2016 NYC felony crime statistics reveal mixed progress

There has been considerable talk lately that crime in New York City is on the rise, whether it has been in the form of political rhetoric during the presidential campaign, or conversations among the public. People discuss the fact that trains seem to be more frequently delayed, getting around the city has been harder since Mayor Bloomberg left office, and the once-purported increase in homeless people is both factual and well documented. People have a tendency to conflate issues, and they therefore question whether crime is also becoming more prevalent. But is this really the case?

A map which compares the numbers of the seven major felony crimes in New York committed in 2016 (extrapolated data as of December 4, 2016) to crime statistics from 2013 reveals a mixed picture. Crime in these categories – murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, grand larceny, and grand larceny of motor vehicle – is down across Brooklyn, Queens, and much of Manhattan. But it is in fact up in some parts of southern Manhattan, and in a number of precincts across the Bronx.

With regard specifically to the Upper West Side (excluding Central Park), precinct 20 has seen an overall decline in the seven major felonies, while precinct 24 (north of 86^th Street) has seen an uptick. Delving deeper into precinct 24’s statistics, however, reveals that like with precinct 20, there has been a reduction in felony crimes against persons: murder, rape, robbery, and assault. The increase is entirely attributable to crimes against property. Statistics for Central Park are mixed, but reflect only a tiny contribution to overall crime on the Upper West Side.

https://fusiontables.google.com/data?docid=1l1ieXZhrCySX6DotUstzfHOjz9u-ZdXlI75UdiLE#map:id=3

https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=1Ol8Gd8pPdG3nnFdmS4097YLwHFIz5p6pGsX1awWS#chartnew:id=8

https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=1dM1YGgLKutTmXnsHc_TXFvvh45gBcYlBVIuQdM5-#rows:id=1

https://fusiontables.google.com/data?docid=1xFnr3kodizfsHMU9ibRxx4zIfL50RFMBSLtwplts#rows:id=1

 

 

Audio Story – Airbnb Report

Controversial School Rezoning Plans Divide Upper West Side Parents

 

New school under construction at West End/61st

Parents on the Upper West Side are concerned that rezoning of elementary schools could increase commutes for their children and negatively impact the quality of their education.

The looming changes would affect some or all schools in District 3, encompassing the area from 59th to 116th Streets.

View: District 3 Map with Diversity & Enrollment Statistics

Parent forums during the summer and ongoing through the fall have been well attended. However, in mid-October, the process appears to be still in its preliminary stages, with no definitive proposal ready to go for approval. This has caused great consternation among parents, some of who suggested they might relocate, depending on the outcome.

“The decision is not getting made until late November/early December, at which point it almost is too late to move and guarantee a spot in a desired school district,” parent Joe Nelson said.

Parents believe that the rezoning process is opaque and that the timing will leave them unable to plan ahead, as any proposal would seemingly be voted on and then immediately go into effect, rather than give parents a few months’ notice.

“I don’t think we’re there yet,” school board zoning committee chair and parent Kim Watkins said of the lack of resolution. “We’re still very much in the thick of analysis both at the quantitative and qualitative level to understand what’s best long term for the district and how we can get the department to a proposal that will get the votes that we need and also answer all the questions that we have.”

The rezoning project has been triggered in part by problems of overcrowding. These have been especially present in several of the popular schools in the southern part of the district, including the highly regarded PS 199 and PS 452.

The popular PS 199 – West End/70th

Not only have parents opted to move to these school zones in part because of the educational opportunities they offer, but also recent high-rise construction – including the Trump Place complex – has increased enrollment. This has resulted in oversubscription and created waiting lists.

In contrast, the struggling PS 191- adjacent to the Amsterdam housing project and just nine blocks to the south of PS 199 – is operating at less than full capacity.

A distinct feature that has added to the complication of the rezoning process is that the Upper West Side school district, particularly at its southern end, is considered to be “segregated” and lacking in diversity.

One only has to look at the differences in enrollment between PS 199 and PS 191. At PS 199, 66 percent of the students are white, 14 percent are Latino, and 1 percent are black, with 8 percent of its students considered to be “economically disadvantaged.” At PS 191, 9 percent of the students are white, 48 percent are Latino, and 36 percent are black, with 82 percent of its students considered to be economically disadvantaged.

