Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

New York City Must Prepare Against Future Air Quality Threats; Here’s How


Smoke over New York City (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


As all of us are learning quickly, the world is a small place when it comes to the devastating effects of climate change. The eerie, post-apocalyptic orange smoke that engulfed New York City as a result of wildfires raging in Canada last week is the latest sign we need to be better prepared for the climate crisis already underway. 

Globally we are seeing longer and longer wildfire seasons — a result of rising temperatures and decreased precipitation. With climate change, wildfire frequencies are projected to continue rising, suggesting that New York City is likely to experience similar air quality events in greater numbers in future years. 

This could have critical public health impacts. The city’s public hospital system saw an uptick in patients with respiratory symptoms in some of its emergency departments last week, with lower-income Black and Hispanic communities experiencing a disproportionate share of asthma-related emergencies

Short-term exposure to wildfire smoke pollutants like particulate matter can cause immediate issues including premature death, bronchitis, asthma attacks, and other heart or breathing issues. Long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and premature death, particularly in people with pre-existing conditions. Seniors, children, and residents of environmental justice neighborhoods that are historically underserved are also particularly at risk.

While last week’s smoke-filled skies seemed to catch our city off guard, we can and must be prepared to take swift action in the face of air quality threats to safeguard the health and welfare of all New Yorkers — especially our most vulnerable residents. Cities and regions across the world have been dealing with poor air quality for years now, and New York City can learn from their lessons to prevent additional air pollution, reduce New Yorkers’ exposure to harmful air pollutants, and advance outreach, education, and preparedness.

To begin with, during poor air quality days like the ones we just experienced, New York City should limit the emissions of additional air pollution from sources within the city. This could include reducing vehicular traffic, which generates over a tenth of the fine particulate pollution in the air in New York City every year. Mexico City and Delhi have taken similar measures, reducing the number of cars traversing their roads during bad air days through license plate and vehicle restrictions. To both help minimize additional air pollution sources and protect outdoor workers, the city could also pause construction of non-critical public projects, as Delhi does, or garbage collection, as Philadelphia did last week.  

Second, the city should proactively take measures to reduce New Yorkers’ exposure to harmful air pollutants. This includes handing out appropriate masks, a strategy the city now has years of experience effectively doing, along with distributing guidance on appropriate mask use. The city should also establish Clean Air Centers in public facilities with effective air filtration systems – similar to its existing cooling centers that provide temperature relief on sweltering days – to provide New Yorkers with safe havens during periods of poor air quality. Across the west coast, cities like San Francisco and Seattle have rolled out these centers to protect residents during wildfire season.

To further reduce exposure, City Hall should make sure our most vulnerable residents are taken care of by removing barriers to shelter and conducting direct outreach to New Yorkers experiencing homelessness, as it does during extreme heat and freezing cold events. Offering remote work options to eligible public employees and remote school options to students are simple but crucial steps the city could take to limit exposure to outdoor pollution and set an example for private businesses.

One final essential element to a robust air quality strategy is providing clear and up-to-date communications to all residents on the best practices to adopt during poor air quality days and how to be prepared. Although the city released an advisory alert in advance of the poor air quality, only New Yorkers who had signed up for city communications like NotifyNYC were notified. In future events, the city should be more proactive in utilizing tools like LinkNYC announcements sooner or sending out wireless emergency alert messages to New York City-area mobile devices – similar to AMBER alerts – with guidance on seeking shelter and protecting themselves. 

This also includes ensuring the preparedness of outdoor employers and workers through comprehensive safety guidelines and specific measures and protocols to be followed during poor air quality events. Improving the public’s preparedness for these events by incorporating air quality into the city’s existing emergency management training programs and disseminating up-to-date guidance to leaders in community groups and faith-based organizations could further bolster the city's response to poor air quality events.

It is time for New York City to establish new policies to protect New Yorkers from poor air quality. With a warming climate and increasing climate threats — we must act now to prepare our city and all New Yorkers.

***
Grace Rauh is the Executive Director of the 5BORO Institute, a nonpartisan public policy think tank advancing creative solutions to NYC’s most challenging problems. Read 5BORO’s air quality recommendations for NYC government here. On Twitter @GraceRauh & @5BoroInstitute.

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

Note: this column has been updated to clarify that while LinkNYC kiosks did post notices about the air quality warning the city administration should look to utilize them sooner in the future.

Four Months for Kathy Hochul to Save Her Governorship


Governor Hochul talks housing affordability (photo: Governor's Office)


For much of the 10-year Reign of Terror that was the governorship of Andrew Cuomo, New York’s State Senate and Assembly were subservient to his will (the strengthening of rent regulation in 2019 was the most notable policy exception). Kathy Hochul, New York’s current Governor, has had a quite different experience: in the first six months of her first full term, the Legislature flexed its muscles by rejecting Hochul’s initial nominee to become Chief Judge of the state’s highest court, and then went on to toss her signature proposal to deal with New York’s housing shortage – a production-focused “Housing Compact” – into the garbage.

If Hochul expects to achieve better results – particularly but not exclusively in the sphere of housing – she needs to make the Senate and Assembly understand something very basic: “I’m the Governor – It would have been in your interest to work with me and take my Housing Compact proposal seriously. Maybe you’ll realize that now.”

