Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

“Once again, this new administration has decided to bully,” he added. With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Seattle joins San Francisco in bringing legal action against the administration for its January 25 executive order that called for a freeze in federal funding to sanctuary cities–cities that direct their law enforcement officers to withhold the legal status of immigrants who are arrested. On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a fresh warning to sanctuary cities at the White House, echoing the policy sketched out in the executive order.

“I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these policies,” Sessions said. “Such policies make their cities and states less safe — public safety as well as national security are at stake — and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.”

The total amount, Sessions suggested, that sanctuary cities could stand to lose—mainly in federal grants for local law enforcement agencies—is $4.1 billion. The administration’s policy has not gone into effect yet. But Murray argues the administration’s threats and coercive tactics amount to a breach of the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

On Monday, after Sessions’s missive, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also pledged to fight the administration, tweeting:

The Trump Administration is pushing an unrealistic and mean spirited executive order. If they want a fight, we’ll see them in court.

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 27, 2017

The Trump Administration’s executive order, issued five days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, spelled out its hard-line stance on illegal immigration, in a policy that includes stiff penalties for cities that resist cooperating with federal authorities.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” the order read, directing that “jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds.”

But Murray said federal funds are not necessarily linked to his city’s immigration policies, and argued that other grant-dependent programs could take a hit if the administration withholds grants. “Things like grants helping us with child sex trafficking are not connected to immigration,” Murray said. “It is time for cities to stand up and ask the courts to put an end to the anxiety in our cities and the chaos in our system.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight appeared first on Law Street.

Between Election Day and Inauguration Day, the New York Police Department spent $25.7 million “to protect Trump Tower and the First Family,” according to a letter from the department’s commissioner. That figure is down from the $35 million that was initially estimated in December. The costs associated with protecting President Donald Trump and his family for 75 days during the transition period differed greatly depending on whether Trump himself was in town.

Why was the initial estimate of $35 million nearly one-third higher than the actual cost? “The initial estimate to provide security for Trump Tower was calculated using anticipated costs,” an NYPD spokesperson told POLITICO. “Subsequently, modifications were made to the security plan, and the amount was recalculated using actual costs.”

The intent of the commissioner’s letter, which was sent on Tuesday, was to extract resources from the federal government to reimburse the city for protecting Trump and his family during the transition. Though New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, initially asked for $35 million (based on the NYPD’s initial estimate) to cover the costs, the federal government has paid the city $7 million so far.

Trump has yet to visit Trump Tower, or New York City, since Inauguration Day. When he does–he has suggested he would like to spend weekends in Manhattan–the same costs would likely apply, if not more. Regardless, the presence of his wife Melania and his son Barron at Trump Tower incurs heavy costs. It would cost $50 million over a year-long period to protect the two of them for a year (Melania and Barron are expected to stay through the school year). If Trump joins them on weekends, as he has indicated he will do, that will jump to $60 million per year.

In his letter, O’Neill also acknowledged the collateral effects of siphoning the city’s budget to protect the president and his family: “Trump Tower itself now presents a target to those who wish to commit acts of terror against our country, further straining our limited counterterrorism resources.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Does it Cost to Protect Trump Tower? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled an aggressive new plan to fight street homelessness. While speaking to the Association for a Better New York, de Blasio unveiled the new initiative: NYC Homeless Outreach & Mobile Engagement Street Action Team—or HOME-STAT. It will be heavily technology-based, and rely on shared data in order to dispatch aid workers to help members of the homeless population who are on the street.

The HOME-STAT plan is part of an overall $2.6 billion program being instituted by de Blasio’s administration. It will include hiring 137 full time staff, and 100 more police officers specifically dedicated to helping the homeless. Under the HOME-STAT plan, which should be fully operational by March 2016, workers will sweep the city’s hot spots for homeless people who live on the streets, and compile an electronic database to track the homeless population. Then, outreach workers will work with the identified individuals; de Blasio stated it will provide each “street- homeless individual a dedicated caseworker who will make it their mission to get their clients off the street and into a healthier place, permanently.”

Additionally, if someone reports a homeless individual on the streets through the city’s non-emergency line, 311, the goal will be for an outreach worker to reach that individual within an hour. According to de Blasio, the use of data is very similar to a program that the NYPD uses to track crime in the city.

This is a large undertaking–the homeless population in New York is thought to be about 58,000, but it’s estimated about 3,000 to 4,000 live on the streets. De Blasio has received significant criticism for what many see as his poor handling of the issue. A recent poll reported that 62 percent of New Yorkers don’t approve of how he has approached the issue of homelessness, and he was pretty heavily slammed after he downplayed the issue of street homelessness earlier this year.

The public response to de Blasio’s plan appears to be mixed. While many, including the advocacy group Coalition for the Homeless have indicated support for initiative, others have brought up concerns that the focus on increased policing will vilify the homeless–they argue instead of advocating for compassion, de Blasio is just encouraging New Yorkers to call an officer to deal with the issue. Judith Goldiner, of the Legal Aid Society, told the Wall Street Journal: “I’m worried that it sends a message that we don’t want to send, which is that we target people who are homeless. That’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Overall, it appears as though de Blasio needed to do something to help deal with the street-homeless population in New York City. Whether or not this initiative–which puts a high premium on technology–works, it will be interesting, as it could be a model for other cities suffering with the same issue. I think we’ll all be keeping an eye on HOME-STAT as it is implemented early next year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HOME-STAT: New York Mayor De Blasio Unveils New Plan to Fight Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

Topless women walking around New York City’s Times Square have found themselves at the center of controversy over the past few weeks. Adorned only in patriotic body paint, headdresses, heels, and thongs, these women–known as “desnudas” or “the naked ones”–offer to pose for pictures with gawking tourists in exchange for tips. But New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, doesn’t find their gimmick appealing in the slightest, and is already hatching plans to regulate their aggressive panhandling.

