Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Robert “Woody” Johnson IV, the 70-year-old owner of the New York Jets, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Now, Johnson will move to London and serve a three-year term as the United States’ main representative in a country struggling to navigate the complex negotiations related to Brexit.

Johnson’s friendship with President Donald Trump goes back to their times as businessmen in New York City. Trump considers Johnson one of his oldest friends, according to the New York Times. Johnson is a registered Republican who helped fundraise in 2012 for Mitt Romney and again in 2016 for Trump, despite initially supporting Jeb Bush.

Many expect the Jets owner to be a mediator between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who Trump has repeatedly criticized, most notoriously after the June terrorist attack in London.

Trump had long wanted Johnson to serve as the ambassador to London, but he didn’t formally nominate him until June. Since then, the Senate has been holding hearings before his confirmation on Thursday. During one hearing last month, Florida Senator Marco Rubio brought some football into the conversation.

.@MiamiDolphins fan @marcorubio jokes to @nyjets owner Woody Johnson that Tom Brady should be made ambassador to Brazil #Patriots #WBZ pic.twitter.com/AMWQ2873hp

— Joe Giza (@JoeGiza) July 21, 2017

Before purchasing the football team in 2000 for $635 million, Johnson and his family were involved in a number of charities for lupus and juvenile diabetes, which his daughter Casey is affected by. While some NFL owners are self-made businessmen, Johnson is the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, a company worth $65 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Johnson himself is valued at $4.2 billion, according to Bloomberg, while the Jets’ estimated value is around $2.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Woody’s brother, Christopher Johnson, will take over operations of the Jets for the next few seasons. The confirmation of the Jets owner is another example of Trump’s penchant for placing businessmen with no political experience in positions of political power. Now it’s time for Johnson to move across the Atlantic Ocean and begin his work with the English government.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Jets Owner Woody Johnson Confirmed as Ambassador to UK appeared first on Law Street.

Need to fill out legal forms but can’t afford a human lawyer? Well, there’s an app for that. DoNotPay, a chatbot that has been dubbed “The World’s First Robot Lawyer,” provides free legal aid to users on issues ranging from appealing parking tickets to landlord disputes. Don’t expect the robot lawyer to represent you in court any time soon, but it can arm you with some of the tools and knowledge to deal with your legal case.

The artificial intelligence asks the user a series of questions about their legal issue. Then, after learning about the user’s personal situation, the AI can help fill out necessary legal forms or provide links to other resources. Joshua Browder, the founder and CEO of DoNotPay, launched the bot in 2015 to help people appeal their parking tickets. According to The Telegraph, DoNotPay has helped beat an estimated 375,000 parking tickets worth around $10 million since its launch. But the bot hasn’t stopped there.

DoNotPay started out in London and was programmed with New York City laws soon after. Since the bot first went live two years ago, it has expanded its reach to the rest of the United Kingdom and United States and will be able to assist people with 1,000 areas of law. A Facebook Messenger portion of the app can even help refugees complete immigration applications for the U.S. and Canada, and apply for asylum support in the U.K.

Browder, who was named on multiple Forbes 30 Under 30 lists for Europe for 2017, hopes DoNotPay will provide better access to legal resources for lower income individuals. The 20-year-old Stanford student told VentureBeat that DoNotPay started as a tool to fight his own parking tickets, but ended up revealing to him “how lawyers are exploiting human misery.”

“From discrimination in Silicon Valley to the tragedy in London with an apartment building catching fire, it seems the only people benefitting from injustice are a handful of lawyers,” Browder said. “I hope that DoNotPay, by helping with these issues and many more, will ultimately give everyone the same legal power as the richest in society.”

With tools like DoNotPay, people may not have to pay a hefty price for a lawyer to help them fill out legal paperwork. But for more complex cases, a human touch might still be the better way to go.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Chatbot Lawyer Makes Legal Aid More Accessible appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, three of the Central Park Five finally got to attend a high school graduation and receive honorary diplomas. The three men missed their original graduation, as they were in prison for the 1989 rape of a woman jogging in New York’s Central Park–a crime they did not commit.

Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, and Raymond Santana Jr. joined 60 teenagers graduating from Bronx Preparatory High School on Monday, surrounded by family members. Marielle Colucci, a teacher at Bronx Prep, had used a 2012 documentary about their wrongful conviction when teaching students about the justice system. Earlier this year, Colucci’s students asked if they could meet the men, and Richardson came to speak to the class.

Later, the school invited the men to the graduation ceremony. Even though they had received diplomas while in prison, they never attended a ceremony. Colucci said that it’s important to inform students about what happened to these men, as all of her students are members of minority groups and could face the same discrimination.

Now in their 40s, three of the Central Park Five graduate from high school, receive honorary degrees. https://t.co/NAHFYTxfjl pic.twitter.com/EXU1H8AQfX

— Okayplayer (@okayplayer) June 27, 2017

In April 1989, a young woman was brutally beaten and raped in Central Park while on a run. Trisha Meili, the victim, barely survived. Police claimed that it was the deed of a group of schoolboys, and that at least four had taken part in the attack. Ultimately, the number of convicted assailants rose to five: Salaam, Richardson, Santana Jr., Kharey Wise, and Antron McCray. All are black or Hispanic. They became known as the “Central Park Five.”

The five were not allowed to see their parents before being questioned, and were interrogated for hours; none of their DNA matched what was found on the victim’s body, yet they all were found guilty. Eleven years later, Wise, who was 16 at the time of the rape, ran into a man in prison who confessed that he was the one who committed the crime. After confessing, police found that his DNA matched the DNA that was found on Meili.

But back in 1989, many thought the five men were guilty, and even Donald Trump played a part in vilifying them. Trump, who at the time was a real estate developer in New York, took out a full-page ad in the Daily News.

“How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!” it said, complete with Trump’s now-famous capitalization.

As Trump complains about a “witch hunt,” remember his calls to execute the Central Park Five and refusal to accept that DNA exonerated them.

— Deborah Roseman (@roseperson) June 16, 2017

He also wrote that the death penalty should be brought back. The boys were between ages 14 and 16 at the time. As recently as last year, Trump still maintained that they were guilty. In an interview before the election, Richardson drew parallels to Trump’s campaign claim that Hispanic illegal immigrants are drug traffickers and rapists.

“Just like those ads, that speech was a call for extreme action based on a whole set of completely false claims. It seems that this man is for some strange reason obsessed with sex and rape and black and Latino men,” Richardson said.

One of the five, who changed his name, pointed out how Trump has a tendency to disregard facts and science and instead go with his own opinions. “Donald Trump told the world that my life had no value, no quality,” he said. “And he’s still saying pretty much the same thing today.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three of the Central Park Five Men Receive Belated Honorary Diplomas appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance last year, but somehow managed to jump out of it, is now suing New York City, the Fire Department, and the four medical workers in the vehicle. He claims it’s their fault that he injured himself in the fall, as they failed to stop him from jumping out of the ambulance.

This seems like a lawsuit that the plaintiff–Yaugeni Kralkin from Staten Island–could not possibly win. But the snag is that he was very drunk–by the time a second ambulance picked up the then-unconscious man and took him to the hospital, his blood-alcohol level was .34. So it was likely higher when he was in the first ambulance.

For the record, you are not allowed to drive in New York when your blood alcohol concentration is .08 or above. A level of .16 can cause severe impairment to speech, judgment, and memory and cause unconsciousness. A blood alcohol level between .31 and .45 is life threatening.

So considering the amount of alcohol Kralkin, who is 56, had in his blood, it is safe to believe he didn’t make very thought-out decisions that night. Kralkin said he had just returned from a long-haul drive to California–he drives a truck–and was looking forward to seeing his wife and son. But he got into a fight with the son, and hit the bottle.

“Your honor, had the city not supplied the ambulance, I could not have jumped out of it.” https://t.co/9N3JdZoKsQ

— Andrew Harris (@amharris26) June 20, 2017

He said he bought a bottle of cognac and ended up outside a house in the neighborhood, but he doesn’t remember what happened after the ambulance showed up. He did however suffer bruises and cuts after tumbling out of the ambulance. His lawyer Borislav Chernyy said:

He certainly did get himself out of the ambulance, but our position is that he was so grossly unsober, he had so much alcohol in his system, that the condition he was in rendered him the equivalent of helpless, absolutely helpless to make informed decisions about his own safety.

The lawsuit states that the four medical workers “permitted” Kralkin to jump out of the moving emergency vehicle, and that after he jumped, they “failed to properly diagnose, treat, care and transport Plaintiff.” It allegedly took another 12 minutes before he was transported to the hospital, this time without exiting his vehicle, as he lost consciousness in the fall.

Kralkin’s lawyer argues that the medical workers were at fault for not stopping Kralkin. He is seeking damages as well as compensation for his medical bills. But the spokesperson for the medical worker’s union, the Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics and Fire Inspectors F.D.N.Y. Local 2507, says there is no way they could be held accountable.

“What is this E.M.T. supposed to do to stop somebody who loses control of themselves and does something crazy like that?” Robert Ungar, the union spokesman, said. He added that EMT workers don’t have the legal authority to hold someone against their will, and they are not armed. A stretcher in an ambulance is not that hard to break out of, and if someone tries to do something out of the ordinary, the EMTs are under no obligation to get into an altercation. We’ll have to see if Kralkin’s lawsuit ends up being successful.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Who Drunkenly Jumped Out of Ambulance Sues New York City appeared first on Law Street.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio likes to repeat the claim that New York City is the “safest big city” in the United States. It’s a superlative that he frequently touts, but when you take a closer look at the underlying evidence behind this assertion, he may be overstating his case. While New York is the safest among America’s very large cities, that only holds true if you look at a particularly small group of highly populated metropolises.

This particular claim is one that Mayor de Blasio repeated last week in a statement responding to the appeals court ruling on President Trump’s executive order on immigration. Here’s the full statement:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just said, ‘No you can’t,’ to the Trump Administration and its un-American travel and refugee bans. Here in New York – the safest big city in America – we will always protect our neighbors, no matter where they came from or when they got here. Those are our values.

And here’s a tweet from last June repeating the same claim:

NYC: Still the safest big city in America. pic.twitter.com/GTktjlcCqL

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 3, 2016

To be fair to de Blasio, there is some subjectivity when it comes to interpreting what he’s saying. Namely, there is no clear, universally accepted definition of what counts as a large city. And assuming he’s talking about population, there is no agreed upon size that makes a city large or small. At Law Street, we set a threshold of at least 200,000 residents to define large cities, but given that de Blasio is mayor of a city with about 8.5 million people, he might only be thinking of a smaller group of very large cities.

So what does the data tell us? When thinking about safety, we typically look to the FBI’s annual crime statistics, which detail the number of violent crimes known to law enforcement in various cities, states, counties, etc. This data, part of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is particularly useful because it provides the same data for nearly every city in the country. To compare between multiple cities, we take the total number of violent crimes–a category that includes murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault–and adjust it by population to calculate a violent crime rate per 100,000 people. In 2015, the most recent full year with FBI data, New York City had a crime rate of 586 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

In order to test Mayor de Blasio’s claim, we need to look at New York in the context of other large cities. If we use the 200,000 population threshold, New York does not have the lowest violent crime rate. Only when you raise the threshold significantly–looking only at cities with populations larger 1.5 million people–does New York have the lowest crime rate.

Using the table below, you can switch between different population thresholds to see how New York’s crime rate stacks up against other cities. Each city’s murder rate per 100,000 people is also included for comparison.

As you can see, using such a narrow definition for what qualifies as a large city means including New York and just five other American cities–Phoenix, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. In the most narrow sense, the Mayor’s claim is accurate when you limit the scope of comparable cities, but you may also want to compare New York to other cities that may not be quite as big. Ultimately, evaluating this claim comes down to how big a city should be in order for it to be compared to the largest one in the country.

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 Is Bill de Blasio’s Claim that New York is the “Safest Big City” Overstated? appeared first on Law Street.

I’m a little late for the gathering of the parade, but can still smell it from at least two blocks away. The cloudy New York sky matches the fumes from the joints as the 17th annual NYC Cannabis Parade marches south on Broadway toward Union Square. An enormous hot air balloon in the shape of a lit joint is carried along to the chanting of classic rock songs, with the lyrics replaced by one word–‘marijuana’.

