Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v19)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

People of a certain age will remember the old saying, "if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you," a tip of the hat to America's Greatest Conman, George C Parker. If you don't know George, he was the guy that 'sold' the Brooklyn Bridge to newcomers to the Big Apple back in the day; he also reportedly sold Grant's Tomb.

Our con men aren't as sneaky as Parker -  they do this stuff right under our noses, by taking advantage of poorly written laws and also by taking advantage of the people we elect to the New York State legislature.

One example of this - abuses of the condominium tax break - recently re-surfaced thanks to reporting by Michelle Breidenbach. In her article for the Post-Standard and Syracuse.com, we learn of two single-family homes on the same street in one of the wealthy eastern suburbs of Syracuse. The houses were purchased for the same price, are a quarter-mile apart, and one pays almost double the property taxes of the other. The lower-taxed house is a condominium under the carefully manipulated laws of New York.

A condominium, you say? Isn't that a bunch of connected units, like an apartment building? Yes, that's what most people think a condo is. But a condo is not a condo any more - at least, not according to the law.

From Breidenbach's article:

Savvy builders across New York are taking advance of a loophole in state law that allows all kinds of homes to be called condominiums. That requires them to be assessed at a lower value than traditional single-family homes.

More than 100,000 condos in upstate New York are cashing in on the tactic. Their owners are taking an average 36% discount on their assessments, according to a Syracuse.com analysis of thousands of assessment and sales records. 

Upstate condo owners avoid at least $330 million a year in property taxes, leaving their neighbors to pick up the slack to pay for schools and local government. 

Yep - at least $330,000,000 in property taxes that are not collected, all because some lawyers and builders figured out a way to screw their neighbors - completely legally.  Again, from the article:

This strategy has spread around the state to wherever builders know the trick -- from the Buffalo suburbs to the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County. Yes, that Trump. 

The condo break has almost no public benefit. Yet it goes mostly unnoticed by neighbors, unchallenged in Albany and ridiculed by town assessors who struggle to administer it.  

Under the law, which was created half a century ago - back in the 1960s - to protect folks who lived in NYC apartments when their buildings went condo. The law says that a condo unit - including summer homes, ski lodges, and yes, single family homes - are to be assessed based on how much owners of these 'units' can make in rental income, rather than on the value if the 'condo' was to be sold.

Clearly, the average person can see that what's happening here in the Syracuse suburbs, on Trump's golf course, and across the state is both wrong and unfair.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, no one involved in the crafting of the legislation probably ever figured that it would be so abused; they probably never thought that anyone outside NYC would have paid any attention to the law, much less used it to such in such a detrimental fashion to the rest of us.  But, that's what always happens, isn't it?

We have a long history of laws that turn into private welfare systems for the wealthy and for corporations. It's almost an expectation that this will happen whenever we come out with legislation to protect someone, or to incentivize economic development, or to enable some other lofty goal.

Remember the Empire Zone program? You know, the one that allowed companies to file paperwork to rename themselves, and take credit for 'hiring' new people and garnering them fantastic tax breaks and in some cases, tax refunds?  Or, they'd hire one employee and voila, be eligible for the special deals? There's some great (shameful?) information on how this program ran amok in this Citizens Budget Commission report.

Or how about the Tax Free NY program? That one hurts companies like the one I work for, which in one way or another has been around for some 80 years, and instead favors a different class of companies and their employees with ridiculous tax breaks?  Here's are a couple of posts I've done on this program; you can decide if you think it's fair, or if it offers any true public value.

The bottom line? Legislation created by well-meaning Democrats and Republicans we send to Albany are being abused, in many cases by donors to those same legislators. And, whether it's because their afraid of losing their campaign cash or because they're just not strong enough to walk back something that's gone awry, we're stuck with these programs.

And not only that, they continue to create new ones at every turn; a perfect case in point is the whole 'competition' for economic development dollars promoted annually by our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo. We all know what happened with that program, right? Criminal convictions of key players in the program, a close compadre of the governor, and developers from Syracuse and Buffalo - so far. You can read about that gang, pre-convictions - here.

It's long past the time for putting these gimmicky programs to rest, and it's time we put fairness back into our tax programs.

The Update Desk: Meanwhile Back in Albany (v34)

Was it really only back in September that we were talking about New York's failed attempt to limit outside income for our state legislators?

That's when we learned, in Meanwhile Back in Albany (v34), that two different state judges had tossed the outside income limit, fought by both Republicans AND Democrats. The limit was recommended by the same commission that defined a three-year pay raise, elevating the base pay from $79,500 to $130,000 over three years; the first bump, to $110,000, took effect in January 2019.

The raises (and the income limit) were predicated on the claim that the legislators were full time, that the pay hadn't gone up in around 20 years, and that we have had enough of ethically-challenged legislators. The 2020 and 2021 raises had the limits attached.

The judges had different opinions on the limits.

State Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin determined only the raises - not the outside income limits - carry the force of law, noting

"All of the committee's other recommendations are just that - recommendations advanced for the consideration of policy makers, but not the law of New York State." 

Under this decision, it appears the three-year raise deal will stand.

However,

State Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba ruled that the pay raise committee had overstepped its authority by tying the raises to the outside income limits. And, her ruling allowed at least this year's installment of of the raise to stand, perhaps because this is the only year of the three where there is no limit on the outside income.

In one part of her decision, Ryba "severs" the 2019 pay increase from scheduled hikes for future years - suggesting the pay raises for 2020 and 2021 won't take effect, and the pay committee or Legislature would have to revisit the issue.

There was always a chance that - oh, heck, who am I kidding? There was NO chance at all that the legislature would come back this year for a special session to come up with a plan that would effectively limit outside income, or officially give up the pay raise for years two and three, since those were tied to the progressive income limits.

There was no chance, and they have not come back, of course. So, what do we do now?

Well, good government groups have not given up on this, it seems. In a recent entry in the NY State of Politics blog, Nick Reisman provided an update.

A coalition of good-government organizations on (October 24th) released a letter to the governor and top lawmakers in the state Senate and Assembly urging them to take up an outside income ban. 

The groups - Common Cause New York, NYPIRG, the League of Women Voters of New York State, Reinvent Albany, and Citizens Union of the City of New York, want this whole thing relooked at. Here are excerpts from their letter.