Times Square’s topless women should be regulated, NYC’s mayor says http://t.co/emWQnHmudV pic.twitter.com/yAA6ufG3ob

— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 22, 2015

In a news conference last week De Blasio was quoted saying,

We are going to look for every appropriate way to regulate all activity that involves either begging, or asking people for a contribution based on, you know, the opportunity to take a picture, for example.

I don’t like the situation in Times Square, and we’re going to address it in a very aggressive manner.

Unfortunately for De Blasio, attacking this issue “aggressively” may not be so easy, especially since legally these women are doing nothing wrong. The Constitution’s First Amendment protects these performers’ rights to artistic expression, and in 1992 toplessness was ruled legal in New York City. Panhandling is protected as a form of free speech, but when it turns aggressive police can legally intervene.

This kind of hostile solicitation has indeed become a major issue for the city, due to some performers pressuring or even verbally accosting tourists for larger tips.

As a result, instead of trying to ban street performers altogether, De Blasio is currently considering ripping out the pedestrian plazas where these topless tip-seekers and their fellow characters congregate. But reintroducing more traffic back into the crowded tourist destination wouldn’t be without its own challenges. The concrete islands were only installed six years ago, and after some initial criticism they have been praised as an innovation in urban design.

The Times Square Alliance, a business group that helped revitalize the tourist destination, is already speaking out against De Blasio’s proposal. The group’s president Tim Tompkins told the New York Times,

Sure, let’s tear up Broadway. We can’t govern, manage or police our public spaces so we should just tear them up. That’s not a solution. It’s a surrender.

New York City Council member Corey Johnson has a different option. He and fellow councilman Daniel R. Garodnick are working on a bill that would limit when and where the desnudas and other costumed characters could operate. By limiting them to designated areas, Johnson hopes to rein in the performers, while allowing tourists the option of interacting with them or not.

The real question is whether or not the “desnudas” are being targeted unfairly in their own right. Hundreds of topless female and male protestors marching in New York on Sunday in honor of National Go Topless Day showed their support for the bare-breasted performers and expressed disapproval over De Blasio’s attempt to disband them. But if the mayor’s proposal targets the issue of aggressive panhandling rather than an issue with nudity, he may end up gaining more support as time goes on.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Mayor Targets Times Square’s Topless Women appeared first on Law Street.

New York City experienced four fatal shootings last Friday night, including the death of Jahhad Marshall, a 22-year-old chef who was killed in Queens. Stacey Calhoun, the victim’s uncle, told the media the next day, “We need stop-and-frisk.” This comes amid a significant call for the return of the controversial NYPD policy. In particular, Stop-and-Frisk supporters cite the nearly 18 percent increase in murders in New York City between January 1 and May 30, 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. Moreover, there was a 7.7 percent increase in shootings–from 403 to 434–during the same period.

In the wake of the increase in murders, particularly shooting-related murders, the heated debate over the efficacy of stop-and-frisk has returned. Supporters of the policy cite the dramatic decrease in crime in New York City since 2002, when stop-and-frisk became more frequently used. Between 2002 and 2011, there was a steady increase in stop-and-frisk related stops from 97,296 to 685,724. In this same period, there was a steady decrease in shooting deaths, as well as overall murders. Proponents argue that the threat of being searched leads to decreased gun possession and thus decreased gun violence. Therefore, many supporters of stop-and-frisk blame Mayor Bill de Blasio’s reigning in of the policy for the increased number of murders in 2015, particularly firearm murders. In a recent interview with FOX News, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik blamed the increase in crime in 2015 on the dismantling of stop-and-frisk, citing it as the reason for the decrease in crime in New York City.

Contrarily, a lot of  evidence suggests that stop-and-frisk was not a successful policy. The policy’s opponents point to the general inefficacy of the stops, about 90 percent of which did not result in further police action. Although former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others have defended the racial disparity of the stops by asserting that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes, the NYCLU found that whites were twice as likely to possess  a weapon when stopped. Furthermore, the dramatic increase in stops between 2004 and 2011 did not lead to a dramatic increase in the number of weapons found (176 additional guns found in 524,873 additional stops). Following the controversy over the policy in 2011, the use of stop-and-frisk was dramatically reduced, and while searches decreased by 72 percent between 2011 to 2013, murders fell by 35 percent, and shootings fell by 29 percent. This shows that the continued trend of declining crime in New York City, as well as across the country, that has occurred since 1993 continued even with a dramatic cutback in the use of stop-and-frisk. This evidence seems to suggest that increased use of stop-and-frisk does not guarantee a decrease in the number of murders or shootings.