The group in the parade was as diverse as New York itself–people of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds, people wearing all green, people in one-pieces with weed patterns, and one group wearing t-shirts saying “Law enforcement for legalization.”

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

“I’m in the long-term care field, and I see way too many people in jail for just using,” said Jeanette McDonald, one of the t-shirt wearers. She’s not a user herself, but is all for the medical use of marijuana for pain management. “To arrest them doesn’t make any sense, go after the terrorists instead.”

The medical use of weed to ease pain seemed to be the most important aspect for many people at the event. Beata Kosmik, dressed in a green creation with a crown of tulle on her head, is in a band that performs to raise awareness about the medical benefits of marijuana. She’s an eco educator–campaigning for a natural, green way of life. Her granddaughter has Dravet syndrome, a kind of infant epilepsy that can be alleviated by a drug containing cannabis but is still in the research stage here in the U.S., so she lives in London.

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

Steven, who wore American Flag overalls and carried a Pride flag, told me he wants decriminalization of all drugs. “It’s corrupt–all these people that are incarcerated for using, it breaks up families, people go to jail for this. Weed doesn’t kill.” Steven also pointed out that so many Afro-American youths get locked up for something that now is considered cool by young white hipsters.

Marijuana was legalized for medical use in New York almost a year ago, and the law came into effect in January. But among the states that allow some kind of marijuana use, it’s one of the most restrictive, and it’s really hard for patients to gain access to legal pot. Classic smoking is actually still forbidden. But if the participants of the Cannabis Parade get their way, that will soon be changed.

To sum up the situation, Steven said: “America has bad fucking karma. The roller coaster is going downhill, and now it’s time to deal with it.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fight for Total Legalization Continues at the NYC Cannabis Parade appeared first on Law Street.

New York City’s Human Rights Commission released new advisories this week that make it clear it’s illegal to refuse to serve a pregnant woman in a bar or any other establishment that serves alcohol. While bars have to display signs emphasizing that drinking alcohol while pregnant could harm a fetus, according to city law it is up to the woman to make the choice whether or not to drink herself. While the overall guidelines released by the city mostly deal with workplace discrimination against pregnant women, they also do make it clear that restaurant owners, bartenders, bouncers, and other employees cannot refuse service to a pregnant woman in a bar.

According to the guidelines:

Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions in public venues.

The Human Rights Commission is looking into a case in which a pregnant woman claims she was discriminated against and not allowed to enter a bar or club–although the specific details of the case are unclear given that it’s still open for investigation.

This announcement also come after some controversy a few years ago about a prank pop up bar that advertised itself as catering to pregnant women. According to the Independent:

They even erected signage above the space in the East Village of Manhattan announcing the venue as Gestations.  While it attracted widespread local press coverage, the spot never actually opened.

The faux bar was brazen in its promotional language, declaring:  ‘All you mothers-to-be should come check out our trimester specials and our 9-month happy hour because now you’re drinking for two!”’ A similar tone was adopted on its Facebook page. ‘The bigger the belly, the more you can drink. True for men and pregnant women #gestationsny,’ it declared.

While the fact that laws to protect pregnant women include allowing them into bars seems somewhat counterintuitive, the overall guidelines are good news in the fight against discrimination.

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 Bars Not Allowed to Turn Away Pregnant Women appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about the qualities the United States needs in its next president. Should he or she be a forceful figure who will lead our country in defeating ISIS? Does it matter if the president is fashionable? A financially savvy leader who can pull us out of debt? How old should the president be? With all these different factors to consider, it’s no wonder Americans are confused about who to vote for.

Have no fear, because one undeniable quality stands alone as the most important: how well does a candidate understand the informal rules and faux pas of New York City? And this week, we found out. In a trip to New York to sway voters before the state’s primary, the candidates were tested on city smarts: whether that be their tunnel talent, as they traveled under the city to get from place to place; their pizza wisdom, as they sat down for a big ol’ slice of pie; or their general understanding of how to be human in a city, in the case of Ted Cruz. Needless to say, some candidates quickly came out on top.

#1… John Kasich

While Kasich may be last in the polls, at least he was first in our hearts when he visited this local deli in the Bronx. With his “can do” attitude–which propelled him to eat two helpings of spaghetti, a personalized sandwich, and more–and a winning smile for the crowd, Kasich was easily the most charming visitor in New York.

A crazy and memorable scene in the Bronx this afternoon as Kasich stopped to chow down on some food at Mike’s Deli pic.twitter.com/FA2F8rQNEB

— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) April 7, 2016

Unfortunately for Kasich, he doesn’t have a perfect NYC record after a pizza disaster a few weeks ago, in which he was seen eating a slice with a fork and a knife. Come on John, talk about detrimental gaffes!

John Kasich just ate his pizza with a fork and knife pic.twitter.com/KQ0UXCoJjN

— GIF The News (@NowThisGIF) March 30, 2016

Luckily for him, the likable dining-sesh at Mike’s Deli helped New Yorkers forgive and forget when it came to the recent pizz-astrophe, just not quite enough to actually put him ahead of Trump in any of the real polls.

#2… Donald Trump

As one of three candidates with actual ties to New York, Trump was a standout this past week. After repeatedly being attacked by Ted Cruz for his “New York values,” Trump took the opportunity to show exactly what he thinks New York values are. He and his wife, Melania Trump, toured the 9/11 Memorial Museum, also dropping a whopping $100,000 donation to the museum. With his name already all over a lot of the city, thanks to the Trump Tower, this donation just helped Trump secure what was already a pretty striking lead in his home state.

#3… Bernie Sanders

Sanders, another New York native, had a bit more of a rough go this week after he failed to answer some questions about the city correctly. When the Senator was asked to comment on the cheapest way to ride the subway, he jokingly cited jumping over the turnstile as the best way to save a quick buck–how cute! Unfortunately, when pressed a little further on the issue, Sanders showed just how lacking in city smarts he has become since moving to Vermont and working in D.C.:

What do you mean, ‘How do you ride the subway these days? You get a token and you get on.

For those of you who, like Sanders, may not have been on the subway in quite a while, the joke here is that subway tokens haven’t been used in New York in over a decade. Oops! Looks like your age is showing just a tad, Bernie. But, all in all, a valiant effort.

#4… Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s trip to New York may have been the most memorable and newsworthy visit, as it spurred tons of articles, parody videos, and internet memes making fun of her clear inability to use public transportation. For that reason alone, Clinton ranks near the very bottom of the list.

So, what actually happened? When entering any form of a subway system, the most annoying thing that can happen is someone holding up the turnstiles. And that’s exactly what Clinton did. It took not one, not two, but five swipes of her MetroCard to get through the turnstile. Talk about a serious city faux pas!

The good news about this gaffe? Her campaign has turned it into a quite hilarious 404 page on her website. Whenever you click a link or page that no longer exists on Clinton’s website, you are redirected to a gif of her swiping her MetroCard with a message that reads, “trying to get where you want to go? This page isn’t it.” While the campaign may be making light of a potentially negative situation, there’s only so much joking around you can do about a candidate’s ability to handle New York.

Clinton clearly wasn’t ready for the underground travel; how can we be sure she can handle the sad D.C. Metro or the country?

#5… Ted Cruz

Last on the list is Ted Cruz. Not only does this man not know how to act in the city, he straight up insulted NYC in a past debate with Donald Trump. After using “New York values” to insult Trump, Cruz was not welcomed with open arms when he traveled to the Bronx last week. A school in the Bronx canceled a visit from Cruz after the students threatened to stage a walk out because they didn’t agree with his views. Cruz was also heckled out of a restaurant where he was eating by angry protestors who believe that his anti-immigration platform is the opposite of everything people in the Bronx stand for. The Daily News featured nasty slogans, slamming Cruz for his anti-NY sentiment on multiple newspaper covers.

@Nannygal2 @amperg33 @wakeuppeopleSOS @tedcruz DROP DEAD TED! Now polling in NY at 16%!! NY HATES LYING TED!! pic.twitter.com/TuUAHS86jr

— Dawn Murray (@dawnellemurray) April 7, 2016

While there are obviously other factors to take into account when voting for president, these New York successes and failures could be pretty influential in swaying voters one way or another. What the candidates have hopefully learned from their New York trips is that it’s important to respect the places they campaign in and appreciate the diverse groups of people they will represent if elected president. After all, city and travel etiquette can say a lot about a person.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Who Did it Best? The Candidates Take on the Big Apple appeared first on Law Street.

Do you live in Manhattan? Do you enjoy littering, drinking on the street, or peeing in public, or even doing all three things at the same time? Well if so, I have some very good news for you: the NYPD will no longer arrest you for such minor infractions. But this isn’t just good news for you drunken, littering, peeing partygoers out there–it’s a sign that the NYPD is starting to move away from the theory of “broken windows policing” that has for so long characterized the city’s policies.

“Broken windows policing” is at its essence, a simple theory. Criminologist George Kelling and social scientist James Wilson first posited the idea in the 1980s, and it essentially suggests that if one window in a building is broken and no one does anything about it, the other windows will soon be broken. So in policing, if there are little crimes, like public drinking and urination and those aren’t handled, bigger crimes will flourish.

But in practice, broken windows policing has led to a lot of arrests for these low-level crimes, particularly for minorities. Small crimes like public drinking end up racking up arrest records particularly for minority men, making it more difficult for them to find jobs. They can also have tragic consequences–Eric Garner was arrested for seemingly minor crime of selling cigarettes, and was killed in the process.

These arrests also carry a high price tag for the city, and backlog the already-crowded criminal justice system. It’s estimated that this change in policy will remove 10,000 cases from the court dockets each year.

This change in policy doesn’t mean that drinking or urinating in public are suddenly legal. But instead of arresting people who are caught violating the law, the NYPD in Manhattan will give the offender a summons, he will show up to court and appear before a judge, and then a judge can decide whether or not to give him a penalty like a fine.

This obviously doesn’t solve all of the problems with policing in New York City. The way in which even this new policy–handing out summons instead of arrests–is applied could still be prone to racial bias. Additionally, these new policies also only apply to Manhattan. As Police Reform Organizing Project Director Robert Gangi points out, there’s still a lot more work to be done:

If in Manhattan that practice stops, that is a good thing, and that is a positive step toward curtailing one of the current abusive NYPD practices. Now, highly problematic is that apparently this change—relatively modest change—will only take place in Manhattan…this will result in a significant discrepancy in practice, where if you’re caught for a second time being in the park after dark in Brooklyn, the police can arrest you.

The new policy will take take affect on March 7, and is hopefully a sign of an overall move away from broken windows policing to come.

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 Manhattan Will Stop Arresting Outdoor Drinkers and Public Urinators appeared first on Law Street.

The investigation into the horrible working conditions of New York City nail salon workers seems to have finally followed through in awarding back wages to underpaid employees. In a follow up written by the New York Times, the paper reported that salon workers have been awarded $1.1 million in back wages and several hundred thousand dollars in damages.

The settlement follows a scathing investigation written last year by the Times titled “The Price of Nice Nails,” which was credited with exposing the harsh working conditions of these drastically underpaid and exploited workers. The report found that many of these workers, who are primarily immigrants, were forced to work endless hours, and in some cases were even forced to pay their bosses for the work they performed in exchange for “apprenticeship.”

The Labor Department cited more than 40 percent of the salons the piece investigated, and some of the working conditions it documented were shocking. The New York Times writes,

One worker at a Manhattan salon was paid $30 a day for 10-hour shifts; another manicurist in Queens was paid only $200 for a 50-hour workweek; manicurists at seven salons were forced to work for no pay or had to pay salon owners a fee, ostensibly to learn the trade; several owners admitted to submitting fake payroll records in an effort to fool investigators.

Even though efforts are finally being made to remedy the situation, the challenges associated with the largely immigrant-run industry make proper regulation extremely difficult. As the Times pointed out, often times employees are paid off the books and lack competent knowledge of state labor laws. In fact, the Times found that 85 percent of the salons failed to maintain adequate payroll records.

