New York State

Report Confirms Obvious: Rent Control Works

(cssny)

(cssny)

Now that the new legislative session has opened in Albany, the Housing Justice for All campaign has ratcheted up its fight for Universal Rent Control, a platform of bills that strengthen and expand tenants’ rights across the state. Even with united Democratic control for the first time in decades, there are a lot of structural obstacles in place that could derail the campaign over the next few months.

Half of all renters in New York City and the vast majority in the state don’t have any protections and aren’t typically activated in the fight for tenants’ rights. The real estate industry has millions of dollars to spend on lobbying and media influencing. And many legislators, just like the average person, have a lot of outdated misconceptions about rent control.

Changing the popular narrative of rent control is one of the most important, and hardest, challenges facing the Housing Justice for All campaign for Universal Rent Control. We only need to look to California, where the real estate lobby spent $80 million exploiting the same misconceptions to help defeat a rent control initiative called Prop 10.

This week, help came in a big way from Oksana Mironov of Community Service Society of New York who published a timely report on rent control in New York City that should help every activist fighting for Universal Rent Control frame their arguments for the general public.

It’s no secret that housing policy is a vast and confusing assortment of policies, agencies, acronyms, and formulas that scares off most people. Rent control (broadly used here to incorporate all rent regulations) is one of the most confusing aspects of this larger very confusing space.

That makes it hard to step back and understand the bigger picture of rent control, which is really quite simple and positive. This report shows why that is the case. It makes three important points that deserve quick focus:

Rent Control is the best affordable housing policy

As the report points out, there is an inherent power imbalance between landlords and tenants. Landlords will always have more information, more control, more political access, and more money than a tenant, particularly in a stressed market (which NYC has always been and most cities have become). The marxist critique would go further and highlight the absurdity of tenants providing the capital that gives the landlord power over them.

Rent control is the best way to offset this dynamic by securing real protections and power for tenants. One of the biggest achievements of the report is how clearly it explains how rent regulations do this and why it matters. Put simply, it shows that rent control is the best affordable housing policy we have (aside from expanding public housing).

Rent control is a legal structure that helps cities and towns stay affordable without massive direct public subsidies. They restrict a landlord’s ability to raise rents, they guarantee a tenant’s right to a lease renewal, and they provide legal resources to combat abusive behavior. These tools together give tenants the power to negotiate with a landlord that they simply don’t have when they can’t easily move to a cheaper or better apartment or fear getting kicked out.

It also has a larger impact on the health of a city. Rent control provides tenants and communities of color long-term protections against displacement in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods. It offers more housing security for seniors, lower-income workers, and formerly homeless families than market rate housing. It also scares off speculators like private equity firms that raise property values, which gives non-profits, community land trusts, and other local ownership models the opportunity to own buildings.

The report also goes through a brief but widely unknown history of rent control laws in the US and in New York particularly, showing how widespread it used to be and why it was so necessary as a policy. It’s worth reading, but the gist is simple: we’ve always been in a housing crisis because housing doesn’t function like a normal market.

If the market was even somewhat designed to incentivize affordable housing, we’d have more affordable housing. But it isn’t and we don’t and never will by relying on it. Our solution now is to give billions of public dollars to private developers to subsidize “affordable housing units” that aren’t affordable, aren’t permanent, and aren’t built enough.

The report makes the overwhelming argument that rent control is a much sounder policy for private affordable housing policy.

Current laws suck, Universal Rent Control is the fix

Even though rent control works, it doesn’t take a housing nerd to see that current laws…don’t. They don’t “work” in a number of ways that the report covers well. It also shows how Universal Rent Control fixes them.

First, rent control doesn’t protect enough tenants. Of 8 million renters in New York state, only 2.5 million have any type of protections. The vast majority of those folks live in NYC, but still less than half of all rental units are regulated. That doesn’t leave a lot of tenants protected or interested in fighting for them.

Second, the current laws basically undermine the entire point of rent control. This is largely because the real estate lobby has effectively written these laws from the beginning. Their biggest problem is called vacancy decontrol, which allows units to exit the system and return to market rate when they reach $2733. This gives landlords a powerful motive to find ways to raise rents to that threshold. They have means through a series of loopholes that allow landlords to raise rents on existing tenants or in between leases.

Throw in the fact that oversight is flimsy at the state and city level (one issue that URC needs to address better) and you’re left with a system that does not protect tenants as much as it suggests it would. Since 1994, almost 300,000 units have been deregulated. That offsets all of the units protected under Mayor de Blasio’s housing plan.

The problem isn’t rent control as a concept, it’s rent control that is designed to fail slowly. Given this analysis, it’s no surprise that the report endorses the full platform of Universal Rent Control because it fixes these problems (ending vacancy decontrol, eliminating every loophole, expanding legal rights.) Most importantly, URC extends new protections to all renters, including market rate tenants, across the state.

Rent control critics are wrong either on purpose or by accident

The final part of the report is the most important for housing activists because it debunks the lazy talking points against rent control. These will absolutely be used by the real estate lobby and will likely be repeated uncritically by the media. Much like the emerging debate over marginal tax rates, this is either because critics don’t actually understand how housing works or they are operating in bad faith.

I encourage you to read the full section, but I’ll highlight one of the most important myths debunked in the report: rent control limits the supply of new construction, which raises rents for everybody.

Ignore for a moment that new construction isn’t even covered under rent regulations (unless they receive tax subsidies) and focus on the logic. If rent control magically vanished, would rents go down and would construction boom?

Well, no. We can look at examples like Cambridge, MA, where rent control vanished in 1994. Property values went up dramatically, and rents doubled in just three years. But there was and remains no construction boom that lowered rents. Rents continue to rise and displacement of low-income residents has increased, especially over the last five years, sparking housing protests from the Movement for Black Lives.

Rents are going up in Cambridge and plenty of other places without rent control and construction isn’t keeping pace. So what is driving that? Scarcity of land, speculation, and zoning restrictions. Even without rent control, these factors still exist. You can debate solutions to those problems, but rent control doesn’t impact them and it’s absurd to suggest that it does.

The only obvious way to protect tenants right now is capping rents. The only way to make it an effective policy is to have strong protections that reach all tenants.

Now that Governor Cuomo has announced his intention to address “aggressive rent regulations reforms” during the budget process over the next few months, it is crunch time to make the case for strengthening and expanding rent protections. There are many obstacles ahead, including the governor. Every member of Housing Justice for All and every housing activist should read and share this report to make sure people know why we must pass Universal Rent Control.

Progressive Housing Priorities for 2019: Go Big or Go Home

Hike wages, not rent

Hike wages, not rent

For many housing activists in New York, 2018 felt like the beginning of something big. The relentless scale of the affordable housing crisis finally reached a tipping point with the public. Hundreds of community groups on the ground around the state mobilized around this new energy and the result was stunning. The maturation of a truly state-wide tenant coalition in Housing Justice for All, the emergence of universal rent control as a viable policy platform, and the electoral victory of a new class of anti-real estate progressives have shaken up the political landscape in the state for the first time in generations.

The task now is how to ensure that we translate the organizing energy of 2018 into legislative victories in 2019 — and beyond. The first and most obvious priority will be passing the package of bills that encompass universal rent control before the rent laws expire in June. The peculiar mechanics of power in Albany make this a challenging task even with unified Democratic control, but there is undoubtably a large energized base of activists and groups committed to the fight.

There is a lot of work to be done, but I want to step back as the New Year starts and take a wider view of how housing activists should think about URC and its relationship to other issues in the progressive movement. This has implications for how we proceed with the URC battle in Albany over the next few months, but it matters for all progressive issues over the long run.

Where we’re falling short

Many other housing activists have pointed out that as much success as we’ve had with building a broad housing movement in 2018, we still experienced a lot of challenges around uniting different groups, agendas, and ideas within “housing”.

We also struggled to bring in obvious potential allies like young market-rate tenants, construction labor, and even small working-class landlords. We need to understand why these challenges exist, because we need these groups to sustain progressive victories.

The lack of inroads to some groups is probably in part due to the complexity of housing policy in general (and the difficulty of getting media to talk about it, before the election at least). Some is due to the perception that rent control won’t help market-rate tenants, or that it will slow down development and cost construction jobs. I’ve covered all of these issues in various blogs last year and I think we have some good ideas to address them.

But I’ve had a nagging sense (I don’t have any data to be clear) that some people tune out because they don’t see how universal rent control fits into a larger effort to reform our society. They might think of it as a “one-off” issue rather than part of a larger effort.

What’s the Big Idea?

That’s a failure on our part. We should be able to reach these types of folks with the right message — if we can show how our housing goals are part of a single unifying theory of progressive reform in New York.

What is that unifying theory? I read the same writers and thinkers as everyone else on this and I’m eager to hear what others think. But I believe, certainly as many others do, that the broad progressive theory to build a just society means fulfilling our individual roles as citizens before consumers, reestablishing democratic control rather than market control over our economy and politics, and investing in the public good over private profit. Pursuing policies around these broad goals are the best and most legitimate way to address the dual crises of wealth inequality and climate change.

Feel free to disagree with that assessment or add/subtract to it. The progressive movement is full of important discussions about the role of personal and group identity in shaping our priorities (I think outsiders give these discussions a bad rap for the most part) and the housing movement is no different. The point is, whatever the movement defines or has defined as its central theory, we need to be clear and consistent with how we want our society organized and why we think that offers a more perfect future for America. I’m not sure we’re doing enough of that, certainly not in the URC fight.

It’s hard to convey this on signs and buttons during actions, so it is important that we talk about the organizing theory in other places and on other platforms where we can be more in-depth. Whether its more op-eds or (definitely) more video or attending more local meetings, we need more people to hear that message directly. Groups like the DSANew York Communities for Change, and Make the Road Action are working on this already, so helping these organizations expand their efforts should be a big focus for housing progressives.

