New Yorkers’ feeling of safety, gradually regained, may have taken a few steps backward. Our uneasiness is not due to a resurgence in crime. While it is true, as the New York Sun reports, that the number of major crimes so far this year, including homicide, is up compared to the same period in 2005 -- a trend that is confirmed by the most recent publicly available New York Police Department statistics (in pdf format) -- it is too early to draw any conclusions from those numbers. The numbers can easily be skewed this early in the year by anomalous spikes in crime, and the period to which the present is being compared -- the beginning of 2005 -- featured unusually low incidence of crime.
New Yorkers have been reminded that no matter how low crime rates drop, or how much safer New York is than places like Columbus, Ohio, there lurks a palpable anxiety about the threat of terrorism.
Over the Presidents Day weekend, an unknown thief broke into the car of a Department of Environmental Protection employee and stole a laptop computer containing maps of the city’s water distribution system . Officials initially worried that the maps might fall into the wrong hands and compromise the security of the system; worries about terrorism reportedly were enough to get the police department’s Intelligence Division involved in the investigation. By the middle of the week, however, officials seemed comfortable to say that the theft was not terror-related, but rather a run-of-the-mill car break-in.
Then on February 22nd, city officials announced that a West Village man was being treated for a case of inhalation anthrax . The news of a case of anthrax in New York, combined with the images of first responders in biohazard suits was enough to evoke vivid memories of the fall of 2001, when several media outlets received letters laced with anthrax spores and put the city on edge for weeks. As in the situation with the stolen water system maps, officials acted quickly and decisively. Mayor Bloomberg held a press conference on the afternoon of the 22nd (see video of it), flanked by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and city health officials, to deliver the news and to reassure the city that there was no evidence of terrorism. Officials believe that the infected man, Vado Diomande, a dance choreographer originally from the Ivory Coast, contracted the disease from naturally occurring anthrax spores on several hides he had brought over from Africa for the purpose of making drums. As of this writing, Diomande remained hospitalized undergoing treatment, and no other cases of anthrax have been reported.
In both of these cases, New Yorkers were able to rely on their own first responders and administrative officials. A Daily News editorial. "City Passes Anthrax Test",—summed up the general mood. The editorial praised city officials for being upfront with the public, and noted that "it was nice also to be reassured that the emergency response system was on the case, up to speed and in command." So too have the city’s first responders seemed up to the task in other situations where the risk of terrorism seems acute: the visible police presence at landmarks, increased arrests on the city’s bridges and tunnels (700 percent, the Post reports, since the September 11th attacks) and, agree with it or not, the policy of conducting random baggage searches of subway passengers in the wake of last summer’s bombings in London. New Yorkers might almost have been forgiven for having entertained dreams of self-reliance when it comes to security measures.
Yet the story of the debate over the control of New York Harbor abruptly woke us up. The federal government, with a minimum of publicity (“Congress probably should have been briefed on this matter sooner,” said the president’s press secretary) and lack of adherence to procedural niceties (a mandatory investigation period was apparently skipped), approved the sale of port operations at six major U.S. ports, from P & O Ports North America, a British company, to Dubai Ports World, a company owned and operated by the government of Dubai (part of the United Arab Emirates). Port Newark, and the New York Cruise Terminal on the West Side are two of the ports that would be affected. Critics immediately raised terror-related concerns, citing security lapses in the company’s port in Dubai, as well as the UAE’s past terrorist ties. The reaction from politicians inside and outside of New York -- including Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Representative Peter King (chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, among others -- was swift and uniformly critical. All of the city’s major papers issued blistering editorials (“Dubya Jeopardy” said the Post; “Strangers at the Door” warned an Op-Ed in the Times ; “Anybody home?” asked the Daily News ). On the 24th, the Port Authority moved to block the sale in court.
Of course, as some have pointed out, Customs and Coast Guard officials would still be responsible for security at the ports, and the Dubai company would inherit the current workforce at the port, which is mainly American. Without specific complaints about security lapses, the overheated reaction can’t help but seem a bit xenophobic.
The real problem exposed by the port scandal is not that an Arab company is going to operate several American port facilities. In a way, this is almost beside the point. Rather, the problem for New York City is two-fold.
First, frighteningly little has been done since September 11th to secure port facilities in light of terrorist threats. Few dispute that the ports are a weakness in the world of homeland security, and experts estimate that only between four and six percent of shipping containers at major ports are inspected.
