Opinion: Asking the NYC Mayoral Candidates for a Real Discussion on Family Homelessness

posted in: All news | 0

“Some families live in the shelter system that is meant to be temporary for years. We need concrete responses and leadership, not just campaign slogans, regarding candidates’ plans to address these issues.”

A family outside the city’s former shelter for immigrants at Floyd Bennett Field in 2023. Photo by Adi Talwar.

In New York, there are many bridges, not only those made of steel and stone that connect our boroughs, but also human bridges that connect our communities. This invitation is a chance to cross such a bridge: to meet people, hear their voices, and together build a path forward.

These constructions link opportunity, people, and neighborhoods. However, for the thousands of families trapped in our shelter system, the only roads they can find are those leading them into further crises, bureaucracy, and uncertainty.

I am personally sending an open invitation for any potential candidate seeking the vote in the upcoming Democratic primary for New York City mayor to participate in a panel discussion on family homelessness Monday. And after the June primary, we hope any candidates running in the November general election will similarly engage with us and other stakeholders on these issues. 

This problem is a curse on our city, one that now even middle-class families are experiencing. Knowing personally the problems that the city, state—and hell, the entire nation—faces, especially in these uncertain times, I value a leader who will overcome resistance and not hesitate to embrace a task. I appreciate the courage needed to defend what is right and essential, as well as a leader we can rely on to protect our interests. You know policies are just one aspect of the issue; if you want to run this city, then face the people most in need of leaders.

Our concerns are children being forced to complete homework in shelter hallways, parents deciding between food and MetroCards, or even finding a place to park. Thousands of families whose futures are uncertain are seeking answers and a chance to thrive in a city we love.

New York City has treated family homelessness with negligence and lack of competence. Some families live in the shelter system that is meant to be temporary for years. We need concrete responses and leadership, not just campaign slogans, regarding candidates’ plans to address these issues.

This panel will not be a routine panel discussion. Instead, it will be a genuine commitment to a fair, direct conversation with those impacted by homelessness, those who work 24/7 in advocacy venues, and those who have fought to get out of the system. We need true leadership, a mayor who will pledge to present proposals that place families above bureaucracy.

Families without homes deserve more than promises; they deserve a place at the table when future decisions are made. The invitation is still open. Will you please accept?

Rhonda Jackson is a lived experience community engagement consultant and senior fellow with the Family Homeless Coalition. 

Editor’s note: The Family Homelessness Coalition is among City Limits’ funders

The post Opinion: Asking the NYC Mayoral Candidates for a Real Discussion on Family Homelessness appeared first on City Limits.

Believe it or not, there are some winners in the stock market this week

posted in: All news | 0

By DAMIAN J. TROISE

NEW YORK (AP) — Most of the numbers on Wall Street this week were red, but not all of them.

Related Articles


US electric vehicle industry is collateral damage in Trump’s escalating trade war


Woodbury launches a new visitors bureau and website


Federal Reserve chief says Trump tariffs likely to raise inflation and slow US economic growth


How Trump’s latest tariffs could affect your wallet


Sell-off worsens worldwide and Dow drops 1,700 after China retaliates against Trump tariffs

Companies that focus on food, health care and other necessities gained ground, despite a slump in the broader stock market over worries about an escalating trade war that erased trillions of dollars in value for the biggest U.S. companies. Big Tech stocks, specialty retailers, travel and energy companies took sizeable losses.

At the same time, many investors in search of safer places to put their money shifted their focus to companies that tend to hold up during economic slowdowns and recessions. They figured that Americans still need health care, basic necessities such as food, soap and toilet paper, and electricity to power their homes. Plus the occasional alcoholic or carbonated beverage.

“The market is pricing in a big hit to the broad economy from tariffs cutting into corporate profits, hurting hiring, and curtailing consumer spending,” said Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank.

Here are some companies that have managed to post gains for the week:

Food

Food, grocery stores, and restaurants all expect to feel an impact from higher costs on imported products. Food, especially at grocery stores, is among the many expenses that can’t be completely cut out of a budget and will likely be grudgingly absorbed by people.

Conagra, up 2.8%

General Mills, up 3.5%

Hormel Foods, up 4%

Personal Care/Household Items

Much like food, personal care and household necessities are difficult to cut out of budgets. Companies that make soap, toothpaste, laundry detergent and many other staples are expecting higher costs. They will likely pass those costs along to consumers, but the sector is typically considered a safer bet for investors in times of economic uncertainty.

Church & Dwight, up 2.7%

Procter & Gamble, up 1.4%

Clorox, up 1.9%

Utilities/Essential Services

Electric, gas and other utility operators are also more resilient in shaky economies. It’s another expense, much like gasoline for cars, that can’t reasonably be cut out of a person’s budget. Other essential services, including waste disposal are also difficult to cut from budgets.