The bottom line is that it is statistically and logically imprudent to assert that the changing of one police policy is the cause of the increase in murders in New York City so far in 2015. It is possible that stop-and-frisk does limit violent crime; however, it is too soon to tell whether the policy’s removal under Mayor de Blasio is the reason for the additional murders this year. The small sample size of five months, relative to the 24 year trend of decreasing murder, also makes such assumptions fairly weak. Furthermore, the decrease in other crimes, including robbery, felony assault, burglary, and grand larceny point to the issue being more nuanced and complicated than some will admit. Other issues such as the growing civil unrest over police brutality and the possibility of a spike in gang activity are all possible causes. Mayor de Blasio has addressed those who blame his cutbacks on stop-and-frisk for the increased violence and has cited, among other factors, the possibility of gang-on-gang violence.

Contrary to opinions on both sides of the debate, the presence of stop-and-frisk is not an “all-or-nothing” situation. It is possible that the NYPD could return to the frequency of stops that it employed in 2002 while still limiting violence. Perhaps the threat of being searched does limit the possession of guns, as proponents of stop-and-frisk assert. On the other hand, the statistics don’t show that an increase in stops will lead to significantly more weapons seizures. Furthermore, the correlation between greater searches and fewer murders is far from definitive.

It is important to separate legitimate criticism of police tactics from a lack of respect and gratitude for their work. Some sensationalist defenders of stop-and-frisk will try to spin the attacks on the policy as such, and thus delegitimize an important debate. While there is no doubt that those who serve in police forces are brave and essential to our well being, it is important to constantly question and refine police methods.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the End of Stop-and-Frisk to Blame for the Growth in NYC Murders? appeared first on Law Street.

Spring is in the air. While the daffodils and tulips are emerging, for some, so are the baby bumps. New parents have many responsibilities and choices to make once their little bundles of joy are out in the world. Working mothers in the United States must make one especially weighty decision: to go on maternity leave, or to go straight back to work? The choice is not as cut-and-dry as some may think—both financial and emotional factors must be considered. A family must also consider whether or not they will pay for the services of a babysitter or nanny, care for the child themselves, or enlist family and friends to help care for the child. But are policies in the U.S. to this effect changing?

In America, the concept of maternity leave is quite common, but what about paternity leave? New mothers are afforded “bonding” time, but what about fathers? As it turns out, new parent–both moms and dads–are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child, according to The Family and Medical Leave Act.

There are many caveats to this act, however, and not all employees may be qualified to receive its benefits. Even if an employee qualifies, he or she may not choose to take off from work if it could cause a financial hardship, given that the leave is unpaid. There may be a solution here–perhaps the United States should adopt the policies of other countries that allow parents to go on paid parental leave. Norway allows parents to take a leave of 36 weeks and receive 100 percent of their wages; Australia allows each parent 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid.

While the U.S. may need to update its parental leave policies, one major American city has recently revised its childcare options. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced the city’s implementation plan for free, full-day, universal pre-kindergarten.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. Image courtesy of Kevin Case via Flickr

Many New Yorkers have speculated as to the need of such a program, but it seems the numbers speak for themselves. In the first three weeks of enrollment, 51,000 New York City families signed up for the mayor’s pre-K program. More families will undoubtedly sign up before the enrollment deadline for the program on April 24, 2015.

The funds needed for the program were raised by tax increases. But what if the funds had been put toward implementing paid parental leave instead of universal pre-K? Going forward, what if people were given a choice between paid parental leave OR universal pre-K? Allowing New Yorkers to reject or accept alternate parental systems may be an innovative way to test out options that could be afforded to the rest of the country.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Parental Leave: Are There Alternatives for U.S. Parents? appeared first on Law Street.

A recent slowdown by New York Police Department officers has ignited a debate over what the role of police officers should be and to what extent policing should focus on minor crimes.

According to the New York Post,

There were just 1,191 parking summonses handed out between Dec. 29 and Jan. 4 — down nearly 93 percent from the same period last year, when 16,008 of the dreaded orange envelopes were slapped on windshields

The NYPD slowdown involved a nearly complete abandonment of enforcement for low-level crimes like parking tickets and public order offenses. While slowdowns can have many different causes, it appears that the recent one in New York is a result of the rising tension between police officers and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The New York Post also reported that the slowdown will cost the city roughly $10 million per week in lost ticket revenue. Doug Turetsky, of New York’s Independent Budget Office, put that number in context by comparing it to the city’s $77 billion annual budget; however, if losses continued over a long period of time the effects would be notable.

The Associated Press further noted that only one arrest was made and zero tickets were issued for low-level offenses on New Years Eve, a day when roughly one million people flock to the city. Despite this dramatic decrease in enforcement, there was actually a modest decrease in the number of reported serious crimes over a two-week period when compared to the same time span one year earlier.

Recent activity suggests that the NYPD slowdown is coming to an end and may have even stopped completely. Commissioner Bratton threatened to take away sick days and vacation time until ticket and arrest numbers returned to normal levels. While the slowdown may be over, it renewed the debate over the underlying policing theory present in many American cities.

Broken Windows Policing

Although the NYPD slowdown can have important implications for the NYPD and New York City, it has also called the Broken Windows style of policing into question. Behind the Broken Windows theory is the idea that disorder leads to both fear and more crime. The theory was first established by professors George L. Kelling and George Q. Wilson in an article they wrote back in 1982. They argued that the proactive enforcement of laws pertaining to lower level and often very visible crimes, like breaking windows, will restore order to public places and prevent additional crimes.

Put in their words:

The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window. Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.

New York City was actually a primary testing ground for the Broken Windows style of policing. The strategy came to New York in 1993 under the tenure of Commissioner Bill Bratton, first  appointed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Bratton later returned to New York to once again act as Commissioner under de Blasio in 2014. Broken Windows is frequently attributed to the city’s dramatic decline in crime during the 1990s.

