Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Rolling Back Bail Reform Amid Coronavirus Outbreak Would Be Additionally Irresponsible


sochie bail reform

Sochie Nnaemeka, the author (photo: @sochiesays)


In moments of crisis, we see what our leaders value. Over the past week, coronavirus has spread to Rikers Island. Our state should be focused on keeping detained New Yorkers and correctional workers safe and healthy. Instead, elected officials may roll back bail reforms in response to fear-mongering by opponents of the new law. If our leaders in Albany choose to reduce the number of people eligible to await their trial from home, the jail population could grow during a dangerous pandemic. We must put human safety over punishment and refuse any changes to the bail system.

For too long, New York’s “justice” system disproportionately kept innocent black, brown, and low-income people in cages before even being convicted—all because they were too poor to buy their freedom. While the wealthy were always able to walk free, these communities were caught in an endless cycle of punishment. It took decades of grassroots leadership and activism led by black and brown organizers to finally change a blatantly racist, classist system in meaningful ways.

Republicans, District Attorneys, and law enforcement that have a vested interest in past and present inequities are doing anything they can to claw back their power to incarcerate even more people. And some state officials are already caving to the fear-mongering by proposing regressive bail rollbacks.

There is nothing more cynical or cruel than choosing to put more people in jail during a pandemic.

Behind the negative headlines, we know there are tens of thousands of lives being changed for the better because of the new bail reforms. All across the state, we are hearing stories of New Yorkers who can now continue their lives and care for their children, rather than senselessly languish in jail and have their lives upended. People who need treatment for substance use or mental illness can get access to the support they need, rather than sitting in jails that have little to no health services.

Bail changes should be left alone regardless of any new developments unrelated to their efficacy. But to roll back bail reform in the midst of this pandemic would mean the state considers certain people’s lives expendable, including thousands of people whose only crime is being poor.

At a time when Governor Cuomo is telling New Yorkers to remain home, stay six feet away from others, and avoid crowds, he cannot simultaneously support sending more New Yorkers to crowded, unsafe jails. Our elected officials should instead focus on releasing vulnerable New Yorkers who are at increased risk of illness and reducing the jail population.

What if the New York State Legislature committed itself to building a state that treated all New Yorkers with dignity and equal justice? As head of the New York Working Families Party, I know our members expect progressive leaders to govern with courage and moral clarity — not to operate within the same fear-based framework that maintained a racist justice system for so long. In this moment of crisis, we’re calling on New York state leadership to reject the politics of fear and put the health and welfare of all New Yorkers, including some of the most vulnerable, first. 

***
Sochie Nnaemeka is New York Working Families Party State Director. On Twitter @sochiesays & @NYWFP.

***
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.

Coronavirus Crisis Spotlights Importance of Food Delivery Workers and Need to Legalize Their E-Bikes


ebike leg

The push for legalizing e-bikes continues (photo: @nily)


Right now, our colleagues in Albany can deliver immediate justice and help keep New York fed and moving during a time of crisis. They must legalize electric-bikes in the state budget being finalized right now.

As part of the effort to slow the spread of COVID-19, the de Blasio and Cuomo administrations announced this week that restaurants, bars, and cafes would close for dine-in customers, but that take-out and delivery would remain available. This move made it clear that New York City’s food delivery workers, a workforce largely comprised of low-paid immigrant Americans from China and Latin America, would be shouldering a large burden, and would soon become a lifeline for potentially millions of New Yorkers during the pandemic.

That is why we are renewing, with urgency, the call for the legalization of e-bikes which most delivery workers use to complete their rounds.

About three-quarters of New York City’s 40,000 food delivery workers rely on throttled e-bikes, which are technically illegal to operate in New York because of a gray area in the state’s vehicle code. These e-bikes, which are different from the pedal-assist e-bikes deployed by Citi Bike, are critical equipment for delivery workers, many of whom are older than 60 and work 10-12 hour days. Try doing that job on a traditional bike and you might not last half as long. 

Most e-bikes are legal in most states, including right across the Hudson in New Jersey. Yet here in the city, where making food deliveries makes the most sense on bicycles as opposed to cars, they are still somehow illegal. Most delivery workers’ median hourly wage is about $10. When stopped by police they are routinely ticketed upwards of $1,000 and have their bikes confiscated. When a worker’s bike is confiscated it means they can’t work to pay the fine, let alone feed their family. 

However, while the de Blasio administration heard our demand to decriminalize e-bike enforcement in tandem with the coronavirus-related limitation on food service, there is no guarantee that this will be permanent after the crisis is over. To criminalize their work after such public service, even after they risk their lives and their families’ lives during this pandemic, would be a travesty of justice.