Along those lines, here are three Big Priorities that the progressive housing movement should work hard on as we ramp up the URC fight in the coming months. If we keep these ideas in mind as we talk to other folks in housing and to anyone in general as we go, we should be able to translate the energy of this coalition into a larger transformative progressive movement.

1. Unite all housing issues under Housing as a Right

Mayor de Blasio’s recent year-end review of his housing policy is a good symbol of the problem we face. He continues to view affordable housing, public housing, and homelessness as three separate issues. He’s not alone. Housing policy and advocacy has always been a balkanized mess with groups often competing for very limited funding and attention.

There are groups that should seemingly be aligned because they all work on low-income housing issues that aren’t in reality because they have deep divisions over things like prioritizing homeownership over renting. Other examples include homelessness advocates sparing with public housing advocates over prioritizing available NYCHA units. Affordable housing advocates spar about definitions of affordable and whether to prioritize for-profit, not-for-profit, or public development. The list goes on.

Some of these divisions are natural and healthy because housing is a vast policy landscape that has multiple potential outcomes of value. But many of them are the unhealthy result of a zero-sum funding game dictated by the narrow ideology of prioritizing the private market above all else.

To be clear, that’s because New York housing policy is not about how we provide adequate affordable housing, it’s about how to provide adequate funding to the private market to build more affordable housing then they would otherwise. (Developers give more money to campaigns than low-income renters after all.)

That has obviously worked — because it is providing billions of dollars to private developers, but it has not worked as a housing policy. (The term “affordable housing” is increasingly meaningless because of this too.) That’s what happens when the housing world is as divided as it currently is.

This dynamic must change. It starts by making housing a right the central goal of all housing groups.

The current policy landscape is narrow and static, which blocks out ideas and voices that we need to hear. To truly expand policy thinking on housing, the housing world must become united around a single political goal of providing affordable, adequate, and available housing to all residents of New York.

By necessity, such a vast goal will need to draw from all corners of the political spectrum. Homeownership and rental options must be expanded. Public housing and private development must be encouraged equally. Land-use and building codes must be reimagined. All ideas must be on the table.

This won’t magically cure real policy disagreements or funding problems, but it will break the political status quo, which has paralyzed both discussions. Thinking about affordable housing, supportive housing, public housing, and homelessness as separate issues has trapped many dedicated housing groups, some well-meaning non profit developers, and a few elected leaders in a cage match over dwindling funds and ideas.

Housing as a right as a political goal will encourage new voices, new ideas, and new alliances. The Housing Justice for All coalition has done a remarkable job of building a wide coalition because it has committed to this goal already, but we need to reach out to other groups like NYCHA residents, homelessness groups, low-income homeownership groups, small landlords, market-rate tenants, and construction trade groups to form a single united housing as a right movement.

There are many knowledgable and creative housing groups that could be useful parts of the coalition that are fence-sitting because of reasonable political calculations around funding and relationships. Change the politics, and those calculations change. This is the kind of bold reset that the affordable housing crisis is demanding of our politics and we have the opportunity to seize it this year — if we act boldly.

2. Embrace progressive urbanism

I studied Urban Planning in grad school because I believe the city is humanity’s best idea. Humans are social, collaborative, and competitive — concentrating them in one place brings out the best of those qualities in us and drives progressive as a civilization. — if we manage it well. Progressive urbanism offers that chance.

Cities also best represent the unique possibilities of the American character. You can find community. You can find opportunity. You can find purpose. That’s why they are magnets to immigrants, entrepreneurs, artists, and exiles.

Contrary to what others say, cities are where the real America exists and where its future lies. That future is diverse, dense, and digital. America is already an urban country and will only grow more so in the 21st century.

But if 21st century America is going to work, we need to make its cities work. And they aren’t working right now. Communities are under fire. Opportunity is out of reach. Purpose is illusive. That’s especially true in NYC, which is one of the most economically and racially stratified cities in North America.

The problem is America’s politics are anti-urban. The Constitution doesn’t recognize cities. The Electoral College undervalues them. The federal government has favored (and subsidized) the rural and suburban parts of the country for most of the 20th century at the expense of them.

The racist anti-urban ideology baked into 20th century American politics is a large reason for the inequality crisis and climate crisis shaking our country apart, but cities don’t have the political power to fix it.

It’s time for the politics to catch up. A progressive urbanist agenda must be the core of 21st American politics. Housing progressives must argue that living in cities is how we live well together and how we best solve the problems facing our country and planet. We must explain why the advantages of urban life — the diverse, dense, and digital I mentioned earlier — are built-in ways to address inequality and climate change quickly and sustainably.

The housing movement must be a foundational partner in building the popular movement to reform our political system around cities. That means fighting for things as big as structural changes in the US Senate and House or changing housing and transportation policy at the federal level. And it means fighting for smaller immediate things like making sure the 2020 Censuscounts urban populations accurately and without racial animus baked in.

Cities are where the country is already moving, literally, and where the political future lies. Recognizing this and empowering cities will create thousands of democratic laboratories designed to fight inequality and climate change from the bottom up.

But only if they are midwifed with progressive values. Guaranteed affordable housing is the lynchpin of a larger set of issues that include improving wages and labor rights, recommitting to public education, creating universal healthcare, deconstructing systemic racism, and pursuing environmental justice and sustainability, among many others.

Progressive urbanism fits well into any potential organizing theory of progressive principles. It has to be a core tenant of the housing movement and it has to be the core message to bring in other non-housing groups to the cause.

3. Organize workers and consumers against late capitalism

It’s no coincidence that housing activists fighting for URC are also involved in the Anti-Amazon HQ2 protests in NYC. They are the same fight in the end. To really end the housing crisis, we must tackle the crisis of late capitalism that Amazon represents.

Capitalism has stopped working the way Americans have been raised to imagine it. Only the most ideologically blinded and deeply compromised partisans can look at the state of our economy and pretend otherwise. Most industries, especially finance, energy, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals have concentrated around a few dominant players who control their regulatory regimes at the expense of employees and consumers.

On top of this, the tech boom, despite the (now cresting) fascination with startups, has led to an unprecedented concentration of economic and cultural power in a few firms, industries, and geographies.

This has massive implications for the health of our economy and society, which we’ve only starting to reckon with properly. Getting cheap crap as consumers should not outweigh the cost to us as employees and citizens.

That tradeoff has been toxic. American entrepreneurship has plummeted. Wages for the top earners have exploded while wages for the vast majority of workers have stagnated — despite nine years of economic growth. Debts of any kind are skyrocketing to fill the gap. The chance to enter the middle class has all but vanished for many while the chance to remain there is diminishing for a huge swath of the country. This is late capitalism.

The commodification of housing is just another byproduct of late capitalism’s unchallenged thrust towards commodifying every aspect of our lives that undermines our civic and ecological lives. That is what is driving the rise of rents, displacement, and eviction. It explains part of the increase in climate disasters and is certainly a major factor in the failure to respond to them.

In New York at least, URC has a legitimate shot at clawing back democratic power over housing policy from the real estate industry for the first time in generations. But it is not enough to stop there. We must crawl back democratic control of the economy overall. URC should be the beginning of the larger movement to do so.

That means the housing movement must align with worker movements and progressive elected officials in their efforts to break up monopolies and oligarchies in every industry, but particularly in tech and finance.

This is already happening in NYC with the Anti-Amazon protests and other equally important movements like the protest over the redevelopment of Two Bridges (a major action is planned for MLK Day.)

Solidarity is the cornerstone of the housing movement, but we need that message to get out to the general public and to other potential allies: Passing universal rent control will not be enough to solve inequality. Because of that, even if we do pass URC, the coalition that made it possible won’t be going anywhere.

In the early 20th century, when the progressive movement first emerged, corporate power and capitalism itself were contested in the market place of ideas in America. Even Republicans like President Roosevelt warned against their threat to democracy.

That battle came to a head during the Great Depression when the other President Roosevelt famously said his New Deal was an attempt to save capitalism from itself. For a time, for America as a whole, it did that. The last 40 years have unravelled it.

It’s clear that we need a massive, New Deal-level reboot in this country. That doesn’t just mean a Green New Deal. And it doesn’t just mean housing as a right. It means rebooting every corner of our politics and our economy. As housing progressives fight for universal rent control in New York, we must step up and make sure people know that’s what we’re all fighting for.

5 Reasons to Support Universal Rent Control

(stoprebnybullies)

(stoprebnybullies)

Election Day is here and, depending on your perspective and persuasion, our country will be saved or doomed. Maybe both, maybe neither. On a personal note, I’m proud of playing a small part in a cycle that has seen the emergence of a progressive left as a growing electoral force.

In the spring, I started hearing about a young woman running for Congress in the Bronx, and it was a single tweet from her talking about housing as a right that hooked me. It was something I believed, but never thought would become an actual rallying cry in American politics.

Since then, over the last 6 months, I’ve knocked on countless doors across 4 of the 5 boroughs (sorry Staten Island) for Alex Ocasio-Cortez, Julia Salazar, and for many other progressive candidates that believe the same thing.

I’ve met amazing, committed activists of all ages and backgrounds that have come together to talk about important issues, promote great ideas, and elect amazing candidates. For a housing nerd like me, I’ve especially been inspired by the community of housing organizers that I’ve come to know.

There were a lot of important issues that got people fired up this cycle. However, universal rent control is one of the most exciting movements that has started to come into focus. It is an opportunity to radically change the political landscape in Albany, but has a long way to go, even if things go right on Election Day.

I wanted to make one final pitch to voters about what universal rent control means, why its so important, and why supporting the candidates who believe in it is so important. Here are 5 reasons to support universal rent control:

1. It’s the first step in breaking the rigged the political system

Everybody complains about how corrupt Albany is, but it really is, and real estate is the reason why. REBNY (The Real Estate Board of New York), one of the major political arms of big real estate developers, spends like crazy every election cycle on politicians from both parties and gets its members to spend even more.

