Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Appears Live on WNYC

March 24, 2017

Brian Lehrer: It’s the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. We begin today with our weekly Ask the Mayor segment – my questions and your questions for Mayor Bill de Blasio. Our lines are open for anyone at 2-1-2-4-3-3-W-N-Y-C, 2-1-2-4-3-3-9-6-9-2, or you can tweet a question. We will watch our Twitter feed too. Just use the #AskTheMayor, and we will see it. The Mayor is there or not there?

Not there. Okay, he’s going to be here any second. He may be dealing with getting information about some breaking news that we are just starting to get some information on. Apparently, I’m being told by our producers that there has been some kind of train derailment at Penn Station. It’s not clear that anybody has been hurt in this. But there is something going on there, and it is affecting travel at very least at Penn Station. And WNYC’s Stephen Nessen has just sat down here in the studio with me to tell me what he knows.

[...]

Now Mayor Bill de Blasio joins me. Mr. Mayor, welcome back to WNYC.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Thank you, Brian.

Lehrer: And I’ll just tell you what we’ve heard from Steve Nessen. I don’t know if this is the first time you’re hearing it – that there was some kind of Amtrak train collision or derailment, or something at Penn Station. It’s not clear that anyone was hurt or Steven said no LIRR impact on travel at this moment. But have you heard anything like that?

Mayor: What I’ve heard is very similar, but I’ve heard there were no significant injuries. Obviously we’re waiting for more information. But it sounds like it is having an impact on some trains, not on others that go into Penn Station. So thank God, it’s a limited impact and also, to the best of my understanding – so far, no serious injuries.

Lehrer: Okay, thanks for updating us on what you know. I already gave out the phone number. Listeners, we can also watch our Twitter feed. Use the #AsktheMayor, and we will see it. As well as calling – though all our lines are full already at 2-1-2-4-3-3-W-N-Y-C. And Mr. Mayor, let me start with a few topics in the news. Then we’ll take the calls from the listeners.

The London attack this week was carried out in a way that’s becoming increasingly common for terrorists – driving a car off the road into a crowd. Has the City been taking new steps recently to protect against that kind of thing, in particular? Or in certain locations? Or in general?

Mayor: Couple different things, Brian. First of all, my heart goes out to the people of London. And they’ve been through too much already. So, this is very painful for them. And it’s a city we feel very close to. So obviously it hits home here.

Luckily, a couple years ago, in response to the Paris attacks, we created the Critical Response Command. So we have over 500 officers who are well-armed and well-trained, specifically for counterterror duty. That is all they do. And we have that force on duty 24 hours a day, obviously. What that has allowed us to do in a situation like this – is to move those assets into position in places we might think might be particularly vulnerable. In this case, obviously institutions related to Britain and the British government. Those were reinforced immediately. You also saw more of our CRC officers in front of other key locations around the city – sort of prominent places where we wanted to show more presence to ward off any attacks. So that – that presence – that clear strong presence differentiates New York from a lot of places.

Obviously, we added 2,000 police officers in the last few years. That’s allowed us to do that. So that makes us different in terms of an ongoing deterrent impact.

And then specifically, we recognize with major gatherings – like the St. Patrick’s Parade, or New Year’s Eve, or the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade – that we needed to change our approach. So a lot more officer presence, including CRC members, and we don’t allow in major parades vehicles to cross the parade route anymore. We’ve done that now over the last few months. And that has made a real difference in terms of defense. So those are changes we have made, but we’re constantly assessing what we see in terrorism around the world and making additional moves. So we’ll look at this incident and decide if there’s further actions we have to take.

Lehrer: All right. Thank you for that.

The horrible hate crime in Midtown this week against a 66-year-old black man – the NYPD, as you know, says the suspect came here from Baltimore to kill a random black person in New York and admitted it was from that – motivated by that racial hate. It’s, to me, the moral equivalent of a terrorist attack because with the history of lynching in this country, it could reinforce fear or terror in every black person – that they can be attacked at any time just for being. Is there anything you can do as Mayor, after a case like this, other than to denounce the hate?

