Parks are a basic necessity for our health, but some residents have greater access than others

New York Post

Mayor Adams has failed to follow through on his pledge to increase the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation budget to 1% of the city operating budget. He actually cut $63 million from the last budget adopted under Mayor Bill de Blasio from May 2021. The cuts come in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic that exposed New York’s park inequity. The proximity to green spaces has tremendous health benefits, both physical and mental for all residents of a city. Mayor Adams needs to be building more parks where new yorkers don’t have access to greenspace because parks are more essential now than ever before. 

The World Health Organization, recommends that urban residents should be able to access public green spaces of at least 0.5-1 hectare within a 5 minute walk or 300 meters (0.2 miles approximately) of their homes. A study conducted in more than 1000 European cities found that almost 43,000 premature deaths could have been prevented each year if these cities had followed the World Health Organization’s recommendations for green space proximity for urban residents. As New York City is considerably more populous and dense than European cities, the lack of proximity to public green spaces has an exclusionary effect on the 550,000 people who suffer from ambulatory (difficulty in walking) disabilities and cannot easily walk to their nearest park. 

Mapping New York’s parks lays bare some of these inequities. Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island are underserved – they have 50% of the population but only 37% of the city’s parks.

Park Equity in New York City

On average, people live less than half a mile from a park in New York. But in Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island people live considerably further away than they do in Manhattan and Brooklyn. 

Park access also depends on your income, with lower income neighborhoods further from parks. Among local parks, are smaller neighborhood parks with small green spaces and a few trees compared to flagship parks that offer larger play areas for children, more recreational facilities, large green spaces and an abundance of trees, the same pattern holds. Manhattan and Brooklyn have more green space. For flagship parks, the disparities are even larger. The residents of Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island should not have to travel more than 2 miles to access large flagship parks and the residents of The Bronx and Staten Island should not have to walk more than half a mile to access local parks. Parks in low income communities are 2 times smaller than parks in affluent communities, and parks in majority Black communities are 4 times smaller than parks in majority white neighborhoods. 

These dramatic disparities, paired with the lack of commitment from Mayor Adams on his parks budget increase, the recent budget cuts, and the importance of access to public green spaces post the COVID-19 pandemic, mean that the city needs to act. Mayor Adams’ failure to work towards park equity as he initially pledged has implications for all New York City residents, and many long term consequences: such as lower health outcomes and reduced standards of living across the city. An increased budget will not serve park equity by solely improving maintenance and expanding the existing parks; new parks must be built across the city to increase accessibility for all residents regardless of income, race, and physical ability.

You can reach the author of this piece, Ritwick Dutta, at: rd3203@nyu.edu 

You can reach the editor of this piece, Patrick Spauster, at: ps4375@nyu.edu

The short term economy is saved, but at what cost?

Alaska Railroad

Over the past few months, rail workers in the United States have threatened to strike . A strike would cost the U.S. economy an estimated $2 billion a day, according to the Association of American Railroads. On December 1st, Congress ultimately averted the threat by forcing rail workers to accept a contract negotiated by the Biden Administration – a contract that union representatives had previously rejected. The new  deal fails to change the conditions – namely that workers do not have any paid sick days and they are still subjected to on-call scheduling –  that lead to the strike threat in the first place. The current regime is broken beyond repair. It’s time to nationalize the railroads.

Profits Over People

Freight rail plays a major role in the supply chain of U.S. goods and services. About one third of all freight in the United States travels by rail. As of 2019, freight rail had a profit margin of 51 %, making it the most profitable industry in the United States,  higher than the profit margins of the real estate and tobacco industries. In 2021, the top seven freight rail companies  had a combined net income of $27 billion. 

The unbelievable profit of rail freight companies is driven by a system known as precision scheduled railroads (P.S.R).  Created by E. Hunter Harrison in the 1990s the system sought to improve efficiency in the railroad industry – instead of going from terminal to terminal on multiple different trains, cargo would go directly from origin to destination – hopefully creating more consistent schedules for train crews. But P.S.R didn’t work.