Kelling stands with his theory in light of the recent debate. In an interview with the New York Daily News he argued that while it is unlikely that one week-long slowdown will have a meaningful impact on crime numbers, he did caution about long-term effects. Kelling continued to argue that maintaining order will meaningfully constrain the crime levels in the city, but also acknowledged that the maintenance of order is not intended to punish people. Kelling argued that the underlying principle of Broken Windows remains strong, but policing methods may still be updated to fit the present circumstances.

New York’s Crime Decline

Between 1990 and 2012 New York City’s violent crime rate per 100,000 people has decreased by nearly 75 percent and the total number of murders went from 2,245 in 1990 to 335 in 2013. While most cities in the United States experienced significant decreases in their violent crime rates since the 1990s as well, New York has far outpaced the national average and has continued that downward trend in recent years.

Before you ask, there was also a decrease in the actual number of broken windows over the past several years (and yes, there is data on that).

Although it is impossible to determine whether or not Broken Windows policing caused this decrease–many factors typically impact a city’s crime level–it is likely that policing played a role. Despite this correlation, many are calling for the end to Broken Windows as a modern policing philosophy. It has long been criticized for its effects on minorities, which tend to be the target of many ‘order-related’ arrests, but the recent death of the unarmed Eric Gardner at the hands of the NYPD has sparked further protest.

The Policing Debate

While it is unfair to claim that Broken Windows policing caused the death of Eric Gardner, such a policing strategy will increase the number of times minorities are stopped by the police. Arresting people for committing crimes like selling loose cigarettes, the act which precipitated Gardner’s encounter with police officers, will simply increase the likelihood that altercations occur in the future.

Supporters of Broken Windows argue that it is not the underlying theory that causes tragedies like Gardner’s death, but rather it is the training and tactics that officers employ that lead to abuse. As a result, people call for police reforms that would improve tactics and training; however, evidence may also suggest that police reform may not adequately address problem. Last summer the NYPD ended its controversial stop-and-frisk policy due to complaints that it disproportionately violated the rights of the poor and minority populations, yet problems persist.

Despite the removal of stop-and-frisk as an important policing tactic, situations Gardner’s encounter with the police still occur and continue to disproportionately affect minorities. The Broken Windows theory sought to reduce public fear by bringing order to public places; however, it has also helped create a different kind of fear among minority populations, which is developing into increasingly more hostile attitudes toward the police. In a series of polls asking people whether or not they believe the police treat blacks and whites equally, a significant gap between white and black perception emerges. The most recent poll suggests that a majority (52 percent) of white respondents have a “great deal of confidence” that both races are treated equally; among black respondents that number dipped to just 12 percent.

Distrust and fear toward the police has led to hostile interactions between minority populations and law enforcement officers. Supporters of the Broken Windows theory of policing may be right when they argue that enforcing order can reduce crime rates and fear among the general public; however, attention must also be paid to the additional implications that aggressive policing of low-level crimes may have.

What is the role of Broken Windows policing when many of the broken windows have been fixed? Crime in New York City has experienced massive declines over the last two-and-a-half decades, and according to its crime statistics is now a pretty safe city relative to its population size. Creating order may serve an important role in reducing crime, but when crime has already decreased by such an extent should it be enforced as aggressively as it was in the 1990s?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Slowdown Ignites Debate Over Broken Windows Policing appeared first on Law Street.

Good news for those who are both gay and have Irish pride: next year, New York City will allow LGBT groups to march in the St. Patricks Day parade with their own banners. Previously, there had been a ban on allowing gay groups to join in the famous event, which is the biggest in the world. The ban wasn’t specifically on LGBT people — they were allowed to march as long they were with other groups and weren’t carrying any sort of banners marking them as gay — but this was still clearly discriminatory.

The ban on gay groups marching in the parade was causing a lot of problems for the organizers — liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio did not want to march as long as the ban was in place, and Guinness refused to sponsor. Heineken withdrew its support as well. Other businesses have also threatened to take away their support if action was not taken.

Somewhat surprisingly, the decision was actually met without protest from many Catholics. In recent years, the Catholic Church has begun embracing LGBT people as individuals, while still standing against the possibility of gay marriage on an institutional level. The allowance of gay groups at the parade is another example of that shift. As the always delightful Stephen Colbert points out, everyone’s pretty much on board with the new rule:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan will actually be the grand marshal for next year’s parade, and he’s given his full support to the change in policy, stating:

My predecessors and I have always left decisions on who would march to the organizers of the individual parades. As I do each year, I look forward to celebrating Mass in honor of Saint Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland, and the Patron Saint of this Archdiocese, to begin the feast, and pray that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us.

The decision was mostly welcomed by the gay community. It was called a good small step by the Staten Island LGBT Community Center, whose communications manager Emilie Tippens said she hoped for a ripple effect to emerge in other circumstances where LGBT people face discrimination. However, the move did receive some ire from members of the LGBT community. Gay leaders claim that the parade rules were changed not because the organizers actually realized the error of their ways, but because they were forced to by financial and publicity concerns. As a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, Fed Sainz, explained:

In one of the world’s most diverse and inclusive cities, not to allow gay people to march was becoming an anachronistic decision that they could no longer reasonably justify.