Dear Governor Cuomo, Speaker Heastie, and Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins:   

We write to urge you to act to limit the outside income of lawmakers, consistent with the recommendations of the 2018 New York State Compensation Committee, when the legislature next meets. 

Our groups were pleased when the ​New York State Compensation Committee​ ​last December acted to restrict outside income earned by lawmakers at 15 percent of the legislative base salary, or $18,000, consistent with limits for members of the United States Congress. The Commission also completely prohibited the earning of compensation when lawmakers have a fiduciary relationship to a client or employer...  ​These restrictions are consistent with those imposed on the United States Congress. 

 Unfortunately, the binding recommendations issued by the Compensation Committee regarding outside income were struck down by the courts, even while lawmakers received a raise... We understand Attorney General Tish James is no longer pursuing appeals of the different cases involving outside income restrictions.  

It is therefore incumbent on you as the state’s leaders to act to curtail outside income by lawmakers to address the corruption problem in Albany and restore the public trust. 

It goes on to remind the current leaders of "too many instances of corruptions and conflicts of interest" - including recent unethical poster boys Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos - stemming from legislators seeking personal gain related to their other jobs or jobs held by family members.

This is why the Commission concluded that restricting outside income “will eliminate both the perception of and any actual conflicts of interest” and “eliminates the possibility for the public to question whether the citizens of this State are being properly served.” 

The Commission’s conclusions are no less true than they were a year ago. The state’s leaders must act to fulfill them. 

I'll add one more note on this: the 2020 legislative calendar has been released; our full-time, no-outside-income-limit legislators are scheduled for 57 days in Albany next year.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v12)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

Remember when New Yorkers voted to amend the state Constitution to add casinos?

It's hard to believe it was four years ago - back in 2013 - that we had the opportunity to vote on, and ended up overwhelmingly approving, this change.

I have long felt that it was a combination of two things: the promise of a sure thing from the government, and the hope for a long shot personal win - that led to the approval of the initiative.

The potential for a personal win? Go to your local casino (not to one of the ones owned and operated by Native Americans or, heaven forbid, one in another state), try your luck, and walk away with a ton of cash. After all, it happens all the time -- we see the billboards and the TV ads of the winners, and the beautiful people in their fancy clothes having a ball at the casinos, right? And who would be having that much fun if they were losing?

The sure thing the government promised us? Let's look back at that ballot initiative:

The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenue generated.

Fun times, right? Hopes were high back in those days. Not so much now, though. According to an article from earlier this month,  all three of the first licensees are underperforming. 

• del Lago Resort and Casino, down the Thruway a bit from Syracuse, opened earlier this year with projected gaming revenue of $263M for its first year.  As it stands, they'll probably fall about $100M short.
• Rivers Resort and Casino also opened earlier this year in Schenectady, and is expected to fall about $80M short of its $222M projection.
• Tioga Downs, which upgraded from a racino to a casino that opened in December 2016, had lower projections - $103M - and is also expected to fall short, by around $30M.

An Associated Press article out today goes into more detail on why we may not be seeing the 'elusive' jackpot we were all waiting for.

Analysts blame a crowded market for the disappointing new casino revenues. Aside from the five full-scale Indian casinos, New York is home to ten 'racino' horse tracks with video lottery terminals. The Oneidas, who operate the Turning Stone casino in central New York, also run a mini-casino in a strip mall near Syracuse. 

That competition is going to be increasing, too.

A fourth $1.2B casino resort selected by state officials is set to open in March in the Catskills, about 90 miles northwest of New York City. Another casino less than an hour from the New York border in Springfield, Massachusetts, is set to open later in 2018. And the Oneidas are set to open a second mini-casino near Syracuse in the spring. 

For casino hosts like Schenectady, which budgeted for revenue that's not coming in, things are not looking good. Here's Councilman Vince Riggi:

It's a plus (the new revenue that is coming in), but it's still a disappointment, that's the way I see it. We were told to expect much more.

Tioga Downs owner Jeff Gural, who also owns the Vernon Downs Racino, has a different take on things, and focuses on the economic benefits of the casinos instead of on the less-than-projected revenues.

It's been a huge success. Whatever has been promised from an economic development standpoint has been delivered by the casinos. The real losers, frankly, are the owners of the three casinos. 

I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Gural asked for and received a bailout from the state to keep Vernon Downs open; it gets to keep more of the money that would have gone to the state, and they get to use capital improvement funds for operating expenses. The racino was losing about $5K a day, state officials were told; competition was one of the main drivers of the losses, Gural noted.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, legislators are not happy. Assemblyman Gary Pretlow, a Dem from Westchester  County, wants the state comptroller to investigate, as he's concerned the state will be asked to step in and help. His letter to Tom DiNapoli, he noted (in part)

When our state passed legislation to expand gaming, our decision was based on projections of robust revenues and promises that casino development would not place new burdens on taxpayers... The last few months, however, have called into question those projections and promises.

And, he noted

It is critically important that we have reliable and realistic long-term revenue projections - so we can prevent the recent gaming expansion from creating an arms race to more and more tax subsidies.

I would add that it's critically important that local governments budget responsibly, which would include not betting the farm that all of the promised gaming revenue would actually come in - but maybe that's just me.

Oh -- about that gaming expansion Pretlow mentioned? It's going to get worse.

Here in NY, we've got another billion dollar casino resort opening in the Catskills in March, and another mini-casino from the Oneidas opening in Bridgeport, at the outer reaches of Onondaga County, also in the spring. Another is scheduled to open in Springfield, MA, a relatively short hop from the NY border.

This will be one to watch going forward. With our appetite for bailing out gambling facilities already demonstrated, this could all turn into one really ugly crap shoot.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v26)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Here in Syracuse, our mayor just delivered his second State of the City address (you can read about that here and here), setting the stage for what we can expect locally as we move into the new year.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo delivered his ninth State of the State address last week.

This is the first in a series of posts about the SOTS - because it never fits into only one. We're New York, after all.

It's important to know going in that, for the first time in quite a while, a single party controls the governorship, the State Assembly, and the State Senate -- and that party, of course, is the Democrats.  Almost uniformly, there's some salivating and chomping at the bit to get to work on a new, even more progressive agenda, and they are promising to waste little time in doing exactly that.