Legislative Failure on Housing
As the legislative session ends this month (those not familiar with Albany politics are often surprised that the Legislature of the fourth largest state only meets for half the year), little has been accomplished to address New York’s housing crisis. This despite near-universal agreement that extensive action was needed urgently.

The leaders of the Senate and the Assembly put out a bulleted list of broad housing policies on which there was apparently legislative agreement in principle. But neither house voted on a bill (whether because it was known that there were not the votes to overcome a Hochul veto or for other reasons is not clear), and, it turns out, there wasn’t really anything to vote on: detailed legislative text had yet to be finalized.

There is a lot of finger-pointing going on now, but the legislative treatment of Hochul’s Housing Compact is quite striking. The proposal was designed to get every locality to begin pulling its weight in terms of housing production. After 50 years of seeing that the exhortation method had no impact on resistant municipalities, Hochul’s proposal had some teeth. 

But the Senate and Assembly did not negotiate with Hochul on those mandates, nor did they address some of the weaknesses of the proposal, including inadequate requirements for affordability. Instead they rejected the fundamental idea of mandated growth altogether, ignoring history, pretending that there isn’t a problem with inadequate housing supply, and treating the interlinked crises of residential segregation and exclusionary zoning as unimportant.

They did this first during the budget negotiations, and got away with it. Then, in the race-to-adjourn they did it again: there was to be horse-trading on some housing policies, in the Legislature’s view, but Hochul was expected to proceed with the torpedoing of her central initiative taken as a given.

Notably, while the rejectionist stand on mandates from New York’s Democratic supermajorities was attributed to suburban Senators and Assembly members (joining with rock-solid defense of exclusionary zoning from their GOP colleagues), there was very little support for the Housing Compact heard from legislators based in New York City, either.

Avoiding Lame-Duck Status
Hochul has three-and-a-half years left in her first full term. If she doesn’t want to be in the sorry position of a very premature lame duck – not with the power of a newly ascendant governor, but with the limited power associated with being at the end of one’s tenure – she needs to force the Legislature back to the negotiating table on her terms.

Her spokesperson said last week that the governor “will continue fighting to address our housing crisis, including through Executive Action in the weeks ahead.” If the Governor is serious, though, the executive actions can’t be modest, she can’t fiddle at the margins. Hochul needs to roll out initiatives that are more aggressive than the original Housing Compact.

At the foundation are two facts. First, the federal Fair Housing Act does actually apply in New York State and does continue to prohibit exclusionary zoning (and other local government maneuvers) that either perpetuate segregation or cause racially disparate impacts.

Second, longstanding New York State case law (what is called the “County of Monroe” doctrine) already allows a superior interest of the state to override local zoning restrictions. It is not conceivable that a desperate statewide need for more affordable housing would not be seen as the superior interest.

The Program
Step 1: Solicit expressions of interest from for-profit and not-for-profit developers who would be prepared to build mixed-income housing in localities that: (a) have resisted affordable housing construction; (b) have median household income in the top 25 percent in the state; and (c) are characterized by sharp residential segregation.

One key here is the “mixed-income” part. The original Hochul plan was profoundly deficient in its failure to specify affordability requirements, including a portion of deeply affordable units, in all projects.

Step 2: Retool the large pool of federal housing assistance that comes to New York State to be used directly or passed along to municipalities. Make funds available to help subsidize the affordable units that are part of this “bust exclusion” project.

Step 3: Establish a process where developers would act as the agent of New York (so County of Monroe would be clearly applicable) and provide funding for litigation challenges that wind up having to be made to exclusionary local rules. Unlike the Housing Compact, there would not be a multi-year “safe harbor” before projects could begin – there would be no safe harbor for localities who had not in the last three years met the modest but important annual targets like those in the Housing Compact.

Step 4: Establish November 1, 2023, as the commencement date for the actions described.

Step 5: Call a special session of the Legislature for the first Monday in October and see if the Legislature has begun to see the light.

(I would also suggest that the Governor, legislators, and others review the very useful recent piece by James Lloyd, director of policy for the New York State Association for Affordable Housing, on executive actions Hochul should take on housing.)

The Other Side of the Equation
Just as the Legislature needs to recognize the Governor as a co-equal negotiating partner, so the Governor must do the same. Part of that is not playing the retrograde Albany game of holding cards close to the vest, but rather letting the public know what you are prepared to do to meet the priorities of others (or at least most of what you are prepared to do).

Significantly increasing the number of housing vouchers should be an easy one given the extreme scope of need.

Recognizing that the 421-a developer tax break for some affordable housing was too much of a giveaway as it had existed should also not be too much of a lift.

It is finally widely recognized that the way out of the affordable housing crisis and the residential segregation crisis is building new housing where you haven’t been building (while rehabilitating housing and making non-housing community investments in areas of poverty).

This is at the heart of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s proposed new “affirmatively furthering fair housing” regulation. Thus, new affordable housing construction needs to happen in wealthier communities and neighborhoods. Those are areas where market-rate units will be able to generate more cross-subsidy to support affordable housing than those units do when located in less wealthy areas. That gives plenty of room for some combination of less of a windfall for developers and/or deeper affordability for some units.

The Governor should drop her resistance to enacting new protections against eviction and limitless rent increases for the huge number of tenants who are currently not already protected by rent regulation. (I first wrote about the disastrous false premises of deregulation nearly 20 years ago.) Accepting “good cause” should not be a matter of “giving up” something. But the reality is that: (a) agreeing to a version of good-cause is a “give up” from Hochul’s perspective; and (b) neither the Senate nor the Assembly would appear to have the two-thirds majority necessary to pass such legislation over a Hochul veto.

