Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Appears Live on WNYC

July 28, 2017

Brian Lehrer: Hi, Mr. Mayor, welcome back to WNYC.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Good morning, Brian. Quite a morning indeed.

Lehrer: And listeners you can call and ask the Mayor anything at 2-1-2-4-3-3-WNYC; 4-3-3-9-6-9-2. We’ll talk mostly about mass transit today, but keeping our eye on the ball – the specific federal grants that Sessions is threatening to withdraw are called Edward Byrne Justice Assistance grants, as I’m sure you know named after New York City Police Officer Edward Byrne who was murdered in 1986. New York is receiving one of those grants this year, I believe. Yes?

Mayor: Yes, absolutely.

Lehrer: And what’s your response to Jeff Sessions’s ultimatum?

Mayor: Well, look, let me just say at the outset, I know there’s a lot to talk about today but what happened last night on health care is historic and worth speaking about for a few minutes because it really says that a movement of people around the country who fought to protect the Affordable Care Act had a huge, huge impact. And I think there’s – beyond all the psycho-drama that you rightly pointed to going on inside the beltway, there’s a much bigger story about American people fighting to protect their health care and ultimately winning it at this point. There’s much more to come on this story. This ballgame is not over. But to the question of Jeff Sessions –

Lehrer: And can I just throw in, too, and I’m sure you’ll agree with this – people are saying John McCain, John McCain, John McCain, let’s not forget Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins whose votes weren’t in as much doubt.

Mayor: There’s no question, and let’s not forget – first of all I give them all credit for the vote they took, and second let’s remember in all three of those states there was a tremendous amount of grassroots energy pushing those senators to oppose the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. I worked myself with mayors in all three of those states – in Arizona, Alaska, and Maine – who are actively involved on the ground with all sorts of citizen groups and issues groups, labor, etc. pushing hard to let their senators know that if millions of people were thrown off of health care it would undermine everything we care about in this country and, you know, would undermine our local economy, lead to closing of hospitals. This is – what we see as the end result should not – we should not fail to notice the months and months of organizing work on the ground, and the townhall meetings, and all the things we saw along the way that helped get to this result. But again Brian, this is not necessarily the last chapter in the Republicans’ efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is a great victory, but there is – certainly we’ve got to be ready to fight up ahead to continue to protect it.

Lehrer: And on the Edward Byrne grants?

Mayor: So, look, it’s the same rubric of what I said and our Police Commissioner Jimmy O’Neill, our top lawyer for the city Zach Carter said the day the original executive order on immigration was announced – that we don’t believe it holds water legally. Everything Sessions has done since then is minor variations on a theme. He keep trying to hit this note about taking away money from cities that respect immigrants, that try and work with immigrants, that have police forces like ours that do not ask immigrants for their documentation status. So Sessions keeps coming up with sort of minor evolutions on the idea, but we think it’s not legal to begin with, and we’re ready to challenge it in court. We believe everything we’ve done is in compliance with federal law, and as we’ve talked about before there’s a Supreme Court decision from 2012 that makes clear that the government cannot punitively take funding away from cities and states based on other policy matters. So we think we’re in a very strong legal position if they attempt to take this money away, and the other great irony of all of this is what is this money for? We talked previously about the anti-terrorism funds that they’ve threatened – that Sessions and Trump have threatened to take away – obviously incredibly counterproductive and unpatriotic thing to do. This – these Byrne grants named after a very brave police officer who was murdered while he was protecting innocent people, it’s money that helps us to fight crime. It’s money that helps us to figure out how to analyze and act on crime trends better. It’s the money for 9-1-1 dispatchers. It’s money for prosecutors. It’s money that helps us to keep this city safe and make it safer. Is that what Jeff Sessions wants to take away from New York City? I think he’s got another problem because his aspiration would only lead to a less safe country.

Lehrer: For the historical record, these law enforcement grants are named after New York City Police Officer Edward Byrne and the story was – and I’m sure you know this – that Byrne was killed while protecting the house of a Guyanese immigrant who was under fire from local criminals for reportedly calling the police about illegal activity in his Queens neighborhood. Sanctuary city polices are specifically designed so that law abiding immigrants will continue to see something, say something and not withhold out of fear that cops will bust them. I just think the historical irony needs to be played up a little bit here.