It’s money well spent. It gets its members generous tax incentives, weak tenant protections, and a stable, predictable political landscape that favors developers. Then they take advantage of extreme gerrymandering, lax campaign finance laws, and voter suppression measures to keep their preferred candidates in power and to keep voters out of the process. (Many of the candidates they back also block other progressive issues in Albany.)

This means that renters, the homeless, small landlords, and low-income communities across the state are blocked from expressing meaningful political power. There are just enough politicians speaking for these groups to give the appearance of a fighting chance, but the supremacy of the status quo is undeniable.

This election cycle is challenging the status quo. During the Democratic primary in September, pro-tenant progressive candidates beat a slate of establishment Democrats, including 6 out of the 8 state senators of the now defunct Independent Democratic Conference (IDC).

These candidates (and even candidates from other parties) all ran on a platform that rejected real estate money and most embraced universal rent control. These candidates are pro-tenant, but as importantly they are pro-democracy. By taking rightful power from a tiny group of wealthy developers and giving it back to the broader population of New Yorkers, we can start to solve the deeper political crisis in our state that is fueling the housing crisis.

URC is the first and biggest opportunity to turn this momentum into law, just as our current rent regulation laws are set to expire in 2019.

2. It’s the only immediate way to slow down rents

Universal rent control will apply to every renter in New York state and is designed to block extreme rent increases, prevent unfair evictions, and eliminate perverse incentives to kick out tenants. This is the only way, right now, to protect tenants from increasing rent pressure. When half of all rentersare already burdened, help is needed fast.

URC will improve on the existing rent regulation protections in two critical ways. First, it will apply to all renters. Current laws apply to less than half of all renters in NYC and a tiny fraction outside of the city, so the benefits are not widely shared and understood. Second, it will remove the many loopholesthat allow landlords to raise rents in regulated units and to remove units from regulations altogether.

By closing loopholes and spreading protection to all renters, the housing market in New York will change dramatically. Every renter will gain meaningful protections against the type of stress and abuse that have become typical for too many.

It is a blunt tool for sure, and it must be part of other large reforms in land use policy, property tax law, and occupancy requirements, among others. But on its own, right now, it will help protect tenants from the onslaught of the housing crisis and show them that political change is possible if they remain united.

3. It’s the best way to stop the homelessness crisis from getting worse

There are a record 89,000 homeless New Yorkers across the state, 62,000 of them are in NYC. A large portion of them are families. Many of them are veterans. Lots of these adults are working. This is happening while our economy has been “booming” for ten years.

This is a moral failure. If that’s not enough for you, then it’s also a policy failure. The number one reason for the spike of homelessness is a lack of affordable housing. People can’t afford to stay in their homes and can’t afford to move and/or secure new housing.

New York spends millions of dollars trying to fill the gap with shelters and supportive housing, but we should be working on keeping people in their homes to begin with. Eviction prevention is a proven method to improve outcomes for housing insecure individuals and is a substantially more cost effective policy for taxpayers.

URC includes the expansion of eviction protections currently underway in NYC like right-to-counsel and anti-harassment measures, but it can also include a streamlined system for short-term rental assistance before eviction proceedings start. Many of the existing rental assistance programs at the state level are difficult to navigate and apply to a narrow pool of applicants. Federal programs are even worse.

Simplifying and expanding these programs under a URC platform will be a net benefit for these New Yorkers and for the state. Ending homelessness is a choice and one that we can do with a relatively small operational lift.

4. It will spur competition and innovation in housing construction

URC is a drastic intervention in the housing market and flies in the face of every 101 econ class lesson, but it is also necessary and justified because the housing market in New York, and especially NYC, has always been broken. It might be counterintuitive, but URC can actually fix this.

In a classic market simulation, perfect competition between rational actors creates an equilibrium between supply and demand cancelling out profits. No capitalist actually wants that and, historically, capitalists have worked very hard to prevent that from happening. Our current form of late capitalism has perfected this.

This is especially true in the housing market. Simply put, the market doesn’t build enough quality affordable housing because it isn’t interested in doing so. It only does so with expensive public subsidies. Every activist agrees that we need a greater supply of housing, but our reliance on this method has produced few affordable units relative to need at truly astronomical per unit costs. The only winners here are developers.

As much as developers complain about it, the cost and complexity of building in NYC benefits them because it prevents new developers (big or small) from entering and competing. A restricted supply and complex regulatory landscape raises profits and limits competition, leaving a small, wealthy community with a lot of power and incentive to maintain the status quo, which is what REBNY does well.

This hardly makes for a healthy market. Tenants don’t have corresponding market power because they don’t have the power to “vote with their feet” to change this status quo. Without a “pure” market (never gonna happen) to even the playing field for tenants, the argument for URC becomes obvious.

URC would remove the worst predatory actors from the market by restricting rents, but if it includes complimentary reforms that create more competition, (things like reforming occupancy laws, zoning restrictions, property tax law, but there are many ideas to pull from) it could spur a renaissance in construction practices and productivity that have been slow to materialize under the current status quo.

We need to encourage more innovation and competition within the development community to add housing more responsive to the public’s changing needs. This includes more use-specific options for seniors, special needs individuals, families, and young singles, as well as incorporating more sustainable construction and energy-use methods.

URC is a rejection of the current structure of the housing market, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a vehicle for innovation. By establishing Housing for All as the goal of the housing market, URC is challenging who gets to compete and what ideas get to compete.

5. It will stop displacement and encourage local ownership

The post-recession emergence of foreign and institutional investors at the high-end and the growth of house flipping platforms at the low-end have created unprecedented competition for real estate in many corners of the state. These forces have particularly targeted low-income communities of color, triggering levels of displacement that we are only just starting to understand.

It’s no surprise that large scale investors have turned to single-family properties and small multi-family portfolios in cities like NYC. They are safe, highly privileged assets in American tax law and are the benefactor of the larger trend of people preferring to live in urban environments. High debt levels and stagnant wages have further increased the demand of rental housing for younger and older Americans. The prospect of weakening already leaky rent regulation laws only creates more interest in these buildings.

URC will obviously change the calculation on rising rents. This will in turn have a potential impact on the attractiveness of housing as an investment asset overall. Removing the speculative value of housing will lower the costs not only for renters, but for local landlords and community groups to take on ownership.

If URC gets passed, making it easier for these types of local actors to own the land and buildings in their community will prevent displacement and retain prosperity within these communities. The same coalition could support alternative equity models like community land trusts to further empower community-led ownership.

The fight is just beginning

I am too burned from 2016 to want to hear, let alone, make predictions about Election Day. But at the local level in New York, there is a real chance that progressive change can take hold in Albany after the election. If the Senate flips, there is a credible chance to enact universal rent control.

But the fight will be brutal. REBNY, RSA, and high-influence developers were clearly caught off guard by the rebellion in the primaries, but they have considerable structural advantages in Albany. Governor Cuomo will be a particularly vexing wild card.

Whatever happens on Election Day (I may update this as needed) I hope that voters, long-time or first-time, continue to stay involved with other activist groups. The coalition for universal rent control is still in its early stages, but the housing rights and tenants rights communities have been around for a long time. Channeling the experience of these groups with the energy of newly engaged local voters could produce some truly remarkable change in 2019. Here’s hoping.


Universal Rent Control is about more than tenant power, it’s about reestablishing democratic power over the market


As election day approaches, the stakes keep getting higher and the political environment keeps getting scarier. It was inevitable that the President would turn to imaginary fears and blatantly false claims to poison the climate, partly because he sees the grave risk in “losing” the midterms, but mainly because that’s who he is. It is disheartening that so many other Americans seem to share his darkest impulses. It might not be enough to prevent Democrats from retaking the House, but we’ve seen that song and dance before. 

The real question for me is: how much will change if the Democrats win? The battle in New York for Universal Rent Control is a good place to consider what needs to change, what could change, and what might not change within the Democratic Party.

(Honestly, this blog got away from me and is more about the political process around URC than specific policy proposals, but feel free to check out something I wrote about it here for more details. I will be following up this article with more about URC.)

Now, of course things will change considerably for the President if Democrats take back the House. There will be actual oversight of the administration. There will be meaningful roadblocks to the Republican agenda on the hill. There will be some reaffirmation of some democratic checks and balances. This is all great.

But, look, we’re still in a bad way. The faith in our democratic institutions has eroded because the institutions themselves have eroded. The faith we have in each other as a whole has eroded because our vision of each other as a whole has fractured. The faith we have in the American Dream has eroded because our economic reality is a world away from it. Most disturbingly, the faith we have in our climate security has eroded because our planet is clearly in grave trouble and we’re failing to face it.

None of this changes if the Democrats take back the House

It won’t change and it’s not for the obvious reasons that they might still lose the Senate, don’t control the White House, and don’t control the Court. It’s the same reason why even taking power back in New York might not result in real change.

It’s because the Democratic Party doesn’t have any real answers for these problems. They haven’t for decades. Just look at this recent interview with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (starting at 2:58.) Seriously, what the hell is she actually talking about? They are nowhere near the nihilism of the Republican Party, but that’s not hard or virtuous. 

As the party continues to make commendable strides in promoting diverse candidates that better reflect the 21st century American experience, it has been notably less successful at promoting ideological diversity. They have allowed candidates to run to the right, but have mostly isolated those that run to the left. 

It’s obvious why: Democrats have been corrupted by the same system that has corrupted the Republican Party, only in slightly different ways, by only slightly different actors. And that system isn’t working.

For decades, both parties fully embraced neoliberalism as the end of history ideology

Privatization, deregulation, and globalization have been the name of the game for 40 years in America and both parties have become beholden to the moneyed interests that wanted it, benefit from it, and jealously guard it.

To be clear there is nothing inherently wrong with a competitive private sector, a proactive regulatory regime, or a deeply connected international world. In balance these elements can make us all safer, richer — financially and culturally- and healthier. But neoliberalism hasn’t delivered that world. There is no balance. 

There is something inherently wrong with “trusting markets.” 

