Candidates and their Web sites
The 40th City Council district sits at the geographic center of Brooklyn. It is an area of immigrants. People from every Caribbean island, along with residents of other ethnic groups, populate the district, which includes part of Flatbush and East Flatbush.
The ten candidates running in the special election say they seek to represent everyone in this diverse community. But given the likely low turnout, many will have to motivate their base – and often that core support consists of people who share their national roots. Eight of the ten candidates are black and have some connection to the Caribbean or Central America.
In 1991, the 40th elected the first Jamaican to City Council, Una Clarke. And the Clarkes still wield influence. Una Clarke served on the council until forced to leave office by term limits in 2001. Her daughter, Yvette Clarke succeeded her, staying on City Council until she won election to the U.S. Congress last November. The special election is to fill her seat.
In this race, the Clarkes have endorsed Mathieu Eugene, the one Haitian in the race. That support gave Eugene a boost in his quest to become the first Haitian on the City Council. But the large field leads most to believe this contest is very much up for grabs.
The candidates list an array of issues as being of major concern to residents of the 40th district. And while the candidates differ in their emphasis and offer varying solutions, the campaign has been marked by few, if any, clashes over policy.
Affordable Housing
Most of the candidates believe that developers should set aside a certain percentage of apartments – about 30 percent, several said -- for affordable housing. Some also questioned the definition of affordable housing, saying that many homes the city considers “affordable” are too expensive for residents of the 40th district. Wellington Sharpe said people in each community should determine what affordable housing means for their neighborhood.
Jesse Hamilton would survey the area to determine places where new housing could be built, while Mathieu Eugene would do an assessment of buildings to determine which ones are vacant “and figure out how we can help those owners and get affordable housing” in now empty properties. Similarly Joel Toney sees opportunity for development on commercial strips in the district where many building have just one story. He would encourage additional floors for housing.
Zenoba McNally, who has made housing the focus of her campaign and describes herself as “passionate” about the issue, said that “instead of building homeless shelters, the answer is more affordable housing.”
To get that housing built, “we have to talk about holding developers’ feet to the fire,” Jennifer James said. She cautioned that programs to encourage more economical housing have to be carefully crafted. “Once you have a loophole, people will take advantage of it,” she said.
While residents in the less affluent parts of the district want more development, those at the district’s western edge, such as in the Ditmas Park neighborhood, worry about too much development. Harry Schiffman, who lives in one of those areas, said he has been working to get landmark status for the neighborhood to protect the existing housing.
“You have to find a happy medium,” said Wellington Sharpe. “I would not be ready to build a 15-story house on every block but you cannot say no more building because people are coming into the community daily.”
Education
Most of the candidates expressed concern about the quality of schools in the area, particularly the size of classes. Speaking with people in the community, Mohammad Razvi said he found residents are “really upset about the size of classrooms. They really have to focus on downsizing.” As a member of the council, Leithland "Rickie" Tulloch said he would push for more funding to hire additional teachers and reduce class size. He would also like to see the Bloomberg administration abandon its push for publicly financed but privately run charter schools. “We need to have all of our funding invested in the public school system,” he said. And Zenobia McNally said other activities, such as art and music, could serve to involve students who are not as interested in the traditional academic subject.
Many say that the changes in city’s education system over the last several years have not solved the problems facing the area’s schools.
The new programs have not helped student learn how to think critically, said Harry Schiffman, adding, “We need to have kids in our schools understand how to operate a business.”
Jesse Hamilton, a former chair of a community school board, said that since the mayor assumed control of the public school system the “City Council has been cut out” and the administration has been trying “to use a corporate formula for public school system, which is really not working.” That structure has made the school system less personal than it once was, he said, discouraging many parents from becoming more involved in their children’s education.
Those obstacles are particularly daunting for immigrants said Mathieu Eugene. “There is a language barrier and a culture barrier,” he said, and “the parents are working very hard. They are low-income people.”
Jennifer James also has qualms about recent changes in education, particularly breaking large failing high schools into smaller schools. “It theoretically sounds great,” she said, but James believes this approach adds more administration without improving teaching. “We have to stop thinking about administrative answers,” she said and instead focus on teachers.
Karlene Gordon agrees. “It troubles me that the solution to failing schools is to shut them down,” she said at a recent candidates forum. “I don’t think that’s the answer. The answer is to hold our leaders accountable.” Closing schools, she added, “sends a horrible message to the community, a horrible message to the students.”
Jobs
“A lot of people are looking for work,” said Jesse Hamilton. In some parts of the city, says Mathieu Eugene, as many as 60 percent of black men do not have jobs. Better training could help address this, he said, as would assistance for small business. Although such businesses are “the backbone of the community,” Eugene said, it is difficult for them to get loans and other help. “I would like to make it a little easier,” he said.
Jennifer James thinks the city should expand vocational programs within the public school system so young people who do not go to college can “continue to be productive members of society.” Wellington Sharpe would like to establish a training institute to teach marketable skills to young men and women not planning to attend college.
In a twist on that idea, Zenobia McNally proposes that government or private groups buy the long vacant Loew’s King Theater and let teenagers work with construction unions to renovate the building and learn a skill in the process.