Mayor: I couldn’t agree more, Brian. And I appreciate you saying that because here’s a case where an immigrant put his life on the line by coming forward to the police and then Officer Byrne lost his life protecting this immigrant. It’s a very painful and powerful story, but it gets back to the core of what we’re trying to do in this city – neighborhood policing and all the strategies that bring police and community closer – that’s actually how you make people safer.

The other thing we have to remember is the counter factual. Guess what? If Jeff Sessions got his way, of the half million undocumented folks in New York City who would come forward at that point and report a crime? Who would come forward a witness if they knew talking to a police officer might lead to their deportation?  This is something that my predecessors as mayor all came to the same conclusion – that’s it’s inappropriate and unsafe to ask immigrants their documentation status. Police chiefs all over the country have come to the same conclusion. Rudy Giuliani came to the same conclusion when he was Mayor of New York City. This is – and I think I’ve said this to you, Brian – I said this to Trump and Sessions when I had that rather unusual meeting with them the week after the election. I said don’t listen to politicians, ask police leaders in this country, and they will tell you that if you really want safe streets, police have to be able to have an open and unfettered relationship with immigrant communities.

Lehrer: Just one thing before we move on. In fairness to the other side in this argument, they will say that if an undocumented immigrant is already a criminal, immigration authorities have a right to have access to them and the specter of cities protecting criminal from federal law enforcement as they’re being released from jail is backwards. Is he not right?

Mayor: I don’t think he’s right. Look, there are a lot of people of good will in this country who say ‘hey, if you come here, and you’re not documented, isn’t that a problem to begin with?’ Of course it’s a problem, but let’s also recognize reality. There are many things in our society that are far from perfect, but we recognize as everyday realities, so 11, 12 million people are here already, and we can’t snap our fingers and make that reality go away. The question then is how they comport themselves. In this city we have a law that says there’s 170 offenses, very serious and violent felonies, that if you commit one of those, and you’re convicted, and you’re undocumented, we will cooperate with ICE because in that sense you’ve done something so bad and so clearly proven that we’re willing to work with ICE, but if conversely you litter or you have an open container or some quality of life offense, that’s not a reason to deport someone from this country. It’s not a reason to tear our city apart. That’s the logic from my point of view.

Lehrer: And on the employment discrimination case, if Session’s position prevails that gays and lesbians are not protected under federal law from employment discrimination, my question for you is are the local laws in New York strong enough that it would matter in practical terms here?

Mayor: First, I don’t think he can conceivably prevail given how the federal laws have evolved, but that being said yes, we have very strong protections here in New York City. We have, I think, the strongest human rights law anywhere in the country and clearly protects the members of the LGBT community from employment discrimination, housing discrimination etc. So I think our laws would substantially cover the same needs, but again I don’t – I think what’s he’s trying to do does not conform with where federal law is today.

Lehrer: It’s Ask the Mayor on the Brian Lehrer show here on WNYC with Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Courtney in Crown Heights you’re on WNYC. Hello, Courtney.

Question: Hello, Brian. Good morning, how are you?

Lehrer: Okay.

Question: Okay. So my question for you, Mayor de Blasio, is you recently talked about – regarding the Bedford Union Armory – you said you were looking for a vision of equality between the Park Slope Armory and what we might have in Crown Heights. Now, my understanding is that the Park Slope Armory was developed with City money and then the City found a non-profit partner in the YMCA. So it’s essentially still a public utility. Now what we’re looking at with the Crown Heights project is a private developer coming in and building a lot of luxury housing that is not suitable for the neighborhood. So I wanted to know – you know I’m still wondering why that’s not – why what happened in Park Slope is not happening in my community.

Mayor: Because they’re – they’re –

Question: Secondarily, Mr. Mayor, I would like to know if you are coming to our community town hall on the Second of August.