These weren’t the only offenses discovered at these nail salons. The Times writes,

More than 10 percent of the salons illegally charged manicurists for supplies like gloves and nail clippers. One salon docked $50 from each worker’s wages every three months for items like gloves and nail polish.

The threat of retaliation from employers has prevented many of these manicurists from being completely honest with investigators on their working conditions. Even though damages and back wages are beginning to be awarded to these salon workers, the industry as a whole has a long way to go before it can move on from the intense scrutiny. I think it’s safe to say we can expect more fines to come as these investigations move forward.

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 Nail Salons Ordered to Pay $1.1 Million in Back Wages to Workers appeared first on Law Street.

The future is now–there’s a robot lawyer that can get you out of parking tickets in the United Kingdom…sort of. Joshua Browder, 19, who is certainly way more impressive than I was at the same age, made a “robot lawyer” that helps people appeal parking tickets. Since the site, donotpay.co.uk launched late in 2015, it has appealed more than $3 million in parking tickets, and it may soon make its way across the pond to the United States.

Browder is now a freshman at Stanford University, and he launched donotpay.co.uk (aka the robot lawyer) last year. It’s still in beta mode right now, but the full version will go live this spring.

The concept is pretty simple–if you need to appeal a parking ticket you go to the site and it takes you step-by-step through the process. According to Business Insider:

Once you sign in, a chat screen pops up. To learn about your case, the bot asks questions like ‘Were you the one driving?’ and ‘Was it hard to understand the parking signs?’ It then spits out an appeal letter, which you mail to the court. If the robot is completely confused, it tells you how to contact Browder directly.

The robot lawyer is also being taught how to help people navigate certain insurance claims and deal with delayed or cancelled flights.

So, the robot lawyer isn’t a lawyer exactly, but rather a tool that can automize tasks that were traditionally done by a lawyer–and often done expensively. Of course, the robot lawyer cannot dispense subjective legal advice, because that is something that only humans can legally do.

Robot lawyer is, however, learning:

Browder programmed his robot based on a conversation algorithm. It uses keywords, pronouns, and word order to understand the user’s issue. He says that the more people use the robot, the more intelligent it becomes. Its algorithm can quickly analyze large amounts of data while improving itself in the process.

Browder has big plans for this kind of tech–he’s starting to program in New York City laws, and he’s working on a version that will help Syrian refugees apply for asylum. Browder’s tech, whether or not you want to call it a “robot lawyer,” is pretty cool, and it’s certainly a cost and time-saving measure. I don’t think we’ll see robots arguing in a courtroom anytime soon, but we may all have an easier time when we get into a scuffle with a broken parking meter.

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 Get a Parking Ticket? A New “Robot Lawyer” May Soon Be Able to Help appeared first on Law Street.

Season four of “The Mindy Project” featured Mindy Lahiri battling her traditional fiancé (Danny Castellano) to continue working as an OBGYN rather than becoming a stay at home mother. In the United States, stay at home mothers are still far more common than stay at home fathers–so the couples’ fight, although fictional, reflected our national gender expectations.

In the second-to-last episode Mindy finally says the things to Danny that had probably come to the wealthy, New York doctor’s mind the minute she had first heard of his desire for her to give up her career and her new fertility clinic.

Here is an excerpt from the climactic argument:

Danny: Oh, yeah, right, right, your career.  You’re too busy getting half of Manhattan knocked up, and Leo, he’s just out there by himself alone, playing pat-a-cake against a wall while his Mom’s working?…
Mindy: Every time that you disagree with something that I do, it’s a referendum on my character. If I want to go to work, it means I’m a bad mother. If I want to have a second glass of wine, it means I’m out of control.…In your eyes every single thing I do is more evidence that I’m a bad person.
Danny: You’re not a bad person. You want me to help you make good decisions, don’t you?
Mindy: Yeah, I thought I made good decisions, and now you’re just making all the decisions for me.
Danny: So what, if it’s the right decision?…You are an amazing mom…Why not do it again?
Mindy: I’m also a good doctor. I don’t want to have to give up any more to have more kids.
Danny: That’s selfish.

And don’t worry, the fight does not end there. Mindy makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that her desire to keep her career, which she has invested at least 11 years of her life just to be trained in, does not make her selfish. At last she stands up for herself. After Danny’s season-long agonizingly belittling utterances, to the mother of his child, Mindy’s rational, valid points are more than welcome. She even throws in some impressive diction (i.e. “referendum”). But the one thing Mindy doesn’t say to her partner is: Why don’t you be the stay at home parent?

The season finale takes viewers back to Mindy and Danny’s introduction. Mindy is able to perform a difficult delivery that Danny had scheduled as a C-section. The plot suggests Mindy is the better doctor because she performed a difficult maneuver so the patient could have her preferred natural birth plan, instead of Danny’s preferred C-section plan. So, from a logistical stand point, why should the better doctor stop working just because she is a mother?

Working moms are nothing new to American television or American reality. In 2012, 29 percent of mothers, with underage children, stayed at home and did not work. Meaning that, in the United States, working mothers are the norm. But despite the power of those numbers, 51 percent of participants in a 2013 Pew Research Center survey said children were better off if they had mothers who stayed at home rather than worked, while only 8 percent said the same about fathers.

So, in 2015, is it too radical to suggest, on television or in reality, that the man occupy the domestic sphere? Too radical for even Mindy to utter? Apparently so.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What’s Wrong With a Mr. Mom? “The Mindy Project” Explores the Working Mom’s Conundrum 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.

A scathing piece was released by the New York Times last week on the state of nail salon workers in the greater New York city area. Entitled “The Price of Nice Nails,” and written by Sarah Maslin Nir, the article described how many men and women who work in nail salons in New York are brought there illegally, abused, payed significantly less than minimum wage, and exploited. Now, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has decided to take action.

Yesterday, Cuomo announced emergency measures to combat these systemic issues. These measures include a task force composed of multiple agencies. The task force will make sure that all nail salons are complying with the state’s laws. One particular focus will be on the safety precautions taken at the salons, as prolonged exposure to some of the chemicals and materials used can be dangerous. There will also be an education campaign launched, to ensure that workers know their rights. Given the multi-cultural mix of the workers in the salons, the education campaign will be conducted in six different languages.

One of the most prevalent concerns raised throughout the article were the incredibly meager wages the workers in nail salons were receiving. Often, workers weren’t even paid for the first few weeks or months of their employment. Many also had to pay the salon for which they worked when they first started–the salons called these payments “training fees.” Even when the workers had been there for a while, many were paid $30-$40 for a day of work, well below New York state’s minimum wage of $8.75 per hour. Moreover, not paying someone for their work, or requiring them to pay to work is patently illegal. One of the workers profiled in the article, Nora Cacho, provides a good example of the ridiculously low wages provided to nail salon workers. The piece states:

She frequently earned about $200 for each 66-hour workweek — about $3 an hour. In sandal season, if she was lucky, she left the shop with slightly more — $300 each week, she said. On snowy days, Ms. Cacho, who is part of a class-action lawsuit against the chain, would return home with nothing.

Part of the emergency response also includes requiring that nail salons pay workers those back wages that they never received. The order states that the salons can get a bond, or expand their insurance coverage to cover what will probably be pretty hefty amounts to pay out for many of the nail businesses.

Overall, this is certainly a step in the right direction, although the New York Times investigation raises serious questions about how such blatant and widespread labor law violations could have been happening without any sort of attention from the government. But, while Cuomo may be conducting damage control, this will aid those abused workers. That can only be considered a good thing.

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 Governor Andrew Cuomo is Finally Protecting These Abused Workers appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour 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.

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or styrofoam, is one of mankind’s worst inventions. While it’s buoyant properties are desirable for flotation devices and its insulating properties are handy in construction projects, it is non-biodegradable. Thus it sits in landfills forever, never decomposing into the soil. Furthermore, the Department of Sanitation recently determined that it is not recyclable, which played a substantial part in deciding to ban the product. Finally, since most people’s exposure to styrofoam comes in the form of food or beverage containers, it is worth noting that some studies by the EPA suggest a possible mild carcinogenicity.

Courtesy of Jon Hayes via Flickr.

The New York City ban goes into effect on July 1, 2015; however, there will be a six-month grace period before the city begins enforcement so that vendors can seek alternatives. Furthermore, nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual income may qualify for an exemption. Finally, while packing peanuts will no longer be sold within the city, packages containing them can still be shipped in. Nonetheless, this determination represents a great step forward in eradicating the material.

Those who support styrofoam do so because it is cheap to acquire and convenient to use; however, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, the city’s Department of Education plans to serve children their food on compostable plates instead. Starbucks and some other coffee companies hand out their products in paper cups with a cardboard ring around them; these are recyclable products that also do a sufficient job of keeping the customer’s hands from being burned. This is a poignant example, because styrofoam is a part of the fashion employed by Dunkin Donuts. In New York, they will have to find a slightly new appearance to compliment the regulations. Customers might worry that their coffee will not stay as hot for as long or will be inconvenienced in other ways.

Courtesy of Erik Sagen via Flickr.

Smaller businesses and vendors are most concerned about the ban because they will likely have to buy more expensive containers. Assuming they can find effective replacements for styrofoam, they will probably have to charge more for what is famously cheap food in order to make up their losses. Up until now it has cost $86 per ton to landfill foam, and $160 to reuse it in some form. These expenses come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Therefore consumers should be okay with paying a slightly higher price for environmentally friendly containers, because it would likely be to their financial benefit in the long run.

Just as with attempting to live off of alternative energy sources, making the transition to environmentally sustainable items and lifestyles is a difficult one. There are likely to be some monetary losses at the outset, but in the long run these things tend to prove to be more financially viable. Environmental sustainability often goes hand in hand with economic sustainability. We should not be afraid to venture outside of our comfort zones and established ways of life in quest of something new and better. Styrofoam is something we take for granted; our morning cup of coffee seems an insignificant thing, but it ends up having a massive impact as it is on a scale of hundreds of millions and of a daily occurrence.

Courtesy of Jonno Witts via Flickr.

These measures will not simply open up space in landfills; an unfortunately large amount of garbage ends up in the water. Especially considering New York City’s geographic orientation, many feel that the styrofoam ban will benefit the local aquatic biodiversity as well as the urban water supply itself. Styrofoam will not yet disappear altogether, but this is a substantial step in the right direction.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers: NYC Bans Styrofoam appeared first on Law Street.

In most cultures and throughout history, under the ground has been a place to which few have been interested to venture. It is a place of darkness and isolation, with morbid undertones. Underground is thought of as a place of burial; having crypts and tombs, it is thought of as a place of death. But New York City’s proposed Lowline could change all that, bringing life and light to the deep places of the Earth.

Set to open in 2018, the Lowline is a planned underground park set to be built at an abandoned trolley station on Delancey Street on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The space, built in 1908, was abandoned 40 years later when trolley services ended in the city; however, there is still some aesthetic appeal with regard to high ceilings and cobblestones. It is located right next to the JMZ subway station, so travelers passing through can stop by. It will have trees, grass, benches, and natural sunlight. This last point is the great appeal; a system of mirrors and refractors will channel sunlight through an irrigation system–specialized pipes–to distribution panels underground. This will allow for real plants to grow under real conditions.

Courtesy of mike via Flickr.

Abandoned urban spaces are eyesores and breeding grounds for dangerous social and health conditions. This program will transform this particular space into something productive and for the public’s benefit. It will provide green space for an otherwise highly built up and concrete sector of the city. Of course, green space and benches will not be enough to draw sufficient crowds regularly enough to maintain the financial viability of the park. Especially considering that the main draw is the natural sunlight, on a cloudy or rainy day when people would not be interested in spending time in an outdoor park, the Lowline might be gloomy and unappealing as well. Therefore engineers intend to include retail space, youth activities, and culturally motivated programs. In this sense, the Lowline is not just a park but a center of activity and events.

Underground cities are not new conceptions. One of the most notable manifestations is in science fiction master Isaac Asimov’s planet-wide city of Trantor in the Foundation Trilogy. In these novels, the massive city is mostly constructed of domes and underground systems; residents do not have much access to open air. People often suffer severe emotional and mental strains as a result, feeling claustrophobic, depressed, and paranoid. Further, the layout is in some ways a tool of control by a tyrannical political regime. At any rate, the philosophical lessons of these books are poignant warnings with regard to planned cities and livelihoods of citizens. If the Lowline is successful it could set a precedent for people spending more time and possibly even living underground like rodents. Human beings are physiologically surface dwellers; it could be a sociological step down to emphasize the underground in this way.

