Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Appears Live on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show

May 19, 2016

Brian Lehrer: It’s the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Mayor Bill de Blasio is our first guest today for his regular weekly apperance. We usually do this on Friday, as many of you know, but the Mayor’s Office requested Thursday this week to accommodate his schedule. So, hi Mr. Mayor. Welcome back to WNYC.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Why thank you, Brian.

Lehrer: Listeners it’s ask the Mayor, so give us a call if you want to get a question in. We’ll have time for a few on the phones today at 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692 or submit a question via Twitter – just use hashtag #AsktheMayor. First, we’re always glad you choose to be here on any given day, but I see that also scheduled for today, the State Senate Republican leadership wanted you to be at a hearing downtown on continuing mayoral control of the public schools, which they get to approve or reject in the coming weeks. The Daily News today says they put that hearing downtown, not in Albany, to make it easy for you. So, why did you decline?

Mayor: Well, I went to the hearing in Albany. This was the second of two hearings. They held – both, of course, attended by our Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña. I went to the hearing in Albany – spent almost four hours answering questions, laying out the facts including the fact that our graduation rate is over 70 percent for the first time. We have full day pre-K for all our kids, our student achievement is increasing across all demographics. I laid out those facts and I talked about why mayoral control is the only system that has been proven to work. And there were lots and lots of detailed questions, I took them and my view is we covered the subject matter. I made the case why we deserve a substantial extension, I had a number of business leaders with me at City Hall yesterday – of all backgrounds and all viewpoints including conservatives and Republicans agreeing that we needed mayoral cntrol. But I really think we covered it well in that hearing. And Brian, it is importanrt for people of the City to know when Mayor Bloomberg first proposed mayoral control of education to the same Republican State Senate – a lot of the same members there now – they gave him seven years in the first instance. He asked for an extension in 2009, got six more years – never attended a single hearing, but got six more years. I think the fact that I went up there to Albany to spend four hours with them shows plenty of respect, and now it is time for the Senate to make a decision.

Lehrer: What do you think this is really about, Mr. Mayor? I mean, I don’t think anybody in charge there really thinks we should go back to the old pre-Bloomberg system of 32 local school districts, some of them which we incredibly corrupt and very bad at providing education to the kids. So, are they trying to hold you up for something or to put it more nicely are they looking for a negotiated concession like more charter schools or something for upstate or something like that? What is this really about?

Mayor: Well, it’s a great question, Brian. Certainly there’s been no discussion this time or last time about any substantive changes or concerns. Last time, I made abunduntly clear, last year, that I would happily attend a hearing – no hearing was called. So, I wish this was about the substance, I wish it was about our children and parents. I’m having trouble seeing how it is, if this is the only system that has ever worked. And just this one fact is breathtaking – when Mayor Bloomberg achieved mayoral control – and you know I didn’t agree with Michael Bloomberg on many things including some important issues in education, but I thought he did the right thing to get mayoral control of education. I supported it at the time as a City Council member. When you achieve mayoral control – our graduation rate in our schools was hovering around 50 percent, absolutely unacceptable. Today, we are over 70 percent for the first time in New York City history. Now, that has happened entirely because of the mayoral control era. The fact that we were able to go from 20,000 kids in full-day pre-K to almost 70,000 in just two years time was only possible because of mayoral control. So, when you look at facts like that and the fact there is no alternative – there’s no third way here that has been proposed. It suggests to me that the substance is not the primary consideration here. I hope that the State Senate will listen to the voices of Republicans and Democrats, listen to my two predessesors, Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Guiliani who agree as I do that we need mayoral control of education, listen to over 100 prominent business leaders who yesterday signed onto a letter calling for renewal of mayoral control. I hope the State Senate Republicans are listening to all those facts and they’ll make the right decision here in the name of the kids of our City. And that’s really what it should be about.

Lehrer: Another story involving City/State relations is about Brooklyn Bridge Park. The Empire State Development Corporation, controlled by Governor Cuomo, suddenly tried to put on hold, this week as you know, the residential building complex that is going up there citing conflict of interest concerns with the developer whose lobbyist donated $20,000 to your issues group, the Campaign for One New York shortly after the development contract was approved. And I know you consider that move political by the State and you’re exasperated by it, but they did make that donation in proximity to a contract, so what’s your side of the story?

Mayor: My side of the story is very straightforward. I keep coming back to the facts here, we make decisions in this government based on the merits and very exhaustive objective processes. For example, in the case of that contract – many, many bids were solicited through a request for proposal process. A number of city agencies reviewed [inaudible] they ultimately chose a winner. I literally had nothing to do with that entire process. That was done objectively by different leaders at different agencies. And the winning bid was an outstanding bid – far superior to the others. At the same time, people are allowed in our democratic society – if they want to contribute to a cause, and in this case the things I was fighting for – full day pre-K, our affordable housing plan for half-a-million New Yorkers, or in other cases the Democratic State Senate. This is how we change the City. This is a change agenda. We have the right in a democracy to pursue support for a change agenda. We did it in a very open and transparent manner, everything always disclosed, following the rules laid out by the Conflicts of Interest Board of this City. So, this connect-the-dots approach falls down when it comes to any kind of proof of anything being done inappropriately. I’ve said many times, we hold ourselves to a very high ethical standard. We need affordable housing in this City. In fact, I think it is [inaudible] that this affordable housing will be in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in New York City – in Brooklyn Heights – a lot of opposition from some in that community. My answer is every kind of New Yorker deserves affordable housing – even in wealthy neighborhhoods we’re going to put in affordable housing. And it’s on the merits quite clear why this was the right thing to do. So, if the State wants to step away for whatever reasons and I have seen very little evidence that those reasons were substantive – if they want to step away that is fine. We’re not going to stop getting things done for the people of this city.