Mayor: I think it follows the same point we just talked about a moment ago with other types of terrorism. Look, this is domestic, racist terrorism. There’s no question. It is the equivalent of what happened in Charleston at the church, which was one of the most horrible incidents that’s occurred in this nation in many years – a racially motivated act of domestic terrorism. And I think part of it is making very clear that’s unacceptable in our society. But a lot of it comes down to both real consequences and deterrent impact – showing that we’re going to, any time we have a specific piece of information that suggests that such an attack might happen, we’re going to have our officers out there in force to protect whatever community is under attack.

Now, the challenge here is that a dynamic of hatred has been growing in this country over the last year or more. It’s particularly come out in the open after the election and it’s clearly related to the rhetoric of Donald Trump and even other candidates during the Presidential election that have unleashed forces of hate all over the country. And by the way, a lot of these folks have been – the white supremacist organizations, the militias – they’ve been a threat to people in this country for a long time; they’ve been a threat to law enforcement for a long time. So when they are known, when the activities of any group or individual are known, there’s a lot we can do to stop them. And there’s a lot we can do to specifically deter and be prepared.

When it’s an entirely random situation like this, it’s no less painful. It’s horrible. And it creates real fear. It is harder sometimes to stop in time. But it gets back to the core point – an atmosphere of hate has been created. We have to fight that atmosphere of hate with every tool we’ve got. One of the things we do very well in New York City is create consequences. Anyone who commits a bias crime, anyone who commits an attack based on hatred will – we will get them. And we’ve shown that consistently. We will find them. We will prosecute them. They will suffer the consequences.

Lehrer: Next topic – the mansion tax. You want the State Legislature to pass a tax hike on $2 million-plus home purchases to fund 25,000 units of senior citizen housing. And you’ve been saying we all know that AARP has an extraordinary ability to influence legislators, but as you now know, WNYC’s Brigid Bergin called them and they said they’re very supportive of the housing plan, but neutral on the mansion tax and not involved in Albany on its behalf. And AARP put out a press release this morning to that effect. Did their officials lead you to believe they would get involved?

Mayor: Yeah, first of all, I think there was some misunderstanding here, and I certainly will take responsibility for my team if we misunderstood that particular nuance in their position. But let me be clear, they put out a further statement this morning, and I want to read it to you. And I appreciate this statement by AARP because they’ve been crucial allies in the fight for affordable housing. It’s just a few sentences. They say: no New York City mayor in recent times has been more aggressive in the pursuit of affordable housing than Mayor de Blasio. Affordable housing is critical to keeping the city an attractive place to age and is a top concern among our 800,000 New York City members and the city’s 50-plus population. AARP fully supports Mayor de Blasio’s efforts to create more affordable housing, including his plan to provide rent subsidies for up to 25,000 seniors; however, AARP has taken no position on how that plan should be funded. So there, Brian, is the crux of it. Brigid, obviously, brought to light that there was a nuance here, and it’s a fair point to raise. But I also want to be clear: AARP believes the goal is the right goal; they want to see 25,000 more units for seniors; they believe that needs to be done and can be done. I understand as a matter of policy, they don’t weigh in on specific funding mechanisms, but their members have been extraordinarily supportive. And I think it’s going to make a big difference in the fight in Albany.

Lehrer: Since you’ve been using them as leverage in talking to legislators or talking publicly about talking to legislators, regarding their influence – can you win the mansion tax without AARP lobbying?