Developers should provide jobs to Brooklyn resident, said Mathieu Eugene. If elected, he said, he would sit down with developers and tell them “I want you to be there but I want you to provide jobs for the community” – jobs with fair wages.
Health Care
Residents in the 40th district have high rates of HIV and AIDS, diabetes, hypertension and childhood obesity, according to Jennifer James. But many residents, particularly immigrants, do not take advantage of existing programs that could help them confront these and other health problems.
Mathieu Eugene, a physician, said offering more information on health care is key and notes that he has helped provide free screening for colon rectal cancers and spearheaded health fairs in the district. But Eugene concedes not all problems can be addressed at the community level and said he would do whatever he could to push for universal health coverage. Many of the small businesses in the district do not offer health insurance to their employees, Jennifer James said. She suggested City Council try to provide tax credits or other incentives to make it easier for them to provide such coverage for their employees.
Immigrant Issues
The many immigrants living in the 40th district often do not know about services available to them. Most of the candidates said they would seek to provide translation services and more public information to address that. Wellington Sharpe said immigrants often spend lots of money going to lawyers for routine matters. This is a burden he would like to ease by helping to establish a nonprofit agency that could offer some of those services. “When you are an immigrant and 50 percent of your income goes to rent, the small issues loom large,“ he said.
Along with issues, the candidates stress their work in the community as evidence that they – and not one of the nine others – should be elected. Mohammad Razvi and Mathieu Eugene say they are already doing the kind of work they would do as council members. Both run community nonprofit groups that do extensive work with young people in the area. Hamilton cites his experience on the school board, while Ron Schiffman touts his work in housing issues. Joel Toney, Zenobia McNally, Leithland Tulloch and Wellington Sharpe all point to their time on community boards.
The candidates speak of their deep and long ties to the 40th district, And many point to their endorsements. Yvette Clarke and Una Clarke’s support for Mathieu Eugene garnered the most attention. The physician has not raised a lot of money and had not won the backing of a number of Haitian civil leaders. The man who did – Ferdinand Zizi – withdrew because of problems with his nominating petition.
On the other hand, Jennifer Jones had worked in Yvette Clarke’s congressional campaign. Saying she still has a good relationship with Yvette Clarke, Jennifer James said she did not know why the new member of Congress made the decision to endorse Mathieu Eugene. For his part, Eugene said his endorsement from the Clarkes and others indicates that his support goes beyond the Haitian community, although he added, “something I bring to the table is the participation of the Haitian community.”
The ethnic issue looms large here – at least in blog entries and media accounts. A recent New York Times article saw the race through that perspective. The contest, wrote Jonathan Hicks, “has become a test of ethnic primacy among the fervently political West Indian groups that are prevalent in the district. And just as Irish and later Jewish and Italian politicians clawed their way to political power by first capturing local offices in previous generations, the Caribbean groups are viewing this contest as a vehicle for showing their growing political clout.”
Wellington Sharpe said that people should vote for the best qualified candidate but then joked that, if people vote along ethnic lines he would come out ahead as Jamaicans represent the largest group in the district.
Most candidates say their support extends beyond an ethnic base. After September 11, 2001, Mohammad Razvi said, “I was afraid there was going to be a backlash against my community and other communities.” In response, he started the Council of Pakistani Organizations. But as a wider spectrum of people in the community began availing themselves of the group’s service, Razvi said the P in COPO came to stand for People, indicating, Razvi said, that he has a record of working with all parts of the district.
The Kings County Democratic organization has not officially backed a candidate, although Wellington Sharpe seems to have garnered the support of the most politicians, including City Councilmembers Kendall Stewart, Lew Fidler and Dominic Recchia and State Senator John Sampson. James cites the backing the activist group ACORN, Razvi has the endorsement of the District 9 union, while another Hamilton said that District 37, of which he is a longtime member, backs him.
Do not expect to see any television ads in this race but money still matters as candidates run phone banks and send out mailings. Mohammad Razvi leads the money race, according to February 1 filings, with $41,379. Jennifer James came in second with $27,413. Mathieu Eugene raised a mere $3,445 according to http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2007/02/council_race_ro.php The Daily Politics, although he has borrowed $35,000. Wellington Sharpe boosted his campaign coffers by lending himself $25,000.
The sheer number of candidates makes the race hard to call. To Mohammad Razvi, the crowded field is a sign of vitality. “I think that’s great,” he said. “It makes it more exciting. It wakes up people to participate. If there were just two candidates, there wouldn’t be that buzz.”
But others worry that so many contenders could enable someone with a scant support to capture the seat. Jesse Hamilton said it would be better if the law provided for a runoff rather than awarding the seat to the top vote getter, regardless of how narrow his or her margin. Reviewing the numbers, Hamilton figures that, if the weather is cold, turnout could be as low as 3,000 voters. That means, he said, that someone could win the elections with just 400 votes.
Mathieu Eugene: A physician and native of Haiti, Eugene runs a non-profit organization that helps young people in the community.
Karlene Gordon: A teacher she has been involved in efforts to fight domestic violence.
Jesse Hamilton: Hamilton, who grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx is an attorney who has worked for the city Department of Finance for more than 20 years. He is a Democratic district leader, served as president of his community school boards and is active with a number of civic and political groups.