That is why we are calling on our elected leaders in Albany to (once again) pass and enact legislation to create a legal framework for e-bikes. Last year, the New York State Legislature passed legislation sponsored and impressively championed by Senator Jessica Ramos and Assemblymember Nily Rozic that would have legalized e-bikes and given municipalities throughout New York the authority to determine their use. Governor Cuomo vetoed that bill citing safety concerns, but he reignited the conversation with an admirable e-bike legalization proposal of his own in January.

The push to legalize e-bikes has a broad base of support, not only from groups fighting for immigrant and workers’ rights like Make the Road New York and the Legal Aid Society, but also environmental and transportation safety groups, like the New York League of Conservation Voters and Transportation Alternatives. 

We are counting on all state legislators and Governor Cuomo to unite and pass a budget that guarantees permanent relief for delivery cyclists. Crises can lead to social change, and we expect one positive outcome of the era of social distancing will be a newfound social solidarity with the hard-working delivery workers who keep our city fed, and an end to the shameful police harassment they have weathered for too long.

By ensuring e-bike legalization right now more than 40,0000 hard-working New Yorkers would not have to fear retribution and confiscation of their tools during and after the coronavirus crisis, as they, with their own bodies on the front line, continue to feed New Yorkers, and keep restaurants, farmers, and other companies in business in these trying times.

***
City Council Members Carlos Menchaca and Margaret Chin represent portions of Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively. On Twitter @cmenchaca & @CM_MargaretChin.

***
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 for New York City: What Solidarity Looks Like Amid Coronavirus Outbreak


mayor covid

social distancing amid coronavirus is key (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)


New Yorkers have a particular way of showing solidarity. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resuming normal life was an act of bravery. We would not be derailed. We would carry on. As tragedies have struck other cities and countries, the language of solidarity, arguably the language of coping, has stayed the same. In essence, we come together, try to restore a sense of normalcy, and move forward.

The rapid spread of the new coronavirus, COVID-19, has rattled the global economy and disrupted everyday life. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its worst day since 1987. Universities across the country -- including New York University, Columbia, and the CUNY and SUNY systems -- have cancelled in-person classes and moved instruction online; New York City public schools are switching to remote learning, as well.

Broadway shows are shuttered through at least April, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art has closed its doors. Late-night talk shows are filming without audiences, the NBA and NHL seasons are suspended, the start of baseball season is on hold, and the New York City Half Marathon is cancelled. Subway ridership has plummeted, all restaurants are reduced to takeout/delivery only, and the streets feel eerily quiet. Mayor de Blasio is now pushing for a “shelter in place” order.

On a visceral level, this feels like the opposite of what we should be doing. What about showing that we are better than this, that life can go on, that we are resilient? What about showing that we will not be cowed? Even after September 11th, Broadway shows reopened two days later. But the reality of this global pandemic demands a different sort of solidarity, one that feels at odds with how we would normally react when facing such a threat. Maintaining our routines and showing we are unafraid is pointless and will not help thwart this virus; instead, it would put us all at greater risk.

And so, our New York City solidarity needs to take a new form: social distancing, a phrase that has quickly become part of our daily lexicon. For creatures as social as we are, staying at home is difficult, especially in such a dense city. We are a society of people who find comfort in coming together and taking action, who are used to being crammed together in small spaces and making the best of it; robbed of these tools -- we cannot join marches or attend vigils like we normally would, we can’t even ride the subway like usual -- we feel trapped. Keeping our distance makes it feel like we are losing, but it has been shown to work when it comes to flattening the curve.

For now, our courage will need to remain unseen, our solidarity taking the form of empty subway cars and closed museums. For a city of people used to supporting one another by showing up, this is deeply unsettling, at odds with how we have been taught to fight back.

The psychological, physical, and economic toll social distancing will take on many New Yorkers may be devastating. A coalition of New York City landlords has pledged not to pursue coronavirus-related evictions, de Blasio is trying to keep human services nonprofits running, and senior centers are cancelling all social programming, serving meals instead. Meanwhile, Congress passed a $100 billion relief package and is working on a $1 trillion economic stimulus. Meanwhile, housing advocates nationwide are calling for a moratorium on rent, mortgage, and utility payments to help those out of work cope with their new fiscal reality.

Despite all these efforts, the mental and economic hardship caused by this pandemic will have long-lasting ramifications. It may be tempting for people in low-risk categories -- namely, young people with no underlying health concerns -- to go about life as normal. But if we keep carrying on like nothing is happening, we put the well-being of the most vulnerable among us at risk. Doctors are sounding alarms that our hospitals may be overwhelmed. We all need to do our part to minimize the spread of this virus, taking seriously the calls to avoid crowded places and stay inside even if it feels like the cowardly thing to do.

If we want to show solidarity in a more active way, perhaps we can leave some toilet paper and hand sanitizer for our fellow New Yorkers. We can also make ourselves available to help vulnerable neighbors in self-quarantine with no one to bring them food. Beyond that, though, we New Yorkers are slowly learning a new language for our solidarity: staying home.