Mayor: I don’t know, Courtney, about the community town hall. So I – it’s literally the first I’m hearing of it. The question on the armory and what we’re trying to achieve in Crown Heights. They’re very different realities for the reason that we have an affordable housing crisis and we have an opportunity around the Crown Heights Armory, because of the way it’s configured, to build housing that we did not have in Park Slope. And we also have the ability with the plan that’s been put forward to fund the Armory on an ongoing basis. It’s a different structure than what we did in Park Slope. And to create community spaces for nonprofit organizations and a host of other things. So look, this is a proposal, which obviously there’s a lot of concern in the community. I heard it loud and clear. We want to see if there’s ways to improve the proposal. But the difference is we need more housing; we need more affordable housing; we have an opportunity to physically do it there that we didn’t have in Park Slope. And we’re doing this all over the city if we have a chance to create affordable housing and housing in general. We need both – we need market and we need affordable housing. That’s our mission. Every time we do it, we’re looking to maximize the amount of affordability and to make the affordable housing as consistent with the community as possible – community income levels. And that process is still ongoing in Crown Heights, but there are real differences between the physical sites of these two armories.

Lehrer: We have a caller who wants to follow up on that question, and I’m going to let him on. D.J. in Crown Heights, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello.

Question: Hi, Mayor.

Mayor: Hey.

Question: I’m just wondering because we’ve seen a lot of these private developers get these sweetheart deals for developing whether it’s market-rate or so-called affordable housing. And my question is – in these deals – is there a way for the community to have legal recourse for the promises that these developers make? Is there a way for us to hold these developers legally responsible for those promises?

Mayor: Yes, D.J. the – it’s a very powerful question because it gets to the history of this city. There were – in numerous, numerous times where developers made promises, didn’t keep them. There was no accountability in the past. The City, bluntly, I believe, under my predecessors was often way too lenient and didn’t put in any kind of sense of guarantees. We passed a law with the City Council a year or two ago which required the creation of affordable housing whenever there was a rezoning in the city – 25 percent or 30 percent affordable, depending on which model was chosen in each case. And that is a legal stipulation. It’s literally city law. If a developer violates it, there’s a host of penalties that can be brought to bear, including stopping the building dead in its tracks and not allowing it to go forward. And all the other kinds of guarantees that we, with the community, work through in any situation – when there’s a rezoning, there’s a very public process, or any kind of land use process that’s very public. If it’s – you think space for community organizations, or funding community needs, or public space, or a new school. Or whatever it happens to be – that’s part of the plan – those are tangible guarantees – that if they are not followed by a developer, we have legal recourse, we have financial recourse, and again, ultimately the power to stop a development from continuing. So it’s a very different framework than in the past. I think a lot of the skepticism that New Yorkers feel is warranted because of too many times they saw themselves cheated. But we’ve put much more teeth into this equation.

Lehrer: We could continue to take more calls from Crown Heights if we wanted to. But the big picture here, I guess, is that here is yet another neighborhood where you think the rezoning and the proposal are in the neighborhood’s and the city’s best interest, but there’s so much local opposition. I believe that the local community board unanimously rejected the project, but you support it. What’s the disconnect?

Mayor: That it is natural for folks in communities all over this city who are very frustrated by that history, who feel – the phrase that D.J. used – the sweetheart deals. There were sweetheart deals in the past. There’s no question about it. We believe what we’re doing now are deals that require – like open, written, legal requirement – that the public gets its share of the deal. And we leverage the private sector money to achieve public sector goals as well. I think given that there’s so much skepticism because of the past, I don’t expect community boards to necessarily at this moment say they’re going to see this as a new reality. So I think the opposition to some extent is natural and historical. But I also remind you – we listen to community boards, but ultimately the decision has to be made by the City Council, City Planning Commission, and me.

Lehrer: Yes. And it’s not just about the past. I think it’s fair to say about the concrete concern that many current residents of Crown Heights, or whatever neighborhood, are going to be driven out when you have a 75-25 or 70-30 market-rate development.