Since the implementation of P.S.R. in the 1990’s, average freight train length has also grown with the goal to increase efficiency. From 2008 to 2017, the average length of freight trains rose by 25%. Some trains can be up to 3 miles long. The problem is that the rail companies only schedule two crew members to operate these long trains so small problems can lead to big delays. Additionally, over the past six years the major railroads have reduced their workforce by 30 percent. Increasing train length to reduce trips and reducing workforce have been done in the name of efficiency, but that efficiency is not seen in practice. The problem for shippers is that four companies control 83% of the freight market and, despite being two years post initial COVID disruptions, there is still widespread dissatisfaction among freight shippers with the service provided. 

Unpredictable schedules are a nightmare for workers. Crew members remain on-call and are called in to replace their fellow crew members at odd hours of the night with less than two hours notice. If a worker happens to be sick, they are punished for calling out, because they are not given any paid sick days (unlike 80% of U.S. workers). Rail workers are also subjected to a points-based attendance policy that can be used to start disciplinary action against the employee. Under this system, workers only have 30 points for a 90-day period but could lose up to 8 points for a sick day and 10 points for refusing an assignment for any other reason. One five-day illness, for example, could trigger discipline.

For decades, rail freight companies in the U.S. have been putting their own profits over the people who work for them and the people and companies that they serve. And the government has allowed them to.

Government Failure

Since governmental and political leaders learned of a looming strike in the rail industry, there have been various interventions by officials in the federal government. In September, the Biden Administration announced that it helped negotiate a deal between the rail companies and the unions that would avoid a strike. The deal would give rail workers a 24% pay rise, annual bonuses of $1,000, one paid personal day, a freeze on healthcare costs and a promise to end penalties for time missed due to health emergencies. 

Four of the twelve rail workers unions rejected the deal, in large part because it failed to give them the paid sick time they demanded. With a strike still looming at the beginning of December, President Biden called on Congress to intervene. Congress  negotiated a deal to give rail workers seven days of paid sick leave, but the motion failed to reach the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. 

President Biden and House Speaker Pelosi made clear that they were still in support of unions. Yet the President and Congress chose to force a contract that the workers did not want and that benefited the companies more than the laborers because, while the companies are giving a 24% pay rise to their employees, that is a small amount compared to their overall profits. Meanwhile, the employees still do not have paid sick leave and there has been no change in the way the companies operate their trains, which will force the workers to remain in the on-call system. But we should not be surprised: the government has long favored the rail companies over any other user of the rails. For instance,  when Amtrak was established in 1979, Congress required that freight companies give preference to passenger trains, thus allowing for limited disruptions to passenger rail. However, only the Department of Justice can enforce that law and, in the last 40 years, they have only enforced it one time. 

The government has failed to protect rail workers, passengers, and anyone who isn’t the top freight companies. Something has to change.

Ripe for Nationalization

Currently rail companies own the tracks on which they operate, a virtual monopoly. The private rail companies have shown that they care more about investor’s portfolios than the workers they employ and the customers they serve. The government, while recognizing the damage a rail strike would do to the economy, caved to the companies’ demands and did not materially change the circumstances that led to the almost strike. We can change that by nationalizing the country’s rail infrastructure. 

American Association of Railroads

Public ownership of the rails would allow any company to operate on them, increasing competition between the companies and improving service for consumers. Furthermore, when any rail company can operate on any rail line, companies would also have to compete for workers because rail workers would no longer have to choose between moving across the country to a company they prefer or be limited to the companies that are near them. As a result, the companies will have to offer competitive pay and benefits to attract the talent they desire. 

Nationalizing the rails is not unprecedented: President Wilson did so during World War One. That led to substantial public investment in building the rail system, from federal land grants to $1billion in infrastructure improvements. Nationalization would recognize the national importance of rail infrastructure, similar to the interstate highway system. 

Whether the rail workers still choose to strike or not, it is clear that this threat will not go away without a serious overhaul of the rail industry.

You can reach the author of this piece, Jake Mericle, at: jm9776@nyu.edu 

You can reach the editor of this piece, Patrick Spauster, at: ps4375@nyu.edu 

The governor has now beaten two Long Island NIMBYs – and should govern like it

The Real Deal

Two Long Island congressmen, Tom Suozzi and Lee Zeldin, ran against Governor Kathy Hochul in the 2022 elections. They both opposed common-sense policies to affordably house New Yorkers and lost. Now, Hochul ought to govern with the mandate she’s earned to build more housing. 