***
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.

Environmental Justice, Clean Energy, and the Truth about Indian Point


built fresh park

renewable energy and the future of New York power (photo: Mayor's Office)


In a recent Gotham Gazette column, Richard Webster, legal director for Riverkeeper, writes that “New York Has Already Moved Beyond Indian Point Nuclear Power; Here’s Where We’re Headed.” While Riverkeeper, the Westchester-based environmental group that has spearheaded the decades-long push to close Indian Point, may have moved on, the rest of us will be dealing with its fallout, namely its environmental damage – particularly to low-income communities – and the setback to the ambitious climate goals of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

Citing a deactivation assessment that was published by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) after the announced closure in 2017, Webster writes that “New York will have enough replacement power to supplant the aging, problematic nuclear plant’s output once it closes, and it can be done with combinations of clean energy sources, transmission improvements, and energy efficiency,” and he notes in his conclusion that “no new gas plants [are] needed.”

This is simply a misrepresentation of NYISO’s assessment.

Indeed, the reliability criteria was met – but this was only if three additional natural gas plants under construction were included in the study’s base case assumption. In fact, NYISO emphasizes this point by noting that when they “performed a scenario assessment to evaluate the reliability of the system without three major generation facilities currently under construction (Bayonne Energy Center II Uprate, CPV Valley Energy Center, and Cricket Valley Energy Center),” they identified “reliability criteria violation.” And again: “without the expected new generation facilities currently under construction, additional replacement sources of power would be necessary to maintain reliability following deactivation of IPEC [Indian Point Energy Center].”

This should come as no surprise to those who’ve worked on or followed this issue, especially Webster, since deactivation assessment studies for replacing Indian Point commissioned by Riverkeeper in 2012 and 2017 were also predicated on the inclusion of generation from these gas-fired plants. (The potential reliability shortfall from Indian Point’s closure has also been used as a pretext for the controversial Danskammer gas plant in Newburgh.)

Next, Webster reminds “the energy doomsayers” that “Indian Point is one of the most dangerous reactors in the country” and that this risk is why we “must close these reactors.” But this begs the question: “most dangerous reactors” relative to what? Nuclear energy has by far the lowest death rate per kilowatt produced of any energy source. Thirteen people have died in accidents at nuclear power plants in the United States -- ever -- none of which involved exposure to radiation; in comparison, approximately 100 people are killed every year in the United States from oil and gas drilling accidents.

This fear of nuclear catastrophe, relative to the actual risks, is perhaps reminiscent to anyone who lived in New York City since 2001 of the intense (and understandable) fear of terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11, which according to the New York Times “transformed Indian Point from a fringe issue that only antinuclear crusaders care about to a mainstream concern” throughout the tri-state area.

On November 8, 2001, Riverkeeper’s then lead attorney, the celebrity environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – perhaps better known (or dreaded) in Albany today as an unofficial leader of the anti-vaccination movement – headed a press conference on the steps of City Hall, warning of the catastrophe that would have resulted “If the American Airlines Flight 11 that flew down the Hudson River had instead of hitting the twin towers in New York, banked left and hit the twin towers of Indian Point.” At Kennedy’s side was his then brother-in-law, an aspiring gubernatorial candidate named Andrew M. Cuomo – who, as a Westchester resident himself at the time, would run on shutting down Indian Point in his subsequent campaigns for Attorney General and then Governor.

There’s a through-line from that press conference at the height of post-9/11 paranoia to the one announcing Indian Point’s closure in 2017 – in which, again, Riverkeeper was at Cuomo’s side. In all that time, the fear of nuclear terrorism was constantly leveraged toward the political demand of shutting down Indian Point. A study that Riverkeeper commissioned in 2007, still on its website today, warns of a multi-stage demolition attack on Indian Point’s containment structure in which “shaped charges could be placed by attackers who reach the target locations by parachute…” followed by “a standoff component in which shaped-charge warheads are delivered from an offsite location by an instrument such as the TOW (tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire guided) missile.”

While this may evoke the imaginations of a Michael Bay blockbuster movie, it’s shaped the reality we live in today – one that will make the state’s ambitious clean energy goals under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) all the more challenging. Indian Point, whose over 2,000 megawatt capacity provides a quarter of New York City’s electricity, is already being replaced by electricity generated from carbon-emitting plants as a consequence of its closure.

While the Governor’s recently-announced offshore wind projects, generating 1,750 MW, offset this setback to some extent, it’s important to keep in mind that this capacity is a function of whether the wind is blowing; wind power has a “capacity factor” of 32.2% relative to 93% for nuclear power. 

There’s a tragic irony to Webster’s assertion that the CLCPA will “address fairness and equity for environmental justice communities — those at the greatest risk from potential climate change-related impacts,” as evidence shows that the closure of Indian Point undoes those efforts. A key takeaway of a report prepared for NY-BEST (a subsidiary of NYSERDA) was that “the closure of Indian Point is likely to increase the utilization and emissions from fossil fuel plants -- particularly those located in NYC."

