After a year or so of relative calm, New York’s political world was shaken by the federal indictment of New York City Mayor Adams. While the action was not altogether unexpected – the Mayor and his top aides had been under investigation for quite some time – nevertheless it was the first time that a sitting New York City Mayor was indicted.

The feds allege that Mr. Adams, both before and during his time as Mayor, used his influence to benefit special interests. In particular, the federal indictment alleged that the Mayor received overseas trips and illegal campaign contributions from Turkey in return for political favors. The Mayor is also accused of illegal campaign financing activities allowing him to receive $10 million in City public matching funds via “straw” campaign donations (contributions that are given by one person in the name of another).

The Mayor has pled not guilty and has repeatedly denied having acted illegally, arguing that the indictment is “entirely false, based on lies” and that he will not “resign, he will reign.” He is, of course, presumed innocent until the charges are heard in court. Despite increasing calls for his resignation by some elected officials and advocates, he is entitled to have his side of the story told.

The Mayor, at least publicly, argued that he became a target because of his criticism of the Biden administration’s response to the migrant crisis.

The cloud over City Hall extends to other high-ranking New York City officials who also are under scrutiny by the feds. Adding to the Administration’s problems is that several key senior officials – including the police commissioner, the schools chancellor and the mayor’s top lawyer – have recently resigned. And the probe is ongoing as federal and state agents seized the phone of the Mayor’s chief adviser after the indictment dropped.

While this is not the first time that Mr. Adams has faced questions about his actions, this is by far the most serious. If convicted, Mayor Adams could face up to 45 years in prison.

So, what is next? There are three scenarios of what could happen. The most obvious is that the Mayor could resign. If he does, the next official in the line of succession is the Public Advocate. The New York City Public Advocate is selected in a citywide election and under the New York City Charter would become the interim Mayor (if he cannot accept the role, the other citywide elected official, the New York City Comptroller becomes the interim).

That position is only for an interim basis. The City Charter establishes complicated options for how the interim Mayor should call for a special election to replace an elected Mayor who resigned. However, the Charter makes it clear that the interim Mayor must “Within three days of the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, the person acting as mayor shall proclaim the date for the election.” That special election date would most likely (as of now) have to occur within a couple of months. The newly elected Mayor would then face re-election at the end of the existing term, November 2025.

The New York City Charter does offer a path for removal of the Mayor by action of the City’s political leadership. While this provision has been untested, it works like this: Under the City Charter, an “inability committee” can be formed to remove the Mayor. That committee consists of five positions: the corporation counsel (the City’s top lawyer), the City Comptroller; the City Council speaker; a deputy Mayor picked by the Mayor; and the longest serving borough president. At least four members must vote to remove the Mayor. If removed, the Mayor is replaced by the Public Advocate.

The third option is one that impacts Albany. Under state law, Governor Hochul has the power to remove the mayor of any city in the state – including New York City. Also according to the City’s Charter, “The mayor may be removed from office by the Governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the Governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”

The Governor’s power is broad but largely untested when it comes to the removal of a New York City Mayor. Historically, it has only been used for that purpose once, when former Gov. Franklin Roosevelt initiated removal proceedings against a former Mayor, who resigned prior to action. That power, however, has been used for the removal of other local officials.

Yet, such an action by the Governor would add another explosive issue to an agenda that includes what to do about congestion pricing, the state’s upcoming budget and its potential deficits, her involvement in the election of Democrats this November, and of course, her day job – running state government.

How Governor Hochul juggles all of this is important to all New Yorkers. But most importantly, as the Governor herself stated, when it comes to the charges against the Mayor, “We must give New Yorkers confidence that there is steady, responsible leadership at every level of government.”

New Yorkers couldn’t agree more. Let’s see how this all plays out.

For more than two decades, New York State has greatly restricted the use of tobacco products. The rationale at the campaign’s start – and to this day – is that tobacco smoke can harm both the health of smokers and can harm the health of non-smokers. Experts say that there is no safe exposure to tobacco smoke, either by the smoker or the non-smoker who inhales it.

Essentially, current state law bans smoking in all but an individual’s private spaces. No one can smoke in indoor public places, in workplaces, and in many outdoor areas. Smokers can usually smoke within their own homes (although restrictions increasingly exist in apartment dwellings) and in their own cars (although there are calls for banning that when children are riding in the car).

Research has shown that as a result of these restrictions, there has been a significant reduction in heart attacks and respiratory ailments.

A recent report documented that there has been a notable reduction in cancer incidence and death in New York. There are, of course, many reasons for this. Better screening, increasingly effective treatments, and a greater use of vaccines that can keep cancers from starting.

Yet in many ways, New York’s reductions in cancer deaths can be traced to the state’s smoking and tobacco use restrictions.