The obvious point is that neoliberalism by definition doesn’t trust or value democratic control of power. It’s central belief dictates that power will be competitively dispersed between rational economic actors and that that competition will inevitably produce better outcomes for society. 

Those are some major leaps of faith to build a global society on:

  • It assumes that economic actors are rational (which is far from true for individuals, firms, and even states) and discounts the consequences of when they aren’t rational, which is most of the time. 

  • It assumes that competition between these actors will be honored rather than crushed, which is what always happens (either by brute force or collusion) and is unprepared for the fallout. 

  • And it assumes that all of this will produce a better society, while it has clearly ignored the toll it takes on the planet and on vulnerable populations.

What neoliberalism has left us with is a vastly unequal and unparalleled concentration of wealth and power that we can barely see let alone hold accountable. It has left us with a wake of destructive exploitation of human populations and natural resources that we can’t prevent or replenish. It has left us with severely compromised democratic governments that can’t represent or protect us. And it has put the very-near-future of our planet in peril. 

This is because the hallmark of neoliberalism is illiberalism, a fake democracy. It’s a term that we’re starting to hear used more about countries like Turkey, Russia, and Poland, but we have been experiencing it here for a long time. The structural flaws within the Constitution, the shameful voting suppression efforts in many states, and the corruptive flow of money across all levels of politics and media have warped our government far from any definition of “self.” Neoliberalism requires this. It’s a really raw deal for most of us.

How Democrats went from the New Deal to Neoliberalism matters for how we get them out

The Democratic Party is complicit in this. The party abandoned its New Deal commitment to democratic control over the economy, to public investment and ownership, and to sharing the benefits of prosperity evenly across society with an ever wary eye towards the future.

The New Deal represented a clear, unifying theory of self-governance forged from the trauma of the Great Depression: a strong interventionist state to create and spread wealth. It became the bedrock for the greatest sustained civic growth and wealth creation in the history of the world and it kept Democrats in power for 50 years. It remained the de facto organizing principle for decades because not only was it a powerful narrative, but it did what it said it would do. People believed in it because it did make life in America better.

Mostly for white Americans. That commitment wasn’t perfect and its fatal flaw was its reliance on actively preventing other groups, domestically and internationally, from partaking in it, often violently. 

By the 1970s, the world was starting to catch up with the US economically or resist it’s influence militarily and at home the civil rights and gender equality movements, plus opposition to the Vietnam War, began to fracture the coalition. Tragically, it could not adjust to these new voices and realties. 

For the first time, many people felt that the American pie was as big as it was going to get and that it was necessary to fight over and protect your piece of it and prevent others from getting close to it. The right started exploiting these tensions to further crack the coalition with growing success. Nixon’s infamous “Southern Strategy” worked twice and has remained the Republican Party’s default playbook ever since. It has only been more naked with Trumpism.

When the New Deal seemingly ran out of answers to expand the American pie, it created a vacuum that neoliberalism filled.

Racial appeals and resentment were powerful subtext, but a movement needs actual text to rally around. Neoliberalism was a powerful narrative answer, especially in the hands of President Reagan. It was cloaked in Cold War rhetoric and spoke about expanding freedom throughout the US and the world. The way to expand the pie was to end communism and open up the world’s markets. It seemed very American.

But, unlike the New Deal, neoliberalism hasn’t done what it said it would do. Or, perhaps more accurately, it has done exactly what it was intended to do, but its supporters who said otherwise were either villains or fools. It has seized political power from popular representation and given it to a small amount of corporations and wealthy individuals. 

There is nothing “American” about enriching a tiny portion of stateless oligarchs and firms by turning people against each other, by robbing the public of our own social and economic capital, and by selling out future generations even as the current population’s slice of the pie is actually getting smaller. But that is what has happened under neoliberalism.

Although President Reagan was wildly popular and enacting neoliberalism created an air of revolutionary spirit, it never did kill the New Deal coalition. Democrats remained in control of Congress all during this period and voters remained wary of calls to totally deconstruct the welfare state (at least for white people.) 

But Democrats killed the New Deal Coalition. Bill Clinton killed the New Deal Coalition.

Though many old guards held out, a new generation of party leaders eagerly accepted the premise that the New Deal was failing, that America had turned right and that it was advantageous to go with them. Rather than try to challenge corporations’ and wealthy individual’s power, they wanted to channel it.

In the wake of several presidential losses (though, again, Dems held Congress each time) Clinton became Nixon essentially in 1992 and ushered in a Democratic machine that relied on big donor money and cosy relationships to corporations and Wall Street while distancing itself from “the era of Big Government” as though it hadn’t worked for the majority of Americans all along. Tough on crime, tough on welfare, tough on unions looked like “Serious People Making Serious Decisions” but was really slow moving betrayal of the New Deal coalition. 

The party has remained in the Clinton image ever since. President Obama included. It hasn’t been able to counter Republicans slow turn to the right because it has largely accepted their worldview and has been left arguing over degrees.

Ironically, Republicans realized the neoliberal game was up first

Despite pulling a Weekend At Bernies with the corpse of Ronald Reagan for years, it has been clear for a long time that Republicans have largely abandoned neoliberalism and replaced it with an ethno-nationalism that is really just zero-sum oligarchy with a bunch of racism and fanaticism to scrape out electoral victories.

The Democratic Party, at the national level, but also at local levels, has been left in the awkward and clearly untenable position of half-heartedly defending neoliberalism. Sure, compared to the nihilism of the Republican Party, protecting the status quo seems appealing and even noble, but it isn’t. 

Neoliberalism in the first place was a betrayal of the modern Democratic Party’s New Deal ethos and hasn’t worked for most Americans anyway. The American pie is getting bigger for the wealthy (many of which aren’t American) but fewer people are getting slices at all.

Forget #theresistance and resist the Democratic Party’s continued dereliction of duty

At all levels of the Democratic Party, the reliance on big donors and corporate coziness has killed its ability or desire to counter this and to address the issues facing our country in meaningful ways. Big, sweeping visions of societal change are anathema to these interests and thus the party has turned to bland incrementalism and technocratic insularity to keep muddling along. 

It is obvious that this has failed as a political strategy, particularly at the state level where Democrats have lost over almost a 1000 seats since 2008. But it has failed as a moral imperative. 

We need big thinking to turn things around. We need big actions to save the country and the planet. We need big ideas to overcome the cultural decadence and civic rot fueling all of this, which was encouraged by the individualist consumerism that neoliberalism requires.

That’s why the Senator Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign was so important, even if it fell short. It started much needed and much unwanted soul searching within the party because it was about big ideas. It was about what kind of country and what kind of world we can create if we control it. 

It offered a glimpse of a 21st century version of a New Deal coalition that has had a powerful impact on the party, despite every effort to resist it. It shows that there is a hunger for taking back democratic control over the economy and the environment from the market that neoliberalism trusts exclusively.

It has been slow and will continue to be, but the successes of leftist social-democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (full disclosure: I volunteer for her on housing policy), Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib at the national level means there will be more voices in Congress speaking for more people that have been voiceless there and within the Democrat Party for too long. This is an important development, regardless of who wins control of the House on November 6th.

Universal Rent Control is one of many local fronts in the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party

Wrestling back democratic control of the Democratic Party at the national level will be a multi-cycle project. There are, however, a lot of opportunities to impact the party’s future where you live. The real fight for the soul of the Democratic Party is happening locally as we speak over issues like Universal Rent Control.

In New York City, Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory swept national attention and has made her an instant rockstar on the left, but she will be the first to say that she is part of a ground-up grassroots movement that is bigger than any one candidate or office.

That was on display in many New York Senate primary races on September 13th where 5 of the 6 NYC members of the infamous Independent Democratic Conference (IDC), who voted with Republicans in Albany, all lost to left-leaning candidates. All of these candidates ran on an unapologetically social-democratic agenda that includes universal rent control. They and others need help to win in the general election.

There is a real chance that despite severe gerrymandering, and real estate lobby money, Democrats will win the Senate in Albany for the first time in decades (the Assembly has long been in Democratic control) on the strength of this social-democratic agenda.

Democratic control of Albany doesn’t mean social democratic control — or that Universal Rent Control happens

If that happens, we’ll see just how much of a battle taking back the Democratic Party will be and why neoliberalism has such deep roots in Democratic politcs. The IDC and Republicans are an easy target to blame for the lack of more progressive policy in New York state, but the truth is more complicated. 

Many New York Democrats, notably Governor Cuomo, who is the poster boy for cynical Third Way Clintonism (he was HUD Secretary in Clinton’s second term after all), are skeptical of progressive policies and have deep ties to the real estate industry that make up the base of the traditional big donor interests in Albany.

Will these traditional Democrats listen to their constituents and the grass-roots movement trying to save the Democratic Party? How many Democratic voters recognize how much of the problem lies within the Democratic Party itself? The primary results show that there is real momentum, but the activists fueling this rise need to rally more Democratic voters to the cause, and it means talking about big ideas again.

URC and every progressive fight must be framed as taking back democratic control over our economic and environmental destiny

Universal rent control is a big idea. At heart, it is a series of policy proposals that aim to protect all renters in New York state from harassment, displacement, and homelessness. It’s a completely justifiable policy proposal given the structural nature of the housing crisis that cries out for more tenant protections. Half of all renters in New York are rent-burdened and there are over 89,000 homeless New Yorkers in the state. On top of this, the city and state are not ready for climate change, which will effect many of these low-income communities first.

Universal Rent Control has been and will continue to be attacked by the real estate lobby, most economists, and many members of the media as a foolish, self-destructive fantasy. That’s horseshit.

“Highest best use” has been the religion defining neoliberalism’s economic and political policy for decades, even as it has enriched faceless corporate entities at the expense of local communities and popular representation. The principles of efficient allocation of resources appear to be agnostic and empirical, but they are still subjective assessments of fundamentally moral arguments about what a society should be and whom a government should serve.

