Op-Ed by Pat Arnow
Even the most informed NYC voters might overlook key proposals tucked on the back of this year's ballot. These measures are significant, so don't forget to flip your ballot and make your voice heard.
Here’s what's up as early voting begins on Saturday:
Proposal 1
VOTE YES on the State Equal Rights Amendment to the state Constitution.
Equality for all under the law seems like it would be straightforward and popular, but big money is being spent to defeat it.
Proposals 2-6
VOTE NO on NYC Charter proposals.
"Mayor Adams rushed revisions to change NYC's charter (our constitution) to give the current and future mayors more unchecked power, weaken checks-and-balances, and make it harder for city government to deliver for New Yorkers. The proposals came out of the most rushed and undemocratic charter revision process of the past 20 years and should never have been fast-tracked to our ballots." (from the Grand Street Democrats)
Here's the text of Proposal 1, the ERA to the NY State Constitution:
§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.
Proposals 2-6: They sound innocuous, even beneficial, but they're destructive and a power grab by the mayor.
Proposal 2: "This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation's power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers." One of the several problems with this initiative, according to The City, is increased ticketing (harassment) of street vendors and small businesses.
Proposal 3: "This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines."
According to The City, "Opponents of Prop 3 say that requiring the executive branch to submit a budget estimate before a public hearing on a bill is held will just delay lawmaking processes that already take years...Jason Otaño, general counsel for the City Council, testified at one of the Charter Revision Commission hearings that Prop 3 would give the mayor's office a 'de facto veto' of proposed legislation…"
Proposal 4: This proposal would require additional public notice and time before the City Council votes on laws respecting the public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments.
According to The City, "City and State reported that opponents felt that the Adams administration was pushing this proposal in direct response to two specific laws passed by City Council earlier this year: one that requires the NYPD to report on lower-level encounters with residents and another which bans solitary confinement. Adams vetoed both those laws, and the City Council then overrode him."
Proposal 5: "This proposal would amend the City Charter to require more detail in the annual assessment of City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines."
From No Power Grab NY: "The mayor's charter commission claimed that Proposal 5 was based on a recommendation from the city’s Comptroller (the city’s top financial executive)."
Comptroller Brad Lander’s statement reads in part: "Requiring the Citywide Statement of Needs to include additional detail on facility condition is meaningless for capital budget planning purposes — since these are in fact the projects that the City has already decided need to be improved and to invest funds to do so…"
Proposal 6: "This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish the Chief Business Diversity Officer (CBDO), authorize the mayor to designate the office that issues film permits, and combine archive boards."
From No Power Grab NY: "Proposition 6 is a collection of three totally unrelated items. It claims to support Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBEs), but really only renames and largely restates the role of a mayoral office. This gives the illusion of change without additional concrete support for MWBEs."
For more on what these proposals will do and objections to them, here are several resources and published reports cited above:
• A Guide to the Six Ballot Questions New Yorkers Will Vote on in 2024 (The City)
• Why New Yorkers Should Vote 'No' on Proposals 2 Through 6 (NYCLU)
• 2024 NYC General Election Ballot Proposals (New York City Council)
• VOTE NO on Props 2-6 — What You Need to Know (No Power Grab NYC, PDF)
So be sure when you vote to flip your ballot and vote on these propositions!
------
Pat Arnow is a Lower East Side resident, park advocate and founder of East River Park Action.
19 comments:
Thank you for breaking this down for us and shining light.
Thank you for posting this. I'm a little worried people will be inclined to vote yes on #2 because it makes it sound like the dept of sanitation will be more effective (not so) and I've heard people saying as much. And the way #1 is worded seems deliberately confusing. City Council also sent out an email explaining the reasons to vote no on 2-6.
So glad you posted this. Will share as much as possible on socials. The idea of any mayor of NYC having even more power is frightening, much less Adams.
Thank you for this!
Thank you for posting this, Grieve - so helpful to have this clarified!
Thank you so much.
Much thanks for posting this. My neighbor and I are going to vote early on Saturday at the 13th street polling location. I, like others, am very nervous with this election cycle. So exhausting. Let's hope for a humane outcome.