Consider that in Con Edison’s most recent annual statement, since 2017 the company has cut its power purchase agreement from Indian Point by $197 million while increasing its PPA from Astoria Generating Company – whose pollutive, fuel oil-burning power plants in Astoria are located within an environmental justice area – by at least $163 million. And just a couple miles south down “asthma alley,” across Vernon Boulevard from Queensbridge, the city’s largest public housing project, is Ravenswood Generating Station, the city’s largest power plant by capacity. The ratings agency Moody’s recently cited “the expected retirement of the…Indian Point Energy Center” as a “positive development” that will “support the prospect for higher capacity prices” for Ravenwood’s electricity as a result of higher demand.

Politics, as the old adage goes, is about who gets what, when, and how; in other words, it’s about choices. Yes, as Riverkeeper’s 2007 study points out, there is a chance of Al Qaeda commandos paragliding into Westchester County armed with guided missiles, just as there is a chance that once in 125,000 years an earthquake will cause core damage to the Indian Point reactors. But how should these risks be weighed against current realities – for instance, that according to a report from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, local emissions from fossil fuel generated electricity contribute to "3,000 deaths, 2,000 hospital admissions for lung and heart conditions, and approximately 6,000 emergency department visits for asthma in children and adults" in the city every year?

Similarly, while Webster points out that closing Indian Point would save the billions of fish and fish larvae killed by its water cooling system, this choice should be weighed against human costs. As the African American Environmentalist Association argued, “How many African American children should suffer from asthma in order to marginally improve the level of fish egg mortality in the Hudson River?”

The optimal political choice, as Leonard Rodberg and Hershel Specter propose, is to have the New York Power Authority operate the Indian Point plants through 2024-2025, as the closure agreement allows – by which point, ideally, a transmission line bringing hydropower from Canada is completed. For advocates of publicly-owned power, this would provide NYPA with carbon-free “baseload” generation, enabling it to compete as a preferable alternative to Con Edison – a far less costly proposition for public power than the current legislation in which the state would acquire Con Edison’s assets via eminent domain. 

This would bring us closer to the environmentally-just, carbon-free future envisaged by the CLCPA.

***
Duncan Bryer was formerly the Director of Policy for Brooklyn State Senator Julia Salazar. He currently advises the senator and is a graduate student of economics at John Jay College, City University of New York.

***
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.

Passage of Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act a Key Step; Here’s What Must Come Next


coronavirus response

The coronavirus response must continue (photo: Ed Reed/Mayor's Office)


Early last Saturday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed comprehensive legislation that would begin to ease the economic hardships Americans are facing right now as a result of the developing coronavirus crisis. After modifications from the House that weakened sick leave provisions, the Senate voted Wednesday to pass the The Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

The legislation, which President Trump is expected to sign, provides free coronavirus testing, increases funding for states’ Medicaid costs, strengthens food security initiatives, enhances unemployment insurance, and provides paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave through refundable payroll tax credits.

Congress deserves recognition for acting swiftly on what’s being referred to as Phase Two of their response – Phase One being the $8.3 billion spending package that focused on tests, treatment, vaccines, and telehealth provisions.

However, business has grinded to a halt and millions across the nation are already unemployed. In New York City, The Center for New York City Affairs found that, as a result of public health-mandated closings, as many as a half-million low-paid and vulnerable workers in New York City restaurants, hotels, museums, movie and television production, taxis, ride-hailing apps, and other lines of work will lose their jobs and incomes. That’s more than $1 billion in lost wages. In March alone.

The severity of the coronavirus recession will depend on policy choices made now. And reflecting on the recent decade-long economic growth period – which, in part due to budget austerity, left too many Americans behind, and disproportionately people with low incomes and communities of color and immigrants  – is instructive.

We at FPWA and our coalition partners in the Federal Tax and Budget Response Team – which serves over 3 million New York City residents each year – are asking the city’s congressional delegation to prioritize low-wage and vulnerable workers and human service providers in Phase Three of the federal response to coronavirus and its effects.

By protecting those whose jobs have been sacrificed to protect the public’s health and those serving on the frontlines who are responding to the growing needs of their communities, Congress can stave off a severe economic recession.

In addition to these concerns, national advocates representing human service providers and low-wage workers are rightly concerned about the following (among other things):

The bill reduces the state’s Medicaid share by 6.2 percentage points, meaning New York will now pay 43.8 percent of costs instead of 50 percent. However, this may prove to be insufficient given the extent to which the state budget will be squeezed by falling tax revenue and increasing costs.

A paid leave provision that focused on survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and their leave was stripped from the bill, and; the Act does not ensure that caregiving covered by both paid sick days and paid leave includes all caregiving for adults and children with disabilities.

The revised version of the Act only provides paid family leave of up to 12 weeks to people taking care of kids who aren’t in school. In the original version, all workers who received paid sick time would have been eligible for another 10 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds pay.