It is well known that smoking causes respiratory cancers. Over 90 percent of lung cancers are the result of smoking. Were it not for cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, lung cancer would be considered a rare illness. Instead, it continues to be the single biggest cancer killer. There are other cancers caused by smoking. Over 85 percent of larynx cancers are from smoking. More than half of all mouth cancers are the result of smoking. The same is true for cancer of the esophagus and bladder.

But smoking can raise the risks of other cancers as well. Kidney (16.8 percent), cervix (9.9 percent), pancreas (10.1 percent), stomach (16.3 percent), liver (26.5 percent), and colon (10.7 percent) cancers all have a notable number that are the result of smoking. All but one of the cancers mentioned above have seen reductions in deaths since 1990. The one outlier is liver cancer. (Alcohol is another contributing factor in liver disease.)

According to experts, nearly half of all cancer deaths are caused by smoking.

As there has been a demonstrable reduction in cancer deaths over time, that reduction (other than liver) coincides with the dramatic reduction in smoking rates. And those reductions are the result of policy interventions, most notably the legislation restricting tobacco use.

Yet, despite those policy interventions, New York’s smoking rate is only the twelfth lowest in the nation. Had New York followed the advice of the nation’s experts and its own independent advisors, more lives could have been saved.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers states scientifically-based best practices for reducing tobacco use. The CDC recommends that New York State spend between $142 million and $203 million annually on its tobacco control efforts.

New York has never spent the money recommended by the CDC. In fact, its highest spending levels were in 2007, 2008, and 2009, before the state started cutting back. The biggest program cuts occurred during the former Andrew Cuomo Administration, which essentially set a spending ceiling that was half what it had been.

Nothing has changed since then. With its budget frozen, the tobacco control program has shrunk even more due to inflation. According to an independent review of the state’s tobacco control funding, New York’s budget is “only 17% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) recommended level for the state, even as New York faces ongoing health and economic effects from tobacco use. The low funding levels in recent years have posed challenges for the Program to make progress across its areas of focus.”

Why does New York fail to follow the expert advice of the CDC? It can’t be from a lack of money. The state budget totals $237 billion. It also can’t be that the state doesn’t collect enough from tobacco users – through taxes and other revenues – to fund efforts to help them quit and to keep kids from starting. The state recently increased its cigarette tax by $1, making it the highest in the nation.

New York annually collects nearly one billion dollars in tobacco taxes and has received billions more over the term of a litigation settlement (the Master Settlement Agreement) with Big Tobacco.

New York State has the money to adequately fund its tobacco control efforts, but it chooses not to. As a result, more lives are harmed.

Governor Hochul should in her upcoming budget follow science and invest a portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state gets from smokers into programs that will help them kick the addiction and keep kids from starting. Rejecting scientifically based funding recommendations and starving the program will result in the needless misery and early deaths of far too many into addition to more expensive health care for everyone.

New York City – the nation’s largest – is one of the great urban areas in the world.  The Big Apple is also a powerful economic engine.  The City, with its center in Manhattan, is a world leader in banking, finance, culture, and communications.

New York City is also highly congested, with its large population contained in a dense geographic area, and its roadways often choked with traffic – particularly in Manhattan’s core.  That congestion not only leads to long commutes, but damages the health of its residents.  It also creates incredible challenges for emergency service personnel and everyone else trying to get around.

For well over a century, New York City has helped reduce its congestion through an extensive network of mass transit systems – its subways, ferries, and buses.

Despite the importance of these systems, over the decades New York has not funded them adequately.  When the City endured its financial crisis in the 1970s, cuts to the mass transit programs, coupled with years of neglect, almost brought the City to its knees.  

Recognizing that a deteriorating City mass transit network damaged businesses and the overall quality of life, government acted.  Through substantial investments and important reforms in the 1990s, the subways and buses of New York City were significantly improved.

Unfortunately, in recent years the mass transit system was taken for granted and support stagnated.  In 2020 the impacts of the Covid pandemic led to a dramatic downfall in ridership and thus revenues – deepening the problems into a crisis.  Covid also led to greater use of cars and with that more roadway congestion and worsening air quality.

It was the combination of eroding service, antiquated equipment and deferred maintenance that drove lawmakers to seek a solution.  

In 2019, congestion pricing was passed into state law with a mandate to raise $1 billion per year for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (which runs the mass transit system) capital improvements program.  In 2023, the state received final approval of the program from the federal government.  

What is congestion pricing?  Congestion pricing is a system of surcharging users of public goods that are strained by overuse due to excess demand, such as through higher peak charges for use of bus services, electricity, metros, railways, telephones, and road pricing to reduce traffic congestion.  Applied to urban traffic congestion, the approach is to charge a vehicle if it passes into a certain zone of a city, often only during certain “peak” hours.  Congestion pricing is not an untested, novel idea:  There are cities around the world that have successfully adopted it, including Singapore, London, Milan, and Stockholm.

