Rajni Banthia

A Healthier New Orleans

The rebuilding of New Orleans is filled with heartache, setbacks…and opportunities -- especially when it comes to addressing the entrenched health problems that plagued the city before the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The people of New Orleans need a new way to envision the intersection of their health and their community --stressing the importance of parks, food access, and clean air. With the right policies and planning, the communities they are recreating now can be far more healthy than the ones they left behind.

Health is about more than just healthcare. It is the confluence of housing, economics, and personal environments. Health starts in communities. Thankfully, it can also be improved there.

Not all communities are created equal, though, and they certainly weren't in pre-storm New Orleans. Limited access to healthy environments was a significant factor that led to distressing health disparities between whites and blacks, the rich and the poor.

While individuals make choices about their eating and exercise habits, their choices are limited by the environments in which they live. Preventable, non-communicable diseases (like cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes) are now the No. 1 killer in the U.S. in large part because of the proliferation of poor dietary habits and sedentary lifestyles. This is especially true in New Orleans, where rebuilding is occurring in the shadow of growing rates of chronic illnesses that are disproportionately affecting low-income and minority populations. Improving access to places where healthy food is sold can improve eating habits and reduce high levels of obesity and related illnesses.

Similarly, improving access to physical activity can have a major impact on communities with low-income residents and people of color. In these neighborhoods, unfortunately, parks are too often nonexistent or are havens for criminal activity. In many neighborhoods, children are even discouraged from playing outside, either because of environmental hazards, landlord restrictions, or parental concerns.

Across the country, advocates and practitioners are demonstrating that health disparities can be prevented or reduced through effective policy change -- especially when making land use and planning decisions. The momentum behind this "Health and Place" approach is gaining steam fast.

As families slowly return home to New Orleans, they must be educated about the potential health hazards that abound in the city -- from potentially toxic work sites to piles of construction debris blowing dust through neighborhoods. But the long-term impact of a lack of healthy food and exercise may be just as damaging.

Posted by Rajni Banthia on 7:12 AM - May 25, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Mark Winston Griffith

Predatory Lending Solutions: You want 'em, We got 'em

Showing once again where the true source of leadership on banking issues is, the New Yorkers for Responsible Lending, a coalition of more than 130 organizations from across New York State, unveiled a model bill on Wednesday that would make it harder for predatory lending abuses to flourish.

The following are excerpts from a statement released by NYRL summarizing the model legislation:

At its core, NYRL's model bill includes an ability to repay standard, and addresses specific abuses in the subprime and exotic mortgage lending markets.

III. REMEDIES
* The law is enforceable by the NYS Attorney General, Banking Superintendent, or any party
to a loan covered by the law.
* Actual and statutory damages may be awarded; statutory damages shall be $5,000 per
violation or two times actual damages (whichever is greater). Injunctive relief to stop
unlawful practices, as well as declaratory and other equitable relief as the court deems
appropriate, may be granted. The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing
borrower.
* The loan transaction may be rescinded if the lender is found to have violated prohibitions
against making unaffordable loans and/or negative amortization loans.
* Borrowers may assert defenses against loan purchasers ("assignees") that they could assert
against the original lender.
* The law includes good faith exceptions. No violation of the law shall be found if the lender:
* Notifies the borrower of the compliance error and provides and an opportunity to cure,
within 30 days of making the loan; or
* Can show that it failed to comply with the law because of bona fide error.

What's needed now are state representatives bold enough to adopt this measure and introduce it as legislation. Will the real leaders please stand up?

Posted by Mark Winston Griffith on 7:11 AM - May 25, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Elana Levin

Senate Immigration Bill Weak on Middle Class Concerns

Everyone wants to know - how would the Senate's new immigration bill, the proposed "Grand Bargain" for immigration reform impact America's middle class and everyone working their way into the middle class? DMI applied our famed two-part litmus test that we use to grade proposed immigration legislation to this latest bill.

We gave the legislation a "B-" for supporting immigrants' economic contributions to America and a "D+" for its near failure to strengthen the workplace rights of immigrants, an essential component in order to avoid a race to the bottom for native-born American workers. You can read our full analysis here.

From our press statement

"DMI argues that the nation's current and aspiring middle class is always threatened by a policy that seeks to fill permanent jobs with temporary workers, but the restrictive nature of the guest worker program in this bill makes it even worse than other recent proposals." Said DMI Executive Director Andrea Batista Schlesinger. "It creates a program in which interchangeable workers shuttle in and out of the country with little opportunity to establish themselves economically, exercise their rights, or advance in the workplace. Wages and working conditions for all U.S. workers are threatened as more and more jobs that once supported a middle-class standard of living instead become positions for temporary workers."

