Daily News Summary
Riverdale NIMBYs hostile to affordable housing, council candidate says
Crain's
Mar. 4, 2021
You can't get elected in Riverdale by advocating for the need for affordable housing, says Jessica Haller, one of six candidates running in a special election to fill the Bronx's 11th District seat on the City Council.
Other communities in the borough are open to building much-needed housing, she said at a virtual housing forum, but the NIMBYs in the Northwest Bronx neighborhood are hostile to it.
"If this were a community meeting in maybe five of the seven neighborhoods I'm running in . . . I could win on 'we're going to pop affordable housing into these neighborhoods,'" Haller said during a Zoom call with the housing advocacy group Open New York.
"If I say it too loudly out my window right now, I can't win," she continued. "We need to move the conversation into places to show people that this will make us a richer and a better and a stronger city."
The Democratic hopeful is a staunch supporter of prioritizing low-income housing development, which generally caters to minority communities throughout the city, but she said in her neck of the woods it's taboo.
When Haller was asked about her comment in a virtual forum, she said, "I made a comment about how to message affordable housing positively to both typical voters and new ones in a neighborhood."
Haller's window overlooks the affluent, privately-owned community of Fieldston within Riverdale, where local zoning laws make it impossible to build multifamily buildings—affordable or not. Once a year the streets of Fieldston are closed to nonresidents to qualify the streets legally as privately owned, and parking is restricted to residents.
In Community Board 8, which includes Riverdale, Marble Hill and Kingsbridge, there are 12 low-income housing developments mostly on the outskirts of the area, according to data from the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development. In neighboring Community Board 5, there are more than 50.
Haller said her solution is to introduce accessory dwelling units as "a great and gentle way to create affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the district, including Riverdale." An accessory unit—also known as a granny flat— could be a basement, a garage or a guesthouse on someone's property that is rented to another family to use as a home.
Assemblyman Harvey Epstein and Sen. Pete Harckham introduced a bill earlier this year that would make this possible.
But up in the North Bronx, Haller said, "the Dinowitz family and their allies have repeatedly used affordable housing as a wedge issue to stir up NIMBY voices."
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Bronx native, has openly spoken out against several larger developments, one of which had an affordable component, claiming that they were too big or inappropriate for the areas where they were being built.
"In all of the neighborhoods of our 81st Assembly District, construction of new buildings is accelerating as developers cram buildings into every nook and cranny, very often destroying single-family homes and small buildings and replacing them with large buildings with a minimum amount of parking," he said in 2018.
"We should not make it easy for this to happen," he added.
Dinowitz's son, Eric Dinowitz, is challenging Haller for the same seat in the City Council race.
"It's unfortunate and hypocritical that Jessica Haller says one thing to one audience and another to a different audience," said a spokeswoman for Dinowitz's campaign. "No one should denigrate the shared progressive values of the Northwest Bronx, nor should anyone insult the neighbors they seek to represent.
"There's nothing Eric is afraid to say too loudly out of his window," the spokeswoman continued, "because he's been honest and clear with voters that affordable housing must be a priority and is a key part of helping the Northwest Bronx recover from the pandemic."
In 2015 members of Bronx Community Board 8, including Assemblyman Dinowitz, came out against a proposal by the city, dubbed Zoning for Quality and Affordability, to amend outdated zoning regulations to allow for more affordable housing development.
They were concerned that too-tall buildings would go up in their suburban enclave and create traffic congestion.
Homeless facilities in District 11, which includes Bedford Park, Kingsbridge, Riverdale, Norwood, Van Cortlandt Village, Wakefield and Woodlawn, also are unevenly distributed throughout the district, Haller said in a January debate with her challengers.
Wealthier pockets of the district, such as her own, need to accept homeless facilities in their communities, she said. But most of Fieldston has been historically landmarked, and existing properties can't be torn down to build large, multifamily buildings.
"We have so much NIMBY going on—not in my backyard," Haller said in the debate. "We really need to flip it to YIMBY, and say, 'Yes, please. We'd like to welcome these people.' We need to welcome the families in our communities."
Opinion: New York Needs a City Plan! 'Planning Together' Misses the Mark
Mar. 4, 2021
You can't get elected in Riverdale by advocating for the need for affordable housing, says Jessica Haller, one of six candidates running in a special election to fill the Bronx's 11th District seat on the City Council.
Other communities in the borough are open to building much-needed housing, she said at a virtual housing forum, but the NIMBYs in the Northwest Bronx neighborhood are hostile to it.
"If this were a community meeting in maybe five of the seven neighborhoods I'm running in . . . I could win on 'we're going to pop affordable housing into these neighborhoods,'" Haller said during a Zoom call with the housing advocacy group Open New York.
"If I say it too loudly out my window right now, I can't win," she continued. "We need to move the conversation into places to show people that this will make us a richer and a better and a stronger city."
The Democratic hopeful is a staunch supporter of prioritizing low-income housing development, which generally caters to minority communities throughout the city, but she said in her neck of the woods it's taboo.
When Haller was asked about her comment in a virtual forum, she said, "I made a comment about how to message affordable housing positively to both typical voters and new ones in a neighborhood."
Haller's window overlooks the affluent, privately-owned community of Fieldston within Riverdale, where local zoning laws make it impossible to build multifamily buildings—affordable or not. Once a year the streets of Fieldston are closed to nonresidents to qualify the streets legally as privately owned, and parking is restricted to residents.
In Community Board 8, which includes Riverdale, Marble Hill and Kingsbridge, there are 12 low-income housing developments mostly on the outskirts of the area, according to data from the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development. In neighboring Community Board 5, there are more than 50.
Haller said her solution is to introduce accessory dwelling units as "a great and gentle way to create affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the district, including Riverdale." An accessory unit—also known as a granny flat— could be a basement, a garage or a guesthouse on someone's property that is rented to another family to use as a home.
Assemblyman Harvey Epstein and Sen. Pete Harckham introduced a bill earlier this year that would make this possible.
But up in the North Bronx, Haller said, "the Dinowitz family and their allies have repeatedly used affordable housing as a wedge issue to stir up NIMBY voices."
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Bronx native, has openly spoken out against several larger developments, one of which had an affordable component, claiming that they were too big or inappropriate for the areas where they were being built.
"In all of the neighborhoods of our 81st Assembly District, construction of new buildings is accelerating as developers cram buildings into every nook and cranny, very often destroying single-family homes and small buildings and replacing them with large buildings with a minimum amount of parking," he said in 2018.
"We should not make it easy for this to happen," he added.
Dinowitz's son, Eric Dinowitz, is challenging Haller for the same seat in the City Council race.
"It's unfortunate and hypocritical that Jessica Haller says one thing to one audience and another to a different audience," said a spokeswoman for Dinowitz's campaign. "No one should denigrate the shared progressive values of the Northwest Bronx, nor should anyone insult the neighbors they seek to represent.
"There's nothing Eric is afraid to say too loudly out of his window," the spokeswoman continued, "because he's been honest and clear with voters that affordable housing must be a priority and is a key part of helping the Northwest Bronx recover from the pandemic."
In 2015 members of Bronx Community Board 8, including Assemblyman Dinowitz, came out against a proposal by the city, dubbed Zoning for Quality and Affordability, to amend outdated zoning regulations to allow for more affordable housing development.
They were concerned that too-tall buildings would go up in their suburban enclave and create traffic congestion.
Homeless facilities in District 11, which includes Bedford Park, Kingsbridge, Riverdale, Norwood, Van Cortlandt Village, Wakefield and Woodlawn, also are unevenly distributed throughout the district, Haller said in a January debate with her challengers.
Wealthier pockets of the district, such as her own, need to accept homeless facilities in their communities, she said. But most of Fieldston has been historically landmarked, and existing properties can't be torn down to build large, multifamily buildings.
"We have so much NIMBY going on—not in my backyard," Haller said in the debate. "We really need to flip it to YIMBY, and say, 'Yes, please. We'd like to welcome these people.' We need to welcome the families in our communities."
Opinion: New York Needs a City Plan! 'Planning Together' Misses the Mark
Gotham Gazette
Mar. 4, 2021
On February 23, public hearings began for City Council Speaker Corey Johnson's "Planning Together" legislation, which would institute a process for creating a comprehensive plan for New York City. I fully support city planning, but believe Planning Together's top-down approach needs fundamental change.
New York City is virtually the only major city in this country that does not have a comprehensive city plan. Instead, we rely on a piecemeal approach to zoning that has resulted in an explosion of luxury towers without anywhere near adequate gains in real affordable housing.
Our siloed zoning approach has allowed inequity to flourish. Black and brown neighborhoods have shouldered the lion's share of new real estate development, which has led to rampant gentrification and displacement.
Arguably, the most urgent reason to adopt a city plan is the climate crisis. Considering that by the year 2100 daily high tides will flood many coastal neighborhoods, it's hard to imagine that we can combat the climate crisis without a comprehensive plan.
For these reasons and more, it's clear we need a city plan, yet Planning Together has several fundamental flaws. The most urgent flaw of this legislation is its top-down approach — it misses the opportunity to give the people more power in determining a just and equitable future.
In the first year of each 10-year planning cycle, every community board submits a district needs statement. In the second year, the city creates a "conditions of the city" report based on 13 categories. The categories of assessment will please many planners and organizers, as it includes a "displacement risk index" and a "segregation assessment."
City leaders who point to these first two years as evidence of community buy-in are missing one crucial point — there is no formal requirement in the legislation to act on the information gathered from the first two years. We don't just need more information, we need action. Without requiring interventions, it's easy to see how real estate interests could corrupt the process.
In the third year of the planning cycle, the Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability (OLTPS) would create three plans per district and present them to community boards and borough presidents. Let that sink in: Planning Together places the responsibility of community planning with an unelected mayoral agency instead of with the communities themselves. Community members are closest to both the unique problems and the most viable solutions in any given neighborhood. Any comprehensive planning legislation should recognize this and take a true bottom-up approach.
There are several changes to the legislation and related issues that should be made to ensure communities can fully engage in planning:
First, fully fund community boards. Currently, the combined budget of all community boards is a meager .02% of the total city budget. This lack of funding poses a major impediment to boards that may otherwise consider engaging in community planning.
Second, adequately staff community boards. Volunteer board members with full-time jobs and/or household duties cannot be expected to create a community plan. All boards should be appropriately staffed and include full-time urban planners.
Third, ensure community plans that are created have teeth and get implemented. Section 197a of the city charter allows community boards to create plans to guide development in their district. Yet, under our current system, community planning is often an exercise in futility; boards sometimes take years to compose a plan only for the city to ignore or reject it. Even when a plan is approved, implementation is not guaranteed. We cannot allow a mayoral agency to override community plans when they are created.
In Planning Together, after the OLTPS creates land use scenarios, community boards and borough presidents vote on which plan they like best. Unfortunately, these votes are in an advisory capacity. The city can move forward with whichever plan it chooses, regardless of the community decision. This (im)balance of power needs to be radically shifted to give communities the central voice in the process.
After the community board and borough president response, the City Council deliberates. Yet the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches is skewed as well. The legislation states: "if the Council failed to adopt a preferred scenario, OLTPS would choose a scenario and describe how such selection was made." City Council members are much closer to communities than the OLTPS, so transferring power from the legislative branch to an executive agency takes away essential accountability.
Throughout the 10-year cycle, Planning Together lacks a comprehensive framework around public engagement. Our current system is entirely insufficient in ensuring community voices are heard. Case in point: the public hearing for Planning Together itself.