While that may be true, it is still a good thing that gay groups will be allowed to march in the parade. The parade is a big draw, and a massive celebration, and for anyone to be restricted is truly a disservice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade to Finally Include LGBT Groups appeared first on Law Street.

So in New York, housing developers have the option to participate in an “inclusionary zoning program,” which requires them to set aside 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. This means that those apartments are granted to households making less than $42,950 a year.

Smart idea, NYC

Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to make inclusionary zoning mandatory in order to create more affordable units, according to The New York Times. De Blasio “hopes to get both bigger buildings and more affordable units within those buildings.”

New York, you’re on a roll!

But just as I’m about to clasp my hands together and give New York the standing ovation that I thought they deserved; they approved a plan for an Upper West Side condo building to have a separate door for low-income tenants. Yes, a separate door.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the days of Jim Crow Laws were long behind us. I mean we’ve elected a half-black President, a black attorney general, and honored the legendary Martin Luther King Jr. with a national holiday. This sends us back to 1920 when segregation ran rampant in this country. Are you happy New York? You took an innovative, progressive, awe-inspiring idea and just destroyed it.

The new Upper West Side apartment complex joins another building that already makes its lower class tenants use a “poor door.” Yes, there is another building where the rich have a separate door, just so they don’t have to rub shoulders with the poor. The apartment complex is in Williamsburg, a neighborhood once occupied by minorities and low-income citizens.

Gentrification at it’s finest folks. Disgusting.

“No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations, I think it’s unfair to expect very high-income homeowners who paid a fortune to live in their building to have to be in the same boat as low-income renters, who are very fortunate to live in a new building in a great neighborhood.”

This guy cant be serious…

First off, these really really rich people are not even close to being in the same boat as the low-income renters; they’re not even on the same island, hell they don’t even live on the same planet. They get to come home through the front door to their nicely furnished apartments and relax with a glass of red wine, while the “peasants” have to use the back entrance and hide their faces, for they are too poor to be seen. Who is he to demean a person’s life, who is he to say that the rich are better than the poor, who is he to disrespect the hardworking people of this country and strip them of their dignity through his comments?

Thankfully not everyone in New York agrees with this pompous idiot. Former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told the New York Post, “I do not believe that these discriminatory practices were ever contemplated by the legislature, we need to change state law so that developers provide common entrances and facilities for residents in the building.”

You know New York, since you are the most diverse city in the world I thought you’d be better than this. I thought you were the city that inspired people, influenced masses, and made dreams come true. Not the city that discourages people and makes them believe they are worthless because of how much money is in their bank account. No one should be judged by how much money they make or whether they are renting or buying. New York, you are home to over 8 million people, and no matter how cliche you think it is, every single one of these people are special and unique. You do not get to choose who comes in the front and who goes in through the back. Poor or rich, black or white, people are people and you do not get to say otherwise.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC ‘Poor Doors’ Separate Rich and Poor Tenants appeared first on Law Street.

A new law recently implemented in New York City is a significant step in the right direction for improving the rights of workers.

On April 1, 2014, an updated paid sick leave law took effect. The measure requires businesses with five or more employees to provide sick leave to employees caring for themselves or their relatives. After taking office, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that paid sick leave would be extended to cover more employees in the city, and he was now fulfilled that promise. Because of the law, 1.2 million more workers in New York will have paid sick leave, many of whom work low to minimum wage jobs.

Skeptics worried about the possible negative effects the new policy would have on businesses. Some small business owners were worried that they wouldn’t be able to afford paying for their workers’ sick leave. Yet when the law took effect, it did so without a commotion. There were no voiced complaints or protests. This silence bodes well for the law’s success and sustainment, and can perhaps pave the way for more progressive labor legislation. And for Mayor de Blasio, who has already faced a setback in failing legislation to raise the minimum wage, granting more residents of the city paid sick leave is a substantial victory.

So what allowed for this measure to be successfully implemented without protest?

Businesses found the law to be reasonable.

Since the law did not take effect immediately, businesses had time to check their budgets to see how offering paid sick leave to employees will impact their profit. While businesses may lose a little money to offer five (or more) sick days a year for employees, the cost of this is not exorbitant. Moreover, business can take comfort in the fact that they do not have to allow an employee paid sick leave until after he or she has been on the job for more than three months. This provision of the law allows time for trust to develop between an employer and an employee, which will lower the risk of an employee’s taking advantage of paid sick leave.

Many people believe that extending paid sick leave to more employees is fair.

One small business owner, Shiv Puri, reflected on the importance of paid sick leave while he worked on Wall Street. He noted that his staff should receive the same benefits as employees as he has been given. Additionally, a poll by FindLaw found that 71% of respondents across the country were in support of extending paid sick leave. In New York and across the United States, the extension of benefits such as paid sick leave are gaining support for being fairer to all employees. Despite the people that had vocalized their concerns before the law took effect, there are many others who support the measure.

Businesses can also benefit from giving workers paid sick leave.

Employees who work low earning jobs know that money is hard to earn and therefore every shift is crucial to supporting themselves. Many have had to make the choice between going to work feeling ill or staying home to care for themselves. Employers don’t want sick workers on the job: they are less productive and can infect co-workers and even customers. Allowing a few days of paid leave will keep sick workers at home, which is ultimately good for business. Additionally, employees who receive more benefits from their employer will feel better treated and will translate how they feel about the job into their work ethic. Providing paid sick leave can also make workers more productive, another benefit to businesses.

It just makes sense.