Courtesy of Kris Arnold via Flickr.

Yet this might be taking it too far, and we should focus on all the practical benefits that can be derived from this system of thought and technology. As designer James Ramsey points out, the solar technology can be adapted to places such as hospitals, schools, basements, and office interiors as well. This could enable for much improved mental conditions as well as aesthetic appearances of otherwise bland built environments. Sunlight and green plants have been linked to increased mental health and productivity. Furthermore, if real trees will be able to grow underground due to the real sunlight, imagine the implications for the agricultural industry. Perhaps large swaths of plants can be grown underground in regions whose environments are otherwise unsuitable. This would allow for more effective production and distribution of food, overcoming restrictions of climate, insects, and the like.

In an era of limited access to space and aesthetics, concerns over energy and food, and questions about public welfare, the Lowline represents creative thinking and technological innovation with wide implications and exciting opportunities.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Underground Cities, Brought to You by New York’s Lowline appeared first on Law Street.

“UUGGHH.” That’s how Minneapolis-based street artist Eric Rieger, aka Hottea, responded to the latest indication of gentrification in New York. One-ninety Bowery has stood the test of time. The imposing six-story limestone Renaissance Revival relic has long been a cultural landmark. Built in 1899, then Germania Bank of New York City serviced its surrounding community, “Little Germany” (Kleindeutschland), once the largest German-American–then-bourgeois–enclave in the country.

In 1966, long after the bank dissolved, photographer Jay Maisel bought the abandoned edifice and converted its facilities into the largest single-family home in New York City. That was until Fall 2014, when Maisel reluctantly sold his spacious dwelling to one of the most voracious real-estate developers swallowing up NYC properties today. RFR Holdings LLC bought the property for an undisclosed price in September, valued between $35 and 70 million, with plans to flip the building, marketing it as ideal for retailing at the base with condominiums above, and offices, or even an art gallery. 

190 Bowery, courtesy of erin williamson via Flickr.

Courtesy of erin williamson via Flickr.

Should we be surprised? With the New Museum a block away, a Whole Foods Market nearby, scores of luxury apartments, boutiques, and art galleries immediately South, it was only a matter of time before 190 Bowery succumbed to SoHo, the epicenter of loft living. RFR will be responsible for the “renovation” of the building’s cultural memory, of course; developers have already issued a rendering of the facade scrubbed clean of the layers of graffiti, on which artists including Keith Haring, COST, NEKST, Shepard Fairey, and others have made their marks for the last three decades. One-ninety Bowery is “the last remaining part of ‘old New York’,” lamented Hottea. “This building is so iconic… it’s been there for years. I think it reminds a lot of people of what New York used to be, and how that’s being taken away… UUGGHH. That’s all I can say. When is it going to stop?” But such is the normal arch of the gentrification narrative, 5 Pointz being a glaring example. We should, however, be concerned with the manner in which this process is taking place.

RFR Holdings LLC was founded in 1991 by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, German-born real-estate tycoons who together own 71 properties globally. Over the last year, Rosen and Fuchs have spent $250 million on Manhattan land purchases, $500 million on office building acquisitions, and nearly $150 million on retail property–a spending spree to rival that of Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert who now owns most the real estate in downtown Detroit. Aside from the starkly different cities in which their properties are located, Gilbert’s Rock Ventures is an American-based firm, while RFR Holdings LLC has headquarters in New York and Frankfurt. “We can buy something more expensive because we have our own capital, plus European capital that looks for longer returns,” Rosen explained in a recent New York Times interview. “We don’t have to get in and out quickly, and having this long view allows us to be more aggressive.”

Aby Rosen, courtesy of Christopher Peterson via Wikimedia.

RFR’s acquisitions represent a broad trend of foreign investment in American real estate since the late 1980s. In lieu of escrow accounts in Swiss banks and securities in the Caribbean, which have come under intense international scrutiny, foreign investors have poured their money into global real estate, which can serve as a “convenient pied-à-terre, an investment hedge against a wobbly home currency,” according to New York Magazine, “or an insurance policy—a literal refuge if things go bad.” After the U.S. housing crisis from 2007 to 2010, property values in American cities plummeted, and while the U.S. economy has been recovering, they are still relatively “low” compared to cities around the world.

The market rate for luxury apartments in Hong Kong, for instance, is between $4,100 and $5,000 per square foot; in London the same properties are valued at $3,300 to $4,100. By comparison, Manhattan properties cost half that, ranging from about $2,100 to $2,500; alas–well out of reach for even upper middle-class inhabitants, yet quite attractive for transnational ultra-rich investors. Since 2008, roughly 30 percent of condo sales in Manhattan have been to overseas addresses, or through ambiguous entities like limited-liability corporations, such as RFR Holdings LLC, which often serve as middlemen for foreign investors. Over the last decade the majority of New York property sales have gone to investors in Russia or Saudi Arabia; over the last year, however, China has spent $22 billion on New York properties–72 percent more than they spent in 2013–claiming the lion’s share of foreign investment in American real estate. “The global elite,” according to Michael Stern, owner of JDS Development Group, “is basically looking for a safe-deposit box.”

Such gentrification on the global scale should not surprise us–it is a historical trend, and the redevelopment of 190 Bowery was inevitable. But there are dangers to this phenomenon, which reach further than the displacement of middle and working class communities, and erasure of their identity and culture. There is virtually no local market for premium properties in New York City. Urban properties as investments cease to be homes. Foreign investors lack vested interest in maintaining these properties primarily because they do not live there; the American city has effectively become a place of visitors, void of close community ties and stewardship. This hollow space is lifeless. Urban properties as investments are mostly uninhabited by their affluent proprietors; they either serve as vacation homes, or remain empty retainers of wealth. Meanwhile, middle-class homes let rooms to AirBnB, and subdivide apartments as room-shares marketed at exorbitant rates on Craigslist. We are experiencing the emergence of an absentee rentier class that not only augments our urban housing crisis; this urban real-estate bubble may threaten the systemic integrity of our economy.

What needs to change? Buyers of new construction in the city often qualify for significant tax abatements–a vestige of the neoliberal initiatives of the late 1970s and early 1980s designed to increase private investment and reverse the effects of urban crisis. Moreover, entities like RFR, based in Europe with an increasing presence in New York, have capitalized on liberal transnational financial regulations. American cities must update their zoning laws, with an eye to equitable development. New York no longer needs a mainline feed of private investment to remain viable. The effects of unfettered transnational capital currents erode the fabric of urban communities. If “UUGGHH” is not a lament, it is surely an expression of our impotence.

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Urban America: Cities of Visitors and the Absentee Rentier Class appeared first on Law Street.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, or honestly even a small one, there’s a very decent chance that you’ll see protests today. You probably saw some last night as well. For any of you who have been living under a particularly comfortable and sheltered rock lately, the protests focus on the cases of two black men killed by police officers. Michael Brown, an 18 year old in Ferguson, Missouri, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. On November 24 it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Next, there’s the case of Eric Garner in New York, who was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo was filmed putting Garner in a chokehold, even though that tactic is banned by the New York Police Department.

Here’s an example of the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture being used in protest:

"Hands up, dont shoot!!" #NYC #FergusonDecision #justice pic.twitter.com/OwMfX72v4H

— Arnaud Montagard (@arnaudmontagard) November 26, 2014

And Garner’s last words, which have become a rallying cry:

I almost can't read this. So painful. So ugly. #ICantBreathe pic.twitter.com/KVVbK6Gf0A

— Tessa Francis (@tessafrancis) December 4, 2014

Those are the roots of the protests, the catalysts. But the protests aren’t just about these two men. They’re about the greater issue–or more appropriately issues. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list here but these protests are about the national conversations we need to have on racism, racial profiling, police violence, police militarization, etc, etc, etc. The protests are about a broken system–the deaths of Brown and Garner are tragic symptoms of this system.

The protests have been taking place all over the United States. New York, where Garner was killed, was especially busy. There was a “die-in” at Grand Central Station yesterday evening; a “die-in” is when protesters lie on the ground, silently.

Hundreds of people staged a "die-in" at Grand Central in NYC after #EricGarner decision. http://t.co/che6tRNyli pic.twitter.com/8cNl2DsEUw

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 4, 2014

Protesters marched through New York City and temporarily blocked traffic at major transportation hubs, including the Lincoln Tunnel. One of the protesters explained her motivations, saying:

Every 28 hours a young black man is killed by police. Only 2 percent of police are indicted. Those numbers are crazy. It’s telling young black men that their lives don’t matter and their deaths can be passed over.

Protests were also very active in our nation’s capital. Last night, protesters flooded Dupont Circle and stopped traffic, as well as at some other locations in Northwest Washington. Today there will be a protest over by the Department of Justice at 4:00pm.

Protesters blocking DC intersection to protest non-indictment in #Garner case. Protest is peaceful. Cops standing by pic.twitter.com/j0JSd9B62O

— Athena Jones (@AthenaCNN) December 4, 2014

Cities all over the country look like this, and I’m going to leave these pictures and videos here, because I think they say more than words ever could:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Philly protest at Tree Lighting event at City Hall #FergusonPHL #BlackLivesMatter #HandsUpDontShoot: http://t.co/FpDJKfBylC #EricGarner

— Daryel Jay (@DaryelJay) December 4, 2014

Oakland, California:

#EricGarner protest in Oakland. #NoJusticeNoPeace #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/0yxNmnJQQM

— Diana Saverin (@dianasaverin) December 4, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Seattle protests no indictment for NYPD officer whose chokehold led to death of #EricGarner >> http://t.co/nXEihNYg4p pic.twitter.com/I6PZktVbge

— KIRO 7 (@KIRO7Seattle) December 4, 2014

New York, New York

Garner widow on husband's killer: 'No I, don't accept his apologies’ http://t.co/NLncfA5Mft pic.twitter.com/pbkP6TCoVA

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) December 4, 2014

Those are faces of change. Faces tired of the way that our system has been failing. Faces that have had enough. Faces that deserve to be, finally, listened to.

If you’re interested in joining a protest, here’s where they’re happening today. They aren’t going to end anytime soon, because this crisis clearly isn’t ending anytime soon either.

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Americans Continue Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Standing in the middle of a crushing crowd of people can be quite stressful, but this time it was worth it. The United Nations General Assembly spent the final week of September in session and one of the primary items of concern on its agenda is climate change and the environment, addressed in the form of the Climate Summit on Tuesday, September 23. On September 21, an astounding 400,000 people marched through the streets of Manhattan to vocalize the necessity of addressing climatic and environmental concerns.

In the largest environmental rally in history, activists began lining up earlier than 9:00am at designated locations from 59th street as high as 86th street. They organized under a variety of banners, from environmental organizations, scientists, private citizens, and more. It was under this final group that I started the march. It contained sub groups as well; there were community organizations, college students, and others. I am proud to note that a group representing my alma mater Rutgers University was among the most vocal in the area.

The March, at the steps of the Museum of Natural History. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

Reminiscent of how a car at the back of a long lineup will probably not make the light when it turns green because everybody hits the gas one at a time, my section of the four-mile long rally did not start marching until 45 minutes after the event was set to begin. It was very exciting once we did begin to move, and a surge of energy rolled through the crowd. However the density of the crowd meant that we moved like an inchworm; the line would stretch and we moved forward a little, but then compacted again and we stood in place for a bit. Eventually the line spread out and the walk became more consistent.

It was still quite slow going though, so eventually I exited the group and walked alongside on the sidewalk. As I was moving faster than the line, I was able to advance through the march and see all the different sections. There was no repetitiveness to the line’s appearance. Each group had its own chants and jingles, instrumental support, and occasional matching t-shirts. A migrant women’s workers rights group even performed a series of dances as they made their way down the street.

