The Fight Continues Against Bloomberg’s Garbage Plan
July 29, 2009
While I was disappointed to learn of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) decision granting the City’s permit application for a Marine Transfer Station (MTS) at East 91st Street in my district (see the end of this post for the decision in full), the fight does not end here. In the Assembly, I continue to push my bill (A.6829/S.3112) to prohibit the siting of a solid waste transfer station within 800 feet of a public housing complex. I was pleased that my bill made progress this year and was passed by the Environmental Conservation and Codes Committees. I also strongly support the Gracie Point Community Council’s plans to file an Article 78 lawsuit in State Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the DEC ruling.
There is still time to put a full stop to this madness. How can the Bloomberg administration continue to argue that this makes sense even while the Department of Education prepares for the fall opening of the new PS 151 elementary school on East 91st Street between First and Second Avenues (See “Braced for Garbage,” Our Town, June 17, 2009)? The good news for us is that the Bloomberg Administration has not budgeted for the project for the upcoming fiscal year, pushing back implementation to 2011 at the earliest. Meanwhile, in addition to the Article 78 proceedings, an earlier lawsuit filed by Gracie Point Community Council arguing that the MTS is unlawful park alienation is still pending.
This project is taking longer and costing more than anyone ever imagined. If the Mayor was truly interested in fiscal discipline and efficient government, he’d abandon this boondoggle now. Elections have consequences.
The Upper East Side and East Harlem communities have repeatedly pointed out why this location is inappropriate–for the children who play outdoors at Asphalt Green, park-goers who use Carl Schurz Park, the East Side River Esplanade and Bobby Wagner Walk, the over 40,000 residents of surrounding residential high-rises, and public housing complexes like Stanley Isaacs Houses and John Haynes Homes.
The fact remains that this neighborhood is one of the most densely populated residential areas in all five boroughs. Had there not been an MTS in this location at some point in the past, it would be illegal to site one there today. The neighborhood that the former MTS was part of was a very different one. Gone are the light manufacturing uses and warehouses that once lined the East River–this is 2009, and this is a tightly packed network of high rise residential towers, housing projects, parks, and community facilities. The fact that once upon a time there was an MTS at this location has allowed the Mayor to exploit what amounts to a loophole in the law. In the City’s application, the proposed MTS was referred to as a “reactivation” of an existing MTS. This is hogwash, and it is more than disappointing that the DEC didn’t kick the City to the curb for such transparent word-smithing.
Please check back here for updates as more on this situation develops. I am posting the DEC’s decision in full below for your convenience.
7-27-09 DEC decision on marine transfer stn
Taxing Gym Memberships is NOT Good Public Policy
February 25, 2009
In these tough economic times we are all trying to tighten spending and increase revenue, including New York State, as we negotiate this difficult budget. Everyone agrees that sacrifices need to be made across the board and these sacrifices are glaringly evident in Governor Paterson’s 2009-10 Executive Budget. While I understand the need to create revenue, I don’t agree that one of the answers to this problem is to impose a new tax on health club memberships and services.
At the same time that the Governor proposes this tax he has more famously put forward a new tax on sugared drinks, purportedly to fight against obesity. For several months, I have been flooded with letters from constituents who are confused about this contradiction and I agree with them.
We can’t on one hand penalize people for drinking too many empty calories in a soda and on the other penalize them for trying to be healthier on the tread mill at their local sports club. It doesn’t make any sense. As the budget negotiations in Albany continue I will fight for a budget which takes our current economic troubles into account while at the same time ensuring that New Yorkers are not unfairly burdened.
I have written Governor Paterson to let him know of my opposition to the tax on gym memberships. That letter can be found in the Publications section of my website.
The Executive Budget: Beginning the Conversation About Shared Sacrifice
December 19, 2008
Governor David Paterson presents the 2009-10 Executive Budget to the NYS Legislature.
As we all expected, the Executive Budget is the result of a painful reality of our difficult economic situation. It demonstrates what we have known for months: balancing the budget will require shared sacrifice.