As is typical for this kind of speech (they honestly can't help themselves, I'm convinced), Cuomo started with introductions,  mentioning Tish James, our new Attorney General. James is the first African-American woman to win a statewide race. Also mentioned? The first woman - and the first African-American woman - to lead one of the legislative chambers, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and Carl Heastie, the Assembly leader. These two will be instrumental in helping push the agenda.

After the callouts to folks in the room, this was how Cuomo set the stage:

This year, we think it's the year to fully enact a justice agenda, in the broadest sense of the word 'justice.' Social justice, economic justice, and racial justice. And that this is the time to do it. We face real challenges in the state of New York. We have a federal government that is assaulting our values, our liberties, our rights, and our economy. Literally our economy. The federal cuts to our budget would be devastating and the federal effect on the values and liberties of New Yorkers would be devastating. And this is the moment in government that we are leading. And it is up to us to bring this state forward. We have no allies who are going to help us. The federal government is not going to help us. It's up to this legislative body to lead this state at this crucial time. 

He then turned to several 'good news' items, including having a "functional government" that is "competent" and "accomplishment oriented" - in fact, he said, "we're the most progressive government in the United States of America."  Social accomplishments mentioned include:

• NY as the first big state to pass marriage equality
• being the first state to pass $15 - the highest minimum wage
• having the most aggressive building agenda
• being a national champion for organized labor
• implementing the first free college tuition program
• having the best paid family leave program in the nation and
• being a leader on gun safety

But there's more, much more, in the look-back.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v34)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Regular readers know I'm not a fan of the term 'full-time legislator' being applied to New York's state senators and members of the assembly.  They're in session about 60 days a year, after all, unless a special session is called.

But they used the full-time designation as justification for their pay raise request, something I've written about many times, including the first six or seven posts in this Meanwhile, Back in Albany series.

When they were granted a $50K+ raise over three years last year, the one good thing I saw come from that was a limit on outside income starting in January 2020. Here's what I said about the deal back in December, knowing that folks were happy with the raise, probably wishy-washy on the lulus, and unhappy with the outside income limits.

Legislators can convene a special session to overturn the recommendations, but that seems unlikely. What seems more likely is that there'll be court challenges to the plan, on the income cap almost certainly, and perhaps on the 'pay for performance' aspect of future raises.

We've not heard the last of this, for sure. 

No, we've not. But we have heard about the court challenges. For example, we learned recently that a second state judge has ruled that the limits on outside income don't pass muster. State Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin determined only the raises - not the outside income limits - carry the force of law, noting

"All of the committee's other recommendations are just that - recommendations advanced for the consideration of policy makers, but not the law of New York State." 

Under this decision, it appears the three-year raise deal will stand.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v24): Cuomo Pardons

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

The government shutdown, allegedly over border security, is looking more and more like it's about testosterone and backbone more than anything else.

We're hearing of foul-mouthed outbursts, and concerns of a certain someone "looking silly" if he were to back down on his demands, and of course we know that the Senate doesn't care what anyone says, they're not doing their job no matter what. 

The president is spending an inordinate amount of time in the White House, instead of in Florida, which is saving us millions of dollars, so I guess we should be happy that he's contributing in a positive way to the situation.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, 2018 came to a close with NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo issued pardons and sentence commutations to 29 people, 22 of whom are immigrants. And he did it with a dig at the president:

While president Trump shuts down the federal government over his obsessions with keeping immigrants out, New York stands strong in our support for immigrant communities. These actions will help keep immigrant families together and take a critical step toward a more just, more fair and more compassionate New York.

So, who benefited from this, the fifth occurrence of Cuomo protecting immigrants in this fashion?

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v23)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Some of us might have started the new year here in New York relaxing, binge-watching TV, tackling a hangover, or other similar New Year's Day activities.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, others are hitting the ground running in new roles, including Attorney General, Letitia 'Tish' James, the Empire State's first black AG, and the first woman elected to serve in the role.

James has been involved in politics in New York City for years, most recently as the Public Advocate. Before that, she was a Council member, representing folks in Brooklyn, and she previously headed the AG's regional office there.

Her list of accomplishments in those roles is a long one, according to her bio:

• she passed more legislation than all previous Public Advocates - combined
• as a Council member, she passed the Safe Housing Act, helped uncover corruption, and pushed through multiple recycling laws
• she investigated predatory lenders, helped investigate the 'stop and frisk' policy, and took on businesses for human rights and environmental laws and scams targeting immigrants in the Brooklyn AG office.

Even with all of those accomplishments, and her stellar resume, there's one 'first' that's missing: James is our second female AG.

Barbara Underwood was the first.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v1)

Nathaniel Brooks/New York Times 

It's been awhile since I've looked at Albany in the pages of veritable pastiche.

I tried to get excited about the legislative session that ended back back in mid-June, I really did. As is usually the case, the end of session is a jam-packed, fun-filled time. In the first twelve days of June alone, there were nearly 700 bills introduced or amended, some more than once, according to this article. And of course, the end-of-session is where the rubber meets the road. As the article notes:

This is crunch time, when the power reputations of lobbyists and special interest groups are put to the test, and when rank-and-file lawmakers face a traffic jam to get their pet bills onto the floor, where legislation is rarely defeated. 

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

Some things did get accomplished this session. There were some changes made to breast cancer screening practices, including more user-friendly hours, time off from work, and some insurance changes. There was increased focus on the opioid epidemic, and some opportunity for stripping ethically challenged legislators of their pensions, assuming the legislature approves it again in the 2017 session, and then New Yorkers will have the chance to vote on it -- in 2018.

We can serve alcohol earlier on Sundays, helpful to restaurants that are in the brunch business and for sports bars that carry European events which sometimes are shown live here at 8AM. And daily sports betting has been determined to be a game of skill instead of a fool's errand, so we're going to be back in business there, barring a successful legal challenge.

And, we got a very complicated process for increasing the minimum wage, over a period of years, to something that more closely resembles the 'living wage' we've heard so much about during the presidential campaign.

So, why does this all leave me and so many other New Yorkers less than thrilled with our state legislature?