A section of the line, dedicated to protecting wildlife. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

At 12:58pm the march stopped dead in its tracks for a moment of silence in honor of those who have been lost to climate crises. The huge crowd, moving and making noise for an hour and a half, was still and silent with hands to the sky. It was a powerful moment. I’m not sure from which direction it came, but the moment of silence was ended by a wave of shouts that rolled through the entire length of the line. The ultimate call to action had been sounded, and the march resumed with great vigor and enthusiasm.

The moment of silence. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

Despite the motion and noise, music and megaphones, others took part in the call to action in different ways. Among the most striking was the Earth Vigil, a group sitting silent and meditative at the edge of Central Park. There are many ways for people of diverse backgrounds to express concerns over shared fates.

The Earth Vigil. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

It is this detail that really struck me throughout the march. The health of the environment and fate of the planet are issues that span every economic class, race, orientation, and geography. The sheer variety of people merging voices over a common cause speaks to the urgency of the challenges we face and the importance of addressing them effectively. Environmental activism has tended to be viewed as an activity of the middle and upper classes who have the wealth and leisure to dedicate their energies to this more abstract set of problems. The Climate March proved otherwise. Every level of society is aware, concerned, and willing to act. Furthermore, every level of society is affected by environmental woes; its consequences are real and tangible, not an abstract, theoretical, “out there” set of problems.

The rally in New York City was the most notable, but other cities throughout the world held their own rallies on this day and throughout the week as well. Twenty-six hundred events in over 150 countries, in fact. This further indicates the global awareness and importance of climate and environment. Before the event began, I had an interesting conversation with a Climate March surveyor of Nigerian origin. He explained how China has been buying up land there for agricultural and mining purposes, inflicting horrific environmental damage in the process. The locals there tend not to understand the consequences, and further are often excited about the Chinese presence in hopes of generating revenue and raising the standard of living. However, as the surveyor detailed, these activities are channeled to benefit the Chinese economy and industry only; locals are left no better off from it. He feels that this and other rallies around the world will help raise awareness of this, among many problems. The key is not just making a loud statement to global leaders, but spreading knowledge to all people.

We should come away from this event with great optimism. It demonstrated that more and more people are aware of these problems, and are willing to act in order to solve them. The people are not willing to continue down this path; society has reached a turning point and a new era of knowledge and responsibility is beginning. Whether that be on an individual, communal, national, or global level, the power to make change is growing.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change Unites World Community Across All Spectrums appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

A fight is brewing between law enforcement officials and Facebook, and it’s just gotten some new players in the form of other social media companies. New York City has been trying to use evidence posted on Facebook as proof of fraud committed by government employees. The city has now run afoul of some of the largest social network companies, who are arguing that the actions taken by the NYPD and prosecutors are violating their users’ Fourth Amendment rights.

It all started when the NYPD discovered that a number of government employees–including fireman, police officers, and others–had been taking disability payments without actually being disabled. Evidence of their fraud came from their Facebook accounts–some of the employees supposedly on disability were also engaging in clearly strenuous physical activities during the same time period. There were also private messages sent through the social network in which the alleged fraudsters admitted to their wrongdoing.

The investigators got a warrant to search the Facebook accounts of the employees that they thought were breaking the law, as well as accounts of their families, friends, and other acquaintances. While they did eventually succeed, it was only after Facebook argued strongly against the investigation. Facebook claimed that the search of private accounts is “unreasonable” and skirts Fourth Amendment protections. The company is now filing an appeal making the same argument–and they’ve got some friends backing them up. Foursquare, Kickstarter, MeetUp, and Tumblr have all decided to stand with Facebook. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Civil Liberties Union will also be getting involved.

This case is yet another example of how the intersection between new technology and existing laws can get quite messy. The warrant originally requested by the NYPD involved a grand total of 381 Facebook accounts–many of which were only connected tangentially. The requested accounts had interacted with those of the accused–nothing more. Facebook argued that the search of those 381 accounts was tantamount to searching roughly 400 homes. That argument is fair, but a bit stretched. If there was a crime committed, the NYPD would have the right to search 400 houses, as long as they could prove it was reasonable.

In response, Facebook’s Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Sonderby argued,

It appeared to us from the outset that there would be a large number of people who were never charged in court. The district attorney’s response was that these people would have their day in court. There are more than 300 people that will never have that chance.

But according to NYPD and prosecutors, they did just that–they provided almost 100 pages of documentation explaining why they were searching each account when they requested the warrant.

There’s also the question of what right Facebook has to the accounts in their system. They challenged the warrant on behalf of their clients, and there’s a lot of legal ambiguity as to whether they were able to do so. They most certainly could not have alerted their clients that they were being investigated–that would have been impeding an investigation. Facebook claims that this created a big problem for their attorneys–they couldn’t do anything to stop it on their clients’ behalf, and they couldn’t do anything to warn their customers to get them involved.

The fact that other social networks have now said they’re going to join this legal fight will go a long way. As electronic communications become more and more popular, existing laws may not be able to keep up. While the collective action of social media companies may be forming a powerful lobby, whether or not their arguments for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights will prevail is up to the appeals court.

—

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 [Nick Booth 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 Social Media Search Warrant Fight Heats Up appeared first on Law Street.

We tend to envision our oceans as blue and our lands as green; the residents of Toledo, Ohio, however, had a bit difference experience recently when they were faced with green water.

When municipal officials declared they found toxins in the city’s drinking water supply, residents refrained from using it entirely. Naturally they did not drink or cook with it, but the contamination was deemed so severe that even boiling the water beforehand would not be sufficient. Emma G Fitzsimmons of The New York Times relates that children and people with weak immune systems were urged not to bathe in such water either. As local bottled supplies ran dry, the National Guard arrived to disperse fresh water.

Eventually, investigators determined that a large Lake Erie algae bloom, the source of water for the city of Toledo and 11 million residents in the lake’s vicinity, was the source of the contamination. Algae refers to a very broad spectrum of aquatic organisms ranging from the microscopic and single celled to the giant kelp of the Eastern Pacific. A bloom results in the production of a large amount of peptides, compounds consisting of multiple linked amino acids, in this case called microcystin. This particular peptide is toxic to humans, inducing vomiting, diarrhea, and liver damage, Fitzsimmons relates.

A 2012 algal bloom in Lake , courtesy of Olga Nohra via Flickr

Algal blooms resulting from human activity are often caused by massive introduction of phosphorous into an aquatic system. Lake Erie has been plagued by blooms in the past, particularly in the 1960s and 1980s. These occasions tended to be the result of poor septic infrastructure and consequent excessive discharge of waste into the lake. Since then, those threats have been somewhat ameliorated; however, agricultural runoff continues to provide undesired phosphorous discharge into water bodies such as Erie.

It is difficult to impose barriers on the leakage of phosphorous into Lake Erie. Journalist Michael Wines clarified that,

“The federal Clean Water Act is intended to limit pollution from fixed points like industrial outfalls and sewer pipes, but most of the troublesome phosphorous carried into waterways like Lake Erie is spread over thousands of square miles.”

This process is called “non-point pollution.” There have been some initiatives to try and reduce the pollution output in the first place, by providing farmers with methods of reducing fertilizer use, for example. But enacting laws that set limits on pollution is a daunting task. They must go hand in hand with voluntary efforts by those involved with the sources of pollution, to more accurately calculate how much fertilizer and materials are necessary, rather than carelessly applying an estimated amount.

An issue that must be addressed throughout the course of the dialogue on this event is the fact that algal blooms choke off other aquatic life. They absorb a massive amount of oxygen from the water, and other biodiversity are hard pressed to survive. This should be sufficient motivation in and of itself to mitigate the causes of blooms. Furthermore, substantial damage to the ecosystems of a place like Lake Erie causes fish catches to plummet, causing threats to our food supplies and commercial endeavors. The health of the lake’s biodiversity is also tied into lay fishing and other forms of recreation, which in turn brings to mind the importance of tourism and the state of the regional economy.

Simultaneously, another city farther east is also concerned with the state of its drinking water. New York City is famous for its pure and high quality drinking water. This is in large due to the vigorous efforts of organizations such as Riverkeeper, that maintain a presence in the Hudson River estuary in attempt to protect it from polluters, dumpers, and violators of other environmental and water protection laws. The source of water for more than nine million urban residents has come under threat recently from a rise in oil shipment by rail right along river’s edge in the so labeled “bomb trains,” or cars that are prone to spillage and explosion. On top of this, one of the primary aqueducts in the water infrastructure is leaking, journalists Aaron Ernst & Christof Putzel reveal. If it bursts, over half the city could be left without drinking water. In the meantime, plans are for it to be diverted through a bypass tunnel while repairs take place, which could take several years.

One of New York City’s reservoirs in the Catskills, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

This case is the inverse of from Toledo; the problem is not the quality of the water, but the ability to deliver it. However, in the New York area there are many dangers to the quality of the water, and similarly the mediums by which Toledo’s water arrives in the city are an important factor when addressing phosphorous discharge and the quality of water resources. The cities face multiple and similar challenges: urban drinking water, water infrastructure, and reservoir protection. These concerns will only grow as cities expand and pressure on natural resources requires new approaches. If only two to three percent of the Earth’s water is freshwater, and the United States agricultural industry accounts for more than 75% of the nation’s water consumption, then civilian residents and policy makers face many challenges in ensuring that enough water remains drinkable and accessible to the people.

It is evident, then, that we humans are deeply entrenched in our environments. An ecosystem is very delicate, complex, and interconnected; a series of events in a remote corner may multiply and have unforeseen consequences elsewhere. It is vital for us to be more responsible in how we treat our water. We need it, the rest of the environment needs it, and we need the environment.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lake Erie Algae Bloom Raises Questions on Water Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The days of hailing down a cab may become a distant memory for those with a smart phone in their hand. Uber has reinvented the ridesharing industry with its user-friendly application. Created in San Francisco in 2009, Uber now connects customers with available drivers in cities all around the world.

Although generally loved by customers, Uber has faced many obstacles since its launch, including competition and government intervention. It has been criticized for disregarding regulations and carrying poor or no insurance on its drivers. Read on for an examination of the policy and incidents that have shaped Uber into the company it is today.

Click the image for more detailed information.

What is Uber?

Quick and inexpensive transportation can be challenging to find when you live in a city. That’s where Uber comes in. When a customer opens up the application, she is greeted with a map displaying the cars for hire in the vicinity and the estimated wait time for pick up. Uber is especially attractive because the same quality of service transitions from day to night. Business people can order a car on the way to a meeting just as easily as someone can use it as a designated driver after a night out.

The process of ordering a car is incredibly simple:

• Download the app and enter your payment information
• Set pickup location
• Choose the type of car you want to ride in
• Tap request and track the reserved car’s location

The services provided by Uber are vast. Originally the company offered black cars (UberBLACK), which are luxury vehicles including Escalade SUVs, Lincoln Town Cars, and Mercedes. Now with the implementation of the low-cost option, UberX, the company is able to attract a wider breadth of the market.

UberX drivers use their own cars, carry insurance and a valid driver’s license, and pass a background and DMV check. UberBlack drivers must also have the commercial licenses required by the city in which they operate.

Does Uber Have a Competitor? Possibly.

Uber shares many similarities with the ridesharing company Lyft. Founded in San Francisco, Lyft operates in 60 cities in 2014. While Uber and Lyft provide almost identical services, Lyft has been met with great opposition in New York City. Under the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), Manhattan has stringent taxi regulations by which Uber abided. Lyft has not yielded to city and state regulations such as ensuring that all drivers are commercially licensed and that their vehicles are registered with the TLC. The attorney general’s office has filed suit and accused Lyft of eight violations, including using vehicles that are not registered with the TLC and hiring drivers who have not obtained the correct insurance and licensing.

In an interview with Buzzfeed, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declared in reference to Lyft evading the regulation:

“They’re allowed to try and we’re allowed to stop them.”

Lyft had planned on launching its peer-to-peer model, but because of the state’s officials and the TLC it postponed the launch. The company has agreed to work with the TLC to ensure that its cars and drivers are fully licensed.

Regulations

Are Drivers Insured?

The legality of Uber differs from city to city as each jurisdiction has different regulations pertaining to public transportation services. While taxi drivers have been subjected to these guidelines for years, Uber has been accused of bypassing many rules that govern taxi services.  Insurance of the Uber drivers has been a source of concern from legislators and the general public. To clear up any ambiguity, Uber announced that “all ridesharing transportation partners are covered by best-in-class commercial insurance coverage in the event of an accident.”