The meeting started at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday, when many New Yorkers were working. City officials were placed at the top of the agenda, and it took nearly five hours before testimony from other New Yorkers began. By the time public testimony began, many government officials had left the meeting. To make a comment, you had to sign up in advance, creating another barrier to entry for many citizens. Testimony was kept to a strict two-minute time frame. These factors prevented the opportunity for real dialogue
City planning is essential, and it is clear we cannot continue our current approach. Yet if we are truly to build the just and equitable city that works for all, New Yorkers need the central voice. Involving New Yorkers without becoming paralyzed by not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) forces is not an easy balance to strike. Yet, we cannot allow our fear of NIMBYism to justify a top-down approach. I urge the City Council to radically amend this plan to ensure greater community control.
***
Aleda Gagarin is a City Council candidate for District 29 in Queens, which covers Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Rego Park and Richmond Hill, with a Master's in Urban Planning from CUNY-Hunter College. On Twitter @AledaGagarin.
New York lawmaker proposes converting empty offices and hotels into affordable housing
Mar. 4, 2021
On February 23, public hearings began for City Council Speaker Corey Johnson's "Planning Together" legislation, which would institute a process for creating a comprehensive plan for New York City. I fully support city planning, but believe Planning Together's top-down approach needs fundamental change.
New York City is virtually the only major city in this country that does not have a comprehensive city plan. Instead, we rely on a piecemeal approach to zoning that has resulted in an explosion of luxury towers without anywhere near adequate gains in real affordable housing.
Our siloed zoning approach has allowed inequity to flourish. Black and brown neighborhoods have shouldered the lion's share of new real estate development, which has led to rampant gentrification and displacement.
Arguably, the most urgent reason to adopt a city plan is the climate crisis. Considering that by the year 2100 daily high tides will flood many coastal neighborhoods, it's hard to imagine that we can combat the climate crisis without a comprehensive plan.
For these reasons and more, it's clear we need a city plan, yet Planning Together has several fundamental flaws. The most urgent flaw of this legislation is its top-down approach — it misses the opportunity to give the people more power in determining a just and equitable future.
In the first year of each 10-year planning cycle, every community board submits a district needs statement. In the second year, the city creates a "conditions of the city" report based on 13 categories. The categories of assessment will please many planners and organizers, as it includes a "displacement risk index" and a "segregation assessment."
City leaders who point to these first two years as evidence of community buy-in are missing one crucial point — there is no formal requirement in the legislation to act on the information gathered from the first two years. We don't just need more information, we need action. Without requiring interventions, it's easy to see how real estate interests could corrupt the process.
In the third year of the planning cycle, the Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability (OLTPS) would create three plans per district and present them to community boards and borough presidents. Let that sink in: Planning Together places the responsibility of community planning with an unelected mayoral agency instead of with the communities themselves. Community members are closest to both the unique problems and the most viable solutions in any given neighborhood. Any comprehensive planning legislation should recognize this and take a true bottom-up approach.
There are several changes to the legislation and related issues that should be made to ensure communities can fully engage in planning:
First, fully fund community boards. Currently, the combined budget of all community boards is a meager .02% of the total city budget. This lack of funding poses a major impediment to boards that may otherwise consider engaging in community planning.
Second, adequately staff community boards. Volunteer board members with full-time jobs and/or household duties cannot be expected to create a community plan. All boards should be appropriately staffed and include full-time urban planners.
Third, ensure community plans that are created have teeth and get implemented. Section 197a of the city charter allows community boards to create plans to guide development in their district. Yet, under our current system, community planning is often an exercise in futility; boards sometimes take years to compose a plan only for the city to ignore or reject it. Even when a plan is approved, implementation is not guaranteed. We cannot allow a mayoral agency to override community plans when they are created.
In Planning Together, after the OLTPS creates land use scenarios, community boards and borough presidents vote on which plan they like best. Unfortunately, these votes are in an advisory capacity. The city can move forward with whichever plan it chooses, regardless of the community decision. This (im)balance of power needs to be radically shifted to give communities the central voice in the process.
After the community board and borough president response, the City Council deliberates. Yet the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches is skewed as well. The legislation states: "if the Council failed to adopt a preferred scenario, OLTPS would choose a scenario and describe how such selection was made." City Council members are much closer to communities than the OLTPS, so transferring power from the legislative branch to an executive agency takes away essential accountability.
Throughout the 10-year cycle, Planning Together lacks a comprehensive framework around public engagement. Our current system is entirely insufficient in ensuring community voices are heard. Case in point: the public hearing for Planning Together itself.
The meeting started at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday, when many New Yorkers were working. City officials were placed at the top of the agenda, and it took nearly five hours before testimony from other New Yorkers began. By the time public testimony began, many government officials had left the meeting. To make a comment, you had to sign up in advance, creating another barrier to entry for many citizens. Testimony was kept to a strict two-minute time frame. These factors prevented the opportunity for real dialogue
City planning is essential, and it is clear we cannot continue our current approach. Yet if we are truly to build the just and equitable city that works for all, New Yorkers need the central voice. Involving New Yorkers without becoming paralyzed by not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) forces is not an easy balance to strike. Yet, we cannot allow our fear of NIMBYism to justify a top-down approach. I urge the City Council to radically amend this plan to ensure greater community control.
***
Aleda Gagarin is a City Council candidate for District 29 in Queens, which covers Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Rego Park and Richmond Hill, with a Master's in Urban Planning from CUNY-Hunter College. On Twitter @AledaGagarin.
New York lawmaker proposes converting empty offices and hotels into affordable housing
6sqft
Mar. 3, 2021
A state lawmaker introduced legislation this week that would allow New York to buy financially distressed commercial buildings and convert them into housing for low-income and homeless New Yorkers. The Housing Our Neighbors with Dignity Act, sponsored by State Sen. Michael Gianaris, includes the purchase and conversion of office buildings and hotels that are up for sale, as the Wall Street Journal first reported. The proposed legislation comes as commercial districts and tourist hubs have yet to recover fully from the impact of the coronavirus and as the housing crisis, particularly in New York City, continues.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed a similar idea during his State of the State address in January. According to the governor, the pandemic has reduced travel and increased remote work, leading to underutilized commercial space.
Cuomo's plan involves proposed legislation that would create a "five-year period" during which property owners can convert office buildings and hotels in New York City for residential use, with affordable and supportive housing included.
"The housing problem in our cities has gotten worse. But, the crisis of growing vacancies in our commercial property provides an opportunity," Cuomo said during his speech. "We should convert vacant commercial space to supportive and affordable housing and we should do it now."
The bill introduced by Gianaris lays out specifics about the potential affordable housing and supportive housing that are lacking from Cuomo's proposal. The legislation currently being considered by the Senate would create a program that allows the state to "purchase, acquire, restore, and hold distressed commercial real estate for the purposes of maintaining or increasing affordable housing in New York City for two years" after the bill's enaction.
The properties will then be sold or transferred to organizations that would operate and manage the housing. According to the text of the bill, at least 50 percent of the converted properties will be set aside for those experiencing homelessness.
The affordable housing at the properties will be limited to households with income at or below 50 percent of the area median income for the county in which the property is located. Tenants would have full tenancy rights, with rents set at no more than 30 percent of their income.
"What we're doing now is finding this huge stock of buildings that are in distressed condition right now, so it's a smart way to tackle multiple problems," Gianaris told the Journal.
The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) has advocated for a conversion program throughout the pandemic and came out in support of Cuomo's proposal in January. REBNY senior vice president Paimaan Lodhi told Fast Company older buildings would be easier to convert to residential use, with about 150 million square feet of Class B and C office space available.
"If you were to just apply a conversion rate of 10% we think you could get something like 14,000 units built, and a pretty sizable portion of that could be affordable housing," Lodhi told the website.
Cuomo advisers convinced DOH to omit certain nursing home COVID deaths from official tally
Mar. 3, 2021
A state lawmaker introduced legislation this week that would allow New York to buy financially distressed commercial buildings and convert them into housing for low-income and homeless New Yorkers. The Housing Our Neighbors with Dignity Act, sponsored by State Sen. Michael Gianaris, includes the purchase and conversion of office buildings and hotels that are up for sale, as the Wall Street Journal first reported. The proposed legislation comes as commercial districts and tourist hubs have yet to recover fully from the impact of the coronavirus and as the housing crisis, particularly in New York City, continues.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed a similar idea during his State of the State address in January. According to the governor, the pandemic has reduced travel and increased remote work, leading to underutilized commercial space.
Cuomo's plan involves proposed legislation that would create a "five-year period" during which property owners can convert office buildings and hotels in New York City for residential use, with affordable and supportive housing included.
"The housing problem in our cities has gotten worse. But, the crisis of growing vacancies in our commercial property provides an opportunity," Cuomo said during his speech. "We should convert vacant commercial space to supportive and affordable housing and we should do it now."
The bill introduced by Gianaris lays out specifics about the potential affordable housing and supportive housing that are lacking from Cuomo's proposal. The legislation currently being considered by the Senate would create a program that allows the state to "purchase, acquire, restore, and hold distressed commercial real estate for the purposes of maintaining or increasing affordable housing in New York City for two years" after the bill's enaction.
The properties will then be sold or transferred to organizations that would operate and manage the housing. According to the text of the bill, at least 50 percent of the converted properties will be set aside for those experiencing homelessness.
The affordable housing at the properties will be limited to households with income at or below 50 percent of the area median income for the county in which the property is located. Tenants would have full tenancy rights, with rents set at no more than 30 percent of their income.
"What we're doing now is finding this huge stock of buildings that are in distressed condition right now, so it's a smart way to tackle multiple problems," Gianaris told the Journal.
The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) has advocated for a conversion program throughout the pandemic and came out in support of Cuomo's proposal in January. REBNY senior vice president Paimaan Lodhi told Fast Company older buildings would be easier to convert to residential use, with about 150 million square feet of Class B and C office space available.
"If you were to just apply a conversion rate of 10% we think you could get something like 14,000 units built, and a pretty sizable portion of that could be affordable housing," Lodhi told the website.
Cuomo advisers convinced DOH to omit certain nursing home COVID deaths from official tally
NY Post
Mar. 4, 2021
Top advisers to Gov. Andrew Cuomo successfully pushed state health officials to omit from a public report the number of nursing home residents who died in hospitals from COVID-19, it was revealed on Thursday night.
Instead, the July state Health Department report listed only the nursing home residents who died from the virus at their facilities, far undercounting the total death toll of the state's most vulnerable population, sources told The Wall Street Journal.
The revelation further confirms the Cuomo administration possessed a more complete accounting of the COVID-nursing death count during the summer, but waited eight more months to cough up the true totals after repeatedly stonewalling lawmakers and the media, losing a lawsuit and being subjected to a damning state attorney general report.
Last month, The Post exclusively reported that one of Cuomo's top aides, Melissa DeRosa, told Democratic leaders in a video conference call that "we froze" out of fear that the true numbers would "be used against us" by federal prosecutors.
The July report, which largely defended a controversial and since-rescinded administration policy of requiring nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients discharged from the hospitals, had said 6,432 nursing-home residents died from the virus.
In truth, though, more than 15,000 nursing home residents are now reported to have died in the state from the illness, including in their facilities and hospitals.
A senior Cuomo adviser and a state Health Department spokesperson admitted in Thursday night statements that out-of-facility deaths were withheld in the July report.
Gary Holmes, a spokesman for the Health Department, said in a statement: "While early versions of the report included out of facility deaths, the COVID task force was not satisfied that the data had been verified against hospital data and so the final report used only data for in facility deaths, which was disclosed in the report."
"The out-of-facility data was omitted after DOH could not confirm it had been adequately verified," Beth Garvey, also special counsel Cuomo, said in a statement.
A source told the Journal that state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker agreed with omitting the data from the report.
The newspaper had previously reported that the top Cuomo aides who pushed for the changes included DeRosa and Zucker.
The revised COVID-19 nursing home death total came after state Attorney General Letitia James released a damning report saying the state likely undercounted the nursing home COVID-19 death toll by more than 50 percent.
The discrepancy, the report said, was the result of the state not disclosing how many nursing home residents died in hospitals.