Mayor: The challenge here, Brian, I’ve said this at a lot of town hall meetings – including in communities where there was real concern – is the alternative, to me, is even worse. And this is a blunt reality. Look, I want to be very clear – if I controlled what got built everywhere in this city, if there were no private property rights, if I was just able to say this is what goes here, this is what goes there, we would have a very different city. But we are dealing with the reality of a free enterprise system with its strengths and weaknesses and a legal system that favors property rights in a lot of ways, again in some ways, too much. That’s the backdrop. If the City does not come in and say okay, we’re going to put rules in here, and we’re going to force the creation of affordable housing and other public benefits, then what’s going to happen is there will still be a lot of development. The things that people fear – the displacement, the increase in prices and all – that will keep happening organically. I always tell people – look at Bed-Stuy, look at Bushwick, there was no City land-use action, there was no rezoning, there was no big controversial project. There was a ton of displacement just by market forces. So my argument is – let’s look at this reality. The city got safer, the city economy got stronger, people want to be here, people are willing to spend a lot of money to be here. The way we defend the interests of the communities that have been here historically and fought, including during the bad times, to stay and keep their neighborhoods together is by protecting public housing, 400,000 people; protecting rent-stabilized housing, that’s 2 to 2.5 million people; things like insuring that the rent increases are fair, like the two rent freezes we had the last few years; stopping evictions by giving people free lawyers from the city, that’s the Right to Counsel Bill that just passed the Council; and the affordable housing program to keep enough affordable housing for half-a-million New Yorkers, including in things like this plan for Crown Heights. There’s a lot of affordable housing in that plan that will then guarantee people they can stay in the community long-term. That to me is the productive path. But if we say – hey, we’re just not going to do anything, then those market forces are going to keep coming in and keep changing neighborhoods with nothing back for the public.

Lehrer: Helen in the Bronx, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello, Helen.

Question: Hi, Mr. Mayor. I’m calling about a building in the Bronx that was put up – actually it’s on 233rd Street, I believe, and Broadway. It was originally put up as being moderate, what do you call it, affordable and also, market-rate housing. But it was recently converted into a shelter. Now the community was surprised about that because it was kind of – we didn’t know about it. But the community has come out, including the local, elected officials, and said if you’re going to make it housing for the homeless, make it permanent housing, which is what you’re just talking about all along. And apparently, the division of Homeless Services has turned that down. Why can’t you make it permanent housing? This was a building with apartments that was built originally for people to move in. It’s perfect for that. You can put in services. I don’t get that – why the division of Homeless Services has turned that down.

Mayor: I appreciate the question Helen; I don’t know the exact site off the top of my head. But I want to speak to the bigger situation. You’re on the right track because in fact, the vision I laid out earlier in the year in which we’re going to have a certain number of shelters in all parts of the city to reflect where folks who are homeless come from and get them closer to their home so they in our view can back on their feet and be closer to their families, their schools, everything.
That plan has an important element which is as we hopefully reduce homelessness and turn back the tide; yes you do want to turn those facilities increasingly into permanent affordable housing. The problem in the short term and I think this is probably what you’re hearing, but I can interpret it I think in a helpful way. First we have said we have got to get out of these quote on quote cluster buildings which are not quality housing, which we have been very dissatisfied with what people are living through and those – we have to get out of those apartments that the city is paying for all those folks to live in. We’ve got to get out of the hotels we’re paying for every day, like literally a daily rate, which is just not ideal for taxpayers or for homeless folks. And that’s a plan over the next years to literally ween ourselves off of those options that the city has for decades used, but should in my opinion stop using all together. So if you have a facility like the one you’re talking about you need to use it to accommodate the short term needs of folks who become homeless and then hopefully we get them quickly out of the  shelter to better housing but ultimately the idea of the shelter system is more and more. You would see conversions to permanent affordable housing as we ultimately make that big change, that’s the goal we want to work towards.

Lehrer: Let’s talk mass transit; the Governor has an $800 million plan to turn around the decline and service pretty quickly. You’re at odds over whether the city should kick in half the money for that. MTA Chairman Joe Lhota was on this program yesterday. And I asked him about your contention that the state is syphoning money from the MTA to pay for other things and he said this –

MTA Chairman Joe Lhota: “I don’t understand why the Mayor keeps going back to something that is just illogical in so many different ways. The money, the one billion dollars is for capital that Governor talked about. It was for brand new signal systems, new cars, that’s where it’s going. That’s almost $800 million for this new program; majority of it is operating dollars. You can’t use capital money for operating purposes. I mean I sure hope the Mayor knows that. And you know, the Governor this morning also committed to putting up half, and we’re looking for the city to be our partner in doing that”

Lehrer: What’s your response to Joe Lhota?

