ON THIS MONTH'S EDITION OF CONNECT-NEW YORK, WE'LL COVER THE PRIORITIES FOR 2024 IN GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL'S BUDGET PROPOSAL AND STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS.

DON'T GO ANYWHERE.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO CONNECT-NEW YORK, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - HOST OF WCNY'S THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM, A DAILY PUBLIC RADIO SHOW, BROADCASTING FROM THE STATE CAPITOL.

ON TODAY'S SHOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE YEAR AHEAD AT THE STATE CAPITOL - FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL'S BUDGET PROPOSAL AND THE START OF A NEW LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS, RESPONDING TO THE INFLUX OF ASYLUM SEEKERS, APPROVING NEW TRANSMISSION LINES, AND MUCH MORE.

TO DO ALL THAT, WE'RE JOINED IN THE STUDIO BY REBECCA GARRARD - DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK - ASSEMBLYMAN AL STIRPE - A SYRACUSE-AREA DEMOCRAT - AND KEN GIRARDIN - DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AT THE EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY.

AND UP FIRST, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST HEATED DEBATES OVER THE STATE BUDGET - WHICH IS DUE ON MARCH 31 - AND THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF AID THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS RECEIVE FROM ALBANY.

HERE'S HOW THE GOVERNOR FRAMED HER PLAN TO SLOW THE GROWTH OF STATE EDUCATION AID, DURING HER BUDGET ADDRESS IN JANUARY.

>> I'M GOING TO BE STRAIGHT WITH ALL OF YOU.

AS MUCH AS WE MAY WANT TO WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPLICATE THE MASSIVE INCREASES OF THE LAST FEW YEARS.

AND REMEMBER THIS.

BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE, AN ADDITIONAL $20 BILLION HAS BEEN TARGETED TO OUR SCHOOLS OVER THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS.

AND MOREOVER, OVER LAST DECADE, K-12 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT HAS DECREASED BY 10% OVERALL.

IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT WE SPEND VASTLY MORE ON EDUCATION PER STUDENT.

RIGHT NOW MORE THAN ANY TIME IN HISTORY.

MORE THAN ANY STATE.

AND IT'S COMMON SENSE TO ENSURE THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE GETTING THE APPROPRIATE MONEY BASED ON THEIR ENROLLMENTS TODAY, COMPARED TO WHAT THEY WERE A DECADE AND A HALF AGO.

>> KEN, AS THE RPI GRAD ON THE SHOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GOVERNOR'S RHETORIC?

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE ACTUAL SPENDING THAT SHE IS PLANNING?

>> LET'S START WITH THE FACT THAT EVERY TAXPAYER IN NEW YORK SHOULD BE SENDING THE GOVERNOR A VALENTINE BECAUSE THAT WAS THE KIND OF STRAIGHT TALK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OWED FROM THEIR GOVERNOR FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND THEY'RE ONLY NOW FINALLY GETTING IT.

NEW YORK PUBLIC SCHOOLS SPEND OVER $26,000 PER STUDENT.

A BIG CHUNK OF THAT COMES FROM STATE GOVERNMENT AND OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, STATE SCHOOL AID WAS INCREASING AT ROUGHLY DOUBLE THE RATE OF INFLATION.

WHAT THE GOVERNOR IS SAYING NOW IS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE HAVE INCREASED AID OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

SHE IS STILL GOING TO INCREASE AID BY OVER $800,000,024 YEAR BUT SHE IS NOT GOING TO KEEP PACE WITH WHERE THINGS WERE BEFORE AND SHE IS TAKING ANOTHER STEP GOING FURTHER AND SAYING, IF YOUR ENROLLMENT HAS GONE DOWN, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T GET SAME AMOUNT OF AID AS YOU GOT LAST YEAR WHICH, WHICH IS A CONVERSATION NEW YORK HAS BEEN OVERDUE TO HAVE.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO SEND A VALENTINE TO THE GOVERNOR OR A FLAMING PILE OF POOH AT THE EXECUTIVE MANSION?

>> NO, I THINK SHE IS DOING A GOOD JOB IN LAYING OUT HER POSITION AS FAR AS HER ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE.

AND SHE KNOWS THAT ONE THING THAT IS SACROSANCT FOR ALL THE MEMBERS IS HOW MUCH MONEY THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICTS GET.

SO I SEE THIS AS A STARTING POINT.

THE REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL BUDGETS WERE INCREASED SO MUCH OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS IS BECAUSE THEY NEEDED IT.

I MEAN THERE OBVIOUSLY THEY NEEDED IT.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE CAUSED DURING THE PANDEMIC HAVE BEEN CURED YET, ESPECIALLY THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A STARTING POINT.

BUT NO VALENTINE.

>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT ISSUE YOU JUST RAISED.

THIS IDEA OF NEGOTIATION BECAUSE YOU AND I HAVE BOTH SEEN ENOUGH BUDGETS SPECIFICALLY WITH GOVERNOR CUOMO WHO CAME OUT WITH THE BUDGETS DECRIED AS AWE STEERLT WHEN IT CAME TO SCHOOL AID SPENDING AND THE LEGISLATURE WHETHER IT WAS A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED OR DEMOCRATS HAVING BOTH CHAMBERS.

YOU THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE WILL BE A HIGHER INCREASE IN THE FINAL BUDGET?

>> I THINK SO.

IF I WERE HAVE TO BET MONEY, WOULD I BET MONEY ON THAT.

>> THAT'S A PRETTY SAFE BET.

REBECCA, WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THIS?

BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I THINK THERE IS A PROGRESSIVE ELEMENT TO THIS IDEA THAT HEY, THERE ARE SOME WEALTHIER SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHO MAYBE SHOULDN'T BE GETTING AS BIG OF AN AID INCREASE AS THEY HAD IN THE PAST AND MAYBE THOSE LOCAL TAXPAYERS SHOULD DIG A LITTLE DEEPER INTO THEIR POCKETS.

>> I THINK THERE IS A LACK OF DETAILS ON WHO IS GETTING LESS AND WHAT THE MECHANISMS FOR DECIDING THAT ARE.

AND THAT IS AN ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT DETAIL TO ORIENT AROUND.

AND IT SETS US DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE, WHERE DECISIONS ARE MADE AT THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL TO REDUCE FUNDING WHEN WE KNOW SCHOOLS WERE IN A CRISIS BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.

SO I THINK PART OF THE FLAW OF THE CONVERSATION IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EDUCATION NEEDS, SPECIFICALLY IN REFERENCE TO SURVIVING THE PANDEMIC, OVERCOMING THE EFFECTS OF THE PANDEMIC.

WHEN WE KNOW THAT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, WE HAD SIGNIFICANT UNDERFUNDING IN SCHOOLS THAT RESULTED IN CHILDREN NOT GETTING THE EDUCATIONAL SUPPORTS THEY NEEDED, NOT GETTING THE SOCIAL SUPPORTS THEY NEEDED AND IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO INVEST IN OUR YOUTH, I THINK THAT'S BOTH A MORAL MISTAKE AND AN ECONOMIC MISTAKE FOR STATE.

>> WHERE DOES THE UNDERFUNDING ARGUMENT COME FROM?

BECAUSE NEW YORK DOES SPEND MORE PER PUPIL THAT I KNOW KEN IS ITCHING TO REPEAT IN THIS SEGMENT.

>> IT MIGHT BE THE AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, LIKE ONE OF THESE GUYS THAT ALWAYS GIVES ME A PRESENTATION SAYS ON AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, MY HEAD IS IN THE FREEZER AND MY HEAD IS IN THE OVEN.

ON AVERAGE, I'M FEELING FINE.

THAT'S NOT-- I MEAN SOME OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MY DISTRICT SAY, SAY NORTH SYRACUSE, THEY SPEND ABOUT $14,000 PER STUDENT, NOT $26,000 PER STUDENT.

THERE ARE SOME PLACES-- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON LONG ISLAND, WHERE THEY'RE SPENDING $38,000 PER STUDENT.