Hochul should recommit to passing legislation that will spur the construction of new housing in exclusionary suburbs like Long Island. According to the NYU Furman Center, New York City’s suburbs have had a “substantial” negative effect on housing affordability, contributing to “a uniquely acute affordability crisis” by not building enough housing to match regional economic growth. In January 2022, the governor proposed several laws at her annual State of the State address to encourage new housing construction, including legalizing accessory dwelling units (ADU) statewide. She scrapped the plan to legalize ADUs a month later, after backlash from Long Island elected officials including her primary and eventual general election opponent. Resubmitting and signing into law that package of bills, which housing advocates expect her to do in 2023, is essential to breaking the status quo that’s kept housing unaffordable for too many New Yorkers. 

Otherwise known as granny flats, garage apartments, or in-law suites, an ADU is essentially a part of a single-family home converted into a second, small home. ADUs are both modest and potentially impactful. They’re less likely to draw neighbors’ ire than a proposed apartment building but can still create affordable rental housing in single-family neighborhoods. However, they invariably create less housing than an apartment building.

Long Island’s suburban counties have failed to build enough housing compared to the rest of the region. From 2012 to 2021 New Jersey’s inner suburbs produced five times as much housing per capita as Nassau and Suffolk Counties together. Connecticut’s suburbs and the Lower Hudson Valley produced twice as much housing per capita as Long Island in the same period. Meanwhile, home prices in Suffolk County hit a new all-time high in 2021. Long Island permitted only 56,000 new housing units between 2001 and 2018; the Regional Plan Association (RPA) estimates that legalizing ADUs could permit up to 92,000 ADUs in Nassau county in the next 20 years, which would represent a relatively big change in the region’s ability to produce housing.

But more importantly, New York’s elected officials, led by Hochul, must pass modest reforms like legalizing ADUs because doing so will open the door for more impactful housing policies. NIMBY officials like Reps. Suozzi and Zeldin have shown that any efforts to dislodge the status quo on Long Island will be met with total opposition. Demonstrating that this opposition won’t stop a recently elected governor from backing more housing is a prerequisite for being able to fight bigger battles over more powerful reforms in the future, like mandating localities develop site-specific plans to accommodate future growth and preemptively legalizing multifamily housing adjacent to suburban rail stations statewide.

California is the model, where ADU reforms in 2016 led to more than 60,000 permitted new units. Since then, legislators have passed reforms that will have an even greater impact. For example, California mandated localities to develop a plan – called a “housing element” – for accommodating future population growth, including identifying specific sites for new housing. In the past few years, California has continually passed laws to strengthen this requirement to the point where it is ensuring localities are fulfilling that responsibility and approving new construction through outcomes like a builder’s remedy. New York needs a housing element requirement with teeth. Making suburbs build their fair share of housing is a big step toward making Hochul’s housing agenda a reality. 

Hochul’s proposed ADU reform was part of a package that also sought to “kickstart transit-oriented development” in suburban communities like Long Island with strong rail connections to the city. The RPA estimates that there’s space for more than 660,000 people in about 263,000 new homes built on current surface parking lots within ½ mile of commuter rail stations in the region’s suburban counties. But in practice “kickstart” meant a voluntary program. To really see prices flatten and then fall, future plans should go further, affirmatively legalizing and incentivizing transit-oriented development in suburban localities statewide.

Democrats also have a political imperative to bring affordable housing to the suburbs, where they lost ground last election. Three of the four U.S. House seats in New York that Republicans flipped in the 2022 election were from those suburbs not building enough housing in Long Island or in the Lower Hudson Valley. Democrats do well in denser areas. Letting Republicans preserve exclusive communities with restrictive housing policies will further consolidate redder suburban districts. With Republican leaders like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis flatly rejecting reforms that will reduce the cost of housing, Democrats like Hochul have an imperative to make these suburbs build their fair share of housing. 

Hochul herself admits that 100,000 new units over five years, which her January 2022 plan committed to, is nowhere near ambitious enough to end New York’s housing crisis. We know suburban elected officials will oppose it. This shouldn’t scare Hochul; it should embolden her to pursue more aggressive policies that will produce even more housing. Suozzi and Zeldin already played their only cards. Rep. Suozzi said ADU reform was “radical” and would “wreak havoc” while Rep. Zeldin called it “boneheaded” and an “attack” on the suburbs. Even with such exaggerated, fear-mongering rhetoric, voters rejected their premise.