NYPD Watchdog Releases Long-Awaited Database On Police Misconduct
Mar. 4, 2021
Top advisers to Gov. Andrew Cuomo successfully pushed state health officials to omit from a public report the number of nursing home residents who died in hospitals from COVID-19, it was revealed on Thursday night.
Instead, the July state Health Department report listed only the nursing home residents who died from the virus at their facilities, far undercounting the total death toll of the state's most vulnerable population, sources told The Wall Street Journal.
The revelation further confirms the Cuomo administration possessed a more complete accounting of the COVID-nursing death count during the summer, but waited eight more months to cough up the true totals after repeatedly stonewalling lawmakers and the media, losing a lawsuit and being subjected to a damning state attorney general report.
Last month, The Post exclusively reported that one of Cuomo's top aides, Melissa DeRosa, told Democratic leaders in a video conference call that "we froze" out of fear that the true numbers would "be used against us" by federal prosecutors.
The July report, which largely defended a controversial and since-rescinded administration policy of requiring nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients discharged from the hospitals, had said 6,432 nursing-home residents died from the virus.
In truth, though, more than 15,000 nursing home residents are now reported to have died in the state from the illness, including in their facilities and hospitals.
A senior Cuomo adviser and a state Health Department spokesperson admitted in Thursday night statements that out-of-facility deaths were withheld in the July report.
Gary Holmes, a spokesman for the Health Department, said in a statement: "While early versions of the report included out of facility deaths, the COVID task force was not satisfied that the data had been verified against hospital data and so the final report used only data for in facility deaths, which was disclosed in the report."
"The out-of-facility data was omitted after DOH could not confirm it had been adequately verified," Beth Garvey, also special counsel Cuomo, said in a statement.
A source told the Journal that state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker agreed with omitting the data from the report.
The newspaper had previously reported that the top Cuomo aides who pushed for the changes included DeRosa and Zucker.
The revised COVID-19 nursing home death total came after state Attorney General Letitia James released a damning report saying the state likely undercounted the nursing home COVID-19 death toll by more than 50 percent.
The discrepancy, the report said, was the result of the state not disclosing how many nursing home residents died in hospitals.
NYPD Watchdog Releases Long-Awaited Database On Police Misconduct
Gothamist
Mar. 4, 2021
New York City's police oversight agency has released its first public database of NYPD disciplinary records, following an order from a federal appeals court which cleared the way for broad disclosures on police misconduct.
That searchable database covers tens of thousands of finalized misconduct complaints against officers by the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the agency's ruling on those cases, and the penalty that was ultimately imposed by the NYPD. It does not include records that fall under the NYPD's own internal disciplinary process, such as complaints involving corruption, perjury, and off-duty criminal conduct.
For decades, information on police misconduct and discipline has been shielded from the public's view under a controversial state statute known as 50-a. The state legislature repealed that statute this past June, amid historic racial justice protests sparked by the policing killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
A contentious legal battle followed, as the city's police unions argued that the release of the records could jeopardize officers' safety and violate their collective bargaining rights. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the unions last month, then reaffirmed the decision in an order on Wednesday that said the city was free to begin releasing the records.
The newly-released CCRB data includes information on 34,811 active officers and 48,218 inactive officers that can be sorted by command, rank, and type of complaint. More detailed information about the alleged misconduct — referred to as "complaint histories" — is not part of the database, but can obtained through Freedom of Information Law Requests, according to a press release.
On Thursday, Mayor Bill de Blasio said that a broader release of internal NYPD data will begin next week, though he did not give specifics on what would be included in that disclosure.
"Whatever legal roadblocks the city was pointing to are no longer in place to stop them from releasing these documents that the public has demanded since the repeal of 50-a," Molly Biklen, the deputy legal director for the New York Civil Liberties Union, told Gothamist. "There are no more excuses."
Though his administration oversaw an expansion of 50-a, de Blasio has praised the court's ruling, and previously vowed to undertake a "massive effort" to make public "all records for every active member available in one place, online publicly."
But the extent and timing of the city's full release remains unclear, and policing experts say they're skeptical that the department will be immediately forthcoming with all internal records.
In a statement, Manny Vaz, a spokesperson for Communities United for Police Reform, called on the de Blasio administration to "immediately publish the police misconduct databases that they claimed would be ready last summer, and to stop blocking FOIL requests on police violence so that New Yorkers can finally have some measure of transparency."
Previously, 50-a was used to block a wide variety of documents, ranging from the identities of police officers involved in shootings to transcripts of disciplinary hearings otherwise available under the state's Open Meetings law.
The law has also been used to block personnel records of firefighters and corrections officers. Inquiries to the agencies about the release were not immediately returned.
Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesperson for the coalition of unions that sued to block the release of the records, provided no specific indication whether or not they plan to take further legal action.
"We're considering our options," Sheinkopf told Gothamist.
NYPD Promises To Finally Publish Thousands Of Internal Disciplinary Records Online Next Week
Mar. 4, 2021
New York City's police oversight agency has released its first public database of NYPD disciplinary records, following an order from a federal appeals court which cleared the way for broad disclosures on police misconduct.
That searchable database covers tens of thousands of finalized misconduct complaints against officers by the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the agency's ruling on those cases, and the penalty that was ultimately imposed by the NYPD. It does not include records that fall under the NYPD's own internal disciplinary process, such as complaints involving corruption, perjury, and off-duty criminal conduct.
For decades, information on police misconduct and discipline has been shielded from the public's view under a controversial state statute known as 50-a. The state legislature repealed that statute this past June, amid historic racial justice protests sparked by the policing killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
A contentious legal battle followed, as the city's police unions argued that the release of the records could jeopardize officers' safety and violate their collective bargaining rights. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the unions last month, then reaffirmed the decision in an order on Wednesday that said the city was free to begin releasing the records.
The newly-released CCRB data includes information on 34,811 active officers and 48,218 inactive officers that can be sorted by command, rank, and type of complaint. More detailed information about the alleged misconduct — referred to as "complaint histories" — is not part of the database, but can obtained through Freedom of Information Law Requests, according to a press release.
On Thursday, Mayor Bill de Blasio said that a broader release of internal NYPD data will begin next week, though he did not give specifics on what would be included in that disclosure.
"Whatever legal roadblocks the city was pointing to are no longer in place to stop them from releasing these documents that the public has demanded since the repeal of 50-a," Molly Biklen, the deputy legal director for the New York Civil Liberties Union, told Gothamist. "There are no more excuses."
Though his administration oversaw an expansion of 50-a, de Blasio has praised the court's ruling, and previously vowed to undertake a "massive effort" to make public "all records for every active member available in one place, online publicly."
But the extent and timing of the city's full release remains unclear, and policing experts say they're skeptical that the department will be immediately forthcoming with all internal records.
In a statement, Manny Vaz, a spokesperson for Communities United for Police Reform, called on the de Blasio administration to "immediately publish the police misconduct databases that they claimed would be ready last summer, and to stop blocking FOIL requests on police violence so that New Yorkers can finally have some measure of transparency."
Previously, 50-a was used to block a wide variety of documents, ranging from the identities of police officers involved in shootings to transcripts of disciplinary hearings otherwise available under the state's Open Meetings law.
The law has also been used to block personnel records of firefighters and corrections officers. Inquiries to the agencies about the release were not immediately returned.
Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesperson for the coalition of unions that sued to block the release of the records, provided no specific indication whether or not they plan to take further legal action.
"We're considering our options," Sheinkopf told Gothamist.
NYPD Promises To Finally Publish Thousands Of Internal Disciplinary Records Online Next Week
Gothamist
Mar. 4, 2021
The New York City Police Department will be publishing an online dashboard with its misconduct findings and disciplinary decisions as early as next week. At a press conference at NYPD headquarters Thursday afternoon, department leaders promised that the database would include guilty and not-guilty decisions following NYPD disciplinary trials as well as thousands of other internally substantiated misconduct findings over the last decade.
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said he hoped that increased transparency over the disciplinary process would foster greater trust between police and residents.
"When you look at the world that we find ourselves in, and all the protests over the last year, and all the discussions about reform and law enforcement that's continuing and going forward, I always find myself coming back to this topic," Shea said.
The release will occur in stages, over the course of this month, with older disciplinary files coming online later. The portal will include individual profiles for active -duty officers, and each profile will include an officer's start date, promotion and training history, and departmental commendations and disciplinary history.
First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin Tucker said he hopes that the release, particularly of detailed trial decisions, will help the public to see how complicated misconduct investigations can be. The dashboard, he said, will also strive to show an officer's whole "life" on the job. "Not just the bad things, not just the discipline, but also who they are, how much training have they had, some context, which is important," he continued.
The announcement comes one day after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the City of New York that tens of thousands of records relating to police misconduct and disciplinary decisions can now be made public. It also follows the publication earlier today of a separate database from the Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent oversight agency, which includes up-to-date records on thousands of civilian complaints against officers.
In June, Mayor Bill de Blasio had initially pledged that the city would publish a database along the lines of the one the NYPD is now outlining. His announcement came on the heels of the repeal of a state law, known as Civil Rights Law 50-a, which had long kept police misconduct records shielded from public view. Those plans, however, were scuttled after a coalition of police and other unions went to court to try and block the release, citing other protections in their contracts. Last month, the Second Circuit shot down the latest appeal brought by the coalition.
In a brief phone call, Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesperson for unions, said the coalition was considering its "options," but provided no further detail.
City Council 'Deeply Concerned and Frustrated' with de Blasio Delay on Cuomo-Ordered Police Reform Plan
Mar. 4, 2021
The New York City Police Department will be publishing an online dashboard with its misconduct findings and disciplinary decisions as early as next week. At a press conference at NYPD headquarters Thursday afternoon, department leaders promised that the database would include guilty and not-guilty decisions following NYPD disciplinary trials as well as thousands of other internally substantiated misconduct findings over the last decade.
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said he hoped that increased transparency over the disciplinary process would foster greater trust between police and residents.
"When you look at the world that we find ourselves in, and all the protests over the last year, and all the discussions about reform and law enforcement that's continuing and going forward, I always find myself coming back to this topic," Shea said.
The release will occur in stages, over the course of this month, with older disciplinary files coming online later. The portal will include individual profiles for active -duty officers, and each profile will include an officer's start date, promotion and training history, and departmental commendations and disciplinary history.
First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin Tucker said he hopes that the release, particularly of detailed trial decisions, will help the public to see how complicated misconduct investigations can be. The dashboard, he said, will also strive to show an officer's whole "life" on the job. "Not just the bad things, not just the discipline, but also who they are, how much training have they had, some context, which is important," he continued.
The announcement comes one day after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the City of New York that tens of thousands of records relating to police misconduct and disciplinary decisions can now be made public. It also follows the publication earlier today of a separate database from the Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent oversight agency, which includes up-to-date records on thousands of civilian complaints against officers.
In June, Mayor Bill de Blasio had initially pledged that the city would publish a database along the lines of the one the NYPD is now outlining. His announcement came on the heels of the repeal of a state law, known as Civil Rights Law 50-a, which had long kept police misconduct records shielded from public view. Those plans, however, were scuttled after a coalition of police and other unions went to court to try and block the release, citing other protections in their contracts. Last month, the Second Circuit shot down the latest appeal brought by the coalition.
In a brief phone call, Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesperson for unions, said the coalition was considering its "options," but provided no further detail.
City Council 'Deeply Concerned and Frustrated' with de Blasio Delay on Cuomo-Ordered Police Reform Plan
Gotham Gazette
Mar. 5, 2021
Facing a looming state deadline, Mayor Bill de Blasio is under pressure from both Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York City Council to pass a broad public safety reform package or jeopardize the NYPD's bottom line.
