Council Member Mark Levine, the author (photo: @MarkLevineNYC)
Mayors and police unions have clashed for generations in New York City, conflicts which have often erupted in the form of work slowdowns by the cops in the trenches. But the scale and intensity of the current job action by rank-and-file officers is unprecedented. We're seeing dramatic drops not just in low-level ticketing but in nearly every category of arrest--including armed robbery and drunk driving.
It will require unprecedented action to pull our city back from this perilous precipice.
The level of vitriol in the public dialogue reached red hot levels in New York City following a grand jury's decision not to indict in the Eric Garner case and the heinous assassination of Detectives Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. We can't heal the profound divisions in our city until we begin to heed the call, made by Commissioner Bill Bratton in his eulogy to Detective Ramos, to "learn to see each other."
That means reform activists must cease referring to police in dehumanizing terms. This includes demonizing all cops as racists or making the absurd accusation that the NYPD is equivalent to the KKK. It shouldn't take the murder of two police officers to remind New Yorkers of the difficult, stressful, and dangerous conditions that cops labor under day in and day out.
By the same token, critics of the reformers must stop saying that anyone calling for change in the NYPD is anti-police. Or that fighting against unequal treatment of people of color is slandering all cops. New Yorkers certainly have a right to expect that those charged with protecting us must not kill unarmed civilians, and to have a right to speak out when such tragedies occur.
The fact is that the vast majority of people on both sides of this divide want exactly the same thing. We want cops to be safe. We want crime to continue to go down. And we want everyone treated fairly regardless of their skin color. And yes--we want the police to be active and engaged, and we understand that proactive, community-centric policing requires more cops not fewer (which is why my colleagues and I in the City Council proposed the addition of 1,000 new officers last year).
All of which make the current enforcement slowdown perplexing and alarming. Policing, much like teaching, is a job requiring judgment. Even a 200,000 page manual would not be sufficient to stipulate how each aspect of the the work should be carried out. Policing works in New York City because nearly all cops care deeply about their mission of keeping the public safe and don't hesitate to go above and beyond their contractual obligation. Officers Andrew Dossi and Aliro Pellerano exemplify this spirit--having been shot last week in the Bronx responding to a robbery, even though they had just come off duty.
The current work slowdown runs counter to that heroic ethic. And it endangers millions of New Yorkers, robs the city of desperately needed funds, and undermines civilian control of the force.
It also diverts us from critical policy work aimed at making the NYPD the best it can be--reforms that will benefit not only the general public but cops as well. When we deploy body cameras it will enhance accountability on both sides of the shield. As we roll back the over-criminalization of marijuana possession it will free up critical police resources so they can be deployed to fight more serious crime. As we train cops on how to de-escalate potentially violent confrontations it will make everyone safer.
It is imperative that all of us--cops, activists, regular New Yorkers--start to truly see each other, and to understand that only by building on our common goals and aspirations can we live together as one city.
***
Mark Levine is the New York City Council Member for the 7th District, representing parts of the West Side of Upper Manhattan.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? E-mail editor Ben Max: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
AM Rodriguez speaking at a community event (photo: @_rjayrodriguez)
As it currently stands, NYCHA's 2602 buildings spread across 334 developments, serving more than 615,000 people, are in need of $18 billion for major building repairs and upgrades. The area I represent in East Harlem has the highest concentration of public housing in the State. This state of disrepair is both a natural result of aging housing stock and a failure to properly invest in the regular maintenance of these buildings. The plan recently introduced by NYCHA to sell a 50% stake in six developments in exchange for an immediate cash infusion is an intriguing approach to this massive problem, but this deal requires closer scrutiny. Furthermore, it raises significant questions about the federal government's future role in providing housing subsidies.
There is no doubt that the massive needs of these buildings to meet even the most basic standards of living for NYCHA residents will require creative thinking. As a proponent of Public Private Partnerships, I can appreciate the role of the private sector in working with the government to provide better services and encourage it. The deal raises significant capital dollars for these buildings and others in the portfolio, where little or no money existed before. Based on the original financing structure, we are told it is not replicable across the portfolio. On the surface, raising money to fix the buildings makes sense, but there is more to any deal involving NYCHA. In fact, I struggle to see how this fits into the long-term affordable housing plan for New York City. Is this "pilot" part of a larger plan to diminish the City's stake in housing?
The recently revealed plans include private developers, paying $150 million for the initial sale in exchange for 50% interest in the six developments. NYCHA is also set to receive $100 million over the next two years and an additional $100 million in revenue over the next 15 years. Making this deal work for the developers is that the federal government would now be paying the developers the difference between the rents that are currently being collected and market rate rents. Also in the deal, the developers will be able to sell tax-exempt bonds and federal tax credits for the 30-year life of the deal. At the expiration of the contract, the developers may be given the option of buying the remaining 50% interest and turning all of the apartments into market rate units.
The biggest red flag in this deal are the details, or lack thereof, surrounding the developers' ability to take the units to market after 30 years. As we've seen with the Mitchell-Lama program across the state, a failure to ensure permanent affordability upfront has led to thousands of affordable units vanishing. With diminishing commitments from the federal and state governments, NYCHA will almost certainly be less empowered to keep their stake 30 years from now. I've asked NYCHA to consider a deed restriction, which would require the property be kept as affordable housing in perpetuity. It's not enough to "promise" not to sell after 30 years; a more permanent legal protection is required.
