Remaking Our City

New York City’s projected deficit for 2010 is $4.3 billion. Yet the question should not be, “How do we suffer through it?” but rather, “What kind of city do we want to resurrect?”

Sometimes you just gotta hit rock bottom before you can stand back up. No big surprise here­—it’s a moment of citywide bottoming out. New York City’s projected deficit for 2010 is $4.3 billion. It’s a hard time full of tough choices. Yet the question should not be, “How do we suffer through it?” but rather, “What kind of city do we want to resurrect?”

In its annual report “Budget Options for New York City,” released Feb. 11, New York City’s Independent Budget Office (IBO) suggested 70 methods for the city to save money. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn also proposed a number of solutions during her annual State of the City Address on Feb. 12. As citizens with the responsibility to determine the character and ethics of this city, it is important that we take a moment to reflect on the options being discussed.

In terms of promoting a new, healthy economy, a number of the suggestions are just counterproductive. One suggestion from the IBO report is a new sales tax on capital improvements installation services. This tax would cover services such as air conditioner installation and electrical wiring upgrading. While such improvements might seem luxurious, they also reflect responsible business practices and should be encouraged. Investing in improvements to a home or office saves money later and often facilitates business productivity. While the tax would raise revenue, an estimated $200 million, it would also result in job loss—less service means fewer servicemen—which in turn impacts revenues from other sales taxes.

Beyond being counterproductive, other proposals are frankly immoral. One IBO proposal saves the relatively small amount of $45 million by not providing health insurance for city employees for their first three months of employment. Health care should be considered a right, and for most people on a city salary, it would be nearly impossible to afford health insurance without support from employers. We cannot allow the city to actively leave more people uninsured. The city could save $187 million if it increased public school size by two students a class, according to the IBO proposal. Although the city has the largest average class size in the state and has spent millions to reduce class size in recent years—despite the appalling state of our schools—maybe the addition two more kids seems harmless. But take into account the 2,172 teachers who would be laid off under such a plan and the proposal should not be considered any further. Teachers are some of the most underpaid public employees. By any standard, we have a shortage of teachers. We cannot further discourage people from entering this profession.

Proposals such as an increased income tax for the city’s highest earners or reinstatement of a commuter tax are the most controversial. They may not be ideal, but they are fair and necessary. As Quinn stated, New York City personal income tax affects everyone who makes over $90,000 to the same extent. Quinn’s proposed tax plan would increase the income tax on households earning over $297,000 by 1.25%. This plan alone is estimated to earn over $1 billion. It is unclear whether Mayor Bloomberg, usually a fan of trickle-down economic solutions, would support such a plan, but he must. Not only would this small tax increase on those who can afford it provide hugely for the city in this moment of crisis, but Quinn was right that the previous tax code was outdated and unfair. “It’s shameful—Bernie Madoff pays the exact same tax rate as a public school principal. That’s not sharing the burden,” she said.

The plan in the IBO’s proposal with the greatest earning potential is a progressive commuter tax. New York City had a personal income tax for commuters until 1991. The new tax would affect commuters on a sliding scale based on their earned income. On average, commuters earn over $100,000, and the proposed tax is estimated to earn the city nearly $1.4 billion. Commuters enjoy city services and would benefit if earnings from this tax were directed to services like transportation. New Jersey and Connecticut already use similar commuter taxes. Such tax increases would undoubtedly bring in the most revenue, helping the city to avoid cutting services. These proposals do not ask the wealthy to shoulder a heavier burden, simply a fairer one.

But let us not end here. A number of the proposals included are no-brainers—good, creative ideas despite the state of the economy—and are exciting for all New Yorkers. Quinn suggests decreasing regulations for small business owners. Currently, business owners must file for 12 different permits. Creating a standard form would save the city money by cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and facilitating small business formation. In addition, as the IBO proposal suggests, the city should absolutely begin a “pay-as-you-throw” program. Estimated to bring in $316 million, this program charges residents based on their waste disposal—more trash, more tax. San Francisco and Seattle already use such systems. Beyond creating public revenue, they encourage civic values—less waste, more personal responsibility. We could save $75.5 million by switching, as Oregon has, to only paper mail-in ballots for New York City elections. This would allow people to vote on their own time, avoid discouraging lines, rid the city of the current error-ridden lever voting machine, and be more reliable in the event of recounts.

Proposals like these remind us that this is a moment of potential. With a little ingenuity, the city can remake itself in any image its citizens choose. We can emerge from this economic turmoil with a stronger commitment to environmental standards, effective bureaucracy, and the service of all citizens.

MaryAlice Parks is a Columbia College senior majoring in history and political science. She is a co-coordinator of Artists Reaching Out. The Albright runs alternate Tuesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com">Opinion@columbiaspectator.com