I am very aware of the obligation that I share with my colleagues to ensure that necessary cuts and tax increases are done in such a way to ensures that higher education remains affordable, the commitment to funding our schools is maintained, quality health care is available to every New Yorker, and that mass transit is adequately funded.
There are many cuts that I am uncomfortable with as I am sure the Governor is. As an example, Senator Tom Duane and I wrote to Governor Paterson in November to ask that the relatively small amount of funding allocated for the Bridges to Health program be maintained, only to discover today that its funds have been frozen and its full implementation delayed for many years. This is a program to provide services to medically fragile, severely traumatized, and chronically disabled children in the foster care system. I will continue to advocate for its funding.
Despite this, I respect that the Governor made tough choices from a poor set of available options and I did not envy his task. Over 50% of our state’s spending is designated to healthcare and education, so it is impossible to avoid cuts in these areas when balancing our budget. I also know that our budget can’t be balanced on cuts, nor would I want it to be. You have probably heard that the Governor has proposed a new range of taxes and fees, some of which have gotten more attention than others (like the ’sweet tax’ proposed tax on non-diet soda drinks which Governor Paterson recently defended in an editorial posted on CNN.com).
Two of these fee increases concerned drivers; the first is a 25% increase on car registration fees and the second is a 25% increase in driver license fees. I wrote to the Governor in November to suggest these fee increases (see my blog post on this topic, Increasing Driver License, Car Registration Fees Could Raise $550 Million for Cash-Starved MTA), and I am happy to see them included in the budget. But I am disappointed that these fees are not designated for mass transit funding as I suggested, but rather to plug holes in the general operating budget. It is important to me to ensure that even as we repair the massive shortfalls in the 2009 budget we plan for mass transit funding for the future. Designating funding for mass transit from drivers’ fees can achieve both.
We are in the midst of an unprecedented global financial crisis that threatens our economic security. People are losing their jobs and their homes. Pensions are losing their value and families are making horrible choices about necessities. I have no doubt that we will pass a budget that contains significant cuts in spending and increases in fees and taxes. And I will continue to demand that this sacrifice is shared and not shouldered by the most vulnerable New Yorkers. Continuing to advocate for more progressive tax structures is one way that I will work to achieve this.
It is very important to me to hear what you think about the Executive Budget. It is by no means a final version of what we will pass in 2009. The Governor himself emphasized yesterday that it is a starting point for dialogue. The PDF of the Governor’s presentation can be found on his 2009-10 Executive Budget website.
Increasing Driver License, Car Registration Fees Could Raise $550 Million for Cash-Starved MTA
December 1, 2008
So it’s “official,” our country has been in a recession since December, 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which announced the non-news earlier this morning.
Of course, we already knew this to be true for many months. On November 20th, MTA CEO Elliot Sander told the MTA Board, that new economic forecasts show projected deficit gaps of “$383 million for 2008, $1.441 billion for 2009, $2.394 billion for 2010, and nearly $3 billion in 2012, before prior-year carryover or gap closing actions.”
As I’ve blogged before, I am very concerned about the fiscal outlook for the MTA and how cuts to services, capital projects, system maintenance, and increased user fees will impact riders. But the negative effects spillover beyond transit users. The MTA is the lifeblood of the New York metropolitan area and when it suffers, so does the regional economy.
On September 15th, the Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) testified before the Ravitch Commission and outlined a number of practical suggestions for how to increase dedicated mass transit revenue.
Today, I wrote to Governor Paterson to urge that two CBC proposals be included in his 2009 Executive budget: Raising car registration fees and driver license fees by at least $50 annually.
When CBC President Carol Kellermann testified before the Ravitch Commission she noted that today the cost for a driver license in New York is under $6 annually. Raising annual fees for driver licenses to $50 would yield nearly $300 million. New York has the 8th lowest vehicle registration fees in the country (according to the CBC’s 2006 study South Carolina has the lowest at $12, and Maine has the highest at $435), and raising the vehicle registration fees would net an additional annual revenue stream of $250 million.
With the Ravitch Commission’s report due to be released on Friday, now is the time to be examining all the options including this one and other good ideas like reinstituting the commuter tax.