Amy Traub blogged yesterday about the unworkability of the bill calling it an "incoherent hodge-podge of contradictory provisions" and spelling out the ridiculousness of expecting immigrants to return to their country of origin every two years. As the bill continues to be intensely debated in the senate its important for everyone to keep in mind that immigration reform isn't just a political football it's policy that effects the lives of immigrants and native born Americans alike.

DMI's full analysis of the bill is available here. For a general introduction to DMI's take on immigration and the middle class check-out our immigration toolkit online here.

Posted by Elana Levin on 2:35 PM - May 24, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Maureen Lane

The Welfare Monologues

We've all heard of the Vagina Monologues. Four college students I work with at Welfare Rights Initiative at Hunter College borrowed this format for their final project this year, and used it to document the experience of being a young woman on welfare. Some excerpts are below. Read it and weep.

But first, I think this cartoon from Paul Candelaria will help to set the stage:

Expelling the Myth of the Other
Written by Sana Fayyaz, Kerrin Hubbard, Mandeep Kaur and Rachel Morgenstern

Act I
Narrator:
We are gathered here today to present to you the "The Welfare Monologues". What you are about to see is not made up or created out of thin air. Instead it is a collection of real stories with real people with their very true words. All the material used is taken from the mouths of our very own politicians and from our beloved Welfare Rights Initiative (WRI) Alumni, courtesy of Dillonna Lewis, WRI Co-director. As we go along into the Monologues, you will find yourself able to relate to the experiences of past WRI students-all coming from different backgrounds sharing one important commonality: the struggle and pain of dealing with poverty and poverty-related issues and the strife to overcome and guide themselves towards success.

Without further interruption, we would like to commence "The Welfare Monologues" with a blast from the past...our very own, President Ronald Reagan.

Who is a woman receiving public assistance?

Ronald Reagan:
"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 social security cards and is collecting veterans benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and is collecting welfare under each of her names."

Monologue One:
"I grew up in Connecticut as the youngest of three children and nine cousins. Our home was comfortable and we lived a privileged lifestyle because my father was successful as an entrepreneur. He taught himself to cook by spending time with his Italian aunts and opened his first restaurant the year I was born. The restaurant was a thriving business and our family was having fun and working hard at the same time. Unfortunately the success was both positive and negative for my family. With the money my father made he began to open other businesses. This seemed like a good idea at the time, but in reality he spread his energy too thin. The result was many failed businesses and insurmountable debt to show for it. My father first declared bankruptcy when I was 18. He still has not recovered from his financial hardships. He struggles to make ends meet and they rarely do; he can't often drive his car because he can't afford to insure it. I believe that my father cannot find the kind of job that would support him and my younger siblings because he does not have a college degree. I am determined to go to college and everyday I struggle with the task of supporting myself and going to school. Each week, I work over 35 hours while attending classes. It's well worth it to me, because my father's story reminds me that although money and success can be taken away or lost, education cannot."

Monologue Two:
" I was born in St. Mary, Jamaica and was a pretty frail kid. I remember being sick a lot when I was young but I also remember getting in trouble none-the-less...With stories, I found I could escape for hours and not come back until I felt like it or when the story ended. My Mom took my reading as a sign and had me tested when it was time to enroll in school and we found that I was able to move forward a few years but my Mom feared that I may not adjust, since I would be younger and from a different country compared to my classmates, so she took the option to only move me ahead by a year.

The rest is now history. I applied for competitive magnet schools and college seemed right on the other side of the horizon until my Mom got her divorce. This was the first time I had ever thought of my mother as a "single mother" and it changed my views of things from what I had heard happened to "single mothers" in America. I had a vision of single mothers as poor, sad, and raising five children in a small house or one bedroom apartment on welfare. After a few weeks of talking about my fears, I realized this was not the image and I got back on the right track.

According to my mother, she never saw any other option for me after high school but college. After her experience in college, she claims she would never had wanted me to miss out on it no matter how many jobs she'd have to work. It's hard to know that my mother has sacrificed so much for my education. She had to wake up at 5 in the morning to help me get ready for magnet schools that were an hour and a half away from where we lived. And even now, as I continue my pursuit of college and a better future, my mother has to work to make sure the bills get paid."

