By Reshma Saujani

In my campaign, I’ve traveled from the Lower East Side to the Upper East Side, from Astoria to Long Island City—and everywhere I go, I hear the same fundamental concern from voters: for the first time in generations, parents are worried their children will not have the same opportunities that they had. And more than anything, people in New York—from artists to taxi drivers to teachers to bankers—are anxious about the economy. They’re worried about a jobless recovery with no end in sight and politicians in Washington and Albany that are failing to act.

Compounding that anxiety are several factors. First, New York is one of the most expensive places to live in America. The overall cost of living here is an astonishing 364 percent higher than the national average—and it’s not getting any cheaper. The delayed and over-budget construction of the Second Avenue subway is pushing small businesses into bankruptcy. Upper East Side schools are overcrowded and students are being forced to go across town for a quality education. Public spaces like Ruppert Park may close, bus lines are being cut and bedbugs are a growing problem.

We can—and must—do better. In order to ensure a vibrant Upper East Side for future generations, we need new leadership and innovative ideas to create jobs, make sure that middle class families aren’t priced out of the city, and improve the quality of life for New Yorkers.

Right now, creating jobs must be our first priority, because the solutions coming out of Washington simply aren’t working. Carolyn Maloney, my opponent, has not passed a single piece of legislation to create jobs since becoming chair of the Joint Economic Committee. Not one. To create thousands of new jobs starting this year, I’ve proposed a new 21st Century Jobs Corps to provide educational training grants to help unemployed Americans, like construction workers, find work in emerging sectors. I’ve also proposed a National Innovation Fund—a public-private partnership to invest seed money into start-up businesses in next-generation industries. I believe we should eliminate capital gains taxes on investments in micro-enterprises to empower entrepreneurs with innovative new business ideas. And I am calling for a $15,000 student loan credit for math, science or engineering college graduates who go to work for a clean-tech, biotech or high-tech start-up in New York for at least three years. We should also double the $2 billion in grants awarded to our entrepreneurs through the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs.

Maintaining an affordable New York is critical, especially when it comes to housing. Only 30 percent of New Yorkers are homeowners, a far cry from the national rate of 68 percent, and people of color in New York are even less likely to own a home. New York must first take steps to mandate that a percentage of development projects be dedicated to affordable housing. In addition, I will push for a national Tenants’ Bill of Rights to protect homeowners and oppose plans to privatize public housing.

Quality of life is another important issue. I’m committed to maintaining our existing parks and public spaces and creating new ones. The completion of the East Side Greenway must be a priority. I’m also concerned about the potential construction of a high-rise at the Ruppert Playground on 92nd Street. I’ve written to both the City of New York and The Related Companies, urging them to permanently preserve this space as a public park.

Infrastructure will continue to be an important driver of economic growth, but the Second Avenue subway is an unfortunate reminder that when our leaders don’t properly consult the community, too often, businesses are adversely affected and many of our economic goals are not achieved. The Second Avenue subway will ultimately be a positive addition to the community. But we need to engage the community throughout the building process. To help businesses that are being affected by the construction of the Second Avenue subway, I will work with local, state and federal officials to provide an economic stability initiative to establish grants and property tax abatements.

New York is the greatest city in the world, but our politicians in Washington and Albany are failing to lead. As an example, Carolyn Maloney recently held a fundraiser at the home of a financial lobbyist—while serving on the committee negotiating financial reform. That’s wrong. I’ve pledged to never accept a penny of corporate PAC money in my career. And I will fight the special interests culture that brings Congress to a standstill. We can’t keep re-electing the same politicians and expecting change. Together we can change our broken system and build a new era of opportunity and prosperity for all New Yorkers.
_
Reshma Saujani is a Democratic candidate for Congress in New York’s 14th Congressional District.

Tweet This Post

By Dino LaVerghetta

The construction of the Second Avenue Subway is killing a generation of small-businesses. As it moves southward, the construction is acting like a virtual Grim Reaper, felling everything in its path.

The Second Avenue Subway has been hailed as a project capable of relieving congestion, generating thousands of jobs and providing for the expansion of the East Side economy.

But ask any storeowner along Second Avenue between 65th and 97th streets and a different picture emerges. Since the project began in 2007, foot traffic and profits have declined by as much as 30 percent at some shops. Storefronts are obstructed, hiding businesses from the view of potential customers.

Piles of uncollected trash and an insurgence of rodents further deter patrons from frequenting the area. Some businesses have closed, others are on the brink of collapse and the rest are uncertain that they will survive to see the project’s completion. The small-business owners are asking the same question that we should all be asking: What good is a new subway going up Second Avenue when there may be nothing left to visit by the time it is done?

Inexplicably, the city has done little to help business owners survive this government-created economic disaster. Instead of providing aid to help these businesses survive, the government continues to pick their corpses clean by taxing whatever profits remain. Sidewalk cafés, a vital source of income for restaurant owners, have been taken away, yet the city continues to bill them for their sidewalk licenses.

Frustrated, merchants have taken matters into their own hands. Business leaders such as Joe Pecora, owner and operator of Delizia 92 Pizzeria, have formed the Second Avenue Business Association to advocate for the rights of the approximately 120 merchants affected by the construction. Unfortunately, however, their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. These hard-working entrepreneurs deserve better.

As the son of a small-business owner myself, I appreciate that small-businesses are the engine of our economy. I know how hard proprietors must work just to make a small profit. As the entity responsible for crippling these businesses, the city should be doing all that it can to make sure that the storeowners survive. It is time for the government to step up and help the businesses it has destroyed. These businesses have already paid their fair share for the common good. They should not have to pay anymore.

I am calling on the city to exempt small-businesses affected by the project from all city taxes and fees until the project is completed. The city has already taken enough of their profits. If elected to Congress, I would immediately reallocate 5 percent of the $1.3 billion in Federal funds earmarked for the project to help the storeowners and compensate the city for the tax revenues it would lose under this program. This will amount to approximately $65 million dollars or 1.2 percent of the project’s total cost. To make the tax cuts revenue neutral for the city and Federal governments, the city should demand that the project’s contractors take off just one penny for every dollar they are scheduled to bill. Given the significant costs and hardships that have been borne by the Second Avenue businesses, none of this seems like a lot to ask from us.

_
Dino LaVerghetta is a candidate for Congress in New York’s 14th Congressional District. He has been endorsed by the Republican Party, the Independence Party and the Libertarian Party.

Tweet This Post

By Kelli Gail

As a busy 39-year-old executive who takes two subways and walks half a mile to my office, I constantly battle to get to work on time.

So when the 2nd Avenue Subway construction began drilling outside my building on 83rd street, I was preparing to join the large and growing ranks of irate Upper East-Siders, calling 311 and filing letters of complaint.

Nowhere in the fine print of my lease did it indicate that the seventh circle of hell was about to descend into my neighborhood: ear-splitting noise, crumbling sidewalks, sinkholes the size of asteroids and disruptions of utility services.

Last month, I got a new neighbor: the MTA. The agency thoughtfully moved all their toys that make noise into the basement of my building to fortify it, spending day and night to prevent 32 stories from sinking into the ground.

Fed up, I did what any New Yorker going out of their mind would do: I went to see my therapist. When she predictably asked how I could look on the bright side, I came up with the following list.

Job Security: As much as I love a jackhammer in my ear beginning at 6:59 a.m., five days a week, and 7:59 a.m. on Saturdays, I no longer sleep through my alarm clock; in fact I don’t even need one anymore. My boss believes I now live at the office.

No quitting the gym: When my hot water disappeared, as it has numerous times, my pricey gym membership became justified. I started going there to shower—after dragging myself to work-out in the morning.

New pickup lines: When my cable went out for six agonizing days during the NBA Finals (Lakers vs. Celtics in 7 games!), it served the perfect excuse to go solo to an UES sports bar and make conversation with men I normally wouldn’t approach. “Do you have running water?” replaced my “Do you have an elevator?” icebreaker.

Sticking it to the man, well, the cable company: When Time Warner blamed Con Edison for lack of cable service and Con Ed blamed Time Warner, I was granted a week of free service from both.

Ego boosts: Construction workers smile and say hello to me as I exit my apartment, nodding approvingly when I wear a skirt or a dress, restoring my faith that indeed, there are gentleman in New York City.

I have protection: I can finally get around to purchasing renters insurance, now mandatory for living in my building. Sure, I believe the management company when they insist it’s in my best interest (see: not at all indemnifying themselves against potential future lawsuits when the building crumbles).

Earplug money: My rent was lowered this past year by $100 a month. A far cry from the average of $5,000 some renters are getting to vacate their soon-to-be-demolished apartments, but I realize the MTA is bankrupt, so I understand they can’t subsidize my third-world living conditions.

Still a $100 does go far these days. The extra money will come in handy for things like earplugs, and, well, more therapy. Bring on the machines! n

_
Kelli Gail is a public relations executive on the Upper East Side.

Tweet This Post

By Jay Hershenson

As the fall semester nears, The City University of New York is brimming with a record number of students—more than the University can accommodate.

For the past 10 years, CUNY’s baccalaureate programs have seen increasing enrollments even as more rigorous entrance requirements were instituted. Now the University’s community colleges are swamped by applicants who, like community college applicants nationwide, need only a high school diploma or GED for admission.

For the first time, CUNY has established waiting lists for more than 3,000 people who applied after the May 8, 2010, deadline for admission to the university.

But CUNY has found a way to turn their wait into a benefit.

The typical community college freshman needs at least one remedial class to prepare for college-level work, although those classes do not count toward a degree. Why not place wait-listed students into remedial work in the fall, so they will be ready to enroll in academic courses in January 2011?

That’s the idea behind CUNY Start, which offers prospective students an intensive program in pre-college math or academic reading/writing for 12 hours a week over 13 weeks, in day or evening sessions. For a modest fee and the cost of their schoolbooks they can improve their skills and jumpstart their college career.

CUNY Start builds on the CUNY Language Immersion Program (CLIP) and College Transition Initiative (CTI), full-time programs that help students develop the skills needed for college-level study.

That includes GED graduates who don’t get the results of their tests until June, too late to meet admission deadlines. For such students, the transition to college is a critical time, and maintaining momentum is a high priority.

CUNY Start represents one of many ways that CUNY, like public colleges and universities across the country, is responding creatively to a changing higher education environment, as shrinking state funding conflicts with national imperatives to maintain access and increase the country’s college graduates.

Demand is surging at the 23 institutions that make up the nation’s largest urban public university. In the fall, CUNY expects 267,000 students to enroll; that’s about 3 percent more than last fall and fully one-third more than 20 years ago.

Without doubt, the economic downturn has factored into rising demand for college education, but the economy is only part of the story behind CUNY’s increasing popularity. Since 1999, CUNY has added about 65,000 students.

A decade-long academic transformation has created new opportunities for students and reshaped CUNY’s classrooms.

Chancellor Matthew Goldstein and CUNY’s Board of Trustees grabbed headlines in 2001 when they launched the William E. Macaulay Honors College.

The last decade has also seen the launch of CUNY’s School of Professional Studies, offering professional programs in partnership with business and industry. The school also houses CUNY’s online baccalaureate degree programs. The CUNY Graduate School of Journalism is highly regarded and a CUNY School of Public Health is preparing graduate level health professionals.

The new Advanced Science Research Center at The City College of New York, now under construction, will house researchers from across CUNY’s campuses.

Investment has not been limited to the sciences, however. The number of full-time faulty members has risen from less than 6,000 in 1999 to more than 7,100.

Encouraging student access and success remains at the heart of CUNY’s mission. If CUNY Start represents that commitment writ small, the university’s plans to open a new community college, its seventh, demonstrate that mission on a much larger scale.

The college, CUNY’s first in four decades, is expected to open in midtown Manhattan in fall of 2012.

Students will enroll full-time for at least the first year and take a common first-year core curriculum including math, professional studies and the college’s multidisciplinary City Seminar course examining the complexities of New York City.

It’s a bold initiative, suited to a higher education environment that demands innovative thinking. Just another reason that CUNY is increasingly worth the wait.
_
Jay Hershenson is Senior Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Secretary, Board of Trustees at CUNY.

Tweet This Post

As I travel the state and listen to New Yorkers, I’ve found that people have absolutely no faith that Congress is working to solve their problems. When they look to Washington, they see a lot of people who are more concerned about scoring political points than solving problems.

I have not been in Washington long, but it does not take long to know that Washington is broken.

Everyday people are not being heard because too much business is happening behind closed doors. Over the last several months, I have put together a reform agenda that aims to clean up Washington by making government more transparent and making members of Congress more accountable to the people back home.

When it comes to transparency, I have always done my best to lead by example, and my reform agenda starts by making the earmark process completely transparent. I’ve done this since my first term in office. I list each of my federal funding requests, along with my daily public schedule and my personal financial disclosure reports on my own website.

If every American can see who and what their lawmakers are requesting taxpayer money for, we can keep people honest, end the special interest favors and reduce wasteful spending.

I’ve authored bipartisan legislation that creates a searchable earmark database in which lawmakers will have to disclose the amount of their initial earmark request, the amount approved by Committee and the amount approved in final passage. They will also need to disclose the type of organization receiving the funding and justify why they need taxpayer dollars to fund their project.

Next, we have to get corporate special interest influence out of our elections. Corporate PACs have spent over $1 billion to influence voters. Now with the corporate victory in the Citizens United Supreme Court case, private corporations will have unprecedented power to spend unlimited sums of money to buy elections.

To help keep our elections fair and honest, I am an original co-sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act—legislation that requires corporations to stand by their political actions the same way candidates are required to today.

Third, we need to end automatic pay raises for members of Congress. There isn’t a single middle-class worker who is guaranteed a pay raise each year, and neither should Congress. From 1991 to 2009, the Senate raised its own pay 13 times, raising its annual salary by more than $70,000.

I’ve never accepted a pay raise in office, and I’ve opposed the automatic pay raise since I came to Congress. Last year, I helped pass legislation to permanently end the automatic pay raise. Now, I’m writing to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to take up and pass that legislation in the House of Representatives.

Lastly, we have to end the culture of obstructionism that creates gridlock in Congress. We can start by banning the anonymous holds. The fact that one senator can single-handedly hold legislation hostage just to score cheap political points is shameful. These holds bring the legislative process to a screeching halt, with no way to hold the obstructionist accountable. Banning these holds is common sense.

Washington needs to actually solve problems and get things done. With 67 of my Senate colleagues, I’ve written to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urging them to get rid of anonymous holds for good.

These are just a few ideas that I believe could bring transparency and accountability to Washington. With these reforms, we would at least be moving in the right direction. 

–
Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator representing New York.

Tweet This Post

By Carolyn Maloney

New York City got some very good news on the economic front this week, when it was announced that NYU plans to create a new $20 million venture fund designed to help seed and speed the commercialization of new technologies developed there and to provide funding for startup companies.

Business incubators such as the new NYU venture or one uptown at Columbia University or between NYU Poly and the city government, all seek to harness the discoveries that spring from federally funded basic research that is university based. When discoveries and innovations that may have some commercial application are identified, markets are researched, experienced entrepreneurs are brought in, funding is secured and ideas are transformed into jobs.

The enormous potential of such business incubators and technology transfer centers was the focus of a U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee hearing that I chaired earlier this week.

According to testimony presented at the hearing, new companies, the kind that come out of such business incubators, are the single most important source of job creation in the American economy.

And an earlier study by the Economic Development Administration noted that federal dollars spent on such incubators provide up to 20 times more jobs than federal spending on typical community infrastructure projects.

Such public/private partnerships have also been demonstrated to be of enormous value in programs at Cornell and Stony Brook.

But with some targeted tweaks here and there, we could get an even bigger bang for our federal research bucks nationwide and turn even more of the discoveries and innovations that they produce into products, start-ups, jobs and revenue.

Three promising ideas that could help turn more innovations into jobs were spotlighted at the JEC hearings.

First, the government could require that a small percentage of a university’s federal research grants—say half to 1 percent—be set aside for investments in start-ups that will commercialize university-based research. The university could invest directly in companies or it could work with venture funds to make the investments for them.

Second, the federal government could scale-up successful New York state model,
the Qualified Emerging Technology Company Capital Tax Credit, on a national
level, offering a tax credit of up to $300,000 for investments in start-up technology companies. Let’s make such a tax credit our national policy.

Finally, a recent study authored by Vivek Wadhwa concluded that immigrants founded or co-founded approximately one-quarter of all technology and engineering companies in the country from 1995 to 2006. And this is nothing new. As President Obama noted in his great speech on immigration reform the other day, the scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google were all possible because of immigrants.

In testimony before the JEC last December, Dr. Robert Litan of the Kauffman Foundation shaped the national discussion on job-creator visas. The key role that immigrant entrepreneurs play in job creation led me to introduce the StartUp Visa Act of 2010, known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, in the House. This legislation would provide visas for immigrant entrepreneurs who have $250,000 in financial backing to launch a firm and create jobs.

These are common sense and very cost-effective changes. And it is a well-proven idea for private sector job creation, based on innovation.

This is a country that, from day one, was founded on innovation. And we came to lead the world economically because we continuously honored and nurtured that spirit of innovation, coupled it with great educational institutions, and harnessed it to the power of free market. We can do this. We can turn this economy around. It will just require innovation. But then, that is the American way. 

—
U.S. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney represents New York’s 14th Congressional District. She is chair of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee.

Tweet This Post

Susan Braudy’s photo and prior columns suggest that she is not old enough to be enrolled in Medicare. I assume, therefore, that her first-person column “Fired By My Doctor” (June 10) is literary license and that her statements are based on journalistic research. However, she has not been fair. She gives only one perspective.

First, let me state that although I am a retired primary care physician, my entire career was as a salaried employee of a non-profit organization. Thus, I never had to worry about Medicare or insurer fees—or any fee for service—income.

But I would like to comment on the physician’s side of the story, which applies not only to Medicare, but to many other insurance reimbursements. There are many reasons why physicians object to and decline to accept various insurance reimbursements. I base my comments, which follow, on my reading of medical articles, discussions with other physicians and personal opinion.

• Many fees are less than the cost of operating a practice. I just read Losing My Patience, by Mickey Lebowitz, M.D., who left private practice for a salaried position because income, largely from insurance fees, did not enable him to meet his expenses. If Medicare fees are indeed less than that of other insurers, and Lebowitz could not make ends meet with the relatively higher fees, how can one expect physicians to make ends meet with the relatively lower Medicare fees?

• Medicare fees can be unpredictable as the fiscal year progresses, although I believe Congress has always stepped in at the last moment to prevent this. In theory at least, a Medicare budget is set using fees based on the predicted total and combination of services. To maintain budget neutrality, Medicare may reduce fees toward the end of the year if the rate of expenditure is greater than predicted.

• Although most insurance fees may be higher than Medicare fees, some managed care insurance fees are lower than Medicare fees; a factual error in Ms. Braudy’s column.

• If one can exclude the emotions related to health and healthcare, as well as the tradition which has tended to make healthcare a right, is it fair for physicians be the only professionals whose service value is dictated or controlled by others, rather than by supply and demand? Our Constitution and laws guarantee us legal rights; however, there is no control of attorney fees in order to provide similar access to legal care. If one cannot afford the high-priced attorney, then tough luck.

• Is it really fair to control or cap the income of one group of individuals while not controlling their expenses? To the best of my knowledge, the only other situation in which this occurs is rent control/stabilization—another emotionally charged issue.

• Physicians typically spend seven or eight years (and more in some cases) training beyond college, while attorneys spend three or maybe four years. When one considers these costs, which include forgone income, why shouldn’t physicians be reimbursed at the same rate as attorneys? My attorney charges $400/hour and his overhead is less than that of a typical physician. In addition to very costly professional liability insurance for the physician versus the attorney, supply costs for the physician undoubtedly far exceed that for the attorney. Both have the expense of utilities, paper, etc., but physicians use a considerable amount of disposable equipment, such as dressing gowns, needles, syringes, tongue depressors, etc.

• Physicians’ fees should also be higher to compensate for services (time) that is not considered reimbursable, but for which attorneys would charge. Fees paid to physicians do not compensate for services that do not involve direct face-to-face contact. These services are phone conversations, record reviews, calls to pharmacies, discussion with consultants, etc. Attorneys, on the other hand, typically charge for these services. An attorney once billed me for time spent researching the law and consulting with his partners. A physician, on the other hand, cannot charge for time spent researching a case-related matter of therapy.

• Is it fair that starting salaries for recent graduates with MBAs (perhaps two years of schooling beyond college) in law, finance and information technology exceed by far starting salaries for starting physicians, with seven or more years of post-college training? These other professions’ salaries equal and often exceed the income of established physicians at the peak of their careers.n

–
Seymour Herschberg, M.D., is certified in internal medicine and geriatric medicine, and received a certificate of advanced achievements in internal medicine in 1987. He is based on West End Avenue.

Tweet This Post

By Kirsten Gillibrand

As I meet people during my travels across the state, New Yorkers of all ages and backgrounds have the same thing on their minds: jobs. With unemployment in New York City still in double digits, and an estimated 15 percent of our state’s construction workers out of work, it is clear that we must continue to help working families weather the economic storm. For example, since the downturn began, more than 40,000 construction and manufacturing workers in New York state lost their jobs, and millions more workers across the country suffered significant losses.

Tough times demand bold action and seizing opportunities. One of those opportunities is reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Bush-era policies were about talking tough when it came to fighting terror and defending America, but it was their policy that sent a billion dollars a day to oil-producing countries that some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world call home.

That is money that should be spent here. By decreasing our dangerous reliance on foreign oil and making smart, green investments, we can create quality jobs and put our construction laborforce back to work.

The Building Star legislation, which I am pushing in the U.S. Senate, would create as many as 12,500 new, good-paying jobs for hardworking New Yorkers, providing incentives to retrofit co-ops, apartment buildings and commercial buildings and rid them of dirty fuels and pollutants.

Not only would this proposal boost our national security and save condo-owners, landlords and building managers millions in energy costs, but it would also protect New York City families by cleaning the air we breathe. According to a recent air survey by the New York City Health Department, the Upper East Side and Midtown’s business district are just two of the neighborhoods in the city with alarming levels of dangerous contaminants in the air. Many of the city’s residential and commercial buildings burn heavy amounts of heating oil and emit large amounts of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants. If these buildings were to use cleaner fuels, you could see reductions of harmful emissions between 65 and 95 percent.

City landlords and building owners concerned about the high cost of replacing outdated boilers or switching to cleaner fuels, such as natural gas, would benefit from the Building Star rebates, which are designed to cover 20 to 33 percent of the installed cost of equipment. This initiative also covers other energy efficient programs to help ease installation costs, including window renovations, duct testing and sealing, and energy audits.

The process for applying for a rebate would be clear and straightforward: An owner would run an energy audit on a building, then submit an application to the Department of Energy. Once the department verifies the project, a rebate would be issued within 30 days.

There is much to lose and little to gain if we do not begin to rebuild our economy by putting more money back into the pockets of city residents and taking them out of the hands of hostile regimes. For every dollar we invest in energy efficiency, we save $3 in energy use down the road. In the long run, residential and commercial buildings citywide could save up to $407 million in energy costs, nearly $160 million of which would benefit Manhattan alone.

Manhattan renters, owners and residents have an opportunity to make the most of their energy dollars and move away from decades of dependence on foreign oil. It’s time to act. 

—
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and Subcommittee on Green Jobs & the New Economy.

Tweet This Post

By Melissa Mark-Viverito and Mike Fishman

With the shift in our city’s economy from manufacturing to service jobs, the percentage of low-wage workers has reached record, if not epidemic, levels. Nearly one-third of working New Yorkers are struggling to stretch their paychecks to cover high prices for rent and rising costs for groceries and transportation. In order to stem the tide of what threatens to undermine not just our economic recovery, but the future of our city, we need to invest in increasing the number of good jobs.

Yet, while millions of tax dollars are being invested to redevelop buildings, blocks and entire neighborhoods, these projects do not always create family-
supporting jobs. In many cases, our tax dollars go to developers in the form of tax breaks and other incentives. This ends up creating low-wage service jobs that leave working families unable to make ends meet and communities deprived of much of the economic benefit, even though they helped subsidize the project.

New Yorkers can’t afford to see their hard-earned tax dollars go toward developments that leave their families and neighbors unable to pay their bills. Government should be creating jobs that do more than add to the number of working poor people in the city. We need job creation that will put our families and our city’s economy back on track.

Cities from Pittsburgh to Los Angeles are addressing this problem by instituting policies that ensure that when developers are given financial incentives from taxpayers, they give back good jobs to the community. The City Council is considering the Good Jobs Bill based on this model. The bill does not ask developers to pay extra for the workers at their sites; simply that they pay the going wage or “prevailing rate” that most established businesses already pay.

Although naysayers claim that job standards will somehow hamper businesses, guaranteeing good jobs through economic development programs is a smart public policy. Cities are establishing measures that guarantee good wages and health care at subsidized developments so workers can make ends meet, contribute to the local economy and get off public assistance for food, housing and health care.

Here in New York, less ambitious policies to ensure that development creates good jobs have proven not to stymie economic growth. The city’s 421(a) tax incentive program, which requires both affordable housing and good jobs, has not kept developers from taking advantage of this substantive tax rebate. And job-quality requirements, like those in the Good Jobs Bill, will create more than 500 good jobs for office cleaners, apartment building workers and security officers at Coney Island and Willets Point.

For all the good these small-scale, project-specific policies have done in New York, they don’t amount to the full-scale solution for good job creation the city needs. We need a reform of our economic development programs to ensure good job creation is a part of the tax-based incentive programs so that hard-working, tax-paying New Yorkers will see the benefits of these government programs. 

—
Melissa Mark Viverito represents District 8 in the City Council. Mike Fishman is president of 32BJ. With more than 120,000 members, including 70,000 in New York City, 32BJ is the largest private sector union in New York. 

Tweet This Post

Daniel Meltzer is a playwright and O. Henry and Pushcart Prize-winning fiction writer. His most recent production was A Cable from Gibraltar at Medicine Show Theatre in Manhattan.

Tweet This Post