SO WE CAN'T BE CONFUSED BY THAT AVERAGE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A 4.5% INCREASE IN THE BUDGET AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS DON'T SEE A 4.5% INCREASE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THAT AND THEY'RE GOING TO TELL US WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE.

>> CAN THE BULK OF STATE AID GETS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE FOUNDATION AID FORMULA.

SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED IN A WHILE.

IS THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM?

DO WE NEED TO RECONSIDER HOW WE ARE ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTING THAT MONEY?

>> THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THAT, FRANKLY, GOVERNORS AND LAWMAKERS VIEWED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AS HOW MUCH THEY CARE ABOUT EDUCATION.

FOUNDATION AID FORMULA IS OLD, USING INDICATORS I BELIEVE FROM THE 2000 CENSUS.

IT HAD A SAVE HARMLESS PROVISION THAT CAUSED US TO IGNORE 10 YEARS IN A ROW OF ENROLLMENT DECLINES IN THE DISTRICTS AND IT'S DUE FOR A LOOK AND IN FAIRNESS TO WHAT REBECCA SAID, IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW.

EVEN LAWMAKERS DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH AID THEY'RE GETTING OUT OF THE FORMULA UNTIL THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT USES THIS ALLEGEDLY 30-YEAR-OLD COMPUTER TO PRINT OUT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS AND PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET.

>> I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN THE SCHOOL-AID RUN SHEETS.

I DON'T THINK WE DOUBT THAT THE COMPUTER IS AT LEAST 30 TO 40 YEARS OLD.

BUT ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE FOR STATE POLICY MAKERS TO ADDRESS THIS YEAR IS NEW YORK'S RESPONSE TO THE INFLUX OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WHICH SHOWS NO SIGNS OF ABATING IN NEW YORK CITY AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SIMPLY CAN'T WRAP ITS HEAD AROUND THE ISSUE.

HERE IS WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAD TO SAY ON THE TOPIC IN HER BUDGET ADDRESS FROM JANUARY.

>> SO TO HELP THE CITY, LAST YEAR OUR BUDGET, WE WORKED ON TOGETHER, ALLOCATED NEARLY $1.5 BILLION TO PROVIDE SHELTER.

THAT ENDED UP GROWING TO $1.9 BILLION WHEN YOU ADD IN THE COST OF OUR NATIONAL GUARD AND HEALTHCARE AND OTHER SERVICES WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING, LEGAL SERVICES.

AND BECAUSE THESE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH SHOW NO SIGN AFTER BAITING RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PLAN FOR THOSE COSTS AGAIN IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

THE STATE WILL NOW MAINTAIN THAT SAME $1.1 BILLION IN FUNDING.

BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND EXPENSES HAVE ONLY GROWN, I AM PROPOSING THAT WE DRAW $500 MILLION FROM STATE RESERVES THAT ARE INTENDED FOR ONE-TIME EMERGENCIES LIKE THIS.

THIS WILL HELP MANAGE THE MIGRANT CRISIS FOR A TOTAL OF $2.4 BILLION.

>> REBECCA, IS THE GOVERNOR DOING ENOUGH ON THIS ISSUE, WHETHER IT'S RHETORICALLY OR WITH THE ECONOMIC INVESTMENT THAT SHE IS JUST TALKING ABOUT THERE?

>> I THINK NO ON BOTH OF THOSE, RIGHT?

I MEAN WE'VE HAD HISTORICALLY IN NEW YORK, RIGHT, WHICH IS THE HARBOR, RIGHT, FOR IMMIGRANTS, AND IT'S WHAT THIS STATE AND THIS COUNTRY HAS BEEN BUILT ON-- WE HAVE A HISTORY OF BEING ABLE TO WELCOME, TAKE CARE OF, INTEGRATE IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS IN A VERY POSITIVE WAY THAT ENDS UP RESULTING IN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BETTERMENT FOR ALL.

AND WE SIMULTANEOUSLY TALK ABOUT THE SORT OF OUTMIGRATION OF WORKERS AND WORKING FAMILIES AND ARE RESISTANT TO WHAT IS AN IN-MIGRATION.

DEEP INVESTMENT IN MAKING THIS SUCCESSFUL IS BOTH THE MORALLY RIGHT THING DO AND A GOOD THING FOR THE LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF NEW YORK THAT HAS SEEN WORKERS AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES LEAVE DUE TO COSTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE MONEY IS THERE TO BE FOUND THROUGH PROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES.

IT IS A VERY INTELLECTUAL CHOICE NOT TO TAP INTO THOSE BUT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES AND THE ASSETS TO DEAL WITH THIS IN A HUMANE WAY AND IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS NEW YORK'S ECONOMY.

>> WELL, ASSEMBLYMAN, CRITICS OF ANY SORT OF INVESTMENT IN THE ASYLUM SEEKERS WOULD ARGUE THE GOVERNOR IS MAKING A BLANK CHECK HERE BUT IN REALITY, THIS IS A VERY FIRM COMMITMENT THAT WE ARE SEEING FROM HER IN TERMS OF $1.9 BILLION, THE $500 MILLION THAT WE HEARD MIGHT NOT EVEN BE MATERIALIZED IF EVER, THEORETICALLY IT'S FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR DEPENDING ON HOW YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS INVESTMENT?

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT INVESTMENT IS NECESSARY.

I MEAN I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED, AND I KNOW ALL MY COLLEAGUES ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST TURNS AROUND AND LOOKS THE OTHER WAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS.

BUT SPENDING $THE $2 BILLION ON THIS NECESSITY HAS SORT OF TIED OUR HANDS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THINGS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO.

I MEAN WE NEED TO SPEND ANOTHER $500 MILLION ON NURSING HOMES.

WE NEED TO REBASE WHAT THE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE FOR NURSING HOMES.

WE'VE GOT ALL THESE BEDS THAT ARE OFF LINE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HIRE ENOUGH STAFF.

THEY CAN'T PAY THEM ENOUGH, ET CETERA.

THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS.

AND IT'S REALLY-- IT COMES DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS JUST TURNED ITS BACK ON US AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN DO THAT.

BUT HERE WE ARE AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT GOING TO THROW PEOPLE OUT.

WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THEM.

>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE THOSE AREAS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED WHERE YOU FEEL LIKE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH INVESTMENT IS COMING AS A RESULT OF THE SPENDING ON ASYLUM SEEKERS?

IS IT A ONE TO ONE CHOICE LIKE THAT?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE RECORD RESERVES WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW.

AND I THINK THE GOVERNOR DID A GOOD JOB LAST YEAR.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID HAVE GOOD RESERVES IN PLACE, AND WE DO.

WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET, THERE WAS GOING TO BE A $9 BILLION DEFICIT.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ABOUT SIX OR EIGHT WEEKS AGO, IT WAS $4 BILLION.

AND THEN WHEN WE WENT TO OUR RETREAT, WE HEARD $2.2 BILLION.

AND NOW THERE IS A $2 BILLION SURPLUS, SO IS THERE MONEY THERE?

THERE PROBABLY IS MONEY THERE.

AND I THINK IF THE RESERVES ARE THERE FOR EMERGENCIES, THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT WITH NURSING HOMES, THAT'S AN EMERGENCY.

IT'S BEEN AN EMERGENCY FOR 15 YEARS AND NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED IT.

I THINK IT'S TIME DO THAT.

>> AND I KNOW KEN WANTS TO WEIGH IN, BUT I DO WANT TO KEEP BRINGING THIS UP THAT THIS, TO ME, AND TO CITIZEN ACTION, FEELS LIKE A FALSE NARRATIVE WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE CHOICES.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE HAVING THESE SWEEPING MEDICAID CUTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES THAT ARE COMING IN IF WE WOULD JUST CHOOSE TO TAP INTO PROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES ON THE WEALTHY IN NEW YORK, WHO HAVE THRIVED THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC AND OVER LAST DECADE.

WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT LEAVING.

THEY'RE COMING BACK.

IT IS THE WORK WORKING CLASS PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY HERE THAT ARE SUFFERING.

