Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Appears Live on WNYC

June 10, 2016

Brian Lehrer: It’s the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We begin today as we usually do on Fridays with our Ask the Mayor segment, and Mayor Bill de Blasio. The Mayor joins us from San Jose, California, today, where he is for his daughter, Chiara’s college graduation. Hi, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Hello, Brian.

Lehrer: And congratulations on Chiara. Do you want to coo a little?

Mayor: I do want to coo. This is my first child to graduate from college, and she’s an extraordinary young woman and she has been a campus activist and she, most importantly, wants to come back home to her homeland. She’s moving back to New York City. But it’s going to be a remarkable day tomorrow.

Lehrer: And listeners, our phones are open for anything you want to ask the Mayor – after only doing only Queens callers last week, and on a specific policy area the week before, we’ll rotate back to anything from anyone from anywhere for this week’s. So call-in and ask the Mayor about something that matters to you or to your part of the city. 2-1-2-4-3-3-WNYC, 4-3-3-9-6-9-2, or tweet us a question. Use the hashtag #AskTheMayor.

I see Chiara is graduating from Santa Clara University – not all that far from Stanford. And I see you hosted a live reading, this week, of the Stanford sexual assault victim’s letter, which the victim read in court after her convicted attacker got just six months in jail as a sentence. We did a separate segment all about this yesterday. But did Chiara tell you if it’s a big topic of discussion on her campus?

Mayor: She and I did not talk about it but I think it’s a big topic of discussion all over this country. I think this was, you know, an eye opener and a, sort of, call to conscious moment. And that’s why I certainly know, for my wife, it was important that we – and for all of us – that we use this moment to say this is intolerable, and we have to develop a very different culture particularly on our campuses.

Lehrer: Do you if sexual assault carries a minimum sentence in New York State or do you think the law needs to change in that respect?

Mayor: I don’t know about the law, to be honest. But I do think there has been a very bad history of too many of those who have done sexual violence getting off with no consequences. And there’s been a culture that has in many ways enabled that. So, whether it’s a law that has to be changed or much more consistent enforcement or much more education – I think we have to do all of the above. But part of it to take these very, very sad, but high-profile cases and use them as moments to educate people that, you know, there’s going to be much more consequences than there were in the past.

Lehrer: One of the big stories in the city this week, as you know, is the indictment of longtime Correction Officer’s President, Norman Seabrook, for taking kickbacks from the hedge fund manager for investing union pension money with him. Allegedly Seabrook’s second-in-command is now in charge of the union. The Times has an article this morning suggesting that the sidelining of Seabrook might actually complicate your efforts to reform Rikers Island, even though he’s been an obstacle in some respects. What new challenges would you say it presents?

Mayor: Obviously, it’s way too soon to know. I mean, the bottom line here is there’s a very, very sad and troubling reality that someone would take from their own union’s pension fund – that’s the allegation. And obviously he has been suspended from the department.

Look, I think we don’t know yet to the extent – to what extent this will mean for more opportunity for reform or less. We do know the Department of Correction has made a whole series of changes over the last two-and-a-half years. We see real progress in terms on reducing violence. We’ve been very, very rigorous in terms of screening and training of new officers. And obviously, there’s been real consequences for officers who’ve done the wrong thing and inmates who perpetrated violence against officers. So, a lot of the reforms are taking place.

It’s an interesting question of what comes next. I’d like to believe, as things sort out, it will be clear to the leadership of that union that the only way forward is reform. And there’ll be a new openness to that. But, you know, the bottom line is – we, of course, are worried about anything that’ll disrupt the pace of what we’re doing right now because Rikers needs so much work, and I don’t want to see that slow down.

Lehrer: Real estate developer, Jona Rechnitz, was apparently the cooperating witness who apparently admitted being the middle man between Seabrook and the hedge fund guy. Rechnitz also was implicated, as you know, in the bribery of multiple NYPD officers and officials. I should point on in fairness to you and the listeners – none of this is about you. But he also made sizable donations to your campaign and your issues PAC, the Campaign for One NY, and was on your inaugural committee. So, US Attorney looking, no doubt, to see if he arranged or tried to arrange any quid pro quo there, since that seems to be his repeated operating style. Is there anything you can tell us about anything he ever asked for from you or your team?