Recently, New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. outlined a proposal to impose a weight-based transit-dedicated assessment of $100 for vehicles weighing 2,300 pounds or less, plus $.09 for every pound of curb weight over 2,300. This is an interesting idea that I believe merits further study. It differs from the CBC proposal which would see a flat fee increase for car registration fees.
In these tough financial times, I believe that it makes sense that those who choose to drive should help bear the costs of maintaining our public transportation infrastructure. These two new recurring revenue streams would constitute a good start in getting the MTA’s finances back on track.
In my letter, I suggested that during the first two to three years of this budget crisis, the MTA be given the flexibility it needs to put this revenue towards its operating deficit. But in the long term this money should be used for capital needs. After the third year I suggested that these recurring funds be dedicated 70% towards the MTA’s capital plan and 30% towards the NYS Department of Transportation Five Year Capital Plan - a fund which finances highway, tunnel, and bridge projects across the state.
I told the Governor that if these proposals were not included in the budget, I was prepared to introduce them as a separate piece of legislation. My letter to Governor Paterson can be found in the Publications area of my website.
Assembly Protects Health Care Funding, Schools in Budget Negotiations
August 22, 2008
As the nation’s economic picture worsens, New York has been faced with tough choices about how to keep our fiscal house in order. Earlier this week, the legislature went into special session to find ways to reduce public spending. After difficult negotiations, the Assembly passed a bill that would limit spending by more than $1 billion over the next year and half – reducing this year’s budget by $411 million and next year’s by $600 million. On Wednesday, the revised budget was finalized and signed by the Governor.
I am proud of the tough stance the Assembly took on property taxes. The “circuit breaker” approach what we passed represents real and immediate tax relief to working- and middle-class renters and homeowners, without damaging the fiscal stability of our schools. Maintaining funds for our schools, and holding the State to the task of living up to the principles of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity court decision were major priorities for me personally, and I was proud to work with my colleagues in holding to those principles during such a difficult time.
What’s a ‘circuit breaker’? A lot of people have been asking me that question especially since I was quoted in a New York Sun article on Tuesday, saying that I support that bill (A.11838) instead of a property tax cap. The video (put out by the New York State United Teachers - NYSUT) above gives a very short answer. The union, which represents New York State teachers, has a more complete FAQ on their website.
The Assembly fought hard to ensure that the revised budget avoided deeper cuts to core health care services, like Medicaid. But there is much about the cuts that were approved, like the reductions in premiums paid to insurers (and so ultimately to doctors), that concerns me greatly. I am also disappointed by the reduction of aid to the City University of New York (CUNY). And I was dismayed that funds for accessible polling stations were chopped.
The Governor issued this press release which gives an accounting of the cuts, which are largely across-the-board 6% spending reductions, with some important excceptions. Also, here is a link to a video of the press conference held by Governor Paterson, Assembly Speaker Silver, and other leaders of the Legislature after the budget was finalized.
Another MTA Fare Hike: It Doesn’t Have to be Déjà Vu (all over again)
July 22, 2008
Just last year, I stood on the steps of City Hall with Gene Russianoff of NYPIRG’s Straphangers Campaign to protest an MTA fare hike. Now it’s happening all over again.
It came as no surprise to me when a MTA official leaked to the New York Times that once again the MTA is facing widening budget deficits. New York State has all but abandoned its fiscal responsibility to the MTA for the last decade and a half, leaving the Transit Authority’s fiscal health up to the volatility of real estate taxes, while forcing the MTA to balance shortfalls on the backs of middle and low-income straphangers through repeated fare hikes. The MTA is once again looking at another fare and toll hike, which would be only the second time in the 100 year history of the subway that fares are raised in back-to-back years.
While the MTA’s budget deficits look grim, and a fare hike seems unavoidable, it is only because New York State refuses to unshackle itself from one of the most regressive income tax structures in the country. What most New Yorkers don’t even realize is that if they make $45,000 a year they are in the same income tax bracket as New York’s elite millionaires and billionaires.