With less than a month left, the de Blasio administration has yet to produce a full-fledged police reform agenda in line with a gubernatorial order, leaving a narrowing window to secure state funding, which the city is at risk of losing if it doesn't pass a package that satisfies the state's requirements by April 1. The order, dubbed the "New York State Reform and Reinvention Collaborative," requires the city to issue a prospective reform plan, solicit extensive feedback during a public comment period, and get City Council approval by the April start of the state fiscal year.
The city had already missed a January start for public comment suggested in state guidance. The mayor has repeatedly stressed past and ongoing police reform efforts, like a recently-adopted "disciplinary matrix," and reassured reporters multiple times that the city would meet the state deadline.
In January, de Blasio administration officials said a final report would be issued in February and would be ready for Council approval "on or before April 1." The Mayor's Office has disclosed little about the timeline in over a month since. De Blasio is now facing renewed pressure from the governor, who made veiled references to the city's position in recent remarks where he again raised the specter of funding cuts, calling public safety "a foundation" to reopening the economy.
"Cities are doing fantastic work and creative work, but not all of them are doing it. If they don't do it and we get to the budget then there are going to be significant sanctions on the city," Cuomo said during a press briefing at the State Capitol Wednesday.
"Please, you have 29 days, I know it's a hard topic, I know people would rather stay away from it, but public safety is one of the top priorities for any mayor," he said.
The Mayor's Office did not respond to requests for comment on the status of the collaborative on Wednesday and Thursday.
As the city fails to produce a report, leaders in the City Council are positioning the body to usurp the mayor's roll by passing its own policing and criminal justice package, leveraging the additional pressure from Cuomo's executive order.
"The Council has introduced and heard a package of bills that would reimagine public safety in New York City, as mandated by the Governor," said Speaker Corey Johnson in a statement to Gotham Gazette Thursday. "We urge the de Blasio administration to work with us on passing these important bills into law by the April 1deadline."
The Council's package, introduced at the end of January, includes 11 bills and 1 resolution ranging from changing the NYPD's role in schools, mental health, and traffic calls, to making the police commissioner a Council-confirmed position and ending qualified immunity for police officers. The resolution calls on the State Legislature and governor to give the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) final say in disciplinary matters it adjudicates, which would establish a disciplinary authority independent of the NYPD.
"New Yorkers continue to see examples of substantiated misconduct that ultimately resulted in little to no penalty from the NYPD," said CCRB chair Frederick Davie in testimony before the City Council in February. The CCRB supported the resolution as "a concrete step in increasing accountability and public trust," Davie said.
De Blasio's reform collaborative is being led by First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan with input from the Law Department, NYPD, and Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. Last fall during a series of NYPD "listening sessions" with the public, Jennifer Jones Austin of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Wes Moore of Robin Hood, and Arva Rice of the New York Urban League, joined the collaborative as civil society partners. It is not clear if anything was produced from the 9 listening sessions or any other meetings that were held.
In October, the Mayor's Office said the city would be starting its next phase of "intensive community engagement" to develop new reforms on top of several enacted by the city since the George Floyd protests last summer, when Cuomo's executive order went into effect.
"We have come so far to fundamentally reform policing in our city," de Blasio said in an October 29 press release announcing the launch of the collaborative's next phase. "Still, there is clearly more work to be done to strengthen bonds between officers and the communities they serve. Together, we will rebuild a fairer city that addresses injustice and disparity in a lasting and meaningful way."
According to Johnson, the Council has been kept in the dark about City Hall's progress on the reform collaborative.
"We have no idea when the administration's criminal justice reform plan is coming out and the Council is deeply concerned and frustrated with the lack of progress from the Administration on this issue," Johnson said in his statement to Thursday. "The Council is obligated to hold a hearing and vote on a plan that incorporates feedback from the public. The Administration's delay here is wholly unacceptable."
Democratic Mayoral Candidates Talk Tenants and Housing
Mar. 5, 2021
Facing a looming state deadline, Mayor Bill de Blasio is under pressure from both Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York City Council to pass a broad public safety reform package or jeopardize the NYPD's bottom line.
With less than a month left, the de Blasio administration has yet to produce a full-fledged police reform agenda in line with a gubernatorial order, leaving a narrowing window to secure state funding, which the city is at risk of losing if it doesn't pass a package that satisfies the state's requirements by April 1. The order, dubbed the "New York State Reform and Reinvention Collaborative," requires the city to issue a prospective reform plan, solicit extensive feedback during a public comment period, and get City Council approval by the April start of the state fiscal year.
The city had already missed a January start for public comment suggested in state guidance. The mayor has repeatedly stressed past and ongoing police reform efforts, like a recently-adopted "disciplinary matrix," and reassured reporters multiple times that the city would meet the state deadline.
In January, de Blasio administration officials said a final report would be issued in February and would be ready for Council approval "on or before April 1." The Mayor's Office has disclosed little about the timeline in over a month since. De Blasio is now facing renewed pressure from the governor, who made veiled references to the city's position in recent remarks where he again raised the specter of funding cuts, calling public safety "a foundation" to reopening the economy.
"Cities are doing fantastic work and creative work, but not all of them are doing it. If they don't do it and we get to the budget then there are going to be significant sanctions on the city," Cuomo said during a press briefing at the State Capitol Wednesday.
"Please, you have 29 days, I know it's a hard topic, I know people would rather stay away from it, but public safety is one of the top priorities for any mayor," he said.
The Mayor's Office did not respond to requests for comment on the status of the collaborative on Wednesday and Thursday.
As the city fails to produce a report, leaders in the City Council are positioning the body to usurp the mayor's roll by passing its own policing and criminal justice package, leveraging the additional pressure from Cuomo's executive order.
"The Council has introduced and heard a package of bills that would reimagine public safety in New York City, as mandated by the Governor," said Speaker Corey Johnson in a statement to Gotham Gazette Thursday. "We urge the de Blasio administration to work with us on passing these important bills into law by the April 1deadline."
The Council's package, introduced at the end of January, includes 11 bills and 1 resolution ranging from changing the NYPD's role in schools, mental health, and traffic calls, to making the police commissioner a Council-confirmed position and ending qualified immunity for police officers. The resolution calls on the State Legislature and governor to give the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) final say in disciplinary matters it adjudicates, which would establish a disciplinary authority independent of the NYPD.
"New Yorkers continue to see examples of substantiated misconduct that ultimately resulted in little to no penalty from the NYPD," said CCRB chair Frederick Davie in testimony before the City Council in February. The CCRB supported the resolution as "a concrete step in increasing accountability and public trust," Davie said.
De Blasio's reform collaborative is being led by First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan with input from the Law Department, NYPD, and Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. Last fall during a series of NYPD "listening sessions" with the public, Jennifer Jones Austin of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Wes Moore of Robin Hood, and Arva Rice of the New York Urban League, joined the collaborative as civil society partners. It is not clear if anything was produced from the 9 listening sessions or any other meetings that were held.
In October, the Mayor's Office said the city would be starting its next phase of "intensive community engagement" to develop new reforms on top of several enacted by the city since the George Floyd protests last summer, when Cuomo's executive order went into effect.
"We have come so far to fundamentally reform policing in our city," de Blasio said in an October 29 press release announcing the launch of the collaborative's next phase. "Still, there is clearly more work to be done to strengthen bonds between officers and the communities they serve. Together, we will rebuild a fairer city that addresses injustice and disparity in a lasting and meaningful way."
According to Johnson, the Council has been kept in the dark about City Hall's progress on the reform collaborative.
"We have no idea when the administration's criminal justice reform plan is coming out and the Council is deeply concerned and frustrated with the lack of progress from the Administration on this issue," Johnson said in his statement to Thursday. "The Council is obligated to hold a hearing and vote on a plan that incorporates feedback from the public. The Administration's delay here is wholly unacceptable."
Democratic Mayoral Candidates Talk Tenants and Housing
Gotham Gazette
Mar. 4, 2021
Nine leading candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to be New York City's next mayor appeared at a recent virtual forum to offer their stances on issues critical to tenants. Two-thirds of New Yorkers are renters, which means the forum provided candidates a crucial opportunity to impress a large and important group of voters with their policy ideas to solve the city's housing problems, especially amid a pandemic that has exacerbated existing inequities.
At the February 27 forum co-hosted by tenants advocacy groups Tenants PAC, Tenants & Neighbors, and Met Council Action, the candidates discussed a range of tenant-centric topics, including rent stabilization, land use, NYCHA, code enforcement, homelessness, evictions, affordable and permanent housing, the shelter system, and more.
While candidates found some common ground on moving away from the city's shelter system toward more permanent and affordable housing, as well as support for rent stabilization and reforming Mayor Bill de Blasio's mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) program, they varied on cancelling rent, how they would generate revenue, steps for improving NYCHA, and more.
Questions were posed by tenants and moderator Rachel Holliday Smith, a reporter with THE CITY, to participating candidates: Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, former federal housing secretary and city housing commissioner Shaun Donovan, former city sanitation commissioner Kathryn Garcia, former Wall Street executive Ray McGuire, former nonprofit executive Dianne Morales, city Comptroller Scott Stringer, Maya Wiley, a civil rights attorney and former counsel to Mayor de Blasio, and Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and recent presidential candidate.
Several lightning rounds were embedded throughout the forum, in which candidates answered questions with only yes or no responses. In the first lightning round, candidates were asked if they were tenants, to which only Menchaca, Stringer, and Yang said yes. (Yang owns an upstate home where he controversially spent much of the worst months of the pandemic, but rents in his primary residence in Manhattan.)
Candidates were also asked if they were refusing donations from landlords and real estate developers. Adams, Garcia, McGuire, Wiley, and Yang said no, while Donovan, Menchaca, Morales, and Stringer said yes -- though Stringer's answer to this semi-regular question was again qualified by him saying he's no longer accepting money from "big" real estate developers, given he shifted his approach after previously raising money from real estate interests.
Asked if they would support a rent rollback or rent decrease for rent-regulated apartments via the city's Rent Guidelines Board, candidates were divided in their responses. Adams, Donovan, Garcia, McGuire, Wiley, and Yang said no. Menchaca and Morales said yes. Stringer said he was "open to rollback in certain circumstances."
Candidates were also divided on 'cancelling rent and mortgages' as a result of pandemic-era hardships and nonpayments. Adams, Menchaca, Morales, and Stringer said they were supportive, while Donovan, Garcia, McGuire, Wiley, and Yang said they were not. (It was not immediately clear what the specific definition of canceling rent and mortgages was meant to be in the question, so candidates appeared to assume it meant for everyone, while much of the policy debates surround taking such action for those who have been unable to pay due to loss of income as a result of the pandemic.)
Candidates unanimously agreed that the city's affordable housing lottery was unfair. Since it was a lightning round, there was no discussion of how to fix it.
For the first longer question, candidates were unanimous in their support for rent regulation as a policy, but their explanations showed some differences.
Wiley and Yang voiced explicit support for an eviction moratorium during the coronavirus pandemic. "Their decision to freeze rents in 2020 was the right kind of move," said Yang of the Rent Guidelines Board, a nine-member entity that oversees the rent stabilization system in New York City, including determining rent adjustments. "The people I would appoint would take a very similar tack," he said, adding, "I'm also for an eviction moratorium 'right to counsel,'" referring to ensuring free legal representation for those facing eviction, which the city has a version of.
Wiley and Adams both took personal approaches to the question. Wiley recalled what it was like to "watch my whole neighborhood displaced when landlords increased their rents, and I got pushed out," and Adams attested of his childhood, "I know what it is to be on the verge of homelesslessnes."
"We have to create rent subsidies," Wiley said, likely meaning additional ones to the many that currently exist, while Adams suggested, "We could expand the Rent Guidelines Board to ensure that economists are on the board, as well, to help deal with the changing economics of our city." Adams also cited his experience as a building owner, claiming he has never raised his tenants' rents in more than a decade.