Mayor: [Inaudible] look, obviously the matter is under investigation. We’re fully cooperating with the US Attorney. The bottom line is – this an individual who I did not know until the general election of 2013. He obviously had very negative intentions, and none of us knew that, and nothing in his vetting showed that. I can safely say we didn’t do anything inappropriate involving him, and I think when the facts come out – and I think they’re going to come out in the pretty near future – that will be proven. Look, the amount of damage this guy did to people’s lives is unbelievable, and it’s very, very sad. We try to vet things very, very carefully but even with careful vetting you can’t always pick up what someone’s intentions are. But no, we certainly had – we did nothing for him that any way, shape, or form would be considered inappropriate.

Lehrer: I read the guy is just 26 years old. How does a kid like that win his way into the trust of people like Norman Seabrook and top NYPD brass with all their experience and savvy – and get them hooked up in illegal activity?

Mayor: Look, I don’t want to speak to Norman Seabrook, that’s obviously – I mean answering your question, that’s a case that now has a whole different dimension, and we have to –

Lehrer: And it’s alleged.

Mayor: – see how that plays out. But the – in terms of NYPD officials – they all should have known better. Look, we’ve – again they will go through due process. They have that right, although as you know, based on the investigation by the Internal Affairs Bureau, real disciplinary action has been taken already. There’s no one in a senior position in City government in 2016 who should not know that you don’t take gifts, that there are real stringent limits on any kind of gift, or even meals, etcetera, there’s real clear specific limits. So, for the senior NYPD folks – I mean there were only a handful in a department of 36,000 – I don’t know what they were thinking and how they missed that obvious training that we’re all given. So, I think, unfortunately, this case is less about what this 26-year-old was able to do and more about why a small number of people did not understand their ethics obligations.

Lehrer: One more related thing – Governor Cuomo, this week, proposed new disclosure rules for groups like your Campaign for One NY, which are supposed to be independent from candidates under the law, to be exempt from campaign spending limits. I guess these would also apply to his own issue groups like the so-called Committee to Save NY – if he uses such again. And as the Daily News describes it, he wants the Super PACs to be required to report the names of anyone who controls them, and former staffers or immediate family members of candidates who might be involved with them. Do you support this?

Mayor: I have not seen the specific proposal. I certainly support the intent of disclosure. You and I have talked about this before. I find it very interesting that at the State level – certainly true of the “Committee to Save NY” and other entities at the federal level – there hasn’t been disclosure of the donors. That’s something I don’t understand why that wouldn’t have happened. We’ve been very clear – anything that I’ve been associated with, we believe in disclosure. And disclosure allows you and your colleagues in the media to ask a number of pertinent questions, as they should. So it sounds like the concept is on the right track. At the same time, I would say there’s so much in addition to that field, there’s so much more that needs to be done in Albany on ethics. And the thing we need most, you know, is really stringent campaign donation limits in Albany, and obviously I believe in public financing of elections.

What we have in New York City is a great model for our local elections, and I hope our colleagues in Albany will look in that direction.

Lehrer: Is that, though, an endorsement of the Mayor – the Governor’s proposal or an ‘I don’t know, I haven’t seen it?’ –

Mayor: As I’ve said, I have not seen the details but from what you’re telling me of the intention to have disclosure be consistent for any kind of committee – absolutely. I’ve said it to you before. I believe any donations – city, state, federal – to any kind of public issue activity before [inaudible] disclosed.

Lehrer: Disclosed. And the Governor’s chief council, who will actually be our next guest listed criteria that regulators should look for to determine if there’s illegal coordination with candidates including whether they share office space, major donors, or campaign materials says the news. I guess that’s even if disclosure has already taken place. Are those fair criteria in your opinion, and do you think they’re establishing criteria to make you in particular look bad in any way?

Mayor: I’m not going to judge their goals or what their underlying motivations are. There’s obviously been – as I’ve said – when it comes to Albany and some of the issues raised recently in terms of me, there’s been selective prosecution and a double standard. So I don’t know where to place these new proposals – again, I haven’t seen the details. What I’d say is to your question of how do you get at the truth? We need clear rules. When you talk about well people might have the same consultant, or someone they know in common that seems like an awfully slippery slope, and one that would be hard to justify legally. What would be right is to say here are very clean rules about what kind of activity is appropriate, and I’m someone who’s comfortable playing with whatever set of rules we’re dealing with, following the law and fully disclosing, but what we don’t want to see is a situation where the laws are so gray that no one knows how to follow them properly.