The NY Legislative calendar (matching versions are published by the Senate and Assembly) reflects that, from the early January through the end of May, there are 48 session days and 8 days of 'legislative activity/budget hearings.'  Add in the nine days scheduled for June, and you've got a total of 65 days during which our part-time representatives, who are all paid at least $79K annually (plus a per diem for each day they travel) are officially at work in Albany doing the people's business. Or waiting to do the people's business, as the case may be. And fundraising.

According to the NY Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) in a June 3rd press release, there were at least 167 'out of district' fundraisers by State Senators, State Assembly members, and by their respective committees. About a third of them were held at the Fort Orange Club, which must be a pretty special place to get all of that business.

I don't know if anyone keeps track of the other fundraisers that are held within the districts to help raise the necessary cash to run for re-election; these at least would seem on the surface to be OK, since the legislators would be asking for support directly from the people they represent.

They do more than fundraising and attend a few sessions from January to June. There's 'constituent service' that keeps these folks and their staff busy at least some of the time when they're not on the clock in Albany. There are ribbon to cut and signs to unveil, and those ever-present banners to unfurl - you know, the ones thanking them for "bringing home our tax dollars" in support of events and festivals for us, and stuff like that.

I get that the job doesn't have regular hours. My mother was a member of her local town board for one term, and I know she took some calls 'off-hours' but it was hardly a 24/7 job, and I don't think being a state legislator is one, either. But with no required accounting of the work these folks do, it's hard to get a sense of how much time they actually put in as legislators.

So now, hearing that our part-timer lawmakers might be in for a big fat pay raise, and a possibly a designation as full-time legislators, I have to scratch my head. I just have to scratch my head.

I'll try and take an objective look at the pay raise issue in my next post. No promises, but I'll do my best. 

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v17)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

For the second time, former NY State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his son Adam were found guilty of corruption charges.  

Previously convicted in back in 2015, that verdict was thrown out and a new trial ordered based on a Supreme Court decision in another dirty politician's trial. The Skelos case was kicked off by former US Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by the Trump Administration, as happens sometimes when administrations change. (Bharara is now more than holding his own on social media, hosting a podcast on NPR and otherwise keeping us in the know.) 

And yes, while the trial was in Manhattan, the case has legs beyond the boundaries of New York City.  Because, meanwhile back in Albany, these are just a couple more convictions in a list of convictions on ethics-related charges that have occured in the past few years, reinforcing the message that we need to do something about the people we elect, the people they appoint, and how they all operate.

Who's in the rogue's gallery, in addition to Skelos? Here's a partial list, covering the nine years I've been publishing veritable pastiche of just the convicted state pols, not the 'resigned in disgrace because of a sex scandal' gang or any who served at the federal level:

• Sheldon Silver, Assembly Leader
• Deputy Senate Majority Leader Tom Libous
• Senate Minority Leader John L Sampson
• Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith
• Assemblywoman Gabriela Rosa
• Assemblyman William Boyland
• Assemblyman Eric Stevenson
• Assemblyman Nelson Castro
• State Senator Shirley Huntley
• Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada, Jr.
• State Senator Vincent Leibell
• State Senator Nicholas Spano
• State Comptroller Alan Hevesi
• State Senator Carl Kruger
• State Senator Hiram Monserrate
• State Senator Efrain Gonzalez, Jr.
• State Health Commissioner Antonia Novello

Pretty impressive, kinda sorta, isn't it? You know, in a shameful kind of way, or in a 'seriously, we can't do better than this?" kind of way.

We've tried to address this, in any number of ways, including suggesting that the legislators get paid more so they would be less tempted to be bad.

We've tried passing ethics legislation - that didn't work, either.  And we had our Sonofa Gov's Moreland Commission, which was abruptly cancelled just when things started getting interesting.

Do we maybe just need better people?

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v22)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

I've previously written about the prospects of a pay raise for New York's governor and legislature. In fact, that was what started me down the path of this Meanwhile, Back in Albany theme, and several of the early posts from 2016 tie to the pay raise issue.

That previous effort failed, as we learned, when the special commission to figure it all out fell short, with some abstentions on the final vote which made the raise impossible. Things were quiet for a while, except for the mumbling and grumbling, of course, about the failure to get the job done.

This year, a new commission was appointed, but instead of having a large group with varied experiences, it was made up of current and former comptrollers. This smaller group supports raises for the gov, our 213 legislators in the State Assembly and Senates, and some others in the gov's cabinet. And, they also support limits on outside income to 15% of their legislative pay, as well as getting rid of our famous lulus, the extra pay legislators get for leadership roles on committees.

So, what did the comptrollers recommend for these folks?

• paying the governor $250,000 by 2022 (currently the salary is $178,000)
• paying legislators $130,000 by 2021, up from their current $79,500 part-time pay

The legislators, we're reminded regularly, haven't had a raise in 20 years which is a long time - but finally, we've been seeing turnover and the number of folks who are still there today who were there when the last raise went in is dwindling. That's a good thing, but it also means that we'll be giving 'makeup' pay to people who are very early in their legislative careers.

Now, I get that having to go to Albany for the first five months of the year (with a daily stipend on top of the salary and lulus) for committee meetings and votes and passing often inconsequential one-house bills while waiting for the governor and the other two folks in a room to hammer out a budget which includes most of the significant legislative initiatives for the state (that's how those get passed, you know) can be tough - but the rest of the year, they're in their district, meeting and greeting and keeping their names and faces out in public. And of course, they're taking calls from constituents (and holding more fundraisers), but is that really 40-some-odd hours a week? And isn't that what they signed up for?

The Leg and governor do this pay raise thing by commission to try and keep themselves out of having to decide their own pay, particularly lately with all of the corruption we've seen from our elected officials, their families, and their big donors. All of that still leaves a bad taste in our mouths, even as we understand that, as Assembly Speaker noted, many members are facing "middle class financial concerns" including student loan debt and caring for young and aging family members.

The median income in New York is $62,909 - which makes those "middle class financial concerns" the Speaker mentioned pretty daunting, compared to what they'd be with double the salary for a half-year job, wouldn't you think?

Today, we're expecting the commission, to release their report, and hopefully provide more details on how this is all supposed to work, especially the limit on outside income. What counts in the limit, and how or if the legislators will be able to protect their outside income, such as transferring it to a spouse, are a couple of questions. Doing that kind of transfer would not necessarily remove the corruption enticement - the tree from which the poisoned fruit falls will still be in the same garden, right?