Brian Lehrer: I see that your Mayoral Office lawyer, Maya Wiley, was at the news conference yesterday – that it is permissible in general for a city official to ask for political donations from companies doing business with the City. It is only not okay if they have a pending transaction. Is that the important distinction in your case?

Mayor: Well I think what she said was – I want to make it a little clearer. There is no circumstance for City officials to ask for any kind of campaign donation, meaning electoral campaign. That is quite clear under City ethics laws and that is followed scrupulously. When it came to, for example, the Campaign for One New York, which was in the first instance, in 2014, to achieve our pre-K plan – in the second instance, to achieve our affordable housing plan – that’s where it’s appropriate, with Conflicts of Interest Board guidance, for an official to work on that effort. So we’ve laid out that previously and provided the guidance publicly for the media and the public to see. That’s the circumstance where it’s legal and appropriate. There is a definition of when someone is considered to be doing business in a certain manner that would preclude them from being asked and that’s exactly what we follow, but these are the governing laws of the state and the city and the governance provided by the City’s Conflicts of Interest Board, which is one of the most strong ethics panels in the country. Again, if people want to see changes in the laws we should all have that conversation, but everything done here was in accordance the law. In fact, we sought guidance in advance from the Conflicts of Interest Board before taking any action.

Lehrer: Since the Brooklyn Bridge Park donation came just one month after their contract was approved to develop in the park, should I not think someone asked them for it while they had business pending and is that not an ethical question to raise even if it wasn’t for a campaign donation as opposed to an issues donation?

Mayor: First of all, because you’re going to see more and more proof which we are going to lay out in the coming days and weeks of the many, many times that people supported something I believed in, but it did not result in any outcome for them and the government decided, in fact in many cases – the fact is there was such a clear disconnect of folks who wanted something on a business level, didn’t get it. And folks who had nothing to do with the process of donations won awards consistently. So, we are going to show all of those facts: that the decisions in the government are made on the merits, and the vast majority of them never get to me specifically. Now, the question you are raising is should people be concerned if there is any proximity? Well that’s what we have laws for. We have laws governing what’s appropriate and that’s what we have a Conflicts of Interest Board for. That’s what we used as our guide post here. So the central question, is there any conflict? No. Were decisions made in the public interest? Yes. And were the laws followed scrupulously and furthered the guidance of the Conflicts of Interest Board? Absolutely.

Lehrer: Let’s take some phone calls. Tessa, on the Lower East Side, you’re on WNYC with Mayor de Blasio.

Question: Good morning. I live, as you know, on the Lower East Side and I am delighted that you have such strong support for affordable housing. However, I am the President of a limited equity co-op immediately adjacent to Rivington House, and after living here for more than 35 years and making this neighborhood more and more livable and trying to preserve its affordability, my neighbors and I are completely dismayed by your administration’s failure to protect the public good when it removed the deed restrictions on that property. What I want to know is how you and your team can save this beautiful facility, which was converted from a public school with public dollars, and make sure that it can be a neighborhood medical facility such as a nursing home as it was supposed to become, or perhaps even housing for long-term people suffering from AIDS who also need affordable housing. 

Lehrer: Tessa thank you, let me clarify for listeners not familiar with this issue, that Mayor de Blasio has said he was lied to by those seeking the deed restriction being lifted about what they were going to do with the facility. And now, I guess it is being turned into more condos. What Tessa is asking you Mr. Mayor is: is it too late to go back on that and make sure that it is actually a neighborhood public health facility?

Mayor: Well, that’s what we are exploring right now. Tessa, thank you for the question. I share your frustrations deeply. A couple of points I want to make. First of all, of course the Rivington matter is under the investigatory process and we’re going to let that play out. So, I can speak broadly because there are specifics I can’t go into until that is resolved. The broad point here, this should not have happened, period. Yesterday, we talked about a situation similar only in that it is related to deed restrictions being lifted. This was about the Dance Theater of Harlem that had [inaudible]. The fact is there is a process that has been in place in the city for about 25 years – governs over how deed restrictions are handled. I laid that out yesterday in great detail to the media. We actually gave out the memo outlining the history – and there was a 2010 [inaudible] of this policy in the previous administration. I believe the policy was not the right policy to begin with, the approach was not the right approach. It did not have enough transparency, did not have enough community involvement, didn’t weigh some of the factors I would weigh going forward. So, we’re going to change that policy. All deed restriction actions are on hold now throughout the City of New York. We are going to revive that policy working with the City Council. It’s going to be a very different policy going forward, and I am going to insist that any changes in deed restrictions must be signed off by me personally – not someone in my name, but me personally.