Jennifer James: A professional political fundraiser, James most recently served as finance director for Yvette Clarke’s successful campaign for U.S. Congress. She has also worked in campaign for Carl McCall, Kevin Parker and Fernando Ferrer. She was a founding member of the Council of Urban Professionals, which works to encourage political involvement and develop political leadership in black and Latino communities, and a lifelong a member of Lenox Road Baptist Church.
Zenobia McNally: A marketing executive who owns her own company, McNally ran unsuccessfully against Yvette Clarke for this City Council seat in 2005. She has been a member of the Community Board 17
Mohammad Razvi: Originally a business owner, Razvi now serves as executive director of the Council of Peoples Organizations, a community group based on Coney Island Avenue that he founded.
Harry Schiffman: Director of government and community relations for Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, Schiffman has long been active with a number of community health, business and social service organization. He formerly worked for Public Advocate Mark Green.
Wellington Sharpe: A native of Jamaica but longtime resident of East Flatbush, Sharpe, a family counselor, is founder and president of a private company, the Nelrak Child Development Center. A member of Community Board 17, he has served on many the boards of many community groups and been politically active, including running unsuccessfully for State Senate.
Joel Toney: A native of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Toney was living and working in the United States when the island nation named him its ambassador to the United Nations. He has served on Community Boards 5 and 14, and is co-chair of the Environment Committee for Community Board 14.
Leithland “Rickie” Tulloch: A longtime financial officer for health care institutions, Tulloch has been a member of Community Board 17 for 15 years, particularly involved in land use issues. He was active in the effort to name part of Church Avenue for Bob Marley.
Campaign Finance Board Filings:
• Mathieu Eugene
• Karlene Gordon
• Jesse Hamilton
• Jennifer James
• Zenobia McNally
• Mohammad Razvi
• Harry Schiffman
• Joel Toney
Â
Forgive New Yorkers for envying their fellow citizens; it's hard to avoid. Librarians read recently in the New York Times that their bosses at the New York Public Library each make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Teachers read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that many of the presidents in area colleges make about half a million dollars: John Sexton at NYU $798,989; Lee Bollinger at Columbia, $685,930; David Caputo at Pace, $672,239; Matthew Goldstein at CUNY, $471,500. But even Wall Street bonus babies, who are expected to be awash in money this year, reportedly complain because they aren't making as much as hedge fund managers.
But however much doctors envy bankers, or lawyers envy managers, there is one group that may attract the most resentment of everyone -- the idle rich, also known as trust fund babies, and coupon clippers (an archaic term, dating from a time when one needed to clip a coupon to get interest from bonds). These are people who do not work, living on the money from investments –- their own, or their family’s.
If there is resentment, there is also fascination. How else to explain Paris Hilton? E! True Hollywood Story even did a show on those “celebutantes” who try to cash in on their wealth to achieve stardom, including a quiz with such sly questions as:
Which heiress has a parent who not only competed in the Olympics but was once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
Amanda Hearst
Zara Phillips
Athina Onassis Roussel
Paris Hilton
(The answer, to spare you taking the quiz, is Zara Phillips, the daughter of England’s Princess Ann, who competed as an equestrian in the Montreal Olympics and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for her philanthropic endeavors).
The Village Voice looked at the issue last year in an article entitled Rich Little â€Poor’ Kids, quoting most of them anonymously: "Those who bear the dreaded "trustafarian" tag say they have problems with guilt, embarrassment, and most importantly, figuring out what to do with their lives."
Several years ago, Melik Kaylan, writing in the Wall Street Journal as part of an ongoing debate over the estate tax, said that inherited wealth allows people “to lead lives on a higher plane.” In response, Timothy Noah of Slate wrote that while he was sure that “some people who inherit vast sums of wealth devote their lives to contemplation and philanthropy,” his experience led him to believe that “enlightened magnificos constitute a very small fraction, and are dwarfed by the number of head cases, drug addicts, and rustic dropouts. (Abigail Trafford of the Washington Post coined the marvelous phrase "WASP rot" to describe this phenomenon.) “ Following up a week later on his article, Noah tried to make good on a promise “to hunt down statistical data examining the lifestyles of the idle rich--incidence of alcoholism compared to the general population and that sort of thing.” He admitted to not having found much.
But now, using a bit of data analysis suggested to me by He Huang, one of my graduate students at Queens College, I have put together an admittedly tentative and incomplete profile (using material from the census and the American Community Survey) of New Yorkers who do not need to work.
There were about 140,000 in the tri-state area in 2005 who received at least $60,000 in investment income. (To receive such an amount would require at least $1.2 million in assets).
About one-sixth lived in Manhattan; almost two fifths were in the suburbs. Those in New York City who do not work for a living are older, more male, more likely married, more educated and less minority than New Yorkers as a whole. About three fifths have been to college. Over 80 percent are white, about nine percent are black, about five percent Asian and about 10 percent Hispanic. About 60 percent are male and about 55 percent are married with a spouse present.
The median personal income of those who do not receive any unearned income is $15,000 while for those that do it is at least $191,200 (and may be much higher.) Only about one-quarter of those who are receiving such income are working, and about 10 percent are making more than $100,000, so many members of the group choose to spend their time in other ways. Indeed, very few report social security income, business or farm income, retirement income or wages and salaries. In short, their investment income is their main source of income. They are substantially older than all New Yorkers older than 15, but even among the younger ones only a small fraction work.