The insurance policies for UberX are:

• $1 million of liability coverage per incident
• $1 million of uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage per incident
• $50,000 of contingent comprehensive and collision insurance
• No fault coverage in certain states
• $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 of contingent coverage between trips

The other Uber services (UberSUV, UberBLACK, and uberTAXI) are “provided by commercially licensed and insured partners and drivers.”

Price Caps

One of the best cases made by Uber opponents is the company’s history of hiking up prices during times of high demand — a practice that sets apart Uber from traditional taxis. While taxis have a fixed fare, the price of Uber depends on the demand. Schneiderman criticized Uber for “charging as much as eight times its base rate during storms.” To avoid this manipulation, Uber and the Attorney General reached an agreement that during emergencies there will be a limit to peak pricing in New York. This agreement was the beginning of Uber’s new policy of limiting surge pricing nationwide during emergencies. In addition to limiting price increases, when an emergency causes a fare to be elevated the company plans on donating 20 percent of profits to the American Red Cross.

Negative Responses

Death of a Child

Tragedy struck a San Francisco family when a six-year-old girl was killed after being hit by an Uber driver. At the time of the accident the driver did not have a passenger in his car nor was he on the way to pick someone up, which is why Uber claims it should not be held accountable. The parents of the deceased have brought wrongful death suits against both Uber and the driver.

Alleged Abduction

After becoming intoxicated while partying at nightclubs in Los Angeles, a woman was put into an Uber by a valet. Instead of driving the woman home, the Uber driver allegedly kidnapped her and brought her to a hotel with the intent to sexually assault her. When the woman awoke, she found the driver shirtless lying next to her in bed and immediately left to call the police. Uber spokesperson Lane Kasselman stated after learning of the event that “the facts are unknown at this stage and it’s certainly unclear that this is an Uber-related incident, as the driver in question was not logged in, connected to or operating on the platform at the time… Nothing is more important to Uber than the safety of our riders.”   Even if Uber is not accountable for this crime, the incident tarnishes the brand.

Protests in Europe

America is not the only place where Uber is meeting resistance. Protests against the ridesharing company have gone across the Atlantic to European nations. In London, more than 10,000 cabdrivers participated in an hour-long protest. London has especially stringent regulations on its cab drivers. The process to get a license is rigorous and quite demanding: cab drivers must have knowledge of the London streets and be able take alternative routes without consulting a map. Because they have this extensive knowledge, they have an intimate understanding of the city and are regarded as experts.

When Uber arrived in London with drivers who bypassed the intense training that London-based drivers are subjected to, it should almost be expected that cab drivers would halt their services in protest. Mario Dalmedo, a cab driver in London, said:

“There’s room for everyone, but you have to obey the law.”

In addition to losing their jobs, drivers are concerned about how Uber is not following the rules and fails to pay the same level of taxes.

Uber maintains that it is providing competition in a market that has not been introduced to new services in a long time.

Virginia: Cease and Desist

In early 2014 the state of Virginia levied more than $35,000 in fines against Uber and Lyft for not having the proper permits in Northern Virginia. Following those charges, Richard D. Holcomb, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, sent Uber and Lyft cease and desist letters. Uber and Lyft have applied for brokers’ licenses to operate in Virginia since receiving the letter. Also, both companies have applied for temporary authority that would allow them to continue operations until they receive licenses.

Kaitlin Durkosh, Uber spokeswoman, stated that the company has been working “in good faith with the DMV to create a regulatory framework for ridesharing.”

Conclusion

Since its inception, Uber has been faced with many regulatory challenges; however, its accessibility and innovation has transformed the startup into a legitimate threat to the taxicab industry. With strong customer loyalty and growing financial backing, Uber appears to be sticking around for the long haul.

Resources

Primary

Uber: Eliminating Ridesharing Insurance Ambiguity

Uber: Insurance For UberX With Ridesharing

Additional

Forbes: Lyft Pips Uber by Launching 24 Cities in One Day

Slate: Why Uber and Lyft Are Not Interchangeable Services in New York

BuzzFeed: New York Attorney General, Aide Slam Lyft Co-Founder

The New York Times: Uber Reaches Deal With New York on Surge Pricing in Emergencies

Bloomberg: Uber Faces Challenges in NY With Lyft Debut, Price Caps

Washington Post: Competition from UberX, Lyft has D.C. Taxis Crying Foul

Lyft: Lyft New York Update

Business Insider: Virginia Commonwealth DMV Orders Uber and Lyft to Cease and Desist

Washington Post: Uber and Lyft Working on Becoming Legal in Virginia

NBC: Uber Driver Arrested on Kidnap With Sexual Intent Charge

The New York Times: Traffic Snarls in Europe as Taxi Drivers Protest Against Uber

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Uber: Not Your Typical Taxi appeared first on Law Street.

Environmental policy is a hollow shell if it lacks the crucial component that is the interest and engagement of the people. An Ossining, New York-based conservation organization called Riverkeeper seeks to merge these arenas by sparking communal engagement and care for their surrounding ecosystems, in particular the Hudson River, so as to more effectively pursue regulations and values that are conducive to a healthy environment and lifestyle. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in Riverkeeper’s eponymously titled biography, “…environment is not something distant and inaccessible to most Americans. It is not an issue that can be separated out and dealt with on its own. The environment is our neighborhood, our community. It is our quality of life.”

In the 1960s, a group of fishermen banded together to patrol the Hudson in search of environmental law violators. As the strength and breadth of the coalition that would become Riverkeeper grew, they became increasingly effective at pinpointing and prosecuting individuals and corporations who polluted the waters of the Hudson. After a half century, Riverkeeper is now a respected organization with various departments and manifestations throughout the country. Its founding principle of a “neighborhood watch,” which sparked its initial coalescence, remains a treasured and vital practice.

I recently joined my fellow Riverkeeper interns aboard the patrol boat, Fletcher, for an abridged estuary survey. Now in his fourteenth year at the post, Captain John Lipscomb detailed that a full patrol requires thirteen days, from New York City up to the mouth of the Mohawk River, the largest tributary of the Hudson. The key to a successful patrol, he explained, is to “…look, but also be seen looking.” Having people on the shores see the vessel and “Riverkeeper” emblazoned on the side of the hull is a deterrent; this is a powerful and often more preferable means of keeping the Hudson clean than catching violators red handed. Furthermore, it is advertising as well as policing. The boat’s presence and visibility raises environmental awareness; it gets the concepts into people’s heads and hopefully influences their behavior.

The Fletcher on patrol

Riverkeeper’s patrol has many other functions that tie into this philosophy of engaging the community. The organization seeks to empower the community with data, primarily with water quality sampling and subsequent output of its findings in reports. The EPA’s recommendations for testing in recreational waterways occasionally meets opposition on the basis that it is unnecessary because nobody swims at particular points on the river; however, designated beaches are not the only points at which people partake in river activities. During our patrol, as it was a hot and sunny day, we encountered a group of kids jumping from a low rocky precipice into the water and swimming about. The captain drew the boat near, and acquired their permission to snap a few photos. He intends to present this evidence of countless examples that clearly the people are partaking in recreational activity all along the water. This raises several points. First is that water sampling is undoubtedly warranted. Second, it speaks to the role of community members in environmental policy formulation, as well as the fact that such responsible policies are in the best interest not just of nature but the people as well.

Scenic Surprises on the Hudson

Riverkeeper has been passionately engaging the problems raised by the Tappan Zee Bridge construction project. In addition to outrage over the discovery that Albany was using clean water funds to finance the endeavor, the actual work is being done in a somewhat careless and haphazard fashion with regard to the delicate ecosystem by which it is surrounded. Captain Lipscomb has been documenting the number of dead fish discoveries, particularly the species as some teeter on the endangered list, in an effort to raise public awareness and induce a more responsible approach to the project with regard to the Hudson River’s biodiversity.

It goes without saying that an additional responsibility of the Hudson patrol involves active, first-hand clean up. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to see a substantial amount of trash choking the waterway. In fact, at one point we slowed the boat so as to draw out a fully intact television bobbing at the surface. Hopefully in time, through the work of Riverkeeper and other like-minded organizations and citizens, the amount of garbage that finds its way into the water will diminish to a negligible amount.

Captain Lipscomb wants to extend the range of the patrol into the Mohawk. If this is to be accomplished, Riverkeeper will need to cultivate relationships with other organizations in that area so as to effectively take on a mission of such large scope. This is already a philosophy of the organization. “We promote positive sustainable relationships; it is not in our best interest to sue everybody” clarified Dana Gulley, manager of the Community Outreach & Volunteer Programs at Riverkeeper. Rather, she added, it is important to communicate. Riverkeeper seeks to open dialogue and educate; if they encounter a violator, they approach them and ask if they knew they were polluting.

Beneath the Bear Mountain Bridge

These activities are not just for aesthetic conservation. More than nine million people in New York City and the surrounding area drink from the Hudson watershed. Human health and human culture are at stake in environment-society relationships. As Robert Kennedy Jr. and the first Hudson Riverkeeper John Cronin put it: “As Riverkeepers we protect nature, not so much for nature’s sake, but for the sake of humanity. Nature enriches us economically, but we have other appetites besides money. These hungers — spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic — must be fed if we want to grow as we are meant to — if we are to fulfill ourselves.”

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

All images courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Riverkeeper: Patrolling the Hudson to Keep NYC’s Water Clean appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that the United States has a deep love for sugar. In cereals, donuts, candy bars, and icy Coca-Cola, Americans cannot seem to get enough. When ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the sizes of soda, many were outraged. Critics of the law got their wish when the New York City limit was officially declared dead on June 26, 2014. Soda limits and sugar taxes are consistently struck down. Would a higher tax on soda be a smart move to treat the American sweet tooth and ever-growing obesity epidemic?

What is America’s problem with excess sugar?

Sugar is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem many Americans have is consumption of sugar in levels of extreme excess. High levels of sugar consumption contribute to obesity and diabetes. Often foods with high amounts of sugar are also high in empty calories and contribute to weight gain. More than two-thirds of American adults and nearly one-third of children and adolescents between ages six and 19 are overweight or obese. According to the San Mateo Health System, a child’s risk for obesity increases 60 percent with each additional daily serving of soda. Data from the New York City Health Board shows that sugary drinks make up 43 percent of added sugar in Americans’ diets. Further, the average American consumes 50 gallons of soda and sweetened beverages each year. The increase in portion sizes plays a role in this increased sugar intake. In 1974, the largest drink offered at McDonald’s was 21 ounces. This was long before the days of the SuperSize menu, which features a 42-ounce beverage. People are encouraged to get larger drink sizes because the per ounce cost of larger drinks is much cheaper than the smaller counterpart. Watch below for a clip from “Parks and Recreation” discussing ridiculous increases in soda size. Although it’s obviously fictional, it’s not far from the truth:

So what happened with soda in New York?

Popularly termed the “soda ban,” Bloomberg’s plan for New York was not actually a ban on soda, but a portion-cap rule. The law was initially passed by the city’s health board on September 13, 2012 to promote health and prevent obesity. The proposed rule banned the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, delis, movie theaters, stadiums, and street carts. However, on June 26, 2014 the New York Court of Appeals struck down New York City’s cap. The Court stated that the the city’s health department had overstepped its bounds by making policy rather than simply dealing with health regulations. Watch a discussion of the law below:

What were the problems with the soda limit?

Exemptions

Critics claim that the New York City law treated restaurants and small businesses unfairly, especially since grocery and convenience stores would be exempt from the 16-ounce limit. 7-Eleven’s Big Gulp would be completely unaffected by the law. Many local small-restaurant owners felt their businesses would be harmed by selling smaller beverages when consumers could go to convenience stores to get much larger sodas if they so desired.

Debatable Effect

Because many stores would be exempt from the size-limit, some wondered if the limit would have any effect at all. Further, the ban would be easy to circumvent since people could still buy two 16-ounce sodas if they really wanted more soda. However, when faced with the choice, many consumers would simply go for the default option rather than buy two individual sodas. Limiting the size of soda also reverses the typical incentive of buying a larger soda to get more bang for the buck. Without a limit, larger soda is cheaper per ounce. With a size limit in place, buying two sodas to get the same quantity as before becomes more expensive.