McGuire also voiced support for "supplementing the rent with rent subsidies," then decried "rising rents" for "[driving] people out of their neighborhoods." McGuire was the only candidate to suggest providing "support for the small building owners who are also small businesses," citing his economic recovery plan that would in part provide financial relief options to small landlords.
In addition to Wiley, Donovan connected rent regulation to the homelessness crisis, saying "It's why I've entered public service to ensure that housing is central to people's lives." Donovan and Garcia also acknowledged the impact of rent regulation on other aspects of tenants' lives, with Garcia noting that stable affordable housing ensures "you have access to education, you are able to hold a job more easily."
Morales and Stringer spotlighted their experiences as tenant organizers as evidence of their dedication to advocating for rent regulation. Morales emphasized her plans for sweeping reform; Stringer cited his "pro-tenant voting record" and legislative experience.
"When I was in the State Assembly, and the State Legislature tried to weaken the rent laws and they did that successfully, I was a lone voice to say 'no' and voted 'no' both in 1993 and 1997," said Stringer.
"I think we need to guarantee housing for all in New York City," said Morales. "We need to move toward making sure that rents are affordable for everyone, and that includes advocating and pushing for freezes around rent regulated apartments and also looking into what other reforms in the city Charter and outside the city Charter we can make to permanently protect our residents and our tenants and guarantee housing for everyone."
Menchaca emphasized campaign finance reform in order to ensure that landlord and developer money cannot sway politics. Menchaca positioned himself as an enemy of real estate developers, saying, "As someone who has been constantly attacked by the REBNY forces, since I first ran in 2013, I can see that power." He went on to add, "We need more pro-tenant structures that don't require immigrants and others to have to fight every single time there's going to be a vote, so that we can actually freeze rents, and I think that part of what we need to do is repeal Urstadt Law."
Candidates unanimously pledged to appoint public members to the Rent Guidelines Board who would prioritize affordable rent over profits for landlords, with many citing their track records on affordable housing and community partnerships.
"Look, I probably testified to the Rent Guidelines Board more than most people for many, many years" and "you can see the data being manipulated on behalf of landlords," said Stringer. He credited Mayor de Blasio "for leveling the playing field" for tenants and promised he would "appoint people with deep experience to advocate on behalf of tenants."
Garcia concurred with Stringer's point about data, saying, "We need to ensure that we are following the data and not getting manipulated regarding what the numbers show."
Like Stringer, Donovan touted his record of "working with resident leaders across the city...to make sure that residents had a real voice in their communities," citing his work on Via Verde, an affordable housing development in the South Bronx he helped create in partnership with community members when he was the city's housing commissioner during the Bloomberg administration, and where he kicked off his mayoral campaign last year. Donovan also spotlighted his experience working "with tenant leaders like Damaris Reyes of Good Old Lower East Side and so many others around this city."
Wiley cited her experience in the de Blasio administration, saying, "I was part of a team that ensured that Rachel Godsil was appointed to chair it [the Rent Guidelines Board] in 2014, which was the first instance in which we had the lowest [rent increases] because she was deeply committed as a civil rights attorney to making sure that what we were doing was preserving the rights of tenants and protecting housing." Wiley connected this to her own experience as a civil rights attorney.
"I would go one step further," said McGuire, "and make sure that you had appropriate representation for those New Yorkers who currently live in rent-regulated apartments."
Morales and Menchaca both emphasized collaborating with community advocates to determine who their appointees should be on the Rent Guidelines Board.
"The public representatives of a rent guidelines board should be people who are impacted by the rent," said Menchaca. He continued, saying, "I'll also make sure that the landlords who are on this board are the landlords that represent the kind of landlords that we want in the city of New York, that can actually be sensitive to the tenant rights that often get pushed aside." Menchaca said he is the candidate to fulfill these promises because he is a renter himself and his "leadership style" as a City Council member "has been in true co-governance, in movement with renters."
Adams defended landlords of color who own smaller properties, like himself, pointing out, "Black wealth is tied in their real estate."
"I think we need to really separate the micro apartments from the major apartments," he said, rationalizing that if small Black building owners "lose that real estate, we will displace tenants, and you will see gentrification in the city. But he did not connect his point to the question of appointees to the Rent Guidelines Board.
Yang emphasized community engagement in his response, saying that tenants would have opportunities to speak with his public RGB member appointees "to tell them what's going on in your communities because they will be there to serve you."
In the next lightning round, all candidates unanimously agreed to boost code enforcement in all five boroughs; to support passage of Intro 146, a bill to increase CityFHEPS voucher amounts to reflect market rents in New York City; and to support passage of Intros 1104 and 1529, which would increase right-to-counsel income eligibility thresholds and expand the law to cover more eviction cases.
Holliday Smith then cited the de Blasio administration's mandatory inclusionary housing program, which mandates at least 25% of units in new housing development that gets a density bonus be rent-regulated under certain affordability thresholds, which range significantly from affordable for very low-income to middle-income residents. The policy has been criticized for not being targeted more fully toward lower incomes and de Blasio's implementation of it has been roundly panned because he has not pushed city-backed rezonings to make sure it is regularly utilized in wealthier neighborhoods, where it is designed to be used, and he has instead rezoned a series of lower-income communities of color, where MIH is far less effective and more city subsidies are needed to ensure lower-income housing, while also risking the acceleration of gentrification and displacement. Overall, the mayor's housing plan has been criticized by many Democrats, including mayoral candidates, for not being more appropriately targeted to address the crisis of affordability, and therefore homelessness, faced by the city's low and very low-income residents.
Asked how they would define affordable housing and what the goal income level should be for households to be eligible for affording housing, most candidates avoided specifying income in numbers, while also proposing different solutions for expanding affordable housing.
Stringer, Garcia, and McGuire were the only candidates to specify income brackets in their definitions of low-income housing, with Stringer and Garcia agreeing that it should be defined as "$30,000 for a family of three," something Garcia also noted is included in her housing plan.
McGuire differed in his response, saying, "Deeply affordable housing is people making below $50,000."
Morales, Adams, Donovan, and Menchaca did not specify exact figures but did agree that tenants should not pay more than 30% of their incomes on rent, generally the threshold used to determine if someone is rent-burdened.
Yang differed slightly, saying of what's affordable that "We should be defining it [affordable housing] as 40 to 50% of median income, as opposed to the 70 or 80% that the developers would prefer."
Menchaca cited his experience as a Council member, saying, "We were, as a community, able to get the apartments down to 30% of AMI [Area Median Income]. I think that's deeply affordable in Sunset Park."
Holliday Smith pressed Morales, Adams, and Wiley in particular to specify their views on the maximum income bracket to qualify for affordable housing, but they all declined.
"It depends on the family," said Adams. "A family of four living in Park Slope is different from a family of four living in South Jamaica, Queens. It's not clear cut and dry."
Wiley said she would follow up with a specific figure as part of her yet-released housing plan. She spotlighted her $10 billion capital spending program, which would create 100,000 jobs and allocate $2 billion for improvements to NYCHA housing.
Yang noted that NYCHA "is some of the only truly affordable housing in our city," adding, "We need to invest in that and actually make it something the city can be proud of." He did not disclose how much he would invest in NYCHA.
Of his affordable housing plan, Stringer said, "I want to take the estimated 3,000 vacant parcels of land in the city — from vacant open space to a whole host of different areas, we've identified it — I want to give that land back to the people to community-based organizations to build the housing that we actually need." He also reiterated one of his main housing plan planks: affordability caps for 25% of the housing in any new developments anywhere in the city.
"The single most important thing we need here is rental assistance," said Donovan. "It's why I've been working with the incoming Biden administration on a proposal for universal voucher assistance."
Both Morales and Garcia called for converting vacant office spaces, commercial storefronts, and hotels into affordable housing units. They stressed that it was something the city could accomplish immediately, as opposed to other housing reforms, which would require more time, though those conversions also take significant time.
Morales called for an overhaul of the mandatory inclusionary housing program, saying, "We need to move away from this speculative market that commodifies housing, that provides incentives and subsidies to developers and prioritize community development" via "eminent domain and community land trusts."
Menchaca noted that affordable housing efforts should "[remove] any barriers to undocumnented immigrants" by investing money into "language access."
At this point in the forum, Wiley and McGuire had to leave for other appointments, but said they would answer the remaining questions in writing, to be shared later.
Keeping in mind the current budget constraints as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, candidates were asked how they would pay for affordable housing and whether or not it should be prioritized. All candidates agreed it should be prioritized, but proposed different funding strategies.
Morales and Stringer said they would end the 421a tax abatement, which is controlled at the state level and Stringer called "a landlord giveaway," and redirect that money toward affordable housing.
"We need to explore new taxes like the implementation of a land value tax, a vacancy tax — I know that involves going to Albany, but I'm ready to do that," said Morales. She also called for taxing "landlords that are warehousing spaces for speculative reasons."
Stringer noted that the city is expected to receive "about $5.6 billion in federal stimulus money," which he said an unspecified amount could be used for housing. Lastly, he called on Albany to implement a wealth tax.
Morales and Menchaca voiced support for the Invest In Our New York Act, a package of tax increases estimated to raise $50 billion, with plans for investment for housing, as well as healthcare, education, and other sectors.
"We could actually bring $100 billion in the next four years to do things like pay for the $32 billion of deferred maintenance in NYCHA, actually bring a public bank, and finance affordable housing," said Menchaca of the city's capital budget.
Garcia called for moving away from the shelter system "which costs a lot and gives us very little back" in favor of building permanent housing instead.
"I've made a commitment along the lines of the recommendations of United For Housing," said Donovan, referring to an affordable housing advocacy coalition of more than 80 organizations across the city, "to increase our capital commitment from the city by $4 billion...and to increase what we spend from the expense side to get to half-a-billion dollars a year on the city voucher program."
Donovan again flexed his connections in Washington D.C., saying, "I'm best positioned of any of the candidates to win that help from D.C. given my deep experience." He added, "We could get tens of billions of dollars for public housing if we access options through Section 8 that are available," referring to the federal rent assistance program. "I propose creating a citywide inclusionary program and other steps, as well," he briefly mentioned of other housing policy.
Adams decried upzonings in low-income communities, saying he would "upzone in affluent areas, where you have transit-rich communities, great schools, access to healthy food." On funding, Adams said, "It's time to spend our capital dollars. Interest rates are low. This is the time to build, not to cut." He also again proposed selling NYCHA's air rights for $8 billion in order to "make it more livable." Lastly, he suggested "[investing] in new low-income home ownership, such as Nehemiah houses and the Mitchell-Lama program."
While Yang did not propose specific funding strategies, he called for "relaxing some of the regulations on what housing units can look like" in order to convert vacant office and commercial spaces "and get people affordable housing right now instead of waiting for the developers to get their acts together after we improve the incentives."
Just before the next series of lightning-round questions, Stringer left the forum to attend another event.
Asked if they would prioritize the conversion of hotels for unhoused New Yorkers, remaining candidates -- Menchaca, Garcia, Donovan, Adams, Yang, and Morales -- unanimously said yes.
Garcia then had to leave the event.
Asked if they would support rent control for commercial tenants and if they would help pass the Small Business Jobs Survival Act, candidates were more divided.
"Yes, I support some [commercial] rent control. I don't believe the act is the right way to do it. So, it's a yes and no," said Donovan.
After some back-and-forth, Yang said no.
Adams said no.
Morales and Menchaca both said yes.
Asked if they would require that any housing built on public land be permanently affordable to low- and extremely low-income New Yorkers, Menchaca said yes, Donovan said yes, Morales said yes; and Yang and Adams said they would include moderate-income New Yorkers, too.
Candidates were asked if they support NYCHA 'infill development,' utilizing public housing land to build new private housing, though there are various proposals for what that housing would be like in terms of affordability, who would be able to access the units, and more.