New York’s congestion pricing plan was scheduled to go into effect at the end of June.  Earlier this year, the MTA announced that it would start charging most passenger cars $15 a day to enter a congestion zone below 60th Street.  Trucks would pay $24 or $36, depending on their size.  Taxi fares would go up by $1.25, and Uber and Lyft fares by $2.50.

The announcement of those tolls triggered an intense opposition to the program’s implementation.  In early June, Governor Hochul announced a “pause” in the implementation, without setting a date for when that pause will expire.  Her announcement was surprising given that just two weeks earlier she had crowed of her success in getting federal approval.  In her self-congratulatory statement the governor said, “It took a long time because people feared backlash from drivers set in their ways.  In New York City, the idea stalled for 60 years until we got it done earlier this year.”

The “pause” not only reverberated throughout the transportation world, but it also created an enormous hole in the MTA’s finances.  Last week, state Comptroller DiNapoli released a report detailing the financial plight of the MTA.

According to the Comptroller, the MTA faces a potential $27 billion funding gap in its next capital budget that would replace thousands of rail cars, strengthen the system against extreme weather and increase accessibility.  

Without the revenues expected from congestion pricing, the MTA is unlikely to be able to fund needed improvements and enhanced services.  One option will be to hike the cost of the fares for service, which hits the working poor the hardest, those New Yorkers already struggling to afford mass transit.

Whether that happens is a function of when the governor chooses to lift the pause.  The sooner she does, the smaller the budget hole.  If she chooses to make it a permanent pause, then the precarious finances of the MTA become more dire.

It is not expected that the governor will make her decision before the November election, which makes it increasingly likely that it will become a dominant factor in the upcoming state budget deliberations that start in January.  How the state and city provide the needed funding is anyone’s guess, but will likely be a feature of the final budget agreement. 

Keep in mind that New York City is the economic engine of the state, and the nation.  Its lifeblood is a functioning mass transit system.  That system is in jeopardy as a result of Governor Hochul’s 11^th hour “pause.”  If changes to the program occur within the context of the state budget, where those revenues come from could impact the quality of other, non-transit, services and the taxes we all pay.

The congestion pricing mess is one that affects us all.  We should all hope that the “pause” ends quickly.

Late last month, New York’s highest court issued a ruling that should make voting easier.  In a 6-1 decision, the state’s Court of Appeals ruled that a new law allowing New York voters to obtain a mail-in ballot (as long as that ballot is cast during the early voting period) was constitutional.  The decision essentially allows mail-in voting for anyone wishing to vote in the upcoming November election – as long as the ballot is submitted during the early voting period.  This year’s early voting period runs from Saturday, October 26^th through Sunday, November 3^rd.

The law was enacted last year and went into effect at the start of this year.  There’s only been two elections since then: the primary elections for president in March and all other offices in June.  Local boards of elections haven’t reported any major disruptions caused by the new law.

The new law changed the way absentee ballots have been used in New York.  Previously, the belief was that the state Constitution required that voters who wished to vote by mail could do so only if they were ill, traveling, or in military service.  Supporters of the mail-in legislation pointed out that the state Constitution’s absentee ballot rule only applied to the General Election, not the early voting period.  The court agreed.

As a result, anyone can now vote by mail — but only during early voting periods, not on Election Day itself.  

Making it easier for voters to cast their ballots fits within the state Constitution’s provision that says that New Yorkers have a right to vote.  

The Constitution clearly grants the power to implement that right to state lawmakers, but it is a “right,” not a privilege.  And policymakers must, from time to time, ensure that obstacles to the exercise of that right are as few as possible to guarantee that right is realized and isn’t being infringed upon by outdated laws and/or the failure to implement technologies that could better enfranchise voters.

This legislation builds on the successes of absentee mail in voting that had been allowed during the pandemic.  Establishing a system that allows easy access to mail in voting builds on successes in other states.  In an age where some states such as Oregon successfully moved to conducting entire elections via mail, it’s time to rethink the state’s policies with an eye towards expanding absentee voter opportunities as a method of increasing voter participation.  Oregon’s 25 years of  experience shows that widespread use of mailed-in ballots has not resulted in fraud, but has increased overall turnout to among the highest in the nation.  

Clearly, allowing voters an easy opportunity to vote through the mail is an important way to make civic participation easier in the modern age.  