AND TAPPING INTO THAT WEALTH THAT THE GOVERNOR IS ALLERGIC TO, FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, IT CREATES THIS FALSE CHOICE, RIGHT?

AND THIS FALSE NARRATIVE AROUND HOW WE HAVE TO CHOOSE WHO WE HELP AND HOW MUCH WE HELP THEM.

>> I DEFINITELY WANT TO TALK LATER IN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT INCREASING TAXES.

BUT CAN THE-- KEN, THE ASSEMBLYMAN BRINGS UP THE IDEA OF TAPPING INTO THE RESERVES, AND FISCAL CONSERVATIVES STRESS THE IDEA IF YOU TOUCH THE RESERVES IT NEEDS TO BE FOR ONE-TIME COSTS NOT NECESSARILY RECURRING INVESTMENTS WHIR YOU NEED TOO FIND MONEY FOR IT NEXT YEAR.

ARE THERE ONE-TIME INVESTMENTS THAT YOU LOOK AT RIGHT NOW THAT ARE WORTH TAPPING INTO THE RESERVES BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR FRAMED THE $500 MILLION FOR THE MIGRANT CRISIS AS A ONE-TIME INVESTMENT?

>> I'M ALWAYS CAUTIOUS ABOUT USING THE WORD INVESTMENT INSTEAD OF SPENDING UNLESS I'M GOING TO GET A BRIDGE OR PIPE OUT OF THE DEAL, I'M RELUCTANT TO CALL IT AN INVESTMENT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, LET'S START WITH THE TOP.

IMMIGRATION IS GOOD.

NEW YORK HAS BENEFITED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM IMMIGRATION OVER THE YEARS.

WE ARE NOT HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT IMMIGRATION OR IMMIGRATION POLICY.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DISORDER.

AND THE STATE IS DOING THE RESPONSIBLE THING, AS THE BACKSTOP BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IF NEW YORK CITY CAN'T HANDLE THEIR OWN FINANCES, THEY BECOME THE STATE'S PROBLEM.

THE GOVERNOR IS TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE STORM HERE BEFORE THIS SPIRNS ANY SPINS ANY FURTHER OUT OF CONTROL.

ALSO IN TERMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S INVOLVEMENT HERE, I DON'T THINK CONGRESS IS GOING TO WANT TO SEND A DIME TO NEW YORK CITY FOR THIS SITUATION UNTIL THEY REPEAL THEIR SANCTUARY CITY STATUS.

I THINK THAT HAS BECOME A REAL LIABILITY FOR THEM AND THAT'S JUST A VALUE JUDGMENT.

I'M NOT GETTING THAT FROM INSIDER TIPS.

I'M GETTING THAT FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS.

TO GO BACK TO YOUR ULTIMATE QUESTION, IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF RESERVES LIKE FOR A ONE HAD OF TIME EMERGENCY, YES, BUT HAVE YOU TO SHOW A PLAN FOR, NUMBER 1, HOW YOU ARE GOING TO GET OUT OF THAT MESS AND PUT THE MONEY BACK INTO RESERVES AFTERWARDS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE THERE IN CASE WE HAVE ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE PERSONAL INCOME TAX RECEIPTS CRATER.

>> SO I WANT TO PIVOT NOW THOUGH TO THE ISSUE THAT REBECCA HAS BEEN CHAMPING TO, AT THE BIT TO TALK ABOUT, WHICH IS THIS IDEA THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD RAISE TAXES?

MAYBE WE SHOULD EXPAND THE PIE.

AND HERE IS HOW THE GOVERNOR FRAMED THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS SOMETHING SHE HAS NOT WANTED TO TACKLE, HAS ARGUED REPEATEDLY SHE DOESN'T WANT TO RAISE TAXESES AND HAS ARGUED IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, THERE IS AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE, BUT HERE WHAT IS SHE HAD TO SAY DURING HER STATE OF THE STATE ON TAXES.

>> FOR 50 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN HEMORRHAGING FAMILIES WHO NO LONGER CAN RAISE THEIR CHILDREN IN THE SAME COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY WERE BORN.

AND THIS DECLINE SHOWS NO SIGN OF STOPPING.

BUT HERE'S WHAT IS SO INTERESTING.

PEOPLE AREN'T NECESSARILY MOVING FOR WARMER WEATHER OR LOWER TAXES.

MANY ARE MOVING NEXT DOOR.

OFF TOP FIVE STATES THAT NEW YORKERS ARE MOVING TO, THREE OF THEM SHARE OUR BORDERS AND HAVE SIMILAR TAXES.

>> SO ASSEMBLYMAN WE JUST HEARD THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GOVERNOR THAT PEOPLE AREN'T LEAVING BECAUSE OF TAXES.

THEY'RE LEAVING BECAUSE OF AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AND IF YOU ARE A MODERATE TO LOW INCOME NEW YORKER, YOU ARE NOT PAYING VERY HIGH TAXES, BUT MAYBE THE COST OF LIVING IS A PROBLEM.

SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO INCREASE TAXES ON WEALTHY NEW YORKERS SO THAT YOU CAN FUND PROGRAMS THAT MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE FOR MODERATE AND LOW INCOME NEW YORKERS TO LIVE HERE?

>> WELL, THE PROBLEM IS IT'S LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE, IN PARTICULAR IN NEW YORK CITY BUT IN OTHER PLACES, TOO, THE PROBLEM IS-- AND I'LL MAKE ANOTHER PREDICTION-- WE ARE NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES ON ANYBODY THIS YEAR.

FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $233 BILLION.

AND THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT REVENUE IS NECESSARILY THE BIG PROBLEM.

I MEAN THE FACT IS, IS THIS BUDGET TRANSFORMATIONAL?

NO.

IT DOESN'T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HER PREMISE IS WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS IN THE FUTURE THAT MIGHT HAPPEN THAT WILL LEAVE US IN MUCH WORSE SHAPE.

SO I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO-- I THINK THE AREA WHERE WE CAN RAISE SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE ARE THINGS LIKE MAKING POLLUTERS PAY, OR EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY WHERE IF YOU ARE GOING TO POLLUTE, YOU HAVE TO PAY SOME MONEY SO WE HAVE REVENUE FOR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS TO COUNTERACT THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS INCOME TAXES, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY WAS IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET LAST YEAR DESIGNED TO REDUCE WASTE PACKAGING; SOMETHING QUANTITIES LOVE BUT WAS ACTUALLY NOT IN THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL THIS YEAR SO IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

AND I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE WILL NOT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, BE HIGHER INCOME TAXES OR OTHER TAXES ON WEALTHY NEW YORKERS.

BUT REBECCA, YOU DROVE OUT HERE FROM ALBANY.

WHY DON'T YOU MAKE THE PITCH FOR WHY THEY SHOULD BE?

>> WE SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF JUST INCOME TAX.

THE INCOME TAX INCREASE THAT EXISTED TWO YEARS AGO HAS BORN FRUIT AND THE REASON WE ARE NOT IN A MORE DIRE SITUATION AS WE ARE.

THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS.

YOU SAID MAKE POLLUTERS PAY.

LIZ KRUEGER HAS THE SUPER FUND ACT THAT WOULD GENERATE A LOT OF MONEY BY TARGETING THE TOP FIVE NATIONAL POLLUTERS THAT COULD DIRECTLY FUND THE DIRE CLIMATE NEEDS THAT THIS STATE HAS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO COBBLE IT TOGETHER ON THE BACKS OF WORKING PEOPLE THROUGH REGRESSIVE TAXES, RIGHT?

WE HAVE CORPORATE TAX THAT WAS POSSIBLED LAST YEAR EXACTLY THE WAY IT EXISTED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ROBUST.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MECHANISMS TO TAX THE TOP 1% IN THIS STATE, WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO INCREASE THEIR PROFITS ON THE BACKS OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING BY WITH LESS AND LESS WHILE THEY ARE INCREASING THEIR PROFITS THROUGH THOSE MECHANISMS AND IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNNECESSARY TO SET UP AN AUSTERITY SITUATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN EXISTENCE.