The Act does not provide resources to shelter providers to quickly and permanently house people who are homeless and at high risk of infection.

Workplace safety standards for health care workers were scrapped by industry lobbyists.

Food assistance benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should be increased across the board as they were in response to the Great Recession.

Although the Act ensures access to free coronavirus testing, even for the uninsured, the legislation does not address treatment costs for the uninsured, and those with private insurance may face complications in the event of hospital bed shortages.

And while the bill addresses nutrition assistance for older adults, it does not address health insurance affordability and access to home and community-based services to reduce the risk of infection.

The coronavirus outbreak is an unprecedented crisis, but policymakers can reduce the economic risk and human toll by acting with continued urgency towards passage of Phase Three.

***
Derek Thomas is Senior Fiscal Policy Analyst at FPWA. On Twitter @dlthomasNYC and @FPWA.

The New York Federal Tax and Budget Response Team works together to protect and strengthen federal human services programs and policies that support low- to middle-income New Yorkers. We are a state-based coalition whose members include FPWA, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New York, UJA-Federation of New York, Fiscal Policy Institute, New York Housing Conference, LiveOn NY, Human Services Council of New York, United Neighborhood Houses, Food Bank For New York City, Urban Justice Center, and Children’s Aid. Together, the umbrella organizations represent hundreds of faith-based and human-service organizations and serve together more than 3 million New York City residents each year.

***
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.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is a Critical First Step the Senate Must Pass


health care

Congress must take on coronavirus and its effects (photo: Jeff Reed/City Council)


The Senate Should Pass the Act, More Aggressive Measures Needed to Alleviate Widespread Human Suffering and Avoid Severe Recession

Early Saturday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed comprehensive legislation that would begin to ease the economic hardships Americans are facing right now as a result of the developing coronavirus crisis. However, as of Tuesday evening, the Senate has yet to act.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act provides free coronavirus testing, increases funding for states’ Medicaid costs, strengthens food security initiatives, enhances unemployment insurance, and provides paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave through refundable payroll tax credits.

The House deserves recognition for acting swiftly on what’s being referred to as Phase Two of their response – Phase One being the $8.3 billion spending package that focused on tests, treatment, vaccines, and telehealth provisions – while simultaneously working on the details of Phase Three.

However, with the nation’s economic centers nearly closed, business grinding to a halt across the nation, and the stock market continuing to plunge, the coronavirus outbreak is extremely likely to result in a recession. Indeed, both major political parties and the Trump administration acknowledge that Phase Two is merely another first step.

Reflecting on the recent decade-long economic growth period – which, in part due to budget austerity, left too many Americans behind, and disproportionately people with low incomes and communities of color and immigrants  – is instructive. Already, nearly half of all New York City residents cannot afford their most basic needs, let alone an emergency. Absent sweeping revisions to social safety net programs that were already insufficient, such as child care, cash assistance, support for older adults, aid for food, and so on, the human toll will be devastating.

As such, Phase Two must be passed by the Senate and Phase Three advanced. Phase Three must enact bold fiscal policy measures to stave off a severe economic calamity and address the shortcomings in the Families First Act.

On fiscal policy, the president continues to press for his payroll tax cut. But that relief would be too slow, not well targeted, and too narrow – nearly two-thirds of the tax cut (65 percent) would go to households in the top 20 percent. While meaningful differences in the details exist, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney joined progressive policy experts in calling for rebate or “stimulus” checks for unemployed and employed Americans that would put money into peoples’ hands quickly.

While the Families First Act is enormously important, it is indeed only part of the first step response to the coronavirus crisis. Advocates are rightly concerned about the following (among other things): 

The bill reduces the state’s Medicaid share by 6.2 percentage points, meaning New York will now pay 43.8 percent of costs instead of 50 percent. However, this may prove to be insufficient given the extent to which the state budget will be squeezed by falling tax revenue and increasing costs.

A paid leave provision that focused on survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking was stripped from the bill, and; the Act does not ensure that caregiving covered by both paid sick days and paid leave includes all caregiving for adults and children with disabilities.

The revised version of the Act only provides paid family leave of up to 12 weeks to people taking care of kids who aren’t in school. In the original version, all workers who received paid sick time would have been eligible for another 10 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds pay.

The Act does not provide resources to shelter providers to quickly and permanently house people who are homeless and at high risk of infection.

Workplace safety standards for health care workers were scrapped by industry lobbyists.

Food assistance benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should be increased across the board as they were in response to the Great Recession.

Although the Act ensures access to free coronavirus testing, even for the uninsured, the legislation does not address treatment costs for the uninsured, and those with private insurance may face complications in the event of hospital bed shortages.

And while the bill addresses nutrition assistance for older adults, it does not address health insurance affordability and access to home and community-based services to reduce the risk of infection.

