Virtually ignored by the Charter Commission report: a strong mayor, weak Borough Presidents, and the fact that there's "no real local government"
Atlantic Yards Report

The news from the city's Charter Revision Commission is that a vote on term limits (and maybe Instant Runoff Voting) are apparently on the agenda, but more substantive change, regarding issues like more public input into land use and expanded power of Borough Presidents, is not.

That's plausible, given the tight schedule to get measures on the November ballot, but the commission's staff report was dismissively brief, ignoring many legitimate criticisms posed by the Borough Presidents and others.

As the Staten Island Advance reported yesterday, that ticked off one Commission member:

"The fact the conversation on borough presidents and community boards warrants maybe two paragraphs, to me is utterly disrespectful to the communities," said Carlo A. Scissura, who is chief of staff to Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz.

The fundamental problem

The failure to address the BPs' concerns reflects a larger issue, one that doesn't get traction in the Commission report, and one that explains the hundred successful rezonings under Mayor Mike Bloomberg and his ability to get agencies to march in lockstep to support projects like Atlantic Yards.

"The fundamental principle in this city is that there’s no real local government," suggested Gerald Benjamin, a professor at SUNY New Paltz, speaking at a June 10 hearing of the Commission. So "trapping the discourse as to whether the Borough President should have a guaranteed budget… drives discussion to margin rather than core."

That, to City Pragmatist blogger Alvin Berk, chairman of Brooklyn Community Board 14, was exactly the wrong thing. He wrote:

Benjamin, comparing NYC with other cities, observed that “the fundamental principle in this city is that there’s no real local government,” and then gave the 2010 commission an excuse to avoid this issue by commenting that its time frame forces it to “trap the discourse” at the marginal level of deciding whether borough presidents’ budgets should be formulaic, instead of considering what their duties and powers should be.

What next?

City Limits reported:

Adam Friedman, the executive director of the Pratt Center for Community Development, which has recommended comprehensive changes to the city's land use process, says he is "cautiously optimistic" that the panel might pursue a wider agenda than the staff has recommended.

"The dilemma everyone faces is that, yes, it is very complex. There's something about the commission process that makes it very hard to deal with complex issues," he says. But if the current panel has too little time, Friedman says, it's important not to waste time starting the next one. "If it's too complex to get onto the [November] ballot, you have to start right away on the 15-month process of hearings" for the next commission, he says. The current commission, or a new one, must be reappointed to begin that process.

...

Markowitz's take

Markowitz, in his April 20 testimony, also asked for broader powers for the BPs including formula-based yearly budgets for borough presidents, public advocate and community boards; a determination, not recommendation, in ULURP, requiring a CPC and City Council supermajority for an override; and “advice and consent” role in the appointment of borough commissioners of mayoral agencies; and a consistent budget for community boards.

As he testified:

So when it comes to things like land use, economic development, affordable housing, and ensuring equitable distribution of city resources, Borough Presidents are truly the only elected officials charged with considering the needs of each borough as a whole.

We are elected with more votes than any office other than the three citywide offices in this city (and sometimes, we even get more votes than those running for citywide offices do in our boroughs!). These voters elect us expecting that we have the power to help them — to be ombudsmen, ambassadors, and most importantly, to be a voice independent of city council and city hall. They look to us as the “chief executive” of the borough, with the power to plan and implement and truly fight for their interests.

Consider this: Brooklyn is home to 2.6 million residents. If it were its own city, it would be the fourth largest “city” in the United States. As it stands, I absolutely view my office as the “nerve center” of Brooklyn, and I leverage our land use powers and capital budget, as well as the power of the press and “bully pulpit,” to forge partnerships that result in economic development and more responsive, better city services. And of course, to make sure Brooklyn always gets its fair share.

Some might say I’ve been effective (well, those who like what I’ve done), but frankly, to truly be effective — to be able to do what voters entrust us to do, to be the independent voice and essential “checks and balances” in a “strong mayor” system — the position of borough president must be enhanced, with a stronger voice on land use issues, a more robust executive role with regard to borough commissioners and agencies, and an independent budget determined by formula — not, as it now is, by the subjective yearly decisions of the City Council and the Mayor.

...

Unelected government

Only late in the hearing did a former Staten Island Council Candidate, John Tabacco, bring home some oddities in the discussion.

"It’s odd that tonight’s panel would be to talk about structure, because, when you look at the political landscape.. there seems to be no structure these days,” he said. “When you look at New York state, we have an unelected governor, we have an unelected comptroller, we have an unelected lieutenant governor, we have an unelected senator, and many would argue that we have a mayor who was not legally elected." (Emphasis added.)

That comment, as with Benjamin's observation that "there’s no real local government," lingers out there for any student of democracy as practiced in this city and state.