A short-term compromise that should be acceptable to Hochul, and one she should propose, is fully funded statewide right-to-counsel in lieu of good-cause: providing attorneys for tenants threatened with eviction. This certainly does not do the job that good-cause would, but it would help very substantial numbers of tenants. (That right-to-counsel is a powerful way to bring evictions down has been demonstrated in New York City under its landmark – but nowhere-close-to-fully-funded right-to-counsel law.)

All parties, including advocates, should be aware that it is more likely than not that the Supreme Court will, unless its composition changes dramatically, strike down rent regulation in its entirety. The real estate industry and its allies, in fact, are trying right now to have the Supreme Court take on the cases to act as such a vehicle. (The June 9, 2023 amicus brief in support of the petitions for certiorari filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is here. These may not turn out to be the cases that the Supreme Court takes, but it is dangerous and naïve not to believe that the risk is real and that planning for that eventuality needs to happen now. Presumably, that would take two forms: first, rent regulation as a condition of government tax-break or other subsidy; two, a substantially higher default tax rate that would be lowered for those landlords opting in to a rent regulation system.)

In other words, there may have to be a wholesale revision of the way to retain and expand rent regulation, and it may be the case that the best course right now is a combination of expansive right-to-counsel and planning for an alternative rent-regulation system. The contours of that new system – including the extent to which it would cover some or all of those who would be covered by good-cause – would be the subject of intense debate and need the kind of advocacy that won the day for tenants in 2019. 

Time to Act Boldly
The affordable housing crisis is not going away. The segregation crisis is not going away. As the recent New York State draft fair housing report states (p. 156):

Exclusionary zoning was widely described as the factor that precludes the development of affordable housing in areas of opportunity, limiting opportunities for protected classes, particularly people of color and families with children, to move to these areas. Well-resourced areas, including suburban areas, often have zoning regulations in place that limit possibilities to build affordable multifamily housing. Allocating affordable housing in a more equitable way through zoning would increase opportunities for low-income families and families of color. 

Failing to push a bold approach would be a disaster for New York State, would violate New York’s own affirmatively furthering fair housing law,  and would signal to the legislature that it can continue to ignore the Housing Compact that, for Hochul, would be a historic achievement. 

***
Craig Gurian is executive director of the Anti-Discrimination Center. On Twitter @pursuethefacts.

***
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.

Only More Licensed Stores Will Solve New York’s Gray Market Pot Problem


Legal cannabis on sale in New York (photo: John McCarten NYC Council Media Unit)


Law-enforcement sources, anti-gentrification community boards, and other detractors have been up in arms for more than a year about the many smoke shops selling unlicensed cannabis in New York, which have grown to dominate the retail market for the substance.

According to their narrative, these stores are turning New York City into an urban hellscape. But their criticism is more than a bad-faith dog whistle about a legal substance. It’s actively allowing the gray market to flourish.

Here's the simple reason why: When detractors make noise about gray market cannabis, they cement in the minds of cannabis consumers the false equivalency that cannabis purchased in the state’s vibrant gray market is of the same quality as the good, legal stuff available in licensed retail locations. They're validating the gray market every time they criticize it. 

That is a key contributor to the fact that, right now, New Yorkers have an alarming amount of misplaced trust in gray market cannabis. We know this because we asked them.

An estimated 1.6 million New Yorkers report having used cannabis within the past 30 days, according to a 2020 study administered by the CDC. We surveyed 384 of them, asking questions about the prevalence of the gray market for cannabis. We expected to validate the conventional wisdom that it persists merely because of convenience, but our results were more nuanced and informative than that. 

Among the New York cannabis users we surveyed who “sometimes” or “always” shop in the gray market, 71% say they trust the products have been tested for contaminants, and 70% trust they’re accurately labeled. But there are no testing requirements for cannabis sold in the gray market, and there is significant counterfeiting. When the products are accurately labeled, it's because they were smuggled in from out of state.

We also found that, despite this trust, most New Yorkers don’t have positive experiences with gray-market cannabis. 

Sixty-five percent of respondents who shopped in the gray market said the product didn’t get them high enough, while 30% said it got them too high, and 31% said it smelled or tasted weird. A smaller but not-insignificant 12% of shoppers said cannabis products purchased from gray market retailers made them sick. This suggests the longer the gray market lingers, the more it will become a genuine public health threat. 

Our respondents also said that price is just as important a factor as convenience when purchasing cannabis.

Forty-two percent said it’s important to know if a shop is licensed. 

We found that medical cannabis certificate holders, who have better access to licensed, regulated products, are far less likely to shop at gray market retailers; meanwhile, the state has been doing a disappointing job of allowing more legal recreational dispensaries to open their doors to the public. 

This polling data directly from cannabis users makes an iron-clad case for more licensed dispensaries, which in turn suggests that more progressive, not more restrictive, policy is necessary for New York’s cannabis market to function in a safe, lawful way. 

There are still just 13 licensed recreational dispensaries open in New York State, with five clustered in one three-mile radius in Manhattan, and 40 medical dispensaries. To grow these numbers, the licensing process should be faster. Cannabis stores should have multiple financing and banking options. Policy should better incent landlords to lease vacant commercial space in well-off neighborhoods, perhaps through a larger tax on unoccupied space or an auction system to fill tenants. 