>> KEN, HAVE I TO IMAGINE YOU WOULD LOVE TO CHIME IN.

>> I'M BREATHING A SIGH OF RELIEF BECAUSE REBECCA IS ONLY LOOKING TO TARGET THE TOP 1% AND LAST WEEK THE PEOPLE IN THE CROSS HAIRS WERE THE TOP 5% OF EARNERS WHO ARE AN EVEN BIGGER SHARE OF NEW YORK TAXPAYERS.

PART 689 REASON WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RESERVES WITH SUCH IMPORTANCE BEFORE IS BECAUSE THE STATE IS MORE RELIANT THAN EVER ON PERSONAL INCOME TAXES COMING FROM PEOPLE WITH CONNECTIONS TO WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL SECTOR WHOSE REVENUES ARE EXTREMELY VOLATILE.

AND IN TERMS OF THE FRUIT THAT HAS BEEN BORN OUT FROM THE HIGHEST EVER PERSONAL INCOME TAX INCREASE THAT THE LEGISLATURE APPROVED IN 2021, PART OF THE REASON WHY THE GOVERNOR HAS HAD TO CONTEND WITH BUDGET GAPS IS BECAUSE THOSE TAX HIKES DIDN'T PRODUCE WHAT WAS PROMISED AND PART OF THAT IS SHOWN IN DATA WHERE WE HAVE SEEN MORE PEOPLE IN THE HIGHEST INCOME TIERS MOVE OUT OF NEW YORK DURING 2021 THAN THEY DID IN 2020.

THAT MEANS IN SOME CASES, THEY WERE FLEEING FASTER FROM THOSE HIGH RATES THAN THEY WERE FROM THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS.

>> KEN, I HAVE TO PUSH BOOK THAT.

THERE WAS A WHOLE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THIS YEAR THAT SHOWED THAT THE WEALTHIEST NEW YORKERS, NOT ONLY HAVEN'T LEFT BUT ARE INCREASING IN POPULATION IN THIS STATE, AND THE OUT MIGRATION HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SPECIFIC TO LOW AND MODERATE AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES.

SO THE IDEA THAT THEY HAVE LEFT IS JUST PATENTLY FALSE.

>> THE NUMBER OF WEALTHY NEW YORKERS HASN'T GROWN THE WAY IT HAS IN OTHER STATES THOUGH, SO THEY'RE RECEIPTICALLY, WHILE WE ARE SEEING-- THEORETICALLY WHILE WE ARE SEEING GROWTH, IT'S NOT THE GROWTH WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AND YOU COULD ARGUE THE POLICIES IN NEW YORK ARE STYMIEING THAT GROWTH AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO OTHER STATES THAT ARE BENEFITING FROM THEIR POLICIES.

>> I WOULD ASSERT THAT WE CITE THE OUT MIGRATION AND LOWER POPULATION AS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVERY TIME WE CLAIM AUSTERITY.

AND IT IS IMPERATIVE TO NOTE THAT THAT OUT MIGRATION IS NOT RELATED TO THE WEALTHIEST.

AND SO IF WE COULD INCREASE THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY FUEL THE ECONOMY, WHICH ARE THE WORKERS, WHICH ARE THE EVERYDAY PURCHASERS, PERHAPS WE WOULD SEE AN INCREASE, BUT I FEEL TOTALLY COMFORTABLE IN THE FACT THAT THE ULTRAWEALTHY ARE CONTINUING TO PROFIT HANDILY HERE AND THAT IS TO BE ADDRESSED.

>> I MEAN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE CORE ISSUE IS FOR A LOT OF THE ILLS THAT ARE HAPPENING AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE ARE THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, THE WEALTHIEST PERIOD OF TIME IN HISTORY.

BUT MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE FOOD INSECURITY AND HOUSING INSECURE.

WHY THIS HAPPENING?

BECAUSE OF INCOME INEQUALITY.

SINCE 2020, I THINK THE TOP 100 RICHEST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY HAVE INCREASED THEIR WEALTH BY $1.5 TRILLION YOU HAVE 100 PEOPLE WITH ALL THAT MONEY.

WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THAT?

THEY'RE CERTAINLY NOT FUNDING ALL THE THINGS WE NEED... >> THEY BUY TWITTER.

>> PROBABLY.

BUT REALLY, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

I DON'T REGRET, YOU KNOW, ANYONE MAKING MONEY.

THAT'S GREAT.

I'M THE CHAIR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

I WANT ALL THE BUSINESSES TO DO WELL IN NEW YORK STATE CHT BUT-- BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE COMES A POINT WHERE YOU HAVE TOO FEW PEOPLE WITH TOO MUCH MONEY AND IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL 9 MONEY, YOU SHOULD PAY ALL THE TAXES.

SO SAYING THAT SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO DO IT IS NOT HELPING.

>> KEN, DO YOU WANT A FINAL WORD ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE WE HAVE TO MOVE ON?

>> WHAT PRAY TELL PEOPLE THINK FOLKS HAVE DONE WITH THE MONEY THEY'VE ACCUMULATED.

AND IF THEY THINK THERE ARE INCENTIVES TO CONTINUE ACCUMULATING HAS CHANGED, THE MONEY COMES FROM INVESTMENT, COMES FROM BUILDING THE ECONOMY.

>> LET ME TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THAT MONEY IS GOING INTO PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS.

PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS ARE BUYING UP ALL THESE TEMPORARY AGENCIES THAT ARE SUPPLYING ALL THE TRAVELING NURSES THAT COST 300% MORE THAN THE NURSES THAT WORK IN THE HOSPITAL.

THEY'RE BUYING UP AN THESE OL-- ANESTHESIOLOGIST PRACTICES WHERE THE HOSPITAL USED TO PAY $300,000 FOR AN AN THESE OL IDENTITY, THESE FIRMS KNOW THERE IS A SHORTAGE AND NOW HAVE YOU TO PAY $500,000 A YEAR FOR ANESTHESIOLOGISTS.

I MEAN THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING AND IT'S CAUSING PROBLEMS THERE, IN HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE AND EVERY PLACE.

>> THEY'RE BUYING UP THE HOUSING STOCK.

>> THEY'RE BUYING UP THE STUFF.

THEY'RE WAREHOUSING AMOUNTS IN NEW YORK CITY, THEY'RE EMPTY TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THERE IS A SHORTAGE AND THEY'RE DRIVING UP THE PRICE.

THAT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING.

IF ALL THE THINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROVE TO BE A CHALLENGE, NEW YORK DECISION MAKERS SEEM TO BE MORE PERPLEXED BY THE TASK OF CREATING NEW HOUSING.

AND AFTER FAILING TO REACH A GRAND BARGAIN ON THE ISSUE IN 2023, GOVERNOR HOCHUL IS BACK AT IT IN 2024.

HERE IS HER MESSAGE.

>> ALREADY NEW YORK HAS VASTLY MORE REGULATED HOUSING STOCK THAN ANY OTHER STATE.

BUT IT STILL HASN'T MEANT MORE HOMES FOR PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE STATUS QUO HAS FAILED.

IT'S A BAND-AID WHEN WE NEED RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

WE STILL NEED AN EFFECTIVE STATEWIDE APPROACH TO ENCOURAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THERE ARE AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS WE CAN AND MUST TAKE NOW.

>> SO, REBECCA, THE GOVERNOR JUST FRAMED THE HOUSING CRISIS AS ONE THAT REQUIRES REALLY SIGNIFICANT ATTENTION, YOU KNOW, BAND-AID IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL COMPARED TO WHAT WE SAW LAST YEAR, IT SEEMS LIKE A SKINNY VERSION, A SLIMMED DOWN VERSION, DIET ICE CREAM WHEN YOU REALLY WANT THAT SWEET, SWEET BEN AND JERRIES.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL AND LATER WE CAN TALK ABOUT YOUR FAVORITE ICE CREAM FLAVORS.

>> I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

I AGREE WE DON'T NEED A BAND-AID.

