small, encounters fierce opposition. We should be mindful of how development will impact our diverse neighborhoods, but protestors and anti-development activists should consider the counter-factual: What will happen to our city if there is no development at all?

The build-but-not-here phenomenon we are experiencing in New York City is a classic collective action problem. In many cases, it is rational for people to want to keep new construction out of their neighborhoods. But when we take an individual’s rational decision and expand it to an entire city, we run into trouble. When all of New York City says “no” to new development, where does that leave us?

Currently, development proposals feel haphazard and uncoordinated, but we can start to break the stalemate with a comprehensive city plan, which is in the City Council’s legislative pipeline. Led by Council Speaker Corey Johnson and Council Members Brad Lander and Antonio Reynoso, the comprehensive plan would sketch out a long-term plan for rezoning, development, and land use decisions within the five boroughs.

The New York City Council attempted to introduce a comprehensive city plan as part of the 2019 Charter Revision Commission. The 2019 proposal, which failed to be put to voters, observed that for other major cities across the globe, comprehensive plans serve “as the basis for land use, zoning, and capital planning decisions.” New York City struggles to reach consensus on any of these issues, leading to stalled projects and, ultimately, skyrocketing rents.

Critics of a comprehensive city plan decry it as a toothless document and futile effort. They compare it to existing “fair share criteria,” a set of guidelines to help New York City place public facilities in a thoughtful, equitable way. Though well-intentioned, the criteria have made little difference in how city government actually allocates facilities.

Whether or not a comprehensive city plan changes patterns of development in New York City, though, at the very least such a plan will make new development projects feel more coherent. Currently, New Yorkers struggle to see how the buildings proposed for their neighborhoods fit into a broader effort to make housing more affordable. When proposals feel like one-off projects, they are easy to dismiss. After all, it is true that one building will not make a meaningful difference to the number of units we have on the market.

If, however, each proposed building is part of a clear plan to make New York City more affordable for everyone, opposition to development may become less venomous. True, a comprehensive city plan will not solve our housing affordability issues or eliminate disagreement entirely. Tensions surrounding gentrification and displacement will remain, and NIMBYism will continue. But at the very least, New Yorkers will be able to see how each new development connects to a larger plan. A citywide planning framework will not fix everything, but it is a good place to start.

***
Benjamin Heller is a graduate student at NYU’s Robert F Wagner School of Public Service. On Twitter @BenjaminHeller0.

***
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.

5 Steps to Properly Combat Housing Discrimination in New York


court water board

(photo: Edwin J. Torres/ Mayoral Photography Office)


The landmark report on housing discrimination on Long Island recently published by Newsday requires action by government and the real estate industry in the region but also in Albany and statewide. The rampant discrimination revealed is not limited to Long Island and displays a dramatic failure by New York State government that must be corrected.

Newsday’s three-year investigation of real estate sales practices on Long Island – titled “Long Island Divided” – involved paired testers (one white, the other “of color”) and revealed widespread separate and unequal treatment of potential homebuyers who were black, Hispanic, and Asian, and of other minority communities. Black testers experienced disparate treatment 49 percent of the time, compared with 39 percent for Hispanics and 19 percent for Asian testers.

The results of Newsday’s investigation mirror those of an earlier investigation that our two organizations jointly conducted to determine whether black renters on Long Island were being discriminated against in the housing options that they were offered. Our similar use of paired testing revealed that in both Nassau and Suffolk counties property owners and management companies were showing apartments to white applicants and not to black applicants. Our findings led to successful litigation resulting in court-mandated settlements in 2014 and 2016 with the offending rental housing providers. 

The challenge for New York State government is that racial discrimination in housing in New York is systemic. The problem is not limited to the sales or rental market or to the real estate industry. It’s not limited to Long Island. The stark patterns of residential racial segregation evident across the state – and throughout the nation – were created by the intentional and coordinated actions of the federal and state governments, housing industry, and other institutions over many decades, and this segregation has been sustained by the same institutions.

The Fair Housing Justice Center and ERASE Racism have, therefore, developed a five-point plan to address this widespread pattern of residential racial discrimination.