Unfortunately, we can not put together a picture based on the statistical data of how they spend their time, though we know that only a few are working full-time. Some undoubtedly volunteer their time, spend time at vacation spots, or work at jobs that pay relatively low wages, such as docents in art museums or other rewarding pursuits. There are very few surveys that would have enough information to even begin to depict the idle rich.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
The news that Metropolitan Life would like to sell Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village strikes some New Yorkers as the end of an era. The question is: Is the era that is ending one in which middle class people can live in Manhattan?
Both Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village are seen as one of the few remaining middle class bastions in a borough filled with the affluent and the poor.
Both places were built for the middle class, mostly returning veterans and their families. In 1950, residents at Stuyvesant Town paid a median rent of only $76, and those at Peter Cooper Village $100. This was a time at which the median income of the residents was $5,866. Thus, the median household paid only about 15 percent of its income for rent. By 2000, the median rent had climbed above $1,000, but since the median household income had shot up to $68,422, the median household still pays only about 18 percent of its income for rent. This is well below the 35 percent that is considered non-affordable, making the two complexes one of the few bargains left in Manhattan.
This is not likely to stay the same. The city is changing – has already changed -- and so are these two housing developments. It seems instructive to compare the demographics of its residents in 1950, shortly after they were built, with who lived there in 2000, the most recent census. (Conveniently Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village span two census tracts).
In 1950, the two complexes were places for young married couples with kids. In 2000, they had become a home for mostly unmarried singles and many older people.
In 1950, there were 31,173 residents living in 11,630 households in the two complexes. About one-fifth of the residents were five years of age or under. Almost 90 percent of all adult residents were married. Only 1.3 percent of residents were over 65. The make-up was not surprising -- there was a veteran's preference to live in the complexes, and the vets had recently returned home and begun families.
By 2000 the number of people living in the two complexes had declined to 19,101, but the number of households had only dipped slightly to 10,926. Over half the households were occupied by unmarried people without children. Only about four percent were five years old or younger, while almost one-quarter were over 65.
When Stuyvesant Town opened in 1947, it excluded non-whites, which is why in 1950, out of more than 30,000 residents, only 114 were black.
By 2000 the complexes were about 8.3 percent black, 4.4 Asian and 5.4 percent Hispanic. About 15 percent were foreign born, the most from Asia, but substantial numbers from both Europe and Latin America.
In 1950, of those employed (predominantly men) about one-third were in professional occupations, some 18 percent were managers, but 35 percent were either clerical or sales workers. By 2000 slightly more women than men were employed, but about two-thirds of both sexes were in professional or managerial occupations. So the occupational level of the residents had increased.
If Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village are sold to a entity interested in moving the complexes to non-stabilized private sector rental, the prospects for middle class housing in the complex will be bleak, according to a recent article in the New York Times: "At Peter Cooper Village, where the apartments are more spacious, the average monthly rent for regulated apartments ranges from $1,178 for a one-bedroom unit to $1,581 for three bedrooms, while the average rents for market-rate apartments range from $2,662 to $5,842. At Stuyvesant Town, where hardly any of the standard apartments have more than one bathroom, renters in regulated apartments pay an average of $1,096 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,514 for three. Average rents for deregulated apartments range from $2,406 to $3,833."
At 30 percent of income, to rent such apartment a household would need an income between $96,240 and $233,680. This would make the complex off-limits except to the top fifth of Manhattan residents. Only about 11 percent of current tenants have incomes approaching a level where they could afford the least expensive apartments in Stuyvesant Town.
Moving this huge complex to the free market rent will mean that the composition of the tenants will radically change. Even now, as tenants leave, the new occupants may face rents several times what had been paid. After substantial renovation most any apartment in the complexes could fetch above $2,000 rent and be lost to stabilization. The segment of the middle class that is still in Manhattan: those older and living out their days here, along with singles and others who work in professional and other jobs and a few families with children, will need to look elsewhere for housing.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
Massive amounts of new census data were released just after midnight on August 15th, which show among other things:
1) New Yorkers have become much better educated since 2000.
2) Though immigrants continue to stream into the city, the number of foreign born residing in the city only increased by about 160,000 in the five years through 2005, well below the increases of the 1990s.
3) The number of blacks has declined in the city.
4) The number of whites has increased in Manhattan and now Brooklyn.
The midnight data dump was the first release from the United States Census Bureau's new American Community Survey. Three more releases from the 2005 survey are planned, including one on economic status (August 29th), one on housing, and one on detailed characteristics by race and Hispanic status. In the future, the data will be constantly updated.
Some of the questions that the American Community Survey will ultimately answer include:
1) Has Manhattan become even more unequal? After the 2000 Census the richest 20 percent in Manhattan had incomes 50 times those in the lowest 20 percent. Could this have increased?
2) What changes are discernable in the various community planning districts?
3) If the net number of foreign born residents is increasing more slowly than it was in the 1990s, while the number of Mexicans is soaring, which groups are showing a decline?
4) Has the trend toward a more highly educated population in the city and especially Manhattan affected the housing opportunities of affluent and non-affluent New Yorkers?
5) How are the various immigrant groups faring in the post 9/11 world?
The advent of the American Community Survey represents a sharp departure from the way the census bureau collected data on so-called social and economic characteristics in earlier decades.