WE NEED MASSIVE RECONSTRUCT INSTRUCTIVE SURGERY.

OUR IDEA OF WHAT THAT RECONSTRUCTION LOOKS LIKE VARIES GREATLY.

WE HAVE HAD DECADES OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL POLICY THAT BELIEVES THE HOUSING CRISIS CAN BE SOLVED BY INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT.

HERE THROUGH PROGRAMS LIKE 421A.

>> THE TAX CREDIT.

>> OPPORTUNITY ZONES, FEDERALLY, RIGHT?

AND ALL WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PERIOD THAT THOSE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ENACTED IS THAT THE HOUSING CRISIS HAS GOTTEN WORSE AND WORSE AND THE AFFORDABILITY FOR HOUSING HAS GOTTEN WORSE AND WORSE.

AND SO WHAT WE NEED-- SHE TALKS ABOUT WE ARE THE MOST REGULATED STATE.

WE NEED MORE REGULATION.

AND SO WHEN I SEE A PROPOSAL THAT IS COMPLETELY CENTERED IN INCENTIVES AND SUBSIDIES FOR WEALTHY DEVELOPERS WITH VAGUE, IF ABSENT REQUIREMENTS ON THE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENTS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, WHEN I SEE POLICIES THAT LOOK TO EASE RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE AND HOW YOU DEVELOP, IT IS MISSING THE POINT.

THE PRIVATE EQUITY INDUSTRY, RIGHT, AND SECTOR, THE FREE MARKET OPERATES ON A SHEER PROFITABILITY MECHANISM ON SOMETHING THAT IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

I WILL SAY THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

WE REGULATE UTILITIES.

THE HEAT AND THE LIGHTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE IN THEIR HOMES AND WE HAVE ALMOST NO REGULATION AT THE STATE LEVEL OR THE FEDERAL LEVEL ON ACTUALLY HAVING ACCESS TO A HOME.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME PROTECTIONS AGAINST PRICE GOUGING AND FREE MARKET PROFITABILITY OR WE ARE NEVER GOING TO SOLVE THIS CRISIS THAT IS ASTRONOMICAL.

SO WHEN SHE PUTS PROPOSALS LIKE THESE TOGETHER, IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF TENANT PROTECTIONS, THAT ENSURE THAT PROFITS CAN STILL BE MADE BUT THAT THERE IS A LIMIT TO HOW MUCH IT IS-- AND I WILL STOP AND PASS IT ON, BUT I WANT TO ALWAYS REMIND PEOPLE.

THE RENT REGULATION THAT EXISTS IN NEW YORK CITY, OVER 90% OF THE LANDLORDS WHO OWN THOSE UNITS AND THOSE BUILDINGS OPERATE AT A PROFIT.

IT DOESN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM MAKING A PROFIT.

IT JUST TRIAGES THE PROFITABILITY MECHANISM THAT ENSURES THAT PEOPLE END UP HOMELESS.

>> KEN, CONSIDER YOURSELF OFF THE LEASH.

GO FOR IT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO READ FROM WEALTH OF NATIONS TO REBECCA.

INSTEAD-- WHO MADE ONE GOOD POINT BACK THERE.

INSTEAD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONSIDER THE OLD WOMAN WHO SWALLOWED A FLY.

THAT'S WHERE NEW YORK IS IN HOUSING POLICY.

WE HAVE BEEN IN A HOUSING MESS FOR, IN ONE FORM ANOTHER FOR A CENTURY.

LITERALLY COMING BACK TO THE HOUSING SHORTAGES THAT HAPPENED AFTER WORLD WAR I AND TO DEAL WITH THAT, YOU HAD THE STATE GETTING INTO THE PUBLIC HOUSING BUSINESS TO FURTHER DEAL WITH THINGS, YOU GOT INTO RENT CONTROL AND WHEN RENT CONTROL HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE MARKETS, YOU HAD THE STATE GET INTO SUBSIDIES AND THESE, FRANKLY, WHAT ARE KIND OF SILLY AND INDEFENSIBLE SUBSIDIES TO DEVELOPERS IN THE HOPES THAT THEY WILL BUILD SOME STUFF THAT THEY WANT AND ALSO SOME AFFORDABLE STUFF ON THE SIDES, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TERRIBLY FAR TO LOOK AT PLACES NOT HAVING THESE PROBLEMS.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON IN FLORIDA WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT FEWER OBSTACLES TO GROWTH.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES TO GROWTH IS THE SPECTER OF RENT CONTROL.

HOW MANY BUILDINGS CAME UNDER RENT CONTROL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 2019?

THAT HAS A MAJOR CHILLING EFFECT IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO BUILD A BUILDING AND GET A RETURN ON IT OVER THE HALF CENTURY LIFE OF THAT BUILDING.

SO THE COMBINATION OF RENT CONTROL AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OBSTACLES TO BUILDING WHICH START WITH ZONING, AND ADDING TO THE SUPPLY IN NEW YORK, I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO THINK ABOUT THIS MORE HOLISTICALLY AND LOOK AT, BEFORE THEY TRY TO DO MORE, LOOK AND SAY WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR A CENTURY AND WHERE, IN SOME CASES, AND WHERE HAS IT BEEN GOING WRONG.

>> KEN, YOU MENTIONED ZONING.

IN 2023 THE GOVERNOR TRIED TO TACKLE THE LOCAL ZONING DECISIONS THAT WE ARE SEEING AROUND THE STATE, SOME WHICH ARE ANTIGROWTH.

IS THAT AN AREA WHERE THE STATE SHOULD BE INTERVENING?

SHOULD THEY BE DEREGULATING, SO TO SPEAK, THE LOCAL ZONING RULES?

>> NEW YORK HAS A ROBUST SYSTEM OF LOCAL CONTROL, NOT JUST ON LAND USE BUT ON A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES.

I'D SAY IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT GOING UNDER THE HOOD THERE, YOU SHOULD BE BASICALLY PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE.

I THINK PEOPLE WERE KIND OF OFFENDED BY THE TALK ABOUT LOCAL ZONING BECAUSE IT FELT LIKE THEY WERE BEING PUT UNDER THE MICROSCOPE THEMSELVES AS THE SOLE CULPRIT BEHIND NEW YORK'S HOUSING SHORTAGE AND IN REALITY THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE LINED UP IN THERE.

IF YOU BROUGHT ALL THESE FACTORS TOGETHER WHICH COMES DOWN TO PROPERTY TAX, ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK CITY, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME GRAND BARGAIN THAT GETS NEW YORK A LOT MORE HOUSING.

>> ASSEMBLYMEMBER, YOUR AREA IS POISED FOR A GROWTH EXPLOSION WITH THE MICRON DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS AREA AND YOU ALREADY HAVE HOUSING IN SHORT SUPPLY.

IT'S EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN PARTS OF SYRACUSE.

WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IN TERMS OF THE MEATIER PARTS OF IT, IT SEEMS FOCUSED ON NEW YORK CITY IN TERMS OF THE DWELLING RULES, THE DENSITY RULES.

SO DOES THE PLAN, AS ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNOR, DO ANYTHING TO HELP UPSTATE NEW YORK AND COMMUNITIES LUKE YOURS?

>> WELL, THAT'S TO BE SEEN.

I MEAN WE BUILD ABOUT 280 NEW HOUSING UNITS PER YEAR IN ONONDAGA COUNTY.

WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BUILD 2800 A YEAR.

YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE REALLY REVOLVES AROUND AFFORDABILITY.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY PROBLEM BUILDING HOUSING IN CENTRAL NEW YORK.

THERE IS LOTS OF OPEN LAND THAT THEY CAN BUILD ON.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF DEVELOPERS THAT WILL BUILD MARKETED RATE HOUSING.

AND THEY'LL ALL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY AND IT WILL BE FINE.

BUT FOR THOSE AREAS THAT NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A MUCH DIFFERENT APPROACH, YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR IN HIS STATE OF THE CITY LAST NIGHT TALKED ABOUT IT.

THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME PROGRAMS.