Narrator:
This quote was taken from Time Magazine's "100 Days of Attitude" written by John F. Stacks from April 10,1995:
"Nonetheless, the country is up in arms over welfare, convinced that while the middle class is struggling, the poor are getting something for nothing. The debate in the House on welfare was symptomatic of that anger. Representative John Mica of Florid's Seventh District compared welfare recipients to alligators and cautioned that "unnatural feeding and artificial care increases dependency."

His fellow republican, Representative Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, decided that the better analogy was to caged wolves: "When you take away their freedom and their dignity, they can't provide for themselves." In opposition, Representative Earl Hilliard, a Democrat from Alabama, concluded starkly that the proposed welfare cuts were "un-American."

One Actor holds up "Don't feed the Alligators" sign and re-enacts the argument.

Continue reading "The Welfare Monologues"

Posted by Maureen Lane on 6:57 AM - May 24, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Amy Traub

...Your Huddled Masses Yearning to Maximize Earnings During Each Two-Year Window

The most recent immigration compromise bill (large pdf) in the Senate is coming up for criticism from almost every angle, from business interests to the immigrant advocates, labor unions, and the anti-immigrant right.

It appears there's no one who likes the bill in its current form but President Bush.

Well, the President and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

In yesterday's column, Brooks argues that, rather than an incoherent hodge-podge of contradictory provisions, the bill somehow appropriately establishes a system of tough but fair incentives for immigrants.

First, Brooks argues that the bill would produce a big "values-shift" for currently undocumented immigrants, who would be required to "obey the law, learn English, and save money" in order to gain permanent residency, and ultimately citizenship in the United States. But it's not the values of immigrants that are the problem: most already believe that it's important to learn English and are waiting on long lists for over-subscribed English classes to open up; many are already saving money to send to impoverished relatives abroad and pay off the smugglers that got them into the country; and aside from violations of immigration statute, immigrants are already less likely to be convicted of crimes than non-immigrants. The problem with our immigration policy is not the "values" of immigrants, but the fundamental mismatch between our current laws and (to put it bluntly) reality, including the economic reality of a nation that relies on the labor of undocumented immigrants.

But enough about reality, back to David Brooks.

He argues that the bill also improves incentives for aspiring immigrants, who under this bill would be selected more on the basis of "merit points" than close family ties to current citizens. The incentive this creates, according to Brooks, is to be the sort of person "who can be self-sufficient from the start." But why should self-sufficiency be more of a goal than contributing to a strong family? Not only does the bill disregard the family values conservatives claim to cherish, it ignores the role of family-based social capital in immigrants' contributions to the U.S. economy. Take for example the elderly immigrant who cares for her grandchildren while their parents work full-time. She may not be self-sufficient, but is certainly enabling the family to make a greater economic contribution to the U.S.

Finally, we have Brooks' absurd justification of the bill's guest worker program. In our forthcoming analysis of the bill, DMI will argue that this guest worker program is even worse than that of other recent immigration proposals because it would bring workers into the country for just two years and then require them to return to their countries of origin for a year before returning to work in the U.S. for another two years. At the end of their stint as guest workers, there is no provision for permanent residency. Brooks, however, likes the enforced isolation of guest workers from mainstream society. Whereas it was good for undocumented immigrants to "think in the long term" and become "enmeshed within the normal rules and laws that the rest of us live by" this apparently isn't the case for guest workers. They, instead, should "be as flexible as possible... so they can maximize earnings during each two year window." Why would we want people as part of our economy who are only focused on maximizing their income in two-year windows? More to the point, why would we want a permanent and growing number of U.S. jobs to be transformed into positions suitable only for a young "flexible" workforce, providing no options for a long-term future? Brooks provides no explanation.

There are a lot of things wrong with U.S. immigration policy, from the huge backlog that keeps families separated for years, to our counterproductive border enforcement efforts, and the legal barriers that prohibit the immigrants our economy depends upon from working here legally, fueling a vast underground economy vulnerable to exploitation. For the most part, immigrants themselves -- hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying people -- are not the problem. Immigration legislation should seek to change the law, not the immigrants. And don't get me started with Brooks' Harvard metaphor...

Posted by Amy Traub on 1:20 PM - May 23, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Elana Levin

Announcing DMI's 2007 Annual Benefit!