People that earn low wages already have a harder time making ends’ meat. Why is it then that our system extends more benefits to the people that receive higher salaries? The point of benefits such as paid sick leave is to assist employees, but the people who need the most help are those who work low and minimum wage jobs, because they have a harder time as it is affording basic necessities. Of course, good benefits are a nice incentive for businesses to entice qualified candidates to work for their company. But these benefits can also be used to encourage those in minimum wage positions to stay on the job and to attract more workers to fill open positions.

The law makes New York, the most recent of more than twenty cities and states that have mandated paid sick leave for employees of certain businesses. With the success of the policy’s implementation in New York, perhaps more places in the US will adhere to this just principle.

[NY Times] [HRE Online] [In These Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Paid Sick Leave in NYC: It Just Makes Sense appeared first on Law Street.

Charter schools have made news in recent years among American pedagogues, offering quality education for students who often live in inner city areas where a quality education is hard to come by. While repeated attempts have been made to reform America’s public school system, educational progressives have hailed charter schools as the solution to the problem of overcrowded, under-achieving public schools in urban areas; however, some see the special privileges that have been endowed on these schools recently, such as free real estate inside public school buildings, as too much of a distraction from the job of truly improving public schools. One such debate took place in New York City, when Mayor Bill De Blasio chose not to let charter schools move into public school space. Read on to learn about the controversy.

The Buildup

In New York City, former Mayor Bloomberg had accepted applications by charter schools to co-habit public school buildings rent free, allowing charter schools to open up in areas where rent and real estate are expensive. However, Mayor Bill De Blasio has been vocal about his opposition to providing special privileges to charter schools. De Blasio made comments about prolific New York charter school founder Eva Moskowitz during his election campaign, saying “There’s no way in hell Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, OK?” and “These changes appear to be part of a sustained pattern to privilege Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy schools with space and resources at the expense of the traditional public schools with which they share buildings.”

True to his word, on February 27, 2014 De Blasio withdrew three agreements to allow charter schools to share space with public schools in public education buildings. These three withdrawals were the only ones among 17 total charter school applications, leaving 14 charter schools that were permitted to continue with plans to share public education space. While the Mayor’s administration used a strict set of four criteria to withdraw those schools, the three he did revoke were all from the Success Academy chain headed by Moskowitz, leading many opponents to argue that this was an act of a personal vendetta.

What’s the argument in favor of De Blasio’s actions?

De Blasio’s supporters see this issue as a political ploy by Moskowitz to maintain her company’s economic growth in New York City, and maintain that De Blasio used unbiased criteria in his selection of schools to withdraw from co-location agreements. Out of 45 total applications, De Blasio approved 36–an overwhelming majority–and of the 17 charter school applicants, 14 were approved. The De Blasio administration used the following four criteria as the basis for this decision:

• It would not approve putting an elementary school in a high school.
• It would not open any school with fewer than 250 students because the school would be too small to meet the needs of students.
• It would not approve any co-locations that required heavy construction.
• It would not approve any co-locations that dislocated students with disabilities.

Many find these perfectly reasonable criteria, and 36 of the 45 applying schools met these requirements. De Blasio claims that these approvals were rushed by the previous administration, and that they simply did not pass his own set of criteria. Some Moskowitz opponents also argue that the reason behind Success Academy’s triumphs in New York City is due to the Academy’s ability as a private school to dismiss or force out any unsatisfactory students, including students with special needs. This allows them to retain only the upper-tier students to generate excellent test scores and apparent success. These charter schools also often cater to the city’s political and economic elite, ensuring charter schools’ continued success through campaign contributions and political dealings.

Additionally, the Success Charter School chain had submitted eight total co-location applications, five of which were approved by De Blasio. The Mayor’s supporters equate Moskowitz’s actions to those of someone throwing a tantrum for not getting everything she wants. After learning of the three withdrawn applications, Moskowitz closed all Success Academy schools on March 4, 2014 to organize a protest march to Albany to combat the new mayor, and since then has filed a lawsuit against the mayor for his co-location decisions. This is in addition to an event in October in which Moskowitz also closed all her schools to organize a march across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest De Blasio during his mayoral campaign. De Blasio supporters argue that Moskowitz is using cheap political tactics at the expense of students to fight with a mayor who simply blocked three of five new schools from obtaining free rent in America’s largest city.

What are the arguments of those who disagree with De Blasio?

Opponents accuse De Blasio of using politics to level a personal vendetta against the Success Academy leader, and point to charter schools’ proven success rate to argue that these schools should be given the same chance as public schools to flourish in New York City and elsewhere. De Blasio had already made remarks about Moskowitz during his campaign, saying she was a person not to be “tolerated, enabled, and supported.” Some opponents frame these application withdrawals as a Chris Christie-esque act of political revenge.

Additionally, charter schools have been proven successful in New York City. Success Academy Harlem 4’s students have some of the highest math scores in New York State, but with their co-location application denied, they do not have the resources to expand and accept more students. Many parents are upset at the prospect of being forced to send their children to their local public schools, where dropouts and crime are common. In the end, charter school supporters argue, it’s the children who are most affected by De Blasio’s policy. Roughly 600 students already enrolled in the Success Academy schools that were about to be opened up will instead be routed to an uncertain future in the public school system, prompting calls from many to put aside political bickering in favor of true discussion over what is best for New York City’s children.