First, fully utilize the licensing power of the State to better regulate real estate licensees. States possess the authority to regulate the behavior of licensed businesses and individuals. New York should more effectively exercise its authority to regulate the real estate industry. Among other actions, the New York Department of State’s Division of Licensing Services should review the results of the Newsday investigation to determine if any of the licensees engaged in conduct that warrants disciplinary action including possible suspension or revocation of licenses.

Second, create a well-resourced, proactive, and better coordinated fair housing enforcement strategy. The public agencies charged with enforcing local, state, and federal fair housing should coordinate efforts to review Newsday’s findings to determine if any warrant enforcement action to obtain compliance with fair housing laws. Greater emphasis should be placed on conducting investigations aimed at documenting systemic housing discrimination. While complaints still need to be investigated in a timely and thorough manner, significant resources must also be devoted to conducting proactive testing investigations. 

Housing discrimination has evolved over time. Before passage of fair housing laws, discrimination was overt. Housing consumers of color were frequently met with slammed doors and racial epithets. Now the “slammed door” has been replaced with a “revolving door” where people are often politely escorted in and then away from the desired housing. The victimized person is usually unaware that discrimination occurred, and this reality calls into question the efficacy of public agencies solely pursing a complaint-responsive approach to enforcing fair housing laws. 

Third, the real estate industry should take affirmative steps to ensure compliance with fair housing laws. The Long Island Board of Realtors has a special responsibility here, but industry-wide action is needed. The industry’s trade association should provide model fair housing policy statements – and explain the consequences of non-compliance – to member real estate firms and their agents detailing best practices in non-discriminatory real estate sales and marketing. Real estate companies should adopt affirmative hiring practices to create more diverse sales forces.

Fourth, affirmatively further fair housing in all housing and community development activities at the local, state, and federal levels. In that connection, New York State should amend its Human Rights Law in two ways. First, it should explicitly prohibit discriminatory action by local public agencies involved in housing, land-use and zoning, or community development to ensure that their efforts are not perpetuating segregation by making housing unavailable based on race, national origin, etc. Second, similar to what California did in 2018, the law should require state agencies and departments, local jurisdictions, public housing authorities, and other public entities receiving state or federal funds for housing and community development to “affirmatively further fair housing” and take no action that is materially inconsistent with this obligation.

Fifth, New York State should implement fair housing legislative initiatives, policy changes, and support for programs that expand access to housing opportunities in all neighborhoods. Among other actions, the State should allocate funding for regional mobility assistance programs that help families with rental subsidies to access housing opportunities in low-poverty neighborhoods with well-resourced schools. The State should enact a statewide “Equitable Share” housing plan and establish a minimum affordable housing goal for every community. The State should also create a Statewide Zoning Appeals Board to ensure that local decisions meet State standards.

The issues illuminated by Newsday’s investigation have been exposed for all to see. Legislative initiatives, policy changes, and enforcement action are now required to address the State’s widespread failings, which have become all too self-evident.

***
Elaine Gross is President of ERASE Racism, the Long Island-based civil rights organization. Fred Freiberg is Executive Director of the Fair Housing Justice Center, a regional fair housing organization based in New York City. On Twitter @EraseRacism & @FredFreiberg.

***
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.

King Saga Shows Need to Bring Real Ethics Reform to the City Council


council andy king

Council Member Andy King (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)


Another day, another egregious ethics violation, and it’s still business as usual in the City Council. Last week, the Council’s Committee on Standards and Ethics announced yet another investigation, the third to be precise, into Council Member Andy King’s behavior.

New charges allege that King actively tried to circumvent the Council-imposed ‘monitor,’ seemingly a glorified babysitter since he could not be trusted to act appropriately with his staff, and violated a majority of the disciplinary provisions imposed by the Council in the fall. New allegations include misappropriation of city funds for his personal benefit. 

The Council had every chance to remove him this fall, yet in an appalling 34-12 vote on his expulsion, the Council decided to punt, and in a separate vote opted to suspend him instead. Here begins a renewed round of flimsy excuses and attempts to hide behind precedent from those who voted against his expulsion.