Please look at more sources of information before drawing all your conclusions! On City Charter measure #3, the non-profit, non-partisan budget research and watchdog group Citizens Budget Commission recommends "Yes". This proposal would require the Council to do an analysis of the cost of proposals BEFORE it holds hearings. The Mayor's office is invited, but not required, to submit its own cost analysis and can't hold things up by not submitting an analysis. This revision addresses the reality that the Council is wont to advance costly proposals without identifying costs until the legislation is at the final vote stage, when the analysis isn't very relevant to the vote. You can read more on the CBC's website.
More from The City on measure 3 to above commenter. Is this not correct? It does seem that the mayor would indeed have a de facto veto if this is correct: "A “yes” vote on Proposition 3 would change parts of this process: it would mandate that the City Council submit a Fiscal Impact Statement earlier, so that public hearings on legislation could take the cost of the law into account, and would necessitate that all statements have a budget estimate not just from City Council, but from the Office of Management and Budget — part of the executive branch, i.e. the mayor."
Thanks so much!
About the above comment on #3--The City explains why this would be a virtual pre-veto. Is this correct? "A 'yes' vote on Proposition 3 would change parts of this process: it would mandate that the City Council submit a Fiscal Impact Statement earlier, so that public hearings on legislation could take the cost of the law into account, and would necessitate that all statements have a budget estimate not just from City Council, but from the Office of Management and Budget — part of the executive branch, i.e. the mayor."
Correct, thanks for posting this. I did a lot of research and agree that it is best to vote YES for Prop 1 & vote NO for Prop 2-6 (the rest of the props).
@ Pat -- I believe the "de facto veto" idea is incorrect. (Keep in mind that the Mayor and Council are in a fight over these ballot measures so neither could be considered impartial evaluators.) Per the Citizens Budget Commission (cbcny.org), "Question 3 would also require the Council to notify the Mayor's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) eight days before an upcoming hearing. If OMB choses to to provide its own estimate of the bill's fiscal impact more than three days before the hearing, the Council must include OMB's estimate with its own in the Financial Impact Statement (FIS). If OMB does not provide an estimate at all or in time, the Council can proceed to publish only its own." The proposal may increase the Council staff workload but it's hard to argue that the legislative process shouldn't include consideration of costs and benefits from the start. Thanks for looking at all this.
"One of the several problems with this initiative, according to The City, is increased ticketing (harassment) of street vendors and small businesses" - Enforcing laws is not "harassment". The unlicensed street vendor situation is completely out of control everywhere in the city. I'm going for YES on 2.
I am OK with Proposition 2 and something that will help the City (no it is not helping the mayor) address trash all over and proliferation of folks selling “stuff” all over the sidewalks and parks throughout NYC.
IMO not possible to have a city which is based on pervasive “do whatever I want whenever I want” approach
The thing with Prop #2 is the NYPD and Parks Dept already have jurisdiction over public areas and can ticket vendors. Adding DSNY just adds to the mix. If vending is a problem, I think it can be dealt with in different, more specific ways rather than adding this extra layer of bureaucracy. I think holding NYPD and Parks more accountable would be a better choice. I don't trust Adams with any of these measures.
To 9:41,
It is my sense that NYPD gets tasked with more and more responsibilities dealing with daily life - while the City keeps allowing more chaos saying it will be “enforced “. Like letting restaurants blast music all night - but then force the NYPD to “enforce “.
That is not possible for various reasons.
Nor good use of NYPD IMO
Sanitation ticketing for trash — I don’t have a problem with that. Agree that saying NYPD or Parks should do it is a cop-out (so to speak). So I am voting yes on 2 as well as 3 and maybe some others. I think part of what is happening is that people are rightly angry at the Mayor so they think that voting against the charter revisions is a statement or protest vote. It would be better to consider the proposals one by one and see if they make sense to you.
I seem to have missed the scourge of street vendors but regardless involving sanitation is a bad idea. By definition there's no address or door to leave the ticket on so ... ? demand identification? And maybe throw everything into the trash compactor because when what you have is a trash compactor everything looks like garbage? Asking a vendor for identification is an NYPD job.
I get that some in these threads would prefer the trains ran on time regardless of complications but these Adam's power grabs are not a good or even efficient direction.
Post a Comment