News from STATE SENATOR

Liz Krueger

New York State Senate, 26th District

 

COMMUNITY BULLETIN – May 2005

 

Message from Liz . . .

Earlier this month the Senate gave final approval to two budget reform bills (S.1 and S.2), which match legislation passed by the Assembly earlier this year.  One of these bills is a constitutional amendment that will now go before the voters this fall.  While there are a number of good items in these proposals, in the end I could not support them, as I believe they represent a flawed model of budget reform that eliminates one problem with our budget process by unnecessarily creating another.

 

One problem that these bills address is the inordinate power of the Governor in the budget process, power that was increased even more by a recent court decision.  Through his executive budget, the Governor has the power not only to propose spending levels, but can also insert language that changes state policy.  And while the constitution does permit the legislature to alter the numbers, according to the courts, we are not permitted to alter the policy-making language.  This has the effect of transferring huge amounts of legislative power to the executive branch, which is a violation of the principal of separation of powers, and taken to its extreme could effectively eliminate the legislature from the policy making process entirely.  The one power the courts have left to the legislature is the power of delay – we can simply refuse to pass the governor’s budget.  This is hardly a desirable option however, since late budgets have been a chronic problem for our state, and has real consequences for localities, schools and nonprofits that depend on the state for support. 

 

Unfortunately, the solution to the concentration of power with the executive offered by these bills swings the pendulum too far, and creates a new incentive for late budgets.  The most problematic provisions deal with the adoption and amendment of a “contingency budget,” which would go into effect automatically if the budget is not adopted by the beginning of the fiscal year.  Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the power of the legislature would increase dramatically once the budget was late, because we could effectively ignore the original executive budget, and replace it with their own through amendments to the contingency budget.  This provision would create an incentive for the legislature to delay passage of the budget until after the beginning of the fiscal year, since by doing so they would dramatically increase their power in the budget process.

 

It is also important to remember the history of New York’s budget process in examining this current proposed constitutional amendment.  Our current budget process emerged out of changes in the State Constitution made in the 1920’s that were designed to strengthen the role of the executive defining the budget.  Prior to that, the legislature had the primary role in the budget process, which had its own set of very negative consequences – no centralized financial analysis and budget allocations based on the political needs of individual legislators rather than agency needs.  While the constitutional changes made in the 1920s have had negative –and perhaps unintended – consequences, these changes addressed a real need for the development of a centralized mechanism of developing agency budgets and ensuring that expenditures and revenues matched.

 

I had voted for this amendment in the past but I now believe that the problems with the contingency budget sections of the amendment outweigh the other useful reforms included in the legislation.  There are important parts of the budget reform package that make sense, such as moving the start of the fiscal year to May 1st, which will allow for more accurate revenue projections, and increasing the time for public and legislative review of the executive budget.

 

I changed my position and opposed this amendment because I believe this may be our only chance to achieve real reform of the budget process, and we need to get it right.  That means finding a middle ground between removing the legislature from the policy making process, as is now the case based on the December 2005 court decision, and undermining the Governor’s ability to develop a comprehensive spending plan for the state.    We should have a budget process that allows the Governor to propose the budget, but provides the legislature the opportunity to review and change those proposals.

 

Fortunately, there is another option on the table, which better achieves an appropriate balance between the Executive and the Legislative Branches.  Another proposed constitutional amendment (S.3195) would impose new requirements on the Governor’s budget that would eliminate the problem of the Governor inserting policy changes in budget bills, and also requires that budget bills be clearly itemized so that the purpose of expenditures can be easily determined.  This bill, which I supported, is earlier in the process, in that it must pass the legislature in two consecutive sessions before appearing on the ballot for public approval, but I believe it is worth the wait.  Amending the Constitution is a serious matter, and it is better to take the time to get it right, rather than making a change now that we will have to revisit in a few years when it becomes clear we have simply exchanged one dysfunctional process for another.

 

 

 

 

 

SENIOR/HEALTH CARE COMMUNITY FORUM:

“PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS FOR SENIORS”

Featuring a Discussion of the 2006 Medicare Part D Benefit

 

Date:  Friday, June 10th

Time: 2pm –4pm                

Place: Marymount Manhattan College Auditorium

          221 East 71st Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues

         

 Call (212) 490-9535 for further information

 

 

Community Spotlight

 

Opposing a Liquor License for Proposed Embassy Bar at 46th St. and 2nd Ave.

Over the past several years, the Turtle Bay area has witnessed a proliferation of bars as well as restaurants serving as bars after dining hours.  Recently, I have worked with the community, along with Assembly Member Jonathon Bing and Council Member Eva Moskowitz, to stop plans to bring Embassy Bar to 862 Second Avenue at 46th Street. State law requires any new liquor license granted within 500 feet of three or more bars to demonstrate the new license will serve the public interest at a hearing before the State Liquor Authority.  Given the proliferation of bars in this area, and the related congestion and noise problems they cause I do not believe an additional liquor license is in the public interest.  I have written Edward Kelly, Chairman of the State Liquor Authority to express my opposition to the bar and strongly support the Community Board 6 Business and Government Affairs Committees May 6th negative resolution in regards to the bar.  More broadly, Community Boards should have a greater say in the issuance and revocation of liquor licenses and I have co-sponsored legislation (S.1223) to expand the powers of Community Boards over liquor licenses.

