Transcript: Mayor Bill de Blasio Holds Media Availability

April 13, 2016

Mayor Bill de Blasio: …everyone. Let me give you an update on our shelter repair efforts. I want to give you a few updated facts on this. I’ll be happy to take questions on that, and then take questions on anything else.

So, we’ve instituted now our Shelter Repair Scorecard for the last three months. And the information for March is now available, and it shows that we are keeping our commitment to aggressively inspect, repair – and repair problems as we see them. We conducted almost 4,000 inspections in the first quarter of 2016 – compared to 8,600 inspections for all of 2015. So, we’re on a much faster rate right now. And when we find problems, our goal is to immediately address them, and we’re putting substantial resources into immediately addressing the problems.

At the end of January, the clusters, not including the – excuse me, the shelters, not including the clusters – so, I want to differentiate between the clusters which are a smaller part of our inventory, from the more traditional shelters. The non-cluster shelters had more than 10,000 overall violations. We have since driven down that number by 44 percent – it’s now at 5,800 violations. And the most serious, highest-priority violations – so, the point being, the ones that could really have a more serious impact on people versus the minor violations – the more serious ones have been driven down 61 percent in the same time period. So, this is moving very rapidly.

Now, that’s again the non-cluster shelters. The cluster buildings remain a problem, and that’s why we’ve been very clear we are phasing them out. We intend to no longer use them and we’re trying to phase them out very quickly. That’s where we see persistent problems.

Two days ago, we sent letters to two providers – two homeless service providers who had cluster apartments. These particular providers had apartments with excessive amounts of violations. We informed them that we are no longer going to be using them as providers. We’ll be terminating their contracts. The letters communicated very clearly that unless everything is fixed, we’re prepared to terminate immediately.

Look, the bottom line is, we understand what people go through when they’re homeless. We understand the disruption in their lives. We understand the pain, particularly families go through, and children go through. We want to do everything we can to prevent homelessness – that was the point of our announcement the other day. Where there are people who are homeless, we want their experience to be as supportive as possible. We don’t want them to be in buildings that are not up to code. So, that’s why we’re going to increase constantly our efforts to inspect, to make repairs, and to remove from the inventory entirely buildings that shouldn’t be there or providers that shouldn’t be there.

We have very high standards for our shelters. We have high standards for those that we’re going to allow to be providers. We’re going to act aggressively to make this shelter system good for all the people end up in it.

Quickly in Spanish –

[Mayor de Blasio speaks in Spanish]

With that, let me first see if there are any questions on this topic, and then we’ll talk about others.

Yes?

Question: Mr. Mayor [inaudible] the providers –

Mayor: The two that Commissioner Banks mentioned [inaudible] I think that’s how they pronounce it, and it’s not LPC – it’s an acronym, we’ll get it for you.

Yes?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Same question. Yes, so they have been informed formally that unless there violations are resolved immediately, we will terminate their contracts and replace them with other providers.

Any questions on this? Yes?

Question: Mr. Mayor, what would your reaction when you saw that number of violations?

Mayor: My reaction is it’s unacceptable, and we have to drive it down on a constant basis. Look, the – I keep invoking the history because it’s very pertinent – these shelters were left in this condition for years, and in fact decades. I harken back to the point about encampments. When we ended the encampments last year, some of those had been around not only for years, but for decades. This is a very, very different approach. And I mentioned the other day it will take a long time to fully implement, but we’re literally turning the system on its head. So, this was normal – buildings that had a huge number of violations – and we don’t accept it. There was not in the past a proper inspection system. There wasn’t a Rapid Response Repair Squad. There wasn’t removal of providers that weren’t doing the job. We’re changing the entire approach.

But I want to see these numbers constantly go down. So, for the first three months that we’ve had this scorecard, we have seen steady decreases in the number of violations. My mandate to the team is drive that number down constantly, particularly the more serious ones. Any building, any older building in New York City will have some amount smaller violations – it unfortunately goes with the territory. But the serious violations, particularly, I want those driven down to almost nothing – that’s our goal.

On this, any other – yes?

Question: [Inaudible] 10,000 number is only for non-cluster shelters, right?

Mayor: Yes.

Question: Do you have a number for the other shelter violations?

Mayor: I don’t have it in front of me but we’ll give it to you. It’s definitely worse – and that’s why we’re getting out of the clusters.