Lehrer: Let’s take some callers now on our Ask The Mayor segment. Listeners, our lines are full so you can get in as people finish up, but you can also tweet a question. Use the #AskTheMayor, and you can also put @BrianLehrer, which will also help us find it, but #AskTheMayor most importantly. And to the phones – Lumière in upper Manhattan, you’re on WNYC with Mayor de Blasio.

Question: Thank you so much. Good morning, Mayor. I’m a little nervous because I’m really anxious about this question. You’ve mentioned often about you recognizing the illegal eviction and those of us who have been forced out of our apartments. Recently I was on a two year waiting list for senior housing, and it came up that I had a unit available to me, and when I went for this unit everything else – I have good credit and everything – but they said they saw I had an eviction on my record, and so this was going to block me from getting that housing. I’ve been homeless three years now, I have an EPVA voucher as well, and now this is blocking me from even getting housing with real estate agents and with managements. This puts me in a very serious situation where I am stuck in purgatory of not being able to get any housing.

Lehrer: How could the Mayor of the City help you, Lumière?

Question: I want to know what can be done. I mean they recognize that we are – we do have these forced out illegal evictions, so now that we have them what can they do now that we can’t get housing?

Mayor: Lumière, I appreciate your question a lot. It’s a very – it’s an example I haven’t heard before, but it gets to exactly, as you’re saying, a time we’re living in, and therefore it has to be addressed. If you make sure you give your information to the folks you’re talking to from the show, they’ll share it with us, and we’re going to follow up with you directly. But to the bigger point – there have been a lot of illegal evictions. Again I want to, Brian, tell your listeners, if anyone listening to me now believes they’re being – right now in the process of either being evicted illegally, harassed by a landlord illegally, overcharged in rent, any of those kinds of things, call 3-1-1. We’ll assess your case. If we find illegality, we’ll provide you a lawyer for free. But Lumière’s question gets to the point of an eviction that is plaguing her from the past, which well may have been illegal. We’re going to have to sort that out with her very specifically, but of course an illegal eviction should not be held against someone and certainly should not be the reason for someone being denied affordable housing. So I want to believe we can work this through because that would almost be a form of double jeopardy, and we certainly don’t want to have that happen to her.

Lehrer: Lumière, hold on, we’re going to take your contact information off the air, and we’ll make sure that somebody from the Mayor’s Office does follow up with you personally. Good luck with your situation.

Jeff in Brooklyn, you’re on WNYC with Mayor de Blasio. Hi, Jeff.

Question: Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Mr. Mayor. First of all, congratulations on Chiara’s graduation. I guess it’s one down, one to go for you.

[Laughter]

Mayor: Exactly. Thank you.

Question: But I want to take this opportunity since you are there celebrating your daughter’s graduation to talk about higher education in New York. They had that article that ran really deep dive into the conditions at CUNY in New York City a couple weeks ago, talking about the horrible conditions and really the degradation of the quality of the system over the years. And there’s a lot of different reasons for it, and obviously your platform and the reason why people support you is because you’re an advocate to reduce inequality, and what better way to reduce inequality than making sure people get quality – not only – elementary level education, pre-K through 12 –

Lehrer: Are you asking about something specific regarding CUNY?

Question: Yes, I want to know what the Mayor can do. The article made it seem like it was partly the City’s responsibility and partly the State’s responsibility, but no one is really talking about what the solution is.