It is important to realize that the census bureau’s clients are the United States Congress and the governments of the 50 states. The United States Constitution requires that there be a census every ten years in order to carve the United States into an appropriate number of Congressional Districts, each representing the same number of residents. This redistricting and reapportionment also occurs on a state and local level, for legislative, judicial and other districts.
To accomplish the redistricting, the Census Bureau need only collect a handful of variables – the location of each person, age, sex, race, Hispanic status, whether one owns or rents a house or apartment or lives in a group quarters (such as a college dorm, prison, or chronic care hospital).
Along with these so-called "short form" data, a sample of respondents in the past was asked many more questions about income, occupation, veteran status, citizenship, education, disability status, ancestry and ethnicity, migration, journey to work, and so forth. About one-sixth of the households in the United States, or about 18 million, received this "long form."
The American Community Survey is the replacement for the long form. It is a rolling survey with a set number of interviews each month totaling about 3 million per year. One of the largest advantages of this survey is that those doing follow-up will be professional interviewers, and methods have been established to count hard-to-reach groups effectively. Five years of testing ensures quality control. As more and more data become available; in all, the census bureau will publish about 15 million records. Information on tracts and block groups, the small areas that were released for the "long form" will be available in 2010.
The just-released 2005 American Community Sruvey includes some data for places and counties with population 65,000 or larger, including most of New York City's community planning districts, which are released as areas called Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs). PUMAs are required to contain at least 100,000 people, and there are about 2,100 across the country. New York chose to make them largely coincident with the community planning districts. However, since the sample is not quite three percent, one can expect that only about 2,500 people will be interviewed in each PUMA or planning district. This means that for very detailed variable categories, such as the 123 individual foreign birthplaces that are counted, most PUMAs may have a very small number of a given population type. When this occurs, the census bureau suppresses the data since no accurate estimate of such groups are possible.
So far the American Community Survey has provided a surprising new look at NYC. Though immigration is continuing, immigrants along with non-immigrants seem to be leaving the city. The increasing affluence of Manhattan seems to be spilling over into Brooklyn. These and other trends mean that the remaining data releases are of great interest. We will know now how New York City is evolving, we will not have to guess or wait until the results of the new census in 2012.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.
New York State Assembly- District 22: The Candidates • Ellen Young, former district administrator (D). Other Races • New York State Assembly- District 57: Succeeding Green in Fort Greene – and Beyond • New York State Senate-District 13: Bringing the Money Back from Albany |
When Jimmy Meng became the state assembly's first Chinese American member in 2004, many people credited ethnic appeal in an increasingly Asian district. Meng, suffering from chronic back pain, has decided against running for re-election. The ethnic politics of the Queens district will likely come into play again as three candidates vie for his seat.
Three candidates are running for the Democratic primary. Ellen Young, worked for Councilmember John Liu before stepping down to campaign. Julia Harrison, who held Liu's seat in the council before stepping down due to term limits. Terence Park, a district leader, and member of Community Board Seven, was removed from the ballot for a technicality but successfully appealed, reversing the decision. Young is Chinese, Harrison is white, and Park is Korean.
Meng's daughter, Grace Meng, also attempted to run for the seat, but was removed from the ballot after it was determined she did not live in the district. Young has raised about $250,000, and Terence Park has raised $219,000, while Harrison has raised $32,000. The primary winner will face Republican candidate Christopher Migliaccio in November.
Young and Harrison insist that race is not an issue in the campaign. But some frame the election as a contest between the old, mainly white Flushing represented by Harrison, and the changing, more racially diverse community represented by the Asian candidates. Fifty-one percent of the district's residents are Asian.
"It is very obvious and very honest to say that race is a factor … but real voters care for what your record is about," said Park.
Young is considered an immigrant advocate, and has served as the president of the Chinese American Voters Association, and has organized programs to help immigrants fill out Census forms. Harrison and Park, meanwhile, say immigration issues should be left to the federal government. Harrison has questioned the very practice of categorizing people as immigrants, and says that as long as they are citizens she would represent them like any other constituent.
Harrison's comments about immigrants have led to trouble in the past. In 1996 she was criticized for making derogatory comments about Asian Americans when she was quoted saying they "were more like colonizers than immigrants. The money came first. The paupers followed, smuggled in and bilked by their own kind." She maintains that her words were misconstrued.
Harrison has said the Democratic Club of Flushing, Whitestone and College Point asked her to run because it felt that the other Democratic candidates were running on personal and racial appeal, but lacked legitimate experience. Young maintains that her two-decade record of public service is more than adequate experience.
Candidates have largely focused on relatively uncontroversial issues, such as an increased police force, more funding for schools, and better transportation. The candidates did, however, have different plans for how to best achieve common goals such as safer streets. Young, Park, and Harrison mentioned increased police presence to fight crime, while Migliaccio focused on stronger penalties to deter crime.
Park focuses on overdevelopment, saying that plans for downtown Flushing could bring "chaos to our community" if better planning for parking is not taken into consideration. He also worries that the character of the neighborhood is threatened by increasingly dense residential construction projects.
"There are too many developers invading our neighborhoods and knocking down houses to build multiple dwelling houses," he said.