Adams didn't directly answer the question at first, calling for incorporating more technology into NYCHA, such as "QR codes on buildings to see the repairs" and "use drones to inspect rooftops," as well as "[weeding] out the corruption and mismanagement." After Holliday Smith pressed him for a more direct response, Adams said he is open to infill development on NYCHA land as long as NYCHA tenants are not displaced. He again mentioned the idea of moving current NYCHA residents into the new units created through the development, thus freeing up NYCHA space for new tenants -- though he didn't mention it, some see this as a path to moving older NYCHA residents who live alone out of multi-bedroom apartments and into one-bedroom apartments so larger families can access the larger NYCHA apartments.
"I'm generally against this form of infill development. I don't think it solves the problem," said Yang. "I think that a lot of the friction we're describing is because too many NYCHA residents don't feel like they have a say in how the land is being used, how their communities are being run. One of the things I proposed is that the NYCHA board, instead of being minority tenants, should be majority tenants." But, he said, if NYCHA tenant leaders supported infill development, then he would consider it.
At this point in the forum, Adams and Yang had to leave in order to attend a rally related to the recent instances of anti-Asian violence.
Holliday Smith reiterated her question about infill development but also asked the remaining candidates about their stance on Rental Assistance Demonstration, or RAD, which has sparked debate, including in the mayoral race, based on the fact that it allows for private management of public housing developments.
Morales and Menchaca voiced their opposition toward RAD.
"I am not in support of private developments on NYCHA land," said Morales.
Morales said she was supportive of "utilizing NYCHA properties and developments in order to further support the residents," and only if residents are able "to self-determine how their land is used." She listed urban farming developments, community land trusts, and workforce pipelines as some ideas of appropriate ways of utilizing NYCHA properties.
Citing NYCHA's roughly $40 billion need to get to a state of good repair, Holliday Smith pressed Morales to explain how she would fund improvements for the housing authority. To this, Morales said she has committed $2 billion in funding from the city budget, as well as leverage additional funding from Albany and the federal level, but she did not cite specific programs to bring in revenue and expressed opposition to RAD and infill.
Menchaca said he would divert $3 billion from the NYPD's budget. He also called the budget for the Department of Education "bloated" but did not say how much he would disinvest from it. Menchaca emphasized that any funding should come from the city first in order to galanvaze additional funding from Albany and the federal government.
Donovan took issue with those who equated RAD with privatization, saying, "RAD is shifting funding to Section 8, so that you can access far more funding and preserve public housing. It does not require privatization." Donvan said, "I am open to partnerships with nonprofits and others," he said, and he was adamant that public housing should be permanently affordable and public. "I am open to doing new development on NYCHA land that retains public ownership," Donovan added.
"We need to fix NYCHA without accessing more federal resources," Donovan said. "I would commit $2 billion a year of city capital," in addition to Section 8, which "could get us to the $40 billion within a few terms."
Asked how they would push for tenant protections in buildings that are being converted to private management under RAD, Morales and Menchaca said they would protect residents by stopping any shifts toward the involvement of private companies altogether.
In cases where privatization is already taking place, Morales said she was supportive of tenants' 'right-to-counsel' to avoid eviction and "taking on those private managers who are attempting to circumvent the protections that were supposed to be made available to our tenants." She said she would try to reverse any deals in place as soon as she took offices.
"I think what is happening is these programs are being implemented badly," said Donovan, who pointed out, "If someone is eligible to live in public housing, they're eligible to stay with Section 8." Donovan said that if private managers were failing to effectively protect tenants, then "I would take it back at NYCHA, and I would do it as a public process a hundred percent of the way through and ensure that we're actually getting results."
On homelessness, Morales reiterated her support for providing permanent affordable housing for all, which she proposed could be accomplished by exercising "eminent domain to get ownership of buildings that are financially distressed or just abandoned and transfer those things to community control."
She called for moving away from the shelter system, calling it "a very expensive and ineffective model."
Menchaca decried "the warehousing of our neighbors" in reference to the city's shelter system and voice support for expanded rental assistance. "We also need to convert our hotel and commercial, empty spaces to permanent and supportive housing," he said.
"We ended veteran homelessness in 80 cities," said Donovan of his experience as HUD secretary under President Obama. "The way that we do that is reimagine our right to shelter in this city as a right to housing." In addition to investing in permanent housing, Donovan called for the creation of a coordinated system "where every time someone leaves Rikers, leaves the mental health wing of one of our public hospitals, they are directed directly to the resources they need."
Asked how they would ensure code enforcement among landlords, Donovan was the most specific, saying he "would create an early warning system that would ensure we're targeting buildings," including tenant-owned cooperatives. He said he "would revamp the J-51," a tax incentive for building owners who renovate their buildings. Donovan also promised to "connect residents in those buildings to rental assistance much more effectively."
Donovan and Menchaca said they would make sure the Department of Housing Preservation and Development exercises its power to make repairs in emergency situations.
Morales proposed "a sort of grading system for landlords that would impose increasing fines or penalties for folks who failed to do that [code enforcement]." She also called for "support services for tenants" to file reports and "advocate for their needs" but did not explain further.
To Tackle Homelessness, Santa Fe Found a Better Plan
Mar. 4, 2021
Nine leading candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to be New York City's next mayor appeared at a recent virtual forum to offer their stances on issues critical to tenants. Two-thirds of New Yorkers are renters, which means the forum provided candidates a crucial opportunity to impress a large and important group of voters with their policy ideas to solve the city's housing problems, especially amid a pandemic that has exacerbated existing inequities.
At the February 27 forum co-hosted by tenants advocacy groups Tenants PAC, Tenants & Neighbors, and Met Council Action, the candidates discussed a range of tenant-centric topics, including rent stabilization, land use, NYCHA, code enforcement, homelessness, evictions, affordable and permanent housing, the shelter system, and more.
While candidates found some common ground on moving away from the city's shelter system toward more permanent and affordable housing, as well as support for rent stabilization and reforming Mayor Bill de Blasio's mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) program, they varied on cancelling rent, how they would generate revenue, steps for improving NYCHA, and more.
Questions were posed by tenants and moderator Rachel Holliday Smith, a reporter with THE CITY, to participating candidates: Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, former federal housing secretary and city housing commissioner Shaun Donovan, former city sanitation commissioner Kathryn Garcia, former Wall Street executive Ray McGuire, former nonprofit executive Dianne Morales, city Comptroller Scott Stringer, Maya Wiley, a civil rights attorney and former counsel to Mayor de Blasio, and Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and recent presidential candidate.
Several lightning rounds were embedded throughout the forum, in which candidates answered questions with only yes or no responses. In the first lightning round, candidates were asked if they were tenants, to which only Menchaca, Stringer, and Yang said yes. (Yang owns an upstate home where he controversially spent much of the worst months of the pandemic, but rents in his primary residence in Manhattan.)
Candidates were also asked if they were refusing donations from landlords and real estate developers. Adams, Garcia, McGuire, Wiley, and Yang said no, while Donovan, Menchaca, Morales, and Stringer said yes -- though Stringer's answer to this semi-regular question was again qualified by him saying he's no longer accepting money from "big" real estate developers, given he shifted his approach after previously raising money from real estate interests.
Asked if they would support a rent rollback or rent decrease for rent-regulated apartments via the city's Rent Guidelines Board, candidates were divided in their responses. Adams, Donovan, Garcia, McGuire, Wiley, and Yang said no. Menchaca and Morales said yes. Stringer said he was "open to rollback in certain circumstances."
Candidates were also divided on 'cancelling rent and mortgages' as a result of pandemic-era hardships and nonpayments. Adams, Menchaca, Morales, and Stringer said they were supportive, while Donovan, Garcia, McGuire, Wiley, and Yang said they were not. (It was not immediately clear what the specific definition of canceling rent and mortgages was meant to be in the question, so candidates appeared to assume it meant for everyone, while much of the policy debates surround taking such action for those who have been unable to pay due to loss of income as a result of the pandemic.)
Candidates unanimously agreed that the city's affordable housing lottery was unfair. Since it was a lightning round, there was no discussion of how to fix it.
For the first longer question, candidates were unanimous in their support for rent regulation as a policy, but their explanations showed some differences.
Wiley and Yang voiced explicit support for an eviction moratorium during the coronavirus pandemic. "Their decision to freeze rents in 2020 was the right kind of move," said Yang of the Rent Guidelines Board, a nine-member entity that oversees the rent stabilization system in New York City, including determining rent adjustments. "The people I would appoint would take a very similar tack," he said, adding, "I'm also for an eviction moratorium 'right to counsel,'" referring to ensuring free legal representation for those facing eviction, which the city has a version of.
Wiley and Adams both took personal approaches to the question. Wiley recalled what it was like to "watch my whole neighborhood displaced when landlords increased their rents, and I got pushed out," and Adams attested of his childhood, "I know what it is to be on the verge of homelesslessnes."
"We have to create rent subsidies," Wiley said, likely meaning additional ones to the many that currently exist, while Adams suggested, "We could expand the Rent Guidelines Board to ensure that economists are on the board, as well, to help deal with the changing economics of our city." Adams also cited his experience as a building owner, claiming he has never raised his tenants' rents in more than a decade.
McGuire also voiced support for "supplementing the rent with rent subsidies," then decried "rising rents" for "[driving] people out of their neighborhoods." McGuire was the only candidate to suggest providing "support for the small building owners who are also small businesses," citing his economic recovery plan that would in part provide financial relief options to small landlords.
In addition to Wiley, Donovan connected rent regulation to the homelessness crisis, saying "It's why I've entered public service to ensure that housing is central to people's lives." Donovan and Garcia also acknowledged the impact of rent regulation on other aspects of tenants' lives, with Garcia noting that stable affordable housing ensures "you have access to education, you are able to hold a job more easily."
Morales and Stringer spotlighted their experiences as tenant organizers as evidence of their dedication to advocating for rent regulation. Morales emphasized her plans for sweeping reform; Stringer cited his "pro-tenant voting record" and legislative experience.
"When I was in the State Assembly, and the State Legislature tried to weaken the rent laws and they did that successfully, I was a lone voice to say 'no' and voted 'no' both in 1993 and 1997," said Stringer.
"I think we need to guarantee housing for all in New York City," said Morales. "We need to move toward making sure that rents are affordable for everyone, and that includes advocating and pushing for freezes around rent regulated apartments and also looking into what other reforms in the city Charter and outside the city Charter we can make to permanently protect our residents and our tenants and guarantee housing for everyone."
Menchaca emphasized campaign finance reform in order to ensure that landlord and developer money cannot sway politics. Menchaca positioned himself as an enemy of real estate developers, saying, "As someone who has been constantly attacked by the REBNY forces, since I first ran in 2013, I can see that power." He went on to add, "We need more pro-tenant structures that don't require immigrants and others to have to fight every single time there's going to be a vote, so that we can actually freeze rents, and I think that part of what we need to do is repeal Urstadt Law."
Candidates unanimously pledged to appoint public members to the Rent Guidelines Board who would prioritize affordable rent over profits for landlords, with many citing their track records on affordable housing and community partnerships.
"Look, I probably testified to the Rent Guidelines Board more than most people for many, many years" and "you can see the data being manipulated on behalf of landlords," said Stringer. He credited Mayor de Blasio "for leveling the playing field" for tenants and promised he would "appoint people with deep experience to advocate on behalf of tenants."
Garcia concurred with Stringer's point about data, saying, "We need to ensure that we are following the data and not getting manipulated regarding what the numbers show."
Like Stringer, Donovan touted his record of "working with resident leaders across the city...to make sure that residents had a real voice in their communities," citing his work on Via Verde, an affordable housing development in the South Bronx he helped create in partnership with community members when he was the city's housing commissioner during the Bloomberg administration, and where he kicked off his mayoral campaign last year. Donovan also spotlighted his experience working "with tenant leaders like Damaris Reyes of Good Old Lower East Side and so many others around this city."