Exelon, up 5%

American Tower, up 5.9%

Consolidated Edison, up 3.8%

American Water Works, up 4.3%

Waste Management, up 2%

Health care

Health care is among the safer sectors for investors. Hospital operators, insurance companies and other health-care related businesses are considered necessities.

Molina Healthcare, up 10.5%

Centene, up 7.5%

UnitedHealth Group, up 6.2%

HCA Healthcare, up 1.2%

Groceries and some retailers

Grocery stores and big retailers with substantial grocery sections are also considered resilient. Discount retailers often also benefit from consumers downshifting spending.

Kroger, up 5.4%

Costco, 3.2%

Dollar General, up 13%

TJX Companies, up 8.5%

Fast food

Restaurant companies are often among the hardest hit amid high inflation and economic downturns as people trim budgets. But some of that spending often shifts to lower cost options, such as fast food and casual dining.

McDonald’s, up 1.7%

Domino’s, down 1.7%

Yum Brands, down 0.7%

Beverages

Consumers that tend to cut back on eating and drinking out also shift some of that spending toward home consumption. Beer and soft-drink makers have warned that tariffs will hurt their bottom lines, but investors have been shifting some of their focus toward the bigger players.

Molson Coors Beverage, up 3.7%

Coca-Cola, up 1.4%

PepsiCo, up 1%

Monster Beverage, up 1.9%

Supporters rally in support of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison

posted in: All news | 0

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

HYATTSVILLE, Md. (AP) — The wife of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador joined dozens of supporters at a rally before a court hearing Friday, where his lawyers will ask a federal judge to order the Trump administration to return him to the U.S.

Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, hasn’t spoken to her husband, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, since he was flown to his native El Salvador last month and imprisoned. She urged her supporters to keep fighting for her husband “and all the Kilmars out there whose stories are still waiting to be heard.”

“To all the wives, mothers, children who also face this cruel separation, I stand with you in this bond of pain,” she said during the rally at a community center in Hyattsville, Maryland. “It’s a journey that no one ever should ever have to suffer, a nightmare that feels endless.”

The campaign to reunite the couple will shift to a courtroom in Greenbelt, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C.

The White House has cast Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, as an MS-13 gang member and assert that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the matter because the Salvadoran national is no longer in the U.S.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have countered that there is no evidence he was in MS-13. The allegation is based on a confidential informant’s claim in 2019 that Abrego Garcia was a member of a chapter in New York, where he has never lived.

Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation, described by the White House as an “administrative error,” has outraged many and raised concerns about expelling noncitizens who were granted permission to be in the U.S.

Abrego Garcia had a permit from the Department of Homeland Security to legally work in the U.S., his attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. He served as a sheet metal apprentice and was pursuing his journeyman license.

He fled El Salvador around 2011 because he and his family were facing threats by local gangs. In 2019, a U.S. immigration judge granted him protection from deportation to El Salvador because he was likely to face gang persecution. He was released and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement did not appeal the decision or try to deport him to another country.

Abrego Garcia later married Vasquez Sura. The couple are parents to their son and her two children from a previous relationship.

“If I had all the money in the world, I would spend it all just to buy one thing: a phone call to hear Kilmar’s voice again,” Vasquez Sura said. “Kilmar, if you can hear me, I miss you so much, and I’m doing the best to fight for you and our children.”

Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia.

Climate disasters are on the rise. These states want to make oil companies pay

posted in: All news | 0

By Alex Brown, Stateline.org

For many California residents, the Los Angeles wildfires earlier this year were the latest and most searing example of the devastating effects of climate change. Some estimates have pegged the damages and economic losses from the fires at more than $250 billion.

Related Articles


When heavy rainfall threatens flooding, you can protect yourself. Here’s how


Leaked files raise fears over safety of Shell oil production fleet, years after devastating spill


Court upholds MPCA’s wild rice sulfate limits downstream of Iron Range mine


Can we stop plastics from seeping into farm fields, food and eventually human bodies?


Electric vehicle range anxiety? Researchers develop new battery that could be a cure

“We’ve had disaster after disaster after disaster,” said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat. “It’s the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It’s not sustainable, it’s not right and it’s not ethical.”

Addis and Democratic lawmakers in nearly a dozen other states want to force the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to help pay for the recovery costs of climate-related disasters. Last year, Vermont became the first state to pass a “climate Superfund” law, followed soon after by New York.

This session, 10 states have seen similar proposals, several of which have advanced in key committees. Advocates point to legislation in Maryland that has drawn support in both chambers, as well as to strong grassroots support in California after the Los Angeles wildfires.

Lawmakers say the rapidly increasing cost of climate disasters — from wildfires to floods to sea level rise — is more than state budgets can bear.

“Climate Superfund is the ‘it girl’ policy of the [2025] session,” said Ava Gallo, climate and energy program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. “There’s a lot of popularity in the idea of holding polluters responsible.”