Mayor: Well, I’d say a couple things. Again, they’re saying very clearly they want to see 25,000 more apartments that are affordable for seniors. Their members are making that very clear. The organization, I understand, is they have a particular approach on funding mechanisms. I respect that. But their members have been deeply involved. So the word has gone out to their, as I said, 800,000 members in New York City. That means every legislator’s district has AARP members. A lot of them are answering the call and weighing in aggressively with their legislators. I think the effect is being felt in Albany. And Senator Diane Savino, as you know, is a member of the Independent Democratic Caucus, is now sponsoring the mansion tax legislation in the Senate. That’s a very positive sign. So this is going to be a real fight. And I think a lot of legislators have to think about this. Are they really going to say to 25,000 seniors: we’re not going to give you affordable housing because we want to take care of wealthy people. That’s what it comes down to. The mansion tax only affects folks who purchase a home of $2 million or more in value. Average home cost: $4.5 million. This is a tax that gets to the heart of what we’ve been talking about in this country for the last year or two – that the wealthy are not paying their fair share in taxes, while meanwhile, a huge percentage of people in this city cannot make ends meet. And I think this is an example of a fair act to help seniors who have given so much to our community.

Lehrer: My colleagues in the City Hall press corps are reporting that you walked out of the press availability you had on the mansion tax when they tried to ask questions about other things. I know you answer my questions without restriction here every week and weekly on NY1. But the City Hall reporters are frustrated, in general, that you take questions on topics not of your own choosing less than your predecessor. You’re less transparent to the public in that way. Why do limit questions as much as you do?

Mayor: Well, I disagree with that characterization. It’s a perfectly fair question, but I disagree with your characterization. Fact – I’m on your show every week; I’m on Errol Louis’s show every week. Those are open formats. I do, at least, one open format press conference every week. And then take this week, for example, on top of taking a wide range of questions, we took questions on the Vision Zero program, we took questions in Albany on the mansion tax and other Albany matters. So I’ve been in front of the media every day. Yesterday, I made clear we wanted to talk about the mansion tax. The reporters didn’t have a single question about a tax on the wealthy. It would help 25,000 senior citizens. If they’re more interested in other matters, that’s their prerogative. But I was holding a discussion about the mansion tax.

And as you said on the show a few weeks back, Brian, number one issue in New York City that you hear from your callers is affordable housing. If the City Hall press corps doesn’t want to talk about affordable housing, that’s their choice. But then they’re not listening to what their readers care about. And one last point, by the end of this year, I will have had town hall meetings in 51 City Council districts. And those go for two or three hours, and people ask everything that they want to ask. So I think there’s plenty of transparency. We have a particular approach to how we bring up each issue and how we discuss each issue, but there’s plenty of transparency.

Lehrer: NY1 and the New York Post won a lawsuit yesterday, forcing you to release emails between you and a private consultant you hired. Such emails are normally subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act. But you claim that Jonathan Rosen was an agent of the city even though he didn’t have a City contract. Will you release those emails now?

Mayor: We said very clearly we’re going to appeal that decision for a simple reason. Put aside terminologies, a senior adviser who on the advice of the Mayor’s Office Counsel understood as did a handful of other advisers. And these are people who I’ve worked with for a long time that they could provide direct advice to me on a range of issues and that that would be treated in a certain manner in terms of confidentiality. That’s the legal guidance we got. That’s what we proceeded with. I believe it was appropriate. And we’re going to defend that again, and we’re going to appeal that decision. It comes down to a very basic concept – if we have gotten legal guidance on how to proceed, and if it was respecting the confidentiality of private conversations, there is still a place in this world for getting private advice from an adviser.

Lehrer: Where’s the line? How informal, in your opinion, can a relationship be with the City be and have their communication shielded from public view as if they worked for the City?

Mayor: What we’ve said going forward – because obviously I understood that this issue created a lot of confusion, so going forward, we just said to any advisors – don’t raise these issues directly to me on for example, government email. And there’s nothing there therefore to have an issue over. So we’re going to change – we have changed our approach to those communications.

But in the end, I think there’s a human reality here. There’s people you want to seek advice from that are your friends, your personal advisers, everyone has those people in their life. And there still is a place in this world for a confidential conversation so that people can speak freely and think openly about issues, but in terms of anything involving City business and City email, and all that – we’ve instructed those individuals not to communicate.