In regard to education, the candidates agreed upon the need for increased funding for public schools and increased hours for after school programs. Migliaccio, however, differed from the Democratic candidates in emphasizing the need to give students the means to obtain education out of district, instead of limiting educational funds to improvements within the district.
Transportation was also a frequently mentioned issue. Migliaccio and Harrison emphasized the importance of extending the 7 subway line to reach farther into Queens. This would better connect various neighborhoods of Queens to one another, as well as giving residents of the farther bounds of the district better access to Manhattan.
One area of contention, however, has been that of health care. While Young and Harrison spoke of improving Medicare and Medicaid, Migliaccio disagreed. “I don’t think the state should be the primary provider,” he said. “That’s not our job.”
Â
Taking the Public Pulse |
San Jose is the third largest city in California, larger than San Francisco, larger than Oakland. We have a $2.7 billion combined budget, about 6,700 employees, 27 departments and offices, 10 council members elected by district and a mayor elected at large.
We deliver services. We are not just a group of people who get together to drink coffee or stand around a hole in the street and take home nice salaries and good benefits.
The customers only see the results of what we do. They may see us standing around the hole, but then they have to drive across the field once the hole is filled in. That’s what most people see: how the hole is filled in, if the street is smooth or not.
Surveys are very different from normal ways that we receive information, policy desires and even service requests.
In the survey, many of the people who give us information are not registered voters or likely voters. They are probably not the people who show up at meetings. They are not the people who get together in a neighborhood association. Some of them are probably not even citizens. We actually don’t call it a citizen survey; we call it a community survey because almost half of the respondents in some of our neighborhoods are probably not citizens.
We do the survey every two years on the telephone in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. A hundred questions. That selects out certain people right there; you have to have 20 minutes to spend.
It covers issues. What’s the major issue for San Jose? What’s the condition of your neighborhood, what’s the condition of the streets?
Half of these questions relate directly to performance measures. Others are, “What do you see as the major issue? What would you like done?” That sort of thing. We ask if people volunteer and a bit about demographics. And finally we do a couple of research questions.
Our report is done by a survey consultant, who is a pollster. It is under the direction of the city manager. We feel, of course, that it is balanced, fair and honest.
The survey got us the first positive headline in a while on the front page of the Mercury News. It said that San Jose “was a good place to live.” Seventy-nine percent of the people thought the quality of life was good, up four percent since 2000. Seventy-six percent were satisfied with services. Eighty percent were happy with our employees.
A couple of survey questions that were new this year were surprises. We asked people “How do you want to get services or find information that’s not emergency in nature?” People want to call a person. They don’t want to go to a Web site, they don’t want to go to a call center. That surprised me because I think the 311 system is a great gateway and having a good Internet page will be a gateway of the future. But it’s clear that, even in the capital of Silicone Valley, we are not quite there.
We have learned some lessons. There are multiple voices in government. You don’t have just one customer who pays. You have customers who don’t even use the service, but who care as well.
Brooke Myhre is with the budget office of the City of San Jose, California.
Â
New York City’s population will reach 9 million around 2025, according to a spate of demographic projections featured in various news stories. But will the city really hit the 9 million mark in the next 20 to 25 years, as Con Edison, researchers for the Metropolitan Transportation Council, and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff predict?
The answer is a resounding yes, if one accepts the underlying assumptions of such projections. But since, like all projections, these estimates seek to predict the future, we will not be able to judge their accuracy for many years to come.
To get a sense of their accuracy though, we can compare projections with recent estimates and with patterns of historical growth. Urbanomics has produced one of several such studies projecting 9 million New Yorkers. To arrive at that number, it expects a growth rate in New York City higher than the rate between 1940 and 2000 and well in excess of what has occurred since 2000, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The census estimates of New York City's population in the 1990s vastly underestimated the city's growth. (See Gotham Gazette.) Since 2000, however the bureau changed its procedures. It is instituting a new American Community Survey to provide a yearly census update. Along with records of births, deaths, and internal migration from the Internal Revenue Service data, that survey tracks the foreign born population. The first full release of the survey is due at the end of August and could change the picture of the city’s current and projected growth.
But the figures now available indicate that, since 2000, the estimated growth rate varied from a high of 0.718 percent between 2000 and 2001 to a small loss in population between 2004 and 2005. On average, the estimated growth rate since 2000 has been 0.353 percent. (These figures are summarized in Table 1.) Now many theorize that the growth rate has surely slowed, a consequence, they believe, of a slight ebbing in immigration, the end of the stock market boom, and the shock of 9/11.
But despite all that Urbanomics projects a much higher growth rate of 0.564 percent for the 30 years through 2030. Since the city’s population increase for the first five years of that period has already failed to reach that level, New York City’s growth must rise in the next few years if Urbanomics and its colleagues are to turn out to be correct.
New York has been the largest city in the country since 1790. (Since the consolidation of the city in 1897, the city population includes all five boroughs.) Table 2 shows the census population for each decade from 1900 through 2000, the percent change from the previous census, and the annual growth rate (compounded).
The decades from 1900 through 1930 were years of explosive growth. In many ways, New York City was the Sunbelt of the 1910s and 1920s, with its population more than doubling from 1900to 1930.