And again, just want to, again, review the sort of hierarchy of need here. We have [inaudible] obligation to shelter everyone. And as you saw – I don’t know if you were at the other press conference with Commissioner Banks – we want to get out of the hotels. It’s not the ideal place for people to be, and it costs more in terms of the taxpayers’ needs. But we have an obligation to shelter everyone. So, we have to apply a variety of strategies simultaneously. We have to – the preventative strategies have to keep working. We’ve seen good success so far. They have to keep the flow of people into shelter down. The strategies to move people from shelters to permanent housing – that updated number the other day, 32,000 represents a lot of success over the last two years and three months. That has to intensify. If we can reduce the number of people coming into shelter, if we can constantly get people out into permanent housing, then we’re going to constantly retreat away from clusters and from hotels.

The X-factor, which is a tough one, is if we succeed in getting people off the streets, some of them will end up in shelter – just as was true with the three-quarters houses. So, there are some unknowns in this process, but the cluster situation is not acceptable, and we’re taking the worst buildings – first goal is to get out of them, and certainly in the meantime, change providers on the ones we think are not being handled properly by the provider.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I think the assumption right now is we will need – I’m going to say traditional for the sake of clarity – if we want to get out clusters, and get out of hotels, there’s a very good chance we will need some additional shelters to do that. If everything worked our way, maybe that wouldn’t be true, but, right now, we’re working from that assumption. And I think when you composite all of the different priorities, that’s the smart thing to do.

Question: So, is the administration looking at new shelter sites?

Mayor: Yes.

Any other questions on this? Okay, questions on other things.

Question: Mr. Mayor, another high ranking official in the Police Department was just placed on administrative leave [inaudible] How – what are your thoughts on this?

Mayor: Well, again, as I said the other day – I hold myself and my administration to the highest standard of integrity. That was true, also and is true for any campaign apparatus or any other organization I’m associated with.

But I do want to give you an update. To this hour, we still have not heard from any federal agency. There’s been no outreach of any kind, and, given that fact, I authorized yesterday – the lawyer representing my 2013 campaign to reach out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and offer any assistance we could provide, and let them know we’re happy to work with them in any way that would be helpful. I believe that message was fully received, but there has been, again, no request of any kind or no contact of any kind to us.

But, I reiterate, we believe in a high standard of integrity. We believe people should be held accountable. The fact that there has been discipline for these officers shows that there is a very strong accountability system. And I think if you look at the many investigations undertaken by DOI of different agencies and the consequences for people who did things wrong – we hold a very high standard. We expect anyone who’s done something wrong to face consequences.

Question: [inaudible] what the Police Department is saying now to do in terms of community relations, as far as relations and credibility. How [inaudible]?

Mayor: I think the Police Department has made great strides in terms of building a different relationship with communities. Remember, this is a 36,000 member police force towards the end of this year. The overwhelming majority of officers are working better and better with communities. The leadership of the NYPD has done an extraordinary job. The new neighborhood policing strategy is showing great results in terms of crime reduction and reduction in complaints against police.

So, if there’s some individuals who did something wrong, well, that certainly does not reflect upon the larger police force or the leadership that have done a fantastic job healing some of the divisions between police and community.

Question: Sir, what does a wealthy donor – someone who writes a big check to the Mayor’s campaign or does significant fundraising for the Mayor – have a right to expect from him?

Mayor: They don’t have a right to expect anything.

I think that’s the simplest answer. This is a conversation obviously happening at the national level as well, and I’ve spoken to it on some of the national interview shows as well. We’ve got to come to grips with this reality. We have a legal system that says – here are campaign donation limits, here are disclosure requirements, and if you’re going to fund a campaign to get your message out to people trying to make a choice of candidates, you have to ask for donations to do it.

Everyone should play by those rules – stay within those guidelines. And then someone who makes a donation, that’s their choice. They should expect nothing in return. In theory, you’d like to believe people are making donations because they think someone would be a good leader. But I think there’s plenty of evidence that good leaders – all the time – make decisions based on what they think is right. And, you know, there’s been a lot of talk on the national level regarding Wall Street, and we point to the example of President Obama. Everyone knows he got a huge amount of support from Wall Street and he proceeded to support Dodd-Frank against the objections of most people on Wall Street, and now many of them are angry at him. Well – too bad. He did what was right for the American people.

So, no, they have no right to expect anything because it is about electing someone to lead, and that person has to think about the best interest of the City as a whole.

Question: Who’s the lawyer who you directed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and [inaudible]?