 Resources

Primary

NYC Charter Schools: Co-Location: How Public Schools Share Space in New York City

Additional

Huffington Post: The Smear Campaign Against Bill De Blasio

Brooklyn Eagle: Parents, Teachers, Kids, Pols Rally Against Charter School Plans

DNA Info: Harlem Special Needs School Rallies Against Charter School Expansion

Washington Post: Why NYC Mayor Is Getting Unfairly Bashed Over Charter Schools

New York Post: Deputy Mayor: Charter School Expansion Could Lead to “Privatized” School System

New York Post: De Blasio Starts His War on Charter Schools

Fox News: New York’s De Blasio Boots Charter Schools From City Space

CNN: New York Mayor Fails Charter School Kids

US News: De Blasio Stands Alone: De Blasio Has an Extreme Position on Charter Schools

Washington Post: Why is New York Mayor Bill De Blasio Undermining Charter Schools?

New York Magazine: Mayor De Blasio vs. Charter Schools, Round 1

The New York Times: De Blasio Seeks to Halt 3 Charter Schools From Moving Into Public Spaces

Huffington Post: Major Charter School Chain To Lose Space Under New De Blasio Plan

New York Daily News: Charter Schools Axed By Mayor De Blasio

Fox News: NYC Mayor De Blasio Hit With 3 New Lawsuits in Charter School Fights

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Preventing Charter and Public Schools From Sharing Space appeared first on Law Street.

Stop-and-frisk policies were one of the hottest topics in law enforcement in the last several years. The controversial New York policy made headlines, led to accusations of racial profiling and discrimination, and was the subject of multiple court cases. Now, the practice has basically been discontinued altogether. Read on to learn about stop-and-frisk policies, the arguments for and against them, and the progress we’ve made since.

What is Stop and Frisk?

Stop and Frisk is a situation in which a police officer detains a suspicious person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect’s outer garments in order to determine if that person is carrying a concealed weapon. If this “patting down” doesn’t alleviate the officer’s suspicion, he may also check the suspect’s pockets. Its constitutionality derives from the 1968 Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio in which the Court ruled that it is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; however, many criticize the stop-and-frisk practice for being a racial profiling tool, claiming that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are subject to it.

On August 12, 2013, in Floyd v. City of New York, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that stop and frisk is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was met with a lot of criticism and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially blocked and randomly reassigned the case in October 2013, stating that Judge Scheindlin, who wrote the majority opinion in August, “ran afoul” and had “compromised the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” More recently, the Court of Appeals failed to find any misconduct or ethical violation by Scheindlin and declined to reverse the decision. But it continued the stay on the ruling until the City of New York appealed it.

Why was it ruled unconstitutional in August 2013?

Activists in New York have been fighting stop and frisk for years. The August 2013 decision was based on a wealth of statistical data. Out of 4.4 million stops over the span of eight-and-a-half years, 52 percent of suspects were Black, 31 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent were White (from a population of 23 percent Black, 29 percent Hispanic, and 33 percent White). Furthermore, in 23 to 24 percent of all stops with Black or Hispanic suspects, the police used force. Contrastingly, the police used force in 17 percent of all stops with White suspects. It was this evidence that prompted Scheindlin to write, “the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling.” Unlike former Mayor Bloomberg who strongly supported the practice, Mayor Bill de Blasio sharply criticized the policy during his campaign and promised to reform it. The public was outraged when the City of New York appealed the August 2013 decision.

What was the argument in favor of stop and frisk?

Supporters of stop and frisk believe in its efficacy for driving down crime. One of the most vocal supporters of the practice said that rules against stop and frisk “will make it harder for our police officers to protect New Yorkers and continue to drive down crime.” He argued that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped under this practice because a disproportionate number of them commit crimes. At least 10 out of 19 stops have been deemed justified. A report stated that gun shootings have increased by 2.3 percent between August and November 2013. The efficacy of this practice is further supported by a study that revealed that more than half of stops lead to guilty convictions, therefore keeping criminals off the street.

What’s the status of stop and frisk now?

Stop and frisk has pretty much been eliminated. According to data obtained by the New Republic, stop-and-frisk incidents have fallen by almost 80 percent during the first three quarters of 2014. More importantly, the seemingly apocalyptic scenario that many warned about if stop and frisk was discontinued didn’t happen. In August 2013, right when stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said, “No question about it, violent crime will go up.” Bloomberg  agreed: “if you try to so much as reform stop and frisk…you’re playing politics with people’s lives.”

But crime hasn’t actually gone up–in fact, just the opposite. It’s decreased, the same way that it has been steadily decreasing over the last few decades nationwide. Despite no more stop and frisk, the streets of New York City are getting safer.

Stop and frisk does still happen, though it’s gone down a lot. There’s a Twitter account dedicated to memorializing all the times that stop-and-frisk incidents happen, @stopandfrisk. It’s still active, and it still chronicles incidences of stop and frisk being used on citizens.

Stop and frisk could have made some sense, in theory, but ended up being a more problematic program than it was worth, not to mention unconstitutional. It’s heartening to see that the crime rate has continued to fall, even with stop and frisk no longer being used.

Resources

Primary

US Constitution: Fourth Amendment

US Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

NYPD: New York City Police Department Stop Question & Frisk Activity Official Report of First Quarter, 2013

New York Civil Liberties Union: Stop-And-Frisk Campaign

Center for Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al. v. City of New York

Additional

Nation: Ending Stop-And-Frisk, Keeping the Racism

Washington Post: Judge Says New York’s ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Law Unconstitutional

Al-Jazeera: New Yorkers Urge de Blasio to #DropTheAppeal on Stop-and-Frisk

MSNBC: African-American Teen Says Stop-and-Frisk Has Made Him Fear Police

ACLU: We Know That Stop-and-Frisk is All Kinds of Horrible: So Why is it Expanding Nationwide?