Mayor: My response to Joe Lhota is [inaudible] respect even though we’ve had real political differences I respect. But I also know he works for Governor Cuomo and he is going to toe the line obviously. But look, what’s happened here Brian to answer very specifically is first to say more and more the people of this city understand that the State of New York and the Governor control the MTA. The Governor named Joe Lhota the head of the MTA, the Governor made all these announcements. They’re good announcements; I really think Joe Lhota is the right guy to fix a lot of these problems. I think the plan put forward is very promising, but the state has responsibility here. And you remember over the last few weeks Brian, the state and the governor kept changing their tune about who was really responsible. I think finally we’ve gotten to a point where circumstances forced the recognition once and for all that the Governor and the State run the MTA. That means also owning up to their financial responsibility. So Joe Lhota just talked about the billion dollars the Governor pledged. Well, we want to see that billion dollars, whether its expense money or capital money, it doesn’t matter. Put that money forward. But here is the other piece of the equation. $456 million – this a fact and no one has refused it, $456 million taken away from the MTA, given to the State budget during this Governors term, syphoned off from literally from taxes earmarked for revenue for the MTA. Simple, give that money back to the MTA. It never should have been taken away from the MTA to begin with. The city didn’t do that, the state did that. So that’s literally what covered the entire price tag of this short term plan. That’s what they should do as an immediate action. They should also obviously cancel this plan for the light show on the Kosciuszko Bridge; give that money to the MTA. So there is no question the MTA – if the state would just take full responsibility could immediately meet its needs. I’ve said we’re very willing to sit down with everyone including the Governor, including Lhota and say what’s the long term plan? And what do we all need to do as part of the long term plan to stabilize the MTA? But I am not going to let them syphon off $456 million and think they can get away with that, that just doesn’t make any sense to me. One other thing, we will contribute immediately, and I’ve said, we’ll provide if they want additional policing to address littering and the track fire issues if they want more from the fire department to address emergencies, if they want more to address homelessness in subways. We will put forward those services, very happily quickly, we’ll pay for them. Those are the things we think that make a lot of sense for us to do in the here and now. But I am not going to send them tax-payer dollars when the State of New York has withheld so much money that was literally owed to the MTA.

Lehrer: Lhota seemed to be denying that happened, so maybe you have a factual disagreement.

Mayor: I am going to challenge you on that. Lhota did not specifically say in that sequence it didn’t happen. He switched to the discussion to the billion dollar pledge that the Governor made. No one has refuted from any part of Albany that the $456 million was syphoned off from MTA revenue for the State budget, no one has refuted that.

Lehrer: Comptroller Scott Stringer who recently endorsed you for reelection, I’ll throw in people used to think he would run against you. But Stringer has come out for the city paying half that tab, because it’s for city subway, but only if the State signs memoranda of understanding to account for where every dollar goes in the future and that it isn’t syphoned off. Can you and Comptroller unite on that front as a unity city agenda?

Mayor: Look, I respect the Comptroller and I think it’s important that he’s talking about overt transparency about where resources go and how they’re used. Because let’s face it, for many years the MTA has been very inefficient, the MTA has not spent money well, the MTA is not even been able to spend money as we found out with the huge amount of capital money they’re sitting on top of, including – you know we gave them $2.5 billion of capital money two years ago and very, very little of that has been used. So, I think the bottom line is that the MTA has had a management problem for a long, long time. We need to push them to fix those problems and be transparent. In the meantime, again we gave them $2.5 billion two years of capital funding; we gave them about $1.6 billion in direct city funds and services. We for example – all those transit officers in the MTA, the City of New York pays for that, city tax payers pay for that. When you look at all of our direct funding and the services we provide in the MTA it’s about $1.6 billion a year. On top of that, city tax payers and city residents and workers’ pay a huge percentage for the operating of the MTA between their fares and taxes that they had paid toward the MTA. Let’s get real about how much is being paid for directly and indirectly by the City of New York and the people of New York City. We still don’t have fairness in terms of MTA funds being used. Average city bus or subway rider, MTA pays $4 for their ride; they pay $19 for a suburban commuters ride when they come in to work. There is a lot that needs to be fixed here. And the notion that we’re going to run to give them more city tax payer dollars when all these open questions haven’t been resolved, I am just not there. I also want to remind people, we’ve got a lot of dangers coming up from Washington including a federal budget proposal from President Trump that could decimate a lot of the support that the city receives including a quote on quote tax reform plan that could undermine revenue for the city. I am not going to start spending city taxpayer’s dollars when we don’t even know what our budget is going to look like in a few months because of these threats from Washington.