Mayor: The lawyer is Barry Berke – B-E-R-K-E – of Kramer Levin. And he reached out at my request and simply said that we would like to helpful in any way we can, happy to provide any information that would be helpful. But there was no – to the best of my understanding – no particular response except acknowledging and – you know, thank you for the call. But again, there is no request that’s been put into us in any way.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: This was one phone call. And again, he represents the 2013 campaign, so, depending on how things proceed, that’s something that would be determined in terms of the 2013 campaign. Yes?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: We’ll go this way – over. Go ahead.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I think it’s clear that there were many mistaken elements of the crime bill in the 1990s. And, unfortunately, it ushered in the era of mass incarceration – not alone – in combination with a lot of state and local actions around the country too. The mandate now is to break down once and for all mass incarceration, and fundamentally reform the criminal justice system, and create an atmosphere of real accountability. Secretary Clinton, who I support, has outlined a plan that I think is robust about making changes. The first major speech she made in the campaign including – I think one of the most important things – the use of body cameras all over the country, and that’s something that should be federally funded. I think dealing with the root causes in terms of the criminal justice system, things like bail reform and better alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders and no-violent offenders. In terms of the larger dynamics to our society, addressing income inequality, higher wages, higher benefits, more job opportunities, and the kinds of investments that the government needs to make that could only be done by taxing the wealthy more – and that all conforms to Secretary Clinton’s platform.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Please.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yeah, I think it’s an obligation of cities to be transparent about police-involved shootings. We’re very proud of the fact in New York City that police-involved shootings have reduced – constantly being able to reduce them year-by-year very steadily. And this is in the biggest city in the country with a police force that’s pushing 36,000 now. We had a very low number of shootings in the last year and we’re transparent about those and I think that’s the way forward. So, I think body cameras, other transparency measures likely divulging on police-involved shootings. And look, I think the Justice Department has played a pivotal role; local jurisdictions should always have the opportunity to pursue their process in terms of criminal justice, in terms of any follow up. But I think a robust Justice Department is part of the equation as well.

Question: Think it’s appropriate for a prosecutor’s office to leak details of an ongoing investigation? 

Mayor: Look, I am not a prosecutor. I don’t walk a mile in their shoes. I think it is important to respect due process. So, I don’t understand why something would be leaked, but I don’t understand the details of their work either.

Question: [Inaudible] have you been contacted [inaudible] contacted by the U.S. Attorney [inaudible] are you still looking into [inaudible] in a legal [inaudible]. You said you were looking [inaudible] some kind of lawsuit against the developers [inaudible]?

Mayor: No, no, yes.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Well, they’re your questions you have to know them.

[Laughter]

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: No, we have not have been contacted. What was your second question?

Question: Are you still considering –

Mayor: No, before that. You had two before you got to it.

Question: Were either you or anyone in your administration [inaudible]?

Mayor: No, second question?

Question: Anyone in your administration?

Mayor: No.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Okay.

Question: And are you still considering you legal options –

Mayor: 100 percent.

Question: Just to clarify, [inaudible] Mr. Berke to [inaudible] media reports of the campaign [inaudible]?

Mayor: Yeah, there were plenty of media reports.

[Laughter]

Mayor: Well, I mean there were plenty of media reports, but we hadn’t heard anything. So, I spoke to him and I said why don’t you call them up and say we are happy to help.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: So, on the first point, again, I think Hillary Clinton has a very powerful platform for comprehensive immigration reform. And look, I think – everyone knows I have a lot of respect for Senator Sanders, but, I also have to be clear, he voted the wrong way on some of the bills that were necessary for immigration reform. It doesn’t mean he hasn’t improved his position since. But I think she has a very clear, sharp view of how we get to comprehensive immigration reform. On the question of Puerto Rico, the United States of America has to treat Puerto Rico as it would any other part of this country – and the three million plus Puerto Ricans as it would any other American citizen and come to their aid in their time of need. It is as simple as that. You have a financial crisis, you have a healthcare crisis in general – the decline of the healthcare system there – and now you have a Zika crisis on top of it. It’s the responsibility of the United States government to step in and support Puerto Rico, not to try to take away the sovereign rights of the government of Puerto Rico. That would not be acceptable in any part of this country. And it is not acceptable in this situation. So, I am not an expert on everything that has been put forward, but I am deeply concerned about the only type of relief being offered coming with the kinds of strings attached that are absolutely disrespectful to the Puerto Rican people and their sovereignty.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Coming around, go ahead.