With the election less than two months away, New Yorkers should know of this new option.  According to the state Board of Elections, requests to receive an early mail ballot must be received by the board of elections in your county no later than ten days before the election.  Early mail ballot materials will be sent to voters who have requested a mail-in early voting ballot beginning 46 days before the relevant elections in which you are eligible to vote.

According to the state Board of Elections, a voter may return the ballot in any of the following ways:

For the November General Election:

• Put it in the mail ensuring it receives a postmark no later than November 5^th and it must be received by the County Board of Elections no later than November 12^th. 
• Bringing it to your County Board of Elections Office no later than November 5^th by 9 p.m.
• Bringing it to an early voting poll site in your county between October 26^th and November 3^rd.
• Bringing it to a poll site in your county on November 5^th by 9 p.m.

Here in New York, voting is a right, not a privilege.  This new law will not only add another convenience to voters who wish to exercise that right but will also protect individuals who continue to be concerned about the various respiratory illnesses that tend to circulate in the fall.  

Lawmakers worked hard to add this new voting option.  Regardless of whether you vote early or on Election Day, in person, by mail, or drop off ballot, let’s all make sure our voices are heard by voting in the upcoming election.

Among the savviest phrases in American politics is “controlling the narrative.” That means telling a story your way, before someone else tells it — and possibly tells it better — their way. Sometimes it even means spinning a policy narrative so that the public never hears of the underlying policy failure.

A good example of that will occur this week with Governor Hochul’s “Future Energy Economy Summit.” The Summit, being held in Syracuse, N.Y., is being advertised as an opportunity for policymakers to “gather feedback on strategies to accelerate renewable energy deployment and explore the potential role of next generation clean energy technologies…”

The Summit comes on the heels of gathering criticisms of the Hochul Administration’s implementation of New York’s Climate Law. The Climate Law was approved five years ago and sets the state on a path toward “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this Century. The “net zero” goal is consistent with the standard set by the world’s climate scientists who have warned that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global heating, all nations need to adhere to the net zero goal.

New York’s law set interim goals designed to guide policymakers as benchmark steps to meet the goals advised by the world’s climate experts. Those interim goals commit the state to generate 70 percent of its electricity from renewable power sources and achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

After the Climate Law was passed the state then convened a panel of “stakeholders” to develop a detailed blueprint to meet those interim goals. The panel was chosen, and their work completed after a public hearing process and other ways to allow input.

Their blueprint, known as the “Scoping Plan,” was released at the end of 2022. Among its findings was one that stated that unless measures were taken, New Yorkers faced a considerable financial risk from climate-change impacts.

During the ensuing five-year period, it has become clear that the state did not do enough to meet the law’s requirements as well as the recommendations made in the Scoping Plan. Reviews of the state’s efforts, both inside and outside state government, found that far too little was accomplished — largely due to an anemic response by the Administration.

Now that it looks increasingly clear that the state will miss its first benchmark, the governor has organized the Energy Summit. In an apparent effort to help change the narrative for a policy failure, one key element of the Summit is to gather “further input on technologies,” such as “advanced nuclear.”

Nuclear power has been an ongoing controversy since the near-meltdown at a Pennsylvania plant in the 1970s. Since then, the nation has had a near freeze on expanding its use. Here in New York, four ancient nuclear power plants are operating north of Syracuse and continuing to run due to multi-billion-dollar ratepayer subsidies — meaning all electric consumers are propping up these old plants.

The governor’s mention of “advanced nuclear” is the product of Congressional legislation approved by President Biden earlier this year. The ADVANCE Act, aims to further streamline permitting for new reactor designs, change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mission to not only protect public health and safety but also to protect the financial health of the nuclear power industry, and promote deployment across the globe.

The problems with constructing nuclear power plants are massive — given the legitimate safety concerns. Nuke plants have been plagued with construction delays, cost overruns, taxpayer subsidies, dangerous risks from uranium mining, and serious problems with the lack of long-term spent radioactive fuel storage capacity. To date, the only long-term spent radioactive fuel storage occurs on the site of the facility itself. So, each nuclear power plant location is also a radioactive waste site.

Moreover, the new “advanced nuclear” technology has problems. A project to build a first-of-a-kind small modular nuclear reactor power plant was terminated earlier this year. The project had the only small modular nuclear reactor design certified for use in the United States. The company cited lack of consumer interest and cost increases as the main reasons. The story is the same elsewhere, as delays, huge cost overruns and the dropping cost of solar and wind power make “new wave” nuclear power a questionable option.

In New York, however, the mere advancement of the concept will change the narrative and force a public debate over nuclear power and divert attention from the state’s failure to meet the Climate Law’s 2030 goals.

New York’s science based goals are too important to get lost in the debate. New Yorkers should continue to hold the Hochul Administration’s “feet to the fire” and demand that it follows the law’s mandates. There is too much at stake.