John Petro
The Right Policy Solutions for New York City
In less than four months, New York City voters will decide if Mayor Bloomberg deserves a third term in office or if one of his challengers, William Thompson or Tony Avella, should take the helm. In addition, voters will be electing nearly fifty other city officials, from members of the City Council to City Comptroller and Public Advocate. This is a critical election. New York City needs elected officials that will promote the best solutions for the problems that New Yorkers face every day.
It turns out that New York City could learn a lot from other cities across the country. In a new report from DMI, No More Delay: Proven Policy Solutions for New York City, we examine six areas of policy in which New York City has failed to address significant challenges faced by New Yorkers: economic opportunity, housing affordability, criminal justice, workplace standards, environmental sustainability, and health care. In each issue area the report highlights policy solutions from other cities that have proven records of success.
Workplace standards: Nearly one million working New Yorkers do not receive any paid sick days, contributing to negative health outcomes, the spread of contagious disease, and lower worker productivity. However, San Francisco guarantees all workers paid sick days to care for themselves or a sick loved one. The policy is not only a meaningful benefit for workers, but also aims to increase employee productivity and reduce the spread of contagious disease. In addition, members of the business community in San Francisco agree that the policy has not been a problem, despite their initial opposition.
Economic Opportunity: New York City gives out millions of dollars a year in tax breaks to private companies that may not need subsidies and that go on to create poverty-level jobs--or few jobs at all. But in Minneapolis, subsidy recipients are required to create living wage jobs. If the jobs are not created, the subsidy must be paid back with penalty. The policy ensures that the public receives significant benefits when tax dollars are invested in a business subsidy deal.
Criminal Justice: New Yorkers falsely confess to crimes they did not commit, harming public safety and damaging the integrity of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC requires that all interrogations be videotaped in their entirety. This policy creates a permanent record of interrogations, makes police officers less vulnerable to allegations of abuse, and prevents the miscarriage of justice.
Housing Affordability: New luxury housing has pushed up housing prices in the city, resulting in displacement of long-time residents. San Francisco is taking steps to increase the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to build affordable units when constructing new market-rate housing developments. This policy not only preserves economically integrated neighborhoods, but also provides neighborhood benefits.
Health Care: Over one million New Yorkers do not have health insurance or access to basic health services. Meanwhile, San Francisco has expanded health care coverage to 60,000 residents that did not have health care though a program that provides health services to the uninsured.
Environmental Sustainability: Three quarters of New York City's greenhouse gas emissions are from heating, cooling, and powering our buildings. Berkeley, CA is providing low-cost financing to property owners that wish to install renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements. This policy not only defrays the high upfront cost for property owners, but has almost zero impact on the city's budget.
John Petro: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:29 AM, Jul 15, 2009 in Urban Affairs
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (6)
Comments
Did San Francisco really not subsidized the inclusionary zoning units? Here in New York, I believe the city often provides subsidy for inclusionary units, even though the developer is already getting the density bonus for building them.
Posted by: Tom from the Bx | July 15, 2009 01:12 PM
Tom from the Bx,
Perhaps you are thinking about the 421-a abatement program? In this program, developers receive tax abatements for including affordable units.
In San Francisco, developers have the option of making a payment in-lieu of building the units or setting aside land for affordable housing development. San Francisco may have leveraged these payments in order to build even more affordable units by contributing some city funds to the affordable housing development.
Posted by: John Petro | July 15, 2009 04:01 PM
the candidate on the right side of all these issues is the Green Party candidate, Rev. Billy. http://www.voterevbilly.org/
Rev Bill for Mayor of NYC!
Posted by: e | July 15, 2009 05:27 PM
This policy not only preserves economically integrated neighborhoods, but also provides neighborhood benefits...
...and ensures that housing remains artificially scarce, so that apartments that aren't rent-regulated are unaffordable.
Posted by: Alon Levy | July 16, 2009 12:00 AM
Alon,
Take a look at the paper. You'll find that we reference a study from the Furman Center that shows that the policy in San Francisco had no effect on the production of housing. In 2008, more units were produced in San Francisco than any year since 1965. Over ten percent of the units produced in that year were affordable. http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Citywide/pdf/Housing_Inventory_2008.pdf
Posted by: John Petro | July 16, 2009 08:13 AM
2008 had the highest number of completed housing units; the number of construction permits peaked in 2005, at the height of the housing bubble, and has sharply declined since. Rent controls reduce housing supply, but not by enough to offset the demand that the bubble created.
Conversely, a program that by definition would help those who need it the most would be to have income support for low-income city residents, paid by higher taxes on the upper class (possibly with an extra surcharge on profits from rents). It would eliminate the free lunches to to old hipsters renting SoHo lofts for $1,500/month, as well as give the poor more flexibility - perhaps a family living on $15,000 a year would rather use the income support for health care or to save up to start a business.
Posted by: Alon Levy | July 16, 2009 11:48 AM