July 6, 2004

MARGINALIZING THE CITY COUNCIL

By James Eugene*

It was a little noticed bill that passed in Albany. Unless you read the small local weeklies in Queens or Staten Island, you would not have noticed it at all. Bill number A. 10998/S.6862 (sponsored by State Senator Padavan and Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin, both from Queens County) did not get major media attention. But it held the promise of shifting yet more power away from the City and towards State government. And it passed with the blessing of the Mayor Billionaire Administration! The City Council should be upset.

Each City Council, particularly the speakers of that body, has complained that Albany exerts too much control over the City. The Council's frustration is understandable. It plays three main roles: oversight over City agencies (a role it has always had), budget and land use (the latter two being the real power gained in the late 1980's Charter revision). However, the Council and Mayor's budget authority is always hampered by a State that controls every tax the City has except for the real property tax (and even that is subject to some state formulas). Thus, while the Council and Mayor can control the expense side, they have limited control over the revenue side, sharing it with Albany. And control over both sides is really required for mastery of budgets.

The oversight role is also a thankless one. The Mayor controls the agencies, appoints the Commissioners and the employees of the agencies are really employees of the Mayor. Moreover, it is difficult for a Council with a staff of 300 (part of which is administrative), many of whom must be generalists, to oversee a City workforce of 235,000. And certain technical agencies are beyond Council staffs capabilities. (Can the Council really oversee the City's architectural functions when it has no architect or engineer on staff?)

However, on land use matters, the Council has developed expertise. The prior Speaker, Peter Vallone, hired a very capable staff, one that the current Speaker, Gifford Miller, has wisely kept in place.

Which leads us to the above State legislation. This law amends Section 421-b of the Real Property Tax Law so that realistically an owner cannot receive a tax break if he or she tears down a home and constructs a newer, larger home (in fact, as the law reads, the owner cannot even construct a smaller, but better home). The intent of the law was to prevent the creation of overly dense "McMansions" (yes that is what they call them in Queens, how dumb is that expression).

Okay, I can argue about how the law hinders redevelopment of dilapidated properties, but let's forget about that and assume the law is good. Why should the law upset the City Council? Well, the law's main thrust is to prevent overly large new homes. But such overly large homes still had to be built in accordance with zoning. And that's the point. The law's primary purpose was to impact on zoning and land use. And zoning and land use are legally the purview of the City Council. But in this instance, the State legislature decided to get involved. Thus, another power of the City Council is marginalized by the State legislature. It may not be much of an encroachment, but it creates a precedent that should strike fear into the Council.

It is a common expression to state that the Speaker of the Council is the second most powerful elected official in City government. After A.10998/S.6862, I am not so sure. Now I believe the position might be fifth behind the Mayor, Governor, State Senate Majority Leader and State Assembly Speaker. If the Council cannot control its budget, zoning and land use, it becomes even further marginalized. The Council did not protect its turf here and as a result its turf will be under further attack in the future.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.