The cannabis community dislikes unsafe retailers. A licensed, regulated retailer in every community will solve this problem. There's certainly no lack of demand.

We get it. Regulating this newly legal space is hard, and every state that does it operates from an inherent position of weakness because cannabis still exists in statutory no-man’s-land, banned at the federal level but commonly legal or decriminalized at the state or municipal level.

But, more than two years after New York passed recreational cannabis into law, there is still a clear lack of access to convenient, licensed, and regulated cannabis in practically all areas of the state. All New Yorkers deserve better. 

***
Alex Milligan is co-founder and CMO of NuggMD.com, the nation’s largest telemedicine platform for cannabis.

***
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.

Our Chance to Increase AAPI Representation in New York City Government


City Council Member Linda Lee, the author (photo: Emil Cohen/NYC Council Media Unit)


Despite being the fastest-growing immigrant group within New York City, the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community still severely lacks representation in government. In New York City, only 5% of my fellow City Council Members identify as AAPI, while none of our citywide electeds do. The population of Asian residents increased by 7% since 2010, but we haven’t seen a proportional increase in representation in the City Council, especially when it comes to AAPI women. While we did achieve greater representation in 2021, that cannot be the ceiling, but rather the foundation on which we build. 

Not only are we a growing demographic group, but across all five boroughs we are reshaping New York’s socioeconomic landscape, generating nearly $121 billion in economic activity, and contributing to our city’s rich cultural fabric.

Our communities need adequate representation, now more than ever. Anti-Asian hate continues to threaten our communities. In 2021, hate crimes against Asian American adults increased by 361%, according to NYPD data. Meanwhile, we face persistently high poverty levels and research from the Asian American Federation finds that roughly 30% of the AAPI community is rent-burdened, driving severe overcrowding in AAPI households.  

If we want to address these issues, it’s incumbent upon us to platform and support candidates that deeply understand our communities. On practically every level of government, AAPI women are still vastly underrepresented. We hold elected office at lower rates than Asian American men and make up only 1% of state legislatures, according to the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics

As an AAPI woman running for re-election, I am fearlessly committed to tackling the socioeconomic issues my community is facing head on, but I can’t do it alone. We need to make a real, coordinated effort to get more AAPI women elected. 

The New Majority NYC (formerly 21 in ‘21) has invested resources and built networks for AAPI candidates like myself, actively working to dismantle the existing power structures that overwhelmingly still benefit white male candidates. The organization has a history of upending the status quo, and this year, through investing in my candidacy and seven more AAPI women candidates across five districts, they are refusing to squander the opportunity to ensure that New York City Council Districts that are majority-AAPI are represented by AAPI women.

And they’re using ranked-choice endorsements to make that happen. Ranked-choice voting has virtually eliminated the vote-splitting that disproportionately harms candidates of color. Through utilizing ranked-choice endorsements, The New Majority NYC supports a continued commitment to electing candidates that reflect the diversity of their communities. 

The New Majority NYC’s endorsement and support made a major difference in my first race, in 2021, when the organization also helped elect the Council’s first-ever women majority. Through their support petitioning to get on the ballot and connecting me with mentors, voters, donors, and networks, they helped dismantle the barriers that so many AAPI women running for office traditionally face. 

As the AAPI community continues to grow, in our city and across the country, it’s clear that our communities deserve a voice across all levels of government. New York has the opportunity to be a leader in AAPI representation in government and be an example for our nation in truly diverse representation. 

***
City Council Member Linda Lee represents parts of Eastern Queens. On Twitter @LindaLeeforNYC.

***
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.

There are Just Two Big Issues in New York’s Elections; We Need Voters and Candidates to Prioritize Them


Housing in focus (photo: Mayor's Office)


On June 27, most people in this city will do nothing out of the ordinary. More than three-quarters of New Yorkers will go about their day like any other Tuesday.

But the remaining 25% or so — if we’re lucky — will get to decide most of the 51 members of the New York City Council. The majority of those voters (including those who vote early or by mail) will also cast a ballot for a district attorney, judge, or other local office.

In yet another New York City election with such low turnout, lots of things can make the difference between winning and losing – which candidate had a friendly post shared on the local parents’ Facebook group or who proposed a policy that ticked off a particularly motivated interest group, for example. Unfortunately, these factors can push candidates to focus on small-ball, too often at the cost of the larger picture and electorate. The result is that our politics plays footsie around the edges instead of tackling the big problems.

But the truth is, there are only really two things that matter to this whole city. If we get them right, everything else gets easier. If we ignore them, we are left struggling, trying to put band-aids on our problems. This is the simple recipe: First, more people should be able to live where they want to live. Second, more people should be able to get around without a private car.

It’s news to nobody that living in New York City costs a lot of money. Life in this city is rapidly becoming unattainable to all but the wealthiest among us, and this affordability crisis is largely driven by a chronic deficit of housing. In the latest Census, we learned that New York City grew by more than 629,000 people between 2010 and 2020. Yet, during the same period, we only built 206,000 housing units. The numbers don’t add up.

We should be building housing like the life of our city depends on it, because it does. People want to live here, and we should be a city that wants them too. We are all better off when we welcome new neighbors with open arms instead of a cold shoulder – whether they are recent college graduates, retirees, immigrants, or anybody else that wants to be part of the New York story. Despite their outsized voices, this has never been a town of NIMBYs, our brand is acceptance and tolerance and opportunity. And the only way to keep this promise of our city alive for this generation and future ones is to build homes for more New Yorkers.