That’s why URC must be understood as being the head of a larger political spear aimed at fighting the illiberalism at the heart of neoliberalism. It is about taking back power from the high priests of the market. The goal is to give power back to the people through democratically elected leaders and popularly supported laws. 

Illiberalism has been on displace within New York State for years: blatant gerrymandering, terrible voting laws, and endless amounts of anonymous money (much of it coming from the real estate lobby) make New York’s government a truly anti-democratic institution. Only popular movements like URC can finally end this system.

To be clear, the point isn’t to suggest that ‘the people’ will agree on every issue. The point is to reestablish democracy as a forum where all sides felt heard, all views are addressed, and as much consensus is reached as possible. Only then will our self-government live up to its definition. Only then will it have legitimacy and buy-in, even if the results are compromises. That’s the whole point.

This is all a moral failure. Let’s keep calling it that.

Democrats have long abandoned the sense of morality that was the foundation of the New Deal coalition’s success. I’m not suggesting that the Democratic Party is devoid of morality. They have adopted moral language rhetorically for certain vulnerable populations and on the environment. Some of this language has resulted in real, meaningful action. 

But most hasn’t. As a result it falls into the lose-lose situation of being lambasted for its overly “PC” rhetoric and focus on identity politics while not actually taking legislative stands for those issues, harming those constituencies.

Democrats don’t need to try to revive the New Deal coalition per se. 40 years of increased diversity and increased economic burden has greatly expanded what this coalition should and could look like. But to do so will require reviving the moral clarity and civic purpose that it represented. If the New Deal came out of the Great Depression, the next version should come out of the Great Recession. 

It is a message that already polls well with Americans from all political spectrums. There will be political victory if the Democrats do, but that will pale in comparison to saving the country and the planet. The only way to do that is to wrest control back from the markets.

Let’s start with calling out the immorality of our housing policy. 80,000 of our fellow New Yorkers should not be homeless. Half of all renters should not be burdened. So many seniors should not be so close to housing disaster. Communities shouldn’t be displaced for the sake of private equity profits. 

These are choices that have been made without our consent. Universal Rent Control is the first step in taking control of these choices and fixing them. That means greater public investment and ownership of housing. That means holding the private sector accountable as a partner, not as a master. It means redefining what our society should value and who should get to debate and ultimately define that.

For all of us as individuals, this means getting out there and supporting movements and candidates that want to take control of these choices. There is still time before November 6th to get involved, but the work won’t end there. It won’t end if Democrats win or lose in Albany or DC. We must keep shaping the fight for the soul of the party and keep making it clear that this is about saving our shared future.

berniesneoliberalism.JPG

Cuomo is Full of It On NYCHA and Has Always Been Full of It On Housing

They haven't aged well (nymag)

They haven't aged well (nymag)

Governor Cuomo is apparently shocked, shocked that NYCHA is crumbling. He has spent the last couple of weeks visiting a few buildings, surrounding himself with cameras, taking shots at Mayor de Blasio, and touting his resolve to bring in more state money. No doubt this money will help residents who have been suffering greatly this winter and beyond, so it is welcome, but the fact that these trips represent the majority that the Governor’s has made to a NYCHA property since he took office in 2011 should tell you all you need to know about his commitment to public housing. The truth is, Governor Cuomo has always been a cynical opportunistic when it comes to housing. He’s built his career on it and hopes to carry it all the way to the White House (he won’t.)

Cuomo rode his name to the top of HUD and then abandoned it’s legacy

It is one of those obvious things that gets lost over time, but Governor Cuomo is Governor Cuomo largely because his father was Governor Cuomo. The son worked on the more popular father’s campaigns and what he lacked in his father’s robust liberal principles, he made up for in sharp insider elbows.

It was housing where Andrew stepped out from his father’s orbit (as much as you would want or need to when your father is a popular governor toying with the presidency) by setting up a non-profit, Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged (HELP). The organization did good work then and still does today and I make no suggestions otherwise, but its clear that Cuomo saw housing as a means to score liberal cred while building relationships with powerful developers, a play he has repeated many times since.

This cred led to a position under Mayor Dinkins (where he came into contact with future nemesis Mayor de Blasio) as chair of the Homeless Commission where he backtracked Dinkins housing-first policy goals and claimed that homelessness was a “human” problem not an economic one. 

After Dinkins lost re-election, this “tough thinking” led to a position in the Clinton Administration as an assistant secretary at HUD. His father’s legacy as a working class ethnic liberal from the northeast made his son an easy choice for the southern, conservative Democrat. Both were cynical politicians fluent in empty gestures.

Contrary to his father’s robust liberal legacy, Cuomo’s record at HUD is very similar to his later record as governor — lots of big talk, lots of press coverage, some decent ideas, but little follow-through that would challenge powerful interests in finance or politics. 

He became HUD Secretary in 1997 (Mayor de Blasio was hired to run HUD in NY-NJ) and served till the end of Clinton’s administration very much in the fashion its neoliberal triangulation that has haunted the Democratic Party ever since.

That triangulation helped lead to the Mortgage Crisis in 2008, which Cuomo played a role in creating. While half-heartedly warning against lowering standards for mortgages and against the rise of pernicious lending practices, he raised the benchmarks for banks and Fannie/Freddie to issue more mortgages to lower-income households that the agencies ultimately couldn’t back when the market tanked. Some have argued that he is more responsible for the crisis than any other single person. That might be a stretch, but he has never accounted for his role in the crisis.

He also did nothing for public housing. This is partly because the Clinton Administration embraced homeownership over rental assistance, which itself was very much a bi-partisan standard given the general dominance of conservative ideology during the era, and also because the Clinton triangulation required the deconstruction of the welfare state. Along those lines, public housing was seen as a place people needed to be moved out of, not into.

There were positive efforts to address extremely distressed public housing during the Clinton Administration, but much of it occurred while Governor Cuomo was assistant-secretary in community development. Those efforts lost steam when he became Secretary, despite his claim otherwise

For the most part, HUD abandoned the mission of public housing and oversaw the destruction of many public develops and the withering away of funding for remaining ones. Cuomo didn’t cause the current crisis in NYCHA, but he did nothing to stop the squeezing of federal funds that has crippled it. He has also never accounted for this legacy.

The governor has always been a generic product of the political times he exists in and his effort to promote homeownership (a disaster that both parties were guilty of) along side the Clinton Administration’s dismal record on affordable housing, came at the expense of public housing funding and later the nation’s economy.

Then he rode his housing experience at HUD to Albany and abandoned that

His spotty record at HUD didn’t stop Cuomo from running for governor (again) on his housing cred and name, winning in 2011. Given that he ran on that experience, his subsequent disinterest in housing policy is even more egregious.

He could have used that experience, especially the lessons learned from the crisis, to become a major leader in changing national and state housing policy away from subsidizing homeownership and towards funding sustainable affordable housing by supporting NYCHA, rent regulation laws, and alternative housing policies like community land trusts. His campaign narrative could have turned into transformative, highly-experienced governing.

Instead, Governor Cuomo ignored housing issues. When he did have to address them, he was lukewarm on protecting let alone extending rent regulation laws and unquestionably friendly to subsidizing big developers. His big public talk always resorted back to closed-room deals with private interests. Not surprisingly, that’s why it costs taxpayers $400k–$600k per unit under the Governor’s affordable housing plan.

Governor Cuomo has also completely ignored NYCHA for 7 years. While threatening to declare a state of emergency for the housing authority (which would put its 178,000 homes under state control, bypassing the existing leadership in the agency and the city) and touting an additional $250m for the agency, he keeps reminding us all that the state has no obligation to fund NYCHA. Aside from the obvious shot at Mayor de Blasio, this statement shows on some level the Governor knows his lack of support looks bad. Because it is bad.

It also looks bad that the state had already approved $200 million for NYCHA but hasn’t allocated it. He had previously committed $300m in 2015 that hasn’t materialized yet either. This pattern of promising lots of resources for housing but failing to deliver them is a long-established habit. We should be extremely skeptical that these announcements will turn into funding that helps residents any time soon.

 We should also be concerned that these funds will come with strings attached. He has also already entertained the idea of bringing in private developers if he does declare an emergency. This would only reinforce the perception that for all his talk, he is interested in helping his powerful developer-backers first. Any help for NYCHA residents is welcome, overdue, and deserved, but the fact that we are left to wonder if, when, and to whom it will materialize is a scandal.

NYCHA faces a truly daunting list of challenges, some of which are entirely self-inflicted. But it is short $20 billion dollars in maintenance and capital costs. The Governor’s pledge, especially as the former head of HUD, is a sick joke compared to that.

And now he wants a promotion

Many people have noted that the timing of the Governor’s new found interest in NYCHA comes as he is preparing for re-election and a potential run for the Democratic nomination in 2020 thereafter. He knows Mayor de Blasio is unpopular in many circles (for some self-inflicted reasons, much like NYCHA) and hopes folks that haven’t paid attention to his own indifference for years will see his efforts now and line up to support him. It is an insult to New York voters, but it has worked in the past.

But it’s not clear that Cuomo will get much traction or credit for his intervention in NYCHA now (or how sincere he will even be in the long run). Residents know that as rough as they’ve had it under Mayor de Blasio, they haven’t gotten help from Cuomo. It won’t take much to remind them that Cuomo ignored them at two different jobs.

It will also be fascinating to see what the governor says about rent regulation laws which are up for renewal in Albany again next year. The annual Rent Guidelines Board meetings will be taking place over the next few months and we can expect many advocates to press the Governor on his position now. 

His record, as I’ve already stated, has been dismal. Expect him to tout his support for the laws and to mention his $20 billion five year plan for housing in the state but to angle for concessions to developers as he tried to get during the 421a renewal last year. It could blow up in his face this time.

This is because, after all these years of triangulation, the Governor is in trouble. He had a taste of this last year during the budget shutdown. Whatever he decides to do with NYCHA and rent regulations, he will alienate a key element of his re-election strategy. He needs Democrats, especially progressives, to back him (or at least remain divided), but he also needs his usual wealthy backers. There are few plausible scenarios where he can secure both.