Lehrer: And on this facility, can it still be saved?

Mayor: That is an excellent question. Look, I don’t know the answer yet. We are exploring that question right now. As soon as I can say more to the community about what can happen on that site, I will. But to Tessa’s core point, it should not have happened. There is no two ways about it. And real change has to happen as a result of it because we can’t have another one again.

Lehrer: But you’re holding out hope. It sounds like this facility can still be turned into a public health facility.

Mayor: I don’t know, Brian. [Inaudible] I don’t want to characterize at all. I literally am saying this is a question I have asked. I am waiting for a formal answer, when we have that answer and it is appropriate to talk about it publicly, I will. But what happened here should not have happened and it will not happen again in the future because the entire policy will be changed.

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

Question: Hello, Mr. Mayor. I’m wondering – is there any city agency that can help people access mental health care. I’m just wondering. It may be a lot of New Yorkers – I’m not talking about our homeless with schizophrenia, but there may be many New Yorkers who are aging, getting older, they are living alone, and maybe in a poverty situation who are suffering from a serious mental illness such as major depression or anxiety disorder and because of circumstances – lack of adequate income or maybe they have no family – and because of their illness cannot access any mental health care. Is there any city agency that can help reach out to people and help them access some health care?

Mayor: Bob, I appreciate the question very much. It is a crucial issue for this city is people who have mental health challenges. One in five New Yorkers in any given year have some kind of mental health issue they are dealing with. So, the answer is yes. What we are putting in place – and it will be up and running in the fall – is a new approach called NYC Support. And it is part of the First Lady’s plan ThriveNYC, which is a very comprehensive new approach to providing mental health services in the City. What NYC Support will literally be – will provide the ability for any New Yorker to call 3-1-1, be connected to a professional, get connected to a specific appointment, and then there’s follow through to make sure they get their appointment and they get whatever followups they need. So, it’s going to be a much more rigorous approach to getting people mental health support. We’re going to be helping to get more mental health professionals credentialed. We’re going to be doing a lot more work in senior centers, a lot more work in our schools to help address mental health issues. This weekend – I just wanted to note – Weekend of Faith, it’s being called, over a thousand houses of worship in this city of all faiths will be hosting members of the administration including my wife and many others; and clergy will be speaking about mental health issues, to explicitly destigmatize them, to say overtly as leaders of conscience that we have to stop stigmatizing mental health challenges, talk about it openly, help people get to the services they need, and this is the beginning of a very big change in how we approach mental health in this city.

Lehrer: Last issue for today, Commissioner Bratton presided over the demolition of confiscated ATVs and dirt bikes as “a very strong warning” to “nitwits and knuckleheads” who ride them. These don’t belong in the city. How big a problem has this become, and why didn’t the City sell the bikes rather than just destroy them?

Mayor: Commissioner Bratton, I think, has a tremendous understanding of how to get a point across. And I like his terminology for the folks involved. The fact is – it’s illegal to have a dirt bike, for example, in New York City. We all know about the incidents where groups of bikers try to take over highways and harass people and do things that are just plain dangerous – it’s just not legal. So, what the Commissioner did – with my full support – was send a very powerful message. These illegal dirt bikes and ATVs will be confiscated and destroyed, and you get to watch the thing you put money into get destroyed before your very eyes because it wasn’t legal to begin with. It sends a very powerful message that we will not tolerate these in New York City. And all the material will be recycled, so nothing will be thrown out – any resources recaptured [inaudible] will be used. But it was very important to say – in line with what I firmly believe is the right approach to the broken windows theory of policing – we will not tolerate disorder. We will not tolerate affronts to safety or quality-of-life. On top of everything else, these dirt bikes are often very loud, very disruptive. We’re not going to tolerate it. I think it was a strong show of our resolve to get these off the streets of the city.

Lehrer: You want to give them away to families upstate?

Mayor: I think there are times in public life when you need to send a message. I think this is a very clear message that we will find these dirt bikes and ATVs, and we will take them away, and you’re not going to see them anymore.

Lehrer: Do you consider electric bicycles a similar problem? I don’t know if there’s a documented accident rate that – you know – you’re looking at under Vision Zero, but I see these all over now. I personally think pedestrians don’t realize how fast they’re coming at them because they look like regular bikes.

Mayor: Correct. I think it’s a real issue. I don’t have – as you indicated – I don’t have the facts and figures under our Vision Zero plan of how many incidents have involved electric bikes. I share your concern, so I want to put this in the category of – since I’m on every week I’d like to come back next week with a clearer update for you on what we’re doing on that challenge.

Lehrer: That’s a deal, and since we are out of time for this week we will leave it there. Mayor Bill de Blasio joins us every week – usually on Fridays, today on Thursday to accommodate his schedule. Mr. Mayor, thank you as always.

Mayor: Thank you, Brian.