Policies that encourage housing abundance will make our communities safer and more vibrant. Without the heavy burden of astronomical rents, more New Yorkers will be empowered to take creative and entrepreneurial risks, and more New Yorkers will sleep better without the dangling threat of losing their homes after one bad break.

And when more people can afford to live in New York City and the communities here they want to live in, we need to make it safer, cleaner, and less expensive to get around them. That ultimately means that we need to build our city around people, not automobiles.

This manifests in what are called “complete” streets, which are reimagined with pocket parks, bike lanes, pedestrian safety improvements, accessible loading zones, and perhaps most viscerally impactful of all, containerized waste collection. The rats will hate this. The driver of a jacked-up pickup truck doing 50 in a school zone will hate this. But every time we try this, we see that New Yorkers love it.

Next, we need to think big about other forms of transit. We built 467 subway stops in the first hundred-ish years of the system – but only five stops in this millennium. Some people need a car; there are lots of valid reasons to own and operate one. This is not about banning cars, it’s about minimizing car dependency and all the negative things that come with it — crashes, pollution, noise, and isolation — and maximizing mobility and opportunity, health and happiness.

We can take big steps in that direction with new and repurposed rail service, especially in “transit deserts” outside Manhattan. Our transit system made New York a world capital in the last century. We must not allow ourselves to believe that new transportation projects are only a thing of the past.

Housing and transportation. Those are the universal issues. Depending on our lives, other things can of course certainly matter a whole lot, particularly policing and criminal justice, education, sanitation, social services, the environment and more. And within each of those areas, there is also a world of nuance. This does not diminish their very real importance.

But the big picture is simple. Make this a city that people can live in — a city where people can afford decent housing and where people can get around easily — and the rest will follow. If you’re one of the few that chooses to cast a vote on June 27, make it one for candidates that will answer these issues.

***
Ben Guttmann is a marketing executive, adjunct professor at Baruch College, and author of Simply Put: Why Clear Messages Win – and How to Design Them, to be released by Berrett-Koehler Publishers in October. On Twitter @guttmann.

***
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.

NYC Department of Education Fails to Plan for Mandatory Class Size Reduction


DOE Chancellor Banks with Mayor Adams (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)


Class size has been an enduring concern of parents and teachers alike and a deep flaw of New York City schools for nearly a century. As far back as 1930, during the administration of Mayor Jimmy Walker, the New York Times concluded that excessive class sizes were the “chief problem” of the public schools:

“There is hardly any disagreement that smaller classes are desirable and that individualized instruction is better than mass teaching, but the task of substantially reducing the average size of class [is] the most drastic and serious confronting the board [of education] and the city.”

Some progress has been made over the last century, but not enough. In 2003, in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) case, New York’s highest court concluded that excessive class sizes had deprived New York City students of their right under the state constitution to a sound basic education. And though both Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio pledged to reduce class size during their campaigns, neither one fulfilled that promise, and as of this fall, more than 230,000 students were still crammed into classes of 30 or more.

As written during the 2021 mayoral campaign by Gothamist’s Elizabeth Kim, “For some New York City education policy experts, the mission of reducing class sizes can be likened to a holy grail.“

But in June 2022, the State Legislature finally had enough. Especially as the long-delayed funding from the CFE lawsuit was due to be finally awarded to city schools — $1.3 billion phased in over three years — Senators John Liu, the chair of his chamber’s New York City education committee, and Robert Jackson, the original plaintiff in the CFE lawsuit, spearheaded the passage of a new law that required what city officials had long failed to accomplish: to lower class sizes. 

The bill, signed into law by Governor Hochul in September, requires that all class sizes in public schools be gradually capped over the next five years to no more than 20 students per class in grades K-3, 23 students per class in grades 4-8, and 25 students per class in high school, with an additional 20% of classes meeting those limits every year.

Because of overall enrollment declines, there is little doubt that the New York City Department of Education will meet the first year benchmark of 20% at or below these levels. This past fall, 38% of classes citywide were at or below the mandated caps, compared to 42% last year. Class sizes increased at most schools this year because of budget cuts to schools, causing the loss of teachers and important programs. In fact, New York City public schools have lost 4,000 K-12 teachers over the last five years.

It is far less likely that the Department of Education (DOE) will meet the 40% mandate in 2025 if current trends continue, and nearly impossible that these caps will be met in years three to five without significant changes to school funding, enrollment policies, and the capital plan for school construction — none of which the DOE intends to do. In fact, DOE policies are moving in the wrong direction.

The DOE recently posted a draft class size "plan" in preparation for borough and Community Education Council hearings that will occur this month (June).

But here are some of the important steps that DOE has failed to take:

None of the additional $500 million in CFE funding (called Contract for Excellence funding in the law) will be targeted specifically towards hiring additional teachers to lower class sizes. According to a City Council analysis, another 817 full-time teaching positions are due to be lost if the mayor’s proposed budget is adopted, although the DOE is projecting a minimal enrollment decline of less than 1% and an actual increase in high school enrollment next year.