THEY'RE KIND OF SMALL ACTUALLY, STARTING WITH A MILLION DOLLARS OR SO.

BUT, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING THINGS, THAT THERE ARE A REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND A REQUIREMENT TO KEEP THEM AFFORDABLE.

THE PROBLEM WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS THAT FOR MANY YEARS, THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF WAYS THEY GOT AROUND THAT AND JACKED UP THE RENTS ON EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK CITY.

BUT IT'S HAPPENED UP HERE IN UPSTATE NEW YORK BECAUSE MORE OUT OF STATERS AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY ACTUALLY, PEOPLE, HAVE BEEN BUYING UP A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE SO CHOAP CHEAP.

THEY'RE DISTRESSED PROPERTIES.

NOT IN GOOD SHAPE AND THEY INVEST IN MONEY IN THEM BUT PEOPLE NEED A PLACE TO LIVE SO THEY JUST MOVE IN THERE.

AND THEY PROBABLY DON'T HAVE HOT WATER A LOT OF DAYS AND, YOU KNOW, THE HEAT DOESN'T WORK ALL THE TIME.

BUT LEAST IT'S BETTER THAN LIVING OUTSIDE.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO DIRECTLY RESPOND TO THIS BECAUSE SYRACUSE TO ME IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY WE NEED THE COMBINATION APPROACH, RIGHT?

IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I'VE READ FROM THE MICRON PLANS, EVEN THE WHAT I WOULD SAY ARE FAR INSUFFICIENT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO IT, THEY'RE SAYING AFFORDABLE IS 100% AMI.

THAT IS NOT AFFORDABLE.

YOU HAVE A CITY WHERE A THIRD OF THE PEOPLE LIVE AT THE POVERTY LEVEL OR BELOW.

THIS IS A CRIES IS IS-- THIS IS A CRISIS.

AND PART WHAT HAVE WE SEE FOR THE HOUSING STOCK FOR THAT POPULATIONS IS A COMPLETE LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES IN ENSURING THAT THEY ARE LIVABLE, HUMANE.

SO WE HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN HORRIBLY ABJECT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND PAYING ABOVE 30% IN RENT.

A LOT OF THAT HOUSING STOCK HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY FOREIGN PRIVATE EQUITY COMPANIES COMING IN WITH A VERY INTENTIONAL BUSINESS MODEL OF PROFIT OFF OF DISINVESTMENT.

THAT IS A FACT.

SO IF WE HAD MECHANISMS LIKE GOOD CAUSE THAT SAID I CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CONDITION OF A UNIT WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATORY EVICTION.

I PAY MY RENT EVERY MONTH AND I DESERVE TO HAVE HEAT, HOT WATER AND I CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT AND WITH HOLD RENT UNTIL IT'S FIXED, WE CAN FINALLY START TO SEE AN IMPROVEMENT AND BETTER ACCESS FOR THIS POPULATION THAT DEVELOPMENT LEAVES BEHIND, LET'S BE CLEAR.

>> ASSEMBLYMAN, PART OF THE HOUSING PROPOSAL FROM THE GOVERNOR IS TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LET THOSE DEVELOPERS BUILD, LET THEM HAVE PRO-GROWTH POLICIES SO DEVELOPERS ARE NOT SEEING ROAD BLOCKS AND LOOKING TO TIE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DISCRETIONARY DOLLARS TO ADOPTING THESE PRO-GROWTH POLICIES.

IS THAT THE RIGHT TYPE OF INCENTIVE OR DO YOU WORRY THAT SHE IS BASICALLY COERCING COMMUNITIES TO ADOPT THINGS THAT THEY OTHERWISE DON'T WANT OR COULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THEIR COMMUNITIES AS SO MANY LOCAL LEADERS LIKE TO SAY?

>> WELL, I THINK THE AREAS THAT WERE MOST OPPOSED TO LAST YEAR'S PROPOSAL WERE WHERE THE STATE COULD COME IN IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT, ARE THE AREAS THAT DON'T WANT INCENTIVES, DON'T NEED INCENTIVES.

THEY LIKE EVERYTHING JUST THE WAY IT IS AND, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BUILD ANY DENSER OR ANYTHING ELSE.

BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT WILL BE WILLING TO ACCEPT INCENTIVES LIKE THAT TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD DENSER.

I THINK THE CITY OF SYRACUSE IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES THAT WILL DO IT.

I'M SURE ROCHESTER AND BUFFALO ARE, TOO.

THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ONE SILVER BULLET THAT IS GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

WE ARE GOING TO NEED LOTS OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE TO BUILD HOUSING IN ENOUGH DENSITY THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THESE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOW LIVING, YOU KNOW, ON THE STREETS OR IN SHELTERS.

I MEAN IT'S A CRISIS STILL.

>> UNFORTUNATELY WE COULD TALK ABOUT HOUSING ALL DAY LONG.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE ON A CLOCK SO WE HAVE TO TURN NOW TO SO CALLED KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES; THE HOKIE WAY OF DESCRIBING THE ISSUES THAT THE CHATTERING POLITICAL CLASS IMAGINE EVERYDAY PEOPLE DISCUSS AND FRET OVER OVER THE, YOU GUESSED IT, KITCHEN TABLE.

HERE IS GOVERNOR HOCHUL WITH SOME OF THOSE ISSUES SHE IDENTIFIED IN THE STATE OF THE STATED ADDRESS.

>> RIGHT NOW, IM PROPOSING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO OUR CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IN OVER FORTY YEARS.

[APPLAUSE] >> WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE PRACTICES LIKE STUDENT LOAN SERVICERS PUSHING BORROWERS TOWARD THE MOST EXPENSIVE REPAYMENT OPTIONS AND DEBT COLLECTORS WHO MANIPULATE SENIORS INTO GIVING UP THEIR PROTECTED INCOME.

WE'LL ESTABLISH REGULATIONS ON THE BUY NOW PAY LATER LOAN INDUSTRY; WHICH OFTEN LURES CUSTOMERS INTO SPENDING BEYOND THEIR MEANS.

AND WE ARE TAKING ON MEDICAL DEBT AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASING PAID DISABILITY LEAVE.

BECAUSE... [ APPLAUSE ] BELIEVE IT OR NOT, DISABILITY LEAVE HAS NOT BEEN RAISED A PENNY IN 35 YEARS.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF PAYING FOR THIS BENEFIT YOUR WHOLE LIFE IF IT ONLY GIVES YOU A FRACTION OF WHAT YOU NEED TO RECOVER?

WE HAVE TO RIGHT THIS WRONG.

>> KEN, WE HEARD A LOT OF EFFORTS TO MAKE THE STATE MORE AFFORDABLE BY USING THE STATE'S REGULATORY POWERS.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH OR THINK IS THE RIGHT USE OF STATE POWER?

>> I MEAN AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE STATE'S MOST APPROPRIATE ROLE IS PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND PART OF THE WAY YOU DO THAT IS BY MAKING SURE THAT-- BY POLICING THE TRANSACTIONS THAT HAPPEN BETWEEN PEOPLE.

AND SO THE STATE HAS AN APPROPRIATE CONSUMER PROTECTION ROLE TO PLAY IN A LOT OF THINGS, AND THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THEY HAVE A PLACE TO CATCH UP.

ONE THING ON THE DISABILITY FRONT, JUST TO BE COGNIZANT OF IS THAT NEW YORK IS PART OF A SMALLER GROUP OF STATES THAT REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO PARTICIPATE.

AND IT COMES OUT OF EMPLOYEES PAYCHECKS, NOT THE EMPLOYERS END OF THINGS.

>> YEAH, I THINK THERE IS ABOUT 12 STATES THAT DO THIS TYPE OF BENEFIT.

AND IT'S A GROWING NUMBER THOUGH.

AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER, AS THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE NOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CONGRATULATIONS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS IDEA OF POTENTIALLY PUTTING ON ANOTHER INSURANCE COST FOR BUSINESSES TO HAVE A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE MEDICAL AND DISABILITY LEAVE ASSISTANCE?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOING FROM $170 TO, I THINK ABOUT 66% OF THE STATE EGOS AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE IN A FEW YEARS.