Due for renovation: PS 191 – West End /61st

With the goal of addressing all of this, the Department of Education has three proposals on the table. The rezoning in Scenario A only affects students at the southern end of the district. For the first time in 20 years, a new school is under construction there, and it would have a capacity of 700 seats. The staff and student body of PS 191 would relocate to this building upon its completion in 2017. The old PS 191 campus would then undergo renovation. Under Scenario A’s rezoning, three zones would be created, whereas there are now two. Some students currently attending PS 199 would be reallocated to the new PS 191 building, some would move into the renovated and yet-to-be-named former site of PS 191, and some would remain at PS 191.

The parents who have been most vocal regarding Scenario A are some of those in the Lincoln Towers, a 20-acre complex of six high-rise buildings, who face the prospect of their children being relocated from PS 199 to PS 191. They have expressed concern that the Lincoln Towers community might split into more than one district, and that the quality of their children’s education might decline.

View: Office of District Planning Potential ES Zones Scenario A

Meanwhile, Scenario B involves redrawing zoning lines throughout the whole district and controversially would see the re-siting of PS 452 from its current location at W. 77^th St. to the renovated former PS 191 building at W. 61^st St. It would have a similar impact on the families angered by the Scenario A proposal, but has received an even more vocal response than that of Scenario A, in the form of complaints from parents of PS 452 students. The DOE is interested in this proposal as it would simply relocate the existing staff and administration of PS 452 and remove the need to hire an entirely new group. It would also ease the logistical challenges associated with the current site of PS 452, which is a shared space that also includes two middle schools and a school for gifted children.

View: Office of District Planning Potential ES Zones Scenario B

PS 452, part of the shared O’Shea campus – Columbus/77^th

“Some friends of ours in the controversial 452 zone could possibly be forced to travel to a new school farther away if the decision is delayed, thus they just want a decision to be made now,” Nelson’s wife, Jennifer Saionz, said. “They already were very upset that the DOE/CEC (Community Education Council) failed to reach an agreement last year, putting them through the process again this year, and another year of failure and uncertainty would have driven them to the suburbs.”

She added, “The families in the Lincoln Towers have been quite outspoken, but their area is ripe for rezoning due to all the local possibilities for increasing diversity (which isn’t much of a possibility without busing in our zone). None of the rezoning changes seem to make much geographic sense to us and many of our friends.”

At a meeting on September 28^th, a third rezoning option was presented that would appease the PS 452 families by allowing the school to remain in its current location. However, it does not acquiesce to Lincoln Towers residents, and under this proposal zoning lines would still split Lincoln Towers along West End Avenue. Scenario C differs from Scenario A in that it includes schools in the northern portion of the district, west of Morningside Park, so it is in effect a compromise option that combines Scenarios A and B.

Some parents called for a more radical restructuring called “controlled choice” whereby zoning would be lifted and students would be allocated based on an algorithm, but this seems highly unlikely to be implemented.

Watkins is optimistic that an agreement can be reached. “When schools become so overcrowded…we have to change the zone lines,” she said. “And the only way is by going through this type of exercise and hopefully, as the middle class continues to thrive in the city, and we continue to put more of our efforts into the betterment of our schools on all levels, that zoning transitional period will be brief and people will end up surprised by the new option they get.”

This week, the DOE announced that it will present one final zoning scenario at a meeting on Wednesday, October 19. Two public hearings will follow.

New York’s Plastic Bag Fee

On May 5, the New York City Council voted 28 to 20 in favor of a controversial bill that will charge customers 5 cents for plastic and paper shopping bags at grocery, convenience and other stores. The legislation will take effect on Oct. 1. Environmentalism, income inequality, and regressive taxation were major points of contention in the lead-up to the unusually close vote.

Ahead of the vote, council member Daniel Garodnick of District 4 in Manhattan tweeted: “The # of plastic bags used in NYC now an environmental hazard – 9 billion per year. I will vote yes on $.05 fee.”