Even though the DOE has assured the public that initial school budgets for the upcoming 2023-2024 school year will remain the same as initial budgets for this year, big cuts in funding that can be used to keep teachers on staff are being replaced with increased funding for specified purposes, such as professional development. Moreover, less funding is likely to come over the course of the year in contrast to past years. In fact, the initial budgets schools are receiving for next year are about $800 million less than they were as of March of this year. As a result, we have already heard of schools that will be forced to excess teachers -- again.

Despite the fact that more than 300,000 students were crammed into overcrowded schools this year, the School Construction Authority is instead proposing to cut the number of new seats by 38%, compared to the plan adopted in June 2021. In fact, in over 800 pages of the proposed capital plan introduced in February, the new class size law is never mentioned once, while only 46,000 new seats are funded.

Yet expanding the capital plan cannot be put off -- especially when it takes at least five years to site and build a new school. Instead of actually building the necessary additional school space, the Schools Chancellor is threatening to add more trailers at the last moment, which no one wants.

The need for new space would be significantly diminished if the DOE had a plan to cap enrollment at overcrowded schools. This change in admissions policies would  more equitably distribute students across schools. In many instances, severely overutilized schools are near extremely underutilized schools, as can be seen on our interactive school overcrowding map. Yet DOE officials have repeatedly refused to even consider doing so.

Instead of taking any positive steps to ensure compliance with the new law, the DOE draft “plan” repeatedly refers to the existence of a working group that the Chancellor appointed to help advise him on these measures. Yet the members of this working group, of which I am one, were not appointed until late April, and the group’s recommendations are not due until late October, too late to make the changes in the capital plan that are needed now.

All the actual proposals described in the draft class size “plan” are only vaguely expressed without any apparent substance behind them. Though the DOE claims they will “Ensure that schools with classrooms that currently meet the class size mandate have appropriate funding to continue to maintain these class sizes in SY23-24,” they do not explain how this will be accomplished; nor with what funding. There is nothing mentioned in the school allocation memos recently posted that even mention this goal.

The DOE adds that in the future, “efforts to achieve compliance…could include…considering creative interventions to support schools in meeting mandates, working in partnership with school communities.” Again, this contingent language does not describe what these “creative interventions” might be. In no respect does this flimsy rhetoric indicate any sort of real plan.

Instead, the DOE should commit to targeting funds for school staffing, so that the teaching force increases or at the very least is maintained at current levels. The DOE and School Construction Authority should also expand the number of new seats in the capital plan to ensure sufficient space to meet the smaller class size caps in years three through five.

Finally, the DOE should project what percentage of classes will achieve the mandated caps next fall and in the following years, outlining in which specific schools class sizes will be lowered, using which  strategies and policies.

Otherwise, one must assume that DOE officials are merely biding their time, hoping no one notices, until it is too late to comply.

The City Council has an important role to play in this. The Council should refuse to approve the DOE budget, which threatens to cut school budgets once again, unless it receives promises that total school-level funding over the course of the year will remain the same as this year. And the Council should demand that the capital plan be expanded and accelerated, or else it risks being nearly as complicit as the mayor in failing to take the necessary steps to create the space needed to lower class sizes to the levels required by the law — so desperately needed by New York City students.

***
Leonie Haimson is the Executive Director of Class Size Matters. On Twitter @leoniehaimson.

***
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's Waste Problem Demands a Bold, Collaborative Solution


Recycling (photo: NYC Council)


New York has a waste problem, and it demands a bold, collaborative solution.  

For years, New York has talked about Extended Producer Responsibility legislation to address this crisis. As an organization that is committed to leveraging innovation to protect our environment, the American Chemistry Council supports working toward and enacting a strong, effective EPR bill that helps increase our ability to recapture and recycle what we do produce. 

Unfortunately, there’s a last-minute attempt to push a bill (S.4246) through the State Legislature that threatens to do more harm than good to both our environment and our economy. 

Addressing a problem that will impact every citizen and business in New York is going to take the collaboration and participation of our government, businesses and citizens alike. And it will require leadership, innovation, expertise, and resources. Fortunately, New York has these things in abundance. 

That’s why it’s so puzzling lawmakers in Albany are taking this approach. Rather than assembling a broad cross section of experts who can offer solutions and stakeholders who will be impacted by those measures, a small handful of activists are pushing a costly and misguided approach.

The result? Expensive new job-killing mandates on businesses at a time when many are struggling with inflationary pressures. Additionally, the legislation would ban the very cutting-edge technology that would help modernize our over-burdened recycling infrastructure and play a critical role both in meeting the bill’s ambitious recycled-content requirements and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The bill smartly proposes that more packaging be made from recycled content, which is fantastic. But it does nothing to remove the barriers that make recycling difficult today, and it ignores the central role plastics play in contributing to sustainability and combating climate change – for instance, by reducing the amount of material and energy used in the shipping of goods and helping keep products fresher for longer.

There are many ways to strengthen this legislation so it can better achieve its goals without harming New Yorkers. For instance, lawmakers should prioritize incentivizing environmental performance, so any proposed solutions effectively reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions, rather than focusing on banning products and imposing costly and difficult-to-meet mandates on businesses. And they should encourage innovation by cutting bureaucratic red tape and providing the necessary support for businesses to develop and implement effective recycling solutions.

Serious environmental and economic challenges deserve thoughtful solutions shaped by input from a broad range of stakeholders. We are ready and eager to continue that conversation. That is why we urge legislators to reconsider S.4246 and engage the many willing partners across New York State who are eager to collaborate on an approach that helps protect our communities, our natural resources, and our jobs.