Soda Marketing

The American Beverage Association and National Restaurant Association led the fight against the New York City restriction. The lobbying groups spent millions on their campaign and even created the New Yorkers for Beverage Choice coalition to coordinate public relation efforts. The American Beverage Association spent $12.8 million in 2010 alone on lobbying at the New York state level to protect soda from restrictions. The bad publicity for sugar and soda itself has led to a decline in soda sales over the last decade. Soda marketers still spend $500 million each year to reach children and adolescents with messages about sugary products — more than is spent marketing any other product. Given the amount of money spent, soda marketers were obviously unhappy with the proposed ban. Obesity has many contributing factors, so soda companies feel they are constantly unfairly singled out for sugar content.

Individual Liberty

Many take issue with the soda limit simply on a basis of individual liberty and the city acting too paternalistic toward consumers. People should be given the freedom to make decisions on their own. The argument is made that the city should instead be focused on health education to allow consumers to make educated decisions when eating. The desire to have a healthy society should not outweigh individual freedom. Once a city starts to regulate soda quantities for health reasons, some worry regulation will spread to other foods or sectors.

Would more tax of soda be effective?

It is hard to say. Twenty-three states currently tax soda at the normal sales tax rate. Only four states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) levy an excise tax on soda at the wholesale level. However, the revenue generated is not used for obesity prevention, and Arkansas and West Virginia still have some of the highest obesity rates in the country. In recent years some states, like Illinois and California, have proposed an excise tax on sodas. For example, Illinois proposed a tax of a penny per ounce on all bottled sugar-sweetened beverages. This would mean consumers pay an additional $2.88 per case of soda. Such proposals have been met with swift defeat by heavy lobbying by the beverage industry.

Tax stigmatizes sugary beverages and increases their expense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 3-cent tax on sugary drinks would generate $24 billion over four years. A 2009 “Perspective” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine says that a one-cent excise tax on soda would reduce consumption by 10 percent. A study by the academic journal Health Affairs showed that a one-cent tax per ounce of soda could prevent 2.4 million cases of diabetes and 8,000 strokes over 10 years. Some European countries have taxes on sugar as part of austerity measures. In January 2012, France instituted a tax on soda of about six Euro cents per liter on sugary drinks, which is expected to raise $156 million a year in government revenue. Listen for discussion of soda tax below:

Another proposal is to ban or tax the use of food stamps to buy soda. Currently a sales tax is not levied on food, including soda, bought with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A study by Health Affairs showed that a ban on the use of food stamps to buy soda could prevent 130,000 kids from becoming obese and 240,000 adults from developing Type-Two Diabetes. The money generated by these taxes could then be used to fund healthcare initiatives, including childhood nutrition and obesity prevention.

Many economists say that taxing soda, as is done with cigarettes or alcohol, would be more effective than the New York City-style limit. However, the effectiveness of a tax largely depends on consumer behavior and on finding the specific price point at which a tax is effective. When faced with a relatively small tax, consumers may not change their buying patterns at all. Alternately, consumers could shift their behavior to drink other sugary beverages that are not taxed. Or consumers may start drinking diet beverages and then get a sugar fix from other foods. Other studies show that a tax would have little impact on the actual weight of consumers.

What else is being done?

Aside from taxing or limiting the size of sodas sold, few initiatives garner public support. In California, a measure to slap warning labels on sodas regarding the effects of over-consumption of sugar was defeated in committee. Other advocates urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action rather than allow states to make their own laws. They say the FDA should place a federal limit on the amount of sugar allowed in drinks on the market. However, it is difficult to push for sugar limits in sodas if similar limits do not exist for other sugar-laden products like cereal or baked goods. Some states banned sodas in public schools in an effort to combat childhood obesity. However, studies show that these students then replaced soda with other sugary drinks and drank them at the same frequency as their peers who were allowed to buy soda. More recently, Coke and Pepsi are trying to bring consumers back by creating smaller drinks. The beverage companies rolled out 7.5-ounce mini-cans in an effort to meet consumer-demand for portion control. While the government seeks to improve public health through limiting sugary drinks, many consumers simply want to be able to make choices on their own.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Obesity Facts

OLR Research Report: Taxes on Soft Drinks or Candy

County of San Mateo: A Soda Tax Could Stop Us from Pouring on the Pounds

Additional 

ABC: Drink Up, NYC: Ban on Big Sodas Canned

New Yorker: Downsizing Supersize

THV 11: Food Stamp Soda Ban

WFMZ: Food Stamp Soda Ban Could Help Prevent Obesity

Time: Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks

Verdict: The Soda Ban or the Portion Cap Rule?

Time: Soda Wars Bubble Up Across the Country

University of Pennsylvania: Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages

Time: Sugary Drinks in California Could Come with Warning Label

Illinois Policy: Does Illinois Need Soda Taxes and Soda Permits?

Illinois Policy: Does Illinois Need Soda Taxes and Soda Permits?

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Soda Industry Ups Political Spending

BNA: Extras on Excise: Debate over Soft Drink Tax

Atlantic: Should Food Stamps Buy Soda?

—

Alexandra Stembaugh is a senior at the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Vox Efx via Flickr]

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Are Limits on Soda Fizzing Out? appeared first on Law Street.

“I have a confession to make,” Patti Smith said on a dimly lit stage, “I am Banksy.”

On May 19 2014, the ‘godmother’ of punk rock presented the Webby Award Person of the Year to Banksy, the street artist, activist, and all around prankster, who in October 2013 took New York by force in a month-long residency engaging the city with tags and stunts. The eighteenth annual ceremony took place at Cipriani Wall Street (once home to the New York Stock Exchange, and headquarters to the National City Bank), celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Internet, honoring “excellence on the internet” – a distinction that becomes evermore dubious in America post net-neutrality. The elusive street artist did not make an appearance of course, but he did issue a video response summarizing his month in New York. In October 2013, the video begins, Banksy became New York City’s Artist in Residence, “an honor so prestigious he made it up and awarded it to himself.”

The month-long tour began October 1, 2013 when the artist vowed to produce a new piece of work every day somewhere in the city. Banksy’s website named the residency “Better Out Than In,” which, as Roberta Smith of the New York Times pointed out, “may seem to elevate the streets and the outsider artist above insiders and their pristine galleries, but it is also a crude British version of ‘gesundheit,’ except for expulsions other than sneezes.” The name evokes the playfulness of Banksy’s aesthetic, which he sometimes uses to convey stark political messages. “This British graffiti artist, purported millionaire, activist, filmmaker and prankster spent the last month roaming the city,” Smith continued, “perpetuating what is — depending upon your point of view — street art, political resistance or vandalism.” Banksy’s art was a social experiment, “using the city as a rat maze into which he dropped different kinds of bait to see how New Yorkers would react.”

What type of political graffiti? For starters, “The Sirens of the Lambs,” was an obvious critique of the meat processing industry; the piece consisted of a delivery truck overflowing with adorable animated heads of sheep and cows, screeching to the public on their way to the slaughterhouse — appropriately driving through Manhattan’s Meat Packing District.

carnegenyc via Flickr

On October 4, the artist made a traditional spay-paint tag in Bushwick, “OCCUPY! The Musical;” another tag he produced on October 23 read, “Today’s art has been cancelled due to police activity.” On October 16, Banksy staged a performance piece where a dirty young man shined the shoes of a Ronald McDonald statue, which frowned down at the wastrel. The piece critiqued the low wages in the fast food industry, and even drew complaints from the passersby for the working rights of the performer.

the cardinal de la ville via Wikipedia

My favorite piece, however, was a stall that Banksy set up selling original artworks. The art would have totaled half a million dollars; however, “without any of the art hype,” Banky’s recent video explains, “the results — a total take of $420.”

If Banksy’s residency was a series of “social experiments” as Roberta Smith interpreted, what do they tell us about New York — about America? Banksy points out obvious yet controversial social issues such as the ethics of animal slaughterhouses, and wage-slavery of fast food service, but he does so with subtle ironic playfulness, making his art appealing to a popular audience. Banksy invites public interaction, and in doing som discussion of the issues he presents, which I think is the prime value of his dada-esque confluence of political prank and art. The public responded resoundingly to Bansky’s New York odyssey; in October 350,000 people followed Banksy’s Instagram account and spread photos of his art further on Foursquare, Tumblr, Vine, YouTube, and Twitter, where #banksy was used more than 38,000 times during the month. Ultimately, Banksy has demonstrated how social media influences our daily lives, shaping social and political discussions; he presents the intrinsic value of public space, both physical and virtual, as a space for political and social dialogue. As transnational private wealth continues to conquer the public sphere, Banksy ever more so stands out as a beacon of public resistance.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Infrogmation via Wikipedia]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What did we Learn from Banksy? appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recently reported on Airbnb’s developing legal problems and how, frankly, they just cannot catch a break despite their ever-expanding market and wild success. Airbnb has been in a constant legal battle with New York dating back as far as 2010 and continuing well into 2014 (check out: here and here). The trend continued with Portland banning the company’s operations from all residential areas, though the city is now easing those restrictions. There were also issues in Los Angeles and the state of Michigan — truly, the list goes on and on. Now that we’re well into 2014, has Airbnb’s luck changed? The answer is unequivocally no.

As of April 29, 2014, San Francisco joined the legal battle grounds with a potential city ballot initiative against the home-sharing service. Backed by housing activist, Calvin Welch, former Planning Commissioner, Doug Engmann, and PR professional, Dale Carlson, the proposal calls for the following:

1. Creation of a public mandatory registry of all residents who rent out short-term space.
2. Evidence of landlord or homeowner permission to rent.
3. The right of any citizen to file a complaint against an Airbnb rental, go to court, and receive 30 percent in fines or back taxes as a result, along with compensation for their attorney fees.

The most controversial (and little bit scary) part of the proposal is the ability to financially reward residents for actively spying on reporting neighboring hosts who are not in compliance with these rules. While this section of the proposal may not make it to the ballot, let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that they are calling for Airbnb bounty hunters. In the midst of all these legal scuffles, it appears that the ‘share-economy’ company has yet to lose its stride and will continue to introduce new policies to disrupt the hospitality market.

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published November 6, 2013.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

[New York Times]

Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672)

Featured image courtesy of [OuiShare via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest AirBnB Backlash: San Fran May Offer Cash to Snitch on Neighbors 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.

Last night, my lovely editors here at Law Street sent me to cover PEN America’s “Talking Transitions” event. Go, they said. It will be interesting, they said.

Fuck yeah it was!

Basically, a whole bunch of writers gathered in a super-fancy tent at the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Canal Street, and addressed Mayor-Elect de Blasio town hall style. One by one, they got up on stage, and read approximately three-minute speeches about how they’d like to see him differentiate his administration from Bloomberg’s.

Yes, every single person read their speech. Writers, am I right? We could all use a serious public speaking class.

Anyway! There were about 20 or so speakers, addressing an audience of maybe a hundred. And there were tons of professional photographers trolling about, not to mention an incredibly expensive looking video camera set up in the back. Very official. I’m hoping the videotape will ultimately be sent to Mayor de Blasio, since he—shocker!—was not in attendance last night.

No show. Courtesy of Jon Mannion via Flickr.

So why should all you legal junkies care about a bunch of writers gathering to bitch about Bloomberg? Like, don’t we all do that in our apartments every night, sans fancy cameras?

Yes. Yes, we do. But here’s why you should care.

PEN America is a surprisingly influential group of people. Its member list is huge, and includes people like Toni Morrison, David Sedaris, and (really?) Molly Ringwald. This is an organization with clout, and it’s got a little army of writers whose words literally have power to influence public policy.

Also, most of the speakers were politically focused and highly self-aware. Last night wasn’t about flowers and poetry, it was about policy.

Let’s get into that, shall we?

First of all—a quick note about the speakers. Being who I am, I took a little tally as they each graced the stage, and discovered that, while the majority were women (represent!), all but two of them were white. Only four people of color spoke in total last night. We can do better than that, can’t we? Also, every single speaker was normatively gendered. No queerness anywhere in sight.