The Governor has never had a strong constituency or political base either in NYC or outside of the city. He has relied on New York’s horrendous voter apathy and deep-pocketed developers to aid his re-election before. Now, however, in the Trump Age, progressives have woken to enemies within both parties and many are gunning for him on the left (even before former-actress, qualified lesbian Cynthia Nixon announced her primary challenge.) Even if he continues his cynical lurch left, very few progressives will buy it and many more voters will be paying closer attention for the first time.

Governor Cuomo’s record on affordable housing is clear. He has been at best indifferent and at worst hostile to policies that don’t include massive subsidies to private developers. Under his administration, help for public housing, rent regulation laws, and alternative housing models like community land trusts has been largely ignored, slow-walked, or superficially supported.

That hasn’t stopped others from acting in his absence, but the lack of leadership has been glaring given that his entire career is based on his alleged housing expertise. Trying to make up for years of indifference now might get him some press, but it won’t erase a career of opportunism around housing. That isn’t the only reason will never be president let alone the nominee in 2020, but it might very well jeopardize him even in 2018.

Why New York Should Have a Constitutional Convention, But Still Needs the Feds

Not exactly what we had in mind (newamsterdamny.org)

Not exactly what we had in mind (newamsterdamny.org)

Since the election of Donald Trump, a lot has been made about the need for more localism.  With the federal government either locked in partisan paralysis or actively cutting back on services, there is a compelling argument for letting states run their own affairs – after all, states are the great laboratories of democracy.  However, we can look at the recent talk of holding a Constitutional Convention in New York to see why this argument is ultimately flawed.

There are two main reasons that localism can’t help improve how our cities/states are governed. First, our society has evolved into a highly complex, integrated national and global environment where the actions of distant players have local consequences.  We need a strong, active federal government to manage the needs of loosely connected people and places.  Despite what many would argue as too many onerous regulations from the federal government (on things like environmental policy), the larger trend over the last 40 years is the retreat of federal policy (on financial policy as one example), which has produced some of the greatest inequality in our country’s history.

Second, this assumes that states are functional enough to handle more responsibility, which is, sadly, not at all clear.  Part of this goes back to the first reason. Our economy and society are too complex and integrated for state-level governments to be able to address all of their citizens’ concerns. Even well run states can be left behind as the economy and demographics shift. But part of it is bad governance.  New York State is a prime example.

I’ve written a lot about the flaws within New York State’s governance (and though I’ve been highly critical of Governor Cuomo, most of those flaws are structural and not his fault per se.)  The quirks of history and geography have put a mostly rural state together with the country’s greatest city.  It has also separated commuters across three states that have more in common with each other than their other fellow citizens.  These issues are beyond the reach of a (state) Constitutional Convention, but show the limits to what a state can address.

However, here is a brief list of what could and should be fixed in New York.  These changes, along with many others certainly, could improve on the quality of governance in the state, but the larger point is to demonstrate that they still couldn’t address the larger trends that pose current and future problems for the state.

1.     One Full-Time Legislature

Many states have a two-body legislative system with part-time legislators based on logic from the US Constitution intended to spread out political power across regions and classes. The idea of the citizen-legislator has romantic undertones, but in practice it means you get an unprofessional class of elected officials who are ripe with conflicts of interest.  

The increasing nationalization of all politics and flooding of out-of-state money into local elections further undermines this quaint notion.  Post-election, lobbyist groups like ALEC often write legislation word-for-word in many states and provide funds and perks for many elected officials all to eager to lighten their load.

The "Three Men in A Room" Era of New York politics has been the opposite. Not only have two of those three people ended up in jail, but also the system made a mockery of both bodies of representation.  The dynamics of New York politics dictate that downstate voting power dominates the Democrat-led Assembly and downstate financial power dominates the Republican-led Senate. This unholy alliance works because we have too many weak legislators.

Paying professional politicians and staff to govern our state through one representative house would produce better outcomes with more transparency.  Singapore has shown how paying comparable private-sector salaries can improve the efficiency and efficacy of government.  We get what we pay for, and I’d rather pay fewer people more to do a better job. 

2.     Home Rule

Localism as it is described in many circles calls for cities to control more of their destinies in the Trump Age. That belies the fact that they can’t.  The US Constitution does not mention cities at all and empowers states exclusively outside of the federal level.  This means that a city like NYC doesn’t control its own transportation, taxation, or even education. 

The honest truth is that NYC is special (obviously I have fully embraced my NYC-centric worldview) and needs to run its own affairs.  It’s one of the world’s premiere cities and needs to have autonomy to run its own affairs to complete with global cities like London or Hong Kong.  That it can’t manage its sprawling obligations and opportunities as easily as Paris or London can costs NYC, New York, and the US. 

Some ideas have been floated for the Convention about returning limited home rule to NYC or as radical as creating autonomous regions (see the picture above) or even succession.  If there was some compromise that cut out a special designation for the 5 boroughs given its unique nature, but would still guarantee some upstate financial exchange - that might just work. But if such a scenario that could benefit both the city and the rest of the state (and the rest of its cities) even exists remains to be seen. And I for one don't want to create a scenario where one region suffers because the other separates.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely that upstate communities would want to surrender access to NYC tax dollars. More importantly, it’s unlikely that upstate politicians would want to surrender access to downstate political money, which would evaporate if upstate influence wasn’t needed.  And no governor, certainly not the current one, would want to surrender the power, and access to the spotlight, that NYC provides. 

3.     Debt Service

Technically, this is more about transparency, but how the state borrows money is in need of a major overhaul.  Right now the Constitution says that voters must approve any state borrowing over a certain amount but that hasn’t happened in decades.  This is because most state borrowing comes through sub-state authorities and agencies that are explicitly exempt from voter referendums. 

Many elected officials, including at one time Governor Cuomo, have criticized this “back-door” borrowing but when push comes to shove, it is a very convenient tool to get projects funded, so the practice continues.   At $300b, New York has the second highest state debt in the country (although, it has been on sound footing for several years.) 

It should be said that debt is not a bad thing for a state to have, especially when it is borrowing for infrastructure and public services that have long-term benefits. The problem is less the outright number or the state’s current ability to fund its debt service and more the ability to determine priorities. The assumption is that most voters won’t know enough or care enough about the state borrowing for a new bridge and might vote it down with enough protest.  This is unfortunately true in some cases. 

However, this is myopic.  The larger truth is that New York, like most states, gives money away for terrible projects all the time without facing voters’ wrath.  The city and state gave close to $500m to Yankee Stadium, without a “yes” from voters.  The Governor gave billions of dollars to upstate, without a “yes” from voters.  Just two weeks ago, it was announced that Aetna, the publicly traded insurance giant, will receive $34m in city/state money to move 250 jobs to Chelsea. Without having to justify expenses to voters, the state has wasted billions and will continue to. 

This all while expansion of public education, transportation, and pension funding all suffer.  It’s always the big-ticket items that get political pushback, but too many little things get through the cracks. This happens because the state thinks voters are ignorant and lazy when in reality they are ignored and misinformed.  Only by changing the way we control our taxes will that change.

There are a lot of other issues that could be addressed in a Convention and there are risks that silly ideas or even bad ones will get traction or distract the process.  These potential issues don’t outweigh the need to reboot the state of New York.  It is entirely healthy for citizens to revisit the organizing documents of its government. I hope that we do this fall. But it’s clear to me that without stronger federal action, cities and states can’t fend for themselves no matter how well run they are.

Budget Process Continues to Expose Governor Cuomo

Different story this time around (cnn)

Different story this time around (cnn)

New York State is still without a budget and will likely remain so for the immediate future.  The Senate has left for its Easter Break, though the Assembly remains (unpaid) in Albany for now. They have collectively passed an emergency extender for two months, but there is a lot of bad blood circulating in Albany over why a budget agreement hasn't been struck.  As I laid out in last week's blog, the problem can largely be placed at Governor Cuomo's door.  Despite attempts to blame the uncertainty of the federal budget or the major differences between priorities in the legislature, the Governor can't distract anyone from his lack of leadership in a changing political landscape.  Housing shows why.

Given the affordable housing crisis gripping New York (primarily in NYC but not exclusively) major state action has been needed for a long time. Over the last few years, Governor Cuomo has happily stepped up to the microphone with grand proposals for addressing the crisis head on.  He has talked about turning JP Morgan settlement money over to homeless programs.  He has talked about reforming the controversial 421a tax program. And most famously, he has outlined an ambitious 20-year, $20 billion affordable housing plan. These grand promises were met with a lot of support, particularly from wary housing advocates.

However, almost none of these promises have been kept or even outlined in detail. Instead, we've seen the Governor feud with Mayor de Blasio by withholding state funds for housing. We've seen him spike a deal at the last minute on a revamped 421a plan the Governor himself proposed called Affordable New York. And we've seen almost none of the billions of dollars of funding called for in his plan allocated to affordable housing projects.

All of this posturing could be viewed as the Governor wielding considerable power over the political mechanics of the state, in a presumed ramp up to a 2020 presidential run. In reality, it has revealed a politician weakened in a new landscape, mired in his own contradictory impulses, and exposed for lacking a strong political base. Who is the Governor's core constituency?

The Governor has tried to please the strong downstate progressive element of his party in the Assembly while also trying to please the powerful, more conservative, developer interests aligned with upstate Republicans in the Senate. This balancing act works when the stakes are lower or when the issues are unrelated. 

The Governor can come out in favor of issues like gay marriage or anti-fracking because they don't impact developers' bottom line.  He can come out in favor of 421a reform, over the objections of many housing advocates, because it can be framed as an affordable housing mechanism even though it is largely a tax giveaway for large developers.