The bill allows the fee to remain with businesses instead of going to the city. Exempted from the bill’s requirements are customers using food stamps, food pantries and other non-profit food providers, and street vendors. No fee is assessed on plastic bags used to hold produce and meat, prescription bags at pharmacies, bags used at state-regulated liquor stores, and take-out and delivery orders from restaurants.

One of the sponsors of the bill, and a staunch advocate for the fee, is Garodnick. His zone consists of part of the Upper East Side (including the campus of Hunter College), much of Midtown, and Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village. Its constituency is both financially and racially diverse.

Garodnick, a Democrat, discussed the rationale behind his vote, pointing to the success of similar legislation in cities such as Washington, D.C. He explained that a ban on plastic would “naturally prompt people to pivot to paper bags,” and was therefore not considered.

“In considering my vote, I found a recent survey of DC residents to be extremely persuasive, as well as the editorial boards of the New York Times, Crain’s New York Business, The Daily News, AMNY, and Newsday – all of which called on the City Council to impose a fee on plastic bags,” he said.

In a letter to constituents, Garodnick added that the city had evaluated other options such as recycling plastic waste, however concluded that this would not be economically feasible. He also tackled the crucial issue of whether the bill is not simply a regressive tax. Garodnick did not deny that it is regressive in nature, but pointed out the various exemptions which would benefit low-income residents, and went on to discuss the environmental benefits that would accrue to low-income neighborhoods.

“Low-income people bear the brunt of the negative effects of our waste management system,” he said. “Removing 90,000 tons of waste each year means fewer trucks, less garbage on the streets, and less flooding due to clogged sewers.”

Supporters of the bill believe that it would reduce the use of plastic bags by 60 to 90 percent while promoting the use of reusable bags, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The council has published statistics intended to support its decision on the website of council member Brad Lander, a Democrat who represents District 39 in Brooklyn. According to its research, plastic bags account for over 1,700 tons of residential garbage weekly in the city on average. Each year, the city pays an estimated $12.5 million to transport plastic bags to landfills in other states.

And of the 9.3 billion plastic bags New Yorkers throw away annually, most are not recycled.

Council members on both sides of the issue have received feedback from constituents since the vote. Vinson Verdree, a staff assistant to Inez Barron, who voted against the legislation, said that her constituents were grateful to her for opposing the measure, even though it eventually passed. Barron, a Democrat who represents District 42 in Brooklyn, was concerned that the fee would unfairly disadvantage low-income families in her constituency, as “payments for bags represent a larger part of their disposable income.”

At Hunter College in Manhattan, reception to the passing of the legislation was positive. “With this bill, people’s financial stability is contingent on their sustainability measures,” said Lena Suponya, treasurer of the Hunter Sustainability Project. “That shift is very important to getting people involved who otherwise might be uninterested.”

In contrast, reaction was mixed outside a D’Agostino’s supermarket on the Upper East Side. “It’s good for the environment, and a long time coming. It should have been done five to seven years ago,” said Manuel Zavala, a resident of Brooklyn who works and frequently shops in Manhattan.

The enthusiasm of other shoppers was tempered by economic concerns for those already struggling with New York’s high cost of living. “It’s a tax on poor and middle-class people. New York is expensive enough as it is,” said Mindy Fortin, an Upper East Side mother of two.

Fortin also noted that many New Yorkers do reuse their bags for garbage, and, in her case, for removal of cat litter. “I’ll pay the fee, as I repurpose the bags, but I do worry about the impact on people who are finding it tough to make ends meet,” she said.

She also expressed confusion about why the city would let retailers keep the fees, rather than use the revenue to offset waste management costs. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Garodnick addressed this in his letter to constituents. “The goal here was not to raise money, but rather to encourage people to use fewer bags,” he said. Furthermore, he stated that the city was hoping to avoid imposing further administrative costs on businesses.

Garodnick has clearly faced pushback on this issue. “We have received both positive and negative responses regarding the fee,” said Leah Reiss, a staff assistant to the council member. “There has also been nuanced feedback from people who like certain parts of the bill, but have problems with others.”