Lehrer: Diana, on the Upper East Side, you’re on WNYC with Mayor de Blasio. Hello, Diana.

Question: Hi, I love your show, and I love this feature. It’s wonderful. I’m Diana Montford. We know each other – hi.

Mayor: Hey, how are you doing?

Question: I’m transgender. I do a television show called the Diana Montford show on cable. Trans people come to me, to Mel [inaudible], to Melissa [inaudible], to Joanne [inaudible], to those of us who are considered – you know – activists and politicians, and they say now with all the cuts that Trump is inflicting on social services what are we doing to do since so many trans people depend on social services literally for their survival? We have no answer for them. What are they going to do?

Mayor: Well, look, Diana, we are going to fight those cuts. That’s – you know a lot of times I get this question from the media in terms of the cuts, and they treat it as a fait accompli. And we’ve said very clearly – I believe this fundamentally – there’s going to be a nationwide fight over the budget proposal that Trump put forward. It would – so many things – it would have a hugely negative impact on the trans community. It would have a hugely negative impact on people who need affordable housing, on seniors, on programs like Meals on Wheels. You know, in terms of keeping housing safe and healthy – it’s just a massive range of impacts, and the reality is that’s going to find disfavor all over the country including in red state and purple states. And the member of the House and Senate, if they vote for that budget, they’re buying into those cuts that are going to cut many tens of thousands of their constituents, and a lot of them are going to get queasy about that. So we have a fight ahead that I think we can win on many of the pieces, so we’re not giving in on any of that. But the bottom line is look – the City of New York in the meantime will continue, as we always have, a very robust approach to social services and an open and inclusive approach. That you can depend on in any situation, but my message back to people is let’s start working with people all over the country including all of our friends and colleagues in red and purple states and red and purple districts to fight these cuts.

Lehrer: Joe on Staten Island, you’re on WNYC on Ask The Mayor. Hello.

Question: Hello, Brian. Hello, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Good morning, Joe.

Question: I wanted to talk about your new initiatives to put more bike lanes on Staten Island, which I’m 100 percent for. I was reading in the Advance, which is of course the way we pronounce it, that, you know, there’s a lot of detractors, and one of the things that somebody said was you never seen anybody in the bike lanes on Staten Island. And I have to say that’s absolutely true because mainly people on Staten Island drive with, I think, malice in their hearts. And I’m all for Vision Zero. I know a lot of people I talk to there are not. They feel that it’s a money grab, but I’m wondering what you can do to go further on Staten Island, so that bikers feel that they can come out. We see people running red lights, people speeding, passing you in the oncoming traffic lane. It’s an everyday occurrence on Staten Island, and I just wanted to know if you knew about that, or you knew how bad traffic was, or if you have any plans to enforce more traffic rules on Staten Island?

Mayor: A couple different points. Look, I think what we find with bike lanes in most places – I can’t speak to every community and every bike lane – but what we found in general is a little bit of a ‘if you build it, they will come’ reality. The more bike lanes are created and people see them and feel they’re safe, more people choose to take advantage of them, and they do have a positive traffic calming effect as well. That being said, as we talked about the Vision Zero press conference earlier in the week, bicyclists have to obey the same traffic laws as cars do. So it’s very important everyone recognize we want everyone in the equation to obey the laws and to be careful in terms of pedestrians, but the bottom line is in terms of enforcement – what we’ve found with Vision zero is we’ve greatly increased enforcement for speeding, we’ve greatly increased enforcement for failure to yield to pedestrians. We’re doing a lot more check points to get at folks who are driving under the influence, and I announced earlier in the week that there are going to be more such blitzes in the coming week. It’s not about revenue at all. It is about saving lives, and now for three years running Vision Zero has saved more and more lives. We have the fewest fatalities – traffic fatalities – last year we’ve ever had on record, and we’re down again this year already. So for everyone who cries foul about revenue, I have a very simple answer. I’d love to get no revenue. I’d love there to be no reason for the NYPD to pull people over for speeding. I’d love there to be no one who goes through a speed camera and gets a penalty, but then that’s about people correcting their own behavior because if you’re speeding, you’re putting other people’s lives in danger. It’s as simple as that. So we’re going to continue to enforce, and we’re going to continue to save lives, and I think ultimately the majority of people in the city support that.