Hochul should reintroduce, champion, and sign into law the modest housing proposals she withdrew in early 2022. But she should go even further, leading the charge for laws making New York’s in-demand communities affordable. 

Hochul bested multiple challengers that decried any change to the housing status quo – the time has come to change that status quo and bring down housing costs for New Yorkers.

You can reach the author of this piece, Andrew DeFrank, at: defrank@nyu.edu

You can reach the editor of this piece, Patrick Spauster, at: ps4375@nyu.edu 

Detroiters have more access to grocery stores per capita than its suburbs.

Mainstream media often refers to Detroit as a “food desert,” an urban area where it is difficult to buy affordable or high quality food. There just aren’t enough grocery stores, reports say, as chain supermarkets refuse to open locations in the city. This lack of healthy options accounts for the food insecurity and obesity many Detroiters experience. But my experience and the data reveal a more complicated picture, that Detroit has a large selection of full-service grocery stores within city limits. Moreover, the language of the “food desert” and the focus on large chain stores fail to help us understand and improve nutritional access in the city.

Detroit’s Eastern Market serves as a fresh produce, meat, and brewery hub for both consumers and wholesale businesses. (source: littleguidedetroit.com)

Living in the neighborhoods away from the glittering downtown condos, I may not have had access to the big chain grocers but I was still never more than a mile’s walk away from multiple full-service grocery stores . If I got in my car, my options expanded even more — including full service-groceries, limited assortment stores, farmer’s markets, and community gardens,  all within city limits. My experience could not represent that of every Detroiter, but despite the serious problems discussed in the news, I saw a thriving urban food scene encompassing residents of all income levels.

The sparkling water section at Detroit’s Honey Bee Market. Also available but not pictured: affordable meat selections, an embarrassment of fresh produce, and a high quality Mexican deli counter.

Using data on grocery store locations from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and population data from the census, I compared Detroit’s grocery access to that of its suburbs to see if it really is a food desert.

Grocery stores in Southeast Michigan. The city of Detroit is at the center of the map, within Wayne County. (SEMCOG)

My analysis went against the common media portrayal of food deserts in Detroit. In fact, Detroit has more grocery stores for its population compared to the suburbs. The tri-county metro area a whole has about 0.113 grocery stores per 1,000 residents. The city itself has 0.134 grocery stores per 1,000 residents.

Source: SEMCOG, US Census Bureau

But this might not tell the whole story. With high rates of obesity and poverty in Detroit, the quality, price, and diversity of food are key considerations. SEMCOG categorizes grocery stores as supermarkets or limited assortment stores. A supermarket is your typical large grocery store with a full line of fresh produce, meat and other essentials. A limited assortment store is smaller and has fewer fresh or perishable offerings — think a dollar store or discount market.

Breaking down the stores within each community by category, we find that Detroit actually has more supermarkets than limited assortment stores compared to the suburbs. 88% of Detroit’s grocery stores are full-service supermarkets, compared to 83% in affluent Oakland County.

Source: SEMCOG

Despite the conception of Detroit as a blighted food desert where residents must leave the city to buy basic necessities, we found that the city is abundantly served by large grocery stores offering fresh foods. This confirms the intuition and lived experience of myself and my fellow residents.

It’s still clear that this abundance is not benefitting all Detroiters. With 48% of households experiencing food insecurity and 38% of residents obese, much more work needs to be done for food justice. Yet my analysis suggests that simply adding more grocery stores may not be the solution. Grocery stores need to be accessible within the city and serve the needs of residents.

Food deserts could still be occurring in some areas of the city — a geospatial analysis could identify specific poorly-served neighborhoods. Indeed, the US Department of Agriculture finds that fewer than 10% of census tracts in Detroit meet its definition of a “food desert.”  We also have limited information on costs and quality within grocery stores. If stores don’t meet the cost and health needs of residents, they could be contributing to high food insecurity and obesity.

Local advocates support solutions that acknowledge complexities of food systems and retail in Detroit. For example, the Detroit Food Policy Council takes a more nuanced approach, emphasizing the need for better transportation and specifically the need for neighborhood retail that residents can easily access and afford. It also studies the impact of farmer’s markets and community gardens, which discussions of food deserts often omit in favor of large supermarkets. Finally, it suggest the term “food apartheid” to replace “food desert” as a recognition that Detroit’s food issues are not natural – they result from redlining and racial discrimination.