I of course support restorative justice and giving people a second chance, but this is a Council member who has been warned for the umpteenth time and is clearly more emboldened to do whatever he wants. 

The Council is long overdue to rethink ethics oversight. Time and again the Council is asked to police its own members. And time and again, we’ve seen just how ineffective, broken, and inequitable this process is. There’s a better way.

The theory of change is not radical: remove ethics oversight from the political power structure and start a meaningful process to build a system, with input from staff members and aides, that will  protect workers and restore the public’s faith in the Council. This, out of necessity, will require a truly independent ethics oversight body.

But that’s just the first step. No New Yorker should face harassment on the job. It is unacceptable to protect Council members who have demeaned and harassed their employees, like King, who should have been expelled, and avoid severe repercussions for their behavior. The lack of accountability only creates a perverse permission structure that allows this type of deplorable behavior to flourish. That’s why I stand with Harassment Free NYCC, a courageous group of current and former City Council staffers, in their fight for a safe and inclusive work environment.

It’s simply not good enough to do the bare minimum. City Council staffers must be given the same opportunities and benefits as millions of other city employees and be allowed to unionize. I remain hopeful that the burgeoning union, the Association of Legislative Employees, is able to make significant progress on their unionization drive over the next year.

But this kind of reform also requires that the ‘but-this-is-how-we’ve-always-done-it’ mentality is shoved aside. In Albany, we’ve already seen the impact of what can happen when a group of insurgent candidates run, win, and create the space to upend antiquated norms for the better. As someone who used to work in City Council, I know there are many short- and long-term changes that can be made if we empower the staff themselves.

The looming realignment and wave of brand new councilmembers coming to New York City politics and government in 2021 is fertile ground for such structural change. Which is why we need an energized and ambitious cohort of new elected officials to capitalize on this unique opportunity to reimagine how the Council does business. It’s vital that independent reformers, not those beholden to a calcified Council culture and party bosses, are part of the new wave. 

***
Brandon West is a candidate for City Council in Brooklyn’s District 39 and is the former president of the New Kings Democrats (NKD). On Twitter @btwest.

***
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.

Colossal Failures by New York Budget Division Bring Turmoil and Danger to Medicaid Program


Cuomo state budget

Gov. Cuomo & Budget Director Mujica (photo: Governor's Office)


The New York State Division of the Budget surprised the public this past November with an announcement the State faced a $6.1 billion deficit to close for the 2021 budget due by April 1, 2020. The DOB disclosed in its Mid-Year Update that Medicaid costs were exploding -- dramatically more than anticipated -- in both the budget adopted in April 2019 for the current year (fiscal year 2020), as well as for the next one (FY 2021). The budget agency said the situation demanded immediate cuts to both Medicaid and the overall budget.

The Cuomo administration, in its January 24 submission to the Legislature of the new budget plan, proposed $2.5 billion in new reductions to the Medicaid program for FY 2021, as well as incorporating almost $900 million in cuts for the current budget year that began being implemented in November.

The governor’s $2.5 billion cut to projected Medicaid spending would be implemented through the appointment of the Medicaid Redesign Team, which includes representatives from providers, unions, and some other groups, and is tasked with reconfiguring services to achieve savings that would reach the target reduction. If unsuccessful, or if the Legislature fails to adopt the MRT redesign, the Cuomo budget plan includes a fallback to an across-the-board $2.5 billion cut. At a joint legislative budget hearing on January 29, the Greater New York Hospital Association testified that those cuts would amount to 10% of the entire Medicaid program in New York.

The City of New York expressed alarm about another proposal in the governor’s budget proposal that would require local governments to pay for increased Medicaid costs that the State of New York has been absorbing in recent years. Mayor de Blasio testified in Albany on February 10 that the city has very little control over the state-run federal program and that this potential cost-shift could force the city to pay $1.1 billion more for Medicaid expenses in its own budget and warned the city’s public hospital system, Health + Hospitals, could be severely affected. The Cuomo administration has disputed the city’s estimates.