Lehrer: Reba in Brooklyn, you’re in WNYC with Mayor de Blasio. Hi, Reba.

Question: Hi, good morning, Brian. I love your show, and Mr. Mayor I’m a huge supporter of yours. I’m just very concerned about broken windows policing and its effect on our immigrant community, and the fact that it exposes so many people to ICE action. And so my question is why can’t minor offenses be treated as civil instead of criminal offenses to really make this a sanctuary city and help protect our immigrant neighbors? Thank you.

Mayor: Reba, I really appreciate the question because it gets at something that I think there’s been a lot of misunderstanding, and I want to help correct it. Quality of life policing is about minor crimes, but crimes that we still get a huge amount of complaints from communities about. And that’s what drives the vast majority of enforcement of quality of life offenses is because calls come into 311 with people complaining about something, and the local precinct acts on it. But one of the things that happened under Commissioner Bratton and now under Commission O’Neill is to increase – and certainly City Council’s been a big part of this – to increase the options that officers had. And Commissioner Bratton said this a few years ago, you know, arrest is not the goal. The goal is to solve a problem. Sometimes the best way to handle it – and officers have been trained this way under our NYPD, officers have been trained to think this way, and it actually gives them a lot more discretion, a lot more respect for their professionalism. If they think a situation is best handled by a warning, they issue warning. If they think a situation requires a summons, and in many of the quality of life offenses that’s a perfectly fine option, and there’s no arrest, there’s no finger printing – summons is the go-to in lots of situations. Arrest tends to occur when you either have a pattern of repeated offenses, or you have some other kind of outstanding warrant that’s in play. So I would argue that the way quality of life policing is being implemented now actually in a very significant percentage of situations there is no arrest, so there is no situation where there’s any database or any information flowing. Obviously as well the law of New York City says if someone is arrested – if there is a situation where they have to be arrested, but they do not commit a serious or violent crime, not one of the crimes that is part of the list of crimes that by city law would trigger our cooperation with ICE – we don’t inform ICE, we don’t cooperate with ICE in terms of those minor offenses. And what I think it comes down to in the end is that we have to protect the city. We do believe addressing quality of life offenses is part of making the city safe. That’s why crime has continued to go down. That’s one of the building blocks of continue decreases in crime, but we do not want to subject people to additional exposure if they’re undocumented, and I think the current balance we’ve struck allows us to achieve both those goals.

Lehrer: Related to Reba’s broken windows question, the NYPD this week as you know forced out an employee who leaked the disciplinary history of office rPantaleo, the one who placed the chokehold in the death of Eric Garner. Your position is that you want the State to allow such records to be made public, but you basically fired someone for doing so while it’s still illegal? Did you have to go so far?

Mayor: Okay, I didn’t do it personally, let’s start with that. I have agencies that report to me, and they make their own decisions on their own disciplinary measures. Look, the CCRB, which we have intensely reformed and strengthened as an organization – and this is really part and parcel of our whole discussion. For most of 20 years the CCRB did not have the power and the resources it deserved, and we have strengthened the CCRB. Bu the CCRB as an agency has to make decisions on the right way for its employees to act, and confidentially – I mean talk about an agency that specifically is all about discipline and personnel issues – confidentiality is a really important matter, so leaking someone’s record, which is clearly against state law, that’s a situation that has to be dealt with, and I think he agency did what any agency would do in a situation like that.

Lehrer: That hadn’t been enforced for a long time, and I gather the NYPD discovered it recently or City Hall discovered it recently?

