Search

Who was Robert Moses? In this article, we want to cast a bright light on Robert Moses as a visionary urban planner, which included the comprehensive planning of the outdoor and indoor aquatic infrastructure for New York City. Second, we want to highlight some of his administration's significant accomplishments and challenges in providing aquatics opportunities for diverse populations, including people of color. Finally, we aspire to illustrate what happens when officials with power and authority in local government are permitted to operate without scrutiny and are unbeholden to a meaningful series of checks and balances. Robert Moses' tenure as a 40-year-plus appointed public official highlighted the need for accountability in public service. During his expansive career, Moses held more than 12 bureaucratic appointments, sometimes concurrently, allowing him to drive his infrastructure development agenda funded by the WPA mercurially. His herculean list of accomplishments included parks, highways, 11 large swimming pools, civic centers, sports stadiums, 13 bridges, 658 playgrounds, 416 miles of parkway, 150,000 units of public housing, and the 1964-65 World's Fair, which cost in today's economy approximately $150 billion (Adiv, 2015). One of the central jewels in the crown of his accomplishments was the planning, design, and construction of the outdoor and indoor swimming infrastructure of New York City. Unfortunately, many of Moses' achievements were overshadowed by allegations of racial politics, a lack of accountability for his decisions and policy actions, and reports of his disdain for blacks, Puerto Ricans, and low-income people. He was also called dictatorial, power-hungry, and vindictive during his long tenure in public service. Moses was rebuked for his lack of inclusion in planning processes and making resource allocation decisions based on the racial composition of a community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"The Decorated Tenement: How Immigrant Builders and Architects Transformed the Slum in the Gilded Age" by Zachary J. Violette and "How the Working-Class Home Became Modern" by Thomas C. Hubka are two books that provide insight into the lives of ordinary people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. These books challenge the dominant narrative that focuses on the wealthy and their lavish homes, instead exploring the housing conditions and changes experienced by the working class and poor. Violette's book specifically examines the tenements in New York City, highlighting how immigrant builders and architects adapted these structures to meet the needs and desires of the new American residents. The books also discuss the tensions between housing reformers and tenants, with reformers often imposing their values on lower-class immigrants who were satisfied with their homes. The text mentions that Violette criticizes reformer Jacob Riis for his views on tenements, while Hubka focuses on the middle 60% of the income distribution and their housing improvements. It notes that Hubka's book lacks a racial analysis, but praises Violette for addressing the anti-Semitism faced by Jewish immigrants. Both books demonstrate the improvement in living standards for working-class people during this time period, with Hubka's book specifically examining the modernization of homes and its impact on people's lives. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the need for mediation and formal eviction guidelines between landlords and rent-stabilized tenants in New York City. It discusses the challenges faced by both landlords and tenants in eviction cases, as well as the impact of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act on tenant evictions. The article suggests the use of mediation as a solution to resolve eviction disputes in a mutually beneficial manner. It also highlights the benefits of new construction in alleviating the housing shortage in the city and proposes the implementation of a mediation program to promote fair and efficient conflict resolution. [Extracted from the article]

Key Points: Question: Are state public insurance coverage policies associated with postpartum care among low-income immigrants? Findings: In this cross-sectional study including 72 981 low-income adults, immigrants living in states that restrict public insurance coverage for undocumented and recent immigrants were less likely to have received postpartum care compared with immigrants in states without such restrictions. Meaning: Insurance restrictions for immigrants may be a barrier to receipt of recommended postpartum care. Importance: Professional medical organizations recommend that adults receive routine postpartum care. Yet, some states restrict public insurance coverage for undocumented immigrants and recently documented immigrants (those who received legal documentation status within the past 5 years). Objective: To examine the association between public insurance coverage and postpartum care among low-income immigrants and the difference in receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pooled, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System for 19 states and New York City including low-income adults with a live birth between 2012 and 2019. Exposure: Giving birth in a state that offered public insurance coverage for postpartum care to recently documented or undocumented immigrants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported receipt of postpartum care by the category of coverage offered (full coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care regardless of immigration status; moderate coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully residing immigrants without a 5-year waiting period, but did not offer postpartum care to undocumented immigrants; no coverage: states that did not offer publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully present immigrants before 5 years of legal residence or to undocumented immigrants). Results: The study included 72 981 low-income adults (20 971 immigrants [29%] and 52 010 nonimmigrants [71%]). Of the 19 included states and New York City, 6 offered full coverage, 9 offered moderate coverage, and 4 offered no coverage; 1 state (Oregon) switched from offering moderate coverage to offering full coverage. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, receipt of postpartum care among immigrants was 7.0–percentage-points lower (95% CI, −10.6 to −3.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and 11.3–percentage-points lower (95% CI, −13.9 to −8.8 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. The differences in the receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants were also associated with the coverage categories. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, there was a 3.3–percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, −5.3 to −1.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and a 7.7–percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, −10.3 to −5.0 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with states without insurance restrictions, immigrants living in states with public insurance restrictions were less likely to receive postpartum care. Restricting public insurance coverage may be an important policy-driven barrier to receipt of recommended pregnancy care and improved maternal health among immigrants. This study examines the association between state public insurance coverage and postpartum care among low-income immigrants and the differences in care received among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New York City's school system is among the most diverse and segregated in the United States. Using difference-in-differences and placebo tests, we evaluate two desegregation policies in two geographic districts in New York City, District 3 and District 15. Both districts attempted to lower economic segregation within their district while maintaining school choice, prioritizing economically disadvantaged students for middle school seats in advance of the 2019–2020 school year. District 15, however, set more ambitious prioritization targets and also chose to eliminate academic screens from all middle schools. We find that District 15's policy lowered economic segregation in sixth grade by 55% and racial segregation by 38%, while District 3's policy led to no significant change in segregation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New York City is the first jurisdiction in the United States to create a right to appointed counsel for poor people facing eviction. This Article is the first to analyze NYC's ground-breaking legislation. The Article draws on NYC's housing defense statute to highlight three ways in which the creation of a civil right to counsel has the potential to build on and expand beyond the Gideon v. Wainwright model. The right to appointment of criminal defense counsel, as recognized in Gideon, was part of the Supreme Court's indirect response to the Civil Rights Movement. In contrast, the NYC legislature openly promotes substantive outcomes, explicitly targeting eviction and its secondary effects. Additionally, the legislature's focus on housing recognizes concerns that disproportionately impact Black women; this echoes the racial equality goal underlying Gideon and promotes gender equality. Finally, while the criminal defense model defends individuals against only state power, NYC's right to housing defense counsel includes tenants of private landlords and thereby checks private power. All three of these features are worth attention from legislatures considering expansion of the right to civil counsel. The Article also identifies one important way in which the new model of appointment of housing counsel is like the criminal model for appointment: NYC's legislation addresses appointment of defense lawyers, as opposed to lawyers for plaintiffs, potential plaintiffs, or people engaged in non-litigation matters. This Article argues that the focus on defense lawyering limits the impact of appointment of counsel. Defense lawyering suffers from systemic limitations that influence litigation strategy and the potential to collaborate with social movements. With respect to the substantive goal of housing preservation, problems like discrimination, harassment, and dangerous conditions also pose significant threats and could be more robustly addressed through affirmative suits. In spite of recognizing the limits of defense lawyering, this Article concludes that the availability of counterclaims in civil litigation makes civil defense more flexible than criminal defense. As a result, civil defense might be able to do more than criminal defense to challenge the status quo and advance substantive improvements for poor litigants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the inequality of the poor and lower-middle class people in New York City. It states that the problems caused by economic inequality have been derive from how Americans segregate themselves by wealth and income. It notes that the addressing of the inequality in class-stratified city such as New York is mainly operated by wealthy and powerful is no easy task and the administration of New York Mayork Bill de Blasio does not have roadmap to follow. It mentions that informing about the reality of poverty may be the first step to addressing inequality.