The devil will be in the details, and that's the devil we're hoping to see later today.

Sidebar: Meanwhile Back in Albany (v35)

In Monday's Meanwhile Back in Albany post, we learned that New York's Cuomo administration is under FBI investigation for hiring practices, specifically the practice of putting Executive Chamber employees on the payrolls of other state departments or on the payrolls of the generally free-to-do-what-they-want 'authorities' that are all over our government.

I wanted to share some additional reporting by the Albany Times Union on this, including details on some of the specific hires that were handled this way.  Take Steven L Aiello, for example.

About a year ago, Steven L. Aiello, who was several years out of college, landed a prestigious new job as a policy adviser to Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But like many others who have worked on the Capitol's second floor, Aiello was not actually paid by the governor's office. 

Instead, records show he drew his salary as a "project assistant" in the Division of Military and Naval Affairs, which manages New York's military forces. 

His father, COR Development executive Steven F. Aiello, was sentenced to three years in jail and must pay a $500,000 fine after being convicted on federal conspiracy and fraud charges as part of the 'Buffalo Billions' investigation. One of the things that got him in trouble? Demanding his son get a $5,000 raise. According to emails uncovered during the investigation, Steven F. was unhappy - very unhappy.

"I just got a call from (my son), he got his paperwork for his raise. He went from 54 thousand a year to 56 thousand!," the senior Aiello wrote. He added that his son "bust(s) his ass, loyal as the day is long. I have been loyal as the day is long. They insult us like this. I'm finished!!!"

That worked, it seems - Steven L. Aiello did get his raise; he's since left the administration.

The dumping of Steven L.'s salary and benefits to a place outside the Executive Chamber payroll is not unusual. In fact, more than 40% of the people who currently work in Cuomo's office are paid not by the Executive Chamber but by separate agencies or public authorities, according to a Times Union analysis of records. An open records request from the paper garnered a list of 209 people who the governor's office says work for Executive Chamber's office, but payroll records from the Comptroller's office show the Executive Chamber itself is only paying 120 employees.

Some other examples are not as juicy as the Aiello situation. Among others uncovered by the TU were a couple of Cuomo speechwriters. One was placed on the payroll as a "special assistant" at the office of Children and Family Services. Another was paid by the Affordable Housing Corporation, one of our many authorities. The deputy director of Cuomo's Washington office, who's been paid by the Environmental Facilities Corp., and the assistant deputy secretary for Homeland Security, paid by the Housing Trust Fund, are a couple more high-level examples. And, of course, the authority positions are outside the state's civil service system.

Now, we're told that this has been going on for a long time, one of those 'everyone does it' things that happen in Albany, but I'm not sure how that excuses similar behavior from anyone who pretends to be ethical?

One of the Sonofa Gov's spokespeople said

The state payroll has been reduced by more than 10,000 staffers during this administration. To focus on 80 slots is absurd. 

Again, I'm not sure how cutting the payroll across the board would excuse the unethical payroll-dumping of Executive Chamber staff to other departments and agencies?

It's a mess - an unethical mess. If these people are needed in the Executive Chamber, then they should be paid by the Executive Chamber. And if the Sonofa Gov is trying to make himself look good, he's failing - miserably - again.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v36)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Ah... late fall in New York.

The time when DPW folks and highway superintendents and mayors and county executives in my neck of the woods get to stop worrying (at least a little) about getting highway projects wrapped up, and start worrying (at least a little) about whether they've got enough road salt or sand to keep their roads safe through the winter, reminding people to shovel out fire hydrants in their neighborhood, and things like that. Our full-time legislators are back home in their districts, doing whatever it is they do when the Leg is not in session the second six months of the year.

And meanwhile, back in Albany, the wheels the Legislature set in motion continue to turn, with bills approved during our brief but spectacular legislative session making their way to the governor's desk for signature. Or not.

I recently saw reporting on auburnpub.com of a veto by our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, on a bill that was unanimously approved by both the Assembly and the Senate. The bill would have provide much-needed help to those DPW folks and highway superintendents and mayors and county executives who have to manage their local budgets to pay for maintenance of state roads within their jurisdictions - at a rate that hasn't gone up since 1987.  It also would have tied the reimbursement rate to the urban Consumer Price Index, so that it would be increased incrementally as needed.

There are 38 local jurisdictions in New York that take care of this kind of maintenance; one of them, the city of Auburn, maintains over 197,000 square yards of arterial highways, receiving 85 cents per square yard, with a an additional dime tacked on for square yards on bridges. The law, had it not been vetoed, would have upped the non-bridge yardage reimbursement to $1.87 and to 20 cents for bridge yardage.

According to data supplied by the NY State Conference of Mayors, Auburn would receive slightly over $200,000 in additional funding; the same would be true for Syracuse, where I live. The total additional cost would be around $12.7 million. The lion's share - over $8M - would have gone to New York City.

However, in vetoing the legislation, Cuomo said that the bill didn't include a funding source, that it would "significantly increase expenditures" and that this kind of thing needs to be done during the budget process. I don't know about you, but I don't see this as a "significant" increase in a $175.5B budget. And yes, I understand that we do have a huge budget gap that is likely to get worse instead of better, even if Cuomo and the legislative leaders take steps to get spending under control.

While state residents may not necessarily feel the state's budget gap directly, municipalities that have to pay increasing costs to repair the state highways in their jurisdictions are almost certainly feeling the impact of the 1987 reimbursement rates on their budgets - and that's the kind of economics that trickles down to residents who have to pay the costs. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be paying for with our tax dollars.

Supporters of the bill vow to try again in the 2020 session, which starts up in January. I'd like to think that, in a state where we can make up for legislators not getting a raise for 20 years, we should be able to fix this reimbursement rate, which hasn't seen an increase in over 30.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v16)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Many of us have been focused lately on Washington's spending bill, which added Carl Sagan-esque billions and billions of dollars to the federal deficit, on top of the tax plan Christmas present we got last year - but then we moved quickly on to 'school safety/gun safety/dammit we're taking ALL your guns!' discussions that have been occurring, honestly and not, since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.

Or  we've been focused on how Congressional Democrats miraculously lost their entire chain of thought on solving the DACA problem, given that they can only argue about one thing at a time, and because they have to focus on winning seats in special elections so they could, assuming they win the majority in November, go back to focusing on stuff like DACA, or finding a candidate to take on Trump in 2020, or whatever else they're thinking.