Mayor: I appreciate the question, Jeff. Let me talk about this second, and then what we need to do going forward. Right now what the City of New York does is we have a responsibility for a partial amount of the funding for the community colleges, the two year colleges. We’ve done that. That’s in our budget. We have no funding responsibility for the four year colleges of CUNY. You’re exactly right that there’s a grayness here. The State controls overall the public colleges and universities, whether it’s SUNY or CUNY, but the City has a role in funding the two year colleges at CUNY, and the City has some seats on the CUNY board, but not a majority. It’s a strange hybrid, and I think it has to be thought about for the future. How do we rationalize that and fix it? I will tell you on top of that the City has donated a lot of additional money for the capital needs of our community colleges and for very specific initiatives far beyond what we are obligated to pay. For example, I’ve put a lot of money – tens of millions of dollars – into two year STEM programs at CUNY because I think that’s a capacity they need to beef up on, and there’s obviously a great job opportunity for folks who have two years STEM degrees in the tech sector. The bigger question is since this responsibility is essentially an Albany one with and a City role, but it’s a huge – CUNY is crucial to the future of this city, and it’s not getting the kind of investment it needs - how do we come to some bigger understanding of where we are going with CUNY and make it more of a focal point? And this is something we have to work through with Albany because higher education is going to be more crucial to the future of the City even more than it was in the past, so what I can tell you is when we get through this immediate legislative session, this is one of the things we want to start to sort out as part of a long term joint plan between the State and the City to strengthen CUNY.

Lehrer: Anything specific in that respect? The Times article that he refers took also a national perspective and was partly about how there’s been disinvestment in community colleges and state university systems all over the country, putting more of a burden on students. It’s one of the reasons for student debt and tuition going up, and of course it’s been very contentious at CUNY in many ways. So anything specific that would be a priority for you?

Mayor: Yes, I think two things – one, we’ve got to solve the staff situation at CUNY. There’s staff that don’t have a contract. That has to be resolved. The City has said we will pay our proportionate share as we’ve done with all of our City employees – we’ll pay them a proportionate share for the community college element of that contract, but it’s really important that that gets settled, so CUNY can move forward. Second I would say, look – the State of New York – in my view – is in a position to make some really important investments going forward. This has not been enough of a front burner issue, but what you read in that article was about capital investments. It was about the physical reality. It’s certainly a place – thank god the state is running a surplus now – this is an area where the state can do a lot more. And if we all work together on that, I think there’s an opportunity to get that into upcoming budgets.

Lehrer: Susan in Manhattan, you’re on WNYC with Mayor de Blasio. Hi, Susan.

Question: Hello, good morning, Mr. Mayor. I’m calling about Intro. 775-A. The – in my opinion – damaging amendment to the landmarks law that would pass this Wednesday in a hastily set up meeting by the City Council. As you know, many in the city have opposed this amendment because it sets up arbitrary deadlines for the Landmarks Preservation Commission and inserts – what we view as – a very disturbing owner’s consent component. My questions are three – first, has this bill come to your desk for signing? Two, will you sign it? And when and will you hold the hearing that the charter requires?

Mayor: In terms of the process for signing a bill – no, I have not had it come to my desk, and there will be a hearing at the time when it’s time to sign the bill, and until I see the bill and review it carefully we don’t take a formal position until there’s been a full review. So that process is still to happen. Between the process – the public process, the hearing process in the City Council – and the hearing I have before signing any legislation, those are still opportunities obviously for public input.

Lehrer: Here’s one from twitter using the #AskTheMayor. Victoria writes “LICH redevelopment is grossly out of scale for Cobble Hill. Why won’t you fight the scale? Affordable housing at any cost?” writes the listener.

Mayor: Well look, I’m going to put this in a community context. I believe what we tried to do with LICH long ago – you know, the hospital was going to close, there was going to be no healthcare for the community – and what we had to do was find a plan that would preserve at least emergency room, urgent care healthcare for that surrounding community. If you know that area – which I used to represent in the Council, Cobble Hill – and the surrounding communities like Red Hook, there is not an immediate hospital in that area, and that’s why it was so important to keep that emergency capacity which has been achieved. Since that also involved figuring out a larger plan for the site, I believe the goal should always be to look for an opportunity to create affordable housing and to address other community needs. One of the things that is being worked on now is whether there is an opportunity to put a public school on that site, for example. In terms of height and density, I think my position is well known. Where an area can support it, additional height density where that gets us more housing – and particularly more affordable housing – I do believe there’s more areas where we can take greater advantage of that. And that is an area where I think – looking just what’s around it – there is an appropriate opportunity. It’s right next to the BQE, and one thing or another, I think it is an appropriate site. I understand why community residents are concerned, but if we don’t create more affordable housing in the city, if we don’t look at places where we can put in more housing, we’re going to have a huge problem. We’re going to see more and more people of limited means unable to live here, and that’s why I look for every opportunity that, you know, we deem appropriate to create affordable housing. 