The coronavirus outbreak is an unprecedented crisis, and the economic and human toll due to illness and the daily disruptions to our lives will be widespread. The U.S. Senate should swiftly pass the Families First Act to provide immediate relief and the certainty that Congress is functioning in a crisis. Immediately following, the House and Senate must again act swiftly and aggressively to alleviate human suffering and avoid a severe economic recession.

***
Derek Thomas is Senior Fiscal Policy Analyst at FPWA. On Twitter @dlthomasNYC and @FPWA.

***
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 City Must Act Immediately to Strengthen Our Nonprofit Social Safety Net


social services food pantries

Amid coronavirus outbreak, the social safety net must hold (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)


Daily home-delivered meals for home-bound seniors. Case-management to help make sure people have medicine and essential supplies, and reduce the harm of social isolation. Emergency food for people who are unemployed or homeless. Child care for those who still have to go to work.

All services we utterly need right now. And all provided by New York City’s remarkable network of not-for-profit human service providers.

These providers are essential to our city, as Mayor de Blasio recognized Tuesday when he declared about 40,000 nonprofit human services workers as "essential city employees," so they can receive child care as part of the emergency system the Department of Education and other city agencies are setting up to start next week.

Unfortunately, the City is not yet enabling these human service not-for-profits to step up to meet current crisis-time needs. With rapid action by City Hall, these safety net organizations can become an essential and creative part of our emergency response to the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). Without rapid action, they will become part of the crisis, as their employees swell the ranks of the unemployed.

Here’s what the City needs to do right away:

Don’t let the safety net fail
Commit to continue to pay the existing contracts of not-for-profit social service agencies through the end of the fiscal year (June 30), whether or not every service continues during the crisis, and stop recouping cash advances that were provided.

Advance bridge loans to cover cash flow. The City’s Department of Small Business Services deserves credit for rapidly establishing an emergency loan fund for small businesses, but it does not include these larger not-for-profit human service organizations.

This will allow the not-for-profits to continue what work they can, like meal delivery, grab-and-go soup kitchens and food pantries, and case management by phone. And it will also prevent thousands of social service workers from losing their income, even if the after-school youth program or senior center they usually work at is closed.

We’ve already allocated the funds for this work, so there’s no need for the workers who provide it to apply for already-strapped unemployment benefits. We’re going to need many of these people for other tasks. And even for those who stay home, whether because of their own or others’ health, this is a low-income workforce. Losing weeks of pay means they can’t pay for rent, food, and medicine.

Clarify what’s essential
The City needs to provide guidance on the essential services these organizations should provide. Existing programs to deliver meals to seniors are a no-brainer. These services should be expanded to include seniors who usually go to a senior center, and to other low-income households that can’t get food right now.

Not-for-profit child care centers need guidance too. They should either be looped into the enrichment center network that the Department of Education is creating, with the guidance and materials needed to do it, or instructed to close.

We’re going to need to continue to provide food pantry and grab-and-go soup kitchens, since we still have thousands of homeless New Yorkers living on the streets. And sadly, the ranks of people without enough food is going to grow as workers are laid off or put on unpaid leave from hurting or closed businesses.

Encourage thoughtful creativity
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to need massive amounts of creativity to meet rapidly-evolving needs. As our hospitals become overwhelmed, we will need an expanded healthcare support workforce. As social isolation sets in, we’ll need a new system of support to help vulnerable seniors (and all of us).

Our human service not-for-profit organizations can act quickly to fill these gaps, as they did after Hurricane Sandy. My office is already working with Heights and Hills (an organization serving older adults in Brooklyn) to get volunteers calling hundreds of home-bound seniors on their lists to see how we can help them. This kind of work can be expanded to help fill in the gaps in our safety net, as best we can under these emergency circumstances.

Let’s empower and encourage New York City’s not-for-profit organizations to be creative and flexible in the anxious days ahead.

Coordination
Finally, in addition to contract commitments, clear guidance, and flexibility, our not-for-profit organizations need a clear point-of-contact in the City administration, a “not-for-profit czar,” with access to senior leadership and the ability to make decisions. They should convene daily calls with human service leaders to help stand up the emergency networks we need. Crisis leadership that is clear, flexible, and inspiring can help unlock an enormous amount of good.

The COVID-19 crisis is exposing massive gaps in our social safety net. But we are blessed with a creative and resilient network of human service providers, in every neighborhood of the city, that can step up to the challenge at this urgent moment. Let’s not let it fail.

***
Brad Lander is a New York City Council Member from Brooklyn, and the former executive director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, a not-for-profit affordable housing and community development not-for-profit organization. On Twitter @BradLander.

***
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 and Housing are Inextricably Linked; My Patients Need Home Stability Support


rafael sala holds

A push for a new state homelessness-housing voucher continues (photo: John McCarten/City Council)


As a doctor in the hospital, I bear witness to some of the most severe downstream effects of health inequity in our community. In my field, I care for any person who presents to the emergency room and is then deemed too sick to be discharged. Through years of clinical service, I have come to appreciate housing as the most vital component of a person’s ability to stay well.