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S BEEN LONG OVERDUE THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE.

I MEAN WHO CAN LIVE ON $170 A WEEK?

I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT CAN DO THAT; ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAD A JOB THAT PAID YOU, YOU KNOW, $1500 A WEEK.

HOW DO YOU PAY FOR YOUR MORTGAGE AND YOUR CAR PAYMENTS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THIS AREA, THE GOVERNOR HAS HIT ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY NEED TO BE DONE.

I THINK YOU CAN TELL BY THE APPLAUSE THAT SHE GOT THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF HER MORE POPULAR PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT SHE MADE.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL STICK IN THE BUDGET.

YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS BUSINESSES GO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT BUSINESSES DIRECTLY.

I THINK IN IT SHE ALSO SAID THE AMOUNT THAT EMPLOYEES PAY WILL ACTUALLY GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

SO I'M INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO SEE HOW THIS IS BEING FUNDED, WHAT THE KIND OF RUN RATE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

I KNOW SHE IS ATTACKING OTHER THINGS WITH THIS WITH INFANT MORTALITY RATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHY SHE IS HAVING PRENATAL, 40 HOURS OF PRENATAL FAMILY LEAVE.

>> YEAH, AND I THINK THAT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT.

I MEAN HOW CAN THE INFANT MORTALITY RATES AND MATERNAL MORTALITY RATES BE GOING UP?

IT'S 2024.

I MEAN WHAT IS HAPPENING.

OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY IS NOT DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.

>> REBECCA, ANY OF THESE STAND OUT TO YOU FOR GOOD OR MAYBE FOR NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

>> YEAH, I MEAN I THINK THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE WE DID HAVE POSITIVE FEELINGS ABOUT DIRECTIONS SHE WAS GOING, MAYBE NOT ONLY ONE, BUT ONE OF.

CERTAINLY I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THE PERSONAL DISABILITY LEAVE HAS NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR A LONG TIME.

I MEAN TO THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S POINT, I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO COULD SURVIVE ON $170, IT WOULDN'T EVEN COVER YOUR HOUSING COSTS, NEVER MIND EATING OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO DO.

I THINK THIS IS NECESSARY.

I THINK, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, THERE MAY BE SOME IMPACT ON THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION, BUT IT'S NOMINAL, SMALL.

SOMETHING THAT I FEEL COST THAT EVERY EMPLOYEE WOULD ACCEPT AN INCREASE IN KNOWING IF THEY HAD A PERSONAL ILLNESS, THAT THEY COULD BE STABLE AND SOLVENT.

I THINK WE WISH IT WOULD ROLL OUT MORE QUICKLY AND NOT HAVE SUCH AN EXTENDED ROLLOUT PERIOD N. TERMS OF PRENATAL LEAVE, I THINK, LOOK, WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE MATERNAL HEALTH AND INFANT MORTALITY CRISIS IN THIS STATE.

IT IS AN ABOMINATION.

I THINK THE MECHANISM, HAVE I SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, AND WHAT CATEGORY IT FALLS UNDER.

I'M NOT SURE HOW IT FALLS UNDER PAID FAMILY.

I THINK IT COULD FALL UNDER PERSONAL DISABILITY.

THAT'S MORE OF A NARRATIVE QUESTION.

BUT I THINK IT'S MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND I THINK WE NEED OTHER DEEP INVESTMENTS IN IMPROVING THAT SITUATION AND I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, THERE IS A BILL BY SENATOR RAMOS AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER CLARK THAT PROVIDES DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS TO MOTHERS DURING THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF PREGNANCY ASHEDZ THE FIRST NINE MONTHS OF THE CHILD'S LIFE AND STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT PILOT PROGRAMS THAT WERE PRIVATELY FUNDED, THAT ENACTED SIMILAR PROGRAMS HAD VERY IMPORTANT AND POSITIVE IMPACTS ON MA TERM HEALTH AND INFANT HEALTH.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CREATIVE AND ADDRESS IT IN MANY WAYS.

>> ONE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE PROPOSALS TO ADDRESS THE COST OF LIVING AND SPECIFICALLY HEALTHCARE HAS TO DO WITH ELIMINATING CO-PAYMENTS FOR INSULIN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

THIS HAS TO DO WITH PLANS THAT ARE ACTUALLY REGULATED BY STATE.

SO NOT, YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF NEW YORKERS POTENTIALLY.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT TYPE OF REGULAR REGULATION THAT IS GOING COST PASS THE COST ON TO HEALTH INSURERS AND RESULT IN HIGHER PREMIUMS?

>> THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

IT AFFECTS PEOPLE ON THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET OR SMALL GROUPS.

LARGER GROUPS HAVE THE PLANS REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THOSE PLANS DON'T AFFORD STATE GOVERNMENT AND OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND POLICE CO-PAYS AND PREMIUMS AND WHAT NOT.

ANY TIME YOU GO AND DO THIS, WHAT THEY POPULARLY CALLY LIMB NATE COST SHARING, YOU ACTUALLY FORCE COST SHARES WITH EVERYONE BECAUSE EVERYONE'S PREMIUMS HAVE TO GO UP.

PART OF THE REASON WHY INSURANCE PREMIUMS HAVE CO-PAYS AND TIERED CO-PAYS SO THERE IS AN INCENTIVE FOR PROVIDERS AND PATIENTS TO GO AND WORK WITH THEM ON EITHER TO FIND A MORE AFFORDABLE OPTION FOR TREATMENT OR TO PARTICIPATE IN SOME KIND OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITH THEM WHEN IT'S LIKE CHRONIC CONDITION LIKE DIABETES.

SO THE LINE THAT WOULD I DRAW FROM THIS INSULIN MANDATE AND WHAT IS GOING ON WITH DISABILITY IS JUST THE INCREASED UNCERTAINTY THAT BUSINESSES ARE FEELING IN NEW YORK WHERE THEY'RE WONDERING, OKAY, WHAT'S NEXT?

WHAT IS ALBANY GOING TO SAY HAVE I TO DO OR CAN'T DO NEXT?

>> WELL, STICKING WITH ISSUES THAT NEW YORKERS ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND LIVING WITH, LET'S HEAR WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAD TO SAY ABOUT PROPERTY CRIME IN HER STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS.

>> ACROSS OUR NATION AND OUR STATE, RETAIL THEFT HAS SURGED, CREATING FEAR AMONG THE CUSTOMERS AND THE WORKERS.

THIEVES BRAZENLY TEAR ITEMS OFF THE SHELVES AND METROPOLITAN-- AND MENACE EMPLOYEES.

OWNERS GO BROKE REPLACING BROKEN WINDOWS AND STOLEN GOODS, DRIVING MANY OUT OF BUSINESS.

THESE ATTACKS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE SOCIAL ORDER.

I SAY NO MORE!

THE CHAOS MUST END!

>> WELL, ASSEMBLYMEMBER, AGAIN, PUTTING ON THAT SMALL BUSINESS HAT THAT YOU USED TO WEAR, THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL INCLUDES GREATER CORROBORATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE IDEA OF TASK FORCES AND TOUGHER CRIME PENALTIES AS WELL AS A TAX CREDIT SO BUSINESSES CAN PURCHASE SECURITY MEASURES.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT RESPONSE AND ALSO THE FRAMING OF THE ISSUE?

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WARRANTS ADDITIONAL ATTENTION?

>> WELL, I KNOW FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, ESPECIALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC, THERE WAS A PRETTY BIG INCREASE IN PETTY LARCENY GOING INTO DEPARTMENT STORES AND JUST RIPPING OFF COUNTERS.

I ALSO KNOW THAT IF YOU EXCLUDE NEW YORK CITY, THE AMOUNT OF THIS CRIME HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN OVER THE PAST YEAR.

BUT, I MEAN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS SMALL BUSINESSES CAN'T AFFORD, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF THEFT.