Lehrer: I guess people in your old district disagree about how much more that particular neighborhood can handle, huh?

Mayor: Well, I think some people disagree. Look, there’s a long tradition in New York City of folks not wanting to see development, and I think sometimes it’s a very appropriate impulse, and sometimes I think it isn’t because if we’re going to talk about economic diversity – and I have felt this for a long, long time – a lot of my constituents in that community – I think if I said to them generically, do you believe in economic diversity? Do you want working people and people who are lower income to also have an opportunity to live in this city and live in this neighborhood? They would say, yes. That’s a value they would subscribe to.

Well, to do that, we actually have to take some action. And we will not take an action if we think it’s absolutely inappropriate for a site, or if we think it will make – it will overdo what’s available in terms of infrastructure. But if there is an opportunity to build in a way that gives us more units of affordable housing, I would ask people to embrace it so we can keep New York City, New York City, so it can be a place for everyone. If everyone says no in every community to affordable housing, well, guess what? The gentrification and the other trends that have made this a more exclusive city will only deepen. 

Lehrer: I read on the Real Deal real estate site that your administration is pushing for a change in State law to allow developers to nearly double the size of residential buildings. Will that mean more of those super-tall buildings, like so many people find distasteful on 57th Street and Park Avenue, as that Real Deal article suggests? And, if so, do you think those super-talls get an unfair rap, and they’re really part of an acceptable aesthetic future for the City skyline?

Mayor: Well, I would look at – and it’s a very fair question, but let me give you what is the underlying reality. There are places where we can appropriately build taller. I don’t know if it means specifically those types of buildings, but I can say there’s places where you can build taller. But now, because of a law passed last year – I’m sorry, this year, my apology – this year, in terms of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, we now have a requirement for the creation of affordable housing whenever there’s a rezoning and a land-use action by the City. So, this opens up the potential for a vast amount of additional affordable housing. It’s a big issue. It’s going to be looked at in Albany. But the point – the larger point I’m making is we have a whole new set of rules now. If we were having this conversation literally a year ago, it would be one thing, but, now that there’s a requirement of affordable housing in these new types of development, this is a much better equation for New York City. 

Lehrer: You do want the State to allow developers to nearly double the size of residential buildings? 

Mayor: It’s – Brian, asking it that way, respectfully, I think is misleading. There are some specific districts that are already very highly built up – for example, Midtown Manhattan – where there’s an opportunity to do some more and to include affordable housing. This is something that is very specific to certain districts, again, that are already very dense. 

Lehrer: Syed in Manhattan, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello.

Mayor: Hi, Brian. My question to the Mayor is that I’m a yellow-cab driver, and I had a passenger the other day – she was going to 51st Street and Fifth Avenue. So, she was an old lady. I had to drop her off on the right-hand side by the bus stop. So, as soon as I finished dropping her off, a police officer crossed from the other street, and he pulled me over, and he gave me a ticket, and I asked the officer what the ticket is for. He said you’re not supposed to drop people off on the bus stop. And he gave me a criminal court ticket, for which I have to show up in court on the 20th of June. I was wondering, why is it a criminal ticket? According to the TLC law, we’re allowed to drop people off at the bus stop, we’re not to allowed to drive on the bus stop, for which we would receive [inaudible] tickets that carries usually two points. So, this one is a criminal court ticket. 

Lehrer: Mr. Mayor, are you familiar specifically enough with this law and regulation? 

Mayor: I appreciate you asking, Brian, because I’m not. Obviously, look, I want to make sure that enforcement is fair and I don’t know enough about the details. I do – we are happy to follow up with you individually, so please share your information with the station because if a ticket is given for something that isn’t inappropriate, we need to do a follow-up to fix that situation in terms of the training of officers. But I do not know why it would by one type of tickets versus another. 

Lehrer: Syed we will take you information and make sure you do get an answer from the Mayor’s Office on your question. Matthew in Manhattan, you’re on WNYC. Hello.

Question: Hi, how are you doing, Brian?