 

Opposition to Proposed Parking Structure on North Side of West 23rd Street:

I have written a letter to the New York City Landmarks Commission in opposition to the proposed parking facility on West 23rd Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues.  This location lies in the midst of the Ladies’ Mile Historic District.  The proposed facility is of a modern design and would cantilever over the historic five story building next door at 35-37 West 23rd Street.  The simple fact is that this parking lot is not appropriate for a historic district and would clearly change the character of the neighborhood.  The proposed parking structure is not in keeping with the Beaux-Arts Style of the area, and would undermine the integrity of the Ladies Mile Historic District.    

 

Participate in the 2005 Tree Census:

The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is seeking volunteers to assist with the 2005 Tree Census.  Every 10 years, the city conducts a census of one of the city’s half million street trees.  If you would like to help with this years tree count, call 311 or visit www.nyc.gov/treescount on the web.

 

Summer Opportunities for Youth:

Don’t spend your summer in front of the T.V.!  The Citizens Committee for Children publishes a free Youth Action New York City Resource Guide that is filled with internships (both summer and year-long), summer youth employment and community opportunities, academic and tutoring programs and tips for preparing for college.  You can access the guide at www.cccnewyork.org/youthactionnyc/index.html, or call (212) 673-1800 to request a copy.

 

 

Spotlight on Policy

 

The MTA and the Hudson Yards Sale

 

Late last month, I submitted an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit filed by NYPIRG, the Straphangers Campaign, Common Cause, TWU Local 100 and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign challenging the plans of the MTA to sell the Hudson Rail Yards to the New York Jets.  On March 31, 2005, the MTA board voted to award the development rights for the West Side Rail Yards to the New York Jets for a present value of $210 million, a quarter of the MTA’s own appraisal of the value of the site. This shocking decision, reached after only 27 days, is clearly an abdication of the MTA’s duty to secure the most beneficial terms possible for the sale of this valuable asset. Selling the Yards for a fraction of their true value robs the taxpayers and the riders, who will bear the cost of closing the MTA’s budget gap that could otherwise be closed with funds from the sale of the Yards. The MTA’s own appraisal estimates the Yards to be worth over $923 million. I believe that the MTA violated its statutory and common law duties to secure the most beneficial terms possible for the sale of this valuable asset and did not proceed through a process that insured fairness to all potential bidders.

 

I strongly oppose the proposed West Side Stadium for a number of reasons.  First, the project involves a huge giveaway from the City and the State to the Jets, to the tune of well over $1 Billion in payments and tax breaks.  I do not support the concept of public financing for sports facilities, as the evidence from other cities suggests that stadiums are not reliable engines of economic development.  Secondly, building a stadium on the West Side forestalls other forms of development that would actually meet the needs of the City, such as affordable housing.  Finally, the impacts of a stadium on traffic and overcrowding in midtown Manhattan would be devastating, and would extend well onto the East Side.

 

That said, this lawsuit is not primarily about whether there should be a stadium on the West Side.  Instead it is about ensuring that the MTA receives adequate compensation for the Hudson Rail Yards.  At a time when our public transportation system faces incredible financial pressures, and the MTA is delaying the issuance of contracts for the Second Avenue Subway it would be unforgivable for the MTA to sacrifice potential revenue in order to satisfy the political agenda of the Mayor and the Governor.  Therefore the suit asks as relief that the MTA begin the bidding process again with the aim of achieving an appropriate

price for its property.

 

The next hearing on the lawsuit will be on June 2nd.  I am hopeful that the judge will recognize the importance of ensuring that the MTA is receiving adequate compensation for its assets, which are in reality the assets of all New Yorkers.

 

 

Death Penalty

 

Last month the Assembly Codes Committee voted down a bill that would have reinstituted the death penalty in New York State.  The committee vote took place after a series of public hearings on the death penalty, which allowed ample opportunity for public participation in the debate.  Last June, by a ruling of four to three, a decision by the New York State Court of Appeals placed a moratorium on the death penalty law because of a provision in the statute that was ruled unconstitutional.  The provision, which violates the New York State Constitution’s guarantee to due process, required judges to tell jurors that if, in determining sentencing, they became deadlocked, the judge would impose a sentence that would leave the defendant eligible for parole after 20 to 25 years.  This instruction risked coercing jurors to vote for execution to prevent the possibility of defendants from ever being released.

 

The death penalty was reinstated in New York in 1995 when Governor Pataki made it into a campaign issue in his successful campaign against former Governor Cuomo.  No one was ever executed under the 1995 death penalty law.  At the time the death penalty was originally passed, life without parole was not a legal option, but it has since been added to the criminal code.

 

I was pleased with the outcome in the Assembly for both policy and process reasons, and believe that the Senate could learn from the Assembly in this case.  The Senate took a different route, passing a “fix” of the Death Penalty – which I voted against – without any hearings or public process.  While my Republican colleagues have indicated that they plan to hold hearings on the death penalty at some point, it would be more useful if those hearings occurred before we actually voted on the issue.

 

The death penalty has been proven time and time again to be an ineffective tool to deter crime.  The death penalty is a failed model for criminal justice on both the state and national level.  Numerous prisoners on death row have been exonerated, a disproportionate number of death row inmates are minorities and are low-income people without access to qualified attorneys. Life without parole is a more than adequate mechanism to protect the public from even the most heinous criminal.

 

Support for the death penalty has diminished in recent years.  The latest polls show that only 34% of New Yorkers support the death penalty, compared with 47% who supported it in 1994.  New Yorkers now understand why the death penalty does not work and they have told the Legislature that we are all better off without it.  The message has been heard loud and clear that the death penalty simply has no place in our justice system.