AND WHATEVER THEY DO-- AND I THINK DURING THE PANDEMIC, IT WAS RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS MORE ORGANIZED CRIME.

I MEAN THEY WERE ACTUALLY GANGS OF PEOPLE WOULD DRIVE TO PLACES.

THEY DISBURSE, GO IN AND RIP OFF EVERYTHING THEY COULD GET, RUN IN AND THEY WOULD BE GONE.

THEY WOULD DRIVE OUT OF STATE OR SOMEPLACE LIKE THAT.

>> AND RESELL THE GOODS IN MANY CASES.

>> AND RESELL THE GOODS.

SO I THINK WITH A COLLABORATION WITH THE FEDERAL AND STATE AND LOCAL POLICE, I THINK THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME KIND OF RELIEF FOR THIS KIND OF CRIME.

AND YOU KNOW, I LOOK FORWARD TO WHATEVER THE GOVERNOR CAN PUT TOGETHER ON THAT.

>> REBECCA, IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO THE RETAIL THEFT, WE ALSO SEE PROPERTY CRIMES ACROSS UPSTATE HERE IN SYRACUSE AND THE ROCHESTER AREA, CAR THEFTS ARE A BIG DEAL.

SO IS THISSING?

THAT WARRANTS A LAW ENFORCEMENT APPROACH?

>> I I ALWAYS WOULD LEAD TOWARDS PROACTIVE SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF REACTIVE SOLUTIONS.

SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT INCREASING POLICING OF CRIMES, IT FEELS REACTIVE.

A PUNISHMENT IS DELIVERED BUT WE ARE NOT GETTING TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF WHY ARE WE HAVING, WHAT I WOULD REFER TO AS CRIMES OF POVERTY, RIGHT?

I WOULD ASSERT TO YOU THAT PEOPLE DO NOT GO INTO A STORE AND STEAL DIAPERS BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S FUN TO TAKE THAT RISK.

>> IT'S NOT JUST DIAPERS.

THINGS ARE BEING STOLEN AND RESOLD FOR SIGNIFICANT MONEY.

>> WE HAVE TWO SITUATIONS GOING ON HERE AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS, WE CANNOT CONFLATE THE TWO.

IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ORGANIZED PROFITEERING PLAN, THAT IS DIFFERENT.

BUT WILL BE HANDLED, LET'S BE QUITE CLEAR, UNDER THE SAME VAIN AS SOMEONE WHO IS FACING A SURVIVAL CRISIS AND IS COMMITTING CRIMES OF NECESSITY AND CRIMES OF POVERTY.

AND SO IF WE REALLY WANT TO STOP THESE SORTS OF BEHAVIORS AND HARMSZ, WE HAVE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY ADDRESSING THE CRISIS THAT IS THAT PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE AND THEY'RE DOING DESPERATE THINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILY AND THEIR FAMILY SURVIVES SO IT'S COMPLETELY MISSING THE MARK TO TAKE ONLY A PROACTIVE PUNITIVE APPROACH TO THIS AND IF THAT WERE GOING TO WORK, THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE THE SAFEST PLACE WE HAVE EVER LIVED IN AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE IT'S NOT.

>> I WANT TO PIVOT TO AN ISSUE THE GOVERNOR DID NOT HIGHLIGHT AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE NEW PROCESS OF IMPROVING TRANSMISSION LINES.

SOMETHING THAT IS CRITICAL FOR NEW YORK TO DO IF IT IS GOING TO HIT ITS GREEN ENERGY GOALS BECAUSE WE NEED SOME WAY OF ACTUALLY GETTING RENEWABLE POWER TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO USE IT MOVING FORWARD.

AND THE IDEA IS THAT SO FAR LOCALITIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SLOW OR IN SOME CASES BLOCK THESE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS PROPOSED SITING OVERALL?

>> I THINK IT'S A LOT OF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS PLAYING CATCH UP.

THEY HAVE OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS WANTED TO PLACE SIN CITY 2000 WITH NEW YORK'S ELECTRIC GRID.

A COMPUTER GAME IN THE 19 23450EU7B9S WHERE YOU WOULD BUILD A POWER PLANT AND DRAW IT ON THE MAP AND EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY.

THEY'RE REALLY TRYING TO MANHANDLE THE STATE ELECTRIC GRID TO DECARBONIZE IT ON A REALLY RAPID AND, FRANKLY, OVER CONSTRAINED PATHWAY.

AND THEY'RE RUNNING INTO PROBLEMS WHERE THE STATE IS SUBSIDIZING SOLAR PANELS AND WIND TURBINES AND THE POWER IS GOING TO WASTE.

IT'S CALLED CURTAILMENT AND IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WIND TURBINES UPSTATE WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET STUFF THERE.

SO THIS IS BEING FORCED BY THAT POLICY.

AND IT'S REFLECTIVE OF JUST HOW THOUGHTLESS A LOT OF THE STATE'S ENERGY POLICY HAS BEEN IN THIS SPACE.

>> BUT KEN, DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO OVERHAUL THIS PROCESS IF WE DO WANT TO CONNECT GREEN POWER UPSTATE TO NEW YORK CITY?

OR DOES THE STATUS QUO WORK?

>> I MEAN IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE PREMISE THAT WE ARE GOING TO SHUT DOWN GAS PLANTS REGARDLESS, AND WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO GET POWER FROM UPSTATE TO NEW YORK CITY, THEN, YES, THAT FORCES YOUR HAND AND YOU HAVE TO GO AND ACCELERATE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, BUT IT'S A REALLY MESSY AND SLOPPY WAY TO GO.

>> WE HAVE ABOUT 90 SECONDS.

HAVE I TO IMAGINE THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE BIG FIGHTS BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE BUDGET IS FINALLY ADOPTED BECAUSE LOCAL LEADERS TRADITIONALLY LIKE THE SYSTEM AND THE POWERS THAT THEY CAN PULL IN TERMS OF BLOCKING OR SLOWING THESE PROJECTS.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW AS YOU THINK ABOUT OVERHAULING THE SITING PROCESS?

>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AGAIN WHAT HE THINKS WE HAVE AS FAR AS THE TIMELINE TO ACTUALLY DO THIS TRANSITION TO A NON-FOSSIL FUEL WORLD.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT HIM, BUT I WATCH THE NEWS OCCASIONALLY AND I GO OUTSIDE OCCASIONALLY AND I NOTICE THAT THE WEATHERINGS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN IT USED TO BE AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW.

FOR LAST 50 YEARS, I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HOW FAST WE ARE MOVING OR DOING THIS TOO FAST.

WE ARE NOT THINKING IT THROUGH, ETC.

I DWOABT KNOW HOW MUCH TIME-- I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE LEFT TO THINK.

WE NEED TO DO SOME ACTING.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT AND IF THIS WILL HELP US ACT, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT AS A GOOD THING.

>> YOU THINK STATE LAWMAKERS SHOULD RALLY BEHIND THE OVERHAUL OF THE SITING PROCESS IN.

>> I THINK SO.

IT TAKES INCREDIBLY LONG TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS NOW.

I THINK WICK, YOU KNOW, MEET WITH THE COMMUNITIES, TALK THROUGH THIS STUFF IN A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME.

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY YOU AND KEN ARE GOING HAVE TO CONNECT OFF LINE ABOUT THE GREEN ENERGY FUTURE OF NEW YORK BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE TODAY.

MY THANKS TO CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK'S REBECCA GARRARD, ASSEMBLYMAN AL STIRPE AND THE EMPIRE CENTER'S KEN GIRARDIN.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVISIT THIS EPISODE - OR DIG INTO THE CONNECT NEW YORK ARCHIVES - VISIT WCNY.ORG/CONNECTNEWNEW YORK AND FOR MORE STATE GOVERNMENT COVERAGE, CHECK OUT THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM AT CAPITOL PRESSROOM DOT ORG, OR WHEREVER YOU DOWNLOAD PODCASTS.

ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM AT WCNY - I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - THANKS FOR WATCHING.

♪ ♪