Lehrer: Okay. 

Question: And it’s a pleasure to speak to you, Mr. Mayor. I do wholesale to retail transportation in New York City for a number of companies that are all based in New York City – small producers – and I find that the traffic congestion in New York is not based on the amount of Uber cars, or taxis, or what you could improve with congestion pricing, it has to do with double-parked large trucks delivering all throughout the day. So, I wonder, why don’t we have Coca-Cola only deliver at night – and other large corporate companies like that deliver their products in the hours that are not during rush hour. Thank you. 

Lehrer: An eternal transportation question. 

Mayor: Yeah, and it’s a great question. Look, Matthew, I think you’re right that it’s a huge problem and double-parked trucks are a big part of it. I would note, a lot more construction activity is a part of it – and that’s obviously in many ways a good thing – and a lot more cars than used to exist in our society just a decade or two ago. But you’re absolutely right that the double-parked trucks are a big piece of it. We are examining whether there’s a way to do rules, requirements, anything that would help us get to more night deliveries. It’s a tough equation. It’s something, from what I understand so far, has been looked at around the country with only limited success, but it is a very logical potential solution – and particularly so for Midtown Manhattan, for example. So, this is something we are examining right now, and, if we can find a way, we’re very interested in finding out at a way to get those deliveries to be off-hours. 

Lehrer: Another one from Twitter – #AskTheMayor – Scott asks, why the 3-1-1, 9-1-1 system has fallen apart on his watch. I was on hold 20 minutes yesterday trying to report motorcyclists. So, of course, the premise of the question is that you see some problem with the 3-1-1 system – do you?

Mayor: I respect that Scott’s calling, and I’m not happy he had that experience because that’s not supposed to happen, but he is literally the first New Yorker in two-and-a-half years to suggest to me it is “falling apart.” It has not fallen apart. 3-1-1 and 9-1-1 are functioning very well, but no one should have to wait 20 minutes for anything with 3-1-1. So, if Scott will connect with your team, we’ll try and piece back what happened there, and if there’s a particular operator who needs retraining, or any other change we have to make – and we certainly want the information he was going to provide us, particularly if it’s about illegal dirt bikes, or ATVs, or anything like that. But, no, I have not heard any systemic problem like that.

Lehrer: Alright, Scott, we will tweet back at you and get your contact information. A couple of things – quick before you go – I see you’ve launched a pro-transgender rights ad campaign – the first of its kind to be paid for by a government – advising, or maybe we should say reassuring, people to “use the restroom consistent with who you are.” Who is that message for? And why is it on the taxpayers to put on these signs?

Mayor: It’s a message, obviously, for everyone. It is a message to say that in New York City we embrace all people, and we support everyone, and people should know we have their back in choosing a restroom that fits their identity, and obviously all their other rights related to their identity. Obviously, at the same time, we’ve got a national backdrop where some states are doing what I think are very unfair, and inappropriate, and divisive actions against transgender people, and I think it’s important that we stand and be counted, and this is certainly one way of sending a message. But it’s appropriate that it be a public expense because it’s a message to all New Yorkers that this is the law now, this is the approach that everyone needs to respect, and it’s important that, that be a message that is very visible. 

Lehrer: And Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton last night. You and she were the big original progressive-wing holdouts, but you came on board much earlier. Do you think you and Senator Warren influenced Secretary Clinton in different ways during this campaign?

Mayor: I think that there’s been a progressive movement in the last few years around income inequality, and I’ve been proud to work with Senator Warren, and a lot of other leaders – and obviously the Fight for $15, and movements like that. I think it all had a big impact on the national debate, and certainly on Secretary Clinton as well.

From my point of view – I don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exact thing happened by what action – but, from my point of view, as someone who started talking about the income inequality issue in 2012 and 2013, I think the year 2016 will be looked back as a time when this issue finally fully came to the front burner of the national debate, and that, that made a huge impact. And Hillary’s platform is a profoundly progressive one on income inequality. Bernie obviously contributed a lot to the debate. So, I think, you know, something very good has happened this year, and I hope I contributed to it, and I certainly know Elizabeth Warren did. 

Lehrer: Mr. Mayor, thanks a lot. Talk to you next week.

Mayor: Thank you very much, Brian.