Last March the Assembly Democratic Caucus announced a plan to raise $1.5 billion in revenue for transportation through a less than 1% income tax surcharge on those New Yorkers earning over a million dollars. While Governor Paterson and the State Senate did not embrace this plan at the time, I believe the current state of the MTA’s finances demand that the Governor take a second look. If Governor Paterson has the foresight to call the legislature back to Albany to pass some form of the millionaire’s tax he would break the cycle of balancing the MTA’s budget on the backs of straphangers who can least afford to pay.
But an income tax surcharge on those earning over a million dollars is only a short term solution. If Governor Paterson has the vision and the fortitude he should champion a more progressive income tax structure as the centerpiece of his 2009 legislative agenda, such as the Working Families Party has put forward, we should go far beyond just plugging the MTA’s budget gaps and instead reinvigorate our State’s fiscal health, while giving millions of middle- and low- income New Yorkers tremendous tax savings.
State Budget Increases New York’s Investment in Affordable Housing
June 12, 2008
Investing in and maintaining affordable housing are some of the most important things that I fight for in Albany. I am proud that New York’s 2008-09 state budget includes more than $300 million in capital funding for affordable, supportive, and workforce housing opportunities across the state.
This number includes $54 million in funds for the Mitchell-Lama Rehabilitation and Preservation (RAP) and All Affordable programs. RAP offers flexible, low-cost debt service financing to help the owners of Mitchell-Lama housing make needed improvements to their properties or restructure their debt in return for committing to remain in the program and keep rents affordable. All Affordable loans support the construction of housing in which every unit is affordable to low- and moderate-income tenants.
The budget also includes capital funds for other housing programs, including $60 million to the Low Income Housing Trust Fund, $45 million for the Affordable Housing Corporation, and $36.5 million to the Homeless Housing Assistance program.
The Assembly worked successfully to ensure that the state’s total capital investment in affordable housing was increased by $200 million over the executive budget proposal - dramatically strengthening New York’s investment in initiatives that help residents find affordable housing, create housing opportunities for homeless New Yorkers, and help communities restore and revitalize existing buildings.
State Budget Has Historic Increases for Education Funding
April 24, 2008
The 2008-2009 NYS budget continues the commitment to better education for New York’s students, increasing education funding by a record $1.7 billion, with a total investment of $21.4 billion. The spending plan includes a $533 million foundation aid increase for New York City schools, and affirms the Assembly’s deep commitment to education, despite a daunting economic climate.
These increases uphold the tenets of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity statewide and keep us on track to meet the 4-year educational investment plan.
The budget moves toward the full implementation of the school foundation formula, which calls for stable and transparent funding for school districts. It represents a second year of record school aid increases. The budget also increases funding to libraries and expands the number of 4-year-old children attending pre-K to 121,000.
However, more work needs to be done now by the City of New York to make sure that the students of the Upper East Side and the rest of the city receive the education that they need and deserve. I and the rest of my colleagues in the Assembly do not support Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to cut $324 million from the New York City Department of Education budget for 2008-2009. Therefore, the Assembly in its budget is requiring the mayor and the city to keep the $324 million commitment that they pledged last year to their students.
We cannot afford to compromise the education of this city’s and this state’s next generation of leaders in an attempt to cut corners in spending.
Health Budget: Great News for New Yorkers
April 24, 2008
The new 2008-09 health budget, which has been passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, includes an impressive list of major health reforms and initiatives. This is the best health budget New York has had in many years.
In a groundbreaking – and long-overdue – change, the new budget begins to shift resources from inpatient hospital care to primary, preventative, and other outpatient care. Medicaid payments will increase for community health centers, physician and dentist care, school health centers, family planning clinics, hospital outpatient clinics, and others.
The budget also expands New York’s Child Health Plus program, raising the eligibility level for Child Health Plus from 250% of the poverty level to 400% - making health care for children affordable to more middle-class New Yorkers. Now thousands more children will get health coverage.
There will also be a new prescription drug discount card for some low-income people who have no drug coverage. The discounts will come from the state using its bargaining clout with drug companies, not from taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, under the new budget, New York will offer to repay new doctors’ medical school loans if they practice for five years in an under-served area in primary care or certain shortage specialties – helping to make access to health care a reality for many more New Yorkers.