Question: [Inaudible] Rivington House [inaudible] this requestor contact the lawyer [inaudible] the U.S. Attorney, the included [inaudible]?

Mayor: Again, he reached out and simply said on behalf of the 2013 campaign – I said it before, twice, I believe. I’ll say it one more time looking you in the eye – he called on behalf of the 2013 campaign and said we are happy to help in any way. And there was no particular response in terms of any particular need. But again, we haven’t received anything further to any part of my office or anything associated with me.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: No, I do that as justice. Let me go over that again – I said it the other day – let me go over it again for you. So, a union that represents 100,000 people – a single Local – and we have several in this town that represent over 100,000 people – can give a single check of $4,950, unless its subset units – if it has them, like Locals within them – are also recognized as having the right to give donations. Now, subset Local would represent thousands of people. That’s actually an organization that represents thousands of working people. They should have a right to make a single $4,950 donation. While meanwhile back at the ranch – as I said at the time and I’ll say it again now – a single law firm, a single real estate firm could bundle within the firm as many $4,950 as they want. So, a law firm could do 100,000, 200,000 without even thinking. But a union that represents 100,000 people is only allowed to give one $4,950 donation. It just is ridiculous. The – here’s where the system has always been rigged. The system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and many, many ways. And in New York City we have a campaign finance system that does something to even up the score, but if there was an effort to undercut one of the few abilities of working people to make their views known and support candidates they believed in while individual wealthy people were not encumbered that makes no sense. So, I am very proud of having done that. Yes?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I’m not going to talk about a hypothetical. I think – look, this is a tragedy to begin with. There’s been a lot of pain for a lot of people. I think there was a full, fair legal process here. If it has to be done over, it will be done over. I just think it is a very straight forward equation.

You’ve had a chance. I’m coming over this way, yes?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: He made a joke about a joke. You’re right.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Oh, come on. If you guys can’t see it was a joke go ask him. We were joking around about it before and he was – that was classic Al Sharpton.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes. It was a satire. You know, I appreciate the point Chris Hayes made last night as he was questioning me. He did his job as a journalist and he pushed hard – and he then did say, in fairness, this is the same show where Rudy Giuliani dressed up as a women. It’s a satire. Let’s be real. Marcia?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Well, Marcia, I’m going to just stop you for a second. I don’t know what they are doing until they say it publicly – attributed or they say something to us. So, I’m just not going to assume because of an unnamed sources anything, and I think you can understand that.

Question: I just wanted to ask you how your [inaudible] –

Mayor: No.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: What’s in my head is that we have done things right. We hold ourselves to a very high standard, we always have. And that’s why I was very happy to tell an attorney representing my campaign call them and say how can we help because we would be happy to.

Question: And how do you feel – are you troubled by what’s going on [inaudible]?

Mayor: Again, I think some individuals did the wrong thing, and I think they will suffer the consequences. And this is the entire concept – I’m just going to give you seconds, you know some of this history well. This place, this City used to be a cesspool. There was all sorts of corruption and there weren’t enough checks and balances. Over the years, New York City has really done a great job of putting serious checks and balances, serious investigatory mechanisms in place. Our Department of Investigation gives you lots to report on almost every day; plenty of people who deserve to be arrested being arrested; plenty of action being taken. That’s how New York City has changed. We hold ourselves to a very high standard. And those individuals – I am not going to prejudge them – they deserve due process. But anyone who accepts personal gifts in the year 2016 is not paying attention to today’s ethics standards or the ethics training I’m sure they were given along the way, or didn’t have the wisdom to consult with a lawyer. So, I am very comfortable that my team, my administration believes in high ethical standards, as do I. And that is why we are very comfortable saying to the U.S. Attorney we’re happy to help in any way we can.

Question: How do you think the public [inaudible] think about the NYPD [inaudible]

Mayor: I think it is laughable. It’s laughable. Guys – 36,000 officers who have driven down crime for 20-plus years and, because of allegations not yet proven, everyone is trying to make a bigger issue of this. No, I don’t accept that. I think the public looks at the NYPD as doing a fine job and a better job all the time. And I know you guys have to sell papers and broadcast, I respect that, but let’s just get real about the facts. There are some individuals who may have made a mistake. They will suffer those consequences, but the entire police force deserves respect for the extraordinary job they are doing. 