Let’s continue to take a data-driven, not a myth-driven, approach to food justice in Detroit.

You can reach the author of this piece, Calley Wang, at: csw9856@nyu.edu

You can reach the editor of this piece, Patrick Spauster, at: ps4375@nyu.edu

The number of evictions occurring in NYC has increased every month in 2022

Across the United States, communities are facing a housing affordability crisis. This crisis is especially acute in New York City, where economic inequality has been widening for years as economic growth for the top income earners has been coupled with stagnating wages, rising rents, and a reduction in availability and deterioration of public housing. These challenges have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which deepened economic and social inequalities. The result of these factors is twofold: first, we are now seeing a housing rental market in NYC experiencing historic rises in rental rates across the boroughs, and second, thousands of tenants are burdened by back rent that they accrued during the pandemic (and many are still facing employment instability). These dynamics are leading to evictions and displacements across all five boroughs at an accelerating rate.

The pandemic laid bare the costs of inequality and the fragility of New York’s socio-economic ecosystem, including unequal health, educational, employment, and housing outcomes. Many policies, like the eviction moratorium, seemingly acknowledged the role stable housing has in public safety and economic recovery. However, in January of this year, lawmakers allowed the eviction moratorium to expire and began a citywide rise in residential evictions. In fact, according to an analysis of data provided by the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI), the number of evictions has steadily increased every month in 2022, signaling a heightening in the eviction crisis plaguing the city. The number of legal residential evictions executed throughout the city has hit the highest level since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the DOI data, the number of legal residential evictions in August 2022 reached 649, up from 103 in January 2022. This upward trend in residential eviction numbers can be seen monthly through October 2022.

As the eviction rate continues to grow, the fallout and implications of evictions for families and communities are severe. In addition to the loss of their home, families are often forced to relocate to a new neighborhood, so their children must switch schools. The eviction stays on an individual’s legal record, often making it much more difficult to find another apartment to rent. Studies have also shown that employees who have experienced an eviction are 11-15 percent more likely to lose their job than their colleagues.

Most legal residential evictions executed each month this year have occurred in Brooklyn. According to data provided by the NYC Department of City Planning, while Brooklyn has 29% of the total residential units in NYC, over 37% of evictions have occurred in the borough this year. One cause for this disparity is the rise in rents across boroughs. Brooklyn is experiencing significant rises in rents, second to only Manhattan. In Brooklyn, rental prices are reaching historic highs, with the average listing price topping $3,822  for a two-bedroom apartment in June, up from $3,185 in June 2021. As rental prices continue to surge in Manhattan, tenants are looking to other boroughs for relatively lower rents, increasing housing demand and displacement pressure on Brooklyn. For example, according to data from StreetEasy to CityLimits, the median rent in Brooklyn increased by 24.6% for a two-bedroom rental unit from August 2019 to August 2022.

An effective initiative in protecting tenants from eviction is NYC’s Right to Counsel law, which mandates the city to provide low-income tenants (tenants with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level) with legal representation in housing court. However, since the ending of the eviction moratorium, only 10% of tenants received legal counsel in housing court. Legal representation in housing court has proven to be a powerful tool in fighting evictions and homelessness. The NYC Office of Civil Justice (OCJ) found during an initial test period of the program that 84% of tenants represented by a lawyer in their eviction case were allowed to stay in their homes. The city must prioritize connecting qualifying tenants to lawyers to combat the rising rate of evictions across the city and create a more equitable and just housing system.

Affordable housing is paramount to addressing and alleviating inequality. Studies have shown that a lack of affordable housing increases housing instability and worsens disparities in healthcare, educational outcomes, social and economic mobility, employment stability, and resource access. Interventions like the eviction moratorium slowed the upward trend of evictions and prevented them from reaching pre-pandemic levels. But as evictions continue, we need additional steps like stronger tenant protections allowing tenants to challenge exorbitant rent increases, investing in more affordable housing, and ensuring that housing initiatives throughout the city reach the most vulnerable households. Increasing affordable housing availability and promoting tenant rights are essential for the city’s post-pandemic economic recovery efforts and for ensuring future economic development.

You can reach the author of this piece, Dori McAuliffe, at: dom4206@nyu.edu 

You can reach the editor of this piece, Patrick Spauster, at: ps4375@nyu.edu