Meanwhile, back in Albany,  New York's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo and his handful of men in a room managed to hash out and pass a budget deal, before the deadline, leaving everyone time to get home for the holiday.

Among the provisions in the $163B budget:

• requirements related to preventing sexual harassment for the government and private companies;
• a projected $100M annually from opioid manufacturers to help combat addiction;
• tax credits for charitable contributions for public education or health care programs, and an option for an employer tax to replace personal income taxes;
• new spending on education;
• another commission to figure out how much we should pay legislators and other government officials (see prior posts on the pay issue here: v3, v5, v6, v7, v8 - including my solution, which will NEVER come to fruition)
• funding for water quality issues of various types; 
• prohibitions on police claiming consensual sex with people in custody; and
• a number of items that will help fund activities in NYC including some $415M annually from a charge on cabs, Uber, Lyft and other pay services in certain sections of the city.

Here's how the Sonofa Gov described the accomplishment:

This budget is a bold blueprint for progressive action builds on seven years of success and helps New York to continue to lead amid a concerted and sustained assault from Washington on our values and principles.

We put into place the strongest and most comprehensive anti-sexual harassment protections in the nation...(we) will become the first state to implement new measures to shield families from the devastating federal tax law's elimination of full state and local deductibility... protects New York's future with record funding for education, coupled with...reforms that finally ensure transparency and equality in how that funding is distributed... (it) delivers for the most vulnerable among us, including...tenants who have had to live with mold, lead and no heat.. and those who have had to ensure the injustice that is Rikers Island. 

With this budget, we chart a path forward and ever upwards toward a better future for all New Yorkers. 

Excelsior!

The NYS Senate had a slightly different take on things. According to their web page, the Republican-controlled Senate (with help from the Independent Democratic Caucus, which hangs with the Rs), it was all about keeping Cuomo under control.

The New York State Senate has completed passage of the 2018-2019 state budget that achieves key objectives to promote affordability, opportunity, and security for hardworking taxpayers. The final budget maintains fiscal discipline by keeping within the self-imposed two-percent spending cap and closes a $4.5B deficit, while also preventing billions of dollars in new taxes and fees to protect taxpayers and encourage economic growth. 

The Rs are happy, though, with things like staying within the 2% spending cap for the eighth year, with over $52B in total taxpayer savings since the cap was imposed;keeping brownfield, historic and certain other business tax credits from being deferred, and having $700M available under these programs; adding $13M on top of what Cuomo proposed for farm-related initiatives; job training programs,and so on.

It'll likely take some time for all of the dust to settle on this but at least coming out of the gate, the pols seem expectedly happy with the outcome, which allows all sides to claim victory.  The proof will come when we taxpayers start seeing and feeling the impact of the budget, which will take longer.

It is an election year, though -- so we're apt to see the good stuff fast, and the less good stuff, well, less fast.  I'll circle back around on things as they progress.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v31)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

With the Legislature still home for the Memorial Day weekend, you can be sure our legislators' thoughts are focused on things like getting through the last couple of weeks of the session, and figuring out how to make it look like they're putting in full work weeks even though there's no legislating going on for the rest of the year.

And now that they've gotten their big raise, some of them need to figure out how to get their outside income at or below the 15% of base salary cap that came with the raise.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, as we say, our Sonofa Gov is making headlines on a radio interview. Take a look:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo plans to seek a fourth term as governor of New York state, he disclosed Tuesday. During an interview on WAMC radio, Cuomo said he believes he is making a difference in New York and plans to run again in 2022. 

Yep, he wants to stick around and is not planning on a 2024 run for president, if we read between the lines here.

I have been in the federal government. I was a cabinet secretary... I was in Washington for eight years. I believe I'm making a difference in the state of New York. I believe that in my heart. 

I think I'm doing good things... I believe I know how to do this (note: being governor). I would like to do it for as long as the people of the state of New York believe I am a positive.

Only Nelson Rockefeller won a fourth 4-year term; Cuomo's father and George Pataki each also served three terms. I did not know that at one point the term was only three years -- and George Clinton served seven of those.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v13)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

It's everywhere, the insidious scourge of sexual harassment.

Hollywood. The media. The House and Senate. State governments. Doctors' offices and hospitals. Schools. Athletic institutions, including the Olympics. The music industry. The boardroom. Restaurant kitchens.

It's everywhere - including, allegedly, in the administration of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York City, Lisa Marie Cater alleges that William (call me Sam) Hoyt, who worked as head of the Empire State Development Corporation, repeatedly made unwanted advances, and further that the harassment was reported to and ignored by Cuomo's office, which is why Cuomo is a named defendant in the suit. The governor's office  denies ignoring the complaints.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, the governor had the opportunity to respond to a question from Karen Dewitt, a reporter for New York Public Radio, on this issue, and it's safe to say that it didn't go well for the Sonofa Gov.

Dewitt noted the Hoyt allegations and asked Cuomo what he could do differently, and here's how he responded.

You have it going on in journalism. What are you going to do differently?

OK - sure, that's true, but this is a reporter talking to a governor who is a defendant in a sexual harassment case involving an appointee of the governor. There was some exchange after that comment, including a different reporter pointing out that the question was about state government. That didn't sit well.

No, it's about you and journalism (pointing his finger at the other reporter). And it's about you and journalism (turning to Dewitt and pointing again). And it's about state government. And it's about carpentry and it's about training forces... (Note: that last one may not be accurate, it was hard to understand what he said.)

Again, Dewitt asked if there was something that Cuomo could do differently. Apparently, his only option on that was to lecture Dewitt, using his best professorial intonation, especially at the end of this exchange.

We will have policies in state government, obviously, that affect state government, but I think you miss the point. When you "it's state government" you do a disservice to women, with all due respect, even though you're a woman.

Um... what the hell is that?

Asking the gov about what his administration will do about sexual harassment is doing a disservice to women, "with all due respect?" I don't know about you, but most of the time when someone drops those four words, 'all due respect' is the furthest thing from the speaker's mind.

It's about as condescending a thing he could have said, other than maybe pointing out that the reporter was a woman. Oh wait -- he did that too.

He went on with the lecture, with a heavy emphasis added on journalists and the journalism profession.