Mayor: It was a FOIL request. I’m sorry to interrupt, but there was – there’s the irony. I certainly understand the importance of the Freedom of Information Act. There’s a FOIL request that dredged up the reality that the law was quite clear that these matters couldn’t be publicly released. And I don’t think it’s a good law. I’m very open about that fact, and by the way the governor, the assembly, the senate should get together in this legislative session and change the law in Albany – it’s called 50-a – and allow us to release disciplinary records of uniformed officers. That’s what I’m going to fight for. I think there’s going to be a very strong collation fighting for that, but what we found as a result of a FOIL request was is there has been an uneven practice by the city, and some of that practice wasn’t consist with the law. We have to follow the law until we change it. It’s as simple as that.

Lehrer: And there was no lesser disciplinary action to take against the person who released the records?

Mayor: I, again, I have not heard from the CCRB leadership how they make their own internal disciplinary decisions. I heard about it the same way you heard about it. But I would say if you’re an agency that specifically deals with confidential information – that’s the whole purpose of the CCRB, to deal with these matters in an adjudicatory fashion, and confidentiality is part of the arrangement, and someone violates confidentiality – there have to be consequences. As to what they should be, I leave that up to an agency to figure out according to the law.

Lehrer: Martha near Union Square you’re on WNYC with Mayor d Blasio. Hello, Martha.

Question: Hi. Hi, Brian and Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much for taking my call. My name is Martha Anderson, and I’m an employee at the New York Foundling. I’m the vice president over our ACS preventive programs. Mayor de Blasio, you’ve been very supportive and vital in serving vital programs for the citizens of New York City. However, the agencies that provide these services are chronically underfunded and at risk of remaining financially solvent. The ACS preventive contracts have not received an increase since 2008, yet our program expenses has continued to increase. And New York foundling is one of the few and very lucky agencies with an endowment that’s been grown over 150 years, but the fact is we lose an average of $3 million each year over the last five years, and our sister agencies are in a similar situation, and it’s just not sustainable. So my question is with this financial trend how do you ensure the doors of the agencies and the organization that serve our city’s most vulnerable populations remain open?

Mayor: Well, Martha, I really appreciate the question, and I want to just say thank you to you and everyone at New York Foundling for what you do because basically, you know, we have a very close working relationship with your organization and many other nonprofits that are crucial to serving people of this city. Look, I – a couple of thing – on the plus side first and then we’ll speak to what we can do going forward. You know that over the last three years we have twice included cost of living increases in our budget for workers at nonprofit organization. That was not done for a very long time as you know. We’ve done it twice already to try and improve the mobility of your workers to make ends meet and obviously to make it easier to attract and retain good people. We also have put a lot more money into preventative services at ACS. There’s a lot more we have to do to improve and reform ACS, but one of the things we’ve already done in contrast to the previous administrations is put a lot more money into preventative services, which are the services that intervene in families in crisis and try to address their problems for the, you know, the safety and health of all. So those are areas where we have invested.

We have a budget coming up in the next few weeks. We understand that folks in the nonprofit sector are hurting. We’re going to look at what we can to, and it’s going to be a very honest internal conversation to figure out what we can do. And I also have to be straightforward with you Martha. At the same time we have a challenge because there’s a looming dynamic in terms of the federal and state budgets that worries us a lot. I said earlier we’re going to fight those federal budget cuts, and we have you know five or six months to do that. I think we’re going to succeed on some of those fronts, working with mayors and likeminded folks all over the country, but we have to strike a balance. We know the nonprofit sector needs help. At the same time we have to be careful in how far we extend ourselves given the overall budget dynamic. So you will see more answers. I’m not sure you’ll agree with all of them, but you will see more answers when we put forward an executive budget.

Lehrer: One more, Jaclyn in the Bronx, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello, Jaclyn.