Save the date for June 21 2007!
An evening to benefit the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy.
Cocktail Reception PLUS (No boring rubber-chicken dinners for the Drum Major Institute)
It's a festive affair celebrating our honorees and our work
Mingle with a diverse crowd of New Yorkers committed to creating social change
Eat great food, enjoy stimulating conversations and meet our inspiring honorees

RSVP by June 14
Presenting our annual Drum Major for Justice Awards to.....

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for PlaNYC, his sweeping plan to make New York City a model for environmentally sustainable cities in the 21st century

and

Tavis Smiley
Host of Tavis Smiley on PBS and author of "The Covenant with Black America" for being an outstanding voice for social change in the news media and beyond.

Michael R. Bloomberg
Named one of Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People in the World," Mayor Bloomberg stands apart from other American mayors. Not only is he a dedicated philanthropist, successful businessman and founder of Bloomberg LP, Mayor Bloomberg also likes to challenge the political status quo. This spring he unveiled an ambitious plan for our city that defies the inertia surrounding climate change, pollution and decaying infrastructure to boldly invest in New York's future today. After years of consultation with local communities and leading environmental experts, the mayor revealed PlaNYC 2030, a sweeping proposal to make New York City a model for environmentally sustainable cities in the 21st century. The plan boldly seeks to accomplish admirable goals that range from cleaning up all contaminated land in New York to reducing global warming emissions by more than 30%. "I make this promise to you...leadership is about recognizing challenges and seizing opportunities. And we are going to seize this opportunity - to lead the way forward and create the first environmentally sustainable 21st century city."

Tavis Smiley
Tavis Smiley started his career as an aide to the late Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, and over the next two decades he built a socially-conscious media empire that brings "intelligent entertainment" to millions of Americans. His in-depth analysis and commentary on a variety of political and social issues is watched nightly on Tavis Smiley on PBS and heard on the Tom Joyner Morning Show. Mr. Smiley has encouraged communities to social action with the New York Times bestseller - The Covenant With Black America, which he conceived and edited. "The Covenant will not truly be a success unless we realize its promise. To do that we must act; act as individuals to do what we can to improve our lives and the lives of those in our families and communities - that means becoming role models for the change we seek, volunteering, mentoring, organizing for change, speaking out, holding leaders accountable, and becoming advocates for justice."

If you'd like to be a sponsor please contact Penny at [email protected]
And again, to buy tickets go to http://drummajorinstitute.org/benefit

Posted by Elana Levin on 10:03 AM - May 23, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sam J Miller

Empty Buildings, Crowded Shelters, and You

Vacant properties don't just hurt the people who are forced to remain homeless while apartments languish.

For too long, New Yorkers have strolled past boarded-up buildings and vacant lots every single day. Either they're oblivious, or they buy the lie that the city's already doing something about it - or they don't think anyone can successfully challenge the power of landlords to keep buildings empty if they want to. Or they don't think it's their problem.

But now that a new report, "Homeless People Count: Vacant Properties in Manhattan," has proved the extent of the problem, and outlined the solutions, we don't have any excuses for ignorance. And we can't pretend the problem doesn't affect us.

Are you paying too much money in rent? Housing is like any other commodity: if you keep it off the market, the demand goes up, and so does the price. The fact that we live in a city where it is considered acceptable for landlords to keep property empty is a major contributing factor to the high cost of housing.

Do you own property? A 2001 study in Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value.

Do you want to feel safe on the block where you live? A study in Austin, Texas found that "blocks with unsecured [vacant] buildings had 3.2 times as many drug calls to police, 1.8 times as many theft calls, and twice the number of violent calls" as blocks without vacant buildings. (the Austin and Philadelphia studies, as well as other statistics cited in this posting, are from a report by the National Vacant Properties Campaign).

Do you want more stores and restaurants and jobs in your neighborhood? Every dollar of construction activity is estimated to leverage nearly two dollars in other economic activity, so those empty properties are directly responsibility for the difficulty that neighborhoods face in creating decent jobs and improving the quality of life for residents. The list of negative consequences goes on and on. More than 12,000 fires break out in vacant structures each year in the US, resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. Most are the result of arson. In Philadelphia, the city spends $1.8 million annually on cleaning vacant lots.