It's not government. It's society. It was Harvey Weinstein in the arts industry. It's comedians. It's politicians. It's chefs, right? It's systemic. It's societal. It's not one person in one area. It's not just Charlie Rose, right? It's not just Matt Lauer. It's not just journalists. It's societal.

Finally, slowing down the pace of his answer to something slower than a school closing chyron, he finished his lecture.

Understand. The. Breadth. Of. The. Problem.

Which, frankly, is exactly what Dewitt and the other reporters were hoping Cuomo would do, specifically as it relates to him, not as it relates to anyone else. To her credit, Dewitt tried one last time to get him to name one thing he'd do to make things different in his administration. In a classic deflection, he changed the subject.

No! It's called the State of the State. Come and cover it... 

I swear, you could almost hear his feet stamping.

Boy, I miss his father.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v33)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times 

Ah, the dog days of summer.

We're here, in Syracuse and Buffalo and the North Country, in the Southern Tier and the Catskills, in the Adirondacks and on Long Island, or in the five boroughs, we're sitting out here enjoying our  end of summer BBQs, the Great New York State Fair, back to school shopping and the like. 

But meanwhile, back in Albany, the wheels of government keep turning, and churning, and causing trouble. This time? New license plates.

That's right - the DMV has determined that we need new plates for the scanners that we'll use when we go to cashless tolling next year. The scanners need crisp, non-faded, non-peeling plates, or they won't be able to identify people to bill when they don't have an E-ZPass transponder.  New plates will be required at the time of registration if the current plates are 10 years old or more - and it'll cost $25 to get new plates, or $45 if you like your random number or have vanity plates and want to keep them.

To distract us from the kerfuffle our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, announced a contest where we could pick the design for our new license plate. There are five designs, four of which feature Excelsior, the state's motto, at the bottom of the plate. The one that doesn't have the motto? The one that has the Mario don't forget the M Cuomo Bridge; not sure if that's a way to get votes for that one, or if it was just an oversight.  (Voting closes on Monday, so there's still time for you to vote for #5.)

Needless to say, people are in an uproar - "it's just another Cuomo money grab" is a common lament, as if the money was going directly to the governor for his personal use. Politicians, in a rare showing of bipartisanship, are mad on the left and the right and everywhere in between.  And blame? Oh my, there's plenty to go around.

For example, the governor is blaming his predecessor, David Patterson, and the Legislature for the cost. Here's that piece of insight:

The fact is the Legislature set the $25 fee 10 years ago, before I was governor.

Similarly, DMV commissioner Mark Schroeder said, in a statement,

Some legislators have now expressed an interest in lowering the fee. The governor would like to lower the fee. If the legislators are sincere and want to lower the fee immediately, although they haven't in the last decade, the governor has made clear he invites them back for a special session to do it. 

The thing is, $25 is the maximum that can be charged, not the required amount that needs to be charged - but these are politicians, after all, so there's no way they'd charge, say, a quarter or a dollar to make the change.

And, of course, it ignores the fact that today, a peeling plate can be replaced - for free. So why next year does it have to cost as much as $45? Schroeder seemed to suggest that maybe the fee won't stand the test of time, noting

The 10-year-life replacement program does not go into effect until next April so we have time to work with the Legislature to explore alternatives. We support reducing costs wherever possible. 

Even after the laughter died down across the state, no word was forthcoming on who decided on the maximum fee, or why whoever made that decision doesn't just un-make it and choose a lesser amount.

The legislators are not sitting still, either. One Long Island Dem, Senator Monica Martinez, submitted a bill that would protect plates from replacement unless they're damaged. Her bill would also make license plate inspection part of the annual vehicle inspection. On the other side of the aisle, Schenectady-area Republican Senator Jim Tedisco has taken a different approach, pointing out in his own statement that legislators

have a sworn duty to represent our constituents and hold a public hearing to hold the Administration and the DMV accountable and get answers as to what happened with the old plates, why they believe the mandatory license plate fees are necessary, and where the money is going. 

To a lot of this, I say Poppycock!

• We don't need hearings, we need the DMV or the Sonofa Gov to explain their plan, justify why they need $75M+ for the cashless tolling system (and tell us why that wasn't included in the legislation that authorized the switch) - or they can just drop the fee to something reasonable, like $5 bucks. Or zero. 
• Regarding the Martinez bill, if inspecting license plates becomes part of a vehicle inspection, how will that impact the price of an inspection? Will there be a separate charge for the license inspection? Guidelines issues on how to determine what whether a plate is damaged? Training for inspectors? Laugh if you will, but we're in New York and a simple, two-paragraph bill can't be allowed to stand on its own here, can it? And, one more thing -- the Legislature is not in session, so who read her bill twice and submitted it to committee?
• And to Cuomo and the DMV, requiring new plates for New Yorkers to ensure they're readable is one thing, but what about plates from other states and Canadian provinces, which may also be damaged and unreadable? What's the plan for those, when we go cashless? Inquiring minds want to know.

We can always do better, New York.

If the money is truly needed, show us why. If it's not needed, or it was an arbitrary decision, come clean.

If the Legislature really needs to have hearings on something, let them have hearings on how they're justifying their full-time salaries for part-time work.  Because if you ask me, that's a real money grab.

And remember, voting closes on Labor Day, so get your vote in now for plate #5, just in case this whole thing doesn't fall apart in the next couple of weeks. 

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v9)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

The beat goes on in Albany, it surely does.

The last few times we talked about doings in New York's capital, it was all about good people, and full time vs. part time, and pay raises for our lawmakers.

They may or may not be good people, you see, because from what we heard (and hear) all along when it comes to paying elected officials is that the salary is too low to get good people involved. Which means, I guess, instead of having the best legislature, we have the best legislature we can entice for a piddly wage that's more than $20K over the median for the state, plus travel, per diem and, in a whole lot of cases, cases a leadership lulu.

Anyway -- the tripartite Commission on Legislative, Executive and Judicial Compensation - a group of representatives of the State Senate, State Assembly, and Governor's Cuomo's office, made their decision on the judiciary, giving judges and district attorneys (who work full time, by the way) a nice raise. But when it came time to make a decision on the legislature, commissioners and executives, no deal was done: the Commission rules require agreement by all three parties, and our Sonofa Gov's representatives said no.