PEN, you’re fabulous, but please step up your diversity efforts, mmkay?

Moving right along! Issues of affordable housing, gentrification, and unethical (actually racist, let’s just be real here) policing were all major themes throughout the night.

Sergio de la Pava, a public defender by day and an award-winning novelist by night, made the excellent point that, while actual crime rates have never been lower, New York City’s arrest rate has gone up by 20 percent.

Which is a fact that makes absolutely no sense. Except for the fact that different zip codes are policed differently— unjustly funneling poor people, queer people, and people of color into poverty, substance abuse, and the prison industrial complex, regardless of whether or not they’re actually criminals.

So really, while de la Pava was up there talking about crime rates, he was really talking about racism.

“It’s of little use if New York City is the most diverse city in the world,” he said, “if its prison population is monochromatic.”

Got it, de Blasio? End the racism of the Bloomberg era. End it now.

Affordable housing and gentrification were big talking points last night as well, introduced by none other than super-rich philanthropist George Soros. He claimed, accurately, that New York is a city “where decent housing can’t be found for less than two thousand dollars,” and that’s not the kind of environment that breeds creativity, innovation, or community.

Or really, anything other than a gated community of asinine gazillionaires who are in love with the status-quo.

George Soros, philanthropist extraordinaire. Courtesy of Niccolo Caranti via Flickr.

But last night’s speakers didn’t stop at telling de Blasio what needed to change. They also told him how to do it.

Masha Hamilton, a novelist who just came back from spending the last 16 months as the Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, told de Blasio exactly what to do.

Put a poet on his communications team. A street artist on the Housing Authority.

“Let's get a poet on the mayor's communications team…a street artist on the Housing Authority…”-Masha Hamilton #PENspeakout @TalkNYC2013

— PEN Membership (@PENmembership) November 12, 2013

Why? Because according to Hamilton, artists are innovators. “It’s part of their job description to help us dream up new solutions,” she said.

It’s the creative community—that is currently getting crowded out of this overpriced, over-policed city—that can save New York City from itself. Or, more specifically, from corrupt, elitist assholes like lame duck Mayor Bloomberg.

So, what do you think de Blasio should do to improve New York City? Do you want a street artist on the Housing Authority?

Blow it up in the comments!

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tom Roeleveld 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 How Creatives Can Save New York 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.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

—

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 [Allen Skyy 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 AirBnB Locked in Battle with New York Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.

Two classic New York City department stores—Barneys and Macy’s—are dealing with controversy regarding their racial profiling of any customer who is not white. In the past few weeks, at least four different individuals have come forward claiming that they were mistreated and suspected of shoplifting or fraud on the basis of race.

The story begins with an African-American college student named Trayon Christian, who was a freshman at the New York City College of Technology last spring. On April 29^th, he went into the popular store Barneys New York to buy a belt. The belt that he was looking for was a Ferragamo and cost $329. Like any 18-year-old kid, he admired his favorite celebrities and had seen some of them with the belt. So, he saved up money from his part time job to buy it for himself. Christian paid with his debit card, showed his ID when asked, and followed all of the general procedures required to make a purchase. He walked out of the store with the belt in a bag and a receipt, and was stopped right away by cops who yelled at him about how he was able to afford a designer belt. Immediately, the 19-year-old was accused of using a fake card. Christian was handcuffed, and then detained and interrogated for two hours until it could be determined that his card was, in fact, valid.

The next person to come forward was Kayla Phillips, and like Christian she was a young African-American student. She was purchasing a designer Celine purse for $2500. She had received a large, unexpected tax refund a few days before, and decided to use the extra money to treat herself and purchase a designer bag. She had a strikingly similar experience to Christian. She was followed by no less than four undercover cops and questioned about her ability to afford the bag. Like in Christian’s case, the officers were convinced that she was perpetrating credit card fraud.

A few days after these two stories broke, allegations also came out against Macy’s department store. Rob Brown, 29, is an actor who is currently on HBO’s hit show Treme. According to a suit filed this week by Brown, he went into Macy’s to buy a $1350 watch as a present for his mother. He was looking at a pair of sunglasses that caught his eye when he suddenly grabbed by three officers. According to the suit, the officers told him that the ID “was false and that he could afford to make such an expensive purchase.” Despite the fact that Brown showed them various forms of ID that clearly matched the card he was using, he was still put in handcuffs and detained for 45 minutes.

These three cases are in various stages of moving forward and list both these retailers as well as the NYPD. Now, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has begun investigations into these complaints. The purpose is to determine if Barneys and Macy’s have violated various civil rights laws that prohibit racial discrimination. The AG has demanded that these stores release information about the stopping, detainment, and interrogations of various customers.

Barneys has released an apology, but these suits and investigation will rightly move forward. I would be entirely unsurprised if more claims come out against other companies in the coming days and weeks. It would be hard to imagine that Barneys and Macy’s profile in a way that is unique to those companies; it is much more probable that we’ll hear similar situations with Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, and others. It’s also hard to imagine that this is an issue unique to New York City, I would imagine such profiling happens around the country as well. This story that began with a teenage boy who just wanted to buy a new belt has the potential to turn into a major retail firestorm.

—

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 [Steve Depolo 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 New York AG Investigating Racist Policies In Department Stores appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor Bloomberg has caught a lot of heat in the past few months with his efforts regarding the large soda ban, which ultimately failed. However, he has risen from the ashes as techie superhero.

In addition to introducing free Wi-Fi hotspots around New York City, the mayor of this great city announced his plan to keep the Big Apple ahead of the curve and establish its supremacy as an innovative tech hub.

With the infamous drummer of the roots, Questlove, by his side, Mayor Bloomberg announced his plans for the Made in NY Media Center, a space where “storytellers, creative professionals and entrepreneurs across multiple disciplines…can gather and create,” pretty much whatever they want as long as it bolsters NY’s image as an innovative techie paradise.

New York has been called the “business capital of the world“, the “fashion capital of the world“, and now Mayor Bloomberg hopes it will become the “global media capital of the digital age.” Made in NY will be creating over 3,000 jobs and will be an innovative hub where ideas come to life. See for yourself.

With Questlove as Made in NY’s first “Artist in Residence”, Made in NY looks like it will begin to thrive down on 30 John Street in DUMBO. NYC is currently the second-most funded tech hub next to Silicon Valley, however NYC is a place where the possibilities are endless. With techie start-ups for new media, mobile gaming and other forward-thinking companies popping up out of the woodworks to make a name for themselves in NY, this city is becoming the place to go to turn an idea into a reality.

Made in NY promotes the film and television industries that provided much needed revenue to New York City for years, bringing in over $400 million in tax revenue. It is definitely an exciting time to be in NYC and it should be interesting to watch as the Made in NY Media Center grows and evolves.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Beale via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Made In NY” – A Techie’s Paradise appeared first on Law Street.

New York City is home to 8.3 million people, with more visiting from out of town every day. This concrete jungle may be where dreams are made of, but it is one chaotic place to live. Don’t get me wrong, I love living in the greatest city in the world, but sometimes I really don’t understand what goes through people’s minds on a daily basis. The simplest tasks, such as walking down the street, become stressful, and I really have no clue why I feel like the odd one out. It seems like I learned an entirely different set of life rules growing up in a New England town, and I greatly wish New Yorkers would adhere to them as well. There are some common rules to live by that I thought were universal, or at least widespread in the United States.

You’re on the subway, and it’s packed, and an elderly person gets on. Do you get up? Well, that would be the polite thing to do, perhaps even the moral thing. But in New York I am constantly infuriated that elderly, disabled, or pregnant people are forced to stand on a crowded subway car because others refuse to give up their seats. While I’m stuck standing to begin with, there’s really nothing I can do. I can’t force any of the other young people to stand up, so I shake my head and grumble to myself. Maybe you had a long day at work, or maybe you’re tired, but really, let someone who is less fortunate than you take a seat.

My mom always told me never to stare at people while they’re eating. I never really understood why she insisted, but now that I’ve experienced what it feels like to be stared down while I’m chowing down, I completely understand. NYC is home to many restaurants with window seating, and instead of casually glancing in while walking past, passerby literally stop, stand, and stare. I’m not a zoo animal, here. I’m just simply trying to enjoy my lunch before heading back to the office. For some reason, New Yorkers (or, tourists, who knows?) are really interested in the food I’m eating. Yelp was created for a reason. Please use it.

Now the last thing that really irks me in New York, is walking. That may sound silly, but sometimes walking to school can be one the most stressful moments of my day. Why, you ask? Several reasons. First, whatever happened to the common sense rule that you walk on the right side of the sidewalk? Not down the middle, not on the left, on the right! Maybe you’re a tourist from England. If that’s the case you are a bit excused. But the rest of you? Come on, people! And the same thing goes for stopping in the middle of the sidewalk. With the dozens of people sure to be shopping in SoHo at any moment, you really can’t just stop in the middle. Move over. It’s that simple. And before you get mad at me for complaining about people who may have a genuine health problem and need to stop, or walk slowly, the answer is simple. Just most over. Walk all the way to the right. Let those of us who actually have somewhere to be go by. And then we’ll all walk together in an organized manner.

So whether you live in New York, or you’re just visiting, please remember to be respectful to those around you. Our lives will all be a little bit better if we can remember what we learned as a child and apply them to the world we live in now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jack Siah via Flickr]

Christina Teoli

Christina Teoli is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Christina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Walk in New York and Other Commonsense Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Update on Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling that deemed New York’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy as unconstitutional:

Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a separate “remedies opinion” to ensure NYPD cops no longer violate New Yorkers’ constitutional rights during stops. She ordered to implement a pilot program requiring officers in one precinct in every borough to wear body cameras for a year. This targets officerswith the highest amount stops in 2012.

Cameras will provide an objective record of what happens during a stop as well as provide evidence for citizens who wish to file a complaint regarding a stop. The recordings may either confirm or refute the argument that stop-and-frisk promotes racial profiling. At the end of the year, NYPD will have to decide whether the costs of the body cameras outweigh the benefits.

[BusinessInsider]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Fleshman via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Update: Cops Required to Use Cameras during Stop-and-Frisk appeared first on Law Street.

Stop-and-Frisk practice has recently taken another legal hit today, as federal judge, Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that the stop-and-frisk tactics of New York Police Department to have violated the constitutional rights of New Yorkers. Judge Scheindlin ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people without objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Judge Scheindlin has found the program demonstrates a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In addition, it also found violations with the 14th Amendment.

Judge Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan has designated an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution. Mr. Zimroth is a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter LLP. The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York follows a two month non-jury trial over the department’s stop-and-frisk practices earlier this year.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop-and-Frisk Takes Another Legal Hit appeared first on Law Street.

A New York law that required companies that received over $1 million in economic aid from the city to pay employees a prevailing wage and maintain records of workers’ hours and benefits information was struck down on Tuesday by the state’s Supreme Court. Despite the court’s view that the law may have been good for New York City, it was struck down because it preempted the existing minimum wage law.  Small businesses, nonprofits, manufacturing plants, and facilities under the city’s Health and Hospital Corp. would be exempt from the using the prevailing wage, which would be set annually by the city’s Comptroller.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg filed suit against the law after his veto was overridden by the 51 member City Council. The Mayor believes that such a law would prevent investment in the city and would have detrimental effects on many job-creating projects. The City Council has expressed its disagreement with the court’s decision and is will attempt legal action to overturn the ruling.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Zbyszek Zolkiewski via Flickr]

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 New York Court Strikes Down Prevailing Wage Law appeared first on Law Street.

The New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the ruling that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks is unconstitutional.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the law “violated the state principle of separation of powers.”  The ban would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants throughout the city.  The appeals court decision came after a New York Supreme Court Justice ruled that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Bloomberg has recently issued several executive orders and initiatives in an attempt to improving the health of New Yorkers, including mandating that all chain restaurants publicize calorie counts; promoting the use of stairways rather than elevators; and even an attempt to raise the age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.  Although he has faced several challenges to his health initiatives, he remains committed to improving the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

[NY Daily News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin via Flickr]

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 NYC Large Drink Ban Still Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.