But to evaluate the new projections, the decades from 1940 through 2000 are especially relevant, since by 1940 much of New York City's transportation infrastructure was completed, the vast bulk of its road network already existed, and many buildings still in use had been erected. In short, New York City looked much like it does today in many ways.
As the data make plain, New York City was very near the 8 million mark twice -- 1950 and 1970 -- but in both instances the city then lost people. Indeed the population was officially at little more than 7.3 million in 1990. Economic downturn, white flight and the slowing of immigration until the 1980s led to New York City's slow growth until the last decade of the 20th century.
Then, quite unexpectedly, the population reached 8 million in 2000, spurred largely by the city's economic rebound and the robust increase in immigration.
Some of the apparent growth from 1990 to 2000 was simply the result of better counting in 2000. The difficulties and uncertainties in counting New York City's population led to a substantial undercount in 1990.
Despite all this, though, during the whole period from 1940 through 2000 the average growth rate (compounded) was 1.21 percent, less than one-quarter of the optimistic rate projected by Urbanomics and similar prognosticators for the next 30 years.
The latest high growth projections imply a population growth rate that vastly outstrips the historic growth patterns in New York City from 1940, as well as the recent brisk growth estimated since 2000. Small differences in a rate of growth for one year, when compounded, result in very large differences in projections.
If New York City grew during the 30 years after 2000 at the rate it averaged from 1940 to 2000, including that period’s booms as well as its two population declines, the population by 2030 would be about 8.3 million. If the average growth for the 30 years starting in 2000 matches the recent census estimates, New York City will almost reach 8.9 million by 2030. But the Urbanomics estimate expects an average growth rate of 0.564 percent through 2030 resulting in almost 9.5 million New Yorkers.
So, in predicting the future, it depends on how one views the past and the present. Historical population trends would seem to imply very little growth in population between now and 2030. A continuation of recent trends would imply somewhat more growth. And relying on a series of economic assumptions could put New York City's population at about 9.5 million by then.
Framed this way, it seems it could well take considerably more time than Urbanomics and others predict for New York City's 8 million to become 9 million. But only the future will tell for sure.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
Who are the Asians of New York City? They are foreign-born and native-born New Yorkers with a background in East Asia (China and Japan, for example), Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia), and South Asia (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), according to the official U.S. government classification of the Asian race. (Those from Central Asia -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, etc. -- are not included.) Members of these diverse populations now constitute about 11 percent of the city's population.
But can one really consider as one race people coming from several continents and speaking many different languages?
It should not be surprising that Asian groups vary greatly from one another.
Taken as a whole, though, there are some generalizations that can be made based on recent census data. The vast bulk of Asians in the metro area live in or near New York City, as the accompanying map shows. In fact, over half of all Asians in the tri-state area live in the city.
Asian households also have higher median household income than any other of the main racial groups except for whites.
But there are sharp differences as well. The command of the English language varies greatly by group. Only about 38 percent of Bangladeshi speak English well, while over 80 percent of Filipinos do. The proportion of those over 25 years of age who have a BA degree also varies greatly, from a low of 9.1 percent for the Laotians, to a high of 74.4 percent for the Taiwanese. The proportion holding a professional and managerial job varied from 8.4 percent for Laotian and 17.2 percent for Bangladeshi to over 66 percent for the Taiwanese. The percent self-employed also varied greatly, with Koreans in the lead with 18 percent. In terms of wages the Taiwanese and Japanese had median wages of $50,000, while the Bangladeshi had only $20,000. Other groups were also quite low including: Thai, Vietnamese, Maylaysian and Indonesian. Household income also varied greatly among the Asian groups. Figures for the Filipino was $73,000, while Japanese, Asian Indian, Cambodian, Taiwanese and Sri Lankan were all at least $60,000. However, Bangladeshi, Maylaysian, Indonesian and Asian not-specified all report median household incomes less than $40,000.
Growth of the Asian groups in the New York area has been dramatic for the last several decades. Though growth since the 2000 Census is not reported for the various Asian groups in a reliable way, the pattern of growth shown in the accompanying figures likely has continued.
The charts show a dramatic increase in Chinese (which includes mainland, Taiwanese and other Chinese), and in Asian Indian, which includes Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indians, as well as in the Filipino population. The growth of Korean and other groups though marked is not as strong.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
New York City certainly has a lot at stake in the current debate in Congress over the most significant change in immigration policy in decades. More than a third of all New Yorkers are foreign-born. In the year 2000, New York was home to some 2.8 million immigrants, which is more than nine percent of all immigrants in the United States.
But if neither the pro-immigrant demonstrations nor the anti-immigrant rhetoric has ratcheted up here the way it has elsewhere in the country, there are solid reasons for this. The situation is very different in New York City than it is in California and the Southwest.
One difference is that the countries of origin in New York City are far more diverse than in other centers of immigration, as I wrote for this page in an article in 2002, "City of the Foreign Born." In Los Angeles, Mexicans account for almost 85 percent of the foreign born. No group in New York City is greater than 13 percent. So the protests in Los Angeles are largely that of one group. "The mobilization in New York City has been slower to develop," El Diario conceded recently. "The immigrant community here is incredibly diverse and, some say, harder to organize."
But the major difference may well be size and visibility of the undocumented. As of 2005, there are estimated to be 652,000 immigrants living illegally in New York City, which constitutes only about six percent of all of the undocumented in the United States. New York City's undocumented immigrants, as its legal immigrants, come from all continents and many countries of origin.
