Governor Mario Cuomo is posting a series of essays on DMIBlog this week, the reading of which is well worth your time.

The current essay, "Campaign in Poetry, Govern in Prose" poses a challenge to the Democrats running for the Presidency.

It’s hard to recall a time in the modern history of presidential elections when we had before us as many vital issues. That makes it more regrettable that some of the leading candidates for President are avoiding being specific about how they intend to deal with those issues.

The proliferation of candidates, the reluctance of leaders in the polls to engage in meaningful probing debate and the extraordinarily early primary season, threaten to give us another primary campaign of sound bites, elusive responses and negativism with dominant roles being played by polls, the power of money and the unpredictability of situation-altering incidents and co-incidents.

Monday's meeting of the Drum Major Institute and Baruch College's School of Public Affairs featured three major policy papers which, perhaps because of the structure of the conference, did not get the attention they deserved. All three are available at the DMI site. There's a lot to think about there.

The first, by CUNY professor John Mollenkopf, director of the Center for Urban Research (if you are not familiar with their work and have the time, explore their website) looked closely and economic and income trends over time to characterize the "Middle Class" His presentation, "Is New York Still a Middle Class Town?," is on the DMI site here . (pdf). It was excellent. It calls to mind and complements presentations about income distribution and employment trends in NYC by the Fiscal Policy Institute especially by FPI Director James Parrott and Senior Fellow David Dyssegaard Kallick.

The second was a report which could and should have been the focus of the meeting. The Drum Major Institute surveyed 100 (anonymous, but for one) leaders and experts. They asked detailed questions about the leaders views on the facts of life for the middle class in New York City. While the survey is really only about the views of those polled. They questions asked and the answers are intriguing . It's not data, it's not analysis of data -- but I bet that if you start reading it carefully, you'll finish. Read the executive summary here even if you're not an executive. They have a link to the full report (sorry again, pdf).

Mario Cuomo opened the Drum Major Institute with what lipris at The Albany Project called a barnburner of a speech. Well, they must burns barns more quietly in Albany than I am used to. (lipris has some favorite video of Cuomo here)

Cuomo, who's been a fiery orator in times past, delivered a learned (quoting Aristotle on the Middle Class), somewhat rambling lecture which began to smoke only as he critiqued "supply-side" (Voodoo) economics and Bush tax relief for the wealthy.

At the first panel, moderator Doug Muzzio, Bauch Public Affairs Professor tried to focus panelists on the lack of affordable housing and told his tale of fleeing to New Jersey. While two of the panelists, Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs and Finance Commissioner Martha Stark were essentially silent on the issue, one former Giuliani-Bloomberg official, Jerilyn Perine was just wonderful. Smart, funny, focused, she presented excellent and well-thought-out concrete proposals for increasing the amount of actually affordable housing. Perine, who had been nondescript as Commissioner of HPD in both Mayoral administrations, was a smart as a whip and twice as funny. Nothing I saw in her record at HPD would have led anyone to have expected her performance Monday. if you ever get a chance to hear her, freed apparently of many political constraints (she's in the consulting business), grab it.

The Drum Major Institute's meeting at Baruch College yesterday was important and remarkable as much for who was there as for what was said. Three elected officials who may run for Mayor in 2009 spoke and gave those of us in the audience a side-by-side view of them as policy makers as well as campaigners. While there's a lot of substance to write about the meeting, mayoral electoral politics was on the minds of many. Diane Cardwell's NY Times article also focused on the men who would be Mayor My post on the substance will follow later today.

NYC Comptroller William C. Thompson, Congress Member Anthony Weiner and Bronx Borough President Adolpho Carrion spoke and worked the room which was filled with lobbyists, consultants, non-profit executives and policy-junkies like me. What I saw surprised me.

Judging only by their focus and remarks Monday Comptroller Thompson and Bronx Beep Carrion do not intend to run against Mayor Bloomberg's record. This was a surprise to me, since of late, a firestorm of criticism against the Mayor has been burning over Mr. Bloomberg's education policies and practices. Indeed Mr. Thompson has sometimes been one of those setting the anti-Bloomberg fire alight.

