Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

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


Housing in focus (photo: Mayor's Office)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York's Waste Problem Demands a Bold, Collaborative Solution


Recycling (photo: NYC Council)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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