Lehrer: Last thing for today and it’s another kind of transit question. Our news department did a story this week on an Upper West Side resident’s activism in support of getting a better enforcement of the ban on electric bicycles because they’re dangerous for pedestrians and regular cyclists. And it turns out the guy whose name is Matthew X told us he’s been trying unsuccessfully to call in to “Ask the Mayor”. So I asked him, if you were to get through some Friday what would you ask the Mayor? And here’s what he said.

Question: There are so many agencies that are involved in this [inaudible] a few, OATH; agencies I’ve never heard of. Community boards have some input, certainly NYPD, DOT, which is you know somewhere in the background here and has some enforcement capabilities. This is an issue that I think a lot of people can relate to, particularly a lot of the elderly people in our community. And there seems to be a need for some leadership to say listen, this is only going to get bigger, badder and it has to be addressed collectively. So I would say to the Mayor, can you look into this as an issue and maybe as a taskforce to find really practical solutions, just to mention, the current practice is to pursue the individual rider of these bikes. And my sort of no-brainer take was hey, wait a minute, I see 10 of these bikes outside Ollies. People are coming and going with delivery food. Why can’t I just go in and find the restauranteur, if in fact they’re illegal?

Lehrer: Why not find the restauranteur, Mr. Mayor?

Mayor: I think it’s a very fair point he makes. And I’m not an expert in this field, but I can tell you to affirm the basic point. There is a real problem here. There is no question. There is a real potential danger to people created by these electronic bikes. And they are illegal. We’ve actually, through the NYPD, intensified enforcement to the point of confiscating bikes, which is the ultimately penalty, obviously. So just this year, alone, there’s been about 700 confiscations, which is triple the number of last year, so the NYPD is focusing on this more. I think, Brian, very important point is this fits an overall reality of neighborhood policing as we’ve been able to bring down violent crime and more serious crime. It allows more time and energy to go to other more important quality-of-life issues and other challenges. So NYPD is turning more of its focus to the e-bikes. But I think his point is well taken. I’m going to definitely look into this. Why not go after the businesses directly? That makes a lot sense to me, and I would happily find out more before the next show and come back with an answer on that.

Lehrer: Let me just follow up briefly before you do that research. And I know we’re over time, but the news department’s investigation found that the NYPD says it’s too hard to enforce and takes up too much time. So instead they conduct operations targeting the individuals. But we know many of them are low-wage, immigrant delivery people, not the restauranteurs.

Mayor: Yeah, and again, without hearing all the facts, I’d say there’s a really fair point that would say – go to the root of the problem. And this fits my personal beliefs about when you’re dealing with the problems of the free enterprise system – go to the people with the money, go to the people who are the money off the situation, not necessarily the individual worker. I do understand there’s a lot of challenges – enforcement on this. I also understand that it has not been as big a priority as other even more dangerous things the NYPD has to address. But my point is – I think we are now in a position, as we continue to get safer as a city, to go much more aggressively at this problem. And I think the notion that there must be a strategy where we can go at the businesses – I think his point is right. If you see a bunch of them outside a restaurant, that seems like there’s an enforcement potential there – whether it’s NYPD or Consumer Affairs or whatever. So I’m intrigued to say the least. I think there’s a real option to do something here. And again, I’m happy to come back with a fuller answer after I’ve done my research with my team.

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

Mayor: Thank you, Brian.