It doesn't work when those two worlds collide, which is what is happening over housing in budget negotiations. This budget requires some hard compromises on housing that simply can't match the Governor's promises to progressives and conservatives.  It doesn’t appear that the Governor anticipated the political environment he was entering, or at the very least, how this new environment would force him to make choices that he could previously avoid.

As of Wednesday, these negotiations have collapsed and state legislatures have walked away from the process without a deal. I don't want to suggest that housing is the only issue holding up the budget, but the issue shows how the Governor's leadership style has led us to this moment. 

Building housing in New York is difficult. Building affordable housing in New York is really difficult. These realities are partly structural - there are so many local variables, policies, and market forces that clash with each other that its nearly impossible to streamline a single affordable housing initiative. But these realities are also political. It's not impossible to pass a cohesive plan that addresses these structural issues, but it means pissing off somebody. Or lots of somebodies. 

Some politicians thrive under those partisan circumstances and some political systems even incentivize that type of style. Governor Cuomo is not that politician and New York State is not that system.  

That is the worst thing in the world necessarily.  There is something to be said for being a steely-eyed dealmaker and there is something to be said for a system that operates through old-fashioned power brokering rather than ideological extremism. Indeed, the previous six budgets during the Governor's reign have been passed on time and without going over major fiscal cliffs. 

However, over the years this has meant the “Three Men in A Room” style of governance involving the Governor and now disgraced Senate majority leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.  Both men were removed from office and convicted of federal corruption charges, radically altering the political landscape. Albany has always had the stink of corruption, but these developments, some of which have creeped into the Governor’s orbit, have undermined much of the Governor’s standing and power.

This ethical gray zone is largely why Governor Cuomo has maintained considerable control over Albany over two terms, with a hoped for third term on the way in 2018.  He has been able to strike deals in the legislature that have avoided big flair ups between parties by relying on his ability to maneuver in back rooms. But that is not the case anymore. (Although ethics reform has taken a back seat in this budget process.)

Without his fellow leaders to keep reigns on the political process, the Governor doesn’t have the type of cover he once relied on and it shows.  It is now up to him to make tough policy trade-offs in a much broader political arena than he is used to.  He has lost the initiative in crafting the budget process and can no longer control each chamber as he once could.

This isn’t lost on the Governor. His comments on the 421a negotiations show an almost child-like surprise that there are other motivations in politics than triangulation: “What we’re down to is truly ideological issues. 421a is an ideological, philosophical issue.”  Evidently, this is the first budget season where the Governor has had to consider actual political theory.

This openness has led to some truly bad ideas coming out of the negotiations, including linking 421a to rent regulation laws (which come up for renewal again in 2019.)  The Governor has come out against this line of thinking and it seems unlikely that a deal like this would be struck, but it shows that whatever deal does get done, Governor Cuomo will likely face the unpleasant realty of owning a divisive budget that he ultimately had less control over than his previous budgets.

How this will impact the Governor’s fortunes in 2018 let alone 2020 are unknown at this stage. But what is clear, and dispiriting, is that the housing crisis will continue, and many struggling New Yorkers will not get the help promised by the Governor so many times before. 

Cuomo In a Tantalizing Bind Over Housing

Working hard or hardly working, Andy? (ngn)

Working hard or hardly working, Andy? (ngn)

Tonight is the deadline for New York State’s elected officials to pass the next budget before the new fiscal year starts tomorrow. By all accounts it won’t happen. New York is not alone in struggling to pass a budget in the absence of clarity at the federal level.  President Trump has proposed severe cuts, which could imperil the $150b New York budget, making any proposals fraught with doubt.  But the president isn’t the only actor harming the process. Governor Cuomo has placed his ambitions and calculations ahead of the immediate needs of the state, particularly on housing.

I generally don’t care much for the horse race stuff about Governor Cuomo looking towards 2020 for a presidential run, but it is clearly a big part of his calculations right now. Unfortunately, this has a big immediate impact on affordable housing, so I’ll play along.  Though the presidential calendar has gotten shorter and shorter, it’s still too early for any candidate to be discussed seriously.  (For what it’s worth, I predict son following father and ultimately getting cold feet anyway.)

Before the governor can dream about 2020, he must get re-elected in 2018.  That’s likely, but not guaranteed.  That’s why this budget season is so crucial for him.  It will signal what kind of Democrat he will position himself as on the national level.  President Trump indirectly offers the Governor two radically opposed, equally fraught, options in my opinion.

Before I get to those two options, let’s remember a couple of important facts.  First, last year Governor Cuomo announced a huge five year $20b affordable housing plan that would build 100,000 units and outlined a longer-term plan for 20,000 supportive housing units.  Though light on details - it was through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which isn’t handled like a normal budget allocation process and serves more as a wish list -  it was a major policy shift that scored political points from housing advocates across the state.

Second, Governor Cuomo also announced a (slightly) revamped plan called Affordable New York to replace the controversial 421a tax policy that expired last year when the governor blocked a compromised proposal over union wage labor.  The new plan would largely continue the existing framework of 421a, which would create dubiously affordable units at considerable cost to the city and state. Many advocates hate 421a, but developers love it.

In both cases, little has come to show for those initiatives. Of the initial $2b allotted in the 5-year plan, only $150m has been dispersed, while the rest remains frozen.  There is no deal yet on the new 421a/ANY plan either.

This lack of progress is because Governor Cuomo, relying on his love of MOUs, directly linked both proposals and one can’t happen without the other.  Because Democrats dominate the State Assembly and Republicans control the State Senate, the Governor seemingly made a political calculation that he could appease both chambers (or, more aptly their leadership) and deliver on his promises by using both proposals as balancing weights.  That has not panned out, despite the fact that both parties have agreed to allocate the frozen funding.

Governor Cuomo has had a history of making grand promises on affordable housing, attempting to deliver them through MOUs, and failing to do so. In addition to the current mess, has attempted to use settlement money from JP Morgan to combat homelessness to no avail, he has withheld funds for NYC over petty squabbling with Mayor de Blasio, and even his handling of the 421a expiration appeared to have been in bad faith.  It’s almost as if, even as a former HUD Secretary in the Clinton Administration, he isn’t that interested in housing policy.

Now we can return to the two democrats Governor Cuomo could portray himself as if he were serious about a 2020 run.  The first is the pragmatic power broker who gets things built while working with the other side.  This candidate is a more accurate representation of the Governor and could conceivably appeal to the donor class of the Democratic Party as well as moderate Republicans further alienated by the Trump Era. 

The second is the liberal firebrand championing infrastructure spending, gay marriage, and environmental protection that can rally the progressive wing of the Democratic Party without totally alienating centrists. Despite some notable achievements on some ‘liberal’ policies, this is not a natural position for the Governor to hold, even if that’s likely where the electorate will be.

This is why housing has proven to be such a challenge for Governor Cuomo to follow through on, despite his background in it. Right now, today, the issue is forcing him to pick one version of himself to commit to and it’s not clear which he should choose.

If he could deliver on affordable housing, it would further his narrative of being an effective progressive at the national level.  But to do this would alienate much of his bi-partisan bonhomie in the Senate and with wealthy developers whom he needs for his re-election in 2018.  Progressive affordable housing reform is deeply unpopular with these stakeholders and disappointing them poses an immense risk.

If he doesn’t deliver on affordable housing, it would leave him open to attacks from progressives at the state level. The need for affordable housing is so obvious and so urgent that failing to deliver on it could absolutely summon a credible challenger in a primary. This might not ultimately cost him the election in 2018, but it would solidify enough resistance that would damage his campaign and undermine his already flimsy progressive narrative on the national level.

Housing isn’t getting much of the focus in today’s last minute budget negotiations and there are certainly other issues holding up the process.  But that won’t let the Governor off the hook.  Housing looms over everything.

Though the state budget proposal does not spend much time addressing the potential cuts the state faces from the federal government, the Governor and elected officials from either party are rightfully concerned about them.  No one knows exactly how much of a gap this proposed budget will face if federal support dramatically changes over the next few years.

What is entirely left unsaid is that the state will be on the hook for the federal cuts expected to hit HUD and housing programs in general.  Given that NYCHA gets over 2/3 of its $3b budget from HUD, and HPD gets hundreds of millions, among other city-level programs, this leaves a potentially crippling whole that cities, even NYC, can’t possibly fill.  The fact that Governor Cuomo is dodging genuine leadership on housing even before these cuts should be alarming.  What happens if they do come? Will the Governor be there to help?

It’s possible that the budget will get worked out, housing funds will flow as promised, and these federal cuts won’t materialize.  Governor Cuomo could waltz along to re-election and to the national stage and New Yorkers would perhaps finally have some relief from the housing crisis.

But it is also possible that federal cuts will come, that their impact will effectively kill the current housing proposals, and potentially let the Governor off the hook for not delivering, while still appearing to champion affordable housing.  It would be deeply cynical to build a political strategy on this dire outcome, but politicians have done worse.

There are over 88,000 homeless in the New York State and nearly half of NYC renters are rent burdened.  The affordable housing crisis is too large to be viewed through a narrow political lens and it’s unacceptable that Governor Cuomo has chosen to do so.  Even without impending cuts from the federal level, the Governor has not delivered on his promises so far.  History will judge his next actions long after the voters in 2018 or 2020 get their say.

Flint vs New York City

Lead levels in NYC Soil (Soil Science)

Lead levels in NYC Soil (Soil Science)

Last night's CNN Democratic Presidential Debate took place in Flint, Michigan, focusing the national spotlight on the inexcusable and entirely avoidable water crisis that has terrorized the city and jeopardized the health of thousands of its citizens. The crisis in Flint has also revealed how widespread and ongoing the risk of lead exposure is for other parts of the country, including NYC.  

Flint, like so many other former industrial cities, has been decimated by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last forty years and about 40% of its residents live in poverty.  Decades of (white) population loss eroded the city's tax base and left behind a minority-majority city with severe financial difficulties, prompting the state of Michigan to take emergency control of the city in 2011. This arrangement circumvented the mayor and city council entirely, which has gotten lost in some of the media coverage.  One of the ways the emergency manager, Darnell Earley, found to save money was to stop buying water from Detroit and join a new water system being built using Lake Huron water.  That system wasn't built yet, so he turned to treating water from Flint River in the meantime.  