Wall Street Journal: Judge Rules NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violates Rights

USA Today: Trayvon Martin’s Mom Blasts ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Huffington Post: Joe Lhota Says Only Some of Stop and Frisks Might Constitute Racial Profiling In NYC

Washington Post: Ray Kelley defends New York’s controversial ‘stop and frisk’ law

NY Daily News: Bloomberg Sues City Council to Overturn Law Targeting Stop-and-Frisk Profiling

Washington Times: New York Police, Banned From Stop-and-Frisk, Warn of 12 Percent Drop in Gun Seizures

Reuters: Half of New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Arrests Yield Convictions

Legal Dictionary: Stop-and-Frisk

The New York Times: Court Block’s Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police

Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology: Reflections on New York’s Stop-and-Frisk law and it’s Claimed Unconstitutionality

Fordham Law Review: The Right to Investigate and New York’s “Stop and Frisk” Law

VOA News: After NYC Elections, ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Debate Persists

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Stop and Frisk: Did Ending it Make a Difference? appeared first on Law Street.

Well, Election Day has come and gone, and things are looking (un)surprisingly bright for the tri-state area.

Folks, I live in Hoboken, New Jersey, and I commute into New York City almost every day. That means I was pretty invested in both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the New York mayoral race. So now that the results are in, let’s chat about them, mmkay?

Republican Chris Christie won reelection in New Jersey last night, with Democrat Bill de Blasio winning the mayoral seat in New York. No one was even a little bit surprised—to the point where Politico reported Christie’s victory hours before polls even closed.

Now, we all know I’m no fan of the Republicans. Christie’s conservatism irks me, and I’ve called him a douche many, many times over the course of his first term. Especially when it comes to his education policy, which actually drives me insane.

But seriously. Dude’s always railing against teachers, cutting public school budgets, and pushing charter schools. These are policies that kill fair labor laws, devalue an incredibly important job (educating the next generation, NO BIG DEAL), and exacerbate socio-economic inequality. Don’t believe me? Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other district in the country—let them tell you how much they suck.

So, obviously, I’m not Christie’s biggest fan. But, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP’s 2016 Presidential bid, and I’m weirdly happy about that. Why? A surprising side effect of my Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder is a much more positive vision of Gov. Christie.

While I was totally freaking out about the apocalyptic flooding outside my apartment, Christie was consistently calm and attentive. He made regular TV appearances, updating residents on the situation while we waited for the storm to make landfall. After disaster struck, he came and visited Hoboken—as well as many other affected New Jersey towns—to assess the damage and address his constituents.

Many have claimed that Christie used the storm as a publicity stunt, pumping up his approval ratings without giving enough material aid to affected residents. That may be true. But, he also proved himself to be a calm and effective leader who could successfully navigate an emergency situation. He made a lot of people, myself included, feel safe under terrible circumstances.

And that’s a really big deal. Since Sandy, he’s arguably toned down his conservatism—choosing not to fight against the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, for example—establishing himself as a centrist politician who’s more concerned about being realistic and representative than pushing his own agenda.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of Republicans—but that’s one I can potentially get behind.

Across the Hudson, New York has taken a very different turn. Bill de Blasio will be the first Democratic City mayor in over 20 years—and he’s not just any Democrat. He ran on a seriously liberal platform, and trotted out his biracial family as proof that he could follow through on his promises.

When his afro-bearing son, Dante, told cameras that his dad opposed stop-and-frisk, New Yorkers believed him. Why? Because de Blasio’s strong ties to people of color—his entire immediate family—must mean that he’s personally invested in ending a policy that targets and harasses them. This isn’t hypothetical for him—it’s sitting in his living room.

De Blasio’s platform also included a plan to raise taxes in an effort to decrease the city’s wealth gap, which has grown to epic proportions. YAY!  Will he be able to deliver on that noble goal? Only time will tell, but the awesome factor of the First Lady is indicative of good things.

Bill’s wife, Chirlane McCray, is a black feminist, a writer, a marketing maven, and used to identify as a lesbian. Since marrying Bill, she’s gotten queerer, explaining (why does this still need to be explained?!) that sexuality is fluid. She’s also a former member of the Combahee River Collective—one of the most important black, lesbian, feminist organizations of the 1970s and 80s.

Seriously, people. I read about the Combahee River Collective when I was a Gender & Sexuality Studies major at NYU. Hardly anyone outside the department had ever heard of it, mainly because feminist history is terribly whitewashed. Gloria Steinem gets the glory over Audre Lorde every time.

So, the fact that a former member is set to move into Gracie Mansion (unless the family opts to stay in Brooklyn, which would be super rad) is a huge deal. Like, absolutely huge.

With McCray by his side, Bill de Blasio’s mayoral victory is more than just a change of pace for New York City. It could be revolutionary.

So Tuesday’s election went pretty well, I’d say. Gov. Christie’s a pretty acceptable conservative, and Mayor de Blasio’s a super exciting liberal.

The tri-state area is going places, people.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Bill de Blasio via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Decision 2013: I’ll See Your Christie, and Raise You de Blasio appeared first on Law Street.