Solving our waste problem will require an all-hands-on-deck approach. In the weeks and months ahead, let’s get to work on finally making a truly effective Extended Producer Responsibility bill a reality.

***
Craig Cookson is Senior Director, Plastics Sustainability, at the American Chemistry Council. On Twitter @AmChemistry.

***
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.

How Governor Hochul Can Make Progress on Housing Through Executive Action


Governor Hochul (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Office of the Governor)


The most pressing issue facing New York is a lack of housing. A Regional Plan Association analysis shows that the state needs to build 817,000 more homes over the next decade to address shortages and meet expected population and job growth – the root cause of many symptoms currently ailing New York City.

For example, according to the city’s most recent Housing and Vacancy Survey, the median renter household makes $50,000 a year – but to afford a typically available apartment, renting for $2,750, that household needs to make $110,000. Is it any wonder that we have a nation-leading rate of chronic homelessness, with a nightly count surpassing 80,000 residents?

It was against this backdrop that Governor Hochul advanced ambitious housing goals this year, and it is against this backdrop that she, to her credit, will do so again next year despite the powerful and prevailing anti-housing forces. To be successful next session and to address the crisis of our age, however, there are several executive actions that the Governor can take on her own to spur housing development, regardless of local zoning.

With these actions, the Governor will show New Yorkers that she won’t back down from a challenge, and that “not in my backyard” isn’t an acceptable response.

First, the state should create affordable housing on the land it owns, as Governor Hochul has already signaled that she will do.

This is an opportunity for New York to fully maximize the potential of its own sites and lead by example. The Metropolitan Transit Authority owns some vacant parking lots on Long Island – it should follow in the footsteps of its California counterpart and work with other state agencies to redevelop them with housing. The state also has a number of abandoned psychiatric hospitals that could be redeveloped into housing – the 365 acres of the abandoned Kings Park Psychiatric Center, for example, are walking distance from a community college and an industrial park, and they’re only a mile-and-a-half from a Long Island Rail Road stop. 

Second, Empire State Development (ESD), through the powers of the Urban Development Corporation, can build residential developments regardless of local zoning. This means that even without state land, ESD could use a “general project plan” to work with local landowners and private developers to build affordable and mixed-income housing. In exclusionary municipalities highly unlikely to ever allow affordable (or even multifamily) housing, this would be warranted.

Third and finally, the state should investigate localities that may be violating fair housing laws.

For instance, as a condition of approving a zoning change, Mount Pleasant recently forced Toll Brothers to age restrict a new development to residents over the age of 55 and local officials specifically cited school impact as a primary reason. While age-restricting a development is legal, it can be discrimination if you’re doing it specifically to exclude families with children.

Taken together, these measures are an important tool not just to create more housing, but also to affirmatively further fair housing. Restrictive zoning has not only driven up housing costs it’s also resulted in sky-high levels of segregation. 

The Regional Plan Association has demonstrated a clear correlation between exclusionary zoning and racial makeup of communities in the New York City region — with single-family zoned communities being almost entirely white, while multi-family-home communities are mostly inhabited by people of color. UC Berkeley found that New York has the most segregated school system in the country for Black students and the second most segregated school system for Latinos. And the Brookings Institute has shown that the New York City region has the second-highest level of Black-white residential segregation in the country, after only Milwaukee.

Over the last hundred years, zoning has become ever more restrictive across the state, and we have no reason to believe that municipalities will suddenly decide to do the right thing without state action. Instead, we must look to the state to solve the twin crises of housing supply and housing segregation.

State government respects leaders who are willing to play hardball. By taking strong, executive action on housing, the Governor can make it clear to all New Yorkers that she is going to tackle the biggest issues facing the state and she will likely have greater leverage during next year’s budget process.

***
James Lloyd is the director of policy for the New York State Association for Affordable Housing. On Twitter @NYSAFAH.

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

An AED on the Sidelines Saved Damar Hamlin; They Should Be Available to Everyone


An AED in P.S. 69, Jackson Heights, Queens


In January, America watched in horror as Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed onto the field, moments after making a routine tackle during a game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Twenty-four years old and in peak physical health, Hamlin had suffered a sudden cardiac arrest in front of thousands in the stands and millions tuned into Monday Night Football.

Thanks to good planning and training, the Bills' medical team on the sidelines had an automatic external defibrillator on hand, commonly known as an AED. Within seconds, these first responders used the AED to shock Hamlin's heart back into a normal rhythm as he awaited transport to a local hospital. The device not only saved his life, it also restored blood flow quickly enough to prevent permanent damage to his brain. Later that same month, Damlin was able to cheer on his team from the sidelines in its rematch against the Bengals. Today, he is back on the field, and his resilience and infectious optimism are an inspiration for us all.

As Damar’s story makes clear, AEDs save lives. Unfortunately, however, they aren't as readily accessible for everyone as they were for him. They should be, and we're both sponsoring legislation – on the federal and municipal levels – to make sure they are.

Each year, more than 356,000 people in the United States suffer cardiac arrest outside of the hospital, including more than 7,000 children. What the nation witnessed during Monday Night Football in January happens every day in our schools, playgrounds, and parks. A basketball player collapses after taking a rough shoulder check. A teacher trips and stumbles in the hallway clutching her chest. A high schooler falls to the grass after making a tackle during football practice.