Listening yesterday, however, the only potential candidate who clearly articulated a progressive platform against Mr. Bloomberg's record was Congress Member Weiner. As in his previous run for Mayor, Mr. Weiner was focused, smart and informed. On a panel with Council Member John Liu and Carrion, Weiner wit sparkled. On health care for employees of small business, for example, Weiner proposed that NYC bring the cost down by forming a small-business buyers' cooperative. It's well known that those entities able to deliver big pools of insured people (Big Corporations, NYC) get better insurance for lower prices. It's not the best solution (single payer, universal health insurance, as I see it), but its better than what we have now for small business. Carrion and Lu were skeptical and critical without any thought out reasons. I guess I'm also a fan of Mr. Weiner's Schumer-style sharpness and repartee.

Governor Mario Cuomo.

Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Can you get free from the burdens of work and seder preparation on Monday morning? The Drum Major Institute is sponsoring a most-of-the-day talk-fest on New York City and the Middle-class.

Featured speakers include form Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayoral-possibles Rep. Anthony Weiner and Comptroller William Thompson, Just-re-elected UFT President Randi Weingarten and NYC Finance Commissioner Martha Stark and Bronx Beep Adolfo Carrion Jr. You can read more about it here.

I personally had to move heaven and earth to clear the morning and will have to seder-prep all weekend, but I'm going.

Monday April 2, 2007 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
Baruch College Conference Center, Newman Vertical Campus
55 Lexington Avenue at 24th Street, 14th Floor

Try calling, emailing DMI to RSVP.
See you there.

When Vice-Chancellor Adelaide L. Sanford said it yesterday at the Drum Major Institute, it sounded like a wise crack but it wasn't. She said

"Is the Robin Hood System Ok?" implying that richer districts are being robbed to fund poorer ones. Regent Sanford won't abide by that framing;

"It's not Robin Hood, the truth of the matter is you rob the hood" (As quoted by DMI's Elana Levin.)

What Ms. Stanford was referring to is a difficult debate about how to fairly fund public education in New York State. Should the $5.7 Billion due NYC schools out of the CFE litigation (and perhaps a comparable amount state-wide) be taken from wealthier New Yorkers so as to improve the schools of poorer people? Ms. Sanford and I had both attended a Baruch College debate of the "Robin Hood" solution where educrats, progressive politicians and political scientists seemed to agree that no one was going to take money from the rich. Will everything change from day one? I personally doubt it because, to mangle Fred Douglas, powerful interests will give up nothing without a demand.

Education funding in NYS is boring and opaque for a reason: poor people pay for the schools of the rich. New York State's funding formula for schools rewards wealthy communities with lower tax rates and higher per-pupil expenditures (and, as a result, better schools) than poorer commmunities. This result, odd from a public policy point of view but completely understandable as an expression of raw political power, means that poor people pay much higher taxes for much worse schools.

I've been invited to pose questions at an event being put on by DMI on Monday, at the ungodly hour of 8:00 to 10:30 AM at the Harvard Club. The event headline is very timely: "Increasing accountability for economic development subsidies".

On September 18, 2006 the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy will host the latest installment of its 'Marketplace of Ideas' series featuring Senator John Hottinger of Minnesota.

Senator Hottinger sponsored Minnesota’s groundbreaking law instituting new standards of transparency and accountability for state and local economic development subsidies. The 1995 law and its subsequent enhancements required that companies who receive public subsidies but fail to reach job creation goals repay the subsidy with interest. The legislation also mandated increased corporate disclosure, wage standards for the jobs created, and public hearings before large subsidies could be granted. The law is credited with recouping millions of dollars in state funds and increasing civic engagement around issues of economic development.

I call this event timely for several reasons. Most importantly, this state will have a Democratic governor come January, one who is running on the slogan "On Day One, everything changes". If we're lucky, or more to the point, if we work very hard, Eliot will also have a Democratic majority in both houses of the legislature, clearing the way for the much-needed, oft-deferred reform of the state government. In short, the macro environment of governance in this state is about to change drastically.