DOB Knew A Year Ago Medicaid Costs Were Escalating Rapidly
Despite the public’s lack of awareness of spiraling Medicaid costs, the Division of Budget and the State Health Department knew a year ago, before last year’s budget was adopted, that Medicaid spending was wildly out of control. The Empire Center for Public Policy, an Albany-based think tank and budget watchdog, accused the Cuomo administration of concealing the deficits in a detailed analysis released in December, following months of similar criticism from both the Empire Center and the Citizens Budget Commission. The Empire Center’s work helped blow open the Medicaid budget crisis and helped guide my own analysis.

DOB released documents after the budget was adopted last year that severely under-reported Medicaid spending, creating the impression there was no serious problem. The DOB’s Mid-Year Update was issued late, in late November, for the period April 1, 2019-September 30, 2019, seven months after the April 1, 2019 adoption of the 2020 budget. 

As the State Legislature and the governor were finalizing enactment of the 2020 budget in late March of last year, the State Health Department was informing the Division of the Budget that the payments of Medicaid bills were so much larger than anticipated that the State would violate a spending cap on the Medicaid program by $1.7 billion for the fiscal year ending March 30, 2019.

The DOB and the Health Department then deferred the payment of the $1.7 billion to Medicaid providers several days into the new fiscal year that began on April 1, 2019. The deferral meant that the State Medicaid budget for 2019 had run over its projection from a year earlier by 10%, and Governor Cuomo and the Legislature had just adopted a budget, with a baseline Medicaid spending for the start of 2020 that was already $1.7 billion higher than 2019. The whole budget was out of balance as well and not being reported as such.

Despite DOB and the Health Department’s decision to push the Medicaid payment into the new fiscal year, DOB’s 2020 Enacted Budget Financial Plan released in April 2019 contained Medicaid spending numbers that were obviously wrong, 

The FY2020 Budget Released by DOB in April 2020 was Clearly Erroneous
Below are the FY2019 and FY2020 DOH Medicaid spending projections taken from the Enacted Budget Financial Plans. The extra $1.7 billion deferred Medicaid payment, which should have been reported in either FY19 or FY20, is nowhere to be found in the excerpts of the Medicaid budget below:

     

FY'19 Enacted

FY'20 Projected

FY'21 Projected

DOH MEDICAID ENACTED 2019

20,358

21,490

22,535

           
     

FY'19 Results

FY'20 Enacted

FY'21 Projected

DOH MEDICAID ENACTED 2020

20,476

21,685

22,699

Instead, the deferral and the extra spending appear in the November 2019 Mid-Year Update all rolled into 2020, which now appears as $3.34 billion higher than FY19, bringing the expenditure to $23.82 billion.

   

FY'19 Results

FY'20 Updated

FY'21 Projected

DOH MEDICAID

20,476

23,821

26,193

       

Even though the $1.7 billion Medicaid payment was due in March 2019, meaning fiscal year 2019, it is not incorporated into the 2019 results. But DOB knew in April 2019 the payment had been deferred; after all, the agency had ordered it. The real result for FY19 should have been $22.1 billion, presented in April, with a correct projection for 2020. Instead, the Mid-Year Update put all the spending into 2020.

Following October 2019 New York Times reporting, and criticism by budget watchdog groups that the state had delayed Medicaid payments in 2019, DOB acknowledged major problems for the first time in a public document released on October 17, 2019, called the Annual Information Statement, intended for investors in state bonds. The State Comptroller reported on the problem a few weeks later, but it was not until the Mid-Year Update that the state was restating the problems as severe.

Going back to April 2018, the adopted FY2019 budget contained a colossal underestimate of the costs of the Medicaid program, which would affect the 2020 estimate and the 2021 estimate by billions of dollars. Medicaid spending projections simply had no basis in reality. Here’s the Mid-Year Update again, presented in November 2019 but this time with a serious Reality Check:

   

FY'19 Results

FY'20 Updated

FY'21 Projected

DOH MEDICAID

20,476

23,821

26,193

As stated above, the real baseline for 2019 was $22.1 billion after accounting for the deferred spending. And this made the spending forecasts for 2021 even more spectacularly mistaken. The Mid-Year Update forecasts what the spending would have been but for the abrupt and drastic curtailments implemented months ago and proposed for FY2021.