Wiley cited her experience in the de Blasio administration, saying, "I was part of a team that ensured that Rachel Godsil was appointed to chair it [the Rent Guidelines Board] in 2014, which was the first instance in which we had the lowest [rent increases] because she was deeply committed as a civil rights attorney to making sure that what we were doing was preserving the rights of tenants and protecting housing." Wiley connected this to her own experience as a civil rights attorney.
"I would go one step further," said McGuire, "and make sure that you had appropriate representation for those New Yorkers who currently live in rent-regulated apartments."
Morales and Menchaca both emphasized collaborating with community advocates to determine who their appointees should be on the Rent Guidelines Board.
"The public representatives of a rent guidelines board should be people who are impacted by the rent," said Menchaca. He continued, saying, "I'll also make sure that the landlords who are on this board are the landlords that represent the kind of landlords that we want in the city of New York, that can actually be sensitive to the tenant rights that often get pushed aside." Menchaca said he is the candidate to fulfill these promises because he is a renter himself and his "leadership style" as a City Council member "has been in true co-governance, in movement with renters."
Adams defended landlords of color who own smaller properties, like himself, pointing out, "Black wealth is tied in their real estate."
"I think we need to really separate the micro apartments from the major apartments," he said, rationalizing that if small Black building owners "lose that real estate, we will displace tenants, and you will see gentrification in the city. But he did not connect his point to the question of appointees to the Rent Guidelines Board.
Yang emphasized community engagement in his response, saying that tenants would have opportunities to speak with his public RGB member appointees "to tell them what's going on in your communities because they will be there to serve you."
In the next lightning round, all candidates unanimously agreed to boost code enforcement in all five boroughs; to support passage of Intro 146, a bill to increase CityFHEPS voucher amounts to reflect market rents in New York City; and to support passage of Intros 1104 and 1529, which would increase right-to-counsel income eligibility thresholds and expand the law to cover more eviction cases.
Holliday Smith then cited the de Blasio administration's mandatory inclusionary housing program, which mandates at least 25% of units in new housing development that gets a density bonus be rent-regulated under certain affordability thresholds, which range significantly from affordable for very low-income to middle-income residents. The policy has been criticized for not being targeted more fully toward lower incomes and de Blasio's implementation of it has been roundly panned because he has not pushed city-backed rezonings to make sure it is regularly utilized in wealthier neighborhoods, where it is designed to be used, and he has instead rezoned a series of lower-income communities of color, where MIH is far less effective and more city subsidies are needed to ensure lower-income housing, while also risking the acceleration of gentrification and displacement. Overall, the mayor's housing plan has been criticized by many Democrats, including mayoral candidates, for not being more appropriately targeted to address the crisis of affordability, and therefore homelessness, faced by the city's low and very low-income residents.
Asked how they would define affordable housing and what the goal income level should be for households to be eligible for affording housing, most candidates avoided specifying income in numbers, while also proposing different solutions for expanding affordable housing.
Stringer, Garcia, and McGuire were the only candidates to specify income brackets in their definitions of low-income housing, with Stringer and Garcia agreeing that it should be defined as "$30,000 for a family of three," something Garcia also noted is included in her housing plan.
McGuire differed in his response, saying, "Deeply affordable housing is people making below $50,000."
Morales, Adams, Donovan, and Menchaca did not specify exact figures but did agree that tenants should not pay more than 30% of their incomes on rent, generally the threshold used to determine if someone is rent-burdened.
Yang differed slightly, saying of what's affordable that "We should be defining it [affordable housing] as 40 to 50% of median income, as opposed to the 70 or 80% that the developers would prefer."
Menchaca cited his experience as a Council member, saying, "We were, as a community, able to get the apartments down to 30% of AMI [Area Median Income]. I think that's deeply affordable in Sunset Park."
Holliday Smith pressed Morales, Adams, and Wiley in particular to specify their views on the maximum income bracket to qualify for affordable housing, but they all declined.
"It depends on the family," said Adams. "A family of four living in Park Slope is different from a family of four living in South Jamaica, Queens. It's not clear cut and dry."
Wiley said she would follow up with a specific figure as part of her yet-released housing plan. She spotlighted her $10 billion capital spending program, which would create 100,000 jobs and allocate $2 billion for improvements to NYCHA housing.
Yang noted that NYCHA "is some of the only truly affordable housing in our city," adding, "We need to invest in that and actually make it something the city can be proud of." He did not disclose how much he would invest in NYCHA.
Of his affordable housing plan, Stringer said, "I want to take the estimated 3,000 vacant parcels of land in the city — from vacant open space to a whole host of different areas, we've identified it — I want to give that land back to the people to community-based organizations to build the housing that we actually need." He also reiterated one of his main housing plan planks: affordability caps for 25% of the housing in any new developments anywhere in the city.
"The single most important thing we need here is rental assistance," said Donovan. "It's why I've been working with the incoming Biden administration on a proposal for universal voucher assistance."
Both Morales and Garcia called for converting vacant office spaces, commercial storefronts, and hotels into affordable housing units. They stressed that it was something the city could accomplish immediately, as opposed to other housing reforms, which would require more time, though those conversions also take significant time.
Morales called for an overhaul of the mandatory inclusionary housing program, saying, "We need to move away from this speculative market that commodifies housing, that provides incentives and subsidies to developers and prioritize community development" via "eminent domain and community land trusts."
Menchaca noted that affordable housing efforts should "[remove] any barriers to undocumnented immigrants" by investing money into "language access."
At this point in the forum, Wiley and McGuire had to leave for other appointments, but said they would answer the remaining questions in writing, to be shared later.
Keeping in mind the current budget constraints as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, candidates were asked how they would pay for affordable housing and whether or not it should be prioritized. All candidates agreed it should be prioritized, but proposed different funding strategies.
Morales and Stringer said they would end the 421a tax abatement, which is controlled at the state level and Stringer called "a landlord giveaway," and redirect that money toward affordable housing.
"We need to explore new taxes like the implementation of a land value tax, a vacancy tax — I know that involves going to Albany, but I'm ready to do that," said Morales. She also called for taxing "landlords that are warehousing spaces for speculative reasons."
Stringer noted that the city is expected to receive "about $5.6 billion in federal stimulus money," which he said an unspecified amount could be used for housing. Lastly, he called on Albany to implement a wealth tax.
Morales and Menchaca voiced support for the Invest In Our New York Act, a package of tax increases estimated to raise $50 billion, with plans for investment for housing, as well as healthcare, education, and other sectors.
"We could actually bring $100 billion in the next four years to do things like pay for the $32 billion of deferred maintenance in NYCHA, actually bring a public bank, and finance affordable housing," said Menchaca of the city's capital budget.
Garcia called for moving away from the shelter system "which costs a lot and gives us very little back" in favor of building permanent housing instead.
"I've made a commitment along the lines of the recommendations of United For Housing," said Donovan, referring to an affordable housing advocacy coalition of more than 80 organizations across the city, "to increase our capital commitment from the city by $4 billion...and to increase what we spend from the expense side to get to half-a-billion dollars a year on the city voucher program."
Donovan again flexed his connections in Washington D.C., saying, "I'm best positioned of any of the candidates to win that help from D.C. given my deep experience." He added, "We could get tens of billions of dollars for public housing if we access options through Section 8 that are available," referring to the federal rent assistance program. "I propose creating a citywide inclusionary program and other steps, as well," he briefly mentioned of other housing policy.
Adams decried upzonings in low-income communities, saying he would "upzone in affluent areas, where you have transit-rich communities, great schools, access to healthy food." On funding, Adams said, "It's time to spend our capital dollars. Interest rates are low. This is the time to build, not to cut." He also again proposed selling NYCHA's air rights for $8 billion in order to "make it more livable." Lastly, he suggested "[investing] in new low-income home ownership, such as Nehemiah houses and the Mitchell-Lama program."
While Yang did not propose specific funding strategies, he called for "relaxing some of the regulations on what housing units can look like" in order to convert vacant office and commercial spaces "and get people affordable housing right now instead of waiting for the developers to get their acts together after we improve the incentives."
Just before the next series of lightning-round questions, Stringer left the forum to attend another event.
Asked if they would prioritize the conversion of hotels for unhoused New Yorkers, remaining candidates -- Menchaca, Garcia, Donovan, Adams, Yang, and Morales -- unanimously said yes.
Garcia then had to leave the event.
Asked if they would support rent control for commercial tenants and if they would help pass the Small Business Jobs Survival Act, candidates were more divided.
"Yes, I support some [commercial] rent control. I don't believe the act is the right way to do it. So, it's a yes and no," said Donovan.
After some back-and-forth, Yang said no.
Adams said no.
Morales and Menchaca both said yes.
Asked if they would require that any housing built on public land be permanently affordable to low- and extremely low-income New Yorkers, Menchaca said yes, Donovan said yes, Morales said yes; and Yang and Adams said they would include moderate-income New Yorkers, too.
Candidates were asked if they support NYCHA 'infill development,' utilizing public housing land to build new private housing, though there are various proposals for what that housing would be like in terms of affordability, who would be able to access the units, and more.
Adams didn't directly answer the question at first, calling for incorporating more technology into NYCHA, such as "QR codes on buildings to see the repairs" and "use drones to inspect rooftops," as well as "[weeding] out the corruption and mismanagement." After Holliday Smith pressed him for a more direct response, Adams said he is open to infill development on NYCHA land as long as NYCHA tenants are not displaced. He again mentioned the idea of moving current NYCHA residents into the new units created through the development, thus freeing up NYCHA space for new tenants -- though he didn't mention it, some see this as a path to moving older NYCHA residents who live alone out of multi-bedroom apartments and into one-bedroom apartments so larger families can access the larger NYCHA apartments.
"I'm generally against this form of infill development. I don't think it solves the problem," said Yang. "I think that a lot of the friction we're describing is because too many NYCHA residents don't feel like they have a say in how the land is being used, how their communities are being run. One of the things I proposed is that the NYCHA board, instead of being minority tenants, should be majority tenants." But, he said, if NYCHA tenant leaders supported infill development, then he would consider it.
At this point in the forum, Adams and Yang had to leave in order to attend a rally related to the recent instances of anti-Asian violence.
Holliday Smith reiterated her question about infill development but also asked the remaining candidates about their stance on Rental Assistance Demonstration, or RAD, which has sparked debate, including in the mayoral race, based on the fact that it allows for private management of public housing developments.
Morales and Menchaca voiced their opposition toward RAD.
"I am not in support of private developments on NYCHA land," said Morales.
Morales said she was supportive of "utilizing NYCHA properties and developments in order to further support the residents," and only if residents are able "to self-determine how their land is used." She listed urban farming developments, community land trusts, and workforce pipelines as some ideas of appropriate ways of utilizing NYCHA properties.
Citing NYCHA's roughly $40 billion need to get to a state of good repair, Holliday Smith pressed Morales to explain how she would fund improvements for the housing authority. To this, Morales said she has committed $2 billion in funding from the city budget, as well as leverage additional funding from Albany and the federal level, but she did not cite specific programs to bring in revenue and expressed opposition to RAD and infill.
Menchaca said he would divert $3 billion from the NYPD's budget. He also called the budget for the Department of Education "bloated" but did not say how much he would disinvest from it. Menchaca emphasized that any funding should come from the city first in order to galanvaze additional funding from Albany and the federal government.
Donovan took issue with those who equated RAD with privatization, saying, "RAD is shifting funding to Section 8, so that you can access far more funding and preserve public housing. It does not require privatization." Donvan said, "I am open to partnerships with nonprofits and others," he said, and he was adamant that public housing should be permanently affordable and public. "I am open to doing new development on NYCHA land that retains public ownership," Donovan added.