Second, the debate over Dubai Ports World has brought into sharp relief just how dependent New York City is on federal homeland security efforts. While the city depends on information and money from the feds, the visible manifestation of homeland security in New York City is the police department, the fire department, and other first responders. But no matter what those agencies do, New Yorkers are still dependent on Washington for much more than homeland security money. Given the performance of the Department of Homeland Security in responding to Hurricane Katrina, and the way it has bumbled through the process of approving the port sale, New Yorkers would be right to have their confidence shaken. But those failures also underscore the need for local elected officials to do more than lobby for money. Highlighting the stupidity of giving homeland security money to the Virgin Islands is well and good, but it should not be at the expense of trying to shape larger-scale homeland security policy.
David Dean, a student at New York University School of Law, worked as a policy analyst in the Mayor's Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator.Â
Fresh off his decisive victory in November’s election, a victory made possible in part because of his record on public safety, Mayor Michael Bloomberg set out what he called “A Blueprint for New York City’s Future” in his State of the City address on January 26th.
To an outside observer, it may have seemed strange that, in addition to ambitious pronouncements about tackling poverty, creating new jobs, rebuilding the World Trade Center site, and reforming the Administration for Children’s Services in the wake of the killing of seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown, the mayor reserved a considerable portion of his speech to new crime-fighting proposals. Yet recent events have forced public safety issues back into the consciousness of New Yorkers.
Of course, Bloomberg made sure to mention the continuing drop in crime numbers. Through December 18th (as of this writing, the date of the most recent numbers available online), the number of major crimes had dropped 12 percent over the same period in 2004. Furthermore, according to the mayor, crime has dropped by 20 percent since he was elected in 2001.
To Bloomberg’s credit, he made a number of concrete proposals to fight crime over the next year, a refreshing change from the lack of policy detail laid out during his campaign.
The mayor announced that the police department would expand Operation Trident, an initiative introduced last year that split up troublesome precincts and sent in additional police officers. Though the name may be lacking in originality (the Metropolitan Police Service in London began their own Operation Trident in 1998 to tackle gun violence), the policy itself seems to have been a success.
In East New York’s 75th Precinct, a Trident target in 2005, crime fell by 12 percent. While the incidence of homicide was unchanged over 2004, East New York saw large drops in rape (though, as the Village Voice pointed out,rape numbers are notoriously difficult to assess), robbery and burglary.
Following on the success of Operation Trident in the 75th Precinct, Bloomberg said that the initiative would be expanded to two precincts in the South Bronx—the 44th precinct and the 46th precinct.
Bloomberg also called upon the state legislature to pass a law requiring the collection of DNA samples in all criminal convictions. The mayor called the proposed law “the single best way to catch offenders before they become serial offenders, as well as to exonerate the innocent.” In light of the opposition such proposals have received in the past from civil liberties groups, who argue that extensive DNA collection is an invasion of privacy, passing such a law surely will not be easy, especially if Bloomberg insists on including convictions for misdemeanors. It also takes quite a faith in the “broken windows” theory to believe that your average turnstile jumper or shoplifter is likely to turn into a murderer or rapist. Add to that the sheer number of misdemeanors that flow through the city’s criminal justice system every year -- a report by the New York Criminal Justice Agency found more than 176,000 of them in 1998, and there is no reason to suggest that there are fewer today -—administering such a DNA collection system would take substantial resources.
Bloomberg’s top public safety priority in the coming year, however, is fighting gun violence, and keeping illegal guns off the street. This should come as no surprise, as it has been the mayor’s focus since two police officers were killed at the end of 2005. In his State of the City speech, Bloomberg vowed to “marshal all of our resources and work with all of our partners in public service -- whether they are across the rotunda in City Hall, up in Albany, or in big cities across the nation -- both to root out and punish these criminals and to stop the flow of illegal guns into our city.”
The mayor outlined several proposals to achieve this goal, some old, and some new. One was filing new lawsuits against the dealers responsible for selling the guns that end up being used in crimes; experts suggest that about 60 percent of the guns used across the country to commit crimes come from just one percent of gun dealers. Another idea that had been suggested before was to work with elected officials across the country to toughen gun control laws and improve enforcement (“Mike gunnin’ for NRA” was the headline in the Daily News when the mayor first suggested such a plan, in an article that also wondered whether Bloomberg would use some of his own money to campaign against illegal guns.)
Among the new proposals was a commitment to debrief felony gun defendants after they are arrested (to gain intelligence on the illegal gun market), a plan to use new video technology to track the source of gun shots, and a collaborative effort to flag the cases of gun offenders when they are arrested for other crimes. Bloomberg also proposed two new pieces of legislation: a new registration program for individuals convicted of gun crimes -- a “Megan’s law for gun criminals” in the words of the mayor -- and a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years for anyone convicted of criminally possessing a loaded gun.