In these terrifying situations, the evidence of AEDs' effectiveness is as impressive as it is unequivocal. According to the American Heart Association, the chance of survival for someone experiencing cardiac arrest outside of the hospital is less than 10%. That jumps to an average 40% survival rate when professional first responders like firefighters or emergency medical technicians use an AED. Incredibly, the chance of survival is highest when non-professional first responders use an AED: greater than 50%.

This is because non-professional bystanders – often coaches, teachers, or friends – can respond much more quickly than even the fastest ambulances in the critical moments right after the start of an irregular heart rhythm. It's also because modern AEDs are semi- or fully-automated. They provide clear verbal, and often visual, instructions that an average person can follow with only basic training.

The life-saving benefits of AEDs are obvious, which is why they have been placed in more and more public locations over the last several decades. President Clinton signed the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act in 2000, placing the devices in federal buildings and providing millions in grants for local deployment. Two years later, President Bush signed the Community Access to Emergency Devices Act, allocating millions more for states and localities to purchase AEDs and train first responders in their use. Besides the federal government, 20 states – including our own state of New York – require placement of AEDs in all public schools. But progress has stalled in recent years.

Hamlin's cardiac arrest makes a clear call to action: we must enact legislation to expand access to even more communities. At the federal level, Leader Schumer’s bipartisan Access to AEDs Act will provide grants to place devices in elementary and secondary schools nationwide, and will fund the development of school-based cardiac emergency response plans. And in New York City, Council Member Krishnan’s HEART (Harihareswara Expand Access to Rapid Treatment) Act will require the Department of Health to publish online the precise locations and quantities of all publicly-accessible AEDs within the five boroughs, whether in schools, firehouses, or government office buildings. If loaded into common mapping apps on our smartphones, this data can make AEDs as quick and easy to find as a cup of coffee.

Together, these laws can ensure that these miraculous devices are immediately accessible where most cardiac arrests occur – not in pro sports stadiums, but near our rec centers, public ballfields, and school yards. With easy-to-locate, ubiquitous AEDs, we can save countless people from cardiac death, from elite athletes like Damar Hamlin to ordinary New Yorkers like us.

***
Charles Schumer is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Shekar Krishnan is a City Council Member representing parts of Queens. On Twitter @SenSchumer & @voteshekar.

***
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.

5G Towers: To Increase Digital Connectivity, Start by Connecting with the Community


A 5G tower (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)


If you have walked around New York lately, you may have noticed a new addition to the streetscape: 32-feet-tall 5G towers looming over city sidewalks. As expected, these towers have inspired a range of colorful descriptions from New Yorkers for their uninspired design and massive size. From Washington Heights to Carnegie Hill, everyone seems to be raising the same questions and concerns about the design and placement of the 5G towers.

The city’s goal of expanding 5G communications is both laudable and necessary; in the new hybrid world of remote meetings and online work, access to high-speed internet is essential. The 5G towers, which are operated by a consortium named CityBridge, are supposed to be part of the solution by bringing complete connectivity to all parts of the city. To achieve this important goal, nearly 2,000 5G towers are to be installed citywide.

As representatives for the communities receiving the first rollout, we can attest that the process has not been a success -- with a failure to provide essential data about siting locations, insufficient community engagement, and a negligence of the appropriate federal siting approval processes. 

For instance, a very common and reasonable request is for the city to explain why a certain location or block was chosen. CityBridge claims that network carriers, like AT&T, Verizon, and T-mobile, have shared coverage gaps with them and that determines where the towers go. However, to date, they have failed to share this data with elected officials or the public. 

This lack of information leads many New Yorkers to rightfully question if this new arrangement is an effort to drive more revenue rather than the altruistic goal of expanding service to the most necessary and desirable locations.

Furthermore, the design of these towers leaves much to be desired, especially when placed near historic districts and landmarked buildings. Greater efforts should be made to ensure the design matches the surrounding area. We can also approach the towers as a creative opportunity by allowing artists to add a splash of color, much like the MTA partners with artists and poets to enhance the subway. Doing so could transform towers into local landmarks as opposed to dull, unappealing poles on the sidewalk.

Considering the issues raised, we believe that the towers – where truly necessary -- should be installed in a more deliberate, transparent manner that provides an opportunity for people near potential sites to have a say in the siting process while accessing the necessary data to back up the choice of location.

This week, the New York City Council’s Committee on Technology will hold an oversight hearing on the rollout of the 5G towers to explore these questions and more. The hearing will be an opportunity to hear from technology experts, community groups, and CityBridge. It will hopefully shed light on what is truly guiding the placement of these towers and where they are needed. 

The hearing will also allow us to better understand how 102 towers were installed without going through the appropriate FCC review processes. In an April 20 letter, the FCC determined that CityBridge had not gone through the required historic preservation and environmental reviews as mandated under the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act, respectively. The letter also ordered that the 102 towers already installed be subject to a “post construction review.” 

The rollout of citywide 5G represents an opportunity to bridge the digital divide and ensure every New Yorker has online access. However, crucial questions must be answered to determine if the current approach is the best way to go about it. An opaque, top-down process understandably invites suspicion and controversy, and it is time to bring the public to the table. At the end of the day, these towers are installed in public space and the public has a right to be a part of the process.

***
City Council Members Keith Powers and Carmen De La Rosa each represent parts of Manhattan. On Twitter @KeithPowersNYC and @CnDelarosa.

***
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