Jeffery Passel, a a leading analyst of immigrants, recently looked at the population of undocumented immigrants for a study by the Pew Hispanic Center. This study uses the so-called residual methodology, which makes it difficult to infer very much about the undocumented except their size. The study estimates that the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States may be 12 million by March 2006, and that they constitute about 30 percent of all immigrants nationwide. In New York City, the undocumented comprise only about 20 percent of all the immigrants here.
Two main groups of undocumented are those who entered the country without valid documents, including people crossing the Southwestern border clandestinely; and those who entered with valid visas but overstayed their visas' expiration or otherwise violated the terms of their admission. Most of New York City's undocumented belong to the latter category.
About 56 percent of unauthorized migrants in the United States come from Mexico. Another 22 percent of the total, come from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America. Between 2000 and 2005 the number of unauthorized migrants from Mexico increased by about 1.5 million. Other large increases occurred among unauthorized migrants from Central America (+465,000) and South and East Asia (+365,000).
New York City has many Asian immigrants. But, while the numbers are surely growing, there are still relatively few Mexicans or Central Americans here, compared to the West Coast.
The undocumented are more likely male. Many live in families and nearly two-thirds of their children were born in the United States and are citizens. Unauthorized workers are employed in a variety of occupations, although the distribution of the unauthorized workforce across occupations differs from that of native-born workers. For example, nearly a third of unauthorized workers were employed in service occupations compared to one-sixth of native workers. Unauthorized migrants are underrepresented in white-collar occupations. These facts are true of undocumented in New York City and throughout the United States.
Given the demographics of New York City, and its long-time political traditions, it seems likely that most New Yorkers will remain well disposed towards the city's immigrants, legal or illegal.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
More than two months after the end of the three-day New York City transit strike, both the attention and the tension have dimmed. But there is still no settlement in place, and indeed some transit workers have signed a petition to vote again on the contract that had been rejected on January 20th by a mere seven votes.
It would be difficult to say with whom the majority of New York bus and subway riders sided, the transit workers or the management of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. It is a safe bet to say that during the inconvenience of the strike itself, most commuters had little polite to say about either of them.
Since people tend to sympathize with those who seem similar, it is worth looking at the ways in which transit workers resemble, and differ from, transit riders.
New York City is one of the few places in the United States in which only a minority of people rely on the automobile to get to work. Nationwide, 86 percent of people who live in or near central cities commute by car. In New York City, that number is about 33 percent.
Table 1 offers a breakdown:
It is interesting to note that public transit workers in New York actually commute by automobile at a higher rate than New Yorkers as a whole.
There are also sharp demographic differences among commuters, depending on the means by which they get to work. For instance, those who use commuter rail to come to NYC generally earn more income, live in more affluent households, are more often male, are more likely white, are more often living with a spouse and have graduated from college than those using other means to get to work. They differ substantially from those who drive or ride an automobile, work at home or get to work by other means.
By contrast, those who take public transit are more likely to be black and Hispanic than the other groups. They are less likely to be living with a spouse. They are also likely to have less education. The median income of those using public transit (subway or bus) is about $34,000.
Public transit workers make a median income that is more than the public they service. Instead of $34,000, they earn a median income of $47,000.
There are other differences as well. A larger fraction of transit workers are male and black than the public at large. They are also less likely to be educated, are as a group older than New Yorkers as a whole, and are more likely to own their own homes and live in married-couple households. Despite their relative lack of education, the arduous nature of transit work coupled with their unionized power has led them to a relatively high income.
This analysis made use of the Public Use Micro-sample data from the IPUMS website. Using a variety of variables it was possible to isolate those who work in the public or private transit industry, as well as those who work in New York City and travel to their jobs in various ways.
According to New York Observer, a bidding war has broken out among the major so-called Wall Street or White Shoe law firms. New associates are now being offered $145,000 up from $125,000, where it has been for about 5 years. My earlier column on New York Lawyers still seems to be basically accurate, though the figures have increased.
Is New York growing so fast that it is likely to reach 9 million population in the next two decades? Using recent projections from some private entities a New York Times story indicates that the Bloomberg administration is planning for it. New York City reached over seven million by 1940 and it took 60 years to reach eight million. Could it really reach nine million by 2025? So far, according to census numbers, New York City is growing more modestly than it did in the 1990s. The census recently changed their estimation methods, but the city usually challenges their estimates and is given credit for a few more thousand people. During that decade the census estimated that the city was only growing about 10,000 per year, but it actually was growing about 60,000. We will probably know more when the new fully implemented American Community Study data are released next August. Until then, the Census will issue a new estimate for the population through July 31, 2005 sometime this spring.
Despite the efforts of many in the redistricting and criminal justice communities the Census Bureau says that prisoners should still be counted at the prison sites and that the data should continue to be added to the counts in many small towns and counties. A rider was added to the census appropriation bill asking for a report on this issue. Not surprisingly the Census Bureau did not want to change a thing. The current method deprived the city of thousands of residents, who were moved upstate along with their power to affect the drawing of legislative lines for Congress, and State Senate and Assembly. But at least one New York State County does not use prisoners when they draw the county legislative lines, they think they distort the power in that county.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â