NYCHA's partner selection, particularly the absence of an MWBE business partner, is also troubling. With both the City and State applauding their improvement in engaging with minority and woman partners at the MWBE conference this past October, and the commitments of the de Blasio Administration to MWBEs, this strikes me as a perfect opportunity to expand these relationships. With two of the developments included in this deal, Milbank-Frawley and East 120th, located in East Harlem, we have no shortage of local minority-owned developers, contractors, property managers, or workforce providers that could have participated in this deal.
Another concerning aspect of this deal is the property management contract, which has been awarded to an affiliate of the developer as a bundled service. NYCHA maintains that in its ownership role it has the ability to fire the property manager if it finds the manager's performance to be negligent. It seems like we have the fox looking after the coop. How can NYCHA, which has historically failed to perform its duties as property managers, be the sole arbiter of negligent performance? Furthermore, the business partnership between NYCHA and the developer is inherently a relationship that would make any change in management company a challenge. If this is a model the City is looking to expand upon in the future, how are we able to protect our tenants from neglectful management?
It is our responsibility to approach this problem in a way that confronts the challenges of today, while ensuring that the New York of tomorrow provides equitable opportunities. Unlike the previous administration, which claimed that prior infill development or privatization attempts were exempt from the ULURP process, I ask that Mayor de Blasio allow closer scrutiny of this deal and add additional checks and balances to ensure we are meeting our responsibility to provide high quality public housing.
Most important, this is the sort of solution that results from the current model of federal HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funding. I think we should allow ourselves to think more broadly about how the federal government supports housing and ensure that a larger stake is invested in the community and the current residents themselves. This starts with ensuring that local and MWBE developers are given an opportunity, and this extends to property management, construction jobs, and the other areas of economic impact. I look forward to having this conversation with Mayor de Blasio, the City Council and, most critically, the community members themselves.
***
Robert J. Rodriguez is a State Assemblymember Representing East Harlem/El Barrio and the Upper East Side. He is the Chair of State's Mitchell Lama Subcommittee and a Member of the Housing Committee.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? E-mail editor Ben Max: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Students in a City DYCD writing program (photo: @NYCYouth)
There is no question that black men face substantial barriers to employment. As the demand for men with limited educational credentials has declined, firms increasingly screen out all men they perceive are from at-risk groups: those with criminal records, those who live in high-crime areas, and those who cannot provide reliable personal recommendations for their employment worthiness. As a result, high black joblessness appears among teenagers and persists among those in their prime working years. In particular, the employment rate among black men aged 25 to 34 years old is 70 percent, in contrast to 83 percent for similarly-aged white men.
In response, there are an increasing number of programs to prepare at-risk youth for the world of work. In Brooklyn, CAMBA has done very positive work with kids in the transfer high schools - schools for students who had previously dropped out or were significantly behind in credits; United Neighborhoods gains employment for disconnected youth – those who are neither in school nor in paid employment; and organizations like STRIVE work with those leaving the prison system. There should be greater funding for these successful initiatives.
Many observers believe that one of the barriers black youth face is the racial disparities in school discipline. In New York City, black youth comprise 26 percent of the student population but 53 percent of suspensions. Generally, commentators focus on what can be done in the high schools and certainly, in many cases, alternatives to suspensions are needed. But changes in high school disciplinary policies or expanded work readiness programs for at-risk youth can only do so much. It would be much more effective to intervene early so that fewer black males reach their teen years with deficient academic skills and/or significant attitudinal problems that put them at risk for failure in the educational system and in the workplace.
Behavioral problems appear at an early age. Black children comprise 18 percent of preschoolers but 48 percent of those suspended multiple times. The evidence strongly suggests that an important source of these behavioral problems is the fluid family environments that many black disadvantaged children experience. With less stable male income, blacks have less stable romantic relationships.
Over their lifetime, 59 percent of African American mothers, 35 percent of Hispanic mothers and 22 percent of white mothers reported having children with more than one partner.
Kathryn Edin, a professor and researcher on women and poverty, noted, "When a mom moves from one relationship to another – playing gatekeeper with the biological father while putting her new boyfriend into the dad's role - she puts her kids on the 'father-go-round.' What about fathers? They, too, find themselves on a 'family-go round,' having kids by other women in a quest to try to get what they long for – the whole father experience."
These changing relationships create stress for children for a number of reasons. First, many children are abandoned by their biological father when he moves on to a new romantic relationships. A Pew survey found that over half of fathers did not share a meal with their noncustodial children in the last four weeks; less than one-third did homework with them.
Second, children must adapt to a new man in the house; someone who sometimes brings his employment frustrations into the home.
Surely one of the outcomes for many children is to act out in school. This is especially the case for young boys who have additional school problems and stresses.
Adolescents with a half-sibling with a different father are about 65 percent more likely to have used illegal drugs by their 15th birthday than those who have only full siblings. Among fatherless boys, those who lived with stepfathers were at an even greater risk of incarceration than those who lived with a single mother.
When these young children exhibit behavioral problems in schools, in many situations school disciplinary actions are warranted. Educators know, however, that disciplinary actions alone will not change the situation: counseling for both the child and the adults in his family would be more constructive. The problem is that counseling resources are not available in many K-5 settings. Even when parents are amenable, the referrals put them on waiting lists and even out-of-class resources for troubled children are often not available. Indeed, in too many cases, the only way that these troubled children gain resources is if they are (mis)placed in special education classes.
Reducing suspensions without providing the necessary resources to aid in the transformation of the home environment will be of limited value. Many more resources are necessary to respond in a holistic approach when children act out - and Mayor Bill de Blasio's approach to failing schools points in the right direction. Counseling and social work resources should be a priority if we really want troubled children to succeed.
***
Robert Cherry is Stern Professor at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? E-mail editor Ben Max: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.