Despite of its emotional benefits, communication with family members who live abroad can present a large financial burden for low-income foreign-born individuals. The aims of this study were (1) to explore the current technologies available for low-cost communication with family living abroad and (2) to assess the level of awareness and use of low-cost technologies for family communication as well as related information needs among low-income foreign-born individuals. This mixed-methods study included an environmental scan, survey, and focus groups with low-income foreign-born individuals living in East Harlem in New York City. Low-income individuals who have family members living abroad face financial stress with complicated technology choices for communication with family living abroad and they have many information needs. They would welcome interactive and convenient educational tools that (1) build skills for utilization of various technologies and (2) provide decision support to simplify choosing among the vast array of available communication options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, carsharing has become an attentive dialogue among transportation planners and civic groups who have long supported and business owners and government officials who see carsharing as a means to realize their interests i.e., another market for revenue generation and replacement of government own vehicles with carshare units. It has particularly drawn attention in New York City (NYC). As of today, NYC is the largest carsharing market in the United States, accounting for about one third of all North American carsharing members. In addition to market-driven forces, the City government has pronounced pro-carsharing policies. Yet carsharing is still considered as an exclusive program to middle-income, white, and young populations. The purpose of this study is to see if carsharing can help meet the mobility demand for urban residents, especially in the marginalized neighborhoods. By investigating a leading carsharing program – Zipcar’s vehicle utilization pattern in NYC, I attempt to disentangle how neighborhoods with different socio-demographics are associated with carsharing usage. The study result revealed that there is high demand for midsize (standard) vehicles on weekdays and weeknights. In addition, carsharing usage was highly correlated with the number of total vehicles, not the number of Zipcar parking lots, if the cars are accessible within walking distances. More importantly, carsharing in low-income neighborhoods did not differ from the typical carsharing locations. What matters is the affordability. Hence, there is no reason not to consider new services or expanding existing service boundaries to the outer boroughs in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes both the Family Medical Leave Act and New York Paid Family Leave (NYPFL), and explains how these two laws work together to provide leave to New Yorkers. Topics include limitations of these laws, with a focus on the obstacles that NYPFL presents to low-income worker; flexible private paid leave programs, the costs for corporations to implement these leave policies; and recommendation to specific changes to NYPFL.

Because of its popularity, there is now a large literature examining how participatory budgeting (PB) deepens participation by the poor and redistributes resources. Closer examinations of recent cases of PB can help us to better understand the political configurations in which these new participatory democratic spaces are embedded, and articulate the conditions that might lead to more meaningful outcomes. Who participates? For whose benefit? The articles in this symposium, on participatory budgeting in New York City (PBNYC), highlight both strengths and challenges of the largest American PB process. They focus less on redistribution, more on the dimensions of the process itself and of PBNYC’s successful social inclusion, new dynamics between participants and local politicians, and the subtleties of institutionalization. The symposium also reminds us, however, that contestations overmeaningfulparticipation are on-going, and that of all of PBNYC’s multiple goals, equity has proven to be the most elusive. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A speech given by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman at the Rationing Justice Symposium is presented in which he talks about the lack of access to legal resources by the poor people in New York and the recommendations to overcome this scenario.