In April 2018 (FY2019), the Enacted Financial Plan showed Medicaid spending rising from $20.35 billion that year to $22.53 billion in FY2021. But the Mid-Year Update shows Medicaid spending rising to $26.19 billion in FY2021, an increase of $5.7 billion, or 28%, in just two years.

Why the stupendous error?
Frankly, the State Division of the Budget did not have a handle on all the many forces the state had set in motion for the Medicaid program:

The minimum wage increased.

DOB knew in 2016 that the multi-step minimum wage increase enacted in that year would bring the wage floor from $9 an hour to $15 an hour in New York City by the beginning of 2019, while a phase-in toward $15 an hour continued to take place in the suburbs and Upstate New York in 2020 and 2021. The April 2019 budget for FY2020 estimated the impact for FY2020 would be $1.1 billion. The Mid-Year Update estimated the FY2020 impact would be $1.5 billion and for 2021 $1.8 billion. DOB underestimated the impact of the increase.

The Federal government’s 100% reimbursement for the Medicaid expansion for Obamacare was scheduled for reduction to 90% in 2020; Comptroller DiNapoli reported in a budget analysis that this reduction would cost the State Medicaid program $1.7 billion in FY2019 and FY2020.

The State increased Medicaid rates. 

This happened in 2018, adding $140 million to costs, as reported by the New York Times in October.

Obamacare implementation increased Medicaid enrollment significantly.

The administration of the Medicaid program was shifting. As Obamacare began to be implemented in 2014, New York State created a new platform to apply for Medicaid called the New York State of Health. Medicaid enrollment grew from 5 million people in 2013 to about 6.2 million today, a 25% increase in enrollment. As a result, the State of New York began to share responsibility with local governments for determining eligibility for Medicaid for persons applying through New York State of Health.

The state also created other avenues for Medicaid enrollment. 

The elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, and persons with substance abuse problems were required to move into managed long-term care. This included home-care services for existing and new beneficiaries, and a new “consumer choice” program allowed beneficiaries to hire family members, frequently with the assistance of enrollment agents called Fiscal Intermediaries, who could apply for the program on behalf of the potential new recipients.

Applicants could also attest they needed immediate support. While the local government still had to determine eligibility and assess their need for care, beneficiaries were moved into managed long-term care right away. Concern has been expressed that people who are healthy are being moved into the “consumer choice“ program, called Consumer-Directed Personal Assistance, without adequate monitoring.

The state absorbed all cost growth in local government Medicaid spending. 

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, the state, starting in 2015, has absorbed about $1.3 billion in local spending, with New York City the main beneficiary.   

All of these factors seem to have meant that the Division of the Budget and the Health Department just couldn’t keep track of the combined impact of so many new drivers of Medicaid spending.

What now?
The state (and the Medicaid program) got a lucky break at the beginning of 2020. Tax revenues were reported up by $1.5 billion over the April 2019 estimate, and the state used the money to absorb much of the added Medicaid spending and eliminate the need to keep deferring payments to subsequent years. The state also now projects tax revenue will rise by $2 billion more than anticipated for FY2021, allowing more of the FY2021 deficit to be covered without spending cuts.

The state is still sitting on $6 billion in reserves that could be used to mitigate spending cuts. Mayor de Blasio and others have urged consideration of tax increases on the wealthy. The state could increase assessments on Medicaid providers, and use the money as a way to leverage federal Medicaid dollars, another way to mitigate cutbacks. Negotiations with the Legislature on the Medicaid program and the overall budget will no doubt bring adjustments to protect the Medicaid program and protect recipients and providers.

The Health Department, DOB, the Comptroller, and the Legislature need to figure out what went wrong. The State also needs to bring more transparency to reporting on the costs of the Medicaid program, and go back several years step by step. The Comptroller may need to require a restatement of the state’s books, too, and make sure there is no repeat to the colossal mistakes by the Budget Office.

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

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



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


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