Hunter Sustainability Project – Event Article

A poster promoting clean energy and a sign saying “Don’t Frack” adorn a wall of Thomas Hunter Hall’s Room 305B. The main feature of the seating area is an “upcycled” couch made of repurposed wooden palettes. On top of a cabinet sit handcrafted, papier-mâché animals as well as giant alphabet letters.

These are the headquarters of the Hunter Sustainability Project, which drew 20 people to one of its twice-monthly meetings in March 2016. This is a typical level of attendance, according to the club’s treasurer, Lena Suponya.

“I’d say the core group of leaders is around 10 people,” project member Vicky Skorodinsky said.

“A lot of people are environmental science or geography majors; some have double majors. I’d say one-third of them have a major that is completely unrelated to the interests of the club,” added Suponya, who is majoring in environmental science.

Meetings officially run from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., although they sometimes last significantly longer, according to Skorodinsky. The March 24 gathering commenced with Sustainability Project President Julia Jong giving a brief administrative update. After that, members split into groups and dug into their work creating “biodiversity” boards and posters for an upcoming event. Several members drew inspiration from a poster-sized map of the Earth they unrolled on a table. Subjects of the work included national parks conservation, ecotourism, local parks conservation, a plea to “fix the destruction of forests,” and various animal species that are endangered or vanishing.

“Since the beginning of the semester, this has been the focus,” Skorodinsky said. “The purpose is to raise awareness of the upcoming Hunter Goes Green Week.”

Hunter Goes Green is an annual event promoting a different environmental subject or cause for each of five days, leading up to Earth Day. This year, the five subjects were biodiversity, climate and energy, food, home and lifestyle, and resource management.

Regarding promotion of the Hunter Goes Green event, club secretary Elizabeth Roginkin said that her group tries “to encourage engagement through fun educational games and sustainable giveaways.”

The Sustainability Project tends to work on multiple projects each year, and hosted four events during fall 2015. This spring they focused on Hunter Goes Green. Successful past projects have included the installation of automatic hand dryers in school bathrooms as well as the construction of the Sustainability Lab, which features Hunter’s own solar panel system and weather station, completed in November 2011. Side projects have included monitoring organic waste separation during Hunter’s Thanksgiving Feast and making sure it gets deposited at a compost collection site.

The club got its start in 2008 when Hunter College began to offer grants to students to engage in projects that would make the campus greener. Originally named the Hunter Solar Project, it takes part in three major initiatives: recycled art projects, educational events, and The Green Initiative Fund projects.

Part of the funding for Hunter Goes Green comes from TGIF, which has existed for approximately six years, is organized by faculty and students, and distributes grants from an annual allocation that it receives from student activity fees. “The mission of TGIF is to encourage students to make Hunter greener and more sustainable,” said Makia Harper, an adjunct lecturer in media studies, who has been involved with TGIF for the past five years.

Twice each year, TGIF invites applications from both clubs and students engaged in projects that will provide solutions to environmental issues. A grant-making committee with a student majority evaluates applications, and innovative projects are selected for funding, according to Suponya.

Harper estimated that each year, TGIF generally gets between six and eight applications, funds five to seven of them, and has given 25 to 30 grants altogether. TGIF has four projects in progress, including Hunter Goes Green.

In terms of dollar values, Harper said, “A student could request $15,000, but we might ask them to scale down so we give them $10,000. I would say we’ve approved about $17,000 to $20,000 this year, and since that is usually around the same each year, the total dollar value of grants is probably $85,000 to $100,000.”

Successful past TGIF projects include water bottle refill stations that can now be seen and used campus-wide. One current project is the TerraCycle Campaign, which collects items that cannot be recycled by either public or private recycling. Those items are then donated to the company TerraCycle, which repurposes the items into everyday products, such as pencil cases and backpacks.

According to Roginkin, the work of the Sustainability Project has made a tight-knit group aware of how it can contribute to the college, but more importantly has increased the motivation of the club’s members to achieve sustainability on a greater scale. “It’s great to be around like-minded and equally passionate people who also wanted to make a difference in the world and educate fellow students and the Hunter community about environmental issues,” she said. “HSP has led me to think more about the power of individual action in sustainability and has shown me how small everyday sustainable actions can make a big difference to our environment’s health.”