"We need to fix NYCHA without accessing more federal resources," Donovan said. "I would commit $2 billion a year of city capital," in addition to Section 8, which "could get us to the $40 billion within a few terms."
Asked how they would push for tenant protections in buildings that are being converted to private management under RAD, Morales and Menchaca said they would protect residents by stopping any shifts toward the involvement of private companies altogether.
In cases where privatization is already taking place, Morales said she was supportive of tenants' 'right-to-counsel' to avoid eviction and "taking on those private managers who are attempting to circumvent the protections that were supposed to be made available to our tenants." She said she would try to reverse any deals in place as soon as she took offices.
"I think what is happening is these programs are being implemented badly," said Donovan, who pointed out, "If someone is eligible to live in public housing, they're eligible to stay with Section 8." Donovan said that if private managers were failing to effectively protect tenants, then "I would take it back at NYCHA, and I would do it as a public process a hundred percent of the way through and ensure that we're actually getting results."
On homelessness, Morales reiterated her support for providing permanent affordable housing for all, which she proposed could be accomplished by exercising "eminent domain to get ownership of buildings that are financially distressed or just abandoned and transfer those things to community control."
She called for moving away from the shelter system, calling it "a very expensive and ineffective model."
Menchaca decried "the warehousing of our neighbors" in reference to the city's shelter system and voice support for expanded rental assistance. "We also need to convert our hotel and commercial, empty spaces to permanent and supportive housing," he said.
"We ended veteran homelessness in 80 cities," said Donovan of his experience as HUD secretary under President Obama. "The way that we do that is reimagine our right to shelter in this city as a right to housing." In addition to investing in permanent housing, Donovan called for the creation of a coordinated system "where every time someone leaves Rikers, leaves the mental health wing of one of our public hospitals, they are directed directly to the resources they need."
Asked how they would ensure code enforcement among landlords, Donovan was the most specific, saying he "would create an early warning system that would ensure we're targeting buildings," including tenant-owned cooperatives. He said he "would revamp the J-51," a tax incentive for building owners who renovate their buildings. Donovan also promised to "connect residents in those buildings to rental assistance much more effectively."
Donovan and Menchaca said they would make sure the Department of Housing Preservation and Development exercises its power to make repairs in emergency situations.
Morales proposed "a sort of grading system for landlords that would impose increasing fines or penalties for folks who failed to do that [code enforcement]." She also called for "support services for tenants" to file reports and "advocate for their needs" but did not explain further.
To Tackle Homelessness, Santa Fe Found a Better Plan
CityLab
Mar. 4, 2021
For years, the plan for solving homelessness in Santa Fe wasn't much of a plan at all. As in a lot of communities, reaction was the rule. Cleaning up encampments only meant chasing them from one part of the city to another. The city didn't have a data-driven strategy; it couldn't boast a people-oriented focus, either. Different agencies saw unique parts of the problem, but rarely the whole issue. By 2018, New Mexico topped U.S. lists for the percentage of people experiencing chronic homelessness. "We spent a lot of money not solving the problem," said Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber.
Late that year, Webber decided to try something different. He committed the city to the "Built for Zero" strategy, an administrative philosophy that focuses on better use of data and coordination to tackle homelessness. Santa Fe is one of more than 80 communities that have taken up the Built For Zero pledge, a commitment to reduce homelessness to a standard called "functional zero."
When the coronavirus pandemic arrived a little more than a year later, the city was better prepared for a public health crisis that exposed vulnerable unhoused populations while threatening to increase their number. As the mayor explained during the CityLab 2021 conference, he came to see Santa Fe's main congregate shelter as the city's version of a cruise ship, a bottled-up environment where Covid-19 would spread unchecked. Santa Fe was better able to address the challenge than it would have been before the city shifted gears, since it knew a great deal more about the people involved. In November 2020, the city bought a defunct hotel to create 122 affordable studio apartments for people without housing or struggling to keep their homes through the economic crisis. The city used $2 million in CARES Act funds along with $6 million from Community Solutions, the nonprofit organization behind the Built for Zero model. For Santa Fe, the pandemic unlocked a rare opportunity to address chronic homelessness.
"There is more money coming into homelessness services with the CARES Act than the field has ever seen at one time," said Rosanne Haggerty, president and CEO of Community Solutions, during the conference, hosted by Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute.
It's hard for public health experts to say how much the pandemic has deepened the homelessness problem in U.S. cities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires Continuums of Care — cities, counties or special coordinating bodies that serve unhoused people — to perform biennial counts of the homeless population. But this year's point-in-time count didn't get off the ground in Santa Fe or many other cities, leaving administrators without one clear indicator for how things have changed since 2019.
Yet the point-in-time counts can only do so much: Critics say they suffer from flaws under the best of circumstances. Real-time, by-name listings for people experiencing homelessness are the foundation for Built for Zero. By sharing comprehensive data between shelters, clinics, nonprofits and public health departments, leaders can tailor housing solutions and wrap-around services to specific individuals.
"We come at this viewing health as a very broad issue," said John Vu, vice president of strategy for community health at Kaiser Permanente, which has helped to implement Built for Zero across 25 of its communities and in 7 states and the District of Columbia. "It's not just the coverage we provide and the health-care services but all these other factors. Affordable housing and homelessness is one of those."
Federal dollars make it possible to implement some of the permanent supportive housing solutions that shelter providers and affordable housing advocates have asked for for years. State authorities in California closed on 94 properties in 2020, using $750 million in CARES Act funds to provide more than 6,000 long-term housing units for people facing homelessness. More resources are coming as part of the coronavirus relief package passed by Congress in December and the third measure currently being weighed by lawmakers.
Better data is key to making the most of federal resources, the panelists said. So is organization: Central to the Built for Zero method is a command center to coordinate the work of volunteers, doctors and administrators. "The by-name information really means that you have the capacity to match a dynamic problem with a dynamic system," Haggerty said. "We know what is going on in real time, and where to intervene."
While people often feel good about the work they are doing to help unhoused people, Webber said, it doesn't always add up to meaningful change without a systemic approach. The Built for Zero model is replicable, he said, and it can help cities break out of well-intentioned habits that aren't working, like maintaining separate datasets and pursuing siloed efforts to address a single need.
People don't always love to be told to fundamentally re-think how they do their work, but adopting Built for Zero means that groups need to find ways to come together. Kathy Shaheen, mayor of Albany, New York, offered an example. There's a privately funded emergency shelter in Albany — part of a national network of faith-based ministries — that doesn't work with the rest of the city, she says. At night, it offers people a place to sleep, but during the day it turns them out, offering no real opportunity for services. "We have a homeless shelter that is basically a superstore," Shaheen said, instead of a local operator that coordinates with the city's overall strategy.
Change is hard, even for people who believe in change, said Webber, acknowledging that adopting the Built for Zero methodology or incorporating new strategies with CARES Act dollars were not seamless transitions.
Haggerty said that there is an opportunity now to grab the brass ring — to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring — and mayors and county executives are in a special position to build a coalition to achieve change, even if some people are reluctant to accept it at first. "This is very much a model we see for the complex human services problem that surround homelessness," Haggerty said. "It's a problem of a broken system. It's really not about individuals and their misfortune."
Mar. 4, 2021
For years, the plan for solving homelessness in Santa Fe wasn't much of a plan at all. As in a lot of communities, reaction was the rule. Cleaning up encampments only meant chasing them from one part of the city to another. The city didn't have a data-driven strategy; it couldn't boast a people-oriented focus, either. Different agencies saw unique parts of the problem, but rarely the whole issue. By 2018, New Mexico topped U.S. lists for the percentage of people experiencing chronic homelessness. "We spent a lot of money not solving the problem," said Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber.
Late that year, Webber decided to try something different. He committed the city to the "Built for Zero" strategy, an administrative philosophy that focuses on better use of data and coordination to tackle homelessness. Santa Fe is one of more than 80 communities that have taken up the Built For Zero pledge, a commitment to reduce homelessness to a standard called "functional zero."
When the coronavirus pandemic arrived a little more than a year later, the city was better prepared for a public health crisis that exposed vulnerable unhoused populations while threatening to increase their number. As the mayor explained during the CityLab 2021 conference, he came to see Santa Fe's main congregate shelter as the city's version of a cruise ship, a bottled-up environment where Covid-19 would spread unchecked. Santa Fe was better able to address the challenge than it would have been before the city shifted gears, since it knew a great deal more about the people involved. In November 2020, the city bought a defunct hotel to create 122 affordable studio apartments for people without housing or struggling to keep their homes through the economic crisis. The city used $2 million in CARES Act funds along with $6 million from Community Solutions, the nonprofit organization behind the Built for Zero model. For Santa Fe, the pandemic unlocked a rare opportunity to address chronic homelessness.
"There is more money coming into homelessness services with the CARES Act than the field has ever seen at one time," said Rosanne Haggerty, president and CEO of Community Solutions, during the conference, hosted by Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute.
It's hard for public health experts to say how much the pandemic has deepened the homelessness problem in U.S. cities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires Continuums of Care — cities, counties or special coordinating bodies that serve unhoused people — to perform biennial counts of the homeless population. But this year's point-in-time count didn't get off the ground in Santa Fe or many other cities, leaving administrators without one clear indicator for how things have changed since 2019.
Yet the point-in-time counts can only do so much: Critics say they suffer from flaws under the best of circumstances. Real-time, by-name listings for people experiencing homelessness are the foundation for Built for Zero. By sharing comprehensive data between shelters, clinics, nonprofits and public health departments, leaders can tailor housing solutions and wrap-around services to specific individuals.
"We come at this viewing health as a very broad issue," said John Vu, vice president of strategy for community health at Kaiser Permanente, which has helped to implement Built for Zero across 25 of its communities and in 7 states and the District of Columbia. "It's not just the coverage we provide and the health-care services but all these other factors. Affordable housing and homelessness is one of those."
Federal dollars make it possible to implement some of the permanent supportive housing solutions that shelter providers and affordable housing advocates have asked for for years. State authorities in California closed on 94 properties in 2020, using $750 million in CARES Act funds to provide more than 6,000 long-term housing units for people facing homelessness. More resources are coming as part of the coronavirus relief package passed by Congress in December and the third measure currently being weighed by lawmakers.
Better data is key to making the most of federal resources, the panelists said. So is organization: Central to the Built for Zero method is a command center to coordinate the work of volunteers, doctors and administrators. "The by-name information really means that you have the capacity to match a dynamic problem with a dynamic system," Haggerty said. "We know what is going on in real time, and where to intervene."
While people often feel good about the work they are doing to help unhoused people, Webber said, it doesn't always add up to meaningful change without a systemic approach. The Built for Zero model is replicable, he said, and it can help cities break out of well-intentioned habits that aren't working, like maintaining separate datasets and pursuing siloed efforts to address a single need.
People don't always love to be told to fundamentally re-think how they do their work, but adopting Built for Zero means that groups need to find ways to come together. Kathy Shaheen, mayor of Albany, New York, offered an example. There's a privately funded emergency shelter in Albany — part of a national network of faith-based ministries — that doesn't work with the rest of the city, she says. At night, it offers people a place to sleep, but during the day it turns them out, offering no real opportunity for services. "We have a homeless shelter that is basically a superstore," Shaheen said, instead of a local operator that coordinates with the city's overall strategy.
Change is hard, even for people who believe in change, said Webber, acknowledging that adopting the Built for Zero methodology or incorporating new strategies with CARES Act dollars were not seamless transitions.
Haggerty said that there is an opportunity now to grab the brass ring — to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring — and mayors and county executives are in a special position to build a coalition to achieve change, even if some people are reluctant to accept it at first. "This is very much a model we see for the complex human services problem that surround homelessness," Haggerty said. "It's a problem of a broken system. It's really not about individuals and their misfortune."
Comments
Post a Comment