Question: Hello. Hi my name is Jackie from the Bronx, and I just read an article yesterday – well not yesterday but March 22 about the specialized testing. Now currently my son is in 7th grade, and he is being [inaudible] take this test –

Lehrer: The specialized high school test – the selective high schools that only admit based on a high stakes test – Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant, schools like that. I’m just saying it so people know what high schools you’re talking about.

Question: Oh, okay. So as [inaudible] in the 7th grade now, and based on these statistics I’m a little bit worried and concerned that if he does pass, does he have opportunities? Is anything going to change?

Mayor: Well, Jaclyn, listen. I feel as you do that we’ve got a really problematic situation here. The specialized test – and Brian characterized it exactly correctly. It’s a high stakes test in a world – certainly in this city – where we’ve decided high stakes testing is the wrong way to go. It think it is outrageous, and this is state law, and it’s another reason why we should not have to make – you know, be at the whim of the State of New York on a situation that affects our children. I’m really sick of it in so many ways. I describe it as a semi-colonial relationship between the City of New York and the State of New York, and Brian a fact I came upon the other day – I want to confirm it – but I believe that there is no city in any state with a higher percentage of the state population than New York City. We are 43 percent of the population of New York state. We’re growing where some other parts of the state are shrinking. At some point in the near future we could be half the state’s population and yet we are at the whim of Albany on how we educate our own children. It makes no sense. So a single high stakes test determines whether a child gets this extraordinary educational opportunity. We learned a long time ago a single high stakes test does not tell you who a human being is. What we believe in in our school system today, contrasting with the previous administration, we believe in multiple measures. We believe we have to look at a lot of different indicators – grades and portfolios and a whole host of things to determine who each student is and that – if we can get to that kind of approach – you’re going to see a lot more opportunity and a lot more diversity in our specialized schools. But right now, particularly at Stuyvesant, we have a fundamentally unacceptable situation. The last I checked – it was six or seven percent of the students at Stuyvesant High School are African-American or Latino in a city that’s over 50 percent African-American or Latino. It’s absolutely unacceptable and it requires a State law change. We will fight for that again this year. I have not heard – the Assembly has been very supportive. I have heard very little support on the Senate side. But we’ll fight it anyway. But this – people should be outraged about this. It’s not democratic. It doesn’t reflect our values.

Lehrer: Let me finish then with this: we talked earlier about the mansion tax, which is being considered in the State legislature. Jacklyn just brought up this, which is another example of the State Legislature having power over the City regarding something that the City just wants to do internally within the five boroughs. They’re crashing toward the budget deadline, where a lot of these kinds of things get dumped in by the end of this month. What besides, you hope the mansion tax, might be realistic to hope for in terms of Albany that’s high on the City’s agenda for right now?

Mayor: We want to keep pushing for greater education aid. This is a fight that’s been going on for ten years, as you know, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision by our highest court in the state. We’re still not getting our fair share, nor are a lot of upstate cities and rural areas. So we’re going to fight to increase the amount of education aid. We’re going to fight to increase the amount of funding for the Housing Authority. We know that the Trump budget could massively defund the New York City Housing Authority. We’re going to fight that, but in the meantime Albany has been silent and absent. Albany passed some capital funding for NYCHA two years ago. We’ve seen hardly any of it after two years. And, the State Senate is proposing something like $100 million over five years, when NYCHA has $18 billion in capital needs. Come on, that’s 400,000 people who live in the Housing Authority, and they’re being treated like they don’t count in terms of Albany’s discussions. And again, the Assembly has been very, very supportive. But I’d like to see the Senate and the Governor step up for the 400,000 people who live in the Housing Authority, and so far, they’re doing almost nothing. So, we got to fight very hard on those fronts – obviously supportive housing for the homeless. We have not seen the specific plans. So, all of that activity is coming from the City right now, not from the State. There’s a host of things we’re fighting for in this budget.

Lehrer: Mr. Mayor, as always, thank you very much. And I’ll talk to you next week.

Mayor: Thanks so much, Brian.