I have been inundated with requests to post this press release. All I can say is óyeme chico, what the carajo?

Did you know that the New York City Police Department plans to put new severe restrictions on sidewalk and street use? Possibly as soon as August 24th?

The NYPD's New Rules
Under the guise of protecting the public safety, the New York City Police Department plans to expand its control over protest activity by labeling many common street and side walk uses as a "parade". If put into effect, these new rules will greatly suppress the right to assembly and expose peaceful protestors as well as regular people to arrest for things as simple as crossing the street against the light.

Under the NYPD's proposed rules:

* Any group of two (yes, 2) or more cyclists or pedestrians traveling down a public street, who violate any traffic law, rule or regulation can be arrested for parading without a permit.

* Any group of 20 or more cyclists must obtain a permit and approved route from the NYPD or would be subject to arrest

* Every group of 35 of more pedestrians must obtain a permit and approved route from the NYPD or would be subject to arrest

These rules could go into effect as soon as August 24th, 2006.

This matter is urgent. We implore all NYers to attend an important public hearing on August 23rd and contact their elected officials right away and tell them to stop the police from creating these rules. Details about the August 23rd event and how to contact your elected officials are in the side menu on the right.

Join Us In Spreading the Word!
Other websites are carrying the message of this site. We invite all other New Yorkers to help get out word of this plan, and let people know what they can do to stop it from going into effect. Blog about it, email it, comment about it on other sites, link to this site. You can use the graphic in the side menu on your site to help draw people's attention to this issue. If you blog about this issue or put the graphic on your site, and want to be listed here, let us know! You can email us at assembleforrights -at- yahoo.com.
How These Rules Will Suppress Free Speech

Parade regulation was established to regulate special non-traffic use of the streets. These rules would give the police the power to arrest and detain people for things as common as walking and biking and will essentially give the NYPD carte blanche to arrest any two or more persons they want.

These rules would quash spontaneous gatherings as people would be required to file for permits months in advance. Additionally requiring small groups to navigate the police bureaucracy and negotiate the particulars of their events: which side walk they will be on, where they will make turns, how long they will be there, is an overly high burden on our rights to assembly and speech asserted by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

In addition to protest activity the new rules will affect:

* Thousands of formal and informal runs, walks, walk-a-thons, charity runs, tours and bike rides * Thousands of routine training runs and bike rides
* School field trips
* School walks to the park
* Site seeing tours
* Historical, cultural, environmental & neighborhood walks and tours
* Funerals

More after the jump:

From DMIBlog: the state Senate – notorious as the graveyard for good legislation and the maternity ward of South Dakota-esque attacks on women - will be voting on a bill to protect home owners from what is known as deed theft.

In the predatory practice known as "deed theft" or "foreclosure rescue scams", speculators, from New York City to Buffalo, swoop in on homeowners who are having financial difficulty and promise to bail them out - if they just sign over the deed of their home. In this act of fraud, homeowners, often senior citizens, lose the precious equity in their homes and are eventually evicted. And as lives of homeowners are destabilized, so goes the neighborhoods they live in, making low-income areas like Bedford-Stuyvesant, where folks often store the only wealth they have in their homes, ripe for further speculation and gentrification.

The good news is that New York State is tantalizingly close to clamping down on deed theft. The Home Equity Theft Protection Act (S. 6824), which glided through the Assembly and actually has the support of the New York Bankers Association, not to mention hundreds of consumer and community groups throughout the state, is awaiting a vote on the floor of the Senate. According to a news release issued by the New Yorkers for Responsible Lending, a state coalition of 121 groups, the bill "would require written disclosure to homeowners regarding the terms of the title transfer, and provide a right to cancel the deal for five days after signing the contract. It would prohibit making false statements with intent to defraud the homeowner. The legislation would establish civil and criminal penalties for violating the law."

In the, shall we say, difficult environment in which the Senate majority finds itself, some judicious citizen pressure should go a long way in helping Senators make the right choice in this case. If not, well, there is always November, when you in turn have your choice.

To find your Senator, please click here.

(Hat tip to Elana Levin)