More recently, research surrounding individuals experiencing homelessness has highlighted the increased risk of trauma, rapid aging and development of geriatric syndromes, and increased risk of death at an earlier age compared to people who have stable housing.

In essence, people in our community who are experiencing homelessness are becoming sicker faster and dying at an alarming rate. Compounded with the fact that we are facing the worst homelessness crisis since the Great Depression, our state needs to act now.

A proposed statewide rent subsidy program known as Home Stability Support would be a critical step forward in changing the trajectory of so many people and families struggling with one of the most basic human needs. The proposal would help individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless in providing realistic rental assistance that would result in successful housing. 

The majority of my patients are highly medically complex and experiencing social struggles that complicate their recoveries. I have the privilege and honor of hearing people’s stories while working in my field and am humbled each time a person describes the painful experience of attempting to maintain their health while concurrently managing an unstable living situation or navigating the shelter system.

Being discharged from the hospital with a new list of medications and follow-up instructions after a severe disease state can be complicated in otherwise ideal situations. For a person experiencing homelessness, who is tasked with the additional worry of safety, exposure, or navigating the housing system, we can easily see their diseases rapidly worsen after leaving the hospital and see them end up back in the emergency room. This is no cycle that any human being should experience. 

Even if not homeless at the time, my patients have additionally asked to leave the hospital before medically treated because missing another day of work would put their ability to pay rent in jeopardy. As a doctor, tasked with attempting to alleviate suffering and treat disease, it pains me to witness people having to choose between keeping their housing and their health. With 23,000 more New Yorkers becoming homeless than leaving homelessness each year, Home Stability Support would critically address people at risk of eviction in addition to people currently homeless, preventing so much of the endless suffering and potential health complications that accompany losing your home.

Homelessness, while not officially recognized as an Adverse Childhood Experience (events linked to increased risk of numerous conditions including cancer, lung disease, heart disease and early death), does place children at higher risk of ACE exposure and poor health outcomes later in life. In hearing frequent stories of childhood trauma amongst my patients with high biopsychosocial complexity, I can only think of the needless suffering that a program like Home Stability Support would prevent. We already know, but clearly don’t fully appreciate, the potential risk we take allowing 150,000 children in our state to experience homelessness, as was the case in the last two years.

In hearing the critical steps this statewide proposal would take to effectively alleviate and prevent immediate homelessness, this is our chance to speak out as citizens and urge our State Legislature and Governor to work together to pass, fund, and quickly implement this initiative and help move people from the shelter systems to homes where they can begin to heal. I encourage any healthcare provider who has had the privilege of caring for patients with unstable housing to speak out similarly and support the Home Stability Support proposal.

***
Amanda Ramsdell, M.D., is an Internal Medicine Physician at New York Presbyterian in New York City and Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. On Twitter @ARamsdell3.

***
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.

Renewable Delusion: Let's be Real About Power Production in New York


cuomo indian point

Gov. Cuomo outside Indian Point power plant (photo: Governor's Office)


Richard Webster, attorney for Riverkeeper, a principal advocate for closure of Indian Point power plant, has written a deeply misleading response to an opinion piece in which Herschel Specter and I urged that the Indian Point nuclear plant, the largest source of carbon-free energy in the downstate region, be kept open.

Mr. Webster, probably speaking for the Cuomo Administration as well, has attempted to refute our assertion that the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant will lead to the burning of huge amounts of natural gas, vastly increase the emission of greenhouse gases, and raise the levels of air pollution in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color in New York City and elsewhere.

In the very first paragraph, he claims that NYISO, our grid operator, says that once Indian Point closes, electric demand can be met with “combinations of clean energy sources, transmission improvements, and energy efficiency.” In fact, the source he cites says they will be relying on three natural gas-fired plants to supply the electricity we need. In fact, the words “clean” or “renewable” do not even appear in the NYISO report.

He goes on to assert that “clean energy and efficiency” can “replace” one of Indian Point’s two reactors. The Indian Point plant runs 24/7 providing “baseload” power to the region. Weather-dependent solar and wind sources provide energy when the sun shines and the wind blows, not the full scope of when we need it. Nor are they even available downstate in the quantity needed to power this dense, high-utilization region.

Mr. Webster believes – and we know this belief is shared by many others – that Indian Point poses great risks to our region. My colleague Herschel Specter has shown in two guides – here and here – that scientific studies and worldwide experience demonstrate that these fears are unfounded. Reactors have been operating safely in the United States for more than 50 years, and they continue to do so. Residents of the Metro area can relax; any problems at Indian Point will be localized and easily dealt with.