And even if you live in a gilded palace far away from these economic-sinkhole properties (it can't be too far... as this map shows, they're absolutely everywhere), you're paying to keep them empty. New York City spends $700 million a year to provide shelter to homeless people - when there are enough potential apartments in empty buildings and lots to house the entire homeless population. For every dollar spent on quality, affordable housing, at least ten dollars are returned in the form of job creation, increased independence and tax contributions, new businesses, and access to higher education. If the money NYC spent on shelters went to housing for the homeless, an additional seven billion dollars would have been generated in communities throughout the city. Shelter money is money your kids' schools don't get, and money that hospitals and city government can't use to ensure that translation services are available to immigrant New Yorkers, and money that the city doesn't spend to fix every single housing code violation, and money that can't be spent on fixing the interminable subway delays...

We can all think of lots of ways the city could spend the hundreds of millions of tax dollars it uses every year to keep upwards of 38,000 people in such horrible places for an average stay of twelve months. And while it's true that most people in shelter would rather be there than on the streets, just about every person in shelter would rather be in his or her own apartment.

It's time we stopped thinking of homelessness as an issue of social services and personal problems - and start thinking about it as an issue of housing. And it's time we stopped thinking of empty properties as an inevitability of urban capitalism, and start demanding they be developed into housing.

Posted by Sam J Miller on 7:00 AM - May 23, 2007 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Ezekiel Edwards

The Failed War at Home

I have commented frequently about this nation's fiscally wasteful, socially destructive, needlessly punitive, and hypocritical drug war whose casualties are disproportionately poor and people of color. The Drug War is a critical issue for America, yet often ignored by our leaders and legislatures or preempted by domestic issues such as Social Security and health care. You will likely not hear a single question or discussion about the Drug War during the upcoming debates among presidential candidates.

Recently I received a letter (not personally) from Walter Cronkite, former anchorman for the CBS Evening News, on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization promoting drug policy reform, that addressed the failures and travesties of this backward battle. I include a portion of the letter below:

"Today, our nation is fighting two wars: one abroad and one at home. While the war in Iraq is in the headlines, the other war is still being fought on our own streets. Its casualties are the wasted lives of our own citizens. ...

And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: the war on drugs is a failure. ...

The politicians stutter and stall --- while they chase their losses by claiming we could win this war if only we committed more resources, jailed more people and knocked down more doors. ...

When I wanted to understand the truth about the war on drugs, I took the same approach I did to the war in Vietnam: I hit the streets and reported the story myself. I sought out the people whose lives this war has affected. ...

Nicole Richardson was 18-years-old when her boyfriend, Jeff, sold nine grams of LSD to undercover federal agents. She had nothing to do with the sale. There was no reason to believe she was involved in drug dealing in any way. But then an agent posing as another dealer called and asked to speak with Jeff. Nicole replied that he wasn't home, but gave the man a number where she thought Jeff could be reached.

An innocent gesture? It sounds that way to me. But to federal prosecutors, simply giving out a phone number made Nicole Richardson part of a drug dealing conspiracy. Under draconian mandatory minimum sentences, she was sent to federal prison for ten years without possibility of parole.

To pile irony on top of injustice, her boyfriend --- who actually knew something about dealing drugs --- was able to trade information for a reduced sentence of five years. Precisely because she knew nothing, Nicole had nothing with which to barter.

Then there was Jan Warren, a single mother who lived in New Jersey with her teenage daughter. Pregnant, poor and desperate, Jan agreed to transport eight ounces of cocaine to a cousin in upstate New York. Police officers were waiting at the drop-off point, and Jan --- five months pregnant and feeling ill --- was cuffed and taken in.

Did she commit a crime? Sure. But what awaited Jan Warren defies common sense and compassion alike. Under New York's infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws, Jan --- who miscarried soon after the arrest --- was sentenced to 15 years to life. Her teenage daughter was sent away, and Jan was sent to an eight-by-eight cell.

In Tulia, Texas, an investigator fabricated evidence that sent more than one out of every ten of the town's African American residents to jail on trumped-up drug charges in one of the most despicable travesties of justice this reporter has ever seen.

The federal government has fought terminally ill patients whose doctors say medical marijuana could provide a modicum of relief from their suffering --- as though a cancer patient who uses marijuana to relieve the wrenching nausea caused by chemotherapy is somehow a criminal who threatens the public.

People who do genuinely have a problem with drugs, meanwhile, are being imprisoned when what they really need is treatment.

And what is the impact of this policy? It surely hasn't made our streets safer. Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people ... disproportionately people of color ... who have caused little or no harm to others --- wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime, or catching white-collar criminals.