It is hard to imagine that the members of the state legislature who passed the Crimes Against Police Law in December in the wake of two police shootings could have dreamed of a better poster boy for the law than 25-year old Damian Henry. Henry -- a “cop-hating thug” in the Post’s estimation -- has been charged under the new law with first degree attempted murder after firing an Uzi at two police officers outside an East Flatbush club that he was allegedly about to rob. Police also say that, in a coincidence Charles Dickens would be proud of, Henry was arrested last summer for firing at a correction officer with the same gun that was later used to shoot Officer Dillon Stewart.
The tragic death of Nixzmary Brown has had ramifications for the city’s child services system that will be felt for years. Now Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes wants life without parole for similar crimes. Nixzmary’s stepfather, the accused killer, is charged with second degree murder, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years to life. Bills have been introduced in both the state senate and assembly to change the law.
David Dean, a student at New York University School of Law, worked as a policy analyst in the Mayor's Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator.Â
As long as there have been landlord and tenant disputes - - which is as long as there have been landlords and tenants - - there has been an imbalance: Some people own the housing that other people need for shelter. And, at least since 1972, with the creation of the Housing Court within New York City Civil Court, there has been another dramatic imbalance. Landlords have attorneys, and tenants don’t.
Much has been said and written about this. Little has been done.
The New York County Lawyers' Association held a conference in 2004 to analyze the issues facing housing court. A report (in pdf format) of conference findings and recommendations was recently issued.
The report points to the gap in representation in the 350,000 residential cases that are filed every year: "11.9 percent of tenants in New York City Housing Court were represented by an attorney and 97.6 percent of landlords were represented by an attorney. As grim as these figures are, they likely understate the percentage of low-income tenants who are unrepresented..."
With self-represented (called pro se) tenants filling the courtrooms and hallways of the boroughs' Housing Courts, it is a scene one law professor described as a "largely one-sided eviction apparatus." Others have called it Kafkaesque, or as acrimonious as a bad marriage.
Federal and state courts, including New York's Court of Appeals, have distinguished between civil and criminal cases, holding that all persons accused of crimes, facing possible loss of liberty, are entitled to free legal representation. But there has never been a similar right in civil cases. Of course, those able to retain and pay their own counsel have always been able to do so, both in civil and criminal proceedings. But the issue that has never been resolved is, who provides the lawyers for the vast majority of Housing Court litigants who lack the funds to pay their own lawyers?
Tenants are severely and dangerously under represented by lawyers. The lack of representation deprives them of a fair trial, due process, and access to courts, according to Andrew Scherer, an expert in residential landlord-tenant law who is head of Legal Services for New York, which represents indigent clients in civil actions. Scherer believes it violates the federal and state constitutions as well as civil rights laws, and argues that there is only one solution - - to recognize a guaranteed right to counsel. But the right to counsel cannot be merely theoretical. It means that as in criminal cases, government must supply and pay for lawyers, for those who cannot afford to pay fees, and they must be lawyers who are knowledgeable in the field.
Lawyer-less litigants are generally intimidated by the maze of housing court, a court that even many lawyers have difficulty figuring out. Some conference participants urged Housing Courts judges to be more protective of tenants, especially the most vulnerable, the disabled, the impaired, the aged. But Housing Court judges, like judges elsewhere, cannot become advocates for those appearing before them and can usually do little more than try to explain to the unrepresented tenant what he or she is facing at trial or in agreeing to in a settlement. The settlement is usually contained in a stipulation signed in the corridor, and often contains terms the tenant does not understand or could never comply with, particularly when up against a lawyer for the landlord. (Joe Lamport last month wrote about these hallway settlements in Gotham Gazette’s housing topic page.) In addition to judges being prohibited from giving legal advice, Housing Court judges are not elected, but appointed, and for only five year terms; they are acutely aware of the problems they could experience in their own careers. If they are seen as being "pro-tenant," they could risk not being reappointed.
With Legal Services, the Legal Aid Society and housing clinics facing strained budgets, cutbacks, overwhelming caseloads and severely overworked staffs, Scherer continues to press the position that anyone facing the loss of a home should not only be entitled to representation as a matter of fairness, but under law. The conference report calls Scherer's analysis "persuasive" and adopts his view. But neither the legislature nor the courts have ever been persuaded.
Nobody is counting on a tenant right to counsel anytime soon, even though stakes in Housing Court are high -- evictions...and more homelessness.
Emily Jane Goodman is a New York State Supreme Court JusticeÂ