So, where are we today?  Well, see, the Governor -- who is the only one of the Three Amigos still standing, and who has ethically-challenged people very close to him, who sleeps well at night because he knows he's doing the right thing, and who started and abruptly ended a big darn deal Moreland Commission on ethics -- wants to do something about ethics reform in Albany.

The best way to do that, apparently, is to have the Legislature come back for a special session so they can chat, and wheel-and-deal, and pass a bill on ethics reform, and a bill to either authorize a pay raise, or authorize the Commission to come back to the table at some defined future point so that they can give the Leg a raise.

Now, of course, everyone involved says this is no quid pro quo, tit for tat, play for pay for play kind of deal. It's about "getting the people's work done," and of course, "it's not a deal if everyone agrees"  and stuff like that.

And while it appears the reason for the special session may move from Let's-do-ethics-reform-in-return-for-a-raise to Let's-help-the-homeless-in-return-for-a-raise, I admit to some curiosity here.

• Isn't urgently helping the homeless something that could be done for the $172 per diem and cents-per-mile, without having to dangle a carrot in front of these folks? 
• Maybe we really do need to get some better people in the Legislature, if they won't come back to do urgent homelessness legislation without getting something in return?
• Aren't these folks, who desperately need us to agree that they're full timers to justify their raise, shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to work on important stuff like this in the off-season?

I'm not normally a huge fan of time flying by, but in this case, I hope that it does -- we do NOT need a special session that results in giving legislators a raise. Period. I don't want them to come to agreement on any deal, because the cards were already dealt to give them a raise, and they got a losing hand.

If they're unhappy with the salary and benefits they receive, they know where their district are -- and it's in their districts they should stay for the last two weeks of December.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v32)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

There's so much debate these days around legal immigration, illegal immigration, pro-crime Democrats, racist Republicans, and more. All of it has a few thousand gallons of gas poured on it daily or even more frequently on social media, traditional media, and alternative media.

The debate, such as it is, is also all helped along by the actions of politicians at the state, local and federal level, for sure. Donald Trump announced his campaign for president by saying that Mexico was going to build a wall. He's ready to announce his re-election bid by tweeting a "vague threat"  of nation-wide sweep to find and deport "millions" of illegals, which according to some reports caught even his own administration officials off guard - no surprise there.

And meanwhile, back in Albany, the New York State Legislature has passed a bill, and our Sonofa Gov has signed it, making the Empire State the 12th in the country to allow undocumented immigrants the right to obtain driver's licenses. This, as you might imagine, is inspiring not only celebration on the side of the Yeas, but deep consternation on the part of the Nays - of which I'm one.

The bill includes multiple modifications to NY's Vehicle and Traffic laws that are designed not only to define how illegal immigrants can obtain a learner's permit or non-commercial driver's license, but also to specifically to protect applicants and their information from being shared, to every extent possible, with federal officials. The licenses are not valid for federal identification, and can be  marked somehow (color-coded, for example) to show the holder is an undocumented immigrant.

According to supporters, here's why we need the bill:

• rural and heavily agricultural areas of the state, where there's a concentration of immigrants, have a lack of options for public transportation. That causes immigrants to just get in a car and drive when they need to -- doctors, grocery stores, and the like - putting the rest of us in danger; 
• the number of leaving-the-scene accidents will decrease, and everyone's insurance rates across the state will also decrease;
• the state stands to take in millions of new revenue - dedicated for infrastructure improvements -  from the fees associate with getting the documents; and
• the law will help the undocumented to go about their business just like other New Yorkers, and keeps them from being pushed into the shadows.

Some people point to the fact that this is a 'restoration of rights' for people who are here illegally. Prior to an executive action by former Governor George Pataki after 9/11, it was not necessary to present a social security number to obtain a driver's license. Former Governor Eliot Client #9 Spitzer tried to fix this back in 2007, but failed in the face of opposition from, among others, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, now our junior senator, and then-Erie County clerk Kathy Hochul, who of course is Cuomo's number two.

Opponents of the bill suggest that

• legitimizing illegal immigration will promote more of it;
• it directly violates federal law, which is dumb;
• it's 'off track' from what our priorities should be;
• the safety benefits are questionable and ill-defined at best, and, of course
• it sends the wrong message to the majority of New Yorkers who are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who do things the right way.

And me? I'm a fan of treating people as human beings. I believe the majority of immigrants are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. That said, I'm a fan of legal immigration, and of a path to citizenship for folks brought here as children by their parents. I'm not a fan of deporting people we have allowed to stay here for decades, those who have made their regular check-ins with immigration officials.

And I'm not a fan of encouraging people to break the law.

I'm also not a huge fan of sanctuary laws, and isn't that what this really is? Sure, we don't call it that, but that's the premise, and the promise, of this bill: you'll be protected if you have this documentation. The reality is very different. Sanctuary laws only serve to create a patchwork of rules and protections that arbitrarily change at an interstate highway mile marker. Welcome to New York? You're good. Welcome to Ohio, or Pennsylvania? Yeah, not so much.

I'm also not a fan of state laws that jeopardize New York by putting federal dollars at risk because we are in-your-face daring the current administration to withhold funding. 

And, I'm never convinced when a politician promises generic positive benefits from a law.

• How much money are New Yorkers going to save on auto insurance? When will the reductions begin? Will we see an itemized line on our car insurance bills showing the impact from this bill, so we as taxpayers can truly see the benefit?
• Outside of New York City, where there are some 30,000 - 40,000 'leaving the scene' accidents annually, how many occur in the rest of the state? What are we really looking at here in terms of our safety on the roads? And what percentage of those is projected to be caused by an illegal immigrant?
• How many of the illegal immigrants are going to be able to afford car insurance? Notably, in California where subsidized insurance was offered as part of their driver's license for immigrants program, fewer than 1,000 people took advantage of the offer. Over half a million illegal immigrants received driver's licenses in the first couple years of the California program; not all of them would have been eligible for the subsidy, but still...

Nope -- I'm not a fan of this law, and neither are the majority of New Yorkers. 

But in the end, if our esteemed legislators are willing to sell their souls for a few million bucks a year in licensing and permitting fees, and to flash their 'look at how progressive I am' lapel pins - and they are - what the rest of us think doesn't matter.