The river water was so polluted and corrosive that it started to peel off pieces of the lead pipes serving the city, causing the water supply to reach dangerously high levels of lead (while also containing many other pollutants). In some cases, the level of lead in children's blood doubled.  I can't state just how tragic this is.  Exposure to high levels of lead can permanently damage a child's brain and prevent cognitive development. Some estimates show that 8,000 children were drinking contaminated water for months in Flint.  

What is so damning, and so unforgivable about this is that the city failed to properly treat the water and the state failed to test it. It took months of residents complaining about the color and taste of the water - all while officials claimed the water was perfectly safe - before anyone did anything about it.  The state was sending its employees in Flint bottled water while they downplayed the risk publicly. Though the water system has been shifted back to Detroit, the damage in Flint is forever.

It also took months for the national media to start paying attention as well. Now that it does, we have started to see stories in other states about lead levels and, disturbingly, many other cities and towns appear to have even higher levels than Flint. New York City is no different.

Lead paint in NYC (nydailynews)

Lead paint in NYC (nydailynews)

Lead is everywhere in New York City - in the soil as a legacy of its heavy industrial past, in the paint of many older buildings prior to being banned in 1960, and in the water pipes of many buildings and houses prior to being banned in 1961. It is an unfortunate fact of life, but one that the our city has faced with significant success over all.  In 1971 2,600 young children were hospitalized for lead poisoning, but by 2012 only 5 were.  

Much of this success is based on the creation of strong agencies within the the city and the state that monitor our water supply, soil, and buildings.  Whether its the city's Department of Environmental ProtectionDepartment of Housing Preservation and Development, or Department of Health, or the state's Department of Health, or Department of Environmental Conservation, we have a lot of people paying close attention to lead levels where we work, live, and play.  

But that doesn't mean the problem no longer exists (see first map). Indeed, it is not going away anytime soon since so much of the soil is polluted and so many buildings and pipes in the city pre-date the banning of lead.  Naturally, the risk of exposure is much worse for poorer New Yorkers.  In 2012, almost 1,000 children tested positive for lead poisoning.  80% of those were minorities from poor neighborhoods.  

The biggest source of lead exposure in these cases is almost certainly lead paint.  Sadly, as I wrote about in a previous post, the underfunding for public housing appears to be having a disproportionally large affect on this issue. NYCHA buildings, most of which were built before the lead bans were in place, have layers upon layers of lead paint that can take months to remove even after an inspection is made.  There are scores of outstanding removal projects, some dating back several years. With billions of dollars in operating and capital needs, removing all the lead paint from thousands of apartments appears to be a sadly elusive goal when compared to the litany of outstanding issues.

We can look tearfully towards what has been happening in Flint and rest assured that New York City does not face the same challenges.  But we can't ignore that many New Yorkers, most of them young and poor, still face a high risk of lead exposure - a risk that is entirely avoidable if we give the institutions already in place the resources and attention that they deserve. 

Why Mayors and Governors in New York Rarely Get Along and Why it's a Problem

Leave the bonds. Take the Cannoli. (north country public radio)

Leave the bonds. Take the Cannoli. (north country public radio)

Several news outlets in the city are reporting on the latest beef between Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo and how it could harm upcoming housing projects in the city.  This particular beef is over federal tax-free bonds made available to states to encourage construction of affordable housing, but it represents just one rift of many between the two Democrats.  Troubling as this feud is for residents of NYC, it is part of an old, long-standing Great Game between the two most visible elected offices in the state and represents a much bigger problem with politics in New York.

First, the details of the bond feud matter a great deal in the ongoing affordability crisis in NYC. For decades, federal bonds (worth about $900m in 2014 and $700m in 2015) have been dolled out from New York State to New York City with little state interjection. These funds are tax-exempt on the federal, state, and city level which makes them attractive to developers and generally follows certain guidelines ensuring the creation of affordable housing units. The city has used these bonds in about 40% of recent affordable housing projects according to the NY Times article.

However, starting last year the state has begun to withhold money, which already delayed a city plan to develop 1,200 units. This trend has continued as state officials have been quietly informing city officials and developers over the last month that the city will no longer receive the same levels of money.  The funds that the city will get will now be micro-managed by the state through the Empire State Development Corporation and Public Authorities Control Board.  City officials and developers appear to be confused about why this change has occurred and are uncertain about how it will affect developments that have been approved or are close to construction. 

The Governor has downplayed the changes stating that they are intended to "supplement" rather than "supplant" the city's plan but so far has not made any of his own $20b housing plan's details public (he is expected to do so in April.) Given that Mayor de Blasio has made affordable housing a signature policy focus, these changes in funding options clearly put his housing plan at risk and the timing of the announcement has certainly raised eye-brows across the city and state.

The big question is if the money will still eventually be allotted to the same projects with the same goals that the Mayor has laid out.  If that is the end result, it will be hard not to view the move as a petty power grab by the Governor.  If, on the other hand, the Governor's housing plan is radically different than the Mayor's then it would be easier to claim that it represents a new policy focus, but could still have severe consequences for current projects. Either way, it is very public rebuff of the Mayor's agenda and throws many affordable housing projects up in the air.

Though some of the feud between the Mayor and the Governor might be chalked up to personality clashes or political differences, the reality is that this dynamic has been common in New York state politics for decades and speaks to a larger issue of political disfunction. The main culprits for this dynamic are New York State's unique history and geography.

New York State counties by geography and relative population size (maps4office)

New York State counties by geography and relative population size (maps4office)

The modern state border of New York evolved through a series of (still contested) treaties with the Iroquois Confederacy before and after The French and Indian War and the British after the Revolutionary War but also through equally contested agreements with Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This has created a widely varied geographical entity with little practical cohesion.  In 1797, Albany was chosen as the permanent capital city because it was central enough for state legislators to travel to and it didn't overly bias the state's business towards the dominance of New York, which by 1835 became the largest city in the country. This tension defines the state to this day.

As a result of its geography, New York State is better viewed as two distinct sub-states which are referred to as "upstate" and "downstate".  The definitions are debated, but generally Upstate New York is considered everything north and east of Westchester County and made up of smaller cities and rural communities while downstate consists of the metropolitan region of New York including Westchester and Long Island.  Out of 19.7 million state residents, 63% live downstate with 40% living in NYC. 

Politically, upstate has generally been more conservative than the downstate metropolitan region but the population difference has made New York an uncontested blue state, voting Democratic in every presidential election since 1988.  However, at the state level, given the structure of the State Senate, Republicans have held power almost exclusively since WWII, balancing out the large population difference between upstate and downstate.

This creates a unique political dynamic that some have even argued should be formally separated. That's not going to happen, but it shows just how different the two sub-states are in reality.  It also explains the different constituencies that a mayor and governor have to play to.  Even though Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio are both Democrats, and both broadly agree on many issues, they have to navigate vastly different political territory and interests. 

This is absolutely true of any governor/mayor relationship, but the size of New York City and its importance both nationally and internationally create different perceptions of the two offices. With the potential exception of Illinois/Chicago, no other state has a situation where the mayor of its major city is better known than its governor. That can create some bruised egos.

Further complicating the relationship is the fact that, though the mayor of New York City is generally higher profile, in reality the governor has significantly more power over the city.  Whether its tax policy, economic development funds, the MTA, the Port Authority, or housing laws the Governor controls much of New York City from Albany.  This creates a lot of tension between the offices, especially when they are held by the same party - whether it was Mayor Lindsay-Governor Rockefeller in the early 1970s, Mayor Koch-Governor (Mario) Cuomo in the 1980s, or Mayor Bloomberg-Governor Pataki in the 2000s.  If you're the mayor and the governor is the same party, you almost have to expect more opposition given the structure of power in Albany.

The upstate/downstate divide isn't just about political personalities clashing for headlines.  It has a major impact on policy decisions because it warps voter representation and turnout.

I've already mentioned how the population tilt makes it a safe blue state nationally for Democrats while the balance of power in the State Senate has been dominated by Republicans since WWII because of redistricting.  This balance is a false and dangerous one perpetuated by both parties.  Senate districts have overrepresented upstate while Assembly districts have overrepresented downstate making sure the status quo remains intact. This has resulted in stunning corruption across the state and has frozen the political discourse.

Senate Districts (latfor)

Senate Districts (latfor)

It has also caused historically low turnout.  In Governor Cuomo's re-election in 2014 (33%) and Mayor de Blasio's election in 2013 (28%) the state and city experienced their lowest turnout on record. Some of the low turnout in those elections can be explained by the lack of a real contest.  For Mayor de Blasio, winning the primary assured a sweeping victory in the general election. Governor Cuomo had a closer race, but was excepted to sail to victory and did.  

A more troubling explanation could be voter disillusionment.  It's not hard to become cynical when Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (two of the "Big 3" in state politics for a long time) were both found guilty of corruption while scores of other state officials have also been charged and convicted.  Voters don't have much faith in state politics and have turned away in New York State and beyond, which is surely fine with varied interests that benefit from the status quo. When voters aren't paying attention, a lot of deals can be made that they wouldn't like regardless of their political persuasion. 

It is natural and even healthy for tension to exist among elected officials.  Though much of the mayor-governor clashes in New York have been ego driven, some are based on policy and vision, which is how any healthy democracy should operate. The fact that the current dynamic between the Mayor and the Governor potentially distracts the media and voters from the larger issues of fair representation, transparency, and accountability at the state level is dangerous, however.  We can already see how the feud impacts affordable housing policy.  

 The ongoing calls to reform Albany must be repeated by the media to reach voters currently sitting out the process.  Only when more voters reenter the political discussion will we see the types of ethics reforms and policy changes that the state, whether up or down, needs.