The momentum for these “polluter pays” bills is tied to the maturation of attribution science. That new field of research can help calculate fossil fuel companies’ contributions to historic emissions totals, as well as the role climate change played in causing or worsening natural disasters.

Vermont’s law was the first attempt to use that science to charge emitters for their role in causing devastating floods and other catastrophes.

Fossil fuel companies and their allies have fought back hard. Late last year, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging Vermont’s measure. The groups argue that emissions are governed by the federal Clean Air Act, precluding states from charging companies over global pollution.

Neither group responded to a Stateline interview request. The Independent Petroleum Association of America also declined an interview request.

A separate lawsuit, led by 22 Republican attorneys general, is challenging the New York law. And a conservative group has targeted Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, who helped draft the legal justification for climate Superfund policy. The group, Government Accountability and Oversight, has sought to subject Rothschild to a deposition, The New York Times reported, a move that some experts view as an intimidation tactic.

Meanwhile, oil and gas executives asked President Donald Trump during a White House meeting in March to direct the Justice Department to join the legal fight against climate Superfund laws, The Wall Street Journal reported. Industry leaders are also pushing Congress to shield them from more than 30 lawsuits brought by state and local governments that aim to make them pay for some of the results of climate change.

While experts expect a bruising legal battle over climate Superfund policies, the threat of lawsuits hasn’t deterred more lawmakers from backing the concept.

“States were a little bit wary; they wondered, ‘Is this some new radical plan?’” said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director with the Make Polluters Pay campaign, a coalition of groups backing such bills. “Then one of the littlest states passed it and this powerhouse, New York, passed it. That really set the ball rolling.”

Fossil fuel companies have cast doubt on attribution science. They also note that their production of oil and other products was done legally under U.S. and international regulations.

“Manufacturers will see this as a shakedown of any industry you don’t like at some point in the future, even though in the past they were licensed and operated under government regulation,” Brett Vassey, president and CEO of the Virginia Manufacturers Association, said during legislative testimony about a climate Superfund proposal in that state. “It will have a chilling effect on Virginia being able to grow its economy.”

Proponents of Superfund legislation point to legal settlements with large tobacco companies in the 1990s. Although those companies also sold their products legally, they were held responsible because they knew about the harmful effects of those products and deceived the public. Most climate Superfund proposals target companies for their emissions over the past 30 or so years, after leading experts had documented the dangers of greenhouse gases.

“There’s good documentation of how well the fossil fuel industry knew the probable long-term impacts of their product,” said Oregon state Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat. “Should an industry that made such historic profits over a period of time and made so many representations that we had no problem not bear any of the costs?”

Golden and other lawmakers say it’s becoming impossible for taxpayers to cover the costs of recovery from wildfires and other catastrophes. In Rhode Island, sea level rise is causing massive damage for coastal communities, said Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Boylan, who has sponsored a climate Superfund bill to help the state adapt.

Some advocates also note that Trump’s return to the White House has cut off the possibility of federal climate relief.

“All the states are affected by the disappearance of this federal funding,” said Gallo, of the state lawmakers group. “States everywhere are going to be looking at some way to fill the gap.”

This session, climate Superfund bills have been introduced in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia.

While the bills are structured differently, they all seek to target the largest polluters — often covering companies that produced 1 billion metric tons of emissions over the last 30 or so years. Lawmakers say that applies to roughly 100 companies.

The measures also take different approaches to assigning damages. Some direct state agencies to conduct complex studies to determine the costs of climate-caused disasters over a certain period, the approach pioneered by Vermont. Others set a fixed number that represents a conservative baseline for those damages. New York’s law set that figure at $75 billion over a 25-year period.

Many of the bills also require that significant amounts of the funding be directed to the communities hit hardest by pollution.

Advocates are particularly optimistic about the measures in California and Maryland.

Lawmakers in Maryland modified their bills to commission a study about the financial impacts of climate change. Those measures passed both the House and Senate, and legislators are working to reconcile the versions from each chamber. Figures produced by the study would be the backbone of a climate Superfund policy in a future session.

“From a legislative perspective, it’s a shot in the dark as to what the costs are,” said Democratic Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, who sponsored one of the bills. “This will give us the factual data needed to make a more well-educated decision on policy.”

In New Jersey, an Assembly committee advanced a climate Superfund bill in March. State Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee and who sponsored the bill, said it will help to rebuild and fortify water treatment plants, schools and firehouses. He noted that Trump has called for the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“The end of the world is coming; it’s kind of hard to ignore,” Smith said. “FEMA has been the backstop to help communities recover from disasters. If the handwriting isn’t on the wall to all the states that they’ve got to deal with this, shame on them.”

Lawmakers in many states have heard from mayors and other local government leaders that more climate recovery funding is essential.

“Municipal officials are getting behind [climate Superfund policies],” said Massachusetts state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat who has sponsored similar legislation. “They’re facing the costs of flooding, of droughts, of heat waves, and really asking for relief.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.