With police wielding unprecedented powers to invade privacy, tap phones and conduct searches seemingly at random, our civil liberties are in a very precarious condition. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this effort --- with no one held accountable for its failure.

Amid the cliches of the drug war, our country has lost sight of the scientific facts. Amid the frantic rhetoric of our leaders, we've become blind to reality: The war on drugs, as it is currently fought, is too expensive, and too inhumane.

But nothing will change until someone has the courage to stand up and say what so many politicians privately know: The war on drugs has failed."

As Cronkite would often say as a sign-off from his broadcast: "And that's the way it is."

Posted by Ezekiel Edwards on 7:00 AM - May 22, 2007 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Elana Levin

Talking about Congestion Pricing

update: great post by Paul Curtis at Daily Gotham.

Read "London mayor has lessons for NYC on congestion pricing" by Journal News columnist Noreen O'Donnell.
* * * *
Friday morning over 200 people braved the early morning traffic to attend our Marketplace of Ideas panel on congestion pricing. The policy on the table: the most hotly debated, part of Mayor Bloomberg's recently revealed plan for a greener New York - an $8 congestion fee for driving into Manhattan's Central Business district during peak hours. We had the opportunity to learn about the ins-and-outs of congestion pricing first-hand from Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor of London and point person on her city's successful congestion pricing plan. The panelists laid out the range of needs and concerns in this debate, from those of small business owners in Queens to the high rate of children with asthma living along congested through-ways. If what the distinguished guests on the panel said is right then congestion pricing isn't just generating hot air, it's New York's future.

(photos by Lindsay Beyerstein - more on flickr)

(Deputy Mayor Gavron, Councilman Eric Gioia, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Councilman John Liu and Ed Ott of the NY Central Labor Council)

(Deputy Mayor Gavron and Councilman Gioia)

The panelists took questions from the audience through-out the conversation but there were so many people in attendance that we couldn't get to all of them. So in the interest of continuing the conversation (and because we said we'd do it as we wrapped up the panel) . I've combined questions that were similar for brevity's sake. So did the panel get your gears turning? Join in the discussion. (Read the questions in the extended entry)

Continue reading "Talking about Congestion Pricing"

Posted by Elana Levin on 7:20 PM - May 21, 2007 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Andrew Friedman

Enough Unhealthy Housing

Michelle Menthe, a community health outreach worker and longtime Bushwick resident, has lived with her family without heat for the past two winters. Their windows in her apartment are broken. There is no electricity in most of the building. There is no security because the front door and the door to the roof are both broken. There have been three fires in the basement this year started by people who come in and out of the building to use drugs. Strangers come into their building at will because the entrance doors are broken and have no locks. Michelle fears for her four young children because the banister of the building's stairway is broken. Unfortunately, Michelle, like many renters in New York City, struggles to pay her rent. Despite horrific housing conditions, she cannot afford to move.

Michelle is not alone. Half of all New York City renters now pay more than 30% of their incomes on rent. And two-thirds of the poorest one-fourth of New York City's renters pay more than 40% of their incomes in rent. Michelle's income has simply made it impossible to find another apartment that she can afford.

Another sad, unacceptable story: Maria Quintanilla has lived without a shower for sixteen years. Her apartment has major infestations of bedbugs and mice. When she asked her landlord to fumigate, he told her to make a bedbug taco and eat it. Maria, like Michelle, cannot afford to move.

Michelle, Maria and their families, along with thousands of other families in New York City, will benefit enormously from a legislative initiative called the Safe Housing Act. This legislation was recently introduced into the City Council by Council Speaker Christine Quinn and City Council Member Letitia James of Brooklyn. The bill was praised by both the Bloomberg Administration and the landlord lobby. Nonetheless, the Safe Housing Act is still far from law. There will be multiple public hearings on the legislation, and a vote by the full City Council. Until the legislation is passed by the Council and signed by Mayor Bloomberg, there is danger that the strong coalition of supporters will fall apart, or others will try to damage the bill's chances of passing.

In recent years, housing conditions in New York City have been getting worse. According to the Furman Center, the number of serious code violations per 1,000 rental units in New York City increased by over fifty percent in just four years. In 2002, there were thirty-eight serious violations per 1000 rental units. In 2006, that figure skyrocketed by over 50%, to fifty-eight serious violations per 1000 rental units.

Continue reading "Enough Unhealthy Housing"

Posted by Andrew Friedman on 6:53 AM - May 21, 2007 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)