Yes?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Ridiculous – that’s ridiculous. It was a satire show. I take full responsibility for the scripts, happily. I personally signed off on it. Everyone involved saw it for what it was. In the context of satire we were making fun of a figure of speech and then twisting it into a subversive way to a humorous end. It was a satire. It was straightforward – so, hold on, we’ll come back. We’re doing right to left. I am trying to represent my philosophical orientation we end up on the left. I will come back to you Joy—

But, no, that’s the bottom line. I am very, very happy to support her campaign in every way. I have been vigorously involved supporting her. And I think she is going to win New York and she’s got a lot of support on the ground.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: No I don’t. It was satire. Suffice to say I have a long experience with the community and it is a phrase that is used by some people derisively, by some people humorously, but, the bottom line is, we were putting it in the context of a skit. And the whole notion was to say here’s this phrase and then switch to the other direction and make fun of me, and that’s all it was. And I just think there just has to be a point where if it’s going to be a satire show – you know, I mean, are we going to go over everything that the press corps said? And now vet that and say was that appropriate or inappropriate? Let’s be real – satire is satire.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes, you are in extreme luck – you and your left-wing paper newspaper, yes.

Question: Several in the police department announcing [inaudible] because of your relationship with two of your donors [inaudible]. [Inaudible] to be honest and forward-coming with your relationship with those two donors – each time that you saw them, met with them, what you discussed, [inaudible] –

Mayor: Well, that’s your assumption. I am not sure I agree with that but –

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Again, I don’t agree with your premise. I just don’t agree with your premise, but I can give you the overview. I don’t know where you decide what I have to give people, what I don’t have to give people. It’s very simple. I did not know them. To the best of my memory, I did not know them before the fall of 2013, which I’ve told you before. We went and checked campaign records for previous campaigns. We have no indication of any donation from either one of them before the general election of 2013. They got involved – as I said to you all the other day, a lot of people suddenly got involved in the fall of 2013. They did a lot to support the effort. When we put together the committee – the honorary committee for what is the transition inaugural in a single entity under New York City law – the resources for the inaugural, the resources to pay for elements of the transition staffing, etcetera – look – the kind of people we put on a committee. We put on a committee people who had been supporters, and donors, and prominent people who had supported our effort – very normal thing to do after someone is elected. Totally different from the group that ran the transition – as everyone knows Carl Weisbrod, Jennifer Jones Austin, at that point, Laura Santucci, Ursulina Ramirez, were the people running the actually transition staffing effort. And they held one event at one of their homes, which I don’t remember really that well because it was just another event at someone’s home. And then I had some conversations with them over the course of 2014, but really haven’t had that many conversations since the beginning of 2015.

Mayor: Again, I’ve just given you enough. Go ahead.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Again, I told you what I am going to tell you for now. Go ahead.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I’m not going to interpret that. No, I’m just not going to interpret that. You’ll have to ask him what he meant. We are a progressive administration that has pursued a reformed agenda that holds ourselves to very high standards and obviously has acted in the people’s interest on things like pre-K, affordable housing, reducing stop and frisk, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. That’s for the people to judge if we follow through on the vision we put forward but I am very comfortable we have and I am very comfortable that we’ve held a high standard of integrity. Go ahead.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: There’s a whole host of issues in Albany, and I think Albany and New York City are a very different place. I think that’s abundantly clear. I think New York City – again in the 80s, this place was horrible. Since the 80s, there has been consistent reform made both in terms of governments of our governmental accountability systems – have gotten better and better. Our Conflict of Interest Board, our Department of Investigation, all the different tools that we have here in the city that create accountability have gotten stronger and stronger, and we have the most rigorous campaign finance system in the country. So, I think there is a stark difference between New York City and Albany. In the context of New York City I feel very good about the standard of integrity that’s being held and when someone violates that standard that there’s real consequences.  

Final word –

Question: One more question on your favorite topic. [Inaudible]

Mayor: No, my wife is a part of everything I do. She is as proud as she possibly could be of who she is. She saw nothing offensive about it in the context of a satire, especially. I appreciate what Mayor Dinkins said today, who was the person who brought my wife and I together when we both worked for him. He was sitting there. You know, the first black mayor of New York City. He didn’t see anything offensive about it. I think in the context of a satire. Again, I am happy to take full responsibility. If anyone doesn’t like it, direct your concerns to me. But the notion was to set up a joke directed at me. That’s what we did. It’s really not a big deal.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: No, it was not written by him but we reviewed it and rehearsed it together, and, you know, worked on the timing and one thing or another. So, he was very comfortable with it as well. 

Thank you, everyone – glad we focused on important issues of the day.