Websters treats the generally laudable goals of New York’s 2019 landmark climate legislation as if they are on the way to being achieved. In fact, the prestigious Citizens Budget Commission has shown that the early goals in this legislation are “likely infeasible.” Mr. Specter and I have demonstrated elsewhere that attempting to meet the new law’s 2030 goal with only renewable sources would cost more than $100 billion and is completely impractical. In both the short and long term, nuclear power must be a part of New York’s energy future if we are to end the use of fossil fuels. Closing Indian Point will be a giant step backwards, setting us back a decade and probably more.

One further point: The 2017 Indian Point Closure Agreement may actually be illegal. The State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) requires that all discretionary decisions of an agency like the Department of Environmental Conservation that may affect the environment are subject to an environmental assessment under SEQR. In fact, on p. 137, in an Environmental Impact Statement regarding water use permits, DEC recognizes the deleterious effects that even a temporary closure would have. Certainly, the permanent closure of Indian Point will have substantial environmental impacts, and no such review of this closure has ever been performed. 

***
Leonard Rodberg is a physicist who taught climate change and public policy at Queens College/CUNY until his retirement in 2017.

***
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.

Take It from Someone Who Connects People Socially: Now’s The Time for Social Distancing


daily life imagery

It's time for social distancing in New York (photo: Benjamin Kanter/Mayoral Photo Office)


Much of my life’s work has been about building in-person social connections. Now, I'm wrestling with how to understand and participate in "social distancing" as a way to confront the spread of the new coronavirus, COVID-19.

I help run a network of hundreds of political social events around the country that has created friendships and solidarity through face-to-face gatherings. I'm also chair of the board of The Tank, a Manhattan theater that runs 20 shows a week and supports 1,000 performers every year while welcoming tens of thousands of audience members through its doors. I'm a parent whose kids need affirming contact and need to run as free as city life allows. I once gave a speech about the importance of hugs.

And as a candidate for public office, I'm in the handshake and house party game.

Yet, the way we slow or stop the spread of a virus is by reducing the number of people each of us—even those of us who are healthy and less at risk—come into contact with. In addition to measures like washing our hands, staying home if we're sick, and working from home, "social distancing" is the recommendation by public health officials to ultimately do less harm to the community around us.

It’s a frustrating irony that at the moment of a public health crisis—when there's fear and isolation and stigma and misinformation, and when community, friendship, solidarity, neighborliness, personal connection, and social capital may be more critical than ever for many of us—we have to distance ourselves from each other, at least physically.

My mind goes to the individuals who already feel isolated or alone and for whom this moment could intensify those feelings. To those who need others, physically or emotionally, to get through the day. And to those whose roles—at work or at home—demand they care for others.

And then it goes to those people whose fields are about creating community spaces and connections: coffee shop owners and staff, folks who run recreation leagues and gardening clubs and afterschool activities, and of course those in the performing arts who deliver the electric thrill of live performance in an era dominated by screen time.

“Social distancing” is hard for some of us—but nearly impossible for others—and a quarantine is a real physical, emotional, and financial risk to many. And yet, far from being anti-social, social distancing is the most pro-social act we can take, because those of us who have the privilege to do it are able to help those who can’t.

Social distancing is a reduction, not the elimination, of human contact. And it shouldn’t mean checking out of society or hiding away in a bubble. Check on your elderly neighbors and offer to shop for them, because it may be important that they not shop on their own. When you shop, take what you need, but don't hoard months of supplies and add to an amplified panic. 

Be kind and grateful to the folks who continue to do their jobs, cashing you out, delivering your mail, stocking shelves, driving a cab, signing you in at the doctor. That means following their rules, respecting their space, asking before you make contact, covering your mouth, avoiding them if you're sick, and saying thank you. And I'd even suggest that if you're not sick, you should continue to patronize restaurants and cafes and bars that aren't crowded, because if they aren't crowded, you can keep a social distance from others—and the venue can probably use your money.

As the weather gets nicer, get outside if you can. 

Yes, wash your hands, carry tissues, cough into your elbow—literally the least you can do. 

And when social distancing has helped level out this coronavirus, get ready for serious socializing: Show up at birthday parties and school functions, and take in a night of theater (or several!) to bring back that joy and vibrancy that we'll miss.

We need government to act to ensure the social safety net, from health care to paid sick leave to unemployment insurance, and we need employers to do what they can to support their employees' health and well-being. There are myriad policy solutions at this moment, and many more that we need long-term to address the societal weaknesses this emergency has laid bare. But even while we demand that our government and businesses do more, we need to act as individuals for the sake of the larger society—reducing contact where we can and ensuring connection where it's most needed.

I once gave a graduation speech about the importance of hugs. Now, I'm facing a few weeks of waves, nods, and elbow bumps. It's not because I don't care about you but because I do. And we'll be back to hugging soon.

***
Justin Krebs is director of campaigns at MoveOn and a candidate for City Council in Brooklyn’s District 39. On Twitter @justinmkrebs.

***
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