“All of those tasked with upholding the rule of law have suddenly ignored the law as soon as it’s broken by those in power and close to the mayor.”

CityViews are readers’ opinions, not those of City Limits. Add your voice today!

Political spin from police is nothing new, but recent NYPD social media tactics are so brazen they actually break the law. Political rants. Call-outs. False claims. In recent months, the department’s top officials have begun using their official social media accounts to attack political rivals and defame members of the public. And in recent days, the pattern reached an all-time low with a blatant attack on prominent police reporter Rocco Parascandola.

The Department’s chief offender is NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell. He’s repeatedly used his official X (formerly Twitter) account to attack protesters, politicians, and even the press.  He absurdly attacked veteran muckraker Harry Siegel for his Daily News column, accusing him of having “disdain for the NYPD.” He also falsely accused a judge of “set[ting] free a predator back into the community” for a case she never actually presided over.  Seeing a leader of the country’s largest, most heavily armed police department misuse city resources this way is chilling, but when Chell attacked elected officials, that’s when the tweets actually became criminal.

Earlier this year, Chell twice attacked City Councilmember Tiffany Cabán in lengthy rants on X. In March, he responded to Cabán’s critique of Mayor Adams’ threat to bring back discredited and discriminatory stop and frisk tactics. Chell posted an attack on Cabán’s policies with the closing line: “If you want change, vote the change you seek.” 

In May, Chell responded to Cabán’s condemnation of NYPD violence against protesters. Chell not only called Cabán’s statement “garbage,” but ended the post by writing: “Remember everyone, if you want change, seek the change you want by getting involved. Then you know what to do…”  

This isn’t some obscure figure within the department, or some low-level beat cop, but one of the NYPD’s highest uniformed officers speaking to an audience of more than 45,000 followers from an official New York City social media account. And Chell could not have been clearer: he used that massive city-owned bullhorn to urge New Yorkers to vote against Cabán in the next election.

And as one of New York City’s top cops, Chell should have been one of the first to know he was likely breaking the law. Chell has complete freedom to use private accounts in a personal capacity however he sees fit, but official city platforms are a different matter.

New York law comes down hard on city employees who misuse their office to influence elections. New York Election Law states that police officers who use their official authority to influence the vote can be punished with up to a year in jail. Chell’s statement, including his claim that Cabán “hates our city and certainly does not represent the great people of NYC,” fits that description.

It also violates New York City’s Charter when city employees engage in any political activity using city time or resources. Those convicted not only face potential jail time, but forfeit their city job. City employees with less political connections than Chell have been held culpable for using city email accounts to send an endorsement to coworkers. Chell didn’t just email a few colleagues, he posted publicly to tens of thousands of followers, and his comments were picked up in news stories seen by millions more.

So why hasn’t one of New York’s most prominent cops faced any consequences for committing a crime in broad daylight? New York’s district attorneys and attorney general stood by silently; our Conflicts Of Interest Board is uninterested in taking actions. All of those tasked with upholding the rule of law have suddenly ignored the law as soon as it’s broken by those in power and close to the mayor.

That’s not just a chilling sign for our city, but an alarming indicator about the state of our democracy. When the police sworn to uphold the law can openly violate it, that doesn’t just bend the rules, it breaks our democracy.

Cahn (@FoxCahn) is the founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), a New York-based civil rights and privacy group. Lynn is a legal intern at the S.T.O.P. and a rising 2L at Berkeley Law, where she is a co-leader of the Digital Rights Project.

As the mayor’s citywide zoning reform plan undergoes public review, City Limits is keeping tabs on responses. So far, more than half of the city’s community boards have voted unfavorably, though four out of five borough presidents have come out (largely) in favor.

Mayor Eric Adams’ citywide zoning reform plan, the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, continues to weave its way through the public review process before heading to a final vote in the City Council later this year.

The proposal is a key part of the Adams administration’s plans to address the city’s housing crisis by “making it possible to build a little more housing in every neighborhood,” through eight main changes outlined in the Department of City Planning graphic below.

So far, more than half of the city’s 59 community boards voted unfavorably on the plan, either outright or “with conditions”—meaning they might get on board if certain changes are made. Meanwhile, four out of the five borough presidents have come out in favor of the proposal (but with conditions they’d like to see met).

The latest came from Queens BP Donovan, who shared his recommendations with the Queens Daily Eagle on Monday. While he’s generally in favor of the proposal, Donovan called for various city agencies to examine the impact of new residential development on the borough’s infrastructure, “such as school enrollment and classroom capacity, hospital bed availability, municipal service delivery and more.” He also pushed for the plan to maintain parking mandates for new buildings in areas with fewer public transit options, like eastern and southeastern Queens.

The city’s community boards have issued a mix of recommendations on the mayor’s plan, with many neighborhoods in or closer to Manhattan coming out in favor, and opposition concentrated in lower density, outer borough districts.

“We believe implementing COY will make New York City environmentally sound, economically equitable, and more affordable,” Brooklyn Community Board 6, which includes Park Slope, Gowanus, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill and Red Hook, wrote in a letter accompanying its “favorable” recommendation.

Boards opposed to the proposal have cited a bevvy of reasons: concerns about retaining current neighborhood character, the potential impact on existing infrastructure, allowing more as-of-right development without the need for community review, and calls for deeper affordability requirements among them.

Queens Community Board 3, which spans East Elmhurst, Jackson Heights and North Corona, wrote in its unfavorable resolution that it is “not against the development of affordable housing.”

“We acknowledge the need for more affordable housing particularly within our district,” Chairman Frank Taylor wrote, lamenting that most new construction in the area so far has been unaffordable. “While the proposal claims the development of new affordable housing there is no guarantee.”

Under the city’s land use review process, community board and borough president recommendations are only advisory—after they weigh in, the plan will go before the City Planning Commission and then the City Council, whose votes are binding.

Department of City Planning Director Dan Garodnick, who spearheaded the proposal, previously told City Limits that he and the agency “take community feedback seriously.”

In his bid for the plan, Mayor Adams has urged the public to consider the city’s record-high homeless shelter population—which sat at more than 146,000 people in June, the most recent month for which complete data is available—and last year’s 1.41 percent rental vacancy rate, a historic low.

“Just about every place we go to talk about building housing like this, people give us a reason not to,” Adams said during a press briefing Tuesday, when asked about opposition to another proposal to build affordable homes for seniors on city-owned land that’s currently a community garden.

“I don’t know how to get clearer to New Yorkers. People are homeless,” the mayor said. “My responsibility is to place as many people as possible inside a home, because it feeds additional problems.”

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.