Highs and Lows of Lawmaking and Brooklyn's Future
By Azi Paybarah
Matching the dizzying heights of Brooklynites' pride in their borough was the volume on some of the most contentious debates in 2004.
Parents, politicians and experts wrestled with questions of height: How high should buildings along the waterfront be? How high should the promotional standard be for third and fifth graders? How high should the state's minimum wage be? How much more money should Albany kick in to City schools?
They even argued over how low to let things slide:
How much should taxes be reduced for filmmakers and television producers to keep them filming here? How much should state lawmakers lower the infamously harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws?
In fact, there were even fights about whether or not lawmakers needed to be physically present in Albany to vote on all these issues.
Most immediately felt was the 75 cent raise minimum wage earners saw in their paychecks since January 1. The $5.15 an hour will grow to $7.15 by the start of 2007. This increase was sought by advocates who argued that a 40-hour work week at this rate produced an intolerably low $10,712 a year. Critics of the raise charged that minimum wage levels were for high school students and never intended for heads of households. They also lumped this increase with the rising cost of fuel and taxes and even tomatoes into what might stunt the growth of the City's economy.
Stunting development is what parents and opponents of "high stakes testing" feared would happen if 3rd graders needed to read and add at or close to grade level in order to reach the 4th grade. Mayor Michael Bloomberg replaced three members of the Panel for Educational Policy the day the panel voted to enact his new 3rd grade promotional policy. Bloomberg spokesperson Chris Coffey reminded critics of the difference between the autonomous Board of Education and its predecessor, the Department of Education: "Mayoral control means mayoral control." That same panel enacted a similar promotional policy for 5th graders.
While 3rd and 5th graders polished up on their reading and math, film and television crews did some math of their own, calculating the cost of producing shows in Brooklyn and NYC compared to Vancouver and other emerging Hollywood-wannabe cities. Film and television shoots are now eligible for a 5% tax rebate on top of the 10% state tax rebate if at least 75% percent of their "qualified production costs" are spent locally.
That head-scratching math is nothing compared to the newly configured Rockefeller Drug Laws, which, in an attempt to appease everyone, lowered sentencing requirements for small-time drug dabblers while keeping the strictest sentencing for drug king pins. First-time felons without prior violent offenses will now face 8 to 20 years in jail, compared to 15 to life.
Curbside pharmacists weren't the only ones eyeing jail sentence regulations. The head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, Assemblyman Clarence Norman won a split decision in his five-count indictment on corruption charges. A federal judge threw out all four counts that accused Norman of sidestepping business and election law regulations, but the boss is still facing charges of "knowing and willfully...evading contribution limitations". His lawyers are seeking an appeal.
Less appealing is how the state let the clock expire on the game of "Lets Reconfigure the State's School Spending Formula.” The 212 Assembly and State Senators will be benched in favor of court-appointed experts who will now do what Democrats and Republicans couldn't do together: decide exactly how much more money Albany and upstate will send into NYC.
While Bloomberg and City lawmakers cried for more money, they agreed to give homeowners - not renters - a one-time $400 tax rebate. Coincidentally, the city will grapple with a $3 billion deficit.
Spending money while asking for more left some just as confused as those who followed the rezoning of Greenpoint and Williamsburg.
Waterfront property was originally zoned for heavy manufacturing, and morphed into light manufacturing, mixed-use and residential the further one moved inland.
"If the plans go through, ten years from now it'll be a very different neighborhood," said Councilman David Yassky's Communications Director Evan Thies. Critics of the rezoning plan demanded 40% of new housing be affordable. Whether that is economically or politically feasible remains in doubt. "There needs to be as much market rate development as the market will bear to offset the affordable housing," said Thies.
Yassky and other local elected officials joined outraged residents in turning a Department of City Planning meeting into a political mosh pit, complete with an audience walkout and the audibly unappealing chant of "What do we want? 40 percent! When do we want it? Now!"
Unoriginal chants and delicately carved talking points won't get state lawmakers out of having to show up for work. The State Assembly is poised to change their house rules and end "absentee voting". Now, instead of swiping in their attendance card and having that count as voting in the affirmative for all votes brought to the floor, Assembly Democrats will be trapped in the George Jetson-like torture of having to sit through session and press a single button to vote. The State Senate is considering a slightly different rule: requiring a lawmakers' physical presence in order to vote no.